FRNT787 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1334 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9789 times:
Seems reasonable. I would agree with the article that the A320 would definitely have the edge over the 737-800. I dont know if Boeing will make a good enough deal to make operating a fleet of about 12 each (i.e. 737/A320) be the most cost effective choice. I also question how committed Boeing would be to swap the 320's for 737s and standardize NZ on Boeing.
"We have a right to fail, because failure makes us grow" --Glenn Beck
Lufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3231 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 9742 times:
I have one internal Question for Air NZ people.
I know those A320s currently used for Trans Tasman are operated by subsidiary company that was basically born out of the old freedomair, whiched helped get costs down. With that in Mind, are NZ's domestic 733 crews also part of this? I'm under the impression that they're not and in fact just regular mainline NZ staff.
So will NZ have an issue then? The reason I ask is this is one of the key reasons why Jetstar operates the A320 and Qantas operate the 737-800. It avoided union clashes and conflicts with regard to pay scales. The last thing NZ would want to have to do is increase its costs on Trans Tasman flying because of a change in it's domestic market. So given that (1) these are likely seperate groups already, (2) NZ alraedy have the expense of operating 2 different types... the upgage in aircraft would just constitute a saving, maybe NZ would be willing to go down the 738 road?
(3) NZ uses its CHC engineering base to do a lot of 3rd party work. Maybe they'd like to see this continue and with enough external work there, the additional type wont matter as much?
Also are any of the 733 airports suffering unusually short runways? I know for SAS this was the main reason for the choice of the 736, being able to get in and out of particularly short regional airports in sweden that they slightly larger but more economical 737-300 would have struggled with.
CHCalfonzo From New Zealand, joined Mar 2007, 189 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 9722 times:
In the current economic climate I wouldn't be surprised at all if Boeing came to the party and took the A320's off NZ's hands. In 2-3 years time Boeing's backlog will be much smaller than it is now. The cost of "swapping" a dozen middle aged A320's for 737's would be small compared to the cost of idle production lines.
On the other hand, Airbus is in the same postition. They could also offer NZ a great deal for the same reason.
From NZ's point of view, there is little differences between the two planes. Engineering wise NZ are equiped to maintain both. They can be bulk loaded like the current 733's. They can operate into all the fields NZ currently operate 733's too. This will be an interesting decision.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21636 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 9600 times:
Quoting CHCalfonzo (Reply 3): In the current economic climate I wouldn't be surprised at all if Boeing came to the party and took the A320's off NZ's hands. In 2-3 years time Boeing's backlog will be much smaller than it is now. The cost of "swapping" a dozen middle aged A320's for 737's would be small compared to the cost of idle production lines.
They could sell those A320s to DL in some sort of package deal for more 77Ls, or just give them to DL as compensation for late/underperforming 787s...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Alangirvan From New Zealand, joined Nov 2000, 2106 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 9539 times:
The 738 and the A320 are now very well established planes. Both Boeing and Airbus have said that a completely new replacement is some distance away. Both Boeing and Airbus have suggested that there might be some small improvements to the current products to tide them over until they do a complete new clean sheet of paper plane.
It might be a pity if AirNZ ends up getting the last A320s or 738s off the production line, just before the upgraded planes start entering service.
Even if AirNZ had the NZ domestic market all to itself, 738s and A320 are still very big planes for the short distances involved in this country. The biggest market in the country is One hour block time, and the second biggest route is One hour 20 minutes. A320s and 738s are overkill for these routes. Look at the Jetstar frequency on AKL-WLG - three times daily is not a serious service. A daily A320 on CHC-WLG. Three airlines operating domestic services with 150-180 seats will be silly.
If the timing is right, the new Canadian CS-100 seems a very good size for NZ domestic. Does AirNZ need new planes before that aircraft is available?
The distances in NZ are too short for more fuel efficient versions of the 737 to be any value.
The 736 has been a big failure for Boeing, costing almost as much to operate as a 737-700
Vhqpa From Australia, joined Jul 2005, 1515 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 9468 times:
Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 2): Also are any of the 733 airports suffering unusually short runways?
The only airport I can think of is ROT there runway is around 5321 ft. Apparently the reason JQ will not continue CHC-ROT is because it can't take a full load with their 320's. Although from what I can see NZ don't send anything larger then a AT7 into ROT at the moment.
Although if ROT ever did want to see larger there is room for runway extension of at least 1000ft on each end of the runway which would bring the runway to 7321 ft which is long enough for not just Domestic Jet ops but Trans tasman as well. Airports like HLZ, ZQN, DUD have/had seen Trans tasman ops with 6200-6400 ft runways.
I'm surprised aircraft like the E190 and Bombardier C series aren't under consideration as these types seem more suited for shorter hops and can increase frequency with the lower seat count.
I'd also like to point out that NZ has the lastest build 733's in the world with average fleet age of just 11 years its not as if they have to quickly get rid of the 733 fleet.
[Edited 2009-03-24 20:26:09]
"There you go ladies and gentleman we're through Mach 1 the speed of sound no bumps no bangs... CONCORDE"
Axio From New Zealand, joined Jul 2006, 319 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 9423 times:
A while ago AirNZ was also looking at an ATR replacement, but decided that there was no aircraft out there (existing or proposed) that warranted their replacement. In some respects a replacement for the ATR might also work as a replacement for the 733s...
This is my take on the current setup
B1900 - 19 pax - rural routes
Q300 - 50 pax - regional routes
ATR72 - 68 pax - regional routes, short trunk routes (CHC-DUD, WLG-CHC offpeak)
733 - 133 pax - trunk routes
A320 - 144+8pax - short-haul-international
But could be replaced by
B1900 - rural
Q300 - regional
'90 - 110 Seater' - peak regional routes, off-peak trunk routes
A320 - short-haul-international, peak trunk routes
This gives AirNZ the opportunity to maintain frequency throughout the domestic network. A 90-110 seater such as the E190 would also have the ability to supplement the A320 on thinner trans-tasman routes.
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12738 posts, RR: 34
Reply 9, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 9215 times:
Doesn't ANZ still have options outstanding on the A320 fleet? I recall that they had options to take the A320s on order as A319s or A321s; have these now lapsed?
I agree that there is a lot to be said for considering the new generation of 100-130 seaters, but on the other hand, the likes of Jetstar will have an advantage in that it can "pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap" and its ability to do this on a 180 seat A320 would be better than another carrieer would have on a 100 seater - it's just economics of scale and I don't think NZ would want to give JQ that advantage.
NZA320 From New Zealand, joined May 2007, 162 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9185 times:
Quoting Alangirvan (Reply 5): If the timing is right, the new Canadian CS-100 seems a very good size for NZ domestic. Does AirNZ need new planes before that aircraft is available?
Leases on 11 of the planes expire over a five-year period from 2011. Air NZ owns the other five 737s. The CS100 is scheduled to enter service in the second half of 2013.
NZs 737-300s seat 133 at 30-35" pitch
CS100 seats 125 at 30" pitch or 110 at 32" Pitch
CS300 seats 145 at 30" pitch or 130 at 32" pitch
The Cseries seem to be on either side of NZs current capacity. So the CS300 would be good for the major trunk routes and maybe replacing some tasman A320 services. The CS100 could replace the ATRs on some regional routes to increase capacity and grow regional domestic services. CS100 could also be used on thin tasman routes like WEL-CBR etc
So the C-series could be a one solution replacement for the ATRs, 737 and the A320s and would provide significant competitive advantage with its low operating and maintenance costs. However the EIS seems to be a year too late so if NZ was to go for this option they would need to acquire an interim fleet of planes to bridge the gap for when the first 737 leaves and the first CS100 arrives.
Hovering is for pilots who love to fly but have no place to go.
NZ1 From Australia, joined May 2004, 2283 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 8935 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
The A320's are proving a bit of a problem for us at the moment. We currently have an aircraft sitting in CHC with corrosion issues that could take some time to rectify, turning a 1 week C check into 5 weeks. This aircraft is only 5 years old.
I personally favour a mixed fleet of 737-700's and 737-800's. Say 14 of each type.
MotorHussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3426 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 8665 times:
I'd see the CS300 being the perfect replacement for the 733 on trunk routes as well as short haul international like DUD-Oz, PMR-Oz, HLZ-Oz (the smaller size keeping these routes viable. There's also a case for them on AKL-IUE and AKL-NLK.
At the upper end of the scale, NZ could exercise some options on A320's to add a few craft for the domestic trunk peaks and o/n internationals I.E. South Pacific.
The smaller size but increased comfort and economics of the CS300 will give NZ increased flexibility and a competitive advantage over JQ and DJ.
Quoting NZ1 (Reply 11): We currently have an aircraft sitting in CHC with corrosion issues that could take some time to rectify,
This is a worry. Is this a one off? What's the Airbus Industrie response to this?
NZ1 From Australia, joined May 2004, 2283 posts, RR: 25
Reply 14, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 8644 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting MotorHussy (Reply 13): This is a worry. Is this a one off? What's the Airbus Industrie response to this?
This is the 2nd aircraft with the same problem we have had in the last 2 months. Airbus have issued fixes, but it involves a heck of a lot of work to implement. Aircraft that are 5 years old shouldn't have corrosion like these 2 have had. Makes a good case to go all Boeing IMHO
Koruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7976 times:
Quoting NZ1 (Reply 11): The A320's are proving a bit of a problem for us at the moment. We currently have an aircraft sitting in CHC with corrosion issues that could take some time to rectify, turning a 1 week C check into 5 weeks. This aircraft is only 5 years old.
Quoting NZ1 (Reply 14): This is the 2nd aircraft with the same problem we have had in the last 2 months. Airbus have issued fixes, but it involves a heck of a lot of work to implement. Aircraft that are 5 years old shouldn't have corrosion like these 2 have had.
I apologise for any offence which this question may cause, but does anyone know yet what the cause of the A320 crash at Perpignan was, and whether that aircraft had had any similar problems identified or addressed?
TN486 From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 962 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7824 times:
NZ1, I know corrosion will appear in all ac, but is not 5 years and turning a C check into a 5 week exercise abnormal? Is there an explanation for this? Please forgive my ignorance, I just find it interesting that this is happening so early.
remember the t shirt "I own an airline"on the front - "qantas" on the back
Adam42185 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 416 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 7199 times:
Quoting ManchesterMAN (Reply 22): I would think this is a great aircraft for the type of high frequency, 1 hour flights NZ operates within NZ.
Yeah thats what I was thinking. I am just not sure if they have enough capacity for routes between the major cities of Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch. I suppose if they just up the frequency it would work out, but they may still need to buy a few bigger planes. I would reallllly love to see an E-190 in air new zealand colors though!