EK likes the idea of putting their code on QF metal Trans Pacific.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/emira...108-2cee7.html

They will also like the idea of flying this route in a few years...

The thin edge of the wedge. I'm sure SQ will be closely looking at this one given their attempt at doing the same thing some years ago (all be it in their own right instead of via code shares).

My theory (and it's only that, a theory) was that SQ were being highly opportunistic with that attempt since the Free Trade Agreement between Australia and the US was about to be signed at the time, meaning that the air rights for transpac flights ex AU was about to be essentially carved up between DL, VA, QF and UA. I say opportunistic because it makes little sense from a routing perspective for SQ to route their north america flights so far south in the first place. Their existing SIN-ICN-SFO and SIN-NRT-LAX flights make far more sense. I suspect the Australian government called them out on it, and you don't hear a peep out of SQ about it.

West coast of the US is the extremity of EK's network (LAX-DXB is one of the longest routes in the world); flying transpac from Australia does not help cut that time down. So I'm struggling to see how flying transpac fits into their strategy/business model. Unless they want to spend a lot of $$$ to turn an Australian East Coast airport into a mini-hub for flights to South America or something, then flying transpac could make sense to boost hub traffic as it fits in with that strategy.

That said, it's a pretty profitable route (paying $1600 in low season to fly home says a lot), so I can't blame them for trying/floating it out there. But I wouldn't be surprised if the Australian government slaps them down like they did with SQ on the same grounds.

EK just want to be able to offer an around the world fare with QF flying the AU-US leg. That's all. QF is about to introduce EK to AA so that EK could help AA through restructuring and in return EK gets a North & Central American feeder service. So QF & JQ can fly a PAX within Asia & South Pacific, AA through North & Central America and EK through ME & Europe. Only having to work with 3 airlines make for a nice little RTW product.

Hence the discussion around the prospect of EK & QF co-ordinating efforts out of DFW & LAX.

I've got no issues with EK having a codeshare on QF, or SQ on VA....
Codeshare is very different to metal.

EK & UA had a very nice RTW fare that was exceptional value in Biz Class if purchased from BKK. IIRC it was about $5000 Sadly, it is no longer the bargain it used to be.

Ridiculous restrictions should be dropped.

Open it all to competition, may the best win. We have enough protected bird species without adding metal ones to the list.

To my mind, at least in air travel things are trickier than they first seem...

[Slightly OT here]
I think anyone should be able to run flights, but they should be able to prove that what they're doing actually fits in with their strategy. If it's just a short-sighted opportunism, then I think a government has the right to tell them to pick up their bat and ball...

Now, using EK as another example, their well-documented problems getting access to Canada is clear evidence of the government protecting AC. And that's not on; it ties in with their strategy/business model (long-haul flights, transiting through DXB, glamorous service at reasonable prices), and there's no reason why they shouldn't have access to Canadian airports.
[Back OT]
With EK flying transpac, it doesn't really tie in with their strategy (unless they're deviating from their current approach, in which case they need to explain), and I think a small country like Australia has every right to ask why they want the right to fly. Now if they can give a cogent argument for their case (and I don't work in aviation, but I can think of a few), then the onus falls on the government to have an equally cogent reasoning why they're knocking them back (and not just nationalistic protectionism or any other populist silly reasoning).

This isn't about protecting QF (or VA, or anybody else), but it's about having a mature and sensible discussion about the proposal, and if it makes sense for everyone, then go for it.

My issue with allowing every Tom, Dick and Harry Airlines to fly the route (or any other route) is it creates bubbles in capacity and prices, neither of which are good things.

Also well documented was that when Canada rejected EK, the UAE cancelled the facility for Canadians to get a visa on arrival and substituted by a 15 day advance requirement with no refund if the visa was rejected. The $1000 visa fee caused disappointment, so did the forced closure of the Canadian military facility near Dubai (supporting Canadians in Afghanistan). All because EK didn't get what they wanted in Canada. Perhaps the government and the airline were too close.

This is what happens when airlines are too close to their governments; they each try to protect their airline, and what's really a commercial argument becomes a diplomatic incident where things get massively out of hand.

It also strengthens the argument people make about EK getting sweetheart deals on fuel/terminals/taxes from the Dubai government, but that's another story.

If EK can argue that having the right to fly transpac gels with its strategy of its alliance with QF and supporting its alliance partner, then I think they have a chance of getting it up (past the Australian government at least, who knows what the Americans will say).