Any chance of SQ Aust-US routes

[Kiwi]

I think the via Asia option (i.e. SQ, CX etc) is particularly attractive to the non SYD/MEL/BNE markets who have to endure a domestic transfer plus the additional cost before you even leave the country.

Right, and via AKL is more attractive for people in ADL & PER (despite the less than ideal connection for PER-AKL-north america).

I am travelling to the US and Canada in November and ended up booking on CX before the competition on the SYD/LAX route really heated up. I was hoping to book SQ, but the loss of Y+ on the non-stop and the withdrawl from YVR forced me to CX as being the only carrier which allowed me to fly direct out of ADL to LAX and to return direct from YVR (albeit via HKG but with minimal transit times).

My other option was to use NZ, but the price was significantly more plus extended time in transit in AKL and a lack of daily service from YVR. So in the end I am booked:

ADL/HKG/LAX // YVR/HKG/ADL

None of those routings are direct. Direct means single flight number (with or without a transit stop) - in your case between ADL and LAX/YVR. There are no such flights.

[soak01]

By direct, I simply meant that we clear immigration and customs and fly internationally out of Adelaide not having to endure the change of terminals in SYD. As I said, we did look at NZ as they and only CX allowed us to fly in to LAX and to return from YVR, but in the end with 3 of us travelling it came down to price.

[zvezda]

By direct, I simply meant that we clear immigration and customs and fly internationally out of Adelaide not having to endure the change of terminals in SYD.

As Kiwi pointed out above, a "direct" flight is one with the same flight number from origin to destination, which may or may not stop, which may or may not take on or offload additional passengers if it does stop, and which may or may not involve a change of aircraft if it does stop. The only thing which determines whether or not a flight is "direct" is the flight number.

[flymeroundthemoon]

Please correct me if I am wrong but I had assumed that the OP was asking if there is any hope that SQ will be allowed to fly trans-Pacific OZ-LAX/SFO non-stop?

[zvezda]

Please correct me if I am wrong but I had assumed that the OP was asking if there is any hope that SQ will be allowed to fly trans-Pacific OZ-LAX/SFO non-stop?

Correct.

[Kiwi]

To be pedantic they could also be allowed to fly Australia to Honolulu, Seattle, Anchorage, New York, (Guam?), etc. USA is much more than LAX & SFO.

[feb01mel]

SIA pushes Aussie govt for concrete time-frame for full air liberalisation

Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 16 December 2009 2345 hrs

SINGAPORE: Flag carrier Singapore Airlines is pushing the Australian government for a concrete time-frame for the full liberalisation of the lucrative trans-Pacific route between Australia and the US.

The move is in response to what SIA describes as a "non-committal" stand in an aviation White Paper that the Australian government has just released.

The Australian government reiterated that it had no immediate plans to allow foreign carriers on the lucrative route between Australia and the US. This route is currently dominated by Qantas Airways and United Airlines.

SIA has long been seeking access to the route. It argues that trans-Pacific flights from Australia suffer from under-capacity, leading to limited competition and relatively high air fares.

In a statement to Channel NewsAsia, SIA said it is urging the Australian government for a clearly defined time-frame for full liberalisation to be set, and for all parties to commit to the eventual full liberalisation of trans-Pacific travel.

"On principle, Singapore Airlines takes the view that there is no justification for denying us access to this route, since Australian airlines already enjoy unhindered access in Singapore," said SIA's vice-president of public affairs, Nicholas Ionides.

The Australian government had previously indicated that it will consider Singapore Airlines' longstanding request to operate flights on the trans-Pacific route between Sydney and Los Angeles, although no time-frame has been set.

- CNA/ir

[JoJo Zep]

I would be on a US to Oz flight in a heartbeat.
You could finally do a real SQ metal RTW!

[Kiwi]

I would be on a US to Oz flight in a heartbeat.
You could finally do a real SQ metal RTW!

How so? It would most likely be SYD-LAX. There is still a gap to NYC. In any case SIN-EWR/JFK-SIN is around the world on SQ metal.

[SQ238]

SIA pushes Aussie govt for concrete time-frame for full air liberalisation

Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 16 December 2009 2345 hrs

"On principle, Singapore Airlines takes the view that there is no justification for denying us access to this route, since Australian airlines already enjoy unhindered access in Singapore," said SIA's vice-president of public affairs, Nicholas Ionides.


- CNA/ir

I think this is a very valid point, Qantas expects to be allowed into any country they choose but then cry poor when the shoe is on the other foot.

The government here in Australia continually cries about competition being allowed in all industries, you only have to look at how they have opened up the telecommunication industry in the last 15 years.

For the Australian government to continually back Qantas on this issue is a complete joke and makes them total hypocrites in my eyes.

SQ238.

[Gunners]

Only one or two hedge funds out of America stopped Qantas being sold under an leverage MBO. Had the MBO occured the debt levels taken on before the GFC would likely have casued the demise of Qantas.

I do not understand why the Australian government allows United Airlines to fly to the USA and has recently opened the Kangaroo route to London to Qatar whilst at the same time refuse Singapore to right to fly Aust to USA.

I agree with your comments. Singapore allows Qantas and now Jetstar to operate out of Singpaore. There is not reason why Australia should not open its markets to more airlines. Austrlaians are happy to embrace Tigar domestically but still restricts other international access.

This just results in less competition and increased costs to the Australian consumer. So much for living in a free market economy.

Austrlaian government has many strange ideas when it comes to competiition. We can have Sinagpore telcos and power generators operating out of Australia, we can have foreign investment in our resource industry but we cannot open up the USA route for Singpaore.

I love Australia but I have some difficulty understanding decisions. The recent aviation white paper allows recommendends allowing up to 49% of Qantas. Any 49% shareholder would have effective control over Qantas. So in effect we would have a foreigner owning Qantas whislt at the same time deny SIA the right to fly the same routes.

[hsf]

Singapore wants to be an aviation hub, so if airlines are not allowed to fly from SIN, then how is that going to work?

On the other hand, hardly anyone travels to Australia in order to fly to some other country, so it is not exactly the same thing.

[sudsoz]

I think this is a very valid point, Qantas expects to be allowed into any country they choose but then cry poor when the shoe is on the other foot.

The government here in Australia continually cries about competition being allowed in all industries, you only have to look at how they have opened up the telecommunication industry in the last 15 years.

For the Australian government to continually back Qantas on this issue is a complete joke and makes them total hypocrites in my eyes.

SQ238.

As far as international aviation is concerned they have been hypocritical for at least the last ten years - especially so when they refused to allow SQ to buy into Ansett thus forcing their eventual demise.