Virgin Australia axes Melbourne-Los Angeles, goes daily Brisbane-LAX

I don't think they've ever flown to Singapore?

VA Don't fly to Singapore...

Actually neither of these are on VA metal. VA international from MEL amounts to DPS, NAN, AKL & CHC.

Ah, I thought their virtual gloabal network meant flights to the closest cities that would allow you to hook up with their partners. Los Angeles (Delta) Singapore (SQ) Abu Dhabi (EY) and Auckland (NZ).

I still feel a little shaffted that now if I wanna go one stop to NYC it'll be QF or CX. Unless UA enter this millenium and add TV's to their economy seats. (Which I think was the plan for the 787's)

UA is entering the market this millenium, just three days after VA pulls out (as noted in the article and covered extensively by this website in the past).

Their services to Sydney (and the current tag to Melbourne) are now flown with 777s that have seat-back entertainment throughout, while the 787s that they will use on the nonstop Melbourne flights later this year will also be fitted with PTVs. 

Or you could go JQ/JL, EK, EY, QR, AI, MU, CA, CZ,

I agree

Their Melbourne service has just never been on the right days for me when I wanted to travel

It's all or nothing

The best move would be going via BNE since MEL-BNE gets you more SCs than MEL-SYD, and BNE-LAX the same as SYD-LAX. I think.

Correct! Wonder what airport taxes, levies etc are like in/out of BNE vs. in/out of MEL?

But if you can get the price point for flights LAX-BNE-MEL or LAX-SYD-MEL right and just as financially competitive as the direct QF or UA flights, then you're also not just maintaining traffic to MEL, but simultaneously creating additional traffic to BNE and SYD. Two birds with one stone, so to speak.

It's not just about price though. As  MEL based business person, I would much rather fly direct to the US rather than have the hassles of transferring through SYD or BNE (especially where both transfers require bus rides) - having to transfer also adds a significant amount of time to my journey time. Don't forget about the same inconvenience on the return journey too.

Obviously if you're chasing points/status, it's a different question and you may not have been flying direct currently and the direct flights are of no interest anyway - why fly direct when you can connect?

I completely understand - and where possible (and aren't in a 'chasing status credit' mood, which sometimes I do), I do fly direct. Less fatigue, more time at home - hooray! But, there are more than just business travellers on these flights - and my point was more in relation to holiday traffic (I guess some business traffic too, but to a lesser extent) By routing via SYD or BNE, VA are maintaining traffic to MEL, but simultaneously creating additional traffic to BNE and SYD which in turn creates opportunity for stop overs etc. I'm sure Tourism QLD are applauding the move (if they weren't already involved in the decision)

I would argue that axing MEL-LAX makes a lot of sense. There several good reasons for VA to do this:

1. Less competition. MEL will see UA introduce a daily nonstop, so they will be competing with both UA and QF (which will have an additional flight for the peak periods). I think they can see that MEL-LAX will be a slaughterhouse as they are the weakest player, especially with less-than-daily service. SYD is bigger, and safer with friendly DL in the game. In contrast, BNE has just one competitor, and they are not running more than single-daily.
2. Eliminates their odd less-than-daily schedule that was necessary to run all three LAX services plus AUH with just five 77Ws. With a daily BNE-LAX and SYD-LAX, they're much more attractive.
3. If the leisure crowd is unfazed by connections, then as Kogglogs has pointed out it stimulates the remaining flights.
4. They have more infrastructure in BNE.

It just makes so much more sense.

PS: Random thought just occured to me. What's stopping VA from offering a 'direct' MEL-BNE-LAX-BNE-MEL using a 737 to run the MEL 'tag', feeding the 77W and offering one-stop service but having the guest clear CIQ in MEL, giving near-seamless transit in BNE?

This is an outstanding move by Virgin.I am shore the pin stripes in the corperate office gave it plenty of thought.The MEL/LAX sector suffers from over capacity ..big time.You have UA as a new entrant with daily service as do QF.Delta will soon offer daily service and they a partner wth Virgin.

Flying out of BNE will provide higher yeild for Virgin and another option to QF who provide a daily service but on an aging 747 which is allways full,with ..no first class unless you wase time in the Sydney lounge while connecting to may be an A380 fly out of Sydney.

Since when has DL announced they're coming to MEL? They specifically said they aren't, in this very article no less.

Now there's an arrogant statement if ever one was written.

Why would va continue its lax to mel service three days per week? Where would these 777's go? Confused?

Will involve flying MEL-BNE, getting on the train from the domestic to the international terminal, clearing immigration and another security screening, then off to LAX.

Yes you would, and you'd have to in SYD as well. Fly to BNE, catch the bus/train/taxi to the International terminal, head down to security & customs, fly to LAX. You shouldn't have to collect luggage in BNE though.

Is Ua going to start lax to mel in oct?

Paragraph 4

Oh, I'm sure it's got everything to do with UA starting it, but I don't think it's got anything to do with VA joining *A.

How wonderful it'd be if VA would join *A! Likelihood though?

Slimmer than a Jetstar seat back.

LOL.  Great line!

UA have, unfortunately, chosen a craptacular hard product for their 789 biz cabin, which won't win-over any Qantas Skybed 2 fans.  I'm over the 744, though.  Totally.  A superceded type that QF need to replace with the 777-9 as soon as it starts rolling off the line.

I have always found that interactions with UA cabin crew are what you make them, but YMMV.

Air Canada's rumoured to be starting MEL and/or BNE once enough 787s are delivered.  That'll eventually be the best hard product across the Pacific since their 787s have the same reverse herringbone seat as Cathay's long-haul fleet.

There's just not the revenue in SYD-SFO that there is at LAX.  If there were, you'd better believe that QF, DL and VA would be all over it.

LAX is... Well, LAX is LAX!  Not only is there a huge O&D market, there are also connections from just about every tin-pot airport with jet service in the United States.  SFO can't compete with that.

How do Air NZ go daily to SFO (up to 10 per week in peak) on top of their ample LAX services? Surely there must be some coin to be made from Aus to SFO especially in a smaller aircraft like the 787-9?

NZ does it by offering a slew of convenient connecting flights on United from SFO to everywhere else in the US. If you're not in bed with Star Alliance it's much harder to make SFO work.

Virgin America may have a SFO hub but it's not anywhere near the scale of United's operation.

Flying into a large friendly hub is the reason why UA flies to SFO (to leverage its own hub) and why QF flies to DFW (to leverage the AA fortress hub).

No, because the three days a week the frame is used to fly MEL are going to be used to run BNE daily, up from four days a week. Running SYD-LAX daily, BNE-LAX daily and SYD-AUH three times weekly means that all five 77Ws will be maxed out.

Of course, it might be easier if they just asked EY to fly the three days a week to AUH on their own metal, freeing up the last 77W for something else.

Anyway, the main point of the VS partnership was to access a HKG codeshare that didn't require dealing with hostile carriers (CX, QF) or diversions (SQ). Ex-HKG, all VS did was fly to LHR, and that could be done one-stop via both AUH (EY) and SIN (SQ). Now that the SYD-HKG leg is gone, there's very little value in VS. I would go so far as to argue that the only Virgin-Virgin partnership that is worth VA's time is actually Virgin America (VX) ex-LAX.

Ultimately, unless AUH is also axed, you won't see new VA routes on 77Ws.