Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
NZ Orders ATR72-600  
User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7124 posts, RR: 13
Posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks ago) and read 6323 times:

NZ have ordered 7x ATR72-600 with the option for 5 more. Delivery starts in October.

These aircraft are additional, rather than replacement aircraft. Air New Zealand and ATR announced this online at a media release 45minutes ago. first article I can find

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ticle.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10760176

48 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12082 posts, RR: 18
Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks ago) and read 6294 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Well done Air NZ and ATR!

I always thought (for some reason) that the 72-600 series carried more passengers then the -500 series NZ currently uses, or am I thinking of a different planned ATR model as NZ is going to have a big seat gap between the ATR and A320 once the B733s are gone?


User currently offlineaerohottie From Australia, joined Mar 2004, 796 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks ago) and read 6292 times:

yawn... to me this doesn't really make sense while still operating the Q300.
I've always thought that the regional fleet should either be a Q300/Q400 combo, or a ATR42/ATR72 combo



What?
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12082 posts, RR: 18
Reply 3, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks ago) and read 6239 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting aerohottie (Reply 2):

Totally agree but this would only really work if all three regional airlines (Eagle, Air Nelson and Mt Cook) merged to form one big regional airline. Right now each airline has their own preference and having the 1900D in the fleet works well for markets that don't currently require Q300 flights like WLG-PMR or have resources to cater for larger aircraft like Wanaka. The next few years is certainly going to be interesting for regional New Zealand - especially with JQ licking their lips and NZ trying to keep JQ out


User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7124 posts, RR: 13
Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks ago) and read 6218 times:

Quoting aerohottie (Reply 2):
I've always thought that the regional fleet should either be a Q300/Q400 combo, or a ATR42/ATR72 combo

It is because they are still for the moment running 3 subsidiaries domestically. And of course the Q400 is heavier on gas, so they don't want that.

It is looking like an ATR fleet long term, and I distinctly got the vibe that they will be consolidating into one in the long run (though no decisions have been made nor will they be until fleet replacement for the other types comes up). The first indicator for me of this is the fact the new Aircraft will be AKL based...

Quoting 777ER (Reply 1):
I thinking of a different planned ATR model as NZ is going to have a big seat gap between the ATR and A320 once the B733s are gone?

I don't think it is a significant gap. The markets as they are, even with 9% growth in the past few years require frequency, rather than capacity. Sure a regional jet or similar could bridge the gap, but they would lose out on frequency so it'd be a loss rather than a gain.


User currently offlinecchan From New Zealand, joined May 2003, 1759 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks ago) and read 6151 times:

Quoting aerohottie (Reply 2):
yawn... to me this doesn't really make sense while still operating the Q300.

A possible factor is that the Q300 has no future unless production of new aircrafts resumes, by the time they reach replacement age, they will have to be replaced by ... ATR42, and there aren't many choices of aircrafts in that size range.


User currently offlineaerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2678 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks ago) and read 6094 times:

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 4):
I don't think it is a significant gap. The markets as they are, even with 9% growth in the past few years require frequency, rather than capacity. Sure a regional jet or similar could bridge the gap, but they would lose out on frequency so it'd be a loss rather than a gain.

I think a 105 seat gap (66 to 171) is pretty sizable.

What would really shake up the market though is Jetstar getting a few ATRs of their own. Regional New Zealand routes are a bit of a ripoff - the inevitability of monopoly I guess.


User currently offlinejasewgtn From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 823 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5941 times:

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 6):
I think a 105 seat gap (66 to 171) is pretty sizable.

I agree

Makes me wonder on some on the small routes ie WLG/CHC, CHC/ZQN, WLG/DUD if the 733 services will be replaced with ATR's instead of 320's......?


User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6394 posts, RR: 39
Reply 8, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5913 times:

Great news, something I've been waiting for since the release of the ATR 72-600. Can't wait to try it for myself.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 6):
What would really shake up the market though is Jetstar getting a few ATRs of their own

I'm sure they'd get some Q300/400s ex QF Link before an ATR fleet..



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently onlinekiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8525 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5901 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 6):
Regional New Zealand routes are a bit of a ripoff - the inevitability of monopoly I guess.


I keep reading this in these threads, and always wonder, if the regional routes are such a rip off how come no one else has decided to jump on the bandwagon and get a share of the pie. I suspect that the routes are not actually a 'rip off' but that the fares simply reflect the higher costs involved in operating these routes due to lack of scale.



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7124 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5845 times:

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 9):
I suspect that the routes are not actually a 'rip off' but that the fares simply reflect the higher costs involved in operating these routes due to lack of scale.

exactly. Look how much it costs to go to Great Barrier on a Trilander oneway. Certainly equal to flying to NPL/NSN/NPE in cost, yet it is only a third of the flying time. ...


User currently offlinealangirvan From New Zealand, joined Nov 2000, 2106 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5731 times:

Quoting 777ER (Reply 1):
I always thought (for some reason) that the 72-600 series carried more passengers then the -500 series NZ currently uses, or am I thinking of a different planned ATR model as NZ is going to have a big seat gap between the ATR and A320 once the B733s are gone?

I have seen a small variation in seating layout, which seems to have 68 seats rather than 66, which is a very small increase.

Both ATR and Bombardier have been talking about 90 seater TPs, but not much seems to have resulted yet. Is this lack of interest from airlines, or just a rather tight time to be launching new projects?

ATR seem to be interested in new engines from GE, which might let them fly a 90 seater plane at about the speed of a Q400. I was complaining that an ATR would be about 1 hour 45 minutes from WLG-DUD or 1 hour 35 DUD-WLG. If the ATR-92 gave a time of 1 hour 15 minutes, which is the same as a jet, that would be more like it. But, DUD-AKL is 1 hour 40 in a jet, AKL-DUD is 1 hour 55. The ATR92 would take a bit longer than that.


User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12082 posts, RR: 18
Reply 12, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5601 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting alangirvan (Reply 11):
Both ATR and Bombardier have been talking about 90 seater TPs, but not much seems to have resulted yet. Is this lack of interest from airlines, or just a rather tight time to be launching new projects?

The 90 seater is what I thought the 72-600 was! If it was then it would make a perfect addition to the fleet to decrese that 105 seat gap


User currently offlinezkncj From New Zealand, joined Nov 2005, 487 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5432 times:

Quoting alangirvan (Reply 11):

I have seen a small variation in seating layout, which seems to have 68 seats rather than 66, which is a very small increase.

A couple years back NZ went from 66-68 seats on the 72-500 by reducing the galley. Both the 72-5/600 can both take up 72 passsengers


User currently offlineaerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2678 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5273 times:

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 9):
I keep reading this in these threads, and always wonder, if the regional routes are such a rip off how come no one else has decided to jump on the bandwagon and get a share of the pie. I suspect that the routes are not actually a 'rip off' but that the fares simply reflect the higher costs involved in operating these routes due to lack of scale.

In a way, answered by...

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 10):
exactly. Look how much it costs to go to Great Barrier on a Trilander oneway. Certainly equal to flying to NPL/NSN/NPE in cost, yet it is only a third of the flying time. ...

The fixed costs of operating an airline (res systems, marketing, ticketing, payment processing, safety audits, certification) is shared over a smaller revenue stream for Great Barrier. Interesting that you compare one monopoly route against another though.

The fact is that where competition has reduced, NZ's prices have increased. We saw it on the trunk routes after the departure of PacBlue, and we saw it on regional when Origin Pacific went belly up. Even though, apparently, turboprops are super cheap to operate, including the ATR72.

NZ knows it's able to cream it. When there was talk of NZ ditching the international network after the Ansett collapse, it was noted that it was consistently profitable on domestic routes. And that hasn't changed, according to their annual reports. Even when the airline had competition. So yeah, monopoly pricing at its best. I'd rather competition than slightly newer props.


User currently onlinekiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8525 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5248 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 14):
So yeah, monopoly pricing at its best.

Which again begs the question, if they really are charging fares which are outrageous , and raking in vast amounts of profit from the regional routes, why hasn't anyone else been smart enough to go for a piece of the action? Any "monopoly" is there because no one else wants to fly these routes rather than because no one else is allowed to fly them.



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlinecchan From New Zealand, joined May 2003, 1759 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5204 times:

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 15):
why hasn't anyone else been smart enough to go for a piece of the action?

The regional routes probably cannot sustain 2 airlines. Ansett New Zealand folded, so did Origin Pacific. To go against NZ on the regional routes, the competitor will probably need to invest in quite a number of aircrafts for the frequency and for non-stop flights, the same investment would have a higher chance to get a better profit elsewhere.

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 15):
Any "monopoly" is there because no one else wants to fly these routes rather than because no one else is allowed to fly them.

Yes, no one else want to is more likely to be the reason.


User currently offlinenascarnut From New Zealand, joined Oct 2008, 274 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4715 times:

Air NZ will keep the seating below 70 passengers. The main reason for this is lack of Security screening points at the smaller regional airports. Currently only AKL/HLZ/ROT/PMR/WLG/CHC/ZQN and DUD have security screening points for passengers. To introduce larger aircraft into NPL/NSN/NPE etc would require a significant investment by the airports, Air NZ and the government to create the screening areas.
When 737's divert to IVC from ZQN, the passengers either remain on the aircraft or the all dismebark and get bussed to their destination and aircraft is then flown empty back to AKL or CHC.


User currently offlineJMM99 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4509 times:

Are these the same aircraft exactly sa DJ has just started to receive ?

If so, will they be maintained at place ?


User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6394 posts, RR: 39
Reply 19, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4486 times:

Quoting JMM99 (Reply 18):

VA have started receiving their ATR 72-500s - the same one which NZ currently have. They also have -600s on order but they will come in due course.



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7124 posts, RR: 13
Reply 20, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4470 times:

Quoting JMM99 (Reply 18):
If so, will they be maintained at place ?

That side of things hasn't been firmed up yet according to the press conference, but yes I'm sure you can expect shared simulator/maintained together as part of the arrangement they have.

The question is where though?? if they're based at AKL, there is no room for another mxx base. NSN was suggested yesterday, as was CHC.


User currently offlinezkncj From New Zealand, joined Nov 2005, 487 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4443 times:

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 20):

The question is where though?? if they're based at AKL, there is no room for another mxx base. NSN was suggested yesterday, as was CHC.

The current 733 hangars at AKL could be converted into an ATR-72-500 base, as you can't fit A320s in them!


User currently offlineJMM99 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4369 times:

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 20):
That side of things hasn't been firmed up yet according to the press conference, but yes I'm sure you can expect shared simulator/maintained together as part of the arrangement they have.

The question is where though?? if they're based at AKL, there is no room for another mxx base. NSN was suggested yesterday, as was CHC.

So in that case, ATR's could occasionally fly trans-Tasman. Surely, they wouldn't send them across empty ?


User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7124 posts, RR: 13
Reply 23, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4347 times:

Quoting zkncj (Reply 21):
The current 733 hangars at AKL could be converted into an ATR-72-500 base, as you can't fit A320s in them!

quick thinker!! yes that will do nicely...  
Quoting JMM99 (Reply 22):
So in that case, ATR's could occasionally fly trans-Tasman. Surely, they wouldn't send them across empty ?

I expect they would be empty yes, as with passengers it is they'll probably have to go via Lord Howe Island.


User currently offlineJMM99 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4340 times:

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 23):
Quoting JMM99 (Reply 22):
So in that case, ATR's could occasionally fly trans-Tasman. Surely, they wouldn't send them across empty ?


I expect they would be empty yes, as with passengers it is they'll probably have to go via Lord Howe Island.

Surely then, they'd be better off to send them across with passengers, just not full aircraft then ?

What is their maximum range ? Or does ETOPS kill idea of passengers being carried across tasman ?


25 nascarnut : NSN is the current ATR and Dash 8 MX base. The latest hanger was built to handle ATR's even though no ATR's are scheduled to operate thru NSN at the
26 bjorn14 : CEO Rob Fyfe said that these frames will allow NZ to move away from smaller aircraft as the are far more efficent than the older ones. So the -300 da
27 rbgso : As in October 2011? How could they get a frame so soon? I thought the ATR had a pretty good backlog.
28 bjorn14 : IIRC, ATR had some unidentified customers on their order list. NZ could be one of those.
29 kiwiandrew : No, as stated in the article linked by the OP it will be in October 2012.
30 joelyboy911 : I think it's been said that NZ (nor any New Zealand company) can't be an unidentified customer, as any purchase must be announced to the market. Hope
31 SunriseValley : That would be hard to believe unless the used market is strong. The average age of the Q300 fleet was 4.4-years as at June 30th 2011 . I would expect
32 PW100 : He also said that [some of the] -300s would be rolled over to the Beech 1900 routes, which in turn could be used to open new routes. So it really is
33 ZKSUJ : If anything I guess in the long term the Q300 will be used on B1900 routes when the 1900 retires. This would make the TP fleet AT7s and Q300s/AT4 (si
34 travelhound : Considering VA are an existing ATR operator, I wonder if this influenced ANZ's decision in anyway. you would think combining of the fleets of the two
35 aerorobnz : October 2012. in 1 year.
36 icna05e : Yeaaaaah. we'll see about that (and though I keep a hope deep down, I really mean we'll see a trashing from our kiwi "friends")... Maybe the order wi
37 aerorobnz : ATR presented Air NZ with a model of the new aircraft, we presented ATR with a signed 2011 All Black Jersey from the World Cup. The guy from ATR even
38 kiwiandrew : The Italians are already out of the RWC so I don't see why NZ would choose to penalise them by cancelling the ATR order.
39 cchan : Combining the fleet (involving the trade of assets) between the two companies is not an option as NZ only owns 19.9% of VA. When VA needs to use a NZ
40 travelhound : Yes, on the whole you are correct, but there will be potential for pooling of spare parts, pilot and crew training and maintenance.
41 cchan : There will most likely be some pooling of maintenance etc., and the cost will be split between the two companies.
42 Post contains images ZKSUJ : Haha might be a point there. Should NZ loose they may well cancel the ATR deal and place orders for Q400s. We did thrash canada after all...
43 NZ1 : This is not an option. Hangar 1 (B733 Hangar) is being discontinued as an overnight facility shortly with the work being carried out in Hangar 2 (B76
44 cchan : Considering that the announcement says the new ATR72-600 will be based in AKL, and maintenance likely to be in NSN, will these new planes be operated
45 aerorobnz : This hasn't been decided yet. I think the writing is on the wall for the 3 domestic subsidiaries to become one.
46 cchan : Hopefully they would still retain different flight number series for different aircraft types, if they decide to merge.
47 Unclekoru : The ATR usually replaces the Q300 on the last CHC-NSN flight on a Sunday and then the early AM Monday departure back to CHC to accomodate the aircraf
48 alangirvan : There is a centrefold picture in a recent AirlinerWorld of a FlyBe E-175 just about to be delivered. This will be a new type in FlyBe's fleet - they
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...
Air NZ Orders 2 More 787s posted Tue Oct 25 2005 23:31:57 by PanAm_DC10
FedEx Orders 6 A300-600 Freighters! posted Mon Sep 12 2005 08:57:45 by HZ747300
Boeing Orders Top 600 posted Mon Sep 5 2005 07:26:00 by Kaitak744
PIA Orders ATR72 posted Fri Jul 22 2005 05:52:19 by Flying-Tiger
CCM Of France Orders 6 ATR72-500 posted Tue Jun 14 2005 21:18:54 by PRGLY
China Eastern Orders A340-600 posted Wed Apr 10 2002 10:13:21 by James768
Air NZ Orders New Aircraft posted Fri Feb 9 2001 01:41:27 by TG992
Cathay Pacific Orders A340-600! posted Sat Oct 14 2000 10:03:13 by MAC_Veteran
A340 600 End Of The Sales Orders /line In 2010 posted Thu Jan 14 2010 05:12:12 by Corernagh14
Iberia A340-600 Orders posted Sat Aug 22 2009 01:54:37 by Corernagh14