Tockeyhockey From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 932 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 years 12 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4984 times:
This is from a promotional email I got from NZ just today:
Air New Zealand announces the introduction of a new round-the-world service from North America. Beginning October 26, the airline will offer a routing from Los Angeles through Auckland and London Heathrow flying via Hong Kong, making it the only airline to offer service around the globe exclusively on its own planes. Traveling with Air New Zealand around the world provides travelers an important benefit – comfort in knowing they will receive consistent quality and friendly Kiwi service during each leg of their trip.
A few questions -- why would anyone take this flight?
And how does NZ have rights to fly from HKG to LHR?
And will they use the same equipment on all legs? I'm guessing this is a 777 flight.
Why not? There is a lot of demand between UK-NZ, and to Hong Kong from both AKL and LON Also people may also want to fly via HKG rather than LAX, releaving pressure on LAX flights
Laxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22024 posts, RR: 51 Reply 2, posted (6 years 12 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4943 times:
There have been several hundred post on the subject during the last few months.
Do a search and you'll come up on several threads on the subject.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
Tockeyhockey From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 932 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (6 years 12 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4913 times:
Quoting Laxintl (Reply 2): There have been several hundred post on the subject during the last few months.
Do a search and you'll come up on several threads on the subject.
Koruman From Australia, joined Feb 2006, 2979 posts, RR: 6 Reply 4, posted (6 years 12 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4681 times:
The LHR-HKG-AKL service exists for the purpose of getting LHR-NZ/Australia passengers off NZ 1/2 between LHR and LAX, where Air NZ can make more money from point to point passengers.
Having said that, Air NZ offers by far the best economy class service in the English speaking world, as well as a Business Class identical to Virgin Atlantic, which is itself the world's best.
So for any Star Alliance point-earner wanting to fly US-UK, US-New Zealand, US-Australia, UK-California, UK-New Zealand, UK to Hong Kong or UK to Australia, these flights are highly desirable.
After all, who would fly UA instead of NZ between LAX and LHR? You would have to be intellectually challenged?
NZ8800 From New Zealand, joined May 2006, 425 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4515 times:
There are still pretty deep ties between the UK and NZ - we watch Coronation Street out here... (!) and I recently read in the newspaper that we read more UK papers/magazines etc per capita than any other country, apart from of course the UK.
One of the key reasons to have Auckland - Hong Kong - London is to by-pass the USA, and give an alternative route from New Zealand to the United Kingdom.
After experiencing US customs and immigration AND the US having no transit facilities, AND US security screening+++, I see no need to go through the horrible experience again unless I am actually going to the USA; and am delighted to have the alternative - and still be able to fly NZ with their A+ flight service. That's a couple of reasons why 'anyone would take this flight'!
Quoting Koruman (Reply 4): Air NZ offers by far the best economy class service in the English speaking world, as well as a Business Class identical to Virgin Atlantic, which is itself the world's best.
Exactly.
Quoting B742 (Reply 1): There is a lot of demand between UK-NZ, and to Hong Kong from both AKL and LON Also people may also want to fly via HKG rather than LAX, releaving pressure on LAX flights
And that's another one. Enough demand for 2 Boeing 747-400s per day from AKL to LHR - and this from a country with only 4 million people, and literally as far from the United Kingdom as you could possibly get (19000km).
Air New Zealand has rights from Hong Kong to London because the Hong Kong and United Kingdom governments granted them those rights when they applied for them. Hong Kong granted those rights long ago, it took a bit longer for landing slots at London Heathrow to become available, and for NZ to demonstrate to the UK government that there was sufficient demand.
And also - instead of a 777 5x weekly, we now get 747 service daily to Hong Kong - with all the connections that entails available from there.
MDZWTA ~ Mobile Disaster Zone When Travelling Abroad
Antskip From Australia, joined Jan 2006, 883 posts, RR: 6 Reply 6, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4447 times:
Quoting Koruman (Reply 4): Air NZ offers by far the best economy class service in the English speaking world
That's an interesting one! I suppose you mean "owned by countries that mostly speak English as their first language" (like New Zealand, Australia and the USA)? A great deal of the world speaks English, along with native language(s), as do their airlines. English, of course, is not native to New Zealand, but is spoken by most people there, since it was occupied by the British...Some airlines offer many languages on board, whatever their principal language at home base, and recruit crew with the most familiar languages of their expected clientele in mind - makes everyone feel very welcome.
Motorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 2749 posts, RR: 10 Reply 7, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4445 times:
TOCKEYHOCKEY Dude
Pardon the seamingly arrogant assertions of my fellow NZ fans, but there is good reason for it. NZ will offer a better quality of service to all STARalliance customers on the HKG-LHR and AKL-HKG as well as a fantastic choice to all customers looking for a round-the-world option (regardless of alliance partner).
Please, do take the opportunity if it's on offer on a route that fits your agenda.
I thought you were having a dig at EK, there! (smile)
Quoting Koruman (Reply 8): At a 34 inch pitch, Air NZ's 747-400s offer the best Economy Class of any airline on earth.
sounds good! Tried their new B777-2ER, and it was very comfortable and roomy in cattle. The B747 sounds very nice!
Well done, NZ! A brilliant achievement. I hope NZ can use it for all its worth in self-promotion. Even EK can't boast this one...Now all we need is an order for the new B747-8. Along with its early recognition of the worth of the B787, and then its conversion recently of its B787-8 order to the first batch of the -9 version, and NZ is starting to have quite an innovative tinge to it... Hopefully the new paint scheme will reinforce the trend.
Koruman From Australia, joined Feb 2006, 2979 posts, RR: 6 Reply 10, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4243 times:
I'm still undecided about the 747-8 for Air NZ. It's the best option for the LAX-LHR run, but when Ansett went under it took with it the old Pacific Star option, which would still work - I've adapted the 2001 Pacific Star model below...
If I were Air NZ I would compete with QF all across the Pacific as follows, with all LAX arrivals coordinated to maximise connections:
The reduction in AKL-LAX capacity would be more than compensated by the fact that all major Australian cities had direct flights to LAX and SFO.
The smaller 787-9s arriving at LAX from BNE and MEL would then pick up traffic arriving there from other cities on bigger NZ aircraft and fly on to ORD, JFK and YYZ, while bigger 777s would fly on to LHR, FRA and MAN.
This model does away with any need for aircraft larger than 777s, but provides 1 stop connections from all across Australia to all major North American cities.
The lack of Australian feed post-Ansett killed the Pacific Star model. But smaller aircraft with coordinated schedules would allow it once more.
Tockeyhockey From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 932 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4210 times:
Pardon the seamingly arrogant assertions of my fellow NZ fans, but there is good reason for it. NZ will offer a better quality of service to all STARalliance customers on the HKG-LHR and AKL-HKG as well as a fantastic choice to all customers looking for a round-the-world option (regardless of alliance partner).
Please, do take the opportunity if it's on offer on a route that fits your agenda.
Regards
MH
how much time does it add to fly from AUK to LHR via HKG rather than LHR via LAX? or are the trips about the same? in my mind, the trip across asia covers something like 15 time zones, so it has to be longer, right?
NZ8800 From New Zealand, joined May 2006, 425 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4179 times:
According to the Star Alliance PC Travel Desk...
Auckland - Hong Kong 5704 miles or 9126 km - eleven hours sixteen minutes
Hong Kong - London 5990 miles or 9584 km - thirteen hours fifteen minutes
Time on ground in Hong Kong - two hours.
Total trip time is 26 hours 31 minutes, 18710km.
Auckland - Los Angeles 6523 miles or 10436 km - eleven hours fifty five minutes.
Los Angeles - London 5448 miles or 8716 km - ten hours thirty five minutes.
Time on ground in Los Angeles - two hours and five minutes.
Total trip time is 22 hours 30 minutes, 19152km.
Trip via Hong Kong takes longer as you are going against the wind, but as you can see, it is marginally shorter. Going back via LAX takes longer than via Hong Kong, for the same reason. In the end, yes they are about the same.
MDZWTA ~ Mobile Disaster Zone When Travelling Abroad
MotorHussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 2749 posts, RR: 10 Reply 13, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3978 times:
Quoting NZ8800 (Reply 12): Auckland - Hong Kong 5704 miles or 9126 km - eleven hours sixteen minutes
Hong Kong - London 5990 miles or 9584 km - thirteen hours fifteen minutes
Time on ground in Hong Kong - two hours.
Total trip time is 26 hours 31 minutes, 18710km.
Auckland - Los Angeles 6523 miles or 10436 km - eleven hours fifty five minutes.
Los Angeles - London 5448 miles or 8716 km - ten hours thirty five minutes.
Time on ground in Los Angeles - two hours and five minutes.
Total trip time is 22 hours 30 minutes, 19152km.
Someone needs to revisit their elementary school arithmetic.
AKL-LAX = 11hrs 55mins
HKG transit = 2hrs 5 mins
LAX-LHR = 10hrs 35 mins
TOTAL = 24 HRS 35 MINS
As a separate note, the shortest route to LHR from AKL of 18,354kms is over Siberia as per Great Circle image below. The shortest feasible route would be via NRT (18,421kms) or ICN (18,513kms).
Tockeyhockey From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 932 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (6 years 12 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3808 times:
so this around the world service is really just a halfway around the world service.
NZ8800 From New Zealand, joined May 2006, 425 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (6 years 12 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3784 times:
Well for the first time, you can still fly totally around the world on Air New Zealand...
NZ39 to London Heathrow via Hong Kong, and NZ2 from London Heathrow to Los Angeles and on to Auckland. And of course the other way on NZ38 and NZ1
And for the aviation enthusiasts of a country of only four million people and/or the Air New Zealand Cheerleading Squad, it's a big freaking deal.
MDZWTA ~ Mobile Disaster Zone When Travelling Abroad
ZKSUJ From New Zealand, joined May 2004, 6934 posts, RR: 10 Reply 18, posted (6 years 12 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3594 times:
Quoting B742 (Reply 17): For example Thai Airways offers 36 inches on legroom on their A340-500's, inflight games, AVOD!
Yea, but isnt that because all the A345 flights are so long? Like SQs Premium economy on all their A345? Remember the NZ flights are not in excess of 13 hours where as the TG flights are significantly longer than that
I guess you could argue the same with NZ as the 34" is only on the 744
UpperDeck79 From Finland, joined Feb 2005, 1139 posts, RR: 2 Reply 20, posted (6 years 12 months 22 hours ago) and read 3433 times:
Quoting B742 (Reply 17): Actualy SQ does...SIN-FRA-NYC-SIN, but you have to change airports at NYC (JFK-EWR), but its still an around the world service
That routing does not cross the equator twice which is required for an around the world trip.
(If you wouldn't have to worry about the southern hemisphere and crossing the equator you could do around the world just by walking 10 m in a circle on the ice on north pole -- and we don't want that to qualify, do we? )
Onedude From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 214 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (6 years 12 months 21 hours ago) and read 3388 times:
Well, I am pretty excited by this and also the fares on offer. NZ have released some excellent fares ex Australia for the RTW service. My other half and I have just booked MEL/AKL/HKG/LHR/LAX/AKL/MEL for travel to London next March/April, as it is cheaper than World Traveller Plus on BA, and also VS Premium Economy.
BTW - BA is downgrading to a 777 on SYD/SIN/LHR/SIN/SYD from early '07, reaffirming my NZ plans. Who wants to fly a 777 for 24 hours, even with a tech stop?
EK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 3898 posts, RR: 4 Reply 24, posted (6 years 12 months 19 hours ago) and read 3338 times:
Koruman Reply 10, posted Wed May 24 2006 14:17:52 UTC+2 and read 901 times:
I'm still undecided about the 747-8 for Air NZ. It's the best option for the LAX-LHR run, but when Ansett went under it took with it the old Pacific Star option, which would still work - I've adapted the 2001 Pacific Star model below...
If I were Air NZ I would compete with QF all across the Pacific as follows, with all LAX arrivals coordinated to maximise connections:
The reduction in AKL-LAX capacity would be more than compensated by the fact that all major Australian cities had direct flights to LAX and SFO.
The smaller 787-9s arriving at LAX from BNE and MEL would then pick up traffic arriving there from other cities on bigger NZ aircraft and fly on to ORD, JFK and YYZ, while bigger 777s would fly on to LHR, FRA and MAN.
This model does away with any need for aircraft larger than 777s, but provides 1 stop connections from all across Australia to all major North American cities.
The lack of Australian feed post-Ansett killed the Pacific Star model. But smaller aircraft with coordinated schedules would allow it once more.
Why would you want to compete with a carrier (Qantas) which has great interest in codesharing, merging & protecting one anothers own turf which is being invaded by lucrative government funded carrier's (My nickname hint hint )
My Twocents
EK413
Hello Tomorrow... Where will tomorrow take you?
25 Koruman: The only reason QF wants to codeshare with NZ on the Tasman is because they are terrified of competing with NZ's product and pricing on Australia-USA
26 SunriseValley: Are you suggesting that this lockout of NZ on Aus-US routes is part of the code sharing agreement?
27 Sam1987: My my, I hadn't heard that. BA is significantly reducing capacity on its kangaroo route; especially following dropping the MEL route. Is the LHR to S
28 Pieinthesky: I'm sorry, but if I travelled from Singapore to New York on the A345, then I travelled from New York through Frankfurt back to Singapore then as far
29 StarGoldLHR: Are you having a laugh ? Air NZ is the Ryanair of long haul. If I want plastic seats i'll ride on a ferry thank you.
30 StarGoldLHR: He said "English Speaking world" he didnt mention anything about occupying any country or native languages. He didnt say English was in anyway superi
31 StarGoldLHR: Oh Dear. Looking at it that way it's a 1/2 way round the world service, delivered in 2 quarters. The big deal is... you can go round the world on 1 a
32 Airbazar: Not true. SQ has been doing this since the introduction of the SIN-EWR flight.
33 ClassicLover: Yes. Bookings for April/May 2007 are 744 on this leg, while the ones via SIN are 777.
34 SunriseValley: This remark leaves enquiring minds gasping for more detail! How about it? Wow!
35 Zkpilot: Read above.... You have to transfer to the other side of the city in NY ie 2 completely different airports. Also SQ's flights don't cross the equator
36 Tockeyhockey: ahhhh -- i see. i'm a little slow. i wasn't connecting the fact that you could switch flights at LHR and keep on trucking westbound.
37 MotorHussy: SunriseValley, I have no idea what the motivation for this comment was or how indeed it was meant. The long-haul product on NZ is ne plus ultra. The
38 Airbazar: Excuse me? SIN-EWR-SIN is a round the World flight. SIN-EWR is eastbound, and EWR-SIN is also eastbound. Whether is crosses the equator or not is irr
39 MotorHussy: Ummm, no it's not. The flight goes back and forth on a variation of the same path. And as you can see, this is not a circumnavigation of the world. S
40 Zkpilot: yeah def not round the world.... more like half the world
41 OzarkD9S: Is everyone done pissing now? What I want to know is if NZ is going to sell LAX-LHR-HKG segments? And how discounted will it need to be to sell?
42 MotorHussy: Well I know they've got the rights to fly passengers separately on the LAX-LHR return and HKG-LHR return legs so why not. Fortunately, NZ has created
43 UpperDeck79: Thank you for explaining the details to those who didn't want to understand them at first!
44 Airbazar: I fully understand what you're saying but many times in the past airlines advertised around the world flights without crossing the equator like UA's
45 UpperDeck79: So you are saying that when someone advertises something it becomes reality?
46 StarGoldLHR: Maybe I've been spoilt flying Singapore Airlines too much. From my experience, it was a close run thing to switching flights to UA from LAX to LHR. No
47 Zkpilot: I'd still like to know when you flew.... NZ doesn't serve burgers for starters... SQ's CEO has said that NZ has a better longhaul product than they t
48 Airbazar: Well, apparently yes Do a search for the topic on this forum and you'll see that many good people here agree that UA's route was a round the world fl
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 932 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Mar 2005, 3760 posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2006, 2979 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined May 2006, 425 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 4522 posts, 
From Finland, joined Feb 2005, 1139 posts, 
)
)
Printer friendly format 
