Virgin Australia will fly Brisbane-Tokyo from March 2020

It may be one of the SYD-HKG or MEL-HKG routes (both loss making) that could be axed in favour of BNE-HND.

737-800!

As was previously explained a number of times in the other thread covering this subject, IASC has a mandate to promote competition. Unless there were compelling reasons to do otherwise, and I don't think incumbency is a compelling reason, the rights were always going to be split between the two applicants. Qantas fully understood this which is why they made no attempt to appeal the interim decision when first announced.

I do think incumbency is very compelling, it's called loyalty, trust and rewarding for past efforts, not a regulator trying to conjure up competition from a failed enterprise. We have become snowflakes allowing regulators regulate the free market forces. Qantas probably rolled their eyes at another dumb decision

Hi Tonym, it didn't make it to the final edit of the article, but Virgin Australia does have a specific reason for not wanting to start flights to Narita.

In its application to the IASC on 24 September 2019, Virgin Australia stated that, “[we] would not be prepared to commence services to Japan if our only option to serve Tokyo was through operations to Narita, as we would not have the ability to leverage our partnership with ANA (ANA offers 38 domestic codeshare connections to/from Haneda, compared to only five at Narita)”

Hi Brandon, understand Virgin's submission and took that into my thought process. Doesn't alter my view, not saying my view is correct......

It is worth noting that the flight gets in too late to Haneda for domestic connection. This only works coming back to Australia. They really can't have it both ways the argument re Haneda connections it is more complicated than that. Earlier Ex Brisbane they have fewer connections from the rest of Australia but more from Haneda. Coming back it works at both ends. A conundrum!!!

You love QF, hate VA, we get that. But VA isn't being 'rewarded', they were rightly awarded a slot to open up competition and additional routes through Japan. There is zero reason they should have to start Japan services through NRT.

The argument that QF should get rights to operate a fourth and fifth Tokyo service from Australia just so they can fly different schedules is absurd. Where's the competition in that? Where's the benefit to the Australian and Japanese passengers? And IASC isn't in the business of rewarding 'loyalty', particularly to an airline that currently has a monopoly on a route. They need to make strategic decisions that benefit Australian airlines and the travelling public.

Qantas doesn't get a good go in comparison to its protected global competitors is my much misunderstood point here. It's in Australia's interest to have the strongest presence in an open skies global environment. Qantas is best placed to do that and our regulators are best placed to assist that. They can find a new mechanism to check pricing and frequency. I don't hate Virgin at all, I occasionally fly with them and find them good too.

Not true, they just don't try hard anymore. Ever since ex Qantas dropout led them down this path of copy Qantas at all costs they've fallen off the perch, that's all. What's wrong with sticking up for Qantas? Most people on these forums enjoy throwing mud at a fine Australian icon that does its thing from a small end of line market whilst it's subsidised Middle Eastern and Asian “competitors” have either government subsidies and low labour costs or both. Virgin is part owned by a number of these subsidised airlines, so to me it seems they have an unfair way of doing things. Add that Virgins shareholders originate from places like Singapore, China and the Middle East, areas that have atrocious labour laws and reprehensible human rights records generally, I can't see the point of seeing positives in Virgin. Just my opinion of what constitutes a good Aussie company.

Isn't the attempt to launch service to Tokyo Haneda, deepening partnership with ANA, trying hard for the airline? Just because Virgin has shareholders come from different backgrounds does not mean they are being 'unfair'. The airline has shown time and time again that it is trying to be profitable and not just sucking money from all their big daddy investors. The careful analysis and decision to launch this route proves that.

2 of VA's "investors" doesn't exactly have the capacity to fund VA of the moment either due to their own financial problems (Etihad and Hainan Group).

One of the reasons why 2 of VA's debt-ridden investors still have their stakes as an "ongoing concern" of the moment is that there's no-one credible that wants to purchase those stakes.

The new CEO record has also been on record as being aware that VA can only work within their means because the stakeholders have chosen to remain hands-off in the day to day running.

As for SIA, they are also on record that they haven't been happy with their VA stake for sometime (only maintaining their stake for feed access) and VA isn't exactly a priority for SIA as they've been putting in their investments in other "loss-making" carriers such as Vistara in India. I would not be surprised if SQ was actually looking at exiting VA themselves.

Absolutely 100% agree. Thank you Tonym for saying what not enough people in this country are thinking.

I find it puzzling that so many Australians consider a cheap fare more important than supporting an Aussie icon trying its best against foreign government owned and financed airlines.

I would love to see the list of the ‘quite a few' Australian airlines that are ‘vastly better than Qantas'. It may be even hard to find profitable international one that are.

Qantas is the only carrier in the region that is trying to stand on its own feet. Every other airline that it is having to "compete" with has unlimited funding from government owners and can flood the market with cheap airfares because they are not required to make a profit.

Sure this may be great for the consumer but do not pretend that Qantas is in any way in some sort of privileged position.

Qantas received government funds when it was owned by the government, not since. As they owned it, they funded it. There's heaps of competition, you have named but some!

Re: Tokyo Station, it's a clear, simple and central yardstick for comparison that most people will be able to identify with, without diving into every neighbourhood: and of course, travellers with knowledge of those areas would likely already know which airport works best for them.

Most of us get it already Himeno. You've posted the same message over and over.

You despise and hate VA and you'd rather have the QF group be the only mainline airline group in Australia.
If you got no constructive criticism to say about VA, it's best you say nothing at all and mvove on.

Based on VAs history with long haul routes, their fleet size and make up and financial issues, they have not shown the capacity to maintain such a service. That is a simple fact. There is no "hate" at all. It is reality and what they have shown themselves to be capable of.

Last I've checked, QF and JL can apply for a codeshare tommorow if they wanted to. VA and NH had done so when they applied.

Here here