Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 33967 posts, RR: 85
Reply 2, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3968 times:
NZ does have an opportunity to launch some long-haul runs from AKL if they decide to add the 772LR to their 772ERs. Evidently they were considering some 772LRs a few years back before they ran into their financial hardships.
I would think AC will probably go direct to SYD from Canada now with their 772LRs, dropping the HNL stop, in addition to using two for YVR-HKG.
Aerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 3041 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3945 times:
While I think there would be a market there for NZ to fly to ORD and NYC from AKL nonstop, I doubt that either would warrant more than 3 services a week at most. That is, unless NZ flies there from Sydney, which could probably support a daily nonstop to NYC.
SunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 6082 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3719 times:
I have been pondering for some time the possibility that the last three of the eight -200ER's ordered might be changed to -200LR. Thus sometime in the second half of 2006 NZ would have the capability of commencing a SYD/AKL/JFK service. I will concede that the PVG service will start in that period and that NZ adopt a very deliberate pace when adding new routes. In a posting under the "AC re-confirms 777,787 order" Widebodyphotog provided in detail the improvements made to the -200LR and it's engines that , among other things , gave the -200LR a 3% better fuel burn per unit of payload over the -200ER beyond 2000nm. The payload/range chart included with that posting shows pretty graphically what the improvements translate into. In fact I wonder why NZ would want anymore -200ER's than what they have after they receive the third in late January. I do not know what their contractural obligations are to Rolls and whether they can back out of engines for the eight -200ER's on order directly or through ILC.
The alternative is that the next order could include some -200LR's. It was pretty much confirmed on this list that the recent order for an additional two 787's was to protect production slots and/or match 767-300ER retirements and that there is another order pending. Also the LR visited AKL during a recent whistle and stop tour. These sort of things don't happen on a whim. Mariner makes a valid point on the attractiveness on California as a destination. But I am thinking of what some of my Kiwi relies have done when they make their second trip to North America. They have come to the East Coast and picked up tours that inevitably include Niagara Falls and some days in NYC , Washington DC and Williamsburg Va to name but a few destinations. As I have said on this list in the past I would love to be able to fly to NYC or ORD and transfer onto an about one-hour flight to YYZ. The East Coast has to be a big market for fresh N.Z. berry fruits, fish and lamb and the payload that would be available east bound on the -200LR would be very attractive for this trade.
777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12949 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3677 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD MODERATOR
Quoting Anxebla (Reply 7): and what about nowadays? Did NZ stop that route? What kind of competition does QF have between and Australia and the US? What about UA?
Yes NZ stopped the route a year or two ago and at the same time UA dropped AKL. UA took over NZs depature from SYD-LAX and NZ expanded their AKL-LAX services. QFs only competition on the SYD-LAX route is UA, but SQ is wanting access to SYD-LAX and DJ is thinking of it. UA also flys SYD-MEL but as an add on
Aerohottie From Australia, joined Mar 2004, 862 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3183 times:
Quoting Mariner (Reply 8): Who would want to fly from NZ to the US and skip California?
It is one of the largest economies in the world, bigger than many countries, and it has more tourist destinations than any other single state in the US, except Florida.
It is the natural point of contact between NZ and the US.
There may be a few, a very few people whose business contacts are only in New York, and less for Chicago, but there can't be many, and why would they want to miss out on time in LA or SF?
I'm not saying to drop CA services to operate NYC and ORD services... I'm saying to operate these services as well as the current offering.
I also think there is more than enough traffic from both New Zealand and Australia to fill both flights on a daily basis... esp if the 777LR was configured in a comfy 250 seat layout (hint hint).
I would personall like NZ to operate many more North American services including AKL-LAX 2 daily, AKL-SFO daily, AKL-YVR daily, AKL-ORD daily and AKL-NYC daily... perhaps even a AKL-HNL-YYZ. How many aircraft would this require by the way??? 5 744's 4 777ER's and 5 777LR's and 1 788, does this sound about right???
And of course all of these flights continue onto tasman services to MEL, SYD, BNE, ADL and PER
I assume SQ will have not access to the non-stop Australia-US market. Some airlines are very ambitious. In Madrid It's rumoured that EK or Qatar Airways could try serving the Argentine market via MAD ...competing with IB and AR. But the Spanish Aviation Authority will say NOT for sure.
Quoting Mariner (Reply 19): especially since they have ceded all of South America entirely to foreign airlines.
I wonder why NZ is handing over the entire South American market to LA & AR
Aerohottie From Australia, joined Mar 2004, 862 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3085 times:
Quoting Mariner (Reply 19): The natural connection is California. Why fly in the face of what people actually want to do?
I'm not sure if I agree that California is the natural connection... it just happens to be so at this point in time because there is no alternative. Australians I'm sure would rather connect in Auckland rather than the hassle of LAX, and NZ traffic would have a direct flight, which I'm sure would be fondly looked upon rather than an int to don connection in LAX or SFO. There is quite alot of business traffic MEL/SYD-NYC/ORD, I would assume that perhaps 2/3 of the aircraft would aussie traffic