Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
New Zealand Aviation Thread #67  
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12102 posts, RR: 18
Posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 14165 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Welcome to Thread #67, in thread #66 New Zealand Aviation Thread #66 (by 777ER Nov 13 2009 in Civil Aviation) , we learnt and discussed

- NZs winter Tasman timetable
- NZs China routes
- NZ becomes the launch customer for the A320 new shark design winglets
- NZs ADL service - possible connections/services
- QFs WLG services
- NZs LAX/LHR services
- NZ buying a 25% share in DJ


-

223 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAlangirvan From New Zealand, joined Nov 2000, 2106 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 14156 times:

Regarding the "sharklets" - since these will be on AirNZ domestic aircraft there will be very few routes where they make a difference to range performance, but an interesting article by Brett Snyder in the Cranky Flyer, where he points out that there are several routes flown by JetBlue in America, where a supposedly non stop flight between US East Coast and the US West Coast requires a refuelling stop, and the new sharklets should reduce these refuelling stops.

Thinking about this in an Australian context - Jetstar and Tiger use A320s on Australian domestic routes ( apologies for raising this in the NZ forum but a lot of people read both NZ and the Aust forum). Australian East Coast to Australian West Coast is about an hour shorter than US Coast to Coast, but would sharklets make a difference for an A320 on SYD-PER? Or BNE-PER? In an Australian operation perhaps there would be unscheduled refuelling stops at Kalgoorlie?


User currently offlineMotorHussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3197 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 14124 times:



Quoting Alangirvan (Reply 1):
Australian East Coast to Australian West Coast is about an hour shorter than US Coast to Coast, but would sharklets make a difference for an A320 on SYD-PER? Or BNE-PER? In an Australian operation perhaps there would be unscheduled refuelling stops at Kalgoorlie?

And would a shark infested A319 or A320 be able to make the haul from AKL-PER?



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6417 posts, RR: 38
Reply 3, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 14121 times:



Quoting Alangirvan (Reply 1):
Regarding the "sharklets" - since these will be on AirNZ domestic aircraft there will be very few routes where they make a difference to range performance, but an interesting article by Brett Snyder in the Cranky Flyer, where he points out that there are several routes flown by JetBlue in America, where a supposedly non stop flight between US East Coast and the US West Coast requires a refuelling stop, and the new sharklets should reduce these refuelling stops.

But there's nothing saying if and when NZ will replace the current A320 fleet - which could be seen sometime in maybe 5-10 years time. When that does happen, extra fuel savings will be made then.



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlineCHCalfonzo From New Zealand, joined Mar 2007, 182 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 14117 times:



Quoting Alangirvan (Reply 1):
Regarding the "sharklets" - since these will be on AirNZ domestic aircraft there will be very few routes where they make a difference to range performance

My understanding is that the new aircraft will become the new Tasman fleet while the existing OJ* aircraft will become domestic aircraft.



Piper power!
User currently offlineSunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4953 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 14088 times:



Quoting MotorHussy (Reply 2):
And would a shark infested A319 or A320 be able to make the haul from AKL-PER?

It would have to be at least 10% better to do the route on a typical day with passenger load only.
What improvement are they talking about, 3 or 4% ?


User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25115 posts, RR: 85
Reply 6, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 14078 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting MotorHussy (Reply 2):
And would a shark infested A319 or A320 be able to make the haul from AKL-PER?

I'm no tech wallah, but I think it would be dodgy.

In the US, the present range of the newer A320's - with an effective commercial payload - appears to be about 2600 miles. Obviously, winds and hot and high airports can affect this, but I guess the sharklets will obviate the need for the occasional tech stops on some transcons.

TACA/Lacsa used to schedule the A320 non-stop SJO-LAX - 2700 miles. SJO is a tricky airport, high, can be hot and with a difficult mountain range nearby and the aircraft often had to make tech stops. These days they use the A319, which is close to the limit - with an effective commercial payload.

So even if we accept the A320 as 2700 miles and sharklets add 175 (?) miles (150 nm) it would still be short of AKL-PER. I guess weight restrictions could change that, together with the additional fuel tanks that are available. But then - is it worth it?

The A319LR could do it now, without sharklets - CDG-PNR = 3700 miles - but that's Dedicate (all business class), with a trade-off in capacity - 82 seats.

I don't know if the regular A319 with sharklets could make it. How long will it be before the A319 has sharkets?

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineAlangirvan From New Zealand, joined Nov 2000, 2106 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 14074 times:

AKL (37°00'29"S 174°47'30"E) PPT (17°33'24"S 149°36'41"W) 67° (E) 2544 mi
NAN (17°45'19"S 177°26'36"E) HNL (21°19'07"N 157°55'21"W) 32° (NE) 3162 mi
AKL (37°00'29"S 174°47'30"E) PER (31°56'25"S 115°58'01"E) 257° (W) 3323 mi



I have just looked at three longer routes that could be candidates for A320 service with sharklets. these may depend on winds, etc. Auckland to Papeete should be easily within range. Nandi to Honolulu is not a current AirNZ route, but might be. It is currently operated by 738s. AKL-PER is a bit of a dream. I think it might be within the range of a CA919, though I do not think AirNZ is expecting to operate that type. You never know what might turn up in a barter deal with China.


User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12102 posts, RR: 18
Reply 8, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 14056 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR



Quoting Alangirvan (Reply 1):
Regarding the "sharklets" - since these will be on AirNZ domestic aircraft there will be very few routes where they make a difference to range performance,

When NZ announced the new A320 order, all the media reports and NZ article stated the new A320 fleet will become the Tasman/Pacific Island fleet and the current A320s, (-OJA - -OJO) will become the domestic fleet.

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 3):
But there's nothing saying if and when NZ will replace the current A320 fleet - which could be seen sometime in maybe 5-10 years time. When that does happen, extra fuel savings will be made then.

The fuel savings will happen once each new A320 arrives and starts operations, not in a few years.


User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4953 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 13992 times:



Quoting Mariner (Reply 6):
So even if we accept the A320 as 2700 miles and sharklets add 175 (?) miles (150 nm) it would still be short of AKL-PER. I guess weight restrictions could change that, together with the additional fuel tanks that are available. But then - is it worth it?

Your mention of the additional fuel tanks sent me back to the Characteristics tables for the A320. I did some back checking and it appears that the 77t TOW version to get 150-passengers about 2900nm is based on 2 auxiliary tanks installed. Realistically the type is good for 2300nm still air, with standard usable fuel of 18.729t , depending on which weight version NZ has. For PER on a typical day the ESAD is about 3300nm. Not close. Now this table dates back to Nov 1/04, probably there are improvements since then.


User currently offlineAlangirvan From New Zealand, joined Nov 2000, 2106 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 13969 times:

The year ahead could be interesting for the A320 family, if Airbus decides to go ahead with GTFs, and major customers like Lufthansa like the idea.

This would have major implications for the Christchurch Engine Company - would CEC support AirNZ operation of GTFs, and hope to win some overhaul work from neighbouring airlines?


User currently offlineDavidByrne From New Zealand, joined Sep 2007, 1645 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 13965 times:

Quoting 777ER (Reply 8):
When NZ announced the new A320 order, all the media reports and NZ article stated the new A320 fleet will become the Tasman/Pacific Island fleet and the current A320s, (-OJA - -OJO) will become the domestic fleet.

I don't want to quibble, but I've not seen that information reported anywhere. Not that I doubt you, but it would be good to have a source. I checked back on the original NZ press release, and there's no reference to the new aircraft going on international duties there, and I also checked a number of the stories published on 3 November when the story hit the press - again, not a whisper. Likewise, I couldn't find any reference after the winglet story broke - and there's no press release on that on NZ's web site.

It's obviously logical that the wingletted aircraft would be the international ones, but the statement that the new aircraft would be fitted out for high-density 171-seat operation doesn't sit with that - if the new aircraft were to be for the international fleet, then they'd be 152-seaters or thereabouts, and there would also have been an announcement simultaneously about the refitting of the current fleet to a higher density (which I haven't seen). Can you point me to a source?

Interestingly, the National Business Review article on-line had a large number of comments attached to it. Almost all were from people who were clearly either NZ staff who dissented from the decision ("crews hate [the A320s], engineers hate them, and the pax hate them . . . ") or people who were of the view that Airbuses generally had such a poor safety record that they would never fly NZ again. Is the Airbus really "hated" by NZ staff? And why does Boeing inspire such a strong lobby?

Actually, I quite like travelling on the Airbus. Am I unusual? I've not seen such vitriol on an aircraft purchase decision since the decision to buy 737-200s over the competing but smaller BAC 1-11. If I hadn't known better, I'd have thought this was an orchestrated Boeing-inspired counter-insurgency against the Airbus decision . . . ?

[Edited 2009-11-22 17:22:31]


This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
User currently offlineKoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 13959 times:

In the previous thread, a poster discounted the idea of NZ buying a stake in DJ on the basis that Richard Branson refused to sell DJ to NZ as Ansett collapsed, and that "For those who thing NZ will buy DJ, your living in a dream land. Fyfe wont let NZ go under regardless of what is said here........."

This is a highly debatable assertion. I instead subscribe to the view that without addressing the DJ/VA issue then Air New Zealand will become PLUNA, at best able to operate a fleet of 7 regional jets around the country, with no overwater routes whatsoever. That's what a small country of around 4 million of the poorest people in the developed world, with a predominantly agricultural and service economy, can sustain if it doesn't piggyback off the markets of big brother next door. And that's not a hypothesis, that's a fact, as Uruguay's experience shows.

Firstly, SRB refused to sell DJ to NZ in 2001 because he recognised that Ansett was about to collapse, and that by refusing to sell he could drive both AN and NZ out of the Australian domestic market - and it worked.

In many ways the roles are now reversed. Air New Zealand has little reason to care about DJ's Australian routes, but its V Australia subsidiary is now targeting two key long-haul routes. One of them is BNE/MEL-USA, which is one of Air New Zealand's major revenue earners, and the other is Australia-South Africa, which for years has had enormous yields.

V Australia's alliance with Delta is clearly short-term and born of desperation, and Air New Zealand's management is well aware that it has more to offer V Australia (in terms of cooperation across the Pacific, and feed into MEL-JNB).

I think we all know that Fyfe and Godfrey have discussed a range of opportunities, including (amongst other things) combining VA and NZ's long-haul operations but under the two brands, and also including DJ and NZ each buying significant equity in one another.

There is a lot at stake here for those of us who are frequent long-haul flyers. In contrast with an NZ-QF tie-up, which would have sent fares skyward, a VA-NZ alliance would more likely keep viable routes which might not otherwise be viable.

This would mean that a VA frequent flyer from Melbourne could fly direct to JNB and LAX on his own carrier, but also on NZ to HNL or SFO or YVR via AKL, while still racking up status credits and using elite frequent flyer benefits on both carriers. And that feed into AKL-SFO, AKL-HNL and AKL-YVR would probably see each of them becoming viable as a daily flight, which obviously helps NZ-based passengers.

Similarly, passengers from Christchurch or Auckland who are Air NZ frequent flyers could fly one-stop to JNB via MEL, again racking up status credits all the way.

Air New Zealand used to have huge numbers of Airpoints members in Australia but those numbers fell precipitously after Ansett collapsed, because they have nothing to offer on domestic flights. A DJ/VA/NZ tie-up could restore that lost market.

The stakes are really high for Air New Zealand, because if VA does steal NZ's markets from Victoria and Queensland to the USA then Air New Zealand is basically finished as an international carrier.

[Edited 2009-11-22 17:32:24]

[Edited 2009-11-22 17:40:07]

User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25115 posts, RR: 85
Reply 13, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 13952 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 9):
Now this table dates back to Nov 1/04, probably there are improvements since then.

Yes. I don't keep track of it all - not my area - but I am told that there have been a number of tweaks that have pushed the range up a tad.

There was a lot of discussion about JetBlue perhaps starting LAX-SJO - 2365nm - and a number of the more technically minded said that the A320 had been tweaked enough to make it.

But although I have some interest in the range of the A320 family, it's really not my area.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineB767ERWinglets From New Zealand, joined Nov 2009, 26 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 13913 times:

Koruman..

I fully respect your opinion and have been an avit reader of your posts over the past 5 years, and most of the time (85%) I agree fully with what you say.. However I must disagree with the buy up between DJ/NZ.

Although I no longer work in the airline industry now, I still have contacts within the industry. The AN/NZ/DJ tie up that was put together in 2001 is still very fresh in NZ management’s minds. Although it was over 8 years ago, NZ thought it was a done deal and with SRB decision to cancel the buyout of DJ in 2001 was a pure media stunt. Also I strongly believe SRB (and DJ management) where looking at that point to see what they could get for DJ at the going rates.

NZ Management (specifically Gary Toomey) thought it was done and dusted and there were alot of NZ Management who were left with very very red faces when the deal was quashed. This was going to save AN in their minds.... Unfortunately the only person left holding the can was Gary Toomey and he was a scapegoat for everything and this put an end to his career. This also damaged the relationship between NZ/AN and SQ. There is alot of bad blood that still exists between SQ/NZ now.

Although Fyfe was not the head of NZ at that time, he is acutely aware of what happened and I doubt he will head back down that track. NZ was in just a big mess as AN was at that stage, and its thanks to the likes of Ralph Norris and Fyfe that the airline has worked its way back to what it is today. Don’t get me wrong there is a way to go, but NZ has changed as a carrier to what it was in 2001-03.

I believe strongly as well that NZ relies on BNE/MEL/ADL traffic to fill AKL-SFO/LAX/YVR and eventually as things pick up again I'm sure these services will (SFO/YVR) go daily, however the likely hood of HNL going daily is never going to happen. ( In looking at the loads on NZ9/NZ10 and northbound there are recent days where NZ10 is lucky to have 100 people on board where capacity is 230 odd. NZ9 given has an average of 160 south bound.).
So the idea of HNL being a hub, or a big destination is not going to happen. The only way HNL will come back onto the radar is if another carrier (HA/JQ/NW/DL) comes back on line to stimulate travel. (Furthermore I don’t believe any service Ex-Australia connects with NZ10 northbound, and requires and overnight in NZ. Why would you bother if you can go QF/JQ/HA nonstop from Sydney)...

Finally I agree that an interline agreement with DJ/NZ would work, but I think DJ would need to look at star or something similar for this work?


User currently offlineDarenw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 13891 times:



Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 11):
I don't want to quibble, but I've not seen that information reported anywhere. Not that I doubt you, but it would be good to have a source. I checked back on the original NZ press release, and there's no reference to the new aircraft going on international duties there

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ticle.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10607114

Parton said it was possible the new aircraft would be used on international routes.

D


User currently offlineKoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 13884 times:

Quoting B767ERWinglets (Reply 14):
Although I no longer work in the airline industry now, I still have contacts within the industry. The AN/NZ/DJ tie up that was put together in 2001 is still very fresh in NZ management’s minds. Although it was over 8 years ago, NZ thought it was a done deal and with SRB decision to cancel the buyout of DJ in 2001 was a pure media stunt. Also I strongly believe SRB (and DJ management) where looking at that point to see what they could get for DJ at the going rates.

NZ Management (specifically Gary Toomey) thought it was done and dusted and there were alot of NZ Management who were left with very very red faces when the deal was quashed. This was going to save AN in their minds.... Unfortunately the only person left holding the can was Gary Toomey and he was a scapegoat for everything and this put an end to his career. This also damaged the relationship between NZ/AN and SQ. There is alot of bad blood that still exists between SQ/NZ now.

Thanks for that reply.

I am quite surprised that you say that, I must admit. I remember all of this happening in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and to me it seemed painful obvious that Branson and Godfrey were deliberately playing Air New Zealand all along, ensuring that AN fell over as a competitor.

I should also say that I always liked Gary Toomey, and that the whole plan of a combined Australia and New Zealand carrier was absolutely correct, but genuine due diligence would have shown that Ansett was the wrong vehicle. (I would have preferred for the Clark government to redraw the rules AT THAT TIME to allow SQ a 49% stake in Air NZ - if Qantas was afraid of it it must have been the right answer - and I would have let SQ buy the other half of Ansett a couple of years earlier, so that it was 50.1%NZ owned and 49.9% SQ owned.)

Quoting B767ERWinglets (Reply 14):
I believe strongly as well that NZ relies on BNE/MEL/ADL traffic to fill AKL-SFO/LAX/YVR and eventually as things pick up again I'm sure these services will (SFO/YVR) go daily

That depends. If VA persist with the oversized 77W on BNE/MEL-USA then Air NZ has a hope because BNE-SFO and MEL-YVR non-stop won't be viable for VA in a 77W. But if they get real and use Delta's 77L across the Pacific those routes will be cleaned up on a non-stop basis by VA/DL, and Air New Zealand will fold.

Quoting B767ERWinglets (Reply 14):
the likely hood of HNL going daily is never going to happen. ( In looking at the loads on NZ9/NZ10 and northbound there are recent days where NZ10 is lucky to have 100 people on board where capacity is 230 odd. NZ9 given has an average of 160 south bound.).
So the idea of HNL being a hub, or a big destination is not going to happen. The only way HNL will come back onto the radar is if another carrier (HA/JQ/NW/DL) comes back on line to stimulate travel. (Furthermore I don’t believe any service Ex-Australia connects with NZ10 northbound, and requires and overnight in NZ. Why would you bother if you can go QF/JQ/HA nonstop from Sydney)...

Air New Zealand's approach to Honolulu mystifies me. Jetstar have pulled out of MEL-HNL, which means that Brisbane and Melbourne passengers to HNL have to go via Sydney, which is less popular than a connection at AKL would be, due to the baggage reclaim/terminal change issues.

With Hawaii blossoming again as a destination for Aussies (as the A$ and US$ are roughly equivalent now) you would think that Air New Zealand would just put back NZ10 AKL-HNL back by 9 hours so that you could connect straight through from Australia.

That would mean rescheduled arrival and departures as follows:

NZ 10 Dep AKL 1900 Arr HNL 0545
NZ9 Dep HNL 0640 Arr AKL 1415

I really don't see what Air NZ would have to lose, but they would gain a big secondary Australian market. I recently attended a conference in Honolulu with six Brisbane-based colleagues, who were all unhappy with their Hawaiian and Jetstar flights to HNL via Sydney, describing levels of service far below what Air New Zealand offers, as well as the SYD terminal change nightmare.

[Edited 2009-11-22 18:38:58]

User currently offlineTG992 From New Zealand, joined Jan 2001, 2910 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 13837 times:



Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 11):
Almost all were from people who were clearly either NZ staff who dissented from the decision ("crews hate [the A320s], engineers hate them, and the pax hate them . . . ")

These people are somewhat spinning the truth - passengers PREFER the 767 and 747, but wouldn't we all?



-
User currently offlineDavidByrne From New Zealand, joined Sep 2007, 1645 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 13835 times:



Quoting Darenw (Reply 15):

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ticle.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10607114

Parton said it was possible the new aircraft would be used on international routes.

OK, thanks, I did recall reading that, but I interpreted it as meaning that NZ would possibly consider 171-seat all-economy A320s on some Tasman routes, supplementing the existing 152-seat configuration.

Irrespective, if the NEW aircraft are to be the mainstay of the Tasman fleet, then they will presumably come in a 152-seat configuration and the existing fleet will need to be reconfigured to bring them up to the (more or less) 171-seat configuration that the airline quoted for the domestic fleet.

Quoting Koruman (Reply 16):
NZ 10 Dep AKL 1900 Arr HNL 0545
NZ9 Dep HNL 0640 Arr AKL 1415

The intention is great, but the reality for pax departing HNL is somewhat unfriendly, even though my reading of the timetable is that the southbound flight takes less time than you've assumed. NZ winter would be almost OK, but in the NZ summer, the flight times would be brutal . . .

The winter timetable could be
AKL 1900-0545 HNL
HNL 0715-1430 AKL

But in the NZ summer, the schedule would have to be
AKL 1900-0445 HNL
HNL 0615-1430 AKL - not pleasant

I've often pondered how NZ could finesse connections from HNL to and from Eastern Australia, and my conclusion is that it's too hard without these unsociable early morning departures. Swings and roundabouts, I think in terms of pax appeal - yes, better connections might develop the market, but at the same time unsociable departure times might push pax into the arms of HA or JQ.



This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4953 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 13805 times:



Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 18):
HNL 0615-1430 AKL - not pleasant

Agreed, but assuming no customs in AKL a minimal connecting time is all that is needed. Also, a quick glance at the connecting AKL-MEL/BNE flights, they could be put back 30-minutes or more.


User currently offlineDavidByrne From New Zealand, joined Sep 2007, 1645 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 13781 times:



Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 19):
Agreed, but assuming no customs in AKL a minimal connecting time is all that is needed. Also, a quick glance at the connecting AKL-MEL/BNE flights, they could be put back 30-minutes or more.

The current schedule for AKL-MEL-AKL is
AKl 1530-1730 MEL
MEL 1830-2359 AKL

Putting the flights back a half-hour means that the (southern sunmmer) departure from HNL could be put back to 0645 (still unpleasant) and the arrival from MEL into AKL then comes in at 0030. NZ might find that pax went for the QF MEL-AKL flight (1805/2335) in preference to one that arrived an hour later. Moving the NZ HNL-AKL flight to an 0715 departure would mean that the MEL-AKL flight came in at 0100. That has sometimes been scheduled by NZ, but I'm picking it wasn't popular.

Mind you, QF has an AKL-MEL departure at 0545, and AKL-SYD at 0550 (code-shared on LA). My guess is that most pax don't take those flights from choice, but necessity. If NZ is seeking to woo pax off HA and JQ, I think they have to offer timings that are pax-friendly.



This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12102 posts, RR: 18
Reply 21, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 13764 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR



Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 11):
Quoting 777ER (Reply 8):
When NZ announced the new A320 order, all the media reports and NZ article stated the new A320 fleet will become the Tasman/Pacific Island fleet and the current A320s, (-OJA - -OJO) will become the domestic fleet.

I don't want to quibble, but I've not seen that information reported anywhere.

I clearly remember reading a stuff.co.nz article on it a few days after the order was announced.


User currently offlineAlangirvan From New Zealand, joined Nov 2000, 2106 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 13704 times:

If AirNZ really wanted to do connections to HNL from Australia, they would operate the flights at totally different times. They would have the HNL-AKL flight departing HNL at around midnight, and then passsengers could catch normal Trans Tasman flights. AKL HNL flights might leave AKL mid afternoon, about 1500, which would leave time for flights from MEL/BNE and ADL to connect at AKL.

User currently offlineDavidByrne From New Zealand, joined Sep 2007, 1645 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 13689 times:



Quoting Alangirvan (Reply 22):
If AirNZ really wanted to do connections to HNL from Australia, they would operate the flights at totally different times. They would have the HNL-AKL flight departing HNL at around midnight, and then passsengers could catch normal Trans Tasman flights. AKL HNL flights might leave AKL mid afternoon, about 1500, which would leave time for flights from MEL/BNE and ADL to connect at AKL.

When you sit down with a pen and pencil, it turns out that the latest that you could leave AKL for HNL would be around 1330 (arriving HNL 0015 in the NZ winter), and that only currently connects with the 0700 SYD-AKL flight (arriving 1205). NZ used to run a MEL-AKL flight on a 0645/1215 schedule IIRC, but that hasn't operated for five years or so, and in the meantime NZ's MEL frequencies have been cut back from 4x daily to 2x daily. Returning from HNL, a flight leaving HNL at (say) 0130 would get in to AKL at 0845, too late for the present MEL, SYD and BNE connections. If those connections were retimed, it would have a flow-on effect and require the evening wave of flights to North America to be put back as well - which is not an impossibility. But any which way, it would require a major re-jigging of the Transtasman timetable, which right now is operating at almost maximum efficiency. Any change would be likely to introdcuce inefficiencies which may or not be matched by the benefits of aligning HNL services better with eastern Australian connections.

So what you suggest isn't impossible, but it isn't easy, and it would require a significant change to the timetable pattern which has operated for many years.



This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
User currently offlineV2fix From New Zealand, joined Mar 2003, 368 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 13516 times:



Quoting Alangirvan (Reply 22):
I clearly remember reading a stuff.co.nz article on it a few days after the order was announced.

Yup - I saw it posted on a number of news sites. Put in terms of a 'distinct likelihood' rather than an absoluete.

One thing that probably lends itself to this decision is that the sharklets are not beinig offered as a retro-fit option by Airbus. Not that I can see anywhere. Its very much an enhancement following down for the A350XWB programme - and there are distinct changes of wing profile (discussed elsewhere on A.Net).

So, given that the efficiency benefits of the sharklets kicks in on longer distances, utilising these new craft on the internal short hops would not deliver the cost savings exepected.

Hence - use them transtasman and for the islands.

Seem to make good sense.



742; 744; DC10, DC3, 321, 320, 319, 170,190, 772, 773,333, 346, 343
25 TG992 : Why would you add a A320 when loads ae high enough for a 763 and you are trying to build NZ to SA traffic? Another A.Net myth? Ground TG992
26 DavidByrne : The only reason would be to enable a double-daily flight allowing daily connections to and from North America in the 0500-0700 (westbound) and 1800-2
27 Post contains links WLG787 : Sorry if this has already been posted - some footage of the Gulf Air A340 arriving in Wellington for the footie http://www.wlg-airport.co.nz/html/busi
28 SunriseValley : Does anyone monitoring this thread know what the average cargo density is for air freight to and from N.Z. ?
29 B767ERWinglets : Anyone heard of HA starting services HNL-AKL?????????
30 Cchan : I don't know why, but some posters here think that a 6 hour flight on a 320 or 737 is as good as on a widebody. Personally, if there is a choice, I w
31 TravellerPlus : No it is not, but there are not many places to land 5-8 hours from AKL. The only two routes which come close to 6 hours on the NZ network are AKL-CNS
32 777ER : Was in CHC today and the ex QF B733 (-JNO?) that was purchased by NZ is now missing its tail and now all evidence of it being once by QF is gone. The
33 Post contains links 777ER : Australians are helping to boost AKLs numbers - http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...tralians-boost-Akl-Airport-traffic
34 NZ1 : Its been like that for nearly 6 months. It is used by Altitude to test mock ups for BBJ activity. NZ1
35 SunriseValley : What is Altitute's part in the interiors of the 77W ? Are they actually building items or are their efforts confined to design and prototyping?
36 DavidByrne : " target=_blank>http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...affic From the article: A breakdown of arrivals showed a 23.1 percent increase in visitors from
37 VirginFlyer : According to NZ's timetables, AKL-CNS is scheduled at 5h25, and CNS-AKL is 4h45, while AKL-PPT is 5h, and PPT-AKL is 6h05 (and is on a 767, not an A3
38 Aerokiwi : I'm curious as to the idea of NZ pefrforming worse on the Tasman in terms of pax carried. Given QF has reduced capacity, offset partially by Jetstar,
39 DavidByrne : My assertion is based on a mix of capacity (not actual pax carried) and city-pairs operated. My strong impression is that NZ (including former subsid
40 Post contains links Zkpilot : Unpruned trees trim Air NZ passenger numbers http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3094...rees-trim-Air-NZ-passenger-numbers Air NZ is having to reduce pass
41 Aerokiwi : I'm sure some days are still 3, 2 A320s and 1 763/772. no? Well QF has backpedalled enormously (eg. didn't AKL-MEL used to be 2 daily 763s?) while Je
42 DavidByrne : Sorry, should have been more specific. During the summer, there are 17 flights/week, or around 2.5 per day. However, by June 2010, the winter schedul
43 ANstar : Actually I'd say it has been OK growth. SYD-AKL SYD-WLG SYD-HLZ SYD-ZQN BNE-HLZ BNE-DUD MEL-AKL Plus they are increasing some SYD-AKL and SYD-WLG fly
44 Post contains images 777ER : When I last saw -JNO (September), you could still tell it was once owned by QF, but now all evidence of it being once owned by QF are gone (including
45 777ER : Plus add a possible WLG-MEL route within the next 12 months and the domestic expansion also in the next 12 months Flights start December 12th
46 Post contains links and images 777ER : Finally uploaded a pic of the A340
47 Aotearoa : For anyone in the vicinity of Rotorua tomorrow. An Air New Zealand A320 will be arriving at ROT around 0830. The A320 will then departing for a short
48 Alangirvan : The picture of the Gulf Air A340 at WLG has turned out to be even more special than we thought. News from Bahrain is that Gulf Air will be doing a maj
49 TravellerPlus : With regards the NZ market share on the Tasman, I have reviewed the Australian BTRE data. The following is for the period January 2003 to August 2009.
50 Koruman : With respect, that is quite an oversimplification. Air New Zealand closed down Freedom operations across the Tasman because their yields were not wor
51 V2fix : Flight showing as NZ 6023
52 NZ1 : Altitude do design only. Tech Ops actually build what Altitude has designed. For rego spotters the aircraft involved will be OJC. NZ1
53 SunriseValley : so any new-design seats will be built in-house or will one of the companies in the seat business build them to Altitudes design?
54 TG992 : Given those figures will KE leave the NZ market. Fly just ICN - SYD and codeshare with NZ or QF? Just because there are reduced flights this does not
55 DavidByrne : Thanks for doing that - I could/should have done it myself before launching into print on the basis of instinct and a rough assessment of capacity of
56 DavidByrne : I take your point about the lack of direct correlation between capacity and passengers carried, but we also know that the airline is pretty adept at
57 MotorHussy : To add frequency to aid in a more compelling and competitive proposition over QF and DJ. Plus the 763's won't be around forever and I suspect the 789
58 Aerokiwi : Indeed, thanky you TravellerPlus. Interesting figures, but I think TG992 and Koruman are both correct - load factor may have improved while the airli
59 Koruman : I increasingly suspect that a merger is more likely than an acquisition, along the lines of the recent BA/Iberia merger, with each brand continuing.
60 Mariner : Well - maybe. I wasn't around for the Ansett debacle, otherwise engaged, but I've been making a study of it recently. And it is horrifying reading. T
61 Koruman : It is actually worse than that. The big picture strategy was extremely sound: increase a poor home market of 4 million to a well-off combined market
62 Mariner : I agree completely with the big picture strategy, but it can't, I promise you, be any worse than some of the stuff I've read. I've gone all the way b
63 Aerokiwi : That was the nail in the coffin. An absolute disgrace. If Roger Douglas should be ashamed, then so should Michael Cullen, whom I believe was the mini
64 Aerohottie : My take on this is slightly different... had SQ done full due diligence, I am of the belief that they would have pulled back their interest, and the
65 Mariner : In the first case, I think it was Rogernomics rampant, an airline sacrificed to an ideology. The second is slightly more complex, only slightly, and
66 777ER : What does everyone think of Mike Pero's plans (now delayed) to charter a B744 and sell 307 seats for a sightseeing flight to Mt Erebus For January 31s
67 NZ1 : Another armchair CEO who doesn't know all the FACTS about this story. NZ1
68 Mariner : I don't think he is an armchair CEO. I think he's a concerned New Zealander, with a strong interest in aviation, who is reacting to the information t
69 Axio : My feeling is that one of the many ways we as nation have had of showing our respect to those who were lost and those who suffered loss was for that
70 NZ1 : My comments were based on ALL the information in the public domain. To say Air NZ attacked Mike Pero is misleading. The issue was around the timing o
71 Post contains links Mariner : I'm still not sure what the problem is. I imagine that a number of those who want to go - relatives, people who want to pay their respects - might th
72 777ER : So me, just like any other New Zealander is NOT entitled to an opinion on this issue which is of interest to alot of New Zealanders? Since the most e
73 PA515 : Mike Pero's so called "offer to help the relatives" of TE 901 was mischievous and in poor taste. His appearance on 'Close Up' with Mark Sainsbury was
74 NZ1 : I never said that Jase. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. It's just I have noticed you seem to be quick to jump on Air NZ these days. As I menti
75 NZ1 : Now we are starting to get somewhere. Glad I am not the only one who can read between the lines. NZ1
76 Post contains links Axio : Rob Fyfe named executive of the year. http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...b-Fyfe-named-executive-of-the-year
77 Post contains links TravellerPlus : Thanks for your added insights Koruman. All good and its what I like about this forum. I will respond by saying that my comment about NZ's decline onl
78 KiwiRob : I really wish you would stop insulting us, we have heard you harp on about this dozens of times and it's getting very old.
79 777ER : Yes I do agree with you on that part, but on a whole, I am happy with how the airline is running, but I do have some concerns on some aspects
80 DavidByrne : Yes, the figures are very interesting, and quite revealing. I'm sure there must be an error in the NZ presentation, as you say, and I agree with your
81 Koruman : I'm sorry that you take offence, but as a New Zealander myself (and an economic rmigrant to Australia) I think that our financial situation entirely
82 Koruman : I don't actually agree. Singapore Airlines already owned as much of Air New Zealand as it was allowed to under the foreign ownership rules, and was r
83 Koruman : I think that Air New Zealand's strategy is a response to its struggles on the Tasman, not the cause. I think that you will find that Air New Zealand
84 Aerokiwi : Interesting you bring this up (as many do). It's generally accepted that New Zealand's banking sector avoided the crises we see in Europe and the US
85 Koruman : I think that what has happened is that they have decided that on the Tasman they are settling for being like Qantas as opposed to Jetstar: exchanging
86 DavidByrne : Agree that they are taking the QF approach - but they've at the same time canned their own LCC, Freedom, unlike QF, which is actively transferring ro
87 Knid : This is often the case in business in general here, the long term thinking that goes on extends all of one or two years. Strategic planning, or even
88 Kiwiandrew : Belgium 'poorish' , I would love to see your source for that , I think you just knocked a big hole in your credibility .
89 RichardJF : Given that QF has successfully started Latin America will NZ follow suit. Why are they not trying to create a mirrored version of AKL in Europe?
90 Koruman : Belgium's economy is $506,183 million, compared with its bigger neighbours Holland ($876,970 million), Germany ($3,673,105 million) and France ($2,86
91 Antskip : According to the USA CIA "World factbook" economic figures for GDP per capita for 2008, New Zealand is 49th wealthiest country in the world per capit
92 KiwiRob : I disagree with your statement, New Zealand has to have a connection to the rest of the world, it is a priority of the NZ Govt to have this connectio
93 Koruman : Those figures are not in dispute: the issue is that the combination of 49th highest per capita income and a tiny population means a very small long-h
94 Knid : It all will depend on what Abu Dhabi decides to do. They have the money, the oil, and fiscally at least are solid. In my short time up there I was le
95 Antskip : New Zealand, though about the same population as Melbourne, has the Australian market also to feed on, at least internationally. That it has chosen t
96 UncleKoru : JQ drop down to 5 daily each way on AKL-CHC for December. JQ 257/258 will not operate. While mention has been made of the soft(er) loads on these part
97 Kiwiandrew : I dont dispute that it has a smaller economy , but I do vehemently dispute your labelling of it as 'poorish' , as you yourself admit you have chosen
98 SunriseValley : Kiwiandrew, respectfully you are trying to obfuscate the debate. The point that K'man makes is not changed by his choice of words.
99 TG992 : Valid point but perhaps the SA/NZ code share is to build traffic and relations for the 787-9 to fly AKL-PER-JNB ? This might be a good aircraft for t
100 Mariner : Not for one moment. I'm really not that naive. I was at pains to say that Mr. Fyfe probably represents the consensus of the BOD and the majority shar
101 Mariner : And that hidden agenda is - what? And what proof do you have of it? mariner
102 Knid : If a charge of flawed argumentation is going to be brought it would be against you, it is absolutely fallacious to argue that poor choice of words me
103 Post contains links Kiwiandrew : Permit me to remind you that in his original quote he put Belgium in the same sentence as Uruguay . I guess I was being too polite ... it is not so m
104 RichardJF : Fyfe while providing a good public face to the airline is not providing any useful strategic direction for NZ. It's all very well to not rock the boat
105 DavidByrne : Wholeheartedly agree, and this is also why I think that it's not inappropriate for the NZ taxpayer to have a significant strategic shareholding in th
106 RichardJF : Just because strategic decisions such as Ansett.... the hub at Brisbane.... London-Hong Kong and Beijing haven't worked out it doesn't mean the airlin
107 SunriseValley : You speak of a hub in Europe, where do you believe it should be? I don't see YVR as a O&D point, sea on one side and mountains on the other. All the
108 Koruman : I don't think people should be concentrating so much on what precisely I didn't mean when I used the word "poorish". My point can probably be articula
109 Post contains images VirginFlyer : That bus will have to negotiate nearly 500km of Persian Gulf, or go via Saudi Arabia - don't forget Bahrain is an island nation, connected to Saudi A
110 Post contains links Mariner : The kerfuffle was that he had been CEO, was ousted and later resigned from the BOD. A year later it went bust: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/small-busi..
111 RichardJF : Sunrise - Competing for traditional business markets in europe doesn't make sense for NZ imo. It's why Swissair and Sabena ultimately failed because Z
112 TN486 : Mariner, there are 2 books available that you may wish to read relative to Ansett, its relationship with NZ and its eventual demise. They are Ansett,
113 Mariner : Thanks for that. I've read the second - chums in Oz know of my interest in Ansett and Australian aviation dating back years. I've written about it so
114 VirginFlyer : I think there's a fairly significant difference - the geography. First of all, if you were to lay Uruguay over the top of the North Island, it would
115 TG992 : a bit like AKLSFO, AKLYVR, AKLPVG, AKLPEK, AKLADL, AKLIUE, HKGLHR in the past number of years? People forget so quickly what NZ was doing prior to ba
116 Mariner : Bummer. Hope so. But please - not non-stop. I'd love to see it - and not necessarily to MUC or FRA. I'd love to see them do something mildly differen
117 NZ107 : Understandable as it seems like there's not that much spare capacity at the moment with the 744s parked up/scrapped. And it doesn't sound like any ne
118 Post contains images AerorobNZ : Some of you guys have been playing too much airline manager on facebook.... Some of you apparently want NZ to operate something like this We don't liv
119 Mariner : Sure, it may be understandable. I think it is still a bummer. I agree with the Virgin Blue strategy - now is the time for some expansion, even if it
120 AerorobNZ : NZ still hold SIN landing rights, and I think it's the most likely way of us flying to India.
121 Mariner : Do they have onward rights from SIN? If so, I think it is a pity they didn't use them. But specifically in the case of SIN-India, isn't there a lot o
122 DavidByrne : The downside of SXF is that it doesn't have the massive LH feed to all points of Europe that FRA and MUC do. And given that bmi is now just a shadow
123 DavidByrne : It's just that operating AKL-SIN-India you're going head-to-head with SQ, a fellow Star carrier, on both sectors. If NZ wanted to operate via an Asia
124 Post contains images Mariner : Well, again as many know, I am not a lover of the big alliances. Yes, I know they have their place, and work well on certain routes and for certain t
125 Hikarufree : Have they thought of serving ORD on 3x weekly basis? Apart from the UA/*A benefits, it would provide an alternative to QF's SYD-LAX-JFK services. Whi
126 DavidByrne : They have signalled ORD, as a UA hub, as a possibility for when the 789s come into the fleet. Until then, however, I doubt that any aircraft in the f
127 Aerorobnz : Yeah AI/SQ definitely are tough opposition thru SIN. However when you consider that anyone on an indian passport needs a visa to visit/transit austra
128 NZB : NBT is no longer parked long term. It came back into service last week. Be it part time. Currently on route LAX-AKL as NZ5.
129 Post contains links Mariner : As of 2006, the Indian population of Australia was running at about 250,000 (adding Indian born and Australian born, with some percentage from Fiji).
130 VirginFlyer : Not at all. Your picture is missing all the long haul routes into Invercargill. V/F
131 NZ107 : Right. But even so, it's still underutilised and there doesn't seem to be any extra capacity beyond that to open up a new route. Yes, I totally forgo
132 TG992 : Students will pay low yield. Not ideal to target that market. The Visa issue is a problem and going via SIN would be a problem with the *Alliance. It
133 Mariner : Not suggesting they target them - but they are there. If Air NZ starts the route to India as a non-stop, they're going to want every Indian student t
134 Alangirvan : AKL-BOM would be one city pair. The Travel Trade is used to putting NZ-India traffic onto Singapore Airlines - with a choice of seven Indian cities av
135 Pewpew320 : As terrible as this and yes it is going to sound racist TG992 makes a point, lets face it Indians have a reputation (undeserved or not) for being rud
136 TN486 : For what its worth, my opinion on flights direct to India from Oz would be best served by JQ, and flights from New Zealand via OZ also with JQ, if it
137 Mariner : Who should face it? They don't have that reputation with me. When I first came to New Zealand, in the mid-sixties, some Remuera matrons wouldn't eat
138 Post contains images Mariner : I am confused. It was said: Now you seem to be saying that these same Aussies would be okay it on Jetstar - but not on Air NZ? Of course, many of tho
139 DavidByrne : Sorry, but I find this illogical and offensive. How would running a nonstop service change your position? Not in my book they don't. Should NZ also c
140 RichardJF : TG992 - LAX -NCE should be thought of as LAX to Italy / Southern France / Corsica / Sardinia
141 RichardJF : With the costs of LAX, SFO, PVG, PEK, HGK, YVR, NRT, KIX already paid for a European hub is a no brainer for NZ.
142 Post contains images Aerokiwi : I like the dot in the South Atlantic. A Falklands hub is right what Air NZ needs   I actually tend to agree. If (and it's a big IF), NZ was to retur
143 Koruman : I for one really doubt that India-Australia/NZ would be all low yield. The students would be, but the Indian upper and professional classes now Austra
144 Post contains images Mariner :       What worries me is that they would plump for FRA because it is a Lufthansa/Star Alliance hub. It is an artificial hub, though, a created hu
145 DavidByrne : I think we make a mistake by looking at Europe in terms of finding a suitable destination solely on the basis of its own appeal. The reality is that
146 Mariner : I hope not. The best hubs are usually two things - a desirable destination in its own right and a well-located crossroads. There are exceptions to th
147 Aerokiwi : I would normally agree, but as we are so keen on potential in this thread of late, Berlin offers much more room for growth in the coming decade than
148 Koruman : I think that the discussion about Europe-NZ services at present is completely back-to-front. The issue is not where New Zealanders may go if there wer
149 TG992 : Well.... I never said I had a problem with them and I never said all would feel like that but I know many people who have said things like this. Beca
150 DavidByrne : deleted (duplication)[Edited 2009-11-29 19:39:37]
151 DavidByrne : Do NZers avoid flying on NZ from AKL-BNE because they fear that the plane may be half-full of Americans connecting from SFO/LAX, knowing that the (un
152 Koruman : This is a horrible, touchy issue. I got flamed in a previous thread for writing that if Air NZ competed to UK provincial cities against Emirates they
153 Mariner : Given the relatively small Indian population in NZ, I think it unlikely that every flight AKL-BNE would be "half full" of Indians. Unless they all de
154 767ER : I think that reputation is undeserved having been to BOM twice and my current job where 30% of the employees are Indians. Having said that, I have se
155 Aerokiwi : Quite right, sorry, missed that, but the point is - I doubt there are enough people who think that way to impact on an air service. Well except for m
156 Post contains links 777ER : Air NZ: Air Force should take Families to Antartica - http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/ereb...should-take-families-to-Antarctica
157 767ER : That cannot be as bad as the PR flight I took on a DC10 in the the 80s. I was flying back from LGW via god knows where on a 742 with a connection at
158 Alangirvan : " target=_blank>http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/ereb...ctica Quoting from the article - a RNZAF 757 to the Antarctic? The Australian aircraft is actu
159 TG992 : Do Americans have the same "unfair" reputation? I'm sorry but it you can not look past the comment as anything more than "racist" then I'll drop the
160 Cchan : A few years ago, I did BKK-CMB on TG. While in the "queue" waiting for my cabin luggage to be searched by security, the Sri Lankan woman behind me wi
161 TN486 : Mariner, one of these days I will learn to shut up when I am very tired
162 Mariner : It is always intrigues me that when subjects like this come up, people remember travel horror stories - which only reflect one view. The worst flight
163 TG992 : This is my point. How many people feel the same and will passengers looking to book flights to Australia think twice because "air new zealand's fligh
164 Mariner : Once again, not every TT flight would be going on to India. It's also odd to assume that the NZ Indian population doesn't travel to Oz already, and t
165 TG992 : No that's right BUT IF people thought the BNE flight went to BOM would still look at ANZ as a option? We already talked about NZ losing some market s
166 Alangirvan : Just by any chance if someone at AirNZ looked in their Christmas stocking and found two 777-200LRs, and they wanted to share their new toys with some
167 Post contains images Mariner : I fully accept that some Kiwis may resent the so-called Asian Invasion quite bitterly, but it is what it is, it doesn't go away. It doesn't get less.
168 TG992 : No I apologised I also correct myself earlier saying it was a question So give up AKLBNE for AKLBNEBOM traffic. Nice! Don't keep asking questions the
169 Mariner : That isn't what I said. You seem to see things in absolutes. I don't. Quite apart from anything else, I am not thrilled about AKL-BNE-India, I'd pref
170 RichardJF : Because the rest of NZ's network (domestic New Zealand, short haul, long haul from NZ) is static a southern european hub should be seen as a prime opp
171 RichardJF : New Zealand - India belongs to SQ etc.....NZ going to India would be a complete folly.
172 Knid : No longer a question now a conclusion... Nice! I can't really believe that this conversation is happening, to suggest that Air NZ, our national carri
173 TG992 : Very much so. Ground TG992
174 Cchan : My point is that in some parts of the world there are more "unruly" passengers, not necessarily race related, some cultures have a different standard
175 Mariner : Presumably, any flight with a routing AKL-BNE-India would be a widebody. I'm very happy flying to Oz on an A320 or a 737, but if there is the choice
176 Cchan : That is the only thing on the positive side. Does NZ still put a 744 or 772 on AKL-BNE these days? There are also NZ and QF 763s on the route. Well,
177 Mariner : In a long lifetime of flying, on all continents, I have never encountered those issues. mariner
178 NZB : Qantas seems to have quietly adjusted AKL-LAX Flights. QF 15/16 operating LA today no QF25/26. Looking fwd it seems several days a week with no servic
179 RichardJF : The reason MAN doesn't make sense for a european hub for NZ is that a British industrial town just isn't a particularly saleable proposition in Califo
180 DavidByrne : If MAN was served by NZ, it wouldn't be for its hubbing possibilities, but for point-to-"point" (well, point-to-region) travel involving the North of
181 UncleKoru : Following on from our discussion in the previous thread, below are the international passenger figures for Wellington during October. "Passengers on W
182 777ER : This month marks the 20th year of MH services to New Zealand and to celebrate, MH are throwing a 20 day sale. UK/Europe return from $1999. SIN, Kuala
183 MD-90 : I just got back from New Zealand yesterday. I loved my Qantas flights 25 & 26 and Air NZ was great WLG-CHC but I won't fly Jetstar (CHC-AKL) again if
184 Zkpilot : That is crazy! If timed right it should only take 20 hours including transit times. Hope you had a good time downunder! Any Trip Reports?
185 NZ107 : I had great fun on Jetstar yesterday on my flight from AKL-ZQN - we couldn't land due to JQ management not thinking about RNP before starting NZ serv
186 Alangirvan : Are you sure Tiger would have treated you as badly as that now, compared with the way they treated people during their first few weeks of Australian
187 777ER : 31 hours is nothing for getting to your destination in the USA. Its taken me 36 hours to get to DTW twice.
188 MD-90 : Starting from when we left the hotel: get to the airport, wait, flight to AKL, go through security again, wait, flight to LAX, go through a freaking
189 NZ107 : Yes, I'm adament now. I had planned to try out all 4 carriers when I was over in Aussie last week but TT bumped me off the flight without notifying m
190 CHCalfonzo : Interesting! I just flew JQ on the same route and found the staff to be great. The cabin crew were chatting to passengers throughout the flight, they
191 Cchan : On the positive side, you can be glad that you didn't get eaten! I doubt if Tiger will enter the bloodbath in New Zealand.
192 777ER : I doubt they willenter the domestic maket but very certain TT will enter the Tasman market like to WLG, ZQN, DUD. I doubt TT will enter the bloodbath
193 DavidByrne : Just curious - is this "certainty" based on personal opinion, a public statement by TT, or inside knowledge/grapevine?
194 777ER : I have heard a rumor about Tasman services being launched within the next 12-18 months, but what markets is mostly based on my personal opinion. IMHO
195 Post contains links 777ER : Pilots take NZ to employment court - http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3128...ts-take-Air-NZ-to-Employment-Court
196 DavidByrne : I'm not at all sure that TT would have rights to operate on Island routes, given that they aren't an Australian airline, but a Singaporean airline -
197 777ER : They do hold an Australian AOC are are 51% owned by Australians - so I cant see anything stopping TT from launching Tasman and Island routes
198 DavidByrne : I know it's not the fount of all wisdom, but Wikipedia thinks otherwise: Tiger Airways Australia is wholly owned by holding company Tiger Aviation, w
199 DavidByrne : Postscript to the above, from a US SEC source William A. Franke, 66, a Director since December 1999.Mr. Franke is the Managing Member of Indigo Partne
200 Gemuser : True, but insufficient to use use Oz traffic rights, UNLESS both the Oz and NZ goverments agree to allow it. Not as far as I know. They were not when
201 28L28L : Can anyone tell me when NZ first began nonstop flights from APW to LAX, as well as from NAN to LAX? I know that NAN has since been discontinued. Thank
202 777ER : I'm pretty certain I read somewhere that TT was 51% Australian owned - but that around 5 months odd months ago
203 Post contains links Mariner : I think they need to get their strategy - and their finances - in Australia sorted out first: http://www.theage.com.au/business/ti...arents-finances-
204 NZ107 : If they don't keep bumping passengers off flights without notifying them! But regardless, they're making interest on my money and I'd say a few thous
205 ZK-NBT : Usually no WED flight AKL-LAX, additional AKL-LAX flight this one was. Some weeks over the next few months there look to be 5 flights only and I note
206 Post contains links Mariner : That's probably right: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...ers-lounge-tiger-loses-them-young/ "Angry Flyers Lounge-Tiger loses them young" http://
207 Post contains links NZ107 : Digital gateway opens way for fast-track NZ welcome I love this PR stunt saying John Key was the first person to sign in using the new technology on t
208 NZ107 : The website's not allowing me to edit so I'll add on what I was going to say here regarding the above post: But I must say it's a great advancement fo
209 SunriseValley : This service started with the DC8's back in ~1965. My family and I flew this route in July 1966.
210 MD-90 : I didn't get to see the upper deck but on Tuesday Y was at least 95% full, main deck J about 75% full.
211 DavidByrne : Yes, AKL-NAN-HNL-LAX was NZ's first long-haul route, operated twice weekly with DC8s, originally with a daytime (1015) departure ex AKL. I think that
212 PA515 : APW-LAX nonstop (767) commenced with the November 2000 timetable. NZ 56 AKL-APW Mon 1800/2150 Sun, APW-LAX Sun 2330/1215 Mon NAN-LAX nonstop (747) co
213 28L28L : Thank you PA515 for your research, and to everyone else who replied as well. Cheers.
214 Zkpilot : Poor planning and/or going for best airfares I guess. But otherwise that is an excessive amount of time.
215 MD-90 : Do me a favor--look up the airline schedules and tell me how you would get from Christchurch, NZ to Huntsville, AL any faster. 2 hr - wait at CHC bef
216 777ER : No its not poor flight planning on my part/or my travel agents part. The main reason for the long travel time is cause no airline from AKL-LAX offers
217 Cchan : You got to the airport too early. 1 hour is more than enough. Depends on what day of the week it is. Maybe take the next flight and have a 1.5-2 hr l
218 Mariner : I'm puzzled as to why you would go through DEN, ORD or IAD, and not take the Delta/NW non-stop from LAX. mariner
219 NZB : Regarding the NZ 320 Fleet. Word is the first 4 are going straight to domestic. Number 5 will be the first 320 with winglets and will go on Internatio
220 NZ107 : Interesting. Will they be removing the galleys from the current A320s to increase capacity? And why is the 5th the first with the sharklets? It sound
221 777ER : Will the new A320s arrive with RNP certificates thou? Wouldn't it make better sense to have the first four new A320s go directly to International and
222 NZ107 : AKL-WLG and AKL-CHC would have the most need for the A320 in terms of capacity. The 733 is fine on the AKL-ZQN route and wouldn't be too adversely af
223 Post contains links 777ER : New Zealand Aviation Thread #68 (by 777ER Dec 6 2009 in Civil Aviation)
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...
New Zealand Aviation Thread #65 posted Sat Nov 7 2009 00:45:10 by 777ER
New Zealand Aviation Thread #64 posted Fri Oct 16 2009 15:52:42 by 777ER
New Zealand Aviation Thread #63 posted Tue Sep 29 2009 03:38:07 by 777ER
New Zealand Aviation Thread #62 posted Wed Sep 2 2009 21:58:39 by ManuCH
New Zealand Aviation Thread #61 posted Mon Aug 10 2009 03:59:26 by 777ER
New Zealand Aviation Thread #60 posted Sat Jul 18 2009 02:36:32 by 777ER
New Zealand Aviation Thread #59 posted Sun Jun 28 2009 16:25:33 by 777ER
New Zealand Aviation Thread #58 posted Tue Jun 16 2009 23:01:30 by 777ER
New Zealand Aviation Thread 46 - Christmas Edition posted Fri Dec 19 2008 23:51:39 by 777ER
New Zealand Aviation Thread #45 posted Sat Dec 6 2008 01:22:26 by 777ER