koruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 22555 times:
It seems to me that it is doing fine.
Fare levels per kilometer are double those on the slightly longer Auckland-Shanghai flight in Economy and Premium Economy and triple in Business Premier.
Meanwhile loads are good in all three classes. I fly often on the flight, and my observations are:
1) There is rarely an empty seat in Business Premier
2) There is rarely an award seat available in Business Premier.
3) There is rarely any ability for top-tier frequent flyers to upgrade from Premium Economy to Business Premier with frequent flyer points - my wife and daughter have already been knocked back for January 2014.
The problem with the OP's hypothesis is that you have to understand the comparatively high yields on this sector compared with any of Air New Zealand's Asian routes. And that there is a full station at LHR, so the LHR-LAX sector does not have the economics of a one-stop flight, but rather each of the two sectors is effectively from an outstation to a hub.
Quoting qf002 (Reply 2): Dropping AKL-HKG-LHR will help bolster loads through LAX, and the move from 744s to 77Ws has reduced capacity somewhat. I doubt they're having too many issues.
It bolsters loads, but it massacres yields.
Fare levels have traditionally been calculated by the following formula in each class:
Auckland-Los Angeles = $ x
London-Los Angeles = $ x
Auckland-London (via LAX or HKG) = $1.2 x
The whole point of opening AKL-HKG-LHR was to remove through passengers AKL-LHR from the flight transiting LAX so that the two sectors AKL-LAX and LAX-LHR could be sold separately.
Unfortunately, I'm typical of many passengers who choose to take a stopover in North America so I messed up those plans.
koruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 22257 times:
Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 6): Is Star partner UA able to code share on this flight?
Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 7): They don't appear to . Rather NZ has a code share on the UA evening flight
In fact, Air NZ codeshares with Virgin Atlantic on the San Francisco to London route, but extending that to LAX-LHR and exiting own-metal operations has been highly unattractive because of the Kamikaze long-haul yields that Air NZ gets throughout the rest of its long-haul network except for services to and through North America.
Air NZ conducted a long-haul review in 2012, but then buried the findings.
It's a matter of public record that their recently-departed CEO had had a catastrophic business career in London himself at ITV Digital and the rumours I've heard from multiple Air NZ employees are that he had a strong aversion to UK services and had commissioned the review in the expectation that it would recommend exiting 1-stop operations completely, with codeshares to service London, and instead would refocus long-haul operations on China and Japan.
But the statistics apparently completely contradicted such a model, with yields to (or more precisely from) both China and Japan well entrenched at basket-case levels consistent with the leisure nature of the routes, and with the services to LAX, SFO, HNL and YVR from Auckland and to LAX from LHR being the five highest yielding sectors on the network. Beijing was quietly exited as a second Chinese destination and HKG-LHR was closed.
It's all about the network. From most European nations, flights to China and Japan are heavily dependent upon business traffic, but all of Air New Zealand's Asian routes are almost entirely Economy class inbound traffic. The inbound traffic is package tourists on deeply discounted fares and the outbound traffic to China is almost entirely VFR of Chinese students going to visit their family and friends. It's extraordinary watching the ethnic mix when flights depart AKL for PVG: there are virtually no Pakeha (white NZ), Maori or Pacific islander passengers at all.
Going back several years, HKG-LHR was narrowly preferred to SFO-LHR as an extension of an existing flight from Auckland. I think that both were wrong, and that the second daily AKL-LAX service should have been extended 3 times weekly to Manchester, with a Virgin Atlantic codeshare.
sunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5376 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 22136 times:
Quoting koruman (Reply 8): I think that both were wrong, and that the second daily AKL-LAX service should have been extended 3 times weekly to Manchester, with a Virgin Atlantic codeshare.
I too have been puzzled why no carrier is not running a LAX-MAN service. While what EK are achieving out of MAN/BHX to DXB is sort of like comparing apples and oranges, to me it indicates that there has to be substancial potential from the Midlands to LAX. I have a relie who flies BHX-DBX- SYD- AKL at least once a year on a highyield fare. She could be persuaded to fly MAN-LAX-AKL but she will not travel to LHR to commence her travel.
Perhaps this is one of the planned expansion routes.
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 26232 posts, RR: 85
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 21971 times:
Quoting koruman (Reply 8): Air NZ conducted a long-haul review in 2012, but then buried the findings.
They'd be fools to release an internal review which could be of value to the competition.
Quoting koruman (Reply 8): It's a matter of public record that their recently-departed CEO had had a catastrophic business career in London himself at ITV Digital and the rumours I've heard from multiple Air NZ employees are that he had a strong aversion to UK services and had commissioned the review in the expectation that it would recommend exiting 1-stop operations completely, with codeshares to service London, and instead would refocus long-haul operations on China and Japan.
He left the airline in good shape financially, consistently profitable even through the GFC, and as the recently reported increased profit - for the last months of his tenure - shows.
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 10107 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 21855 times:
NZ has been flying the route longer than any carrier other than BA. They celebrated 30 years on the LAX LHR route last year. There is a lot of O/D on the route which helps fill seats not carrying through traffic from AKL. LHR is a big market. VS has basically no connecting traffic yet still survives long haul only, so NZ carries more connecting traffic from AKL And their pacific islands than VS.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
koruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 21604 times:
Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 9): I too have been puzzled why no carrier is not running a LAX-MAN service
Manchester of course serves a population of around 10 million between Manchester / Liverpool / Leeds / Sheffield and the northern end of the East and West Midlands.
It's a fact of life that British corporate life is dominated by a London / Home Counties elite, who make rather lazy assumptions about the viability of long-haul services from Manchester, with the result that Emirates, Etihad, American Airlines and United have cornered perfectly viable markets which BA or Virgin Atlantic could have had. Ultimately BMI moved their A330s from Manchester to Heathrow with a predictably bad outcome.
MAN-LAX would obviously work at school holiday times at higher frequency than the rest of the year, but should be good for 4x weekly 788 / 763 services in holiday periods and 2 x weekly the rest of the year. As I've written before, a creative marketing department could bulk-sell Business Class seats to professional footballers in the north of England, who would be delighted to pack off their wives to a house in LA for weeks on end to allow them to misbehave with their team-mates.
Manchester United, Manchester City and Liverpool in particular find that their Latin American superstars tire of the damp north, as do Wigan, Everton, Bolton and Blackburn's less exalted Latin Americans. And many better foreign players head for Chelsea, Spurs or Arsenal simply because their spouses won't relocate to the north of England. An airline with vision could package flights and rental of a luxury home at Malibu or in Beverly Hills to ensure that Business Class sales are optimised - and of course Air NZ's 77E has only 26 Business Class seats to sell.
So there is lots of scope to sell even premium seats on a MAN-LAX sector - for Air NZ.
Virgin Atlantic would be largely restricted to O D, which is insufficient for this route. But Air NZ would combine:
1) NW England to California O D
2) NW England to Hawaii
3) NW England to New Zealand 1-stop.
4) NW England to Australia with the option of Pacific island stopovers (RAR, PPT, NAN)
flaps30 From United States of America, joined May 2009, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 18359 times:
Quoting visualapproach (Reply 14):
Had one of my best ever transatlantic flights with ANZ at the end of last year on LAX-LHR, hope it's here to stay.
I agree 100%. I have taken the LAX-LHR flight 4 times over the past few years on both the 744 and 77W and each flight was great. The loads were 100% each time and you cant beat the fares. The great service is icing on the cake. They proved they can match the big boys on this route and even do better.
skipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3398 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 17540 times:
Quoting koruman (Reply 12): It's a fact of life that British corporate life is dominated by a London / Home Counties elite, who make rather lazy assumptions about the viability of long-haul services from Manchester, with the result that Emirates, Etihad, American Airlines and United have cornered perfectly viable markets which BA or Virgin Atlantic could have had. Ultimately BMI moved their A330s from Manchester to Heathrow with a predictably bad outcome.
Spare us the politics, MAN-LAX was tried by BA on the B763, it failed, badly, and in a free market, no one has seen fit to step in and pick it up. If your assumptions were true, American would never have seen an opportunity on MAN-ORD all those years ago. That remains as the market will support it, the market will not and continues not to have enough viability for MAN-LAX.
On the subject of BMI, they were bought for LHR, put into MAN at five to midnight with a business plan cobbled together at the last minute. MAN-IAD was so succesful it was on a leased B757 within three years and the Carribbean routes never gave enough of a return on the investment. Indeed they were a Virgin Holidays supported operation, and VS has not stepped into many of these markets and just kicked MAN-LAS into seasonality. Again, that's a telling indicator of the market opportunity. That left MAN-ORD which like BA's MAN-JFK was a stand alone operation that HQ did not like one bit. All of MAN's US legacy long haul has one thing in common, it feeds a hub. There is no hub to speak of at LAX, some good connections but it lacks hub status for anyone.
You speak of perfectly viable markets BA or VS could have had? That myth really needs to be put to bed. AA, DL, US and CO/UA offered a myriad of connections over their own hubs, something that only now VS and BA can do with alliance and partner codeshares. It's just easier having one airline and connection, that's what's seamless about MAN-US.
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26662 posts, RR: 50
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 17372 times:
Yes NZ has been in the market quite some time. They do have a bit of a local following being known for good service at lower rates then the competition, especially in premium classes. (not sure that is a good thing however).
As I have mentioned many times, frankly I don't however see the need for the flight any longer as the industry moves away from costly multi-leg segments half way around the world freeing the equipment up for NZ to expand further around its natural strength in the Pacific basin.
If I were NZ I'd look at expanding a JV with United and simply funnel LHR pax directly via SFO/LAX onto UA flights. As bonus they could also connect to UA nonstops to FRA and CDG as well via the West Coast. Even maybe do something similar with AC via YVR.
Also with the NZ moving terminals at LAX early 2014, the current abbreviated transit process for the London passengers will end as all will be required to formally clear and enter the US. Only good news I suppose is they will have a new terminal to explore and a new Star alliance lounge for the premium ones to hang out in.
Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 9): I too have been puzzled why no carrier is not running a LAX-MAN service.
Oh they have tried -- atleast 4 operators in the last 20-years.
About the only thing that somewhat stuck was summer British Airtours/Caledonian charters - carrying British tracksuit crowds.
Quoting skipness1E (Reply 16): Spare us the politics, MAN-LAX was tried by BA on the B763, it failed, badly, and in a free market, no one has seen fit to step in and pick it up.
I well recall many 767s going out with mere 50 passengers.
Anyhow for those that espouse such service - its a rather small'ish market from LAX - mere 114 average daily passengers.
LAX has many more larger O&D international markets that lack nonstop service including Brussels, Stockholm, Dublin, Osaka, Barcelona, Milan, Copenhagen, Buenos Aires, Jakarta, Ho Chi Minh, etc... In other words Manchester is quite far down the list.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
2travel2know2 From Panama, joined Apr 2010, 2833 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 16735 times:
Quoting skipness1E (Reply 19): If they can't make AKL-HKG-LHR work how is a less than daily MAN ever going to succeed? By interesting you mean "loss making"?
AKL-HKG-LHR is a flight between AKL and LHR via HKG. Wasn't NZ poor loads between HKG and LHR which pulled the plug on that route?
MAN is a different market than LON, that stop in LAX can give some traffic between California and MAN; given the kind of demand LAX-MAN has, thrice weekly is more than enough to start.
Would passengers wanting to fly between AKL and MAN (or vicinity) like to connect at LHR?
Would passengers in U.S. or England wishing to visit N.Z. South Island prefer to fly directly to CHC instead of connecting somewhere?
New Zealand - MAN thrice weekly rotation takes one wide body, if NZ wants to try something interesting, that's linking CHC with LAX/LHR and AKL/CHC with MAN, flying a wide body CHC-LAX-MAN 3 times a week timed to connect @ LAX w/ AKL-LHR north and south-bound flights.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26496 posts, RR: 22
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 16366 times:
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 11): NZ has been flying the route longer than any carrier other than BA. They celebrated 30 years on the LAX LHR route last year.
If you count all current and past carriers, I think TWA operated LAX-LHR nonstop longer than any other carrier, starting with the L-1649A Starliner in 1957 until they sold their LHR routes to AA in 1991.
LHRFlyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2010, 847 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 16316 times:
Sorry but I just don't see where the premium traffic to support MAN-LAX is.
There is a TV/radio production industry in Manchester (BBC Salford, ITV Studios) but it is very domestically focused. Compare that to the creative industries in London, arguably the world's media capital, and it is tiny (Terminal 5 the morning after the BAFTA awards ceremony is a celebrity spotters paradise).
Statistics NZ population statistics manager Andrea Blackburn said arrivals from China have grown dramatically in the last 20 years, from only 3,300 in 1992.
“In contrast, visitor numbers from the United Kingdom have been declining for the last five years, with a 17 percent decrease in the current year bringing the number down to 191,400."
It's still quite high. The UK is still third in visitor arrivals to NZ and because of the high number of permanent UK immigrants to NZ there is considerable VFR between the two countries and still strong business links.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 23): If so why chase after a shrinking market. Take your planes and fly them to where there is growth and future opportunities.
Maybe because it's making money?
For socio-historical reasons (see above) there will likely always be traffic between the UK and NZ - the only question is how much. And despite the disinclination to one-stop routes, LAX-LHR survived the cull of unprofitable international service.
[Edited 2013-03-06 14:50:02]
: I just looked up the stats - both inbound and outbound travel is down between the UK and NZ. UK visitors to NZ were down whopping 17.7% in 2012 (they
: Yes, I looked over the stats too, before I posted them, and, as I pointed out, the UK is still third in visitor arrivals. What it suggests - to me -
: I would certainly rather fly ANZ than anyone else from LAX to LHR.
: Sorry, I was making reference to the MAN route idea which came up, not LHR with my comment as to why chase a declining market. Seems to me trying to
: Dear god no! What makes you think NZ-UK passengers would tolerate the pathetic iUA nflight experience compared to NZ? You'd pretty much ensure the en
: I agree 100% If NZ were to drop LHR (and I don't think that they will) it will be in favour of SQ or CX, and certainly not UA. If not they are simply
: Actually I quite like NZ, and have flown them many times. I am also close to several in NZ US management team, so nothing again the airline or person
: If it's 1993 on AKL-LAX-LHR, how long were NZ at Gatters. I shot an ANZ B742 at LGW in Feb 93. Indeed BA shared LAX-LHR with NZ as DC10s were LHR regu
: Well just checked my email, and there was a message saying that the LAX-LHR sector is performing well above what was planned, so it must mean we're he
: LAX-LHR-LAX is using one and a bit 77W a day. Not a great demand on resources. Just looking at NZ1 and NZ2 on data.flight24. They crossed over each o
: NZ moved from LGW to LHR in November 1994.
: The LHR-LAX is one of the key markets to them and has been for the last 30 years, although I have not taken this route in a while I would still fly NZ
: Isn't that good for NZ, shows they can sell all the pointy end seats on the route. Which nicely dovetails into the start of the gfc, which hit both t
: Agreed. An A380 vs a 10-abreast 77W is a no brainer. The only thing that would keep me on NZ for the LAX-LHR leg would be the status points.
: You keep beating this drum, but it is not remotely backed up be tolerable yields. Air New Zealand's "booming" routes to China may have massive passen
: I don't. Rob Fyfe's answer clearly relates to the viability of Manchester-Hong Kong-Auckland, not Manchester-Los Angeles-Auckland. And most of us sai
: I'm sorry they looked at serving HKG from MULTIPLE ports in the British Isles? Perhaps they felt that fatally fragmenting their main existing UK opera
: Skipness1E, the HKG Koruhub was intended to aggregate feed for all major Australian ports, not just New Zealand.
: Since LHR for NZ, be from AKL or LAX seems to be mostly O/D. Other than the lower operational costs at LGW and the selling-value of NZ LHR slots, What
: Yes I do, and I will continue so. I also know a few within NZ that agree with me 100%. Give it time. Things change, the markets changes, NZ as a coun
: That part is certainly true and to an extent the debate about MAN reflects some divisions within the country itself. There are those who resist the c
: Now that both Air New Zealand and AV/TA plus CM are in Star Alliance, NZ should definitely study a transpacific route between AKL and most likely AV/
: The fact that IPC is not far off any track ( generally about 100nm) from RAR/PPT -LIM/GRU/SCL is very helpful.
: but koruman wasn't suggesting a daily service - rather 2-4 per week!
: the RAR/LAX/RAR services are timed to allow connections to/from LHR. RAR is now the only Pacific stop possible on NZ metal, since NAN is only served
: In long run, I also see Air NZ more focus on Pacific basin, and not long historic colonial link routes. The changes taking place in the Pacific region
: That's a very odd thing to do in the current market, MAN has only one service comparable and that's Icelandair to KEF. Everything else runs daily, it
: Folks here seem to imply that the AKL-LAX-LHR route isn't successful, I've seen nothing to indicate anything of the sort. The times I've flown this ro
: I've already told you: fare levels on LAX-LHR are between two and three times what they are on Air New Zealand's slightly longer Shanghai route. It's
: Average daily MAN-LAX O&D is still mere 115. That does not change. On any given day NZ would still at best capture maybe 50% of the market. Also
: That's not quite true, at least according to NZ government trade figures: "Since the early 1970s Mexico has consistently been one of New Zealand’s
: You say this, but how are Air Tahiti Nui's Japanese routes doing? And why are there still no China flights? You have the same problems that Australia
: Be foolish to believe experience today in place like China as being indicative of future. The global economic gravity is shifting away from Europe and
: It's a really complex issue. I am on record as saying that I think the leisure markets from Asia to Australia, New Zealand, French Polynesia and New
: I'm beginning to wonder if A.netters have a clue about how a business, particularly an airline, works... AKL to China yields are terrible. NZ is appar
: Anyone who suggests NZ abandon the AKL-LAX-LHR route to a code share is daft. I'm not sure in terms of overall profitability if there is a route NZ fl
: This thread seems to have gone off on a tangent somewhat. I think the consensus is there is no evidence that NZ is not "holding its own" on the LAX-LH
: Blah. How long are people going to cling on to the "BA tried it and failed so it'll never work" ? People, British Airways Regional operated MAN - LAX
: Not sure how many wide-bodies NZ may have available but, what if NZ was to fly its biggest wide-body AKL-LAX-LHR and would keep a B767-300ER @ LAX to
: Well he built a hub from scratch and changed the world of travel, Emirates is exceptional. Worth repeating, "exceptional", quite literally. UK-DXB-xy
: Does the fact that even Los Angeles - London is a declining market play into the long term view of the market for Air NZ ? Since 2003 market has decli
: But why Air New Zealand, an airline from the other side of the world? If MAN-LAX is such a potential humdinger, why not a British or US airline? If Q
: Why Air New Zealand? Because BA or VS would be mainly point to point O & D. A NZ service, however, could tap into: 1. Pure O & D North UK - So
: Not necessarily far-fetched, I just don't know how desirable it is. Once again, Qantas couldn't make MAN work - it diffused what has proven to be a s
: In a word....YES. You are still not answering my question. i.e Why no such service ? Are you suggesting that Air New Zealand (and everyone else) do n
: Wow. You're really desperate for this to be the case, aren't you? As people keep telling you, the opportunity that Air New Zealand has that other car
: You have heard that there is a serious recession in Europe? You do know that the collapse in value of the Dollar resulted in the cost of a PPT holida
: Because at today's crude prices against the demand suggested by the stats., there is no aircraft capable of making the route work year round. Hint: t
: I think you'll find that the decline in competition with the exit of QF and NZ did an awful lot more to make Tahiti unaffordable. In addition, who do
: Wow. You really think Air New Zealand is going to link to airports in the same country (one of them being Heathrow !!) that are a few hundred miles a
: No worries. Using your detailed knowledge of New Zealand and the Asia-Pacific region, could you please provide advice in terms of four or five potent
: A lot of effort has gone into making the NZ international longhaul profitable. The US is performing well now for NZ, I believe they are doing well wit
: The previous yields on LAX-MAN, alongwith the loads were very poor. The market has declined since yet you think it's going to somehow work for NZ? Goo
: I missed that one. Who is left flying NYC-MAN - just CO on a 757?
: Plus AA - B75W JFK Daily (In joint venture with BA ! ) This thread has been hijacked by the MAN crew me thinks. I have views about MAN -West viabilit
: @Rutankrd I only invoked LAX-MAN or SFO-LHR as examples of how Air NZ could "clone" LAX-LHR. The frames issue would affect Air NZ less: a 36 hour rota
: Would somone mind telling me which / how many airlines offer 'viable' travel to AKL from LHR please ? Thanks. koruman I am not trying to scupper Air N
: @1400mph I'm every bit as open to the idea of SFO-LHR as an extension of a daily AKL-SFO on a 777-200ER, with Virgin code sharing instead of the curre
: good post and that's why I started this thread It seems to me that people from New Zealand traveling to the UK would do it via Hong Kong, Singapore o
: Well VS is going to end up in Skyteam isn't it ? I think MAN has lots of future potential but I only deal in the present and at present I think it's
: @g500 Why do you expect New Zealanders to fly to the UK via Asia? It's certainly no shorter or quicker to LHR via Asia than via LAX. The only people w
: I've transited through LAX on a CDG LAX PPT before and the transit was terrible. In Europe, only MAN and DUB out of the large airports are growing at
: I hear connecting via the U.S is a real hassle. Plus I'd think the Gulf carriers are cheaper than Air New Zealand
: No, Air NZ's transit at LAX is relatively civilised: they have their own transit gate and immigration officer and no customs process.
: just Like the AF transit - its terrible.
: It has nothing to do with NZ. The entire LAX-London market is declining slowly - average 2.6% per annum last 8 years. Gone are AA and UA's second fli
: Huh...I wish. Everytime I try and non-rev to LAX from LHR on BA in the summer (3 x 744) it's hard to get on.
: Does not mean the entire plane is headed to London. Many might be connecting to beyond points. The O&D market between LA and London is simply in
: Alongside the downsizing of the aircraft and reduction of frequencies, also gone from the British Isles to LAX are two airlines - The (short lived) AF
: If Air New Zealand doesn't look after Kiwi interests first, what is the point of Air New Zealand? You say that New Zealand is a poor country - it is
: So to be clear the O&D and the transfer market is in decline on LHR/LAX ? But isn't LAX one of BA's highest earners and don't they put high J 744
: Because you are looking at one airline. Other airlines have downsized or exited the market. BA probably also sees a potential in stealing higher yiel
: Yes both the O&D and absolute market size are in decline between LA and London. Here is the total traffic (includes O&D component) 2012 - ful
: Very true. Unless London is your actual destination, there's no point. Flights there on the major carriers are almost always more expensive. AMS has
: It is very common to use EK/SQ/MH/TG to Europe and for those who don't to fly on combination NZ/LH/ NZ/KL QF/BA tickets. Given that it is 24h of flyi
: Do you think the decline in the number of people travelling O&D between Los Angeles and London will continue declining for the foreseeable future
: Many Kiwis, especially the young experiencing the world, don't fly straight through. They prefer a stopover and if they want to have that stopover in
: Oh I don't know, probably lots of reasons. But here are a few of the top of my head o Growth of other flight option (nonstops to DXB, IST, other Euro
: I know that this discussion is over a day old...but why exactly are you only looking at BA and VS? The US has long haul international airlines too. W
: Quite a few: NZ, QF, EK, SQ, CX, MH, TG, KE
: Reputation in the UK, quite simply, and because NZ has repeatedly come back to look at MAN and appreciate the potential market. I am not a MAN kool-a
: The a.net rumor has surely been around a while - this from 2005; Air New Zealand From Manchester?! (by GayrugbyMAN Jul 22 2005 in Civil Aviation) Who
: My head is beginning to hurt. On the one hand, I'm receiving a message that Air NZ shouldn't be looking at UK markets beyond London because LHR-LAX i
: I fly everywhere through LAX and I'd rather fly SQ,NZ,LH before AA or UA. The experience is much better. UA has done a lot of upgrades in business cl
: Well yes, UA or AA may not be everyone first choice. But if there is this huge untapped market between MAN and LAX, then plenty of people will choose
: I applaud him. He kept the airline profitable. I have no idea why you dismiss his achievement so lightly, and why you spend so much time disparaging
: Mariner, there's a simple reason why I don't applaud Rob Fyfe's "achievements" as Air New Zealand CEO. Much of the world may have been in recession, b
: Australia - where you live - may have been booming, but I was here, in NZ, in the woop-woop, and we were a very long way from booming. New Zealand wa
: I would not want to give you a head ache. I'll make it easier - how about a simpler sentence Travel between the UK and California is on a decline. So
: And there, LAXintl, you have me well and truly hoist by my own petard, and the only honourable course for me is to admit defeat, and acknowledge both
: BA does serve alternative ports in the UK such as Manchester. You're not at all comparing likes with likes. Any BA longhaul from Manchester would be
: Oh please, not this again. Try and remember that from MAN EK are providing links to the entire EASTERN / SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE past DXB in relation to
: And that's where I gave up on your hyperbole.
: Oh, I see. So Emirates can send 2 x A380 and 1 x 77W daily from Manchester to Dubai because its their hub, and they have a network. I, of course, nai
: Yes. Yes. One flight. Last August. The quietest month of the year ? You better tell VS because they are about to launch a new multi daily domestic se
: Qantas did NOT discard their 3 & 4th LHR slot pairs. They have been LEASED to BA for 3 years. I find it hard to believe that NZ "discarded" their
: NZ started HongKong when the protests over the US transfer treatment/rules grew to loud from their corporate accounts. LAX transfers compared with tr
: "Little Red." What an appropriate name. I'm sure it will be indicative of the venture's financial status. Little Red was set up as two fingers to the
: Sort of, but the suggestion is a means of bulk-selling premium seats (for the airline) and letting the football club have a recruiting tool for persu
: Koruman I took a BA flight on MAN-LHR and there were two passengers. Why? Exceptionl slot sitting due to buying BMI. Look at the fares on MAN-LHR now,
: BRU is my favourite. High speed rail to AMS, CGN, FRA and just about anywhere in France. Good air connections. No German eco-tax. Really good hotel a
: It depends what cabin you are flying in. If you are wholly price conscious then LHR can be pricey, however given the amount of premium traffic down th
: Ten years? Maybe. I might give it a while longer than that. The surprise to me is that Air NZ is still flying to the UK, which suggests that LAX-LHR
: Mariner, that last post of yours was beautifully written, and I myself often wonder about the UK links. I have triple nationality (NZ/GB/AU) and of co
: Sure. As Aussie captains always used to say on flights arriving in New Zealand "We have just arrived in Auckland - please put your watches back twent
: That's significant, and a strong argument for commercial air links with China and Hong Kong. I guess my point is that the 73% who won't be ethnically
: But the linked article suggests it won't be 73% (Pakeha) in ten years. It will be 53% in Auckland and the thinking of Auckland dominates the country
: It might be useful to consider how Air NZ sees its future, from the horse's mouth, the new CEO, and I guess the critical thing is the return of long
: Seems the new NZ leader is reaffirming where the carriers future and and primary market focus lay. Not sure why some insist on ignoring these global
: Yup but if LAX to LHR is doing well and making cash, why not tap into it.
: They have made it profitable by reducing capacity, not 'tapping' into it!
: I've been under the impression that LAX was profitable even before the HKG one got scrapped, that was before the downgrade from 744 to 77W aswell.
: Yes. Cutting HKG-LHR does two things - it drops an unprofitable route but it also boosts LAX-LHR. Through traffic (to or from London) that might have
: Nothing wrong with it today. Might also be OK in 1, 2 or 5 years. But the general traffic and demographic tide is against such multi-stop services to
: Thought that was Qld. The joke has more of a ring to it there - "Welcome to Qld (or Brisbane). Set your watch back an hour, and your mentality back t
: I guess you didn't fly into NZ in - say - 1966? Not that there was anything wrong with it. I still miss six pm closing at the pubs. mariner
: And this doesn't simply reflect that the frequency of HKG-LHR was reduced from daily to 5 times weekly in that period? If you reduce capacity from 14
: I'm sure it does. I suggested that when I posted it in another thread. mariner
: And Mariner, cutting HKG-LHR might improve LAX-LHR loads, but it cuts the number of separate sector seats for sale, so it cuts total revenue. And LAXi
: It also reduces the costs. Cutting HKG-LHR is still cited - by Air NZ - as the major reason for the turnaround in long haul to profitability. See pos
: This is a very interesting question, and I do understand where you are coming from Koruman. I can only speak for myself, as a 21 year old university
: Yes I understand that. My impression was NZ was good on the route even while HKG was running so why call for axing LHR completely when they were alwa
: I'm certainly not calling for LHR to be axed. I expect to see Air NZ flying to LHR for the rest of my life - however long the rest of my life is. I t
: I presume you mean you are NOT calling for LHR to be axed (Judging by your follow up statement). I was refering to previous posts calling for axings.
: Yes, I did mean NOT - happily, there is an edit function. My basic point is - and always has been - that if a route is making money, keep it. If not
: I agree with you. Hence I'm confused at some of the above calls to axe it
: I don't know enough about New Zealand ethnic, business and tourism links to pick out a specific city, but long term economic shifts in the Pacific ba
: No. I wasn't born. The 6 o'clock swill applied in Sydney too until 1955.
: I noticed in CX annual earnings release they made specific mention of growing traffic from Australia to Northern Asia (China, Japan, Korea). They also
: NZ's other slots are currently being leased to CX. Does anyone have some idea of how much they would be worth?
: When NZ was given the ex BMI slots there was a figure given for their value. I want to say $10 million NZD but I honestly can't remember
: Well I for one dont want to see NZ, exit the LHR - LAX market, I think they are a great airline and nostalgia aside, it will be a sad day when or if i
: My views have actually hardened after a weekend trip to Wellington to watch the New Zealand v England cricket Test match. In four days at the InterCo
: I can not speak for New Zealand, so you may well be right. From my understanding, though, Auckland should be considered separately to the rest of the
: 8%? Double that and add some in Auckland: That's 19% now. Nor am I, in my part of the world. I see a curious extension of Biculturalism. Like the Chi
: In my view that had a number of options at the time and chose the wrong one. Neither did they do all that they could have done to improve the feed at
: Mariner, I have to agree with Sunrise Valley about the poor execution of HKG-LHR. Air NZ had a fleet of 763s and orders and options for every long-ran
: This is all too bizarre to me. I don't see how you can walk away from the fact that it lost money - and was expected to continue losing money for the
: Does NZ government put out economic and demographic projections for 10-20 years ahead? Maybe country will be 50% non Anglo eventually. I think airline
: Basically, we all agree pretty much on New Zealand;'s demographic future. Just as there were 3.8 million Pakeha and Maori New Zealanders in 1985 ther
: I get your point. For VA (and QF - at last) the benefits are obvious, the only real money maker is the domestic network. For NZ it is, arguably, TPAC
: Which quite ignores the Indian population in New Zealand, which is now the fastest growing group and has supplanted the UK as a source of migrants. m
: If oil skyrockets then there's probably less chance that EK or anyone else will initiate such ULH flights, given the penalties that they incur throug
: Neither, especially given this.. http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2013...a-profit-falls-hit-by-competition/ A census was completed just recently, usua
: The Asian tourist schedules rarely stay in WLG at all . Mainly visit just AKL ROT ZQN and CHC .
: NZrich, that was my point really. That while I acknowledge Mariner's comments about a growing Asian population in Auckland, the rest of the country ap
: While I would I'd include Bay of Islands in that, I have never claimed otherwise. Tourists goes to tourist places. The immigrants are following the s