Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Air New Zealand Flights To LHR From The US.  
User currently offlineBrucek From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 264 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 9946 times:

I believe that NZ has one daily flight from LAX to LHR. My question on this right to fly to LHR from the US is:

1. Could NZ fly multiple flights daily from LAX to LHR, if the wanted?
2. If NZ had an aircraft that could do AKL-JFK, and wanted to substitute the LAX-LHR flight for JFK-LHR, could they do that? In other words, is the right specific to LAX?
3. Or- is the right just 1 flight daily, and only from LAX?

This question has nothing to do with any business reasons that may, or may not, exist to change the 1X LAX-LHR daily; but more to do with the rights between the US and LHR.

Thanks, Bruce.

45 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineWedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5950 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 9930 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

ANZ has flown between LAX and LHR for quite some time now...they did fly to LGW for the longest time, though.

User currently offlineNickofatlanta From Australia, joined May 2000, 1488 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 9913 times:

My understanding is that the NZ / UK agreement stipulates that only one daily flight for each country can be via the US with full fifth freedom rights.

User currently offlineKiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8603 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 9801 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Brucek (Thread starter):
. Could NZ fly multiple flights daily from LAX to LHR, if the wanted?

the current New Zealand - UK bilateral limits NZ to 7 return frequencies per week between the USA and LHR/LGW , however , I believe that there is a clause which lifts that restriction once open skies come into play on USA-UK , so , in theory , subject to getting slots , NZ could operate whatever routes/frequencies it wants between USA and UK from Apr 08



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25871 posts, RR: 22
Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 9771 times:

Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 3):
so , in theory , subject to getting slots , NZ could operate whatever routes/frequencies it wants between USA and UK from Apr 08

But only if all the flights originate/terminate in New Zealand which is a requirement for all 5th freedom rights. They certainly don't have 7th freedom rights to operate stand-alone flights between the US and the UK.


User currently offlineKiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8603 posts, RR: 13
Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 9752 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 4):
But only if all the flights originate/terminate in New Zealand which is a requirement for all 5th freedom rights. They certainly don't have 7th freedom rights to operate stand-alone flights between the US and the UK.

true , I didn't think to spell that out but you are of course correct , bearing in mind that NZ currently operate 2-3 flights daily terminating in the US ( AKL-LAX daily in addition to the AKL-LAX-LHR flight , AKL-SFO daily , and a variety of AKL-NAN-LAX, AKL-RAR-LAX , AKL-TBU-APW-LAX and AKL-HNL ) they could , if they chose , if they had the equipment , if they could get the slots , and if they thought they could actually make money doing it by eventually extending all those flights to LHR they could significantly increase their 5th freedom presence in the USA-LHR market



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4845 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 9747 times:

Quoting Brucek (Thread starter):
I believe that NZ has one daily flight from LAX to LHR. My question on this right to fly to LHR from the US is:

1. Could NZ fly multiple flights daily from LAX to LHR, if the wanted?
2. If NZ had an aircraft that could do AKL-JFK, and wanted to substitute the LAX-LHR flight for JFK-LHR, could they do that? In other words, is the right specific to LAX?
3. Or- is the right just 1 flight daily, and only from LAX?

1) Not currently, NZ would have to apply for new rights to do this, however open-skies between USA and UK are coming in soon.
2) My understanding is that yes they could do that but are unlikely to do that. On a side note, if NZ did have an aircraft that could fly to JFK direct from AKL then NZ would be there quicker than you could say New York Bagel! Exercisings 787 options should allow NZ to do this around 2010.
3) 1 daily flight from USA-LHR/LGW. They could possibly fly to say MAN from another US city... ie AKL-SFO-MAN although a lot of speculation is that NZ will extend its new AKL-YVR service to MAN.



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineDavidByrne From New Zealand, joined Sep 2007, 1654 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 9657 times:

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 6):
On a side note, if NZ did have an aircraft that could fly to JFK direct from AKL then NZ would be there quicker than you could say New York Bagel! Exercisings 787 options should allow NZ to do this around 2010.

Interested to hear this - is this a view from inside the airline, or less-informed speculation? I've long thought that JFK was a logical move for NZ, but my view has more recently been tempered by two other factors - (a) the diminishing economics of longer- and longer-range flights because of the need to expend so much fuel just carting fuel about - I've heard it suggested that it's actually more exonomic to include a fuel stop on a flight that long, and (b) the serious difficulties that TN has had getting support for its SYD/AKL-PPT-JFK route, coupled with the often-expressed view that QF's SYD-LAX-JFK flight survives on cargo, rather than passengers. And cargo on an ULH flight of that length, which would be close to or even right at payload restrictions anyway, must be problematic without a fuelling stop.

If an AKL-JFK-Europe flight could be made to work, I'd be delighted, as it would give NZ a competitive advantage over other carriers in that there would be seamless connectivity possible from BNE, SYD, MEL and ADL (and OOL?), one-stop to JFK with no messy domestic-international transfers, and no immigration/customs to deal with at intermediate points. But I'm yet to be reassured as to either the demand or the economics.

Quoting Brucek (Thread starter):
I believe that NZ has one daily flight from LAX to LHR. My question on this right to fly to LHR from the US is:

1. Could NZ fly multiple flights daily from LAX to LHR, if the wanted?
2. If NZ had an aircraft that could do AKL-JFK, and wanted to substitute the LAX-LHR flight for JFK-LHR, could they do that? In other words, is the right specific to LAX?
3. Or- is the right just 1 flight daily, and only from LAX?

Mcilree is the authority on this - perhaps he would comment? My understanding is that the limitation on LHR services relates to California-originating services only, and that aside from that, NZ airlines have the ability to fly onward from any other port in the USA to Europe. It was reported, prior to NZ launching its AKL-HKG-LHR service that the airline actually would have preferred a routing AKL-SFO-LHR, but that ultimately it could not be done for this reason. However, as has often been discussed on this Board, a routing AKL-SFO-MAN or AKL-LAX-MAN would be perfectly OK (as was AKL-LAX-FRA, which NZ ran for some years but no longer does).



This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12289 posts, RR: 18
Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 9564 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 7):
Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 6):
On a side note, if NZ did have an aircraft that could fly to JFK direct from AKL then NZ would be there quicker than you could say New York Bagel! Exercisings 787 options should allow NZ to do this around 2010.

Interested to hear this - is this a view from inside the airline, or less-informed speculation?

NZ have said for ages now that they are interested in JFK once their B787s enters service, its also been in the papers previously.

NZ can currently fly ONE daily return flight from the USA-LHR. If NZ flew to JFK right now and found a AKL-JFK-LHR flight would proivide better profits, then I'm pretty sure NZ would stop their LAX-LHR and start a JFK-LHR ASAP


User currently offlineDavidByrne From New Zealand, joined Sep 2007, 1654 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 9511 times:

Quoting 777ER (Reply 8):
NZ can currently fly ONE daily return flight from the USA-LHR. If NZ flew to JFK right now and found a AKL-JFK-LHR flight would proivide better profits, then I'm pretty sure NZ would stop their LAX-LHR and start a JFK-LHR ASAP

The bit where my understanding differs from yours is whether NZ is limited to one daily flight from the USA to LHR, or one daily flight from California to LHR, without restrictions on other states. Koruman (Thread #1, reply #175) has obviously acquired the same understanding as me from somewhere, but I'm afraid I can't find the original source. That's where Mcilree may be able to help . . . ?



This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
User currently offlineZKSUJ From New Zealand, joined May 2004, 7110 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 9500 times:

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 9):
The bit where my understanding differs from yours is whether NZ is limited to one daily flight from the USA to LHR, or one daily flight from California to LHR,

I have always thought it was California to London


User currently offlineDavidByrne From New Zealand, joined Sep 2007, 1654 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 9500 times:

. . . and I've also been aware that in recent public announcements, NZ seems to have focused more on CHI as the "next big thing" for the airline in the USA, perhaps because of the presence of a very large UA hub there.

I'm also intrigued as to why QF reportedly has trouble with passenger loads on its JFK services, and TN likewise. I'd have thought it was a "natural" route, with lots of O&D from the New York area to Aus/NZ, irrespective of connecting traffic.



This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5155 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 9447 times:

quote=ZKSUJ,reply=10]have always thought it was California to London
[/quote]


wading in here, for additional clarity re London, I believe it is LHR and LGW.


User currently offlineZKSUJ From New Zealand, joined May 2004, 7110 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks ago) and read 9314 times:

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 12):
wading in here, for additional clarity re London, I believe it is LHR and LGW

O ok, so STN and Luton not included, interesting


User currently offlineTG992 From New Zealand, joined Jan 2001, 2910 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks ago) and read 9270 times:

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 7):
It was reported, prior to NZ launching its AKL-HKG-LHR service that the airline actually would have preferred a routing AKL-SFO-LHR, but that ultimately it could not be done for this reason. However, as has often been discussed on this Board, a routing AKL-SFO-MAN or AKL-LAX-MAN would be perfectly OK (as was AKL-LAX-FRA, which NZ ran for some years but no longer does).

NZ have been wanting to operate HKG-LHR for years now and it was always the preferred choice - one major reason being to avoid the 'eggs in one basket' syndrome, another being the huge passenger hatred of the nightmare that transitting the US has become. SFO-LHR was looked at - projected loads were very good, projected yields another story altogether.

FRA was, I understand, a good performer in the early days, and right up to termination of services the loads were great, but the yields were garbage by the end. It was apparently common for flights to depart without a single full-fare economy passenger. Because of Lufthansa's strong support of Star Alliance connections (they are also very good at cooperating with scheduling) it's unlikely NZ will return to Frankfurt. There are apparently 23 destinations constantly monitored for potential services and FRA is way down the bottom of that list.



-
User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4845 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 9205 times:

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 7):
Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 6):
On a side note, if NZ did have an aircraft that could fly to JFK direct from AKL then NZ would be there quicker than you could say New York Bagel! Exercisings 787 options should allow NZ to do this around 2010.

Interested to hear this - is this a view from inside the airline, or less-informed speculation? I've long thought that JFK was a logical move for NZ, but my view has more recently been tempered by two other factors - (a) the diminishing economics of longer- and longer-range flights because of the need to expend so much fuel just carting fuel about - I've heard it suggested that it's actually more exonomic to include a fuel stop on a flight that long, and (b) the serious difficulties that TN has had getting support for its SYD/AKL-PPT-JFK route, coupled with the often-expressed view that QF's SYD-LAX-JFK flight survives on cargo, rather than passengers. And cargo on an ULH flight of that length, which would be close to or even right at payload restrictions anyway, must be problematic without a fuelling stop.

Not at the moment you are correct that current aircraft are uneconomic. The 787 however changes all that with much better economics, much more pleasant experience for the pax (15-16hour flight becomes more tolerable). NZ has stated several times that they have NY as one of their top 20 (if not Top 10) future destinations. And yes I did previously work for Air NZ  Wink

Quoting 777ER (Reply 8):
NZ have said for ages now that they are interested in JFK once their B787s enters service, its also been in the papers previously.

 checkmark 



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12289 posts, RR: 18
Reply 16, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 9172 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 15):
NZ has stated several times that they have NY as one of their top 20 (if not Top 10) future destinations.

JFK is also ahead of ORD, which is the only other USA destination that NZ is looking at, from what NZ have told the public


User currently offlineBosWashSprStar From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 201 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 9124 times:

I'd be surprised if NZ could make AKL-JFK work. I'm sure they'll try, but much like TG they may decide to back out once the numbers start coming in. The route is made especially difficult by the fact that they don't have any sources of feeder traffic from JFK. However, they may be able to get a leg up on QF for NY-AUS markets with this route, so much depends on how big those markets are.

Also -- the entire discussion of LHR-LAX (or JFK-LHR) may become a moot point very soon. I have read that NZ plans to discontinue AKL-LAX-LHR in favor of AKL-YVR-LHR so as to avoid American immigration hassles. I'm having trouble finding the article just at the moment, though (I believe it was a Salon Ask the Pilot article, though at the time I wasn't able to find it listed anywhere else).


User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4845 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 9107 times:

Quoting BosWashSprStar (Reply 17):
I'd be surprised if NZ could make AKL-JFK work. I'm sure they'll try, but much like TG they may decide to back out once the numbers start coming in. The route is made especially difficult by the fact that they don't have any sources of feeder traffic from JFK. However, they may be able to get a leg up on QF for NY-AUS markets with this route, so much depends on how big those markets are.
They are looking at using 787 (with about 250pax) not too hard to sell that... especially since the market to New Zealand from the US is in the region of 80+% from CA and NY for USA pax. As you pointed out the market on to Australia then beckons for those pax...and not having to transit thru LAX is a great advantage!
Also -- the entire discussion of LHR-LAX (or JFK-LHR) may become a moot point very soon. I have read that NZ plans to discontinue AKL-LAX-LHR in favor of AKL-YVR-LHR so as to avoid American immigration hassles. I'm having trouble finding the article just at the moment, though (I believe it was a Salon Ask the Pilot article, though at the time I wasn't able to find it listed anywhere else).

NZ has ordered 773ER to replace its 744 from about 2010. When this happens (and with the growth NZL-UK/Europe) NZ will have to operate at least 3 daily services if not 4! Current: AKL-HKG-LHR, AKL-LAX-LHR. In future it will likely be AKL-HKG-LHR, AKL-PVG-FRA/MAN, AKL-LAX-LHR, AKL-YVR-MAN with the HKG and LAX services being operated with 773ER and the PVG and YVR services using 772ER (the 772ER being freed up due to the entry of the 787s).



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineDavidByrne From New Zealand, joined Sep 2007, 1654 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 9097 times:

Quoting TG992 (Reply 14):
NZ have been wanting to operate HKG-LHR for years now and it was always the preferred choice - one major reason being to avoid the 'eggs in one basket' syndrome, another being the huge passenger hatred of the nightmare that transiting the US has become. SFO-LHR was looked at - projected loads were very good, projected yields another story altogether.

I'm dredging the recesses of my memory now, but my recollection, to be more accurate, was at the time it was stated that HKG-LHR was seen as a much better long-term option, but not one that would necessarily pay off short term. On the other hand, SFO-LHR was perceived as giving a much better return in the short term, but did not have such good longer-term prospects.

I'm figuring that one of the advantages of HKG is that it does offer the possibility of multiple European destinations as a scissor-hub from Australian cities as well - this has been speculated about on A-Net as a future NZ strategy many times. What I'm less clear about (anyone out there know?) is whether NZ already has generous fifth-freedom rights from HKG in addition to LHR, or whether further negotiation would be required.

Many, many years ago, when AR was seeking additional frequencies into AKL, I recall that the quid pro quo was that NZ would be given onward rights to Europe from BUE. Without speculating as to whether that's useful or not, does anyone know whether it's technically still a possibility?



This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
User currently offlineZK-NBT From New Zealand, joined Oct 2000, 5359 posts, RR: 11
Reply 20, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 9077 times:

Quoting BosWashSprStar (Reply 17):
Also -- the entire discussion of LHR-LAX (or JFK-LHR) may become a moot point very soon. I have read that NZ plans to discontinue AKL-LAX-LHR in favor of AKL-YVR-LHR so as to avoid American immigration hassles.

Personally while I agree with what you are saying, I don't think NZ will drop LAX-LHR, it is still a top performer for the airline! I'd say YVR has a good chance though of being the stopover when NZ start a third daily LHR service but that probably won't be until atleast 2010 when they start taking on more aircraft.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 18):
NZ has ordered 773ER to replace its 744 from about 2010. When this happens (and with the growth NZL-UK/Europe) NZ will have to operate at least 3 daily services if not 4! Current: AKL-HKG-LHR, AKL-LAX-LHR. In future it will likely be AKL-HKG-LHR, AKL-PVG-FRA/MAN, AKL-LAX-LHR, AKL-YVR-MAN with the HKG and LAX services being operated with 773ER and the PVG and YVR services using 772ER (the 772ER being freed up due to the entry of the 787s).

 checkmark 


User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12289 posts, RR: 18
Reply 21, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 9056 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting BosWashSprStar (Reply 17):
I'd be surprised if NZ could make AKL-JFK work. I'm sure they'll try, but much like TG they may decide to back out once the numbers start coming in. The route is made especially difficult by the fact that they don't have any sources of feeder traffic from JFK.

JFK will be an excellent entry point into the USA for the region, and UA/US have an excellent service out of JFK

Quoting BosWashSprStar (Reply 17):
I have read that NZ plans to discontinue AKL-LAX-LHR in favor of AKL-YVR-LHR so as to avoid American immigration hassles

Source please?


User currently offlineKiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8603 posts, RR: 13
Reply 22, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 9048 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 777ER (Reply 21):
and UA/US have an excellent service out of JFK




 rotfl 

I am sorry but neither carrier has any reasonable presence in JFK , UA have been cutting it back for years and years , about the only flights I can think of by UA out of JFK these days are the nonstop transcontinentals to LAX and SFO ... somehow I doubt may people are going to opt for a connection in JFK to fly between New Zealand and LAX/SFO



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineKoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 8677 times:

I would like to dispel a few myths here.

Firstly, LAX-LHR is one of the airline's star sectors, in terms of both loads and yields.

Secondly, TG992 has got the modelling of SFO-LHR the wrong way round. Business and Premium Economy loads and yields were projected to be excellent, but Economy class loads were a major problem, as SFO's climate and lack of (sigh) theme parks sharply reduces leisure demand from the UK.

At present the airline can only have 1 California-LHR daily flight, and so LAX-LHR wins hands down.

Interestingly, they are allowed to extend NZ6 from LAX to Manchester or NZ8 from SFO to Manchester, and NZ6 seems much more likely to occur, again because the back of the plane would be empty to SFO from October to Easter.

Thirdly, JFK was considered an option for Air New Zealand until about a year ago, but the bloodbath which descended upon Air Tahiti Nui's direct Sydney-JFK flights, and the continued sub-50% loads Qantas gets on its JFK flights (which have the benefit - which Air NZ could never match - of combined feed at LAX from SYD, MEL, AKL and BNE) have made crystal clear to Air NZ's route planners that JFK is not a route to try out. The same is true of Chicago and Denver: sure, they are UA hubs, but so are LAX and SFO, so why cannibalise LAX and SFO services to fly to those destinations?

Really, the only viable North American destinations for Air New Zealand are Los Angeles, San Francisco, Honolulu and Vancouver. And instead of trying out ever more risky and distant ones, they would do better just adding services to those existing destinations from eastern Australia. Richard Branson has announced that Virgin Atlantic will fly 787-9s non-stop from London to Honolulu, and I still believe that if Air NZ is going to make Honolulu work it should be as a refuelling point between Auckland and London for a fourth London daily flight (after those via LAX, HKG and YVR).


User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12289 posts, RR: 18
Reply 24, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 8507 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting Koruman (Reply 23):
JFK was considered an option for Air New Zealand until about a year ago, but the bloodbath which descended upon Air Tahiti Nui's direct Sydney-JFK flights, and the continued sub-50% loads Qantas gets on its JFK flights (which have the benefit - which Air NZ could never match - of combined feed at LAX from SYD, MEL, AKL and BNE) have made crystal clear to Air NZ's route planners that JFK is not a route to try out

Source for this please? Thats now, but in three years, that can change. Look at the Tasman, previously the tasman was a blood bath and NZ was not making money, and the tasman is still a blood bath, but now NZ is making a profit on it after changing things on the routes. If an airline is going to make a route work, then the airline will need to adjust things.

Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 22):

Even if most of UAs destinations are not non stop, you can still get to alot of the west coast via IAD. Plus there is also the other Star cariers that serve JFK that pax could connect to


25 Post contains images Gemuser : Of course it can, but its still doubtful. Even if the B787 meets all expectations, AKL-JFK at 7671 nm (GC) suffers about a 40,000lb payload penalty,
26 Koruman : 777ER, you write that an airline with a failing route (eg SYD-JFK) needs to adjust correct this. Well that's exactly what Air Tahiti Nui has done. Unf
27 Post contains links BosWashSprStar : To the extent that people are considering JFK because of the possibility of doing AKL-JFK-LHR . . . yes, you could, but that market is much more vicio
28 DavidByrne : Must surely refer to code-share operations (have they been established YVR-LHR with AC?). "Transfer" to me implies pax moving from one aircraft to an
29 Ncfc99 : This suggest that a MAN flight may commence around 2010-2011. Any official quotes about a MAN flight available? Would be great to see NZ metal at MAN
30 BosWashSprStar : The point is that even though AKL-LHR pax via LAX are not "transferring" in the sense of changing aircraft, they still need to disembark and clear U.
31 Koruman : The article has missed the point. John Mcilree made clear 2 weeks ago that Air NZ and Air Canada are coordinating flights at Vancouver so passengers c
32 Brucek : Thanks for all the good discussion to my original question, everybody. Bruce.
33 LAXdude1023 : I simply dont believe it. Ill believe it when I see it from NZ.
34 777ER : After you arrive in LAX on an NZ flight and your wanting to transfer onto a UA flight to ORD, DTW, IAD, JFK etc, then you have to wait around 8-10, m
35 SunriseValley : AMEN........when you think about it , it is stupid. Three flights a day from AKL to the U.S. west coast and not one has an acceptable east bound conn
36 Koruman : I'm hoping that the airline routes its multiple London flights (at least 4-5 daily once the 787s arrive) via a variety of geographical refuelling poin
37 Viscount724 : CX passengers on their JFK-YVR-HKG flight can stay on board at YVR if they wish according to their website, but in the eastbound direction they have
38 777ER : Only QF provide good connections in LAX, and they are able to time their AKL flights perfectly even with QF25 arriving from MEL first. NZ needs a 5pm
39 BosWashSprStar : Does QF post-clear? I would have thought that they used pre-clearance for any YVR->SFO O&D pax they carry. The reason is that unlike CX, which stops
40 StarGoldLHR : So how come no UK airline is operating on this route ? if it's such a star performer i'm sure BA or VS would leap in. It's obviously only "ok" as BA
41 David_itl : There might be sufficient premium numbers for NZ to operate YVR-MAN as they'd be offering AKL-MAN and AKL-YVR routes but insufficient for AC to opera
42 Viscount724 : Yes QF does post-clear on YVR-SFO. I confirmed this with someone who works at YVR airport. YVR has separate terminal piers that serve international (
43 777ER : BA code share on QF services to AKL from LAX via SYD and direct, so BA are obviously very happy with this deal
44 StarGoldLHR : Exactly how many £5000 return ticket holders will travel between Auckland and Manchester ? I admit I fly LHR-HKG on NZ and there business class is p
45 Koruman : Actually, you have hit the nail on the head in terms of premium class traffic between AKL and LHR via LAX and HKG. When I use my annual Gold Elite com
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...
Dails Flights To London From The US posted Sun Sep 29 2002 00:03:07 by MIA777
Air New Zealand Forecast To Triple Profit posted Sun Jan 7 2007 22:03:15 by Aerohottie
SAA Impossible To Book From The US posted Tue Feb 7 2006 19:26:55 by TonyBurr
New Charter Flights To Panama From Helsinki posted Thu Apr 22 2004 20:43:59 by Luisca
Air New Zealand A320s To Pacific Islands posted Mon Jun 2 2003 10:04:24 by V2fix
Air New Zealand 747-400 Lhr! posted Wed Sep 25 2002 00:18:17 by Bigo747
Why Did Air New Zealand Refuse To Enter Talks? posted Fri Sep 14 2001 07:05:09 by 364512158
Air New Zealand From LHR To NZ posted Fri Aug 13 2004 09:58:26 by Trb10
Air Fares To Spanish Countries From The US posted Sat Feb 3 2007 17:03:14 by Tsaord
Air New Zealand To Double Flights To SFO posted Wed Nov 30 2005 21:41:11 by Squirrel83