Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
CX/NZ Form Alliance+Air NZ Drops HKG-LHR  
User currently offlinealitaliadc10 From Australia, joined Dec 2008, 240 posts, RR: 1
Posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1722 times:

Air NZ and Cathay Pacific will form a strategic partnership and code-sharing from March 2013.

Air NZ will drop HKG-LHR services.

More details at:

http://www.airlinehubbuzz.com/air-ne...uspend-hong-kong-heathrow-flights/


Orbis non sufficit
87 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4906 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1677 times:

Another bites the dust!

This just adds more fuel to the fire between QF/CX...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineleftyboarder From Turkey, joined Apr 2008, 693 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1675 times:

And another kick in the a** of alliances... A Star airline in bed with a Oneworld airline when there are obvious alliance partners to cooperate (namely QF and SQ/TG). The year of treason  

User currently offlineSYDSpotter From Australia, joined Oct 2012, 161 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1668 times:

Quoting leftyboarder (Reply 2):
And another kick in the a** of alliances... A Star airline in bed with a Oneworld airline when there are obvious alliance partners to cooperate (namely QF and SQ/TG). The year of treason

Are there any competition issues with the proposed alliance (the NZ-HKG portion rather than the HKG-LHR bit) given NZ and CX are the two carriers flying direct between NZ-HKG.

I thought one of the reasons why a CX/QF partnership would never get off the ground was because any proposed extensive alliance would cause massive competition issues as they are the only two flying direct b/w OZ and HKG (with the exception of VS to SYD).



319_320_321_332_333_388 / 734_738_743_744_762_763_772_773_77W
User currently onlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8340 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1666 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

What happens to the LHR slot at 1145 which is the arrival of the ANZ flight via HKG ?

User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4906 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1672 times:

Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 3):
I thought one of the reasons why a CX/QF partnership would never get off the ground was because any proposed extensive alliance would cause massive competition issues as they are the only two flying direct b/w OZ and HKG (with the exception of VS to SYD).

The relationship between the 2 is sour full stop...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineual777uk From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1673 times:

Quoting leftyboarder (Reply 2):
A Star airline in bed with a Oneworld airline when there are obvious alliance partners to cooperate (namely QF and SQ/TG). The year of treason

Yes but SQ and TG are no good on the non stop from HKG to LHR. I suspect NZ was bleeding heavily on this route and this exit plan makes so much more commercial sense. I would love to know what NZ average LF was on the london route.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 4):
What happens to the LHR slot at 1145 which is the arrival of the ANZ flight via HKG ?

I would love to know the answer to that as well....SFO - LHR maybe?


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9029 posts, RR: 75
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1667 times:

Quoting alitaliadc10 (Thread starter):

I know for a long time CX has been looking at other ports in the area, maybe there is more to this announcement yet to come ?

This will free up additional equipment for NZ, where will they deploy that capacity ?

Will this means a daily 747 and A340 services to AKL by CX ? Will the freighter tag on from SYD ?

Quoting leftyboarder (Reply 2):

QF/AF were code sharing for a long time as well on SIN-CDG.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 4):

Maybe they sold it ? or using their 777s made available by this on a different route to LHR ?



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineanstar From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 5193 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1666 times:

Wow - interesting... I knew the dropping of the LHR-HKG was on the cards, but thought they would partner with VS on the route as they do with PVG/SFO-LHR

User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9029 posts, RR: 75
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1667 times:

A bit more info in this article http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/790987...r-NZ-axes-Hong-Kong-London-flights

NZ government approval for the arrangement have been grated from December 2012, the change will come into effect in March 2013
ANZ capacity to redeployed to North America



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineanstar From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 5193 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1661 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 9):
ANZ capacity to redeployed to North America

I guess this might allow the last 747 to be retired?


User currently onlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8340 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1672 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zeke (Reply 7):
Quoting jfk777 (Reply 4):
Maybe they sold it ? or using their 777s made available by this on a different route to LHR ?

WHY would ANZ sell it ? They need slots at Heathrow and are not in financial straits. The AKL to LHR via LAX is about 3 hours shorter then via Asia.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9029 posts, RR: 75
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1666 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 11):

WHY would ANZ sell it ?

It is an asset worth money. They have indicated in the article that they are dismissing 70 LHR based crews, that is a clear indication that they will not be using that slot.

Maybe CX purchased the slot from the as part of the deal so they can accelerate the 744 retirement on the route and have no drop in ASKs. Offer ANZ a guaranteed number of seats as well as access to the network out of HKG ?

Don't know, just guessing.....



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineota1 From Germany, joined Apr 2008, 399 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1668 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

There have been rumors popping up more or less frequently that CX is not happy with oneworld anymore.Other rumors were suggesting CX was looking to jump ship to Star Alliance.
Could this alliance be the first step of their withdrawal from oneworld?


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9029 posts, RR: 75
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1667 times:

Quoting ota1 (Reply 13):

Do not know. Given the way QF is courting China Eastern, and Emirates, more likely I would think they leave oneworld, or maybe BA/TK and CX/CA will be part of Star.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineleftyboarder From Turkey, joined Apr 2008, 693 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1666 times:

Quoting ota1 (Reply 13):
There have been rumors popping up more or less frequently that CX is not happy with oneworld anymore.Other rumors were suggesting CX was looking to jump ship to Star Alliance.

CX in Star? How many SE Asian carriers does *A need anyway? I doubt SQ would like that. Or even CA for that matter.


User currently offlineavek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4369 posts, RR: 19
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1664 times:

Quoting leftyboarder (Reply 2):
A Star airline in bed with a Oneworld airline when there are obvious alliance partners to cooperate (namely QF and SQ/TG).

I disagree, none of the three carriers you mentioned offer as much cooperative benefit (and/or likelihood of regulatory approval) as Cathay Pacific.



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9029 posts, RR: 75
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1663 times:

Quoting leftyboarder (Reply 15):
Or even CA for that matter.

CA and CX already own around 20% of each other.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4954 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1670 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 11):
The AKL to LHR via LAX is about 3 hours shorter then via Asia.

Many NZ'ers have are unjustifiably paranoid about transiting via LAX to LHR even though it is seamless. The HKG transit is more pleasant given that the HKG terminal is much more attractive and has designated space for transit. In LAX NZ's transit passengers are confined to a transit lounge.


User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1669 times:

CX / HKG is unique from the rest of SE Asia is that it's (a) the southern most city that could profitably fly nonstop to North America and (b) closest to the great circle routing between SYD and LHR.

The only major partnerships CX has are JL and AA, which could easily be switched to NH and UA with minimal connectivity loss, if any. CX also code-share with LAN, but the daily hand-off is limited given the distances involved.

If Star manages to win CX over (however remote the possibility), that would be a major coup.


User currently offlinedelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1508 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1667 times:

So one less carrier now circumnavigating the globe I assume?

User currently offlinedocpepz From Singapore, joined May 2001, 1971 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1671 times:

CX is the most natural choice for NZ. NZ fly daily into HKG, NRT and PVG.

PVG would have a problem with transit visas - plus the connections are not great, you require 4-6 hours to connect to BA, VS or MU

NRT's also not great for connections, the Air NZ flights arrive after 4pm, the LHR flights depart before noon.

HKG is the best, because CX offers 4 flights a day to LHR, and the connections to and from LHR to the NZ AKL-HKG-AKL flights are seamless.

SQ and TG are useless to NZ, because NZ does not fly to either SIN or BKK and won't be able to feed its own metal.


User currently offlineIrishAyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2183 posts, RR: 15
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1675 times:

Quoting docpepz (Reply 21):
NRT's also not great for connections

Amen to that. My xfr experiences in NRT were horrendous last week. Never again.

Quoting zeke (Reply 14):
Do not know. Given the way QF is courting China Eastern, and Emirates, more likely I would think they leave oneworld, or maybe BA/TK and CX/CA will be part of Star.

The situation is all about game-changing strategies now. The QF+EK move has essentially spurred a "domino affect" among individual network carriers, which has resulted in major alliance re-think. It's no longer about the airline planning strategic moves within the context of their respective alliance membership; rather, it's all about maximizing whatever opportunities, as they present themselves, to better position the airline to compete in the global realm.

Most interestingly, all of these structural changes are revolving around the Middle East/GCC: Australia/Asia on one side, Europe on the other. BA+Qatar+OW, AB/EY+AF-KL, QF+EK. Now, we have the distinct possibility that LH+TK may tie-up.

Some of these decisions have definitely rocked the boats, but nothing has over-turned the ships quite yet. Personally, I think this is all too natural: these alliances have added so many partner carriers over the years and not accounted for conflicts with national pride and differences in cultural/operating strategies. There will inevitably be consequences from that, with individual carriers taking actions that put their best interests at heart, and not necessarily benefiting the greater good of the whole alliance and/or strategic partners. Without question, the largest shocks will start to occur IF a major network carrier chooses to switch/ditch an alliance upon seeing diminished value in membership.



next flights: jfk-icn, icn-hkg-bkk-cdg, cdg-phl-msp
User currently offlinehuaiwei From Singapore, joined Oct 2008, 1114 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1672 times:

Interesting development. One by one, airlines seem to be dropping out of the Kangaroo route, at least on routings transiting via East/SE Asia.

Quoting leftyboarder (Reply 15):
How many SE Asian carriers does *A need anyway?
Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 19):
CX / HKG is unique from the rest of SE Asia

HKG is not part of Southeast Asia, which is why it is unique. And yes, Star Alliance does desperately need more Chinese presence especially given ST's dominance of Southern/Eastern China and the likelihood of Hainan going to OneWorld which may erode CA's dominance up north.

Quoting leftyboarder (Reply 15):
I doubt SQ would like that.

But who seriously cares what SQ thinks?

Quoting leftyboarder (Reply 15):
Or even CA for that matter.

CA would be more than happy to have CX in bed. Their Beijing masters would applaud too.

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 19):
closest to the great circle routing between SYD and LHR.

The likes of EK has shown that it doesn't really matter that much.



It's huaiwei...not huawei. I have nothing to do with the PRC! :)
User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2985 posts, RR: 28
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1674 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 7):
This will free up additional equipment for NZ, where will they deploy that capacity ?
Quoting zeke (Reply 12):
It is an asset worth money. They have indicated in the article that they are dismissing 70 LHR based crews, that is a clear indication that they will not be using that slot.

NZ have been saying for some time that they will focus on the Pacific rim. ORD/IAH have been rumoured for the 789s due early in 2014 and S. America seems to be on the agenda (note that N.Z. is one of the leads for the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement).

On the other hand, LAX-LHR is NZ's most profitable international sector. If they keep the LHR slot, they might think about AKL-SFO-LHR.



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlineavek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4369 posts, RR: 19
Reply 25, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2402 times:

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 22):
Personally, I think this is all too natural: these alliances have added so many partner carriers over the years and not accounted for conflicts with national pride and differences in cultural/operating strategies.

I disagree. This year, the only carriers to embrace "unorthodox" tie-ups thus far are those for whom the existing global alliance frameworks carry limited value due to geography (QF, NZ), cooperation ceilings (CX vis-a-vis BA/QF), or growth constraints (BA due to LHR limitations, AB due to Berlin limitations and cost pressures, AF due to cost structure limitations). There's no impending "wave" afoot -- rather, non-American carriers that should have been acting in a more ad hoc fashion all along are finally beginning to do so because economic imperatives are forcing their hands.



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineIrishAyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2183 posts, RR: 15
Reply 26, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2312 times:

Quoting avek00 (Reply 25):
There's no impending "wave" afoot -- rather, non-American carriers that should have been acting in a more ad hoc fashion all along are finally beginning to do so because economic imperatives are forcing their hands.

Economic factors are indeed the primary driving factor, but one cannot overlook some of the more subtle under linings which do indeed incur differences in alliance approach.

Look at the variances between LH/AC and TG/SQ. The former is much more centered upon formulating strategic partnerships, JV-agreements, and cross-sharing (arguably with the intention of stifling the competition and achieving pricing power + market share dominance) whereas the latter are much more hands-off and prefer to remain independent/loosely affiliated in the alliance.

The same argument holds for AA+IAG vs. CX; AF+KL vs. KE, etc.

The airlines that fall into the former category have realized that this strategy is not sustainable over the long-run because there are faster-growing airlines in the GCC region that have made tremendous inroads with rapid expansion plans. The "far-flung" airlines, as you've mentioned, have simply been the first-movers to adapt to this because they are the most disadvantaged.

You'll notice, however, that the domino effect IS starting to show here because it has finally moved into the Asia-Pac region. One case in point is the NZ+CX partnership, which is seeking to consolidate/streamline capacity and yield discipline on the LHR-HKG-AKL corridor, and the other being the QF+EK tie-up which has ditched SIN as the hub for the Kangaroo hub. Put simply, these two data points are showing that Asia is indeed directly impacted by the successes of the GCCs, with the tidal wave starting from the Australia+Oceania region.

I will agree with you that again, the primary driving factor IS due to points of weaknesses that cannot be overcome easily given tangible forces such as unpredictable economic cycles and geography.

However, you cannot deny that the ones that have been recently engaging in the "unorthodox" practices are indeed the ones who, at some point or another, put the most stock into the alliance: BA and QF are founding members of OneWorld, as is Air France with SkyTeam and Lufthansa with Star. All of these carriers have been recently engaging in alliance re-think because current conditions are simply unsatisfactory.



next flights: jfk-icn, icn-hkg-bkk-cdg, cdg-phl-msp
User currently offlinenicode From France, joined May 2012, 85 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2688 times:

Quoting delimit (Reply 20):
So one less carrier now circumnavigating the globe I assume?

The only one !


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4954 posts, RR: 5
Reply 28, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2674 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 24):
If they keep the LHR slot, they might think about AKL-SFO-LHR.

It is difficult to see them starting any additional services to the UK from North America soon. Their 77E's need refurbishing which is not happening until 2014. This needs to happen in my view to get Y+ upto scratch, the 789's are apparently designated to replace the 767's and the 77W's , if they turned them around in SFO ,maybe too large .


User currently offlineaklrno From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 934 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2710 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 18):
In LAX NZ's transit passengers are confined to a transit lounge.

When NZ moves to the new TBIT building at LAX will that change the transit experience?

I'll be flying AKL-LHR in about 5 months. I'd be happy to do it on CX, one of the few airlines rated better than NZ. And I love their HKG lounges. Much better than what NZ offers at the United lounge.

I wonder whose FF miles I get when I buy the ticket from NZ. I presume *A miles all the way?


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2985 posts, RR: 28
Reply 30, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2656 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 28):

It is difficult to see them starting any additional services to the UK from North America soon.

I don't disagree. But if they let the LHR slot go, it will be extremely difficult to get back.



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlineBA174 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 757 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2737 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 14):
Do not know. Given the way QF is courting China Eastern, and Emirates, more likely I would think they leave oneworld, or maybe BA/TK and CX/CA will be part of Star.

BA would never leave OW, the AA/IB/JAL fits them perfectly.

Maybe NZ will jump to OW as they mulled the idea a few years ago.


User currently offlineavek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4369 posts, RR: 19
Reply 32, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2670 times:

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 26):
However, you cannot deny that the ones that have been recently engaging in the "unorthodox" practices are indeed the ones who, at some point or another, put the most stock into the alliance: BA and QF are founding members of OneWorld, as is Air France with SkyTeam and Lufthansa with Star. All of these carriers have been recently engaging in alliance re-think because current conditions are simply unsatisfactory.

I don't dispute this assertion, but I don't see the recent developments as the beginning of a larger trend, but rather the reaction of a few airlines that are basically stifled from other forms of adaptation to a changing marketplace.

Western European carriers, Aussie/Kiwi carriers, and Cathay Pacific are all especially vulnerable airlines. As much as a.nutters love to roast US legacies, the bottom line is that during the first dozen years of the 2000s they did the needful -- good, bad, and ugly -- to restructure every facet of their operations, and have again become efficient powerhouses that can viably compete with anyone. European and Aussie/Kiwi carriers, by contrast, are now the most expensive airlines on Earth to operate, and among the most inefficient of the developed world -- so much so, in fact, that they all leave substantial $$$ "on the table" because they cannot leverage many potential market opportunities on an economical basis. Cathay Pacific, for its part, is still trying to retool itself from the loss of substantial premium traffic flows vis-a-vis travel to/from China as direct links between Taiwan and the mainland opened up and the mainland Chinese longhaul market is better served by both Chinese and foreign carriers. Given these circumstances, it's no wonder that these airlines are going outside the box -- simply put, they have no choice.



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineleftyboarder From Turkey, joined Apr 2008, 693 posts, RR: 1
Reply 33, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2680 times:

Quoting BA174 (Reply 31):
Maybe NZ will jump to OW as they mulled the idea a few years ago.

Don't they (NZ) own part of DJ? Them being in the same alliance with QF would raise competition issues on Australia-NZ, right?


User currently offlineytz From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1990 posts, RR: 24
Reply 34, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2669 times:

WOW. What is with all these alliances disintegrating in the Pacific?

[Edited 2012-11-05 12:03:19]

User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2985 posts, RR: 28
Reply 35, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2675 times:

Quoting avek00 (Reply 32):
European and Aussie/Kiwi carriers, by contrast, are now the most expensive airlines on Earth to operate, and among the most inefficient of the developed world -- so much so, in fact, that they all leave substantial $$$ "on the table" because they cannot leverage many potential market opportunities on an economical basis.

Do you have any facts (numbers) to back this up? Last time I checked, RyanAir and EasyJet were European carriers.



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlineavek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4369 posts, RR: 19
Reply 36, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2671 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 35):
Do you have any facts (numbers) to back this up? Last time I checked, RyanAir and EasyJet were European carriers.

I'm referring only to legacy carriers with substantial longhaul operations -- Ryanair and EasyJet are irrelevant to this entire discussion.



Live life to the fullest.
User currently onlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6417 posts, RR: 38
Reply 37, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2689 times:

Quoting delimit (Reply 20):
So one less carrier now circumnavigating the globe I assume?

That'll be the end of the only round-the-world service. No other airline meets up around the world (SQ comes close but the direct A345 flight goes to EWR, not JFK... And that's going to be pulled too.)

Quoting aklrno (Reply 29):
I wonder whose FF miles I get when I buy the ticket from NZ. I presume *A miles all the way?

But if you wanted OW miles, wouldn't you just choose to fly CX all the way?



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlineIrishAyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2183 posts, RR: 15
Reply 38, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2667 times:

Quoting avek00 (Reply 32):
Western European carriers, Aussie/Kiwi carriers, and Cathay Pacific are all especially vulnerable airlines. As much as a.nutters love to roast US legacies, the bottom line is that during the first dozen years of the 2000s they did the needful -- good, bad, and ugly -- to restructure every facet of their operations, and have again become efficient powerhouses that can viably compete with anyone. European and Aussie/Kiwi carriers, by contrast, are now the most expensive airlines on Earth to operate, and among the most inefficient of the developed world -- so much so, in fact, that they all leave substantial $$$ "on the table" because they cannot leverage many potential market opportunities on an economical basis. Cathay Pacific, for its part, is still trying to retool itself from the loss of substantial premium traffic flows vis-a-vis travel to/from China as direct links between Taiwan and the mainland opened up and the mainland Chinese longhaul market is better served by both Chinese and foreign carriers. Given these circumstances, it's no wonder that these airlines are going outside the box -- simply put, they have no choice.

Good point. And it does bring into play the larger, global dilemma: for however much US airlines have diluted their overall product, they seem to be in decent shape (read: US Airways as a textbook example) vs. the other non-US network carriers; yet, people would much rather fly LH on PHL-FRA than US any day of the week.



next flights: jfk-icn, icn-hkg-bkk-cdg, cdg-phl-msp
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4954 posts, RR: 5
Reply 39, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2597 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 30):
I don't disagree. But if they let the LHR slot go, it will be extremely difficult to get back.

Agreed ! Are they allows to rent it out?


User currently onlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6417 posts, RR: 38
Reply 40, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2612 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 39):

What sort of time would a flight have to leave YVR/SFO/LAX in order for that slot to be used?



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4954 posts, RR: 5
Reply 41, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2580 times:

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 40):
What sort of time would a flight have to leave YVR/SFO/LAX in order for that slot to be used?

I would say about 1425 PST . Typical timetable time is 10hr 20min.


User currently offlinePA515 From New Zealand, joined Nov 2007, 877 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2581 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 4):
What happens to the LHR slot at 1145 which is the arrival of the ANZ flight via HKG ?

That should be 1445.
LAX-LHR arrives 1045, or 1115 Northern Summer 2013. ANZ35 HKG-LHR is 0905/1445, was going to be 1000/1615 Northern Summer 2013. ANZ38 LHR-HKG is a 2105 departure year round.

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 40):
What sort of time would a flight have to leave YVR/SFO/LAX in order for that slot to be used?

YVR/SFO/LAX departure times would not be an issue, but AKL times would. To use 1445 or 1615 for an LHR arrival means leaving AKL about 0230. A 2105 LHR departure means leaving SFO/LAX for AKL about 0245 and YVR 0145, and messes up the transtasman connections with a late morning arrival.

Slot times can be sold or exchanged and some airlines lease them out, but I think there's a time limit for leasing.

PA515


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2985 posts, RR: 28
Reply 43, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2559 times:

Quoting PA515 (Reply 42):
Slot times can be sold or exchanged.

So maybe an exchange with CX, if they have a suitable slot.



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently onlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6417 posts, RR: 38
Reply 44, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2561 times:

Quoting PA515 (Reply 42):
YVR/SFO/LAX departure times would not be an issue, but AKL times would. To use 1445 or 1615 for an LHR arrival means leaving AKL about 0230.

But surely there'd be no harm in staying a couple of extra hours in LAX/SFO/YVR? ie make a flight depart AKL for the West Coast at midnight..

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 43):

So maybe an exchange with CX, if they have a suitable slot.

As some people noted, the timing of an early morning departure ex-HKG isn't favourable.. CX has a flight which departs about an hour after the NZ HKG-LHR flight.. And I think that's early enough for them. Meanwhile, they have at least 2 departures out of HKG around midnight



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12109 posts, RR: 18
Reply 45, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2581 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Another article about NZs axing of LHR-HKG. Article talks about more deals by NZ in regards to codeshares

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...ore-Air-New-Zealand-deals-expected


User currently offlineJetstar315 From Australia, joined Sep 2007, 50 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2508 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It seems strange to me that Air NZ didn't come to a code-share arrangement with Virgin Atlantic HKG-LHR. After all, NZ is very involved with Virgin Australia now, so an alliance with Virgin Atlantic would have been an obvious choice IMHO!

User currently offlinexiaotung From New Zealand, joined Jan 2006, 829 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2459 times:

Quoting Jetstar315 (Reply 46):
It seems strange to me that Air NZ didn't come to a code-share arrangement with Virgin Atlantic HKG-LHR. After all, NZ is very involved with Virgin Australia now, so an alliance with Virgin Atlantic would have been an obvious choice IMHO!

I don't really think this arrangement is about London. I think it's all to do with Mainland China and a direct response to CZ. With the forever expansion of CZ services in this part of the world (we are even seeing CZ A380 to AKL), you can get to most of China daily with one-stop in CAN. NZ's PVG services are only good for O&D traffic from Shanghai and surrounding areas. There is no NZ base partner in Shanghai since FM left *A. There is no place better and more efficient than HKG in terms of tranist facilities to Mainland China. Cathay with Dragon Air serve more than 20 cities in China and was the missing link between such a high profile route namely PVG and HKG.

With PVG, are we likely to see an extension to Europe? This was the plan for B787 so perhaps we will see it become a reality in 2014? It would be a no brainer to take advantage of the cheaper PVG based crew.

[Edited 2012-11-05 18:02:04]

User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7184 posts, RR: 13
Reply 48, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2437 times:

- There will be no onward AKL-Xxx-LHR extension flights to replace it
- NZ will continue to find partners which suit it best regardless of alliance
- NZ will only be with Star Alliance, even if it has Skyteam or Oneworld Partners.
- The aircraft will be utilised somewhere else on a nonstop operation, and I dare say you will be looking to the Western Hemisphere not the Eastern Hemisphere.


User currently onlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6417 posts, RR: 38
Reply 49, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2431 times:

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 48):
The aircraft will be utilised somewhere else on a nonstop operation, and I dare say you will be looking to the Western Hemisphere not the Eastern Hemisphere.

Axing the HKG-LHR sector alone would only free up one 772, right? And if it's not for HNL services year round, I suppose EZE falls into the scope?



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlineNZ1 From New Zealand, joined May 2004, 2254 posts, RR: 25
Reply 50, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2451 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting anstar (Reply 10):

Both 744's are likely to remain until March 2015 at this stage. The capacity is needed while the 77E is going through the upgrade program.

In regards to adding new routes to North America; no new routes are planned at present, but you will see the addition of capacity on AKL-LAX, AKL-SFO and AKL-YVR.

NZ1


User currently offlinehuaiwei From Singapore, joined Oct 2008, 1114 posts, RR: 2
Reply 51, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2399 times:

Quoting avek00 (Reply 32):
As much as a.nutters love to roast US legacies, the bottom line is that during the first dozen years of the 2000s they did the needful -- good, bad, and ugly -- to restructure every facet of their operations, and have again become efficient powerhouses that can viably compete with anyone.

I would love to agree with you...but only if my fellow Asians flock to American carriers when flying to the US, and even on intra-Asian routes instead of sticking to any airline other than American carriers.

As it is, the staus quo has remained. The American carriers may improve, but so will their competitors. Take any major Asian legacy and force them into restructuring and they will emerge far stronger than any American carrier today. JAL is a textbook example. Can any American carrier match that? And if circumstances forces each of these Asian airlines to restructure, can the American carriers still compete?

Quoting xiaotung (Reply 47):
With PVG, are we likely to see an extension to Europe? This was the plan for B787 so perhaps we will see it become a reality in 2014? It would be a no brainer to take advantage of the cheaper PVG based crew.

But do they have the rights to do that? So far I cannot recall any foreign carrier being given fifth freedoms through China?



It's huaiwei...not huawei. I have nothing to do with the PRC! :)
User currently offlinecx flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6597 posts, RR: 55
Reply 52, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2435 times:

Apparently there are still LHR slots availaible at the moment and if an airline wants one, they can get one. CX isn't launching more LHR flights right now because they don't want to, not because they can't get a slot.

User currently offlineneveragain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 53, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2399 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 18):
Many NZ'ers have are unjustifiably paranoid about transiting via LAX to LHR even though it is seamless. The HKG transit is more pleasant given that the HKG terminal is much more attractive and has designated space for transit. In LAX NZ's transit passengers are confined to a transit lounge.

What transit lounge? NZ is a Visa Waiver Program country. The connecting passengers from AKL to LHR spend their time just like connecting passengers from SEA to TUS. Are transit lounges even in operation anymore?

It's certainly not as nice of an experience to connect in LAX, but passengers are not spending their time in a sterile lounge.

Quoting avek00 (Reply 32):
As much as a.nutters love to roast US legacies, the bottom line is that during the first dozen years of the 2000s they did the needful -- good, bad, and ugly -- to restructure every facet of their operations, and have again become efficient powerhouses that can viably compete with anyone.

That's a bit of an oversimplification, no?

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 22):
Amen to that. My xfr experiences in NRT were horrendous last week. Never again.

IrishAyes says NEVER AGAIN!! (I've been waiting to be able to do that for awhile.)


User currently offlineLutfi From China, joined Sep 2000, 774 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2365 times:

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 51):
But do they have the rights to do that? So far I cannot recall any foreign carrier being given fifth freedoms through China?

Indian airlines have been given 5th freedom rights from PRC. And Taiwan give out lots of 5th freedom flights, as does HK (both part of China....)


User currently offlineIndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2957 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2359 times:

Quoting Jetstar315 (Reply 46):
It seems strange to me that Air NZ didn't come to a code-share arrangement with Virgin Atlantic HKG-LHR. After all, NZ is very involved with Virgin Australia now, so an alliance with Virgin Atlantic would have been an obvious choice IMHO!

Some things just never make sense.

I fully agree that it would have likely been an option that aligned with its JA partnership, but I guess CX appeared a better fit, or offered a better deal for them.

So many moves lately are just plain confusing, but it sure keeps things interesting.


User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7184 posts, RR: 13
Reply 56, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2312 times:

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 55):
Some things just never make sense.

Maybe not in only the terms of HKG-LHR flights, but given that the JV will likely end up including all of China, some of India and places like MNL/TPE/SGN (there are already fares in place). VS are not in any position to be able to offer that kind of thing for NZ. Also it means that NZ will have codeshares on the CX flight to AKL, giving increased option out of AKL, again VS nor any other carrier could not offer that.


User currently offlineaklrno From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 934 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2219 times:

Quoting neveragain (Reply 53):
What transit lounge? NZ is a Visa Waiver Program country. The connecting passengers from AKL to LHR spend their time just like connecting passengers from SEA to TUS. Are transit lounges even in operation anymore?

It's certainly not as nice of an experience to connect in LAX, but passengers are not spending their time in a sterile lounge.

I'm always doing a connection to or from a domestic flight when I'm at LAX T2, but I do see a transit lounge for NZ 1/2 passengers near where the 777 is parked. J class is allowed to exit to the street and re-enter the building to get to the Koru lounge if there is time, but the others are in a very dreary holding room. New Zealand may be a visa waiver country, but not everyone has a NZ passport.

I think the transit passengers go through immigration but do not collect baggage or go through customs. Somewhere they are intercepted for return to the transit lounge, but I have never noticed where that is. Can anyone tell us how that works?

At the new TBIT I presume all that changes. Does anyone know how LAX TBIT handles international transit passengers now? If you are in the departure area at TBIT and decide to return to the street, do you have to go through immigration?


User currently offlineZK-NBT From New Zealand, joined Oct 2000, 5316 posts, RR: 11
Reply 58, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2213 times:

I guess this news isn't to surprising really, it is sad though but a sign of the times.

I'd imagine 772s year round to HNL aswell with this additional capacity.

I wonder if NZ will change their HKG departure to afternoon around 1530? It will shorten ground time by a few hours in HKG and arrive into AKL around 0600 leaving CX the evening flight. Maybe in summer when the second CX flight operates at around that time NZ would push back to a 1800 departure arriving AKL around 1000. I don't think CX would retime their second flight mainly because it offers an 0900 departure ex AKL getting to HKG around 1515 which connects to a different bank of flights.


User currently onlinedeconz From New Zealand, joined Nov 2010, 137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2171 times:

Quoting neveragain (Reply 53):
It's certainly not as nice of an experience to connect in LAX, but passengers are not spending their time in a sterile lounge.

That is EXACTLY what happens!!! Once they have completed arrival documentation, waiting in a queue that sometimes extends back into the airbridge, fingerprinted and photographed they are released into a dismal holding lounge to await reboarding. No access to the general departures area of T2 and emergency exit doors to the lounge under armed guard. A most unpleasant and senseless exercise that I have endured several times on NZ1/2 - on occasions it has taken upwards of an hour to be "processed" onto that nasty holding pen!!!

If you are travelling Business Premier and IF the customs arrival queues aren't too long then you are allowed to exit T2 via the normal arrivals process and then re enter T2, clear TSA check point and then access the Koru Lounge.


User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 60, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2197 times:

Quoting neveragain (Reply 53):
What transit lounge? NZ is a Visa Waiver Program country. The connecting passengers from AKL to LHR spend their time just like connecting passengers from SEA to TUS. Are transit lounges even in operation anymore?

It's certainly not as nice of an experience to connect in LAX, but passengers are not spending their time in a sterile lounge.

Is this a joke post?

Air NZ passengers from London to Auckland and vice versa most definitely DO spend 2 hours in a transit pen at T2. They go through passport control but not customs or security, and are not permitted to enter the general terminal area. Business Class passengers can play Russian Roulette by attempting to go through Immigration and Customs to get 30 minutes in the lounge in the terminal, but as time passes that is becoming a more aversive experience because 80% of Immigration desks are now unused.

Funnily enough, this situation is like heaven compared with the future move to TBIT, at which time passengers on NZ1/2 will be required to pass proper immigration and baggage reclaim and customs and security re-screeing, which will end the days of the 120 minute LAX stop.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4954 posts, RR: 5
Reply 61, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2113 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 60):
Funnily enough, this situation is like heaven compared with the future move to TBIT, at which time passengers on NZ1/2 will be required to pass proper immigration and baggage reclaim and customs and security re-screeing, which will end the days of the 120 minute LAX stop.

If true, a most compelling reason to institute US pre-clearance in AKL. I have sounded off on this before . NZ should welcome it but it would be up to the airport authority to make the space available.


User currently offlinecslusarc From Canada, joined May 2005, 839 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1990 times:

I would rather see NZ extend AKL - YVR to LHR or launch AKL - HNL - LHR. By routing over YVR, NZ could save fuel by traveling about 190 miles less than a routing via LAX. Or a routing via HNL NZ could save time by taking a polar routing that's about 330 miles less.


--cslusarc from YWG
User currently offlineneveragain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 63, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1976 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 60):
Is this a joke post?

No, I seriously had no idea. Is it really a requirement? Why wouldn't the flight be treated as a traditional international-international connection? Why wouldn't passengers just opt to go through Customs and security since NZ is a visa waiver country?

Obviously you must have done it before, so you must be right. This is just news to me. I guess this must be one of the only flights of this type going through the U.S. that is subject to such a requirement? (The only other I can think of is ICN-LAX-GRU.)


User currently onlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6417 posts, RR: 38
Reply 64, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1973 times:

Quoting neveragain (Reply 63):

Think about the layout of the terminals at LAX (excluding TBIT); actually probably most US airports' domestic terminals which also house international flights. You can just waltz out the exit if you so desired and nobody would know or care. Though I have no idea what will happen at TBIT - it might be a different situation.... They need to take a page out of HKG/SIN's books.



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlineneveragain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 65, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1972 times:

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 64):
Think about the layout of the terminals at LAX (excluding TBIT); actually probably most US airports' domestic terminals which also house international flights. You can just waltz out the exit if you so desired and nobody would know or care. Though I have no idea what will happen at TBIT - it might be a different situation.... They need to take a page out of HKG/SIN's books.

But if you've been through passport control, what does it matter?

It's just like someone flying LHR-IAH-MEX on UA, with the only difference being that the flight is not on the same aircraft.


User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 66, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1966 times:

Quoting neveragain (Reply 63):
I seriously had no idea. Is it really a requirement? Why wouldn't the flight be treated as a traditional international-international connection? Why wouldn't passengers just opt to go through Customs and security since NZ is a visa waiver country?

That would work if Customs and Immigration were properly staffed, but unfortunately nowadays the last ten times I have arrived at T2 on Air NZ I have been at the back of a huge queue of Italian and French and British arrivals waiting well over an hour to be processed at the 20% of immigration desks which are actually staffed.


User currently offlineneveragain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 67, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1957 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 66):
That would work if Customs and Immigration were properly staffed, but unfortunately nowadays the last ten times I have arrived at T2 on Air NZ I have been at the back of a huge queue of Italian and French and British arrivals waiting well over an hour to be processed at the 20% of immigration desks which are actually staffed.

So the transit lounge arrangement is not mandatory? Also if you have to go through immigration, the only additional step would be Customs, no? I think I'd choose to just go through there and avoid the lounge. Sounds like the problem is not necessarily US CBP procedures (although I certainly understand why many want to avoid them), but rather the operational specifics at LAX.

But I have not suffered through this to know the ins and outs, so my opinion really doesn't matter.


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2985 posts, RR: 28
Reply 68, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1925 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 61):
If true, a most compelling reason to institute US pre-clearance in AKL.

That would be ideal, but the likelihood of persuading U.S. CBP to post staff in AKL for 4-5 flights per day (LAX, SFO, HNL) is minimal.



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4954 posts, RR: 5
Reply 69, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1892 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 68):
That would be ideal, but the likelihood of persuading U.S. CBP to post staff in AKL for 4-5 flights per day (LAX, SFO, HNL) is minimal

My rationale for this suggestion is that it was reported that Porter by adding addition flights at Toronto Island to the U.S.expected to reach the 400,000 annually passenger thresh hold required by the U.S. to add pre-clearance capability. Departures from AKL to LAX/SFO are considerably more than that according to some statistics quoted on this site a while ago.


User currently offlineneveragain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 70, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1887 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 69):
Departures from AKL to LAX/SFO are considerably more than that according to some statistics quoted on this site a while ago.

Close, but no. I think you may be thinking of a 2-way (enplaned and deplaned) number.

Enplaned passengers for 2011, on all airlines:

HNL: 23,466

LAX: 247,140 (with 60,469 on QF)

SFO: 86,259

Total: 356,865 (296,396 excluding QF)

But you probably wouldn't have a problem convincing CBP agents to be assigned to AKL.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4954 posts, RR: 5
Reply 71, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1877 times:

Quoting neveragain (Reply 70):
Total: 356,865

Thanks for this. Close but no cigar ! I guess these numbers include Australian passengers who are transiting in AKL.


User currently offlineneveragain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 72, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1875 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 71):
I guess these numbers include Australian passengers who are transiting in AKL.

Yes, any passenger onboard leaving AKL on a route to the U.S.


User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7184 posts, RR: 13
Reply 73, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1861 times:

I don't think there is any doubt that with extra frequencies coming that 400000 is not far away for AKL. It would only take JQ to start with a 787 or QF (with EKs) to comeback in addition to frequency increases and it would be there easily

User currently offlineneveragain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 74, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1800 times:

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 73):
I don't think there is any doubt that with extra frequencies coming that 400000 is not far away for AKL. It would only take JQ to start with a 787 or QF (with EKs) to comeback in addition to frequency increases and it would be there easily

I would agree that it's within "firing distance."

What I don't know is for how long that figure must be maintained (I would assume more than one year) before a preclearance station could be opened.

But really the only reason we're talking about this is because of the inconveniences of the AKL-LAX-LHR flight. Not a reason to open a preclearance station in my opinion, especially when the LAX-LHR route could disappear (ala HKG-LHR) because of a joint venture.


User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 75, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1785 times:

No, pre-clearance would also provide a massive competitive advantage for the Australia-USA routes.

The AKL stop would be like BA's Shannon stop between London City and JFK, and Australian passengers would have a compelling reason to fly via AKL.


User currently onlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8340 posts, RR: 7
Reply 76, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1780 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 68):
That would be ideal, but the likelihood of persuading U.S. CBP to post staff in AKL for 4-5 flights per day (LAX, SFO, HNL) is minimal.

Are there 5 flights from Shannon to the USA daily ? Aer Lingus one each to Boston and JFK, then what ? close to 5 maybe 6 or 7 but not 10 or 20.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4954 posts, RR: 5
Reply 77, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1832 times:

Quoting neveragain (Reply 74):
especially when the LAX-LHR route could disappear (ala HKG-LHR) because of a joint venture.

Then NZ have 5 77W probably none of which they would need. In fact based on present frequency the 77E would suffice and the 789 when it follows. In my view if NZ withdrew from LAX-LHR there would be no AKL originating traffic worth talking of to Europe via LAX , and thus little need for some form of JV arraangement


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13012 posts, RR: 100
Reply 78, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1821 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Any update on the LHR slots? I read through and it looks like NZ won't use them, but who will? I hope they lease them out rather than sell them (just for future options).

Quoting leftyboarder (Reply 2):
And another kick in the a** of alliances... A Star airline in bed with a Oneworld airline when there are obvious alliance partners to cooperate (namely QF and SQ/TG). The year of treason

This early comment amused me. This has not been the year of the alliance by any means...

Quoting zeke (Reply 12):
It is an asset worth money. They have indicated in the article that they are dismissing 70 LHR based crews, that is a clear indication that they will not be using that slot.

I would argue lease that asset to preserve future value of the slot.

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 22):
The situation is all about game-changing strategies now. The QF+EK move has essentially spurred a "domino affect" among individual network carriers, which has resulted in major alliance re-think. It's no longer about the airline planning strategic moves within the context of their respective alliance membership; rather, it's all about maximizing whatever opportunities, as they present themselves, to better position the airline to compete in the global realm.

That it is. I expect a few more changes. For example, neither OZ nor KE seem particularly loyal to their alliances. Although, DL might strike a deal with KE, but that isn't 100% alliance related IMHO. This global economic event has upset the apple cart...

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2985 posts, RR: 28
Reply 79, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1770 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 76):
Are there 5 flights from Shannon to the USA daily ? Aer Lingus one each to Boston and JFK, then what ? close to 5 maybe 6 or 7 but not 10 or 20.

According to the BCP, upwards of 900,000 pax are pre-cleared annually at DUB. I couldn't find any numbers for SNN, but it also offers pre-clearance for private ops and is used by many biz jets as a tech stop.

Logistically, DUB/SNN are far easier to staff than AKL. Flight time to rotate/replace staff (vacations, illness, etc) is about 5 hours.

And I wouldn't overlook the influence of a couple of senators with Irish connections in getting DUB/SNN opened.



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlineneveragain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 80, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1766 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 79):
According to the BCP, upwards of 900,000 pax are pre-cleared annually at DUB.

According to DoT (T100), approximately 730k passengers enplaned from DUB on flights to U.S. airports in 2011. JFK was the busiest destination, with approximately 235k passengers, followed by ORD (125k), and BOS (100k).

The number for SNN was 165k, far below the 400k threshold mentioned (which I have not verified actually exists). If there is indeed a threshold, perhaps this was a compromise of EU-US Open Skies?


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25170 posts, RR: 22
Reply 81, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1765 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 75):
The AKL stop would be like BA's Shannon stop between London City and JFK,

Only the earliest of the two BA LCY-JFK flights now pre-clears at SNN. Due to cut backs in the opening hours of SNN pre-clearance facility last month, the 2nd flight leaving LCY in late afternoon must now clear U.S. formalities on arrival at JFK, with SNN now strictly a fuel stop.


User currently offlineneveragain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 82, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1760 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 81):
Only the earliest of the two BA LCY-JFK flights now pre-clears at SNN. Due to cut backs in the opening hours of SNN pre-clearance facility last month, the 2nd flight leaving LCY in late afternoon must now clear U.S. formalities on arrival at JFK, with SNN now strictly a fuel stop.

BTW, passengers enplaned on these flights would not be included in the 165k number quoted above.

But with fewer than 40 seats, that's not going to get the total to 400k. (Can anyone confirm that is indeed a hard-and-fast rule?)


User currently offlinecofannyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 214 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1733 times:

Quoting neveragain (Reply 80):
The number for SNN was 165k, far below the 400k threshold mentioned (which I have not verified actually exists). If there is indeed a threshold, perhaps this was a compromise of EU-US Open Skies?

I understand the 400k threshold as being a guideline for CBP to open a new station (for example, in a Canadian airport), not their guideline for keeping an existing station open.


User currently offlineneveragain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 84, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1715 times:

Quoting cofannyc (Reply 83):
I understand the 400k threshold as being a guideline for CBP to open a new station (for example, in a Canadian airport), not their guideline for keeping an existing station open.

SNN was over 400k enplaned passengers to the U.S. in each year only up until 2007.

So the only way I can explain it is that either the application was approved a long time ago and not changed after EU-U.S. Open Skies (although they should have seen it coming), or Ireland somehow requested a preclearance station in exchange for its support of the treaty.


User currently offlinecchan From New Zealand, joined May 2003, 1759 posts, RR: 2
Reply 85, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1720 times:

Quoting alitaliadc10 (Thread starter):
Air NZ and Cathay Pacific will form a strategic partnership and code-sharing from March 2013.

Air NZ will drop HKG-LHR services.

IMHO, this signals the demise of AKL-HKG for NZ, and I would expect a gradual take over of this route by CX metal.

This deal benefits CX a lot more than NZ.

For CX:
- gain passengers to and from New Zealand destinations outside of AKL, these passengers would previously travel on NZ metal on AKL-HKG because of the better domestic connections offered by NZ
- one less competitor on HKG-LHR, and get the share of NZ passengers who used to travel on AKL-HKG-LHR. Most of the LHR bound passengers would use CX108/198 AKL-HKG as this connects to the midnight CX departures to LHR
- for HKG-AKL, the current departure times of the CX and NZ flights are only about 2 hours apart, so there is little difference for most customers in terms of timing, but most frequent flyers on this route would know that CX offers better meals and have more Chinese language speaking staff, so the choice would be obvious

For NZ:
- HKG and LHR bound passengers move to CX flights instead, China bound passengers will stay with the midnight AKL-HKG flight on NZ metal, but this group of customers are previous NZ customers anyway, so there is little gain
- NZ have been selling tickets to China with connecting CA, HX or KA flights from HKG, so the partnership with CX adds very little to this
- NZ may get connecting passengers from CX's regional destinations, but again these passengers can also choose to go on CX metal between AKL and HKG

I would expect, in the medium term, NZ would reduce frequency on AKL-HKG or downgauge to 763, and in the longer term may pull out of HKG altogether like they did with SIN.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25144 posts, RR: 85
Reply 86, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1703 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cchan (Reply 85):
This deal benefits CX a lot more than NZ.

Maybe. But I think it is one of the smartest things Air NZ has done in a while.

The CAPA article pretty much expresses my view:

http://centreforaviation.com/analysi...-and-for-sia--china-southern-87844

"Air New Zealand-Cathay Pacific partnership has implications across Asia and for SIA & China Southern"

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineZKOJH From China, joined Sep 2004, 1686 posts, RR: 1
Reply 87, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1680 times:

I can't see how this with improve the goal of NZ turning the long haul market round, all there doing is using the extra aircraft to increase LAX and hopefully make more money,

for someone who lives in Beijing, getting to AKL with CX has now become a lot better! time wise - you can do the trip in around 16 hrs,

NZ beat it on cost tho, just doing a fake booking in Feb next year, and CX want 27,660 RMB were NZ want only 11,675 RMB!

Even looked at CZ and they can give me 11,654 RMB RTN.

as they say time will tell!



NZ 787-9 flying between PVG - AKL ! CAN'T WAIT!!
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
QF/NZ: Doing Well On The HKG-LHR Run? posted Sat Aug 4 2007 06:24:20 by United Airline
NZ 5th Freedom Rights HKG - LHR? posted Fri Aug 29 2003 06:19:10 by Motorhussy
Air NZ AKL HKG LHR posted Wed Aug 6 2003 11:44:31 by Drew172
Air NZ Earns Rights For HKG-LHR posted Mon May 21 2001 22:47:38 by Johnnybgoode
NZ 744 Stuck At LHR - Photo's posted Sun Dec 19 2010 17:16:38 by NZ1
CX's Proposed HKG-LHR-JFK Route posted Fri Dec 12 2008 18:31:11 by United Airline
NZ 744 IN HKG posted Sat Aug 12 2006 06:33:30 by TG992
CX A346 HKG-LHR posted Fri Mar 31 2006 09:55:35 by Carlcowkau
Air NZ Business Class AKL-LHR posted Mon Mar 20 2006 10:25:25 by Ants