Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Air New Zealand And The 747's Future.  
User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Posted (7 years 9 months 5 days ago) and read 12696 times:

What does the future hold for the 747 with Air New Zealand? I know that they ordered 777s, but is there any chance for a 747-8I order?


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
76 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTG992 From New Zealand, joined Jan 2001, 2910 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 12612 times:

People seem to think there is but word right from the CEO's mouth is NO. Air NZ has options on 40 odd 777's and 787's and I personally feel there will be an announcement of a 773's order to be delivered around 2014 sometime in the next 12 months. We might also see an order for more 787's soon as well.

But as for the 748's NZ will NOT get them.



-
User currently offlineNZAA From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 163 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 12598 times:

I have a feeling that NZ will keep the four that they own,
BTW in the recent Aviation News (a NZ publication), Robby said something about getting 777-300ERs.

So I doubt there will be a 747-8 order



Planes Piloted Tecnam P2002 JF, Cessna 172R, Cessna 152, Airbus A320
User currently offlineDarenw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 12567 times:

Quoting TG992 (Reply 1):
I personally feel there will be an announcement of a 773's order to be delivered around 2014 sometime in the next 12 months.

2014? I thought they would be taking delivery before then.


User currently offlinePlanemanofnz From New Zealand, joined Sep 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 12528 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

77W's will be good. Only downside is the loss of the 34" seat pitch. Between now and 2010 I see them starting a route to either South Africa or South America. Also, I see them on 1 of the LHR flights and also maybe half of the SFO flights.

User currently offlineTG992 From New Zealand, joined Jan 2001, 2910 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 12504 times:

NZ are monitoring 21 possible destinations now. South Africa is one I beleive. Part of the deal to fly into PVG was to have rights to fly from PVG to one European city. I think NZ will use this soon.

"Ground TG992"

[Edited 2006-12-19 06:00:26]


-
User currently offlineTG992 From New Zealand, joined Jan 2001, 2910 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 12410 times:

If I had only waited.


-
User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 12366 times:

Quoting TG992 (Reply 1):
I personally feel there will be an announcement of a 773's order to be delivered around 2014

How do you expect they will cover off the -400's that the leases run out on around 2010?


User currently offlineCchan From New Zealand, joined May 2003, 1761 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 12332 times:

I am waiting for the day they announce the purchase of 777-300ERs. Any idea when?

User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 12283 times:

Quoting Cchan (Reply 8):
I am waiting for the day they announce the purchase of 777-300ERs. Any idea when?

I expect it will be when they need to firm up the delivery slots that they already have. Probably 24 to 30 months before hand.


User currently offlineZKNBX From New Zealand, joined Jul 2006, 464 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 12107 times:

The game is changing all the time... LH have now launched the 748i and NZ have ordered 4 more 787-9; Despite their aforementioned options, perhaps they are waiting to see what happens with the 787-10 and the A350-1000 before any final decision on the 77W.

User currently offlineZKSUJ From New Zealand, joined May 2004, 7106 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 12067 times:

I know they won't but still hopeful to see any 747 in NZ's fleet.

User currently offlineKoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 12027 times:

One of the best things about the inspired decision to buy the 777-200ER when they did was that they could re-fleet at amazingly good prices.

We all know that the 777-300ER is the best long-haul high capacity option and that the 747-8 is too big. We also know that the 747-400s are so expensive fuel-wise that if they could be palmed off tomorrow on Virgin Atlantic (which they could be) and replaced with 777-300ERs (which they can't be) they would.

But the sort of brilliant decision-making which led to the 777 being bought even though the airline had just acquired A320s could actually work here.

Airbus has just had Emirates cancel its A340-600s, which have similar size and slightly less efficiency than the 777-300ER. Airbus subsidises new buyers for lost fuel efficiency versus the 777: wouldn't it be inspired an inspired piece of business if Air NZ replaced its 747-400s very soon with those aircraft at a knock-down price, then traded them in to Boeing after just a few years for the 787-10!

Sure, the 777-300ER is better than the A340-600. But it is much more expensive, and delivery slots are difficult to obtain. And the A340-600 is still a much, much more efficient aircraft than the 747-400 which is what it would actually replace.

Now I must get back to reality....


User currently offlineCchan From New Zealand, joined May 2003, 1761 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 11841 times:

Quoting Koruman (Reply 12):
Airbus has just had Emirates cancel its A340-600s, which have similar size and slightly less efficiency than the 777-300ER. Airbus subsidises new buyers for lost fuel efficiency versus the 777: wouldn't it be inspired an inspired piece of business if Air NZ replaced its 747-400s very soon with those aircraft at a knock-down price, then traded them in to Boeing after just a few years for the 787-10!

Sure, the 777-300ER is better than the A340-600. But it is much more expensive, and delivery slots are difficult to obtain. And the A340-600 is still a much, much more efficient aircraft than the 747-400 which is what it would actually replace.

Introducing a new type for just a few years could be more expensive than keeping the 744s though. There is an extra maintainance and training cost for a start...then the problem of selling them off (possibly a problem with the 748 too).


User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8374 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 11816 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Air New Zealand has such a great deal for 787 & 777 with Boeing, Airbus would have to give away the planes for ANZ to but them. 773ER are the future for ANZ, two engines is the way they are headed. Service to Chile or Argentina would be fascinating too. I would love to see them fly to Buenos Aires.

User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 15, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 11802 times:

In my opinion, NZ don't need anything larger than a B787. A hypothetical 600,000 lbs MTOW B787-9ER would be perfect for AKL-LHR nonstop (flown eastbound, of course).

User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7606 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 11760 times:

What about the return trip.  Smile

User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 11721 times:

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 16):
What about the return trip.

LHR-AKL is even easier than AKL-LHR. Both are easier to fly eastbound than westbound.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 11664 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Koruman (Reply 12):
Airbus has just had Emirates cancel its A340-600s, which have similar size and slightly less efficiency than the 777-300ER. Airbus subsidises new buyers for lost fuel efficiency versus the 777: wouldn't it be inspired an inspired piece of business if Air NZ replaced its 747-400s very soon with those aircraft at a knock-down price, then traded them in to Boeing after just a few years for the 787-10!

My guess is that the 744's CASM is better then the A346's, so NZ is better off flying the 744.

NZ just doubled their 787 order (to eight), so looks like they are content to order Boeing without extra incentives.  Smile


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 19, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 11631 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
My guess is that the 744's CASM is better then the A346's

Correct.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
so NZ is better off flying the 744.

Not necessarily. The A340-600 offers higher RASM than the B747-400. On some routes the A340 will be more profitable and on some routes the JumboJet will be more profitable.


User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 11539 times:

Quoting TG992 (Reply 1):
I personally feel there will be an announcement of a 773's order to be delivered around 2014 sometime in the next 12 months

Quoting Geoffrey Thomas from another list; he is expecting it in the next 6-months or so .
I believe if they order in that time frame it is for delivery to start when the leases run out on the -400's. Assuming 15-year leases, two of these will run out in 2009 /2010. At that time three of the four owned frames will be about 20-years old.
A recent quote attributed to Fyfe suggests that deliveries would start ahead of 2014. I believe he was saying that deliveries would be completed by 2014 not start in 2014.


User currently offlineUnited787 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2707 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 10846 times:

I am surprised that no one has mentioned ETOPS. Although I know they don't fly to CPT, EZE, SCL, and JNB now, if they ever wanted to do these in the future, they would need a four engine plane although the range could easily be reached with the 772ER, 773ER, 788, or 789.

AKL - CPT 6356 nm
AKL - EZE 5580 nm
AKL - SCL 5223 nm
AKL - JNB 6583 nm


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 22, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 10730 times:

Quoting United787 (Reply 21):
I am surprised that no one has mentioned ETOPS. Although I know they don't fly to CPT, EZE, SCL, and JNB now, if they ever wanted to do these in the future, they would need a four engine plane although the range could easily be reached with the 772ER, 773ER, 788, or 789.

ETOPS330 may be available soon. Also LROPS will place similar restrictions on quads that ETOPS places on twins.


User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 10705 times:

Quoting United787 (Reply 21):
I am surprised that no one has mentioned ETOPS.

I have to assume you missed the most recent thread on this topic .See
RE: Etops 330 Close To Approval? (by OldAeroGuy Dec 10 2006 in Civil Aviation)?searchid=3140644&s=ETOPS#ID3140644

Operation of quads on these routes will present bigger problems than the operation of modern twins if the standards governing their use are adopted. Of course that will be up to each country to decide.


User currently offlineUnited787 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2707 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 10164 times:

Thank you for the link to the new ETOPS discussion, interesting...

To Quote Ikramerica from that discussion, it seems as though his discussion of QF and SAA would apply towards NZ...

"ETOPS 330 really only matters for certain routes in the Southern Hemisphere. For QF, which has committed to the 787, relaxed ETOPS is very important, though they can still cover all those routes with current quads and future quads. Rather than dump their newest 744s, QF can use those on ETOPS 207+ routes along with some A380s. The rest of their route system could function with the 787 even with current ETOPS rules.

But it does explain why SAA remains committed to the A340 and 747. It just makes their life easier. The new non-twin ETOPS rules will cause SAA some added concern. Wonder if they are fighting them??"


25 Trex8 : there was talk they would do that but does anyone know if they actually have or will.RR has also been said to have "guaranteed" that mx costs for the
26 SunriseValley : Not picking on SAA, but ETOPS calls for pretty stringent maintenance standards which some carriers might have trouble meeting and certainly some have
27 Post contains images Jafa39 : With 32" of legroom?.......no way! I'd rather walk!!!
28 Zvezda : An SKL-LHR configuration wouldn't have 32" pitch. It would probably have 35 to 38 inch pitch in Y. One reason is payload/range performance. Another i
29 SunriseValley : But three of these are the oldest in the fleet. By about 2010 they will be 20-years old.
30 Cchan : All the 744 flights NZ is operating can be operated by 772s. It is just that the planes will be fuller and the waitlist will be longer. I guess, they
31 RichardJF : Highly leveraged QF you can expect rock bottom fares on LHR. Fyfe should be protecting NZ from what all these airline people think. Macquarie is putti
32 TG992 : Koruman, I might just make your day but you might just see the 744 back on NZ1/2 at some point soon.
33 CX747 : Why would they move the 747 back onto NZ1/2?
34 Kiwiandrew : I believe the demand for business class on LAX-LHR outstrips the supply at the moment with the 777 - some good high value revenue is being missed out
35 Koruman : Thanks TG992. I must emphasise that while I strongly criticise decisions which I think are wrong (or just plain disagree with!) I have exceptional loy
36 Jafa39 : Ah, now that makes perfect sense, thanks!
37 Post contains images TG992 : It's in the schedules now 20AUG 26AUG MTWTFSS REFER TO DAILY SCHED DISPLAY FOR OPERATING CARRIER INFORMATION 1 NZ 002 2145 1100*1 1234567 AKLLHR 3 CU
38 Darenw : But only until the end of October 2007. I see the 772 is back on that route from November 07. I think the 744 is just on for those 3 months to cover
39 StarGoldLHR : Overall I'm not impressed by Air NZ. Given their HKG - LHR flies half full I dont think many others do either.
40 V2fix : So - a chance to get a picture of two Korus side by side at Heathrow. Although in the last month I have been through LHR NZ1/2 and NX 38/39 have been
41 TG992 : It's been slow yes. somethinh to look at but it's growing!! Like Koruman said, I would like to see a flight via BNE to HKG to connect.
42 Koruman : I'm glad that NZ1 will have a few months as a 747 again, and I hope that the experiment is extended. I've now got 2 different trips on NZ38/39 booked,
43 NZ107 : Horror to my ears as well.. Does QF offer airpoints on TN codeshares?
44 SunriseValley : There would have to be a significant short fall in premium capacity on the LAX/LHR/LAX sector to make it worth while to put the -400 back on. Ten or
45 Koruman : Yes unfortunately TN flights with QF codes earn Qantas points but TN flights with NZ codes earn no points with anyone. I wrote to Air NZ to ask whethe
46 RichardJF : The fuel efficiency or lack of it with the 744 shouldn't be overly worried about. Situation with EK on AKL-LAX-DXB is what I thought. Danger of AKL-EZ
47 Nzrich : Hopefully the airpoints situation with NZ codeshare on TN flights will be solved before mar when nz pulls out of PPT - LAX.. Im sure there will be air
48 TG992 : It can not be a 777, due to the mountains below. If there was engine failure they would be buggered so that's why they use the 744 not the 772. This
49 777ER : Wellington does have a good amount of hotels. There is a new hotel about to start construction on the waterfront. This is either a 4 star or a 5 star
50 Antskip : sorry - which mountain ranges? Why would they restrict the B772?
51 Post contains links NZAA : I imagine the Ural Mountains in Russia. http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gcmap?PATH=HKG-LHR
52 SunriseValley : Um... this does not appear to be a problem flying over the Rockies to and from LHR from LAX.I think you are away off track on this one TG992 ( which
53 ZKSUJ : Don't know which mountains they are or if that's the real reason. They might well be, but just remember BA use 777s on LHR-PVG which would rewuire a s
54 Post contains links Antskip : aren't all airliners restricted over mountains that can prevent them taking emergency action if pressurization fails? that would be equally the case f
55 Cchan : Air France have flown 777s and A330s between Hong Kong and Paris, so the mountains shouldn't be a problem for the 777s between Hong Kong and London.
56 ZKSUJ : I know what you mean. I read about it there is a zone wher no civil aircraft is meant to fly over regardless of how many engines it holds.
57 Koruman : TG992, if LAX-PPT is designated an "Airshare" with points and status earning allowed, it will be a better Christmas present than my Air NZ Gold Elite
58 ZK-NBT : I was talking to a friend from Air NZ last week and he gave the exact same reason. CDG is further South than London so the 777 and A332 obviously tak
59 Planemanofnz : But the route is nearly the same isn't it? With this 'issue' of the mountains stopping 777 service, does this mean 789's will not be able to fly west
60 TG992 : I believe it is the very high ground around Tibet...Mt Everest etc this however could be wrong. Hmm okay then. We were all advised this is one of the
61 Antskip : Is high ground any more a danger for the B777 any more than a B747? What is the reasoning? I assume the ability to go to a low enough height in the e
62 ZK-NBT : It probably depends on where the engine fails, but I'm guessing a 747 could fly on 3 engines longer than a 777 could fly on 1. MT Everest is 29000 fe
63 Antskip : How is that relevant to the height of the mountains the plane is above? - unless they spread so far that the extra distance a B747 can fly on 3 engin
64 ZKSUJ : Maybe it has to do with the 1 engine inop altitudes en-route. MAYBE the 744 may maintain a higher 1 engine inop altitude than that of the 777. Not SUR
65 Zvezda : This is exactly correct. A 747 can maintain much higher altitude at constant speed with 3 engines running than a 777 can with one engine running. Pre
66 Antskip : What would they do in in a situation akin to the Helios Flight ZU 522?)?[Edited 2007-01-01 07:19:33]
67 Darenw : Well what will happen when ANZ are no longer flying the 747?
68 Zvezda : Hopefully, they would don the oxygen masks.
69 Antskip : If oxygen is OK, through masks, how about other problem of high altitude: pressure level - how would a pilot deal with a plane that loses all interna
70 Zvezda : One can cope with it long enough to get away from the mountains. That should never be more than about 20 minutes of flying.
71 ZKSUJ : As I said above. I remeber seeing a chart which basically said that the high hymalaya ranges area was a no fly zone for civil aircraft. There was a zo
72 TG992 : Unfortunately, the passenger oxygen supply only lasts 12-15 minutes, and once that runs out you only have 6 minutes or so before you're dead.
73 Post contains links Antskip : I have found a discussion back in January 2005 that covered these questions: RE: Twins Over The Himalayas? (by USAFHummer Jan 26 2005 in Civil Aviati
74 Cchan : CX's policy is to fly long haul with 4 engines, their twins don't have the range to do HKG-LHR, but this may change with the arrival of the 777-300ER
75 Koruman : Actually, HKG-CDG is only less than 15 minutes shorter than HKG-LHR, and the route is almost identical. LHR and CDG are about as close as New Plymouth
76 Zvezda : It's not that simple. Once the aircraft is out of passenger oxygen, it would be really nice to be at FL140. However, given a choice between less air
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...
Air New Zealand In The Media posted Tue Nov 1 2005 21:50:38 by Eoinnz
Has Air New Zealand Ordered The A380? posted Tue Feb 15 2005 01:32:38 by ZKSUJ
Air New Zealand Biz Class 747 posted Thu Jan 15 2004 23:16:57 by Andahuailas
Cut Price Air New Zealand In The Wings? posted Fri Mar 22 2002 05:03:02 by JaseWGTN
Former Air New Zealand/Virgin Atlantic 747-200's. posted Mon Feb 4 2002 07:00:49 by Mr AirNZ
Air New Zealand And Ansett Australia posted Wed Jul 18 2001 06:54:21 by Travel
Air New Zealand And Thai posted Sat May 19 2001 14:50:09 by Air Taiwan
Air New Zealand And Ansett posted Tue Dec 12 2000 00:56:19 by USAFHummer
Ansett And Air New Zealand The One And Only Post posted Mon Sep 10 2001 22:29:39 by Go Canada!
Iran Air And The 747-100 posted Sat Aug 19 2006 15:56:10 by Jkw777