Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Qs Regarding BA/VS/NZ And Their HKG-LHR Flights  
User currently offlineUnited Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9191 posts, RR: 15
Posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5681 times:

1) How many BA B 747-400s are in service? Will the rest return to service? When will they get new first class seats?

2) Will BA resume its 3rd daily flight between HKG-LHR anytime soon? Will NZ resume its remaining 2 flights? Will VS resume its 2nd daily HKG-LHR flight?

28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineZK-NBT From New Zealand, joined Oct 2000, 5359 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5611 times:

Quoting United Airline (Thread starter):
1) How many BA B 747-400s are in service? Will the rest return to service? When will they get new first class seats?

49 I think it is. A couple I believe will return to service shortly. Not sure on the new First seats.

Quoting United Airline (Thread starter):
2) Will BA resume its 3rd daily flight between HKG-LHR anytime soon? Will NZ resume its remaining 2 flights? Will VS resume its 2nd daily HKG-LHR flight?

I'd say at some point BA will add the third HKG flight again. NZ are currently daily for July and August on the HKG-LHR route, not sure when or if there are current plans to make it permanently daily again. Not sure on VS second daily, it seems to come and go, it is needed I believe but maybe its the difference between profit and non profit on the run, though it would mean they could sell more seats LHR-SYD on the existing service if they had the second flight.

Just my opinion.


User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5272 times:

I flew NZ1 LHR-LAX yesterday, and the British-based cabin crew expect LHR-HKG-AKL to be replaced with a daily flight via SFO.

At the end of the day, the HKG flight is not selling enough LHR-HKG tickets, which is compromising revenue. Through passengers AKl-LHR only generate around 20% more revenue per seat than either AKL-LAX or LAX-LHR, and so total revenue is compromised.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5148 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5101 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 2):
I flew NZ1 LHR-LAX yesterday, and the British-based cabin crew expect LHR-HKG-AKL to be replaced with a daily flight via SFO.

Not that surprising I suppose. NZ has done a great marketing job in California and they are well entrenched having been there for 40 plus years.


User currently offlineUnited Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9191 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4779 times:

I believe AKL-HKG-LHR will stay still???? I suppose it's doing pretty well

User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4730 times:

The NZ crew were sure that HKG-AKL will survive, but they only work legs in and out of London, and seem to have heard rumours of the second (after LAX) flight between AKL and LHR being switched from via HKG to via SFO.

I have long advocated Air NZ using HKG as a hub for coordinated flights as follows

AKL-HKG 77W
BNE-HKG 788
MEL-HKG 788
ADE-HKG 788
CHC-HKG 788

HKG-LHR 77W
HKG-MAN 788
HKG-DUB 788
HKG-BHX 788
HKG-GLA 788

The rationale is that Qantas neglect all Australian cities apart from SYD, and that NZ could compete with EK for the secondary UK market.

Any such 788 would be configured roughly 26 Business, 48 Premium Economy, 120 Economy. EK have shown that the secondary UK to Australia / NZ market is in some ways less recession-compromised than the main business markets, but passengers often complain about the UK-Dubai legs, on which the majority of co-passengers are headed for the Indian subcontinent, and Air NZ would clearly not be vulnerable to such concerns.


User currently offline767er From Australia, joined Apr 2001, 1092 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 4654 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 3):
Not that surprising I suppose. NZ has done a great marketing job in California and they are well entrenched having been there for 40 plus years.

NZ does much better marketing in California than it does here in Australia, but then it it is the second largest carrier ex SYD after QF and has been flying into SYD since 1941.

I cannot see SFO LHR happening - perhaps wishful thinking on the crews behalf.



Aircraft flown:F27,Viscount. EMB120, SAAB340, ATR70, 737-200.737-300,DC8, DC10,747-100,747-200,747-300,747-400, A320, A3
User currently offlineditzyboy From Australia, joined Feb 2008, 722 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4298 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 5):
The rationale is that Qantas neglect all Australian cities apart from SYD,

Qantas flies to its Asian hub out of each of the Australian cities you mention, in addition to a JQ codeshare ex CNS/DRW. Qantas also flies to twice as many European ports as NZ   Are you suggesting that airlines start flying routes for prestige? If Qantas could fill daily jumbos ex-ADL, it would. This is not the 70's and Qantas is not government-owned. I believe Qantas could be more innovative. I believe Qantas could make internationally-configured 73H's work on some Aus-Asia routes. But, I do NOT think Qantas neglects anybody. If there was demand and the economics behind it Qantas would be flying such routes.

Quoting koruman (Reply 5):
but passengers often complain about the UK-Dubai legs, on which the majority of co-passengers are headed for the Indian subcontinent

Emirates is s global carrier and carries people from all over the globe. Are Australians or Europeans above travelling alongside these people? (In quoting the above, I realise that may not be your personal view.)


User currently offlineUAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4254 times:

Quoting 767er (Reply 6):
I cannot see SFO LHR happening - perhaps wishful thinking on the crews behalf.

Hmmm, me too....I think UA would be none too happy about that either, another Star carrier on the route. I appreciate they run side by side via LAX from LHR but they have both been dooing that for many years, well before Star came along.

Its a shame if the HKG leg from NZ were to go, having flown them a few times on the route I really enjoyed the rise and Star could do with a carrier on the route with out having to go via BKK etc.


User currently offlineMalayil From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 125 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4227 times:

Although demand is huge for LHR-HKG, I would think most of the traffic goes on CX or BA. It might be a good idea to route through SFO but surely that will increase the time to get to AKL where I presume most of NZ's passengers are heading.

Quoting koruman (Reply 5):
but passengers often complain about the UK-Dubai legs, on which the majority of co-passengers are headed for the Indian subcontinent, and Air NZ would clearly not be vulnerable to such concerns.

I doubt that is ever the case and if it is then its just a little bit racist.


User currently offlineZK-NBT From New Zealand, joined Oct 2000, 5359 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3991 times:

Interesting then Kman.

Quoting koruman (Reply 5):
I have long advocated Air NZ using HKG as a hub for coordinated flights as follows

You have also said in the past that NZ should make the most of its rights to fly Califonia-LHR, what is the deal now anyway, were NZ allowed to increase California-LHR seats? As they were restricted to 1 daily 744 in terms of capacity before.

Quoting koruman (Reply 2):
I flew NZ1 LHR-LAX yesterday, and the British-based cabin crew expect LHR-HKG-AKL to be replaced with a daily flight via SFO.

Say this were to happen when NZ1/2 changed to a 77W next April, depending on aircraft deliveries leases expiring they might initially run SFO-LHR with a 744, otherwise surely they would need additional AKL-SFO flights to cover demand for that sector and if the slots at LHR remain the same with a 1335 LHR arrival then the AKL-SFO departure would be around 0200.

Though Kman any ideas I actually thought I read or heard something about a retimed NZ1/2 when the 77Ws take over?

Quoting Malayil (Reply 9):
It might be a good idea to route through SFO but surely that will increase the time to get to AKL where I presume most of NZ's passengers are heading.

Not really AKL-LHR is faster via LAX and LHR-AKL is faster via HKG, either way the difference wouldn't be huge. NZ carry a lot of PAX LAX-LHR alone but apprantly many AKL-LHR pax still fly via LAX rather than HKG.


User currently offlinenickofatlanta From Australia, joined May 2000, 1488 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3852 times:

I thought the UK/NZ air traffic agreement only allowed for one daily UK-US flight with fifth freedom rights or has this since changed? I see there is now a new agreement?

User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3852 times:

Ditzyboy, QF can fly passengers one stop to Australia's largest cities from London, but all other UK cities are a two stop proposition and involve a terminal change at LHR.

I have never suggested that Air NZ fly SYD-XXX-LHR, simply that the yields from secondary UK cities to Australia are higher than on NZ' existing long-haul leisure routes from PVG and PEK to AKL.


User currently offlineLondonCity From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2008, 1517 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3723 times:

Quoting UAL777UK (Reply 8):
Its a shame if the HKG leg from NZ were to go, having flown them a few times on the route I really enjoyed the rise and Star could do with a carrier on the route with out having to go via BKK etc.

One point being missed here is the need for ANZ pax who transit LAX to obtain some sort of a visa.

From the passengers' viewpoint, the big advantage in transitting HKG with ANZ compared to LAX is that you remain airside so do not require a visa. I believe it is still the case that when ANZ passengers transit the US - even though they remain with the same flight - they may need, at the very least, to obtain an electronic visa or ESTA.

http://www.airnewzealand.co.uk/us-entry-and-transit-requirements#4


User currently offlinebastew From Australia, joined Sep 2006, 1028 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3602 times:

Quoting United Airline (Thread starter):
1) How many BA B 747-400s are in service? Will the rest return to service? When will they get new first class seats?

In the new internal BA magazine they actually had an article comparing BA and our new 'sister' Iberia. Employee numbers, aircraft fleet size etc. It listed BA as having 57 747-400's. How many of them are currently stood down I don't know.

The new First class seats are currently only fitted to one 777 and one 747 where there is an evalution going on for a few months to iron out any problems. I think this evaluation period is coming to an end so I imagine the retrofit will increase in pace shortly.


User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3525 times:

Air NZ passengers transiting (and even terminating in) LAX only require an ESTA, they don't even need to complete a Visa Waiver form.

When Air NZ opened a second LHR flight via HKG they did so to try to put all the AKL-LHR traffic onto that flight so they could sell LAX-LHR and LAX-AKL as separate tickets.

But the HKG flight has reduced from daily to five times weekly, and from a 744 to a 77E because a very significant group of passengers - and I'm one of them - prefer to go via LAX because it's less disruptive to sleep, especially if you take a stopover. The HKG-LHR flight requires passengers to get up before the crack of dawn, and is deeply unpopular.

Meanwhile the LAX flight remains daily, and has had to be upguaged back from a 77E to a 744.


User currently offlinezkojh From China, joined Sep 2004, 1722 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3438 times:

There is just to much on the HKG market, CX 4 daily BA 3,QF X 1 VS x1 and NZ x1

nz need to move the HKG leg through either PVG or PEK and onwards to LHR and MAN , can't see them getting any more rights to the US market anythime soon.



CZ 787 to AKL can't wait.
User currently offlinekiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8603 posts, RR: 13
Reply 17, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3426 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting koruman (Reply 15):
Air NZ passengers transiting (and even terminating in) LAX only require an ESTA, they don't even need to complete a Visa Waiver form.

Depending , of course , on which passport they are travelling on . While the vast majority of pax are likely to be on NZ/AUS/EU passports there can be others who are not eligible for ESTA/Visa Waiver because of their passport which makes transitting through the US a massive PITA .



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlinedavid_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7415 posts, RR: 13
Reply 18, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3401 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zkojh (Reply 16):
There is just to much on the HKG market, CX 4 daily BA 3,QF X 1 VS x1 and NZ x1

Note all those are to LHR. MAN is untapped and NZ could gain a foothold prior to CX starting up which is expected to be in the next couple of year so so.


User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3344 times:

Why would NZ axe HKG-LHR and replace it with PVG-MAN?

The Manchester population of Chinese origin is almost entirely from Hong Kong, and is famously antagonistic towards the PRC. I sat with a Mancunian of HK origin on LHR-HKG two years ago and he formally complained ( and LOUDLY) that tannoy announcements were made in Mandarin and not Cantonese. Surely HKG-MAN makes much more sense than PVG-MAN?

And BTW, NZ now have unlimited USA-UK rights, the issue has only been the GFC and LHR slot costs.


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3062 posts, RR: 28
Reply 20, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3318 times:

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 17):
Quoting koruman (Reply 15):
Air NZ passengers transiting (and even terminating in) LAX only require an ESTA, they don't even need to complete a Visa Waiver form.

Depending , of course , on which passport they are travelling on . While the vast majority of pax are likely to be on NZ/AUS/EU passports there can be others who are not eligible for ESTA/Visa Waiver because of their passport which makes transitting through the US a massive PITA .

And the physical transit conditions are deplorable.

I'm still wondering why NZ doesn't try AKL-YVR-LHR/MAN and market it as "fly through friendly Canada and avoid transiting the U.S."



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3282 times:

The idea of replacing LAX with YVR makes no sense.

LAX is a highly popular stop for NZ between LHR and Australia/NZ because it allows easy business connections, local leisure stops (Santa Monica, Orange County etc) and is the gateway to NZ's network of Pacific island stopovers. It also offers year-round sunshine

The transit facility isn't that bad compared withHKG, given that HKG's shops are usually closed while NZ39 is on the ground.


User currently offline767er From Australia, joined Apr 2001, 1092 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3238 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 20):
I'm still wondering why NZ doesn't try AKL-YVR-LHR/MAN and market it as "fly through friendly Canada and avoid transiting the U.S."



It will never happen. As has been pointed out ,NZ has been flying to LA for 40 years and is firmly entrenched.Yeah, LAX is not the greatest but NZ flies from Terminal 2 which isn't that bad plus NZ has a fantastic lounge (one of the best in the US).

Quoting koruman (Reply 15):
But the HKG flight has reduced from daily to five times weekly, and from a 744 to a 77E because a very significant group of passengers - and I'm one of them - prefer to go via LAX because it's less disruptive to sleep, especially if you take a stopover. The HKG-LHR flight requires passengers to get up before the crack of dawn, and is deeply unpopular



Agree 100%. It has a very late departure ex AKL and a way too early departure ex HKG, plus the arrival times at LHR are not the best either. Give me LAX any day.

I am actually doing NZ102 SYD -AKL, NZ6 AKL - LAX, 5 hours in LA to have lunch with rellies, then hop aboard NZ2 LAX_ LHR after a shower and refresh in the lounge. Now how seamless is that?



Aircraft flown:F27,Viscount. EMB120, SAAB340, ATR70, 737-200.737-300,DC8, DC10,747-100,747-200,747-300,747-400, A320, A3
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26025 posts, RR: 50
Reply 23, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3149 times:

I'll ask this again.

What is the fascination or need for NZ to fly SFO-LHR?

Why not just simply time the SFO flights to connect nicely to one of the two United SFO-LHR services (and while at it the two UA SFO-FRA flights also)
After all one of the benefit of alliances is the ability to market jointly and make benefit of each others networks. Certainly UA can provide NZ with good flow of traffic to LHR at a lower cost to produce then NZ taking a plane and flying it back and forth on its own for an additional 24hours of utilization.

To me it seems NZ would be better of to work and further develop its own area of competence in the Pacific where Star could use the support then go chasing after a LHR route via SFO when you have a partner that can handle it for you.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3036 times:

Laxintl, you seem not to grasp that New Zealand is one of the OECDs poorest countries.

In Air NZs case, this means that the highest yielding routes are either ones with predominantly inbound passengers from richer countries (UK and USA) or especially passengers between those two countries on NZ1/2.

The attraction of SFo-LHR is that yields would be far in excess of the rest of NZs network, apart from the similar LAX-LHR sector. This is also the attraction of secondary UK destinations: BA may scoff at the yields available in MAN or DUB but when you compare them to the yields NZ extracts on PVg-AKL it makes Manchester seem like the jewel in the crown!

Yes, UA can service SFO-LHR, but the point is that yields on that route would be very attractive to NZ.


25 ZKNZA : You don't know what your talking about, the crew probably don't either. Where do you get these numbers from?....I suspect out of nowhere. You seem to
26 DavidByrne : I can't say I've tried my own calcs, but there's a clear logic to what K'man is saying.
27 Post contains images UAL777UK : UA ceased flying to AKL out of the West Coast and funnel their passngers onto the SFO/LAX - AKL with NZ flights as of now. Is UA expected to just sit
28 Kaiarahi : I didn't say anything about *replacing* LAX with YVR. I have many colleagues/friends in Europe who have travelled to AKL via YVR on AC/LH/LX/SK + NZ
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...
NZ A380 AKL-HKG-LHR posted Sun Jun 9 2002 01:19:16 by ETA Unknown
BA Or Virgin And LGW Or Lhr? posted Tue May 28 2002 23:26:29 by Alitalia777
Air NewZealand To Start HKG - LHR Flights! posted Mon May 21 2001 07:16:46 by Hkgspotter1
UA And Their Fake One-stop Flights To LHR posted Fri Apr 8 2005 11:19:33 by UpperDeck79
How Is Qantas Going To Compete HKG-LHR With VS/BA? posted Tue Jun 22 2004 09:59:02 by Qantasclub
UA Vs BA Vs Air NZ..LAX-LHR posted Mon Apr 2 2001 06:59:27 by Lax2000
BA To Move ATL And TLS To LHR posted Fri Oct 3 2008 02:27:18 by HeeBeeGB
HKG-LHR Fuel Dump And Return To Hong Kong? posted Mon Sep 1 2008 09:31:57 by CXA330300
QF/NZ: Doing Well On The HKG-LHR Run? posted Sat Aug 4 2007 06:24:20 by United Airline
BA And Their 757s: What Now? posted Sat Jul 14 2007 12:25:47 by BA787