Skystar

Well, start the punting http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

http://www.vpmag.com/cgi-bin/yssy/ms...age=0&Session=

Cheers,

Justin

Ual Emp

The only way another carier will work is if it is a member of the Star Alliance. I hope this is the case.

rdd

Fingers crossed.

RichardMEL

I say it is the SQ backed AN International restart using their surplus 340's which they don't like anyway, but would be fine for SYD-HKG/Japan routes..

Go big Ansett!

------------------
RichardMEL, UA 1K
A Star Alliance Member.

mad_atta

RichardMEL, I really hope you're right. That would plug a major hole in the *A network ex Australia/Asia - and good news for ex-AN staff too...

How likely is this scenario, though? Is this what is being referred to in this thread?

RichardMEL

Well * needs a route like SYD-HKG back, and badly. SQ has all these spare a/c that they don't want (eg: A340-300's, some 744's). AN International was always profitable. Remembering that bringing AN Int back doesn't include stuff like FF points and all that other junk, means they could concentrate on doing what they do best. Would it be called Ansett? Hard to say - there are pros and cons on both sides.

I've heard various over the past few months saying "things are afoot" at Swanston Street.. who really knows apart from those involved. Sure, it is a bit of wishful thinking, but it does make sense: SQ can't really come in and start a new airline here, and they'd be crazy to in the QF/DJ environment. However, those old AN International routes were profitable and good - and the administrators went to some effort to keep those active/secure them - yet very little has been said since about it. SQ could throw some of those A340-300's at the effort - useless for SQ long haul service, but likely very attractive for mid haul like SYD-HKG. It could start out small just taking back SYD-HKG, SYD-KIX, that AN flew so well, then see what happens.

Of course these are just thoughts - no idea how based in reality this is.

------------------
RichardMEL, UA 1K
A Star Alliance Member.

mad_atta

I understood that in its last year of operation, AN international also operated at a loss - though only just.

Out of curiosity, why are the A340's useless for SQ long haul? Various other airlines fly them successfully long-haul, including SQ's partner Virgin Atlantic. From a consistency of fleet point of view it does seem strange that SQ would have all three of B777 / B747 / A340 though - surely they are natural competitors?

Skystar

Ansett International was only profitable in a year or two of its existance, if you believe AN Annual Reports.

On that thread series, the latest is that the airline rumoured is actually a cargo outfit flying A300s & BAe146s http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif

Cheers,

Justin

RichardMEL

SQ was unhappy with the performance of the A340-300 (slow, didn't meet range promises, etc) and so they cancelled an order/options they had for more of them, and have been trying to get rid of the 10 that they have (note these fly in a 2.5 class arrangement with old F seats that C class pax can get as a surcharge, but not a full F bed product). SQ wanted to operate them on long haul, thin routes, but even so they have been unhappy with the performance, and the 777's beat them.

Alas it seems the AN International rumour may be premature, or perhaps something totally seperate to this cargo venture thingy.

------------------
RichardMEL, UA 1K
A Star Alliance Member.

duxfan

Unless I'm mistaken, when SQ ordered the 777, part of the agreement was that Boeing would take the 340's in trade as part of the deal. Then Airbus announced that those 340's would not be eligible for product support if purchased/leased from Boeing. So they continue to be part of the SQ fleet.

RichardMEL

Correct. That is why it would be useful for SQ to put them to use on an AN International type setup....

------------------
RichardMEL, UA 1K
A Star Alliance Member.