Qantas, American Airlines to launch Auckland-Los Angeles flights

That's what I'm reading too. QF to NZ and codeshare beyond. Which would essentially pave the way for any Aus city to US via NZ??

I'd imagine a flight on QF metal from SYD-AKL then AKL-LAX on AA metal, or they might just put one aircraft on it.

Would have to be. AA has many long haul aircraft coming from Boeing and as they rejig the Europe network, they'll have some ex-US A330s.

The QF fleet is fully committed. The only way they can get aircraft for more transpac flights is to cut back on other 747 flights or move QF127/128 and/or QF25/26 to A330 (or retime HND to only need 1 aircraft).

Though it is possible that they could do what they had over the last year or so of the AKL-LAX flights, using a A332 routing SYD-AKL-LAX-JFK-LAX-AKL-SYD across 6 flight numbers.

Any new move with the AA/QF transpac JV is likely to use AA metal 777s or 787s.

Qantas already fly Perth to Auckland on a seasonal basis. I am sure if they can tie this in with the AA flights and there is demand, they will do it.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/qantas-to-resume-seasonal-perth-auckland-flights

Yep, It only runs on Saturday and Sunday though if I recall correctly? But like you have said, if demand is there they'll do it I guess.

Their hard product is already up to scratch on their refreshed aircraft (new 777, 787, A321 etc.). Food could be a bit better, but they are improving there.

Koru17 the article says a 787 is the plane they will be using

or even new york

There would be range issues getting much more east of YVR/SEA/DEN/DFW/IAH from AU/NZ without stopping somewhere.

Not as the number one priority, I suppose. Plenty of money to be made competing directly with NZ on the LAX route. 

Besides, coming from AKL you don't save much distance to anywhere going via DFW unless you're actually going to the southeast. If you're going to New York, for instance, you only save about a hundred miles going via DFW instead of LAX. 

But save a whole world of pain transiting through DFW over LAX. Simple terminal to terminal transfer on the metro and easy transit

Wouldn't PER-AKL-IAH on NZ be a much nicer experience with only one stop?!?

I suspect he's referring to the once a week service offered by Qantas which is a red-eye to AKL...

The CHC one is interesting in my opinion

As the flight would come from Australia no re-security would be needed 

Well at least thats currently CHC airports policy on transit flights with the same aircraft

CHC-LAX has been done by Air NZ and failed. If there was a business case for it, Air New Zealand would be all over it. They aren't because there's not

You fly in the night before on QF151.

So far so good. The key is the price. Given NZ is the dominant player, I'm hoping AA would undercut and provide a good opportunity for abitrage. MEL/AKL in QF Y then AKL/LAX in AA J.

Let's see what the prices look like...

P.S:

QF151 to connect to AKL/LAX & QF 154 to connect from LAX/AKL allows sufficient wiggle room for maneuver even if you cannot interline, which I doubt since it's OW policy to allow interline even when on different tickets.

But push comes to shove, there is still ample room to faciliate non-interline transfer!

if you're in that much of a hurry to get to LAX, then fly the numerous nonstop AUS-LAX services.  I'm guessing the majority/focus of this service (and I'm sure both airlines have crunched the numbers), will travel via AKL/NZ to 'break up' their trip/visit/stay in NZ for a period of time, so 'when' they leave OZ is of little relevance to 'when' the AA flight leaves AKL Same can apply to the LAX-AKL flight.  People will choose the service to visit/stay in NZ, then catch the numurous NZ-AUS flights, if the choose to visit OZ.  Think laterally and it all really makes sense :)

 I can understand Joyce retaining a current Sydney hub model for flights to places like Manila, Jakarta, Santiago, Johannesburg and Bangkok. There would not be the demand for direct services from both Melbourne and Sydney, so traffic has to be funnelled through one or the other to fill the flights. As most inward pax want to head to Sydney, it's Melbourne that has to do the transit shuffle.

New aircraft are the key for better serving markets like Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth. Qantas has stretched current fleet capabilities to their maximum and is back in profit as a partial result. Until those 787s arrive, Qantas is going to have to rely on the bigger asset resources of Emirates and AA to fill the capacity gaps. It's a pretty smart strategy. I have no doubt the numbers have been crunched to the Nth degree on this new route. It'll make money from the get-go.

Any airline, including NZ, price their flights differently depending on the region dynamics. For example, MEL-AKL-SFO can often be cheaper than AKL-SFO. 

A lot of Aussies use NZ because, until recently, there was really only LAX as an option. However QF are now doing SFO and UA has been for a while but considered a inferior experience. So many people based in BNE, MEL, ADL would prefer the AKL transit flying to places like SFO instead of LAX (or SYD for that matter). Also, if direct flights to LAX from Aussie are 20+% more, then I'm sure many would consider the AKL transit and NZ product worth that saving. 

Yes, you're correct. Another alternative, though longer, is to fly Aust.-Tokyo then to North America via QF/JL/ANA mix.  Japanese carriers have superb service in all cabins.  The other secondary routes are Aust.-TPE then EVA across the Pacific or to use Hawaiian Airlines, but no lie-flat seats yet.  UA service and J class seat layout is subpar, AA can be iffy, but their new 777-300ER J class seat is great.  The odd thing is that the demand for seats on the NA-Aust./NZ route is skyhigh, almost insatiable but there has for decades been very restricted service. Simply stunning what an A380 could bring to this route! 500,000 passengers a day travel between NA-EU Atlantic routes. One day I can see where 150,000 a day will travel NA-Aust/NZ Pacifc.