Georgebush From New Zealand, joined Jul 2006, 679 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3233 times:
NZ1 flys from LAX to LHR and could very easily stop in ORD to provide service to and from AKL. The plane would already quite full so it would be more or less a quick stop, at least LAX-ORD. I know that with UA and AA passengers from ORD have numerous options to get to LAX or SFO, but with the often delays in and out of ORD especially for us who have to connect through ORD it can be stressful. I doubt it would hurt much, if any, of UA's LAX traffic, and it would be a sure fire way for Tasman pax to make sure they dont miss their connection if the plane just picks them up in Chicago.
I'm sure that they could even make some money off of people like us, who are just going ORD-LAX to ride on a 747! UA would easily be able to ground handle them, and NZ could totally expand their service area. It would also be a good way to get one up on Qantas. Any thoughts on why they dont do this, or what would happen if they did?
PlaneGuy27 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 313 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3206 times:
NZ couldn't fly ORD-LAX and carry domestic passengers. Foreign based carriers are not allowed to carry domestic traffic in another country. it's called cabotage. Not to mention, NZ has a good brand on LAX-LHR - it would make no sense for them to a.) add another stop and b.) try to start to compete with UA, AA, VS and BA on ORD-LHR - oh yeah, and AI.
UNlike QF, I don't see NZ expanding flights to do domestic tags like QF does on LAX-JFK (which only carry Australian connect traffic - no domestic passengers as well). Their partnership with UA does the trick.
Georgebush From New Zealand, joined Jul 2006, 679 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3185 times:
Quoting PlaneGuy27 (Reply 1): UNlike QF, I don't see NZ expanding flights to do domestic tags like QF does on LAX-JFK (which only carry Australian connect traffic - no domestic passengers as well). Their partnership with UA does the trick.
It does if you originate in LAX! But so many times people misconect (usually in ORD). They wouldnt start LHR-ORD to compete with OA's they would start it to bring AKL-ORD service. The closest thing anyone has to that is UA863 or whatever, but you still have to change planes in LAX.
Laxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22030 posts, RR: 51 Reply 3, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3160 times:
Some reasons why this would not benefit ANZ..
1) How many people or demand is there to/from ORD for Air NZ?
2) You just made the trip for the bulk of NZ-UK passengers a much less appealing and longer two stops
3) Air NZ would no longer be a player in the LAX-LON game.
4) Air NZ just entered arguably more competitive CHI-LON market from the hub of two of America's largest airlines
5) UA provides Air NZ great connectivity between LA-CHI. UA has something like 12 daily flights in the market
6) Just increased the direct operating cost of its London flight with the added stop.
Do I need to go on?
Ultimately, Air NZ does just fine with its LAX and more recent SFO service. The market is simply too thin and too costly to justify ORD stops on NZ1/2. Now lets fast forward 10 years with the 787 up and running, then maybe a AKL-ORD standalone flight might be more practical linking AKL directly with UA's ORD hub.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
Hb88 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 810 posts, RR: 32 Reply 7, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2984 times:
Quoting PlaneGuy27 (Reply 1): Not to mention, NZ has a good brand on LAX-LHR
They do indeed, but after doing the ANZ LHR-LAX-AKL a couple of times recently, my opinion is that regular pax on the LHR-AKL run will be deserting the route via LAX in droves for the ANZ LHR-HKG-AKL route (roughly similar time/price).
I know it's been discussed ad nauseum on a.net but the lunatic immigration requirements and ground handling in LAX for transitting pax is a real blow for the quality of the ANZ product and must be a constant headache for their marketing department. I guess they could sell it as part of a criminal processing/gulag life experience package - "be menaced, fingerprinted and barked at by stern men with guns; be held in a room under guard; 'escape' back on board; celebrate with a glass of wine as the US disappears under your wing...".
Lately the cabin PAs prior to arrival have been very apologetic to the point of saying sorry about the US procedures, but there being nothing ANZ can do about them. They do their best, but after 13hrs up the pacific, queueing for 45-50 min in a narrow stuffy access hallway for immigration then being herded into an airless room for 45min and back on the a/c for another 12 hrs, is the absolute pits.
Compare with HKG where you can wander, have a bite to eat, do some shopping and feel like a human being.
BTW, the 777 cabin product was fantastic. Big ups to ANZ for such a good service, high level of comfort; cool IFE, comfortable seats and great FAs.
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 8, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2955 times:
Quoting Laxintl (Reply 3): Now lets fast forward 10 years with the 787 up and running, then maybe a AKL-ORD standalone flight might be more practical linking AKL directly with UA's ORD hub.
Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 4): Presumably, AKL-ORD would work with a 789, and would seem a natural feed for a Star Alliance feed. Not sure what kind of loads that would carry.
I think a B788 would probably be a better fit...smaller plane with more than enough range.....
Koruman From Australia, joined Feb 2006, 2980 posts, RR: 6 Reply 9, posted (6 years 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 2814 times:
WHY I PREFER AKL-LHR VIA LAX.......
1) I don't care that the 90 minute transit in Hong Kong is nicer than LAX. The LAX flight gets me into LHR several hours earlier than the HKG flight, which means one less wasted day of the trip. I'll route via LAX whenever I can.
2) From LAX I can take a stopover on the Air NZ network in California, Tahiti, Fiji, Rarotonga, Samoa, Hawaii or Tonga. Hong Kong gives me only Hong Kong, and I fly the route often enough not to want to stop there several times per year.
In 2007 alone I will have stopped off for a few days at Hong Kong, LA, Honolulu and Tahiti. Hong Kong every time would be boring.
HOW CHICAGO COULD HAVE WORKED......
It was a bad decision to choose the 777-200 in ER instead of LR form. The LR costs more, but would have been more fuel-efficient on every Air NZ long-haul route.
Given that the US-UK-NZ air rights agreements allow unlimited NZ-UK flights, but no more flights from California to LHR, think how the 777-200LR would have opened up new options, e.g.:
AKL-LAX-LHR (still a 747)
AKL-PER-LHR (high-yield mineral-boom route)
PER-LAX (extremely high yield)
AKL-ORD-LHR
Chicago ain't a cabotage problem if its the ONLY stop between London and Auckland.
777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 11310 posts, RR: 17 Reply 10, posted (6 years 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 2769 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
NZ WON'T operate an add on service from LAX or SFO to any otherwhere like ORD, JFK etc. Reason is because its just way to expensive and makes the flight unprofitable. Yes QF operate LAX-JFK, but its not profitable for them. NZ and UA have excellent code-shares on the LAX-ORD sector.
NZ is interested in B789 service for AKL - ORD direct thou.
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 12, posted (6 years 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 2744 times:
Quoting Koruman (Reply 9): HOW CHICAGO COULD HAVE WORKED......
It was a bad decision to choose the 777-200 in ER instead of LR form. The LR costs more, but would have been more fuel-efficient on every Air NZ long-haul route.
Given that the US-UK-NZ air rights agreements allow unlimited NZ-UK flights, but no more flights from California to LHR, think how the 777-200LR would have opened up new options, e.g.:
AKL-LAX-LHR (still a 747)
AKL-PER-LHR (high-yield mineral-boom route)
PER-LAX (extremely high yield)
AKL-ORD-LHR
Chicago ain't a cabotage problem if its the ONLY stop between London and Auckland.
Quoting 777ER (Reply 10): NZ WON'T operate an add on service from LAX or SFO to any otherwhere like ORD, JFK etc. Reason is because its just way to expensive and makes the flight unprofitable. Yes QF operate LAX-JFK, but its not profitable for them. NZ and UA have excellent code-shares on the LAX-ORD sector.
NZ is interested in B789 service for AKL - ORD direct thou.
......the economics for the -200LR really wouldn't be good unless they get enough pax....the aux fuel tanks would take away from cargo/ect....
with the B788/B789, NZ will be able to offer nonstop services.....ORD-LHR is just a bit too competitive..especially now that VS has joined in on the route....
I wouldn't be surprised to see ORD one of their newer North American routes once they get the B787..
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 14, posted (6 years 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 2677 times:
Quoting 777ER (Reply 13): Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 12):
I wouldn't be surprised to see ORD one of their newer North American routes once they get the B787..
ORD and JFK are favoured, but ORD is ahead of JFK for new direct services
IIRC reading an interview with the CEO stating about NZ potentially starting ORD once they get their B787's...would fit perfectly into UA's hub..which would allow pax from New Zealand to fly into places such as LGA, etc.....
SunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3952 posts, RR: 4 Reply 15, posted (6 years 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 2643 times:
Quoting 777ER (Reply 13): ORD and JFK are favoured, but ORD is ahead of JFK for new direct services
I can think of no reason why it should be except it is almost 600nm shorter to AKL, west bound and that translates into significant payload. From a freight viewpoint I would think yields would be much better out of AKL and with a slight Equiv air speed distance advantage , eastbound this should all help payload revenue and yield.
In my view ORD is the bright spot in an otherwise pretty uninteresting region. I find it hard to imagine being transferred in ORD to UA to get to the "Big Apple" and other great Atlantic coast attractions.
My worth
AADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 1832 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (6 years 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 2637 times:
LAX is the preferred stop for NZ because passengers can connect from the entire continental U.S. at Los Angeles. From Chicago, they would lose connections to the west coast. Los Angeles is also larger than Chicago.
But Chicago provides better connections with the UA hub for the East coast. I'm flying to DTW next week. I've got to make a 10+ hour stop in LAX just to wait for a connecting flight to DTW via IAD. When I went to DTW last year, I also had a 10 hour wait at LAX for the red-eye ORD flight. NZs code-share with UA to ORD must be excellent with good numbers from NZs end for NZ to warrent wanting a B787 service. LAX is just useless for the east coast.
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 20, posted (6 years 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 2506 times:
Quoting 777ER (Reply 17):
But Chicago provides better connections with the UA hub for the East coast. I'm flying to DTW next week. I've got to make a 10+ hour stop in LAX just to wait for a connecting flight to DTW via IAD. When I went to DTW last year, I also had a 10 hour wait at LAX for the red-eye ORD flight. NZs code-share with UA to ORD must be excellent with good numbers from NZs end for NZ to warrent wanting a B787 service. LAX is just useless for the east coast.
....hence my comments below....
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 14): starting ORD once they get their B787's...would fit perfectly into UA's hub..which would allow pax from New Zealand to fly into places such as LGA, etc.....
Koruman From Australia, joined Feb 2006, 2980 posts, RR: 6 Reply 22, posted (6 years 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 2412 times:
The point about the 777-200LR not being as good for freight as the 777-200ER really misses the point about Air NZ's fleet, as follows:
1) The 777-200LR can be purchased (and generally is) without the extra fuel tanks, but with a substantial range advantage over the 200ER simply because it has the 300's wing and optimised engines.
2) Air NZ could carry LHR-AKL freight primarily on its two daily 747s via LAX and HKG, and use 787's to carry passengers via additional cities with reduced freight needs, eg Chicago, Shanghai, Mumbai etc.
3) The 787-9 and 777-200ER are a terrible combination, because they have similar capacity but massively different very long-haul economics. It's crazy to operate both. But a combination of the 787-9 complemented by the 777-300ER (for 747-replacement capacity on the LHR services) and the 777-200LR (to open up very long routes for premium markets like Perth and New York) would make good business sense.
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 23, posted (6 years 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 2387 times:
Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 19): Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 8):
I think a B788 would probably be a better fit...smaller plane with more than enough range.....
Actually I started to say 788, but I thought all NZ's orders were for the 9. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong. I do agree the 8 is a better fit.
NZ have got 8x B789s on order and will be the -9 launch customer
....777ER..you are correct, NZ changed their order from the 788 to the 789..good call..
...is NZ getting any leased B787's?
Quoting Koruman (Reply 22): The point about the 777-200LR not being as good for freight as the 777-200ER really misses the point about Air NZ's fleet, as follows:
....a few points....1)the -200ER is leased from ILFC (dont know how many of them are) .... 2)the -200LR wasn't available until recently (PK which was the launch customer-got theirs only in end of Feb.2006/early March 2006) ...certainly before NZ got their hands on the -200ER....3)we don't know what kind of deals NZ got on the -200ER..maybe it was worth getting only the -200ER and keeping their B744's....
MotorHussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 2759 posts, RR: 10 Reply 24, posted (6 years 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 2367 times:
I can see a MEL-AKL-JFK/EWR (whatever the best Star Alliance hub is) flight being quite a compelling proposition once the 789 joins the NZ fleet. Mind you, QF may well do a non-stop MEL-JFK/EWR (whatever the best one world hub is) once their 789's are flying. Somehow, just can't see ORD on the board when NZ/Star travellers already have SFO and LAX options for connections across the continental U.S.; NYC commands great premium traffic and tourism, plus it's a great Star hub for European connections with NZ taking most of fare.
IMHO of course
MH
come visit the south pacific
25 SunriseValley: That would be approaching 9500nm westbound ESAD. Well beyond the economic capability of the type.
27 777ER: Koruman, I would rather believe what NZ think about the B777/B787 order then you. NZ ordered whats best for them and what works for them, not what Bo
28 AerorobNZ: I would hate to stop in ORD on my way through to the UK - I love transit airports, but LAX ORD & LHR on one flight is a bit much as the 3 most notorio
29 MotorHussy: In reference to a potential MEL-AKL-JFK/EWR route! Regards MH
30 V2fix: He does - and I usually disagree with everything he says - but let him say it. I missed the obsessive rants of Koruman in recent weeks! Gidda Mate. G
31 MotorHussy: I second that, welcome back K-man, where've you been? Had to resort to Grey's Anatomy for some drama tonight. Regards MH
Sponsor Message: 
From New Zealand, joined Jul 2006, 679 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 313 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 810 posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2006, 2980 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3952 posts, 
worth
Printer friendly format 
