Talk:Kangaroo Route

message: Comment: Austrian Airlines also flies this route VIE-SIN-MEL and VIE-KUL-SYD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.73.98.91 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-02
:Added --kjd 17:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: 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)
replies: text: Definitely an understandable confusion (from 17 years ago!) For posterity's sake, a belated answer:  All origins/destinations for flights when possible to be identified by the city itself are left at the city, only when there is plausible confusion over which International Airport a route uses does the concise/relevant airport name justify tacking onto the end to disambiguate. eg: Paris–CDG vs. Paris–Orly, or more recently Dubai–International vs Dubai–Al Maktoum) - in the not so distant future, we will have to have such a distinction potentially for the Kangaroo Route operating to WSI or SYD! Cheers DigitalExpat (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistency

message: 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)
replies: text: I merged these all into the one table last week. Still needs checking and verifying though. — User:Donama 13:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: clean-up: any preferences?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Added in united/air canada. Blahx100 05:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: why NOT remove LAN/aerolineas/Air NZ AKL-LAX-LHR then?Blahx100 03:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: To close out this very old conversation - the correct definitive answer (as supported by citations in both articles) is that the above described route is the "Southern Cross Route", not the "Kangaroo Route", see explanation on below Subject: Talk:Kangaroo Route#Definition of Kangaroo Route " DigitalExpat (talk) 06:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Exact Definition of Kangaroo Route

message: Austrian's Routes to Sydney and Melbourne are going be suspended from March 2007 )
Where would this go in the table?
Nicko6 07:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: added it in Blahx100 06:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Austrian Airlines 

message: 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)
replies: text: some EVIDENCE for the above please!!!! Blahx100 04:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.   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.   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)
thread_title:  Definition of Kangaroo Route 

message: 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)
replies: text: Seriously should codeshares be included? i think not.Blahx100 03:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: But then, we would need to see if the codeshares are worth mentioning. e.g. those AF/Air Malta codeshare would be a bit of useless, because they actually don't operate to Oz at all. but for those already operating to Oz on their own, e.g. QF/BA, then it would be fine. Above all, simply say who's really operating it, then voila!--KK kap 07:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally don't see why the QF/BA codeshare is worth mentioning on this page.  The more codeshares that pop up in the table, the more strongly I hold the view that they should not be included.  I feel that including them takes more away from the article than they contribute.  As above - I think it reduces clarity for the reader and is slightly misleading. -- Rob.au 07:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  codesharing 

message: I would suggest that this article be moved to Kangaroo Route (capitalised R), as the article specifically deals with services to/from Australia, is a term coined in Australia, and is subject to a Qantas trademark  and its useage is as a proper noun. But I see the "R" article already redirects here. Just a stickler for detail :) --Russavia 18:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to [[Kangaroo Route]] 

message: Should the flight durations be added? Can be sourced from airlines websites.94.173.122.171 (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  timetables 

message: A couple of weeks ago most of the operations section was removed by Wikipeterproject, and the stated reason was uncited information. Firstly, the information can be confirmed quite easily through various routemaps, and I feel that the section was good, and therefore I can add citations to the section and put the operations section back. Please get back to me. --MJLRGS (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comment and the opportunity to discuss.  I don't think there is any problem with adding information about routes that are independently identified as a "Kangaroo Route". But I would think that each would need a reference identifying it as such.  A complete list of airline routes between the UK and Australia would probably be original research.  The definition in the article says that the term "Kangaroo Route" is trademarked by Qantas, but that it is also used by some other carriers, so I would think that only those routes that those carriers themselves - or an independent secondary source - calls a "Kangaroo Route" should be included in the new list.  Another point: the old list had also sorts of routing combinations, for example a scheduled flight from Australia to Asia, connecting with a completely different flight from Asia to London.  If you were to include a list of all possible ticketing and routing combinations between Australia and the UK, you would have hundreds of flights/routes on the list, which in a way underscores my point - unless someone else has called a particular flight a "Kangaroo Route", putting it on the list is probably pure original research.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noticed that this issue has been discussed in 2008 (see "Airline lists" section above). Some valid comments there, not all that different from my previous comment. I think the main point is that if there are good independent references to support that a particular route is referred to as a "Kangaroo Route", then by all means it should be incorporated into the article.  Conversely, a route or flight combination between the UK and Australia should not be included just because of its destination and origin, because that alone does not meet the definition of the article as it now stands. Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent removal of operations 

message: What is "V-Jet service"? BadaBoom (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Read this.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is "V-Jet service"? 

message: I took out the following paragraph. 
Originally, Air New Zealand participated in the market by allowing a connection in Auckland and a stopover at either Hong Kong or Los Angeles. However, it relinquished the opportunity by dropping the Hong Kong - London route by 4 March 2013 which ends most airline companies in Oceania's adoption of the Kangaroo Route, especially routes from East Asian cities to London.
It's a bit vague and I'm not sure what it is the editor is trying to say here.  The LA route is not part of the Kangaroo Route, and I don't think they flew from Hong Kong to Europe on their own planes.  But the last sentence makes no obvious sense. Can the editor pls clarify, or could someone else reword it.--Dmol (talk) 10:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air New Zealand paragraph 

message: In para. 2 there is a comparison between the number of airlines offering the route in 2003 (over 20) and the number offering it in ? 2020 - only 2 as a through route, meaning no plane change.  But in the over 20 airlines in 2003 several, and probably many, utilised plane changes.  The comparison is invalid. Boscaswell talk 09:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalid comparison 

message: please fill in a source for the ref you named "JL". -- Fyrael (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undefined ref