Talk:Kangaroo route

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Kangaroo route is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is not assigned to a WikiProject or workgroup. Please help with your suggestions.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Comments 2 Consistency 3 clean-up: any preferences? 4 Exact Definition of Kangaroo Route 5 Austrian Airlines 6 Definition of Kangaroo Route 7 One-aircraft service 8 codesharing 9 Air France

[edit] Comments

Comment: Austrian Airlines also flies this route VIE-SIN-MEL and VIE-KUL-SYD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.73.98.91 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-02.

Added --kjd 17:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Qatar Airways does not actually fly to Melbourne yet. Thai Airways is listed both in the table and afterwards, and why is only Auckland listed as a Malaysia Airlines destination? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.129.51.96 (talk • contribs) 2006-04-15.

Comment: I suggest Qatar Airways be deleted from the list. They do not actually fly to Melbourne. Objections? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.129.37.5 (talk • contribs) 2006-05-15.

Comment: Should that footnote thing be added for Gulf Air? Their flights go via Singapore as well as Bahrain. Emirates also has stopovers in Australia (for NZ destinations) and South East asia on the way to Dubai for Australian destinations. Nice is served via Rome. Or have I totally misunderstood the point of the footnote. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.129.37.5 (talk • contribs) 2006-05-15.

Comment: Which airport does VN, JL, KE, SQ, MU, TG, CA and Emirates fly to in Moscow? Domodevo or SVO ? KK kap 13:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consistency

Why is London listed as London Heathrow, yet the other cities not by airport names? Other cities in the table have multiple international airports - so I don't understand the distinction for London. The table should be consistent one way or the other. --kjd 17:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] clean-up: any preferences?

This article needs a bit of a clean up as noted by Kjd and anon poster. There are a number of duplications but, more importantly, why do we have both a list and a table? Surely it's much better to have just one. I'd go for the list, I'll change it all soon (when I get a chance, do it yourself if you fancy it). Anyone any preferences for how to format it? Iancaddy 23:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I merged these all into the one table last week. Still needs checking and verifying though. — User:Donama 13:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exact Definition of Kangaroo Route

I'm not sure if United Airlines' Sydney-Los Angeles/San Francisco-London services and Air New Zealand's Auckland-Los Angeles-London flight should be listed here. I've always thought that Kangaroo Route flights are specifically those that go via the Eastern hemisphere. If United is included, then Air Canada, LAN and Aerolineas Argentinas should be too.

-QFlyer 11:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

well LAN and Aerolineas Argentinas and AirNZ are included so why not United(JFK-LAX-SYD/ORD-SFO-SYD)/AirCanada?(YVR-HNL-SYD) Blahx100 04:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Added in united/air canada. Blahx100 05:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

As per my comments below under Definition of Kangaroo Route, these are not Kangaroo Route services and I feel they should be removed from the page. -- Rob.au 13:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

why NOT remove LAN/aerolineas/Air NZ AKL-LAX-LHR then?Blahx100 03:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify my comment - I think ALL the trans-Pacific services should be removed from the page, as they are verifiably (as per the citations in my comment in the other section) not Kangaroo Route services. All services listed via Buenos Aires, Vancouver, Los Angeles, Santiago and Chicago have no claim to be considered Kangaroo Route services and should all be removed. The validity of Johannesburg is also highly doubtful - I'm not aware of South African Airways selling a single fare basis from Australia to Europe (I believe you would have to combine multiple fares, even if they were placed on one ticket), and regular Qantas/British Airways Australia-Europe fares would not permit travel via this routing. The South-East Asian carriers do sell direct fares from Australia to Europe, even if you need to change planes en route. -- Rob.au 14:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The pacific routes are clearly removable. I am alittle cautious over South Africa thou...where do we draw the line between what is acceptable and what is not?--Huaiwei 14:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I am of the view that South Africa should not be included, I agree that neither I nor anyone else has yet presented a sufficient case for its removal in the absence of a consensus view. -- Rob.au 15:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As there has been no further objection, I have removed services operating via Buenos Aires, Vancouver, Los Angeles, Santiago and Chicago. As above, I believe services via Johannesburg and Mauritius should also go, but I have left these there due to lack of consensus. -- Rob.au 03:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Austrian Airlines

Austrian's Routes to Sydney and Melbourne are going be suspended from March 2007 [1])

Where would this go in the table? Nicko6 07:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

added it in Blahx100 06:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of Kangaroo Route

Sorry folks, but this definition of the Kangaroo Route is incorrect.

The term was coined by QANTAS after the war and had NOTHING to do with the number of hops that it took to get from Australia to Britain, or vice-versa. It had EVERYTHING to do with the fact that it was promoting an Australian airline and a service from/to Australia. The flying kangaroo symbol on the tail of the aircraft, and the name "Kangaroo Route", identified it to the world that it was Australian. It has no legitimate connection with any other airline and as far as I can determine the name belongs to QANTAS.

In additon, the term "Kangaroo Route" ONLY applies to the route Between Australia and Britain via Asia and Europe; it does NOT refer to the route across the Pacific Ocean to North America. This was referred to as the "Southern Cross Route", coined by the Australian airline which inaugurated the service and who operated it prior to QANTAS taking it over - British Commonwealth Pacific Airlines (BCPA).

With regards to the "ownership" of the phrase by Qantas, I would love to see any sources supporting this viewpoint?--Huaiwei 15:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

some EVIDENCE for the above please!!!! Blahx100 04:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Kangaroo Route only refers to the Eastern Hemisphere route between Europe and Australia. The Western Hemispehere route to Europe is known as the Southern Cross Route. You need go no further than the Qantas website to see this distinction defined. [2] Kangaroo Route is actually a trade mark owned by Qantas, according to the ATMOSS search tool on the IPAustralia website, listed as Trade Mark 330928. Although it is a trade mark, common usage clearly indicates the expression refers to the entire Australia-Europe Eastern Hemisphere corridor, as operated by any airline. I'm not familar with services to/from New Zealand being included, but obviously the concept is similar, with the air links having similar origins and purpose. Another good source is the ABS 1986 Year Book article on the topic. [3] I have no comment in the 'hops' issue at the moment, other than to say that at the very least, this has a significant enough following in popular culture to rate a mention on the page. If anyone has access to the book Kangaroo Route: The Development of Commercial Flight Between England and Australia ISBN: 0207150869, this might be a helpful additional source for this topic. -- Rob.au 13:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One-aircraft service

I think that we definitely need a separete table for the REAL Kangaroo Route services - that is services between Australia/NZ and Britain with the SAME aircraft, NOT involving a change of planes. This would mean only BA, Virgin, Qantas and Air New Zealand. Only on these airlines the terminus of the flight that you board in Britain is actually in Australia/NZ and vv. FlyerBoy 07:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree Quaidy 23:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Find us any reputable source which actually defines a "real" kangaroo route versus a "fake" one.--Huaiwei 01:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well how about editing the table so that there are separete colums for "Stopover" and "Change of aircraft"? Since right now the table does not give you the information if you have change planes enroute or not. FlyerBoy 07:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there any compelling reason for this distinction?--Huaiwei 12:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't find it any different when the sign board at Sydney airport says "Singapore" or "London via Singapore"? In my opinion only the latter one is a true Kangaroo route. FlyerBoy 11:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

But that is precisely the point. It is your opinion, which is not what wikipedia is about.--Huaiwei 13:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't think that there's much of a difference. After all the article already mentions that only 5 airlines operates the route with the same flight numbers throughout - ie no change of planes. Blahx100 08:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It is worth remembering that at one stage, travel between Australia and the UK required travel with no less than three airlines (Qantas, Imperial and Indian Trans Continental Airways), not to mention train travel. [4] [5]. I think the issue of same-plane service is irrelevant to the topic. -- Rob.au 13:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well why do we need this list of one-airline services then, if travel on the original Kangaroo Route actually required several airlines? I could list SYD-BKK-HEL operated by Qantas+Finnair and that should count then, too. FlyerBoy 23:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You very well could. The only issue is whether you are interested in adding all connection possibilities, and if you are going to maintain this list.--Huaiwei 12:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not convinced the lists add any value to the article in the first place. I certainly would be open to consideration of removing them entirely. They also seem to be somewhat directory-like in nature. -- Rob.au 15:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your responces. I could also vote for removal of the whole list. FlyerBoy 19:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

And for what reason? I hope its not just because a few are nitpicking on the table and couldnt get what they want?--Huaiwei 22:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Since, as noted earlier, Kangaroo Route doesn't originally mean OZ-Europe on ONE airline and it doesn't mean it nowadays either.FlyerBoy 15:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

To expand on my earlier comment... I just don't see how they add to the content of this encyclopedia article rather than detract from it. The article already clearly describes the nature of the Kangaroo route, as per current status of discussions on this talk page. The issues remain open for discussion/verification regardless of the prescence of the tables. If the purpose of the tables is to provide the reader with information on their choices for travelling the kangaroo route, they should not be there as per wikipedia is not a directory and WP:SPAM. If the purpose of the tables is to illustrate the article, then in my personal opinion, they are complete overkill. Ultimately I think they make the description of the concept less clear than it would be without them, prompting me to suggest we discuss removing them. -- Rob.au 15:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems working on transport-related articles ultimately leads to a dispute over its usefulness to a traveller, which when deemed useful, becomes the primary contention for removal. With all due respect, I consider this line of thought provincial, and quite missing the point. In what way is this same information not useful to academics, researchers, aviation enthusiats, and the general public who are just curious over the big fuss on this one flight route?

The primary purpose of the table is to illustrate the route involved, and to demonstrate the extent of competition on it. You could write endless articles on A airline and B airline being primary competitors on the route, or Airport C and Airport D working hard to grap as much of this transit traffic as possible. But when asked just how the current playing field is like, how would you explain it better then a table? As the original contributor of this table, I must say admit its not the best means of making such an illustration. Is there anyone willing to quit nitpicking, and get down to actually drawing up a map on this route instead, however, because I would consider it an even better illustration method?--Huaiwei 16:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] codesharing

should SAA's codeshare with qantas on JNB-SYD be included?

if so then why not include all of BA's codeshares with Qantas on SIN-PER/MEL/BNE/SYD/FRA or Lufthansa's codeshares with SIA on SIN-PER/SYD/MEL/BNE/FRA/ADL; as well as Virgin's codeshares with SQ for LHR/MAN-SIN-SYD, Air France with Qantas for SIN-SYD, Finnair with QF for SIN-BNE, Air Malta with QF for LHR-SIN-SYD? well you get my point. Blahx100 08:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Seriously should codeshares be included? i think not.Blahx100 03:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Support: I would also prefer to see the codeshares removed - they don't tell us about which airlines actually operate the route - if anything, they're slightly misleading. -- Rob.au 10:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Air France

Does anyone have any source for the claim that Air France plans to fly to Oz in 2007?