Originally Posted by
Chris2303
Why are people suggesting cabotage?
All it does is adds extra costs for little revenue, and the problem of getting domestic pax through the international terminal. It also ruins connections at (say) Sydney.
I can't see UA or AA rushing to recommence South Pacific flying either
Exactly. The comment was in fact pretty uninformed, the 'cabotage' was actually SQ, AC, NZ and others operating on behalf of AN. This occurred also during the 767 grounding, with coming to work in the morning to see two 767s on Gates 31 and 33 in Sydney, one AC and the other NZ.
The post collapse effort was only temporary until QF leased a few ex AN leased aircraft and ramped up.
The original idea was for AN Pilots and Crew to operate a wet lease with QF flight number, using AN equipment of course, but who stopped that? Unions, who insisted it operate from AN terminals so the AN ground staff could check it in and load it, logistically dumb considering they would all have to have been trained by QF to use the QF system(s), albeit similar to AN's and ticketing, etc. So, a lifeline of sorts was offered and the opportunity for some pilots and cc to continue working lost because of shortsighted unions.
AN's 'genius' HR department also threatened anyone who actually took a job with QF temporarily would be considered to have resigned because they had taken a job with a competitor and would thus not be entitled to redundancy. When that was said, any respect left for the company dissipated for quite a few.