joemac547 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 114 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 years 7 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 10839 times:
Air New Zealand is going from 5 777's per week currently to daily 777's in the late fall to daily 747 next northern summer. It seems like an awful big increase. Is there a reason why besides a large increase in bookings? Does it have anything to do with the UA/CO marriage? It just seems like too big a jump unless there was some external reason ( Maybe a SFO - UK route).
SonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1565 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 7 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 10727 times:
I don't have access to the new schedule set but I'd check to see if they are adding through service to LHR from SFO as they do daily from LAX. I think its fair to assume there will be lots of love with the merged UA given they are Star Alliance partners.
Aeroflot777 From Russia, joined Mar 2004, 2993 posts, RR: 27
Reply 8, posted (3 years 7 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 8668 times:
I flew NZ's 772 on SFO-AKL a few weeks ago on a weekday. The flight was PACKED. I never thought there would be so much demand, but apparently I was in the wrong. A 9pm departure meant that many people had plenty of time to connect from other places I suppose.
koruman From Australia, joined Feb 2006, 3528 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (3 years 7 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 8541 times:
I think that the point is that SFO-LHR was always going to be more viable than HKG-LHR, and HKG only got the nod four years ago because there were no SFO-LHR traffic rights at that time.
In addition, the move from the 744 to the 77W on LHR-LAX will result in the loss of around fifty economy seats daily. SFO-LHR would be a way of replacing lost capacity. At the end of the day, SFO is a Star Alliance citadel, with enormous feed opportunities, whereas HKG is a Star Alliance graveyard, where the only connecting Star flights are to ports which already have direct service to London.
joemac547 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 7 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4589 times:
If I understand the previous posts, NZ is not expecting any more aircraft during the timeframe of the increased SFO service. If that's the case, does that mean a draw down at, for example, LAX? That makes no sense either, as LA has always been NZ's main focus here in the US.
koruman From Australia, joined Feb 2006, 3528 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (3 years 7 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4370 times:
I fly frequently on Air NZ and have to say that I use SFO and LAX completely differently.
I use LAX if I want to visit Los Angeles (obviously) or Orange County or San Diego, and if I have a few days break before work I will visit those places. I also use LAX if joining my family for a week or more in Rarotonga or Tahiti, and of course if flying to London.
I use SFO if flying onward anywhere in North America, even if it's for a few days' break in Palm Springs.
I never transit Hong Kong at all any more. I did for a couple of years after it opened, but got sick of before dawn wake-up calls wiping me out at the end of a stopover and big taxi fares from Central to the airport.
LAX T2 is ok - you can see from the above that I only use LAX when I have no need to change terminals. At least LAX provides numerous stopovers in the form of Newport Beach, Santa Monica, San Diego, Raro, Tahiti etc. Hong Kong lost its attraction because there are no nearby places to visit apart from Macau, and given that I have never set foot in Las Vegas I am hardly going to go to Macau, Portuguese heritage or not.
My only worry about SFO is that at present it is due to lose business class connectivity from BNE and MEL and ADE with the A320 downgrade, and that might force me to connect via LAX instead.
kiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8493 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (3 years 7 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3393 times:
I am delighted to see this service thriving , back in January 2004 when NZ first announced 3 x weekly AKL-SFO service there was quite a lot of skepticism as to how the route would do , six years ( and a global financial crisis ) later it is clear that this was a smart move from NZ . A great alternative to the horrors of LAX , and with excellent feed opportunities from *A partner UA . On the other hand , with regard to the rumour about extending it onwards to LHR I am somewhat more skeptical , despite lots of searching on the net I have never been able to find anything external to Anet to provide substantiation - does anyone actually have a source for this rumour or is it just one of those anet legends which gets repeated until it takes on a life of it's own ? I would welcome evidence if someone would care to provide it as in the absence of any verification it seems to be more wishful thinking than anything else . Is anyone from NZ able to shed any light on this perhaps ?
Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
davescj From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 2292 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 7 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3072 times:
Anything is better than LAX...........but a good point was raised.........SFO - LHR? That's an interesting question. I'd be interested to see if that happened. Would NZ have a slot available? Another question, will it be a code share? Lots to choose from if it were a *A code share.
DavidByrne From New Zealand, joined Sep 2007, 1610 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (3 years 7 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2922 times:
Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 16): On the other hand , with regard to the rumour about extending it onwards to LHR I am somewhat more skeptical , despite lots of searching on the net I have never been able to find anything external to Anet to provide substantiation - does anyone actually have a source for this rumour or is it just one of those anet legends which gets repeated until it takes on a life of it's own ?
The only substantive thing that I've seen (and it's quite a number of years old now) is that when NZ was considering its options in terms of launching a second daily flight to LHR, the "last two" choices were HKG (eventually chosen) and SFO as an intermediate point. PVG had also been considered and (presumably) discarded. This was publicly stated by the carrier at the time, but I've seen nothing since then to indicate that there's a third European route to LHR/MAN/FRA/MUC/wherever in the wings - or that HKG-LHR would be dropped in favour of LHR-SFO. I'd support a third route because it would cement NZ's position as a niche quality long-haul airline out of LHR - effectively the carrier would be able to offer three long-haul nonstop destinations from LHR, plus, of course, Australia and New Zealand. Marketing a group of destinations has to be cheaper than marketing individual destinations. I also note, hwoever, that the airline has said "no new routes" (or was that "no new destinations"?) until the 789s come into the fleet in 2013 . . . or whenever.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife