Qantas to boost Melbourne-Los Angeles flights

What a stupid statement?  "really bad that Qantas expands only in most profitable direction" are you serious?

What whould you have them do expand on unprofitable routes and loose more money? We all want our national carrier to expand but this can only be done on profitable route.

I cannot fly MEL-BKK direct and I should be excited about expansion to LA?

Since privatization Qantas each year became less and less “national” carrier and serving only what pleased AJ. Or you believe that it is normal that national carrier does not flight overseas from Perth at all? Biggest and stupidest mistake was privatizing Qantas and deregulation of aviation in Australia. And now we having result of that “smart” decision.

Would you rather Qantas be like the French SNCF?

And what exactly wrong with SNCF? Mind you that best airlines traditionally state owned. Qantas use to be the best. It never will again. And I cannot find any other explanation except of privatization and deregulation. When airline government owned it could be OK for small lost - government can offset such lost by attracting more tourists and creating more jobs. But when carrier is private, than there is only reason - money. And everyone in sane mind understands that we cannot compete on price with say China as long as our living standards (salaries for example) significantly higher than in China. But do not worry - few decades and we became poor enough to compete. IMHO this "free market" must be stopped - it doing nothing good for countries like Australia. We have to protect our lifestyle and lifestyle of our kids instead of making global companies richer and richer. As usual – YMMV.

Quote "And everyone in sane mind understands that we cannot compete on price with say China as long as our living standards (salaries for example) significantly higher than in China."

China is much more expensive to stay these days, especially in the big cities. If comparing Sydney/Melbourne against Shanghai/Beijing, the basic living cost is higher in China.

Whilst I don't neccessarily like global companies getting richer and richer, making Qantas government owned again just creates other problems.

Anyway, back on topic, more Qantas flights to the US... Yaaaay!

I would agree with you but only if the government was a benevolent dictator that does not pander to its constituents and makes decisions based solely for the benefit of the macroeconomics of society, whilst acknowledging and mitigating for the socio-economic impacts of its decisions.

SNCF is an analogy of the basket case that is the French economy.

Compare and contrast with LH and CX, which are both not-government owned. Privatisation is not the cause of Qantas' demise.

Our national carrier will fly routes that are PROFITABLE, they are a business that has shareholders to answer to.

And you can fly JQ MEL - BKK as a majority leisure route JQ is best suited, just like DPS and HNL.

Dont get me wrong i would love to see QF expand to all parts of asia but they simply cannot get the feed that airlines like SQ/MH/TG etc can get via there hubs. And with the rediculous ETBs that QF staff and management are on they cannot compete with the lower wages in asia.

Qanta is pure BUSINESS and not NATIONAL CARRIER anymore. This is my whole point. Have a look at my post above and answer on simple question - how NATIONAL CARRIER can afford do not fly international at all from our 4-th biggest city?

I think QF should do some flights from the West. But many carriers centralise their operations - BA & LH are the first that come to mind.

The current strong carriers of the world operate from strong single hubs - EK, SQ, CX, QR etc. This is not a coincidence. Australia is further 'cursed' as we have a small population, spread over a large area and are the 'arse-end' of the world.

All what you saying IS correct - for example SQ can bank on exceptional location. But to me it only means that Qantas must be government owned and protected by government. Otherwise Qantas cannot compete. And all shows that it does not. Yes, we small population and we located on vast piece of land in far corner of the globe. We have to protect ourselves instead of follow global trade mantra.

Ok, so saying that QF goes back to being goverment owned and protected, we reintroduce a Perth - SIN flight @ a low $500 return, whos to say that SQ (also gov owned but consistantly profitable) wouldnt drop there fares to $400 and back and forth we go both loosing vast amounts money. When do you draw the line and cancel the route? how much do we have to loose befor action is taken?

If I remember correctly during old good days it was plain simple – we flying one flight per day say MEL-SIN and in return allow them to fly one flight per day. Having restricted numbers of flight will control prices and we will mainly compete on service. Also it allows our then NATIONAL carrier to do around half of passengers to/from Australia.

It is not the case that free market always the best solution. I can give you 2 more examples and I am out of this thread because such debates became just wasting of time.

Lygon Street in Melbourne is famous restaurant place. It seems that there are more restaurants than buildings here – market so oversaturated that it became ridiculous. However I am totally support free market concept in such situation and I am happy for them to do whatever they want to attract customers. It only means more different places to dine and more competitive prices.

Now lets talk about mobile communications. Yes here in cities we blessed with plethora of cheap options and each second carrier claims that they cover 99.5% of POPULATION. WTF? I am not interested in population coverage, but I am interested in AREA coverage instead! Not only it is inconvenient for me that my mobile stop working once I am outside city, but vast majority of rural population have to do with “convenient” and “cheap” satellite mobiles. It never been like that 20 years ago – Telstra was the only one carrier and could recap extensive cost of towers around Australia by charging city dwellers some “extra”. IMHO it was fair. And let me tell you – I do not remember even single time when I was out of reception when there were analog Telstra-only mobiles. Now we have plenty “city only” carriers and Telstra cannot compete with them if it will continue to support rural coverage as well. So be it – people living outside cities are our substandard citizens.

Generally I am not against competition. But there are quite a few instances when without competition and with sensible government regulation things work far better and far fairer. And IMHO aviation is one of them. FYI – we have monopoly (I am talking about physical suppliers, not stupid billing companies) on gas, water and electrical transmission – it working well and nothing wrong with that.

YMMV.

PS We actually loosing money now, not then.

Just how much do you propose to regulate by? You could do it on a one-for-one basis on SIN-Australia and HKG-Australia routes, where SQ and CX can only fly as many flights as QF...

...and then they fly 77Ws and we're flying 332s, and then what? Or we end up capacity dumping like domestic, with a 50% "line in the sand".

I don't like the current curbstomp QFi is going through, but I don't see how regulation is the answer.

Well they are a  business.... not chasing profitable routes would be dumb.

WHAT???? LA is most overpriced destination - fares almost as big as Europe ones! Do you reckon that AJ doing this to please public?

No I'm wondering to what extent the elasticity of demand is.

I don't imagine all the seats sold on the 747 would be at a premium.

More likely that more seats would be sold off first in cheaper E,O,N inventory. But would the K,L,M,V inventory be sold at its normal holiday prices? Or would demand peter off at thoes prices?

As any holiday destination it is expected that economy seats will be sold first. So I reckon that upgrade by points will have more success rate if this is what you asking. Especially during festive season.

No. I am wondering if there is still a demand for the more expensive K,L,M,V seats?

Or will Qantas be forced to lower the prices for those inventory (as opposed to the normal holiday prices) to ensure the plane does not fly empty given that they will increase capacity?

Aren't L,M,V the discounted classes? Only K is semi flex AFAIK.

VA $1212 return MEL - LAX, QF also have regular sales to LAX.

$1200 for a 15 hour flight sounds good to me. Of course the date of departures vary and exculde school holidays.

How much did LA get so overpriced.I went there way back in 2001 and for an overall package AIR NZ using Ansett Connections ex Adelaide to Sydney Return and Hotel got it for $2000.Not sure How I did it though and this figure included having to get a USA Visa before departure.

Expect a (further) peak surcharge. 

Yep, this is it.

I think we should be happy if we see less of a spike in cost of tickets over the holiday period because of added capacity. Doubt QF would add capacity if it eats in to their profit!!

Eminere,Your right as is the sucharge to which you refer.I also expect they will further push boundaries by increasing fares by years end.This change should not be seasonal but permanant.

And get not only all 747,s but the A380 out of Asia.Absolutly nothing greater than an A330 is required on any sector out of Australia to this region. 

That's Right.Anything bigger than an A330 TO Asia is too much capacity.If Qantas were still operating between Singapore and London as well as Frankfurt as well as Rome,Athens and a lot of the places they used to serve in the old days then keeping a 747 or A380 there would make sense.

I'm surprised it doesn't leave MEL later, to be honest, given it already arrives LAX after midday. Then again I suppose losing an hour of work isn't so much of an issue between Christmas and Australia Day...

Do excuse my age a little but from memory Back in the days when all services to the US West Coast used to go via Honolulu planes used to get in around 3 or 4pm.I sort of remember the Continental Schedules on that RUN In the Summer 2:35pm out of Melbourne into HNL at 6am same day then 8:10am after changing planes onto Los Angeles arriving 3:10pm.So except for the fact It's Qantas and a Nonstop leaving later and arriving earlier now and no milkrun it's more or less the same.