Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Air New Zealand Long Haul Fleet Requirement  
User currently offlineMotorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3038 posts, RR: 9
Posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4397 times:

Given that NZ faces slot restrictions at both LHR (daily AKL - LAX - LHR) and NRT (AKL - NRT) as well as having mostly full or full 747-400's on these routes, isn't it a viable proposition to look at the A380 (x3) for these routes in the future.

The other daily AKL - LAX currently served by a 747-400 could then be handled by A340-600's. These could replace the 747-400's on other routes adequately as well as increasing cargo revenue - a large growth area in the South Pacific.

The 767-300ER fleet would then best be replaced by an A330-200 one.

The short haul is currently being upgraded to the A320 family.

What are the other viable options, possibilities given the current analysis of 777 vs A340 family?


come visit the south pacific
9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineHamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2703 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 4359 times:

Motorhussy,

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. Sorry.

As to the A380, ANZ has publically stated they are not interested in it at this time, and will probably replace their 747 fleet with the current RFP for a long-haul 300-seater. The candidates are, of course, the 777 or A340. From what I understand, the 777 is favored. However, the 737NG's had the short-haul order in the bag until the 11th hour, so anything is possible.

I have also read that ANZ is delaying their look for a 767 replacement. This will probably mean that the eventualy battle will come down to A330/7E7.

Regards,

Hamlet69



Honor the warriors, not the war.
User currently offlineAerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2634 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 4311 times:

The A330-200 is hardly the most flexible of designs. The 767 series can currently carry between 200 and 240 pax for the airline, which is absolutely ideal for Trans Tasman, Sth Pacific and Asian routes. The only real problem is the cargo carrying abilities, from what I hear.

Also, the A330 is considerably heavier and not really suited for such short hops of 3 hours or so. Thus, Air NZ would have to underutilise the Airbus, which is hardly ideal from an efficiency viewpoint. If you're gonna pay extra for a plane that can fly longer haul, you should use it accordingly.

I see the 7E7 as more of a long-term possibility. The 767-300s aren't very old and are in no need of immediate replacement. Maybe in 5-7 years time? Which would put the 7E7 as a genuine option (if it is launched of course).

The problem with the Airbus option is that there will be no 400-450 seater in its range, with a considerable leap from 380 seats in the A340-600 to the 555 seats in the A380. Another point is that Air NZ has a lot of room to expand on frequencies. LAX is gradually moving to thrice daily (this is probably the only route where frequency is reaching its maximum), Tokyo is daily, London still only daily, Hong Kong seems to fluctuate a lot and Singapore is still with the SQ codeshare and three times per week (???) NZ flights.

Perhaps new routes could be opened, more point to point ones, instead of a complete focus on LAX and AKL. AKL-SFO comes to mind, as does perhaps a CHC-LAX service. I'm assuming the 744s can make these distances. Indeed it would be interesting if this is the approach NZ takes. If so, it will have a long-term impact on its fleet requirements.


User currently offlineTbear815 From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 704 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4245 times:

Indeed the 744 can do AKL/SFO. UA is using them on SFO/SYD. SFO might be a good alternate for NZ's U.S. traffic - with the new International terminal, connex with UA (Star Alliance) would be a breeze. UA is directly next to the International Building and SFO has always been one of UA's biggest hub. Particularly to the Pacific region.

User currently offlineMotorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3038 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4125 times:

Aerokiwi

Also, the A330 is considerably heavier and not really suited for such short hops of 3 hours or so. Thus, Air NZ would have to underutilise the Airbus, which is hardly ideal from an efficiency viewpoint. If you're gonna pay extra for a plane that can fly longer haul, you should use it accordingly.

What 3 hour legs are you referring to? NZ is awaiting the A320 family for all international routes of this nature except for a few where there's a south pacific stop and on to LAX.

As regards efficiency in legs under the 3 hour threshold, Qantas have been extolling the efficient virtue of their new A332's on their domestic routes of well below this flying time.



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlineAerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2634 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4079 times:

Actually Qantas has begun scheduling its A332 aircraft OFF domestic Australian routes, and they will be moved to Asian routes over the next 6 months. They just aren't the right aircraft for a 1 hour KSA-MEL hop.

The A332 just isn't designed for 3 hour flights. Yes it can fly them, but it's optimum is med-long range routes, such as NZ-Asia. The same could be said about the 767s, but Air NZ doesn't have to buy them, while switching to the A330 would involve huge capital outlays on new purchases.

The A320s are being bought to replace the international 737 and 767-200 routes. 767-300s are still scheduled on Trans Tasman and Pacific routes, and I know from a very senior fleet pilot/manager at Air NZ that the 767 is still ideal for its flexibility. The A330 is just too expensive to be purchased and then under-utilised, especially while the airline is trying to rebuild its finances.

The only way I can see NZ buying the A330 is if it also buys A321s, as a plug between the 146 A320 and 254 seat A330-200. Even then the A321s aren't able to offer 200 seats. And with the promises of considerable advances with the 7E7, if it is launched, along with the 4 designs (200 seat-short/med range, long range & 250 seat-short/med range, long range), the lack of flexibility in the A330 aircraft start to become glaringly obvious.


User currently offline9V-SVE From Singapore, joined Nov 2001, 2066 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4003 times:

If A330s are too heavy for 3 hour routes, how come SQ flies ALL of its regional routes with either 777s or 747s (both heavier than A330)? Cathay Pacific flies its regional routes mainly with a host of A330s/777s, while JAL employs a mix of 767s/777s/MD11s. EVA Air has 747s/767s for regional and Philippine Airlines' 8 A330s fly most routes in Asia.

And Qantas will keep all A332s on domestic runs - they are CitiFlyer aircraft and have the lowest MTOW Airbus offers on their A332s, thus having little range. The A333s are the ones that will go international.

[Edited 2003-08-29 09:55:13]

[Edited 2003-08-29 09:56:58]

User currently offlineAerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2634 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3968 times:

Try and keep it in the context of Air NZ.

Several airlines purchase aircraft, paying a premium for the extra abilities it has to offer, such as longer range. But then to fit the aircraft into their network, theu have to use them on routes not really designed for them. This is under-utilising the asset (aeroplane) and is hardly the ideal for any business operation.

Now consider Air NZ. They have a reasonably young fleet of 767s that aren't costing them much and are able to fly on every route bar AKL-LAX in the Pacific. The aircraft are efficient, have the right capacity for the airline on most routes and no further capital has to be spent on them, other than maintenance and the leases that some of them have.

With the A330, however, the airline would have to raise a large amount of capital to fund the purchase of a new aircraft with all the bells and whistles it doesn't really need. Plus the aircraft doesn't have a 200-220 seat version. Is it therefore really worth it? I doubt it. The 767-300s just don't need replacing all that soon.

QF's aircraft, particularly the -200s, despite having the lowest possible MTOW Airbus can offer on it, are still not suited to the domestic operation. The 767s remain the powerhorse of the QF fleet and are more suited to the Cityflyer routes, both in terms of capacity, range and flexibility. It has already been discussed on this forum, the A330's unsuitabilty to OZ short-hop domestic routes.

And of course QF aren't the only ones who under utilise (or under-perform) their assets. To an extent, so does Air NZ, but these assets also do not require considerable further capital (like a brand new purchase of the A330 will). It's nothing against the Airbus product. I just don't believe the A330 is very well suited to the Air NZ route network.



User currently offlineZK-NBT From New Zealand, joined Oct 2000, 5191 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3938 times:

If A330s are too heavy for 3 hour routes, how come SQ flies ALL of its regional routes with either 777s or 747s (both heavier than A330)?

Simple SQ has never really had much interest in narrow bodies CX is the same, maybe oneday they might but they are 2 of the world's most profitable airlines.

And Qantas will keep all A332s on domestic runs - they are CitiFlyer aircraft and have the lowest MTOW Airbus offers on their A332s, thus having little range. The A333s are the ones that will go international.

Incorrect 9V-SVE, once the A333's are delivered to Qantas starting mid 2004 all the 330's including the 200's will be moved to International routes, although the 332 is not that well suited to short haul the 332 will likely find itself on Trans Tasman and the 333 on Asian routes.

Back to the original topic I would think NZ need a 400 seater for LAX, LHR and NRT flights, I have heard that they are after a 300 seater for all the long haul services which brings me to think that the 777 would have to be the favourite the 300ER and the 200ER or LR. I wonder how many times they plan to fly AKL-LAX daily, it will be 19 744's weekly from October 27. Will they possibly consider upgrading the 744's for now and keeping them for another 5-7 years? I think in 10 years the A380 could be a possibility, for now though I think they will look to get additional slots at LHR and NRT. They may go for the A346 but to me it's not likely although we all thought that about the A320 so never say never.

I really have to think that the 763 doesn't need replacing yet, IMO the 767 is probably the most flexible aircraft out there at the moment.

So 777 for me.


User currently offlineMotorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3038 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3759 times:

ZK-NBT


Apparently NZ cannot get any more slots (currently) at LHR and I think it's the same for NRT. NZ have been trying for more slots at both, LHR particularly as they have the rights to fly daily (up to 744 craft) between HKG and LHR to utilies their 5th freedom rights there. The governing UK body is successfully resisting. 773 or A346 would be perfect!


Regards
MH



come visit the south pacific
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
New Air New Zealand Long Haul Experience Brochure posted Mon Sep 6 2004 00:15:08 by RupesNZ
Air New Zealand Innovates With Its Long Haul Fares posted Wed Jun 29 2005 14:45:23 by SunriseValley
Air New Zealand Voted Best Long Haul Airline posted Fri Sep 17 2004 12:58:46 by 777ER
CX's New Seats On The Entire Long Haul Fleet? posted Tue Oct 17 2006 14:11:37 by United Airline
TAP New Long-haul Fleet According To TAP News. posted Sat Nov 26 2005 10:58:39 by CV990
Air New Zealand Fleet Renewal posted Mon Nov 17 2003 11:39:52 by Lauda777
Air New Zealand Future Fleet Options posted Wed Oct 15 2003 10:12:58 by V2fix
Air NZ Long-haul Fleet Replacement posted Thu Sep 18 2003 04:43:54 by Brutie
Air New Zealand Fleet Announcement posted Thu Jul 4 2002 05:35:29 by United Airline
Air New Zealand - Fleet Upgrade posted Mon Jun 24 2002 03:09:29 by 767er