Talk:Kangaroo Route

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments[edit]

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)[reply]

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? —Preceding unsigned comment 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? —Preceding unsigned comment 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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)[reply]

Comment : Gulf Air has no longer fly to Australia via Singapore. Both australia and Singapore have no longer in their route maps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.77.203.10 (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

clean-up: any preferences?[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Exact Definition of Kangaroo Route[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Added in united/air canada. Blahx100 05:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
why NOT remove LAN/aerolineas/Air NZ AKL-LAX-LHR then?Blahx100 03:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Austrian Airlines[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Definition of Kangaroo Route[edit]

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

One-aircraft service[edit]

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)[reply]

I agree Quaidy 23:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Find us any reputable source which actually defines a "real" kangaroo route versus a "fake" one.--Huaiwei 01:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Is there any compelling reason for this distinction?--Huaiwei 12:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
But that is precisely the point. It is your opinion, which is not what wikipedia is about.--Huaiwei 13:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks for your responces. I could also vote for removal of the whole list. FlyerBoy 19:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

codesharing[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Air France[edit]

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

Block quote

Move to Kangaroo Route[edit]

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 [6] 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)[reply]

Needs fixing regarding New Zealand[edit]

I don't know whether this term can legitimately be applied to New Zealand as well as Australia, but the article as it stands needs fixing one way or the other. If New Zealand counts, the table column heading shouldn't read "Australian Departure Point(s)", whereas if it doesn't, the New Zealand mentions should be removed. I leave it up to someone more knowledgeable than me about the subject to decide which. -- Vardion 04:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen above on this page, there has been much discussion of what can be defined as the Kangaroo Route - however much of it occured before the trade mark status was pointed out. Essentially what it comes back to is this - "Kangaroo Route" is a trade mark that belongs to Qantas [7]. On its website, the airline frequently refers to the Kangaroo Route as services between Australia and the United Kingdom.[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. In the Airline's 2005 Annual Report [14] the airline does refer to starting a new Kangaroo Route service via Hong Kong, though again between Australia and the United Kingdom. There are occasional mentions clearly defining the Kangaroo Route as being services via the Eastern Hemisphere, labelling the Western Hemipshere route as the Southern Cross Route. [15].
All of this said, the term Kangaroo Route is used by the media to refer to more than just Qantas services - and even Qantas themselves have a media release from 2003 titled Qantas statement on Virgin Atlantic becoming 21st carrier on the Kangaroo Route [16], the release goes on to say - "Qantas said today that Virgin Atlantic would become the 21st airline to offer services between the United Kingdom and Australia". That said, the release is talking up the level of competition on the route, and goes on to name airlines that operate via the Western Hemisphere. It is notable that all airlines mentioned did operate from Australia to the United Kingdom at that time. In the case of the European carriers noted in the release, a connecting flight was required from the carrier's European hub through to the United Kingdom.
At the end of the day, there has previously been no consensus on this issue, but perhaps in light of the above it is time again to canvas views on the topic. To my mind, the Kangaroo Route can be defined as:
Airline services between Australia and the United Kingdom operating via the Eastern Hemipshere through Asia.
No-one wants to remove content from Wikipedia lightly, but this definition is very much tighter than the extraordinarily loose definition that currently exists in the article. -- Rob.au 15:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just to summarise what would have to go under what I'm suggesting, you'd have to remove Air New Zealand, China Airlines, China Southern Airlines and Vietnam Airlines from the airlines table and Guangzhou, Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City from the stopovers table. You'd also need to remove non-UK destinations from the left hand columns and non-Australian destinations from the right hand columns. -- Rob.au 16:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kangaroo Route can ONLY refer to the Qantas route[edit]

The trademark name refered to the multistop Qantas flights between Australia and London via Asia. It does not refer to Qantas flights via North America (Southern Cross, Fiesta). It certainly does not refer to other airlines' routes. Vietnam Airlines would be quite surpised to hear that its flight from Melbourne to London (change planes in Ho Chi Minh City overnight, fly Air France from CDG to LHR) is called the 'kangaroo route'.

I propose to Delete all references to non-QANTAS airlines in this article, to make it genuinely about the real Kangaroo Route. Kransky (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can redefine this all you like based on the marketing muscle of one airline, but what about the fact that the mass media frequently uses the term to refer to non-Qantas operations?--Huaiwei (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why change?
(a) because it ain't the Kangaroo Route.
(b) other airlines don't call their routes the Kangaroo Route
(c) Even as a misnomor the term has failed to enter the popular lexicon (by the "mass media") to describe the route in the way you describe it.
(d) For reasons previously stated, it is overkill to write lists in the way you have.
(e) the article lacks other more pertinent information about the actual Kangaroo route. No mention is made of the original routing or aircraft that was flown.
(f) We here don't refer to the Kangaroo Route as anything but the Qantas flight of yore. We don't even commonly call the modern-day Qantas flights as the Kangaroo route.
(g) I doubt you Singaporeans refer to intermediary and feeder flights as forming part of the "Kangaroo Route".
Kransky (talk) 12:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? Check out [17] for instance. Is Qantas going to sue Singapore Airlines for mentioning its impending deployment of its A380 on the "Kangaroo route between Singapore, Sydney and London."?--Huaiwei (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, suprising. I didn't think Singapore Airlines would use a trademarked name, but if this is what happens then it is reasonable to include it in the article, albeit with a caveat about its misuse. This is not an acknowledgement that Singapore Airline is right to steal another company's brand, no more than my wearing of a sarong qualifies me to be called a Singapore Girl.
My other point still stands - overkill on the lists at the expense of more pertinent and notable content is not desirable. Kransky (talk) 10:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, wearing a Sarong will not qualify you to be referred to as a Singapore Girl. Wearing a Sarong Kebaya may up your chances significantly thou. I would have thought you will be more peculiar about technical accuracy considering your attempt to downplay the use of the "trademarked" phrase in wider society beyond Australia. Singapore Airlines is clearly not the only "culprit" in this regard. You can even sue the Singapore government if you wish[18]. Tonnes of publications are clearly using the term in breach of trademark laws, be it the Times[19], the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission[20], and Air Transport World[21]. You could sue the Sydney Morning Herald for insinuating that the "Qantas-owned term" could be shared with British Airways[22], or you could direct your charges against The Age for suggesting an airline like Virgin Atlantic could be mistaken as Qantas to fly that route with that name[23]. Even worse - the suggestion that Middle Eastern carriers are Qantas wannabes too[24]!
Now I could go on and on and on, but I think the point I am trying to put across is plain clear. Kindly do not put forth a highly POV suggestion which may even be considered "provincial", and attempt to suggest it is an established norm the world over. The mass media, and Qantas' allies and competitors freely use that term as well, even in official releases, without giving a single credit to Qantas's "ownership" of that term.
As for the suggestion that the term should refer to UK-Australian flights only, I am a tad more accommodating, given this was actually its traditional meaning. I have thus setup a new section to highlight these flights in their full glory, ahead of those which includes flights to the rest of Europe and Oceania.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With a busy and fun lifestyle (nothing to do with wearing a sarong), I am not blessed with endless free time to labour over the issue. I am assuming Singapore is party to whatever international agreement on IP that governs the protection of trademarks (aforementioned by a previous correspondent). Nothing POV or 'provincial' about this. It is Singapore Airlines's business if they choose to take a legal and PR risk by appropriating another airline's trademark. And it is the media's own shortcoming if they fail to acknowledge the propriatary source.
But as for adding another section to be 'accomodating', this makes the article worse in my opinion - instead of giving fresh information (history, planes flew, accidents etc) you are effectively rehashing other data from other sources. Kransky (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huaiwei's assertion that QF competitors freely use the term in commercial terms is totally erroneous, as trademarks do not usually protect a term from being used in a non-commercial sense (such as by government, newspapers, etc), and also does not protect a term from being adopted in general usage to cover a wider spectrum (e.g. hills hoist, victa, etc), but it most definitely DOES stop the term from being used in a commercial sense, and any company stupid enough to do so deserves to feel the wraith of QF's lawyers. --Russavia (talk) 07:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am mostly inclined to agree with Kransky, although not completely. In my view:
  • The only correct usage of the term "Kangaroo Route" is to refer to Qantas flights between Australia and the United Kingdom
  • There is undoubtedly sufficiently wide misuse of the term both in the media and by other airlines which are not the owners of the trademark - without Qantas, the owner, taking any action - to comfortably say that the term has wider usage. However it must be discussed in this Wikipedia article on this basis - as one of incorrect use.
  • There is no valid claim that meets Wikiepedia verifiability tests that the term "Kangaroo Route" is used or misused (outside of Wikipedia that is) in reference to any service that operates other than between Australia and the United Kingdom via SE Asia. Any such refrences in the article should be deleted.
  • I am highly dubious that including codeshare operations under this term meets WP:V either. I think this is misleading and damaging to the article, and should therefore also be deleted. If it absolutely has to be said, one sentence such as "Other airlines also sell seats on these services via a codeshare arrangement" is more than sufficient in my opinion. See also Wikipedia is not a directory.
  • The copious tables in the article are damaging to the article... far outweighing any possible benefit they have. Having two tables of identical information sorted by airline and by stopover make a bad thing even worse. I am prepared to accept the recently added table under the "United Kingdom-Australia market" heading as a compromise, partly on the basis that in one short table it is far more informative than the other two. The "Routes by airline" sub-heading should be deleted. The two earlier tables that now appear under the "Europe-Oceania market" heading should now quite plainly be deleted. Again, see Wikipedia is not a directory.
--Rob.au (talk) 07:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it an international trademark? just curious. --Vsion 05:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's a registered trade-mark, that does not mean no-one else is allowed to use it. The general public is free to use the trademarked name to refer to anything they like: because it is not "using the mark as a mark". Likewise, Wikipedia is not using "Kangaroo route" as a trademark - it is free to describe anything as a kangaroo route, if indeed that is the fact.
Use of a trade mark by persons other than the the registered owner is not "incorrect", whatever that means. If used as a mark (e.g. by a dodgy competitor), it may be an infringement of trademark that Qantas can sue for; that does not make it "incorrect". If used not as a mark (e.g. by the general public descriptively), then it's perfectly legal and fine and dandy. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Airline lists[edit]

Is it really necessary for a list of airlines competing on the route to appear in both the introduction and the end of the history section? I can't say I'm keen on either as they're going to be edited to death as no-one agrees on where to draw the line, but at the very least we surely don't need the duplication. -- Rob.au (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But we could just list those airlines flying the route directly in the intro, while adding the competitors in the history section. Both details are important, but shouldn't be duplicated. -- Kransky (talk) 06:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Attempting to downplay the role of competitors can be interpreted as a POV move. In the real commercial world out there, it makes little difference which airline actually flies the route direct, and consumers are clearly not exactly selecting Qantas or BA just because they use the same flight number.--Huaiwei (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with this to an extent (though not to the extent that the article was taken at one stage). People travelling from, say, Sydney to London will just as easily choose a SE-Asia based competitor such as Singapore Airlines even though a plane change is required. Baggage is normally through checked and often enough the second boarding pass will be issued at the initial origin. However I don't think this is the real issue.
The question is - does Kangroo Route refer to an air traffic route or does it refer to a product or service offered by Qantas? To get registered as a trademark would suggest they see it as a product or service and were able to make a case that it wasn't a generic term, but represented something they offered. If you look at the trademark record, you'll see it offers them protection for Class 39 services - ie. travel agency, transport and storage services. My conclusion is that competitors offer a competing product, but Qantas' product is the Kangaroo Route. It's similar in some senses to their CityFlyer product in the domestic market.
You can see a similar (though certainly not identical) situation in some railways... take for example the Glacier Express. You can travel between all the same places on regular rail services and at many stages the Glacier Express hauls regular trains as part of its consist. Those travelling on the titled train are consuming a different product.
This situation suggests competitors should only be something of a footnote. -- Rob.au (talk) 10:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are able to find sources to support your interpretation, than by all means, failing which it is still WP:OR. If Qantas itself can issue a press release[25] saying a competitor like Virgin Atlantic is on the Kangaroo route, and further states that it was the 21st airline at time of writing, what does that imply? This is a statement from the supposed trademark owner itself, mind you!--Huaiwei (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By all mean mention the competitors (they are mentioned), but it needn't be mentioned twice. Kransky (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lists may appear repetitive, but I think it is more due to the history section needing expansion.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of a registered trademark makes it not WP:OR - that is the reliable confirmation that it a good or service offered by the trademark owner. Indeed the situation is quite opposite to the assertion that it is a genericised trademark, which is not a claim made anywhere outside of Wikipedia as far as I'm aware... the references given so far don't make any such claim, they are being used in the line of putting forward an argument to support a case... to me, that's the very definition WP:OR... from that guideline... Wikipedia does not publish ... any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position, and later... Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.
That said, I think we're getting distracted here. I'm not against references being made to competitors - I think that is entirely relevant. I just don't want to see multiple lists appearing as this is totally unnecessary and I don't want to see this article be dragged back to the extremely poor situation it was in previously where it was little more than several huge repetitive tables that created an artificial definition of Kangaroo Route that was unique to Wikipedia. In my view - mention that competitors exist and mention a few key competitors as examples - but I strongly hope that we don't return to the attempts to have every single competitor listed as this just isn't what the article should be about. As far as I can see, the references we have assert that it is a product of Qantas and is a product that has evolved with Qantas' history and their history alone. Other airlines may compete with the product, but that's as close as it comes. -- Rob.au (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

timetables[edit]

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

That is in fact a good idea, but would probably be best in a table. --MJLRGS (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent removal of operations[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

What is "V-Jet service"?[edit]

What is "V-Jet service"? BadaBoom (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read this.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Air New Zealand paragraph[edit]

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)[reply]

Large route/airline section REMOVED![edit]

I already explained in my edit summary deleting more than half of the size of this article. This article is about services between AU/NZ and UK, not about all services between Oceania (e.g. including Guam, Saipan, Palau) and Europe (e.g. including FRA, CDG, or even IST!) This article's relevance is because of AU/NZ's historical ties with the British Isles.

Anyone is welcome to re-establish the section with only a listing of (1) carriers, (2) connecting cities, (3) AU/NZ points, and (4) UK airports. Anything else is not encyclopedic. HkCaGu (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. I tried a few days ago to selectively trim it, but only manage to muck up the table so I did not save the changes. My main grief was the inclusion of Auckland which is not part of the KR as it is in New Zealand.
We are not a directory, so I would be happy with no table at all. If we are having one, then only the main carriers. Codeshares should not be included as there's an almost endless list of possibilities. --Dmol (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid comparison[edit]

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)[reply]

Does Kangaroo route only equal Qantas or does it include other carriers (2023 revisit of the question)[edit]

There are multiple topics already in this Talk page around the same topic, ranging from the most recent of 8 years ago, and the oldest of 16 years ago... I'll link them here so as to act as a psuedo-consolidator and try to readdress the topic as it has come back in yesterday's well-intended good faith edit (with a lot of work) from @Essexman03:

See Previous Discussions:

[1] 2006 - Talk:Kangaroo Route#Definition of Kangaroo Route
[2] 2007 - Talk:Kangaroo Route#One-aircraft service
[3] 2007 - Talk:Kangaroo Route#Needs fixing regarding New Zealand
[4] 2008 - Talk:Kangaroo Route#Kangaroo Route can ONLY refer to the Qantas route
[5] 2008 - Talk:Kangaroo Route#Airline lists
[6] 2011 - Talk:Kangaroo Route#Recent removal of operations
[7] 2014 - Talk:Kangaroo Route#Large route/airline section REMOVED!

Noted previous talk contributors (in no particular order, just me reading from the bottom of the page up): @HkCaGu @Dmol @Wikipeterproject @MJLRGS @Rob.au @Huaiwei @Kransky @Vardion @FlyerBoy @Essexman03


I am bringing back up this topic (and tagging the main valued participants in the previous discussions) as the topic has come up again with yesterday's edits. I made a revision and then when went to create a Talk page entry for it, found this robust-yet-aged rich history of the topic being debated.


To summarize my change: Removal of any flights with non-Australia origins (eg: Saipan) and non-UK destinations (eg: Paris)

(n.b. - I believe the frequency columns will prove hard to maintain/remain accurate, also noticed that the MEB3 are all missing which are a main operator on the kangaroo route)


@Essexman03 has built a robust table that shows (what I presume to be ticketable) 1-hop routes between OZ & the UK served by the same carrier ("the same ticket") if I understand it correctly? (please correct my understanding @Essexman03 ?)


As I can see the inevitable question coming back up of does it belong in the Kangaroo Route article, I thought best to create this talk topic to attempt to focus discussion?/any debate before reaching consensus on what the table should look like/further edits to the article to make it the best Wiki/Encyclopedic article on "The Kangaroo Route"

The pertinent questions in my mind:

Q1 - Include other carriers between Australia and UK? - I opine YesNo (edited to reflect my mindset change, see my inline reply below from 23 Jan, believe may be possible to have other carriers in a separate subheading or another article altogether, but Rob.au is right it is creating undue weight by having them all in the same table): , Whilst the term is held as a an Australian Trademark by Qantas, As pointed out above, Qantas uses the term to refer to other operators between Australia & UK, example1(2003) and example2(2013) even IATA uses the term to refer to all AUS-UK routes

Q2 - Include other origins/destinations outside Australia and UK? - I opine No. Explicitly not ever part of the definition of "The Kangaroo route"

Q3 - Is The Kangaroo Route defined as A, B, or C?: I opine Option B on the below, while Qantas has used the term flexibly for marketing purposes: example of Option A (see '1947') , Option B , and Option C I am of the opinion that while the original was A, the most prevalent usage (by Qantas and others) is Option B.

A) Sydney - London
B) [any Australian origin] - London
C) [any Australian origin] to [any UK destination]


Interested in people's thoughts on the current state on these questions and seeing what we can do to continue to make this wiki entry the best possible, cheers all (and my respect to all contributors past and present!)


DigitalExpat (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DigitalExpat, thanks for the edit. I read through what you've said, and while I don't entirely agree with it, I do accept some of your points. Firstly, I should have definitely gone entirely with flights offered from Australia to UK, and not included alternative European Airports.
However, I would argue that alternative UK airports do fall under the Kangaroo Route Banner, as indeed the article says "The Kangaroo Route refers to air routes flown between Australia and the United Kingdom via the Eastern Hemisphere". There is no definition for what airport/city Australia is, nor the UK, so any airport either way could fall under this term.
I would also argue the ROI would fall under this banner, reasons being under cultural, historical and geographic factors.
What would you say @DigitalExpat? I'd like to hear your opinion on this.
Regardless, thanks for the feedback, and this will be taken into factor in the continuing work of this article.
Cheers,
@Essexman03 10:23, Tuesday 17th January 2023 CE Essexman03 (talk) 10:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I forgot to say, you were entirely right on the ticketable 1-hop routes operated by the same carrier. I also added a column which says wether direct (AUS-GBR non-stop) flights are available. Essexman03 (talk) 10:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Essexman03! I went researching many more sources to find common usage/definition of "Kangaroo Route" - Qantas uses it interchangably over the years in an understandably flexible way for marketing purposes (all options "A","B","C") to my earlier question Q3. While the "QEA 15th Annual Report of 1948" seems to be the key Qantas source/origin for use of the term but I haven't found an online copy. This detailed book gives a pretty good insight though (flip through where the word Kangaroo is found), I think the intent was always "C" (Any Australia origin to any UK destination) but viability/commerciality at the genesis of the route always dictated it would be only Sydney-London, any other route at that time would be economically nonviable.
I can't find any supporting evidence or citations to support use of the term to support New Zealand or Republic of Ireland flights being included by Qantas or other operators. I (respectfully) think they should both be removed from the table (both are great countries with storied aviation history, but that could/should be in another article not one on The Kangaroo Route
(Also I realise it's only the two of us in this thread as of now, so hopefully more contributors can add their opinions, but those are mine for now/didn't want to stall the conversation) Cheers Essexman03 DigitalExpat (talk) 06:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks @DigitalExpat for this reminder from 15+ years ago and providing some structure for this discussion. Also I'll preface my comments by acknowledging the effort put in by @Essexman03 to improve the article. I do basically stand by my historical comments and reasoning which does mean I still don't think the inclusion of the table is appropriate in the article, but I've found it interesting to reflect on it after this significant amount of time and interestingly there's a significantly greater amount of material accessible online now than there was at that time.
Looking at the sources available and the older discussions, there's two things that really strike me now that I think we underweighted back then. Firstly, I don't think we gave the appropriate weight to just how indelibly connected the term is to Qantas. It's not just the trademark. It's easier to see now how much it was a key part of their mid-century advertising/marketing/identity, but also it being used in a variety of sources in a similar way. In some contexts some sources most certainly talk about competition on the route but it almost always centres on the Qantas operation and how it relates to it.
The second aspect I now think we didn't give enough weight to in previous discussions is the history, with the term going in and out of vogue. It's easier to see now its heydey was prior to the jet era when there were lots of stops. [26] is an illustration but it's something that comes across the more you actually read the available sources. It seems to become a more nostalgic term with a revival from around the 80s/90s onwards... but then also there's the structural shift in aviation since that time - access to international air rights become much more liberalised and many government owned airlines (including Qantas of course) went back to being privatised, and competition exploded, which the sources follow. This is where multiple schools of thought seem to exist on Wikipedia, but if we go to the sources, the overwhelming majority of them still talk about service between Australia and the UK, and there's almost always a connection or reference to Qantas, even if it also mentions another airline. I don't think I've seen sources to justify including the Republic of Ireland or New Zealand in here.
To bring this back to the questions posed here:
Q1: I partially agree - for me now it's clearer that the term is well linked to Qantas, but the article would not be complete without talking about the competition they face on the services. I think I've said it previously but I think we get too hung up on "same plane" or "same flight number" discussions, as they have questionable relevance, especially when you go to the historical origins of the term. This might be defined as a sixth freedom question (I think, I do get the Freedoms of the air confused) which essentially defines where a carrier from a third country can sell Australia-UK tickets on individual flights operating to their territory but in contemporary times this can get a bit moot with services able to package all kinds of things together (and its likely a lack of these rights that points to a historical lack of competition), but again, relevance is questionable. At the same time though, it doesn't make sense to list every single airline that flies to both Australia and the UK. I'm labouring this point a bit, but what I'm trying to get at is that it appears trying to list every other possibility is actually placing undue weight on the competition. I get that this gets a bit tricky with how we differently interpret WP:NPOV but we are dealing with the article that's about an airline's marketing term, a trademark and has extensive weight of sources tying it to a particular airline. I don't believe we can actually find numerous reliable sources that tie some of the airlines listed with the term, and I would argue that indicates they don't belong in this article, certainly not as an exhaustive list.
Q2: Agree, this is now a clear no. There's just too many sources that define it as services between Australia and the UK.
Q3: As you note, it has had different definitions at different times. It appears to have started life as Brisbane to London (often listed specifically as Croydon), but Sydney quickly became the terminus, then there's a long period where almost every source says Sydney to London. It serves to remember that historically flights started in Sydney and then stopped in other Australian ports as they headed for London, so Sydney to London in historical sources didn't necessarily exclude those ports. It is comparatively rare however to find references to any other ports in the UK other than London (I've seen Croydon, London and Heathrow, but these all can be reasonably called London), or the reference just talks about the UK.
I won't further rehash all the arguments I've previously given against these lists in this article, but still very much feel WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTGUIDE apply here. It's a nice list. I see and can appreciate the effort that went into it. I just don't think it should be here. Rob.au (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rob.au!, (sorry about the blast from the past here with the tagging :) ) Wow, I think your response is eloquent and is a resoundingly well worded objective response. In particular your very good points about undue weight and NPOV being a quite valid concern here. I think I need to amend my response to Q1 as your points have altered them (edit: done and edited my previous edit) - If I may attempt to summarise my new mindset: "The Kangaroo Route" is not synonymous with "The history of Australia-UK air traffic", both may be encyclopedic in of themselves, but should not be mistaken for one another. The undue weight on the article from having such a (again,very detailed) table is not in the article's best interest in remaining NPOV/presenting the topic at hand. I would suggest we carve out Qantas (and potentially worth continuing to mention BA, in a lesser/subpoint, as also an ongoing operator/descendant from the originating Imperial Airways/BOAC/Qantas route?). The rest of the table is of value, but now I am debating between if it should be: reduced in presence to 4 columns (origin/operator/via/destination); made more topical by making the primary key Australian city of origin potentially?); and placed under a different subheading of "Alternative current operators on the Australia-UK connectivity with a couple sentences demarking the difference on why these aren't THE Kangaroo route (yet the modern evolution/competitor to the Kangaroo route following Deregulation of 1989 and advancement in flight technology? Equally, I could also see that entire proposal lifted and shifted to a subheading in the Aviation in Australia article along with more information about the impact of (or perhaps a more appropriate article?) But I agree, it's detrimental to the topic of "The Kangaroo Route" to have it constructed the way it is. Sorry for turning this thread into a 3 party conversation, hopefully more esteemed contributors can weigh in soon, but I didn't want to delay my response to you any longer. Thanks Rob.au DigitalExpat (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the self reply - needed to correct myself, I suggested keeping British Airways in the article, this is incorrect and shouldn't be included. While the first Direct flights (plus the odd train ride) between Sydney and London was launched in 1935, it was a predecessor of what would become the Kangaroo Route in 1947. Rob.au is right, it is Qantas' creation, even the BOAC print ads prior to 1947 do not mention the Kangaroo Route. I think the current Paragraph under "History" on the page should be under a Subheading of "Predecessors to The Kangaroo Route (1935-1947)" or similar and "Multiple Stops" should be retitled as well, also would allow the article to become richer by paint more of the history of the Kangaroo Route and its evolution over the years. DigitalExpat (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All, continuing this important topic, I did (WP:BEBOLD) a significant edit to the article by adding a new section with cited examples of the evolution of the route over time, helping to combat the WP:NPOV and WP:Undue that have occurred (via good faith contributions!). Added this section to balance the article and also allowed for a cleaner cleaving of the article to delineate Qantas' ownership of the "Kangaroo Route"™ trademark term, but acknowledging and highlighting its other continued use (even by Qantas themselves) to refer to other operators. Also suggested some other revisions as well. Would appreciate the sharp eyes of other editors to help refine the table if you see anything wrong in it (n.b. - it can get confusing counting "stops" versus "hops"! (eg 1947 first Qantas flight had 6 stops which equals 7 hops!) Also not helpful that even Qantas contradicts itself on multiple items (thus the reinforced citation on items). Cheers to all to hopefully continuing to evolve and improve the article. (Two thoughts for future discussion: 1 - Should we make (both?) Tables Collapsed by default for ease of reading? 2 - I'd like to suggest we trim some of the columns off the other operators table (eg: direct flights available, frequency (x2) ) for easier upkeep / more credibility?) DigitalExpat (talk) 10:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just applied a change to the competing routes section, retitling for clarity as well as the containing text prefacing a more condensed and more relevant fully referenced table. The previous table that was made through great effort of Essexman03 was already falling into disrepair/out of accuracy, I have simplified the less valuable & more volatile information as well as pivoted it to be route centric and not carrier centric. Would be interested in people's thoughts on this and if it strikes a more even balance for WP:NPOV and WP:Undue while making it a more valuable article overall? Cheers to all fellow editors! DigitalExpat (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undefined ref[edit]

@Kai2004: please fill in a source for the ref you named "JL". -- Fyrael (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kangaroo_Route&oldid=1215465181"