"As Qantas executives plan their next strategy to keep Singapore Airlines off the Sydney-Los Angeles route, a far more potent threat slipped into Sydney yesterday. Air New Zealand's first 313-seat 777-200ER commenced operations flying the Tasman before being deployed on Auckland-San Francisco services later this month...This single 777 potentially represents a far greater threat to Qantas than Singapore Airlines and Emirates operating on the Sydney-Los Angles route."
"For the past 10 years Qantas, with its vastly superior in-flight product, has feasted on Air New Zealand's lunch but the Kiwi airlines is about to swoop on Qantas's five-course dinner."
"With the longer-range variants of the aircraft it has ordered, there is nothing stopping Air New Zealand returning to the Australian-US non-stop market, launching daily non-stop services such as Perth-Los Angeles, Brisbane-Seattle and Adelaide-San Francisco. "Air New Zealand could become a major player on the Pacific," said one Sydney-based analyst."
Any thoughts on successful this new product will be for NZ? It looks to me like NZ has made a big change in their business plan for the better over that past year.
Also, not to open up old wounds, does anyone forsee starting SYD-LAX again?
"While all the glamour surrounds the 777 and 747 refit, the remaining five 767-300ERS will come in for a small makeover with fresh fabrics, and Fyfe says the airline is looking at portable DVD players for economy passengers.
I hadn't heard about this plan before. Any developments?
Aviation Photographers & Enthusiasts--Coordinate your life.
ETA Unknown From Comoros, joined Jun 2001, 2144 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 8 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5093 times:
Aw jeez- it must have been a slow news day!
Personally, I'd choose NZ over QF any day, but neither are that great.
PER-LAX, BNE-SEA, ADL-SFO??? How about DRW-ANC while we're thinking of other great routes that can't make money. A SYD-LAX return is more likely and I don't think it's even being considered.
N725RW From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 71 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 8 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5055 times:
I'm schedule to fly QF (with there generous 31" seat pitch in economy) only because I'm AA Plat. If I was not, I would be on Air NZ any day, with VOD and VERY generous 34" seat pitch (actually, I like the Premium Econ Seat offering). QF, get your head out of your rear, get on the band wagon and start offering better products!
Aerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (9 years 8 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4975 times:
This appears to be an article written by someone who knows very little about aviation.
Comparing the beefed up competitiveness of NZ on the route to that of a potential presence of EK and SQ and arguing the NZ threat is greater is ridiculous. While I beleive the NZ product is broadly superior to that offered by QF (seat pitch is very important to me, and the crews are generally nicer), an EK/SQ presence on the Aus-US routes would be the first major competition for QF since NZ pulled out.
The other routes mentioned are HIGHLY unlikley, though a Perth-LAX flight nonstop is interesting. With a 772LR maybe?
Zeekiel From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 8 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4913 times:
I don't know about threat but it's definately some food for thought.
NZ's 34" seat pitch makes a great difference on a long haul and having a Premium Economy option is a real belter.
Having a flat bed in Business really helps. Those angled beds on QF, SQ and the like is nice but not as comfortable as a flattie.
Quoting Aerokiwi (Reply 4): This appears to be an article written by someone who knows very little about aviation.
The routes suggested seems to be beyond me. They are doable but profitable? I'm not sure.
I'm quite surprised at the amount of through traffic that NZ gets from Australia to the United States. As I have mentioned before, I know people that have said on the NZ124 flight from MEL-AKL is mainly filled with Australians and Americans.
This is true since they have been only with a few other people through to immigration. The rest have transferred off on to the NZ services up to LAX and SFO.
HZ747300 From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2004, 1854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (9 years 8 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4862 times:
This must be why QF has started running commercials here with a bloated blowhard in a cab telling the other person he's with, "I fly Qantas because I am a true Aussie and I have pride in my national airline, ..." blah, blah, blah.
Any time you do not differentiate yourself on product offerings and your only appeal is patriotism you lose me . If QF wants more customers offer a better product--make it so people will want to fly you. Already this week, they are complaining about Emirates' presence here. This is after Singapore was denied rightd to fly AUS to USA, and Mr. Dixon said that he would no longer pursue a merger with Singapore to form a mega-Pacific carrier.
Aerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7619 posts, RR: 16
Reply 9, posted (9 years 8 months 2 days ago) and read 4743 times:
Our new product is very good, better than the QF offering but it is not a threat to QF. QF is a very big profitable airline, part of a very major rival alliance and which has a large local customer base. It won't make too much difference to QF at all I don't think, although it might pull a few back away from EK,SQ,CX & co because the NZ points are more redeemable.
SunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5546 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (9 years 8 months 2 days ago) and read 4723 times:
Quoting Zeekiel (Reply 5): The rest have transferred off on to the NZ services up to LAX and SFO.
I agree, I flew AKL-SFO a few months ago and the departure lounge really filled up as the MEL and BNE flights disembarked.
My guess is that these two connecting flights contributed abour 40% of the load that evening.
Vincewy From Taiwan, joined Oct 2005, 767 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (9 years 8 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4682 times:
Didn't check NZ's time table, but are there connecting flights from AKL to ADL, PER, or CBR timed with LAX flights? Those cities will have to connect through MEL, BNE, and SYD anyway if one's to fly with QF.
SunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5546 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (9 years 8 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4675 times:
Quoting Aerokiwi (Reply 4): though a Perth-LAX flight nonstop is interesting. With a 772LR maybe?
It would have to be a -200LR. The load/range charts suggest that a full passenger load plus some freight could be carried westbound. Eastbound the payload would be 15000 # +- better.
PER-BNE-LAX might be of interest; the -200ER could do this westbound with a full passenger load and some freight. BNE is pretty close to the great circle route from PER-LAX. In fact Cairns is right on it. Any market for PER-CNS and CNS-SFO?
JoFMO From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (9 years 8 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4657 times:
NZ has good connection from Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide via AKL to the USA.
The Adelaide flight starts next spring 3 times a week; the Perth flight isn't well timed to NZ's USA flights.
Transfering for Australians in AKL is much more comfortable than the move between the terminals in SYD.
That is the real competive edge NZ has over QF from my point of view.
Qantasclub From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 757 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (9 years 8 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4654 times:
Quoting Planemanofnz (Reply 8): Everybody knows that the NZ product is a threat to QF, thats old news.
Hardly. "Threat"? As many have already pointed out, NZ is a boutique peripheral carrier with a very small market share. Their LONG OVERDUE product enhancements are simply temporary before QF unveils it's revolutionary A380s with space that no other aircraft can match and sends them across the pacific. Even so, the new product is no where near enough to lure business travellers to spend an extra 3 hours to go via Auckland and even IF NZ recommences their SYD-LAX flights, they will no be able to offer the frequencies required by business travellers to sustain the route.
For all the above reasons, I can't see NZ ever being a 'threat' to Qantas.
NZAA From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 163 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 years 8 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4604 times:
Quoting Qantasclub (Reply 14): QF unveils it's revolutionary A380s with space that no other aircraft can match and sends them across the pacific.
To be honest the QF inflight product is shocking. I would rather take a redone 744 to Aus than wait for a brand new A380
Quoting Qantasclub (Reply 14): that no other aircraft can match and sends them across the pacific
Isn't EK sending some of their A380 across the ditch.
Quoting HZ747300 (Reply 6): This must be why QF has started running commercials here with a bloated blowhard in a cab telling the other person he's with, "I fly Qantas because I am a true Aussie and I have pride in my national airline, ..." blah, blah, blah.
Ladies and Gentlemen this shows the sort of tactics that they have to deploy to make people fly their airline.
Kiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8743 posts, RR: 13
Reply 16, posted (9 years 8 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4463 times:
Personally I think NZ would be insane to re-enter the SYD-North America direct market - QF have the frequencies to wipe the floor with them - SYD is QF's home turf ( just ask anyone from MEL/BNE/ADL or PER ) and they will protect it to the death . In any event QF cannot keep SQ /EK/CX off the route forever - the Aussie Government will eventually decide to listen to the public rather than to the QF board - and when that happens the SYD-LAX route will probably turn into a bloodbath - one spectacular enough to take down a small carrier like NZ .
What NZ should have done was gone for the MEL-North America and BNE-North America markets when QF was still neglecting them badly - unfortunately they have left it a bit late as QF have finally started to take these markets more seriously - they could try MEL/BNE-SFO to take advantage of the Star Alliance connections ex SFO ( and the fact that SFO is much nicer to pass through than the septic tank commonly referred to as LAX ) but the trouble is that the market is going to be a lot smaller than into/out of LAX - possibly even the 777 will be too big - might need to wait for the 787 to make it a reasonable proposition.
As much as I love NZ , the truth is they are a small niche carrier , they tried to turn themselves into a major player with their ill-conceived and ill-fated takeover of AN and without a bailout from the NZ taxpayer they would not be around today ( why , oh why , did they not buy Compass mark II about 12 years ago ? they could have picked it up for a fraction of the money that they 'invested' in AN - they would have been in a great position to grow that undercapitalised carrier , and take control of the low cost niche to such an extent that DJ would never really have had an opening and then when AN inevitably went under anyway they could have stepped up to the plate as number two and been seen as heroes in the Aussie market instead of villains )
Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
Nz777 From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 28 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (9 years 8 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4377 times:
Quoting Qantasclub (Reply 14): Hardly. "Threat"? As many have already pointed out, NZ is a boutique peripheral carrier with a very small market share. Their LONG OVERDUE product enhancements are simply temporary before QF unveils it's revolutionary A380s with space that no other aircraft can match and sends them across the pacific. Even so, the new product is no where near enough to lure business travellers to spend an extra 3 hours to go via Auckland and even IF NZ recommences their SYD-LAX flights, they will no be able to offer the frequencies required by business travellers to sustain the route.
For all the above reasons, I can't see NZ ever being a 'threat' to Qantas
Nice to see Qantasclub offering a one sided view (yet again), towards QF of course. I thought this topic would open up the QF/NZ bashing game.
As much as I believe NZ is a superior airline compared to QF (and yes I am an Aussie) by virtue of the product offered and much friendlier crew, I don't believe either are a suitable match for SQ or EK (if they were to be granted access across the pacific). I am of course referring to capital and funds available to both carriers.
It is about time that the Minister for QF boards the reality flight and approves access to the Pacific for SQ/EK and watch QF get it's act together, it's called competition (compare QF domestic offering now compared to when AN was around...).
I feel better now....
Air New Zealand, nothing else needed to be said...
TBCITDG From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 921 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (9 years 8 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2996 times:
As far as I am concerned, the NZ product is good, but not good enough.
The only people that are going to choose to fly NZ over QF because of seat pitch, are people like you and I that know about the matter at hand. The average 'Joe blow' would not have a clue which airline offers a greater seat pitch. And even so, with the new PTV's their will be that little odd box under some of the seats reducing comfort by a lot!
People will still look for price. And if push came to shove, QF will protect it's turf.
Let's face it the last thing that the NZ government will want is for Air New Zealand to get into a price war with QF. That and have NZ battle it out with EK SQ.
Unless NZ offer a great deal, pax willnot prefer to fly across the pond to get to the US! Why would they when they have direct options out of SYD,MEL,BNE? It would make no sense.
A threat? I don't think so. Although I am glad NZ finally improved their service!
Gasman From New Zealand, joined Mar 2004, 1280 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (9 years 8 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2960 times:
Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 16): As much as I love NZ , the truth is they are a small niche carrier , they tried to turn themselves into a major player with their ill-conceived and ill-fated takeover of AN
Which we must remember only occured because the Australian Government reneged on the "open skies' agreement between the two countries.