Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is Air New Zealand Holding Its Own On LAX-LHR?  
User currently offlineg500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 1000 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22588 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

BA and Virgin call LHR a hub... AA and UA call LAX a hub

Of the 5 airlines on LAX-LHR, it seems like Air New Zealand is the most vulnerable, now BA putting the A380 on the route cannot be good news for them

How is Air New Zealand doing on LAX-LHR load wise?? or are they on the route just for the tech-stop?

171 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineshamrock321 From Ireland, joined May 2008, 1603 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 22147 times:

I've always heard of NZ having decent loads but can't confirm this.

They obviously need to pick customers up for the LAX-LHR leg but I imagine fill quite a few of these seats with passengers continuing from AKL.

LAX is a *A hub, would be interesting to see how much Traffic they get from UA.


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2987 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 21819 times:

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.

User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25432 posts, RR: 86
Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 21765 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting g500 (Thread starter):
How is Air New Zealand doing on LAX-LHR load wise?? or are they on the route just for the tech-stop?

I know that up-the-front LAX-LHR-LAX is hugely popular with the second tier Hollywood crowd. It's great value for money for those who earn good money, but are neither very famous nor very rich.

The studios use it too (and Virgin Atlantic) for actors and crew who negotiate up-the-front treatment, but aren't "big enough" to get first class in their contract.

mariner

[Edited 2013-03-05 16:12:48]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5056 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 21649 times:

Quoting g500 (Thread starter):
How is Air New Zealand doing on LAX-LHR load wise?? or are they on the route just for the tech-stop?

Don't forget that NZ has about 47-years of "working" the travel industry in California. No doubt they have built up some very good relationships.


User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 21618 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.


User currently offlineBigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2933 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 21600 times:

Is Star partner UA able to code share on this flight?

User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5056 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 21545 times:

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 6):
Is Star partner UA able to code share on this flight?

They don't appear to . Rather NZ has a code share on the UA evening flight


User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 21320 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.

[Edited 2013-03-05 18:14:27]

User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5056 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 21199 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.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25432 posts, RR: 86
Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 21034 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9666 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 20918 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!
User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 20667 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)


User currently offlineg500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 1000 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 19678 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This is all very encouraging, i'm definitely a fan of this route for Air New Zealand... I'm pulling for them

User currently offlinevisualapproach From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2012, 141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 18429 times:

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.

User currently offlineflaps30 From United States of America, joined May 2009, 288 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 17422 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.



every day is a good day to fly
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3290 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 16603 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.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25789 posts, RR: 50
Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 16435 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
User currently offline2travel2know2 From Panama, joined Apr 2010, 2656 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 16358 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 9):
I too have been puzzled why no carrier is not running a LAX-MAN service.

If NZ would fly CHC-LAX-MAN thrice weekly and allow AKL-MAN and CHC-LHR passengers connect in LAX something interesting may happen.



I'm not on CM's payroll.
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3290 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 16110 times:

Quoting 2travel2know2 (Reply 18):
If NZ would fly CHC-LAX-MAN thrice weekly and allow AKL-MAN and CHC-LHR passengers connect in LAX something interesting may happen.

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"?


User currently offline2travel2know2 From Panama, joined Apr 2010, 2656 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 15798 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.



I'm not on CM's payroll.
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25653 posts, RR: 22
Reply 21, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 15429 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.


User currently offlineLHRFlyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2010, 817 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 15379 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).

[Edited 2013-03-06 13:59:55]

User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25789 posts, RR: 50
Reply 23, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 15251 times:

Anyhow - in one of the New Zealand threads a bit back did someone not post that travel between the UK and NZ was declining?

If so why chase after a shrinking market. Take your planes and fly them to where there is growth and future opportunities.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25432 posts, RR: 86
Reply 24, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 15176 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 23):
Anyhow - in one of the New Zealand threads a bit back did someone not post that travel between the UK and NZ was declining?

Yes. Over five years, UK (to NZ) arrival numbers have fallen.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...08492/Chinese-visitor-numbers-jump

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.

mariner

[Edited 2013-03-06 14:50:02]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25789 posts, RR: 50
Reply 25, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 15496 times:

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 have been declining for 5-years running now)
While outbound NZ visitors to UK was also down 14% (has been declining for last 3 of 5 years)

Not a very promising market to add capacity in.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25432 posts, RR: 86
Reply 26, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 15438 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 25):
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 have been declining for 5-years running now)
While outbound NZ visitors to UK was also down 14% (has been declining for last 3 of 5 years)

Not a very promising market to add capacity in.

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 - is that two routes to the UK (via HKG and LAX) were not a good idea, reflecting that fall in numbers. One route (via LAX) may be.

Nothing is carve in granite and if it were not making money I think it would have gone - and if it starts losing money, it may yet go. But if it is making money I don't see your problem with it.

mariner

[Edited 2013-03-06 15:01:15]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlineFI642 From Monaco, joined Mar 2005, 1079 posts, RR: 2
Reply 27, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 15441 times:

Quoting g500 (Reply 13):

This is all very encouraging, i'm definitely a fan of this route for Air New Zealand... I'm pulling for them


I would certainly rather fly ANZ than anyone else from LAX to LHR.



737MAX, Cool Planes for the Worlds Coolest Airline.
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25789 posts, RR: 50
Reply 28, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 15378 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 24):
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.


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 open up a thin MAN route in face of continued market declines might not be the best use of limited resources.

And for LHR itself, I guess time will tell how UK demand stacks up as other nations (eg China) grown in stature for NZ travel and commerce.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineaerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2737 posts, RR: 4
Reply 29, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 15358 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 17):
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.

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 end of the AKL-LAX route as passengers opt for actual inflight service via Asia.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 17):
As bonus they could also connect to UA nonstops to FRA and CDG as well via the West Coast.

I don't think anyone genuinely thinks transferring from NZ to UA would be a "bonus".

You seem to have a real bugbear about NZ's presence on this route. As far as I know, it's profitable and contributes to the systemwide performance. What's the problem here?


User currently onlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5742 posts, RR: 5
Reply 30, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 15322 times:

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 29):
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 end of the AKL-LAX route as passengers opt for actual inflight service via Asia.

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 asking for people to fly SQ or EK.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25789 posts, RR: 50
Reply 31, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 15327 times:

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 29):
You seem to have a real bugbear about NZ's presence on this route. As far as I know, it's profitable and contributes to the systemwide performance. What's the problem here?

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 persons employed. (actually several share my view below as well)

But I'm also big fan of metal neutral JV's, and ability to leverage partners to produce the lowest seat cost.

With such high cost inputs to run an enterprise in this industry, I don't believe airlines need to carry on with historic flag waving exercises and serve every corner of the world, but can instead very well share cost and revenues via JVs and making best use of ones partner networks.

In regards to NZ specifically, I feel its natural strength and future lies in the Pacific basin (eg booming Asia), not multi-stop segement halfway around the world.
For example just freeing equipment off a LAX-LHR segment would provide NZ free aircraft to possibly launch other Pacific basin routes or beef up existing city pairs.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3290 posts, RR: 1
Reply 32, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 15297 times:

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 regulars before NZ got their own flights and had to use LGW.

User currently offlineZKSUJ From New Zealand, joined May 2004, 7108 posts, RR: 12
Reply 33, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 15207 times:

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 here to stay for a while yet.

Even though visitor numbers have dropped from the UK, I think many use NZ's service as 2 seperate flights rather than a 1 stop service


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5056 posts, RR: 5
Reply 34, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 15134 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 31):
For example just freeing equipment off a LAX-LHR segment would provide NZ free aircraft to possibly launch other Pacific basin routes or beef up existing city pairs.

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 other at about Salt Lake City less than an hour ago. So they are doing about a 27-hour rotation.

Quoting ZKSUJ (Reply 33):
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 here to stay for a while yet.

As I said earlier NZ has worked this market for many years and has built good relationships in the travel industry.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25653 posts, RR: 22
Reply 35, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 15002 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 32):
how long were NZ at Gatters

NZ moved from LGW to LHR in November 1994.


User currently offlineZKOJH From China, joined Sep 2004, 1717 posts, RR: 1
Reply 36, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 14790 times:

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 over anyone else, and think we need need to put the MAN-LAX to sleep I emailed Rob in Dec before he left about this, his response was;

'' we have had a good look at Manchester. The challenge for us is the through traffic – we are at a material disadvantage flying a route where we don’t have a home market at one end of the route. The home market carriers at either end of the Hong Kong – UK market have a material advantage over Air New Zealand in terms of feed, contracted Corporate customers and loyalty schemes and the through traffic to New Zealand is far lower value than the sector traffic … with the whole situation further exacerbated by the APD tax grab and current oil-prices.''

unless this changes under Chris then think it says it all..



CZ 787 to AKL can't wait.
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7567 posts, RR: 4
Reply 37, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 14663 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 5):
my wife and daughter have already been knocked back for January 2014

Isn't that good for NZ, shows they can sell all the pointy end seats on the route.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 25):
they have been declining for 5-years running now
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 25):
has been declining for last 3 of 5 years

Which nicely dovetails into the start of the gfc, which hit both the UK and NZ fairly hard, neither country has fully recovered. When times improve I'm sure the numbers travelling in either direction will also improve.


User currently offlinegasman From New Zealand, joined Mar 2004, 862 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 14541 times:

Quoting g500 (Thread starter):
BA putting the A380 on the route cannot be good news for them

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.


User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 39, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 14396 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 31):
In regards to NZ specifically, I feel its natural strength and future lies in the Pacific basin (eg booming Asia), not multi-stop segement halfway around the world.

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 passenger growth, but the yields are absolutely catastrophic, with published fare levels anything from half to one third of the slightly shorter LHR-LAX sector. The flights ostensibly continue to operate almost as a loss-leader to build the market, but I am far from alone in wondering where the money paid to FASCO to crew these flights actually ends up.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 31):
But I'm also big fan of metal neutral JV's, and ability to leverage partners to produce the lowest seat cost.

Cost is one half of the equation. The other relates to demand and wealth in the respective markets.

New Zealand is one of the poorest countries in the OECD, with a tiny population. And inbound tourism from Asia is of the deeply discounted package tour variety, a sort of long-haul Ryanair. Seriously, read my earlier comment about the demographics of the departure lounge at Auckland for the Shanghai flights. It would be a highly unusual flight to have even 20 white New Zealanders on it - outbound demand is zero apart from students and VFR - and inbound demand is almost exclusively in the Economy cabin.

The value of LHR-LAX is:

1) It links two huge wealthy markets, which New Zealand's remote location and relative poverty means cannot happen on 1-stop routes from Auckland to Asia.
2) The number of time-zones traversed means that single-daily operation is plenty.
3) British people consider neither New Zealand nor its airline to be truly "foreign". Air New Zealand is highly regarded as a blue-chip carrier in the UK.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 23):
Anyhow - in one of the New Zealand threads a bit back did someone not post that travel between the UK and NZ was declining?

If so why chase after a shrinking market. Take your planes and fly them to where there is growth and future opportunities.

But how much of that "declining" market is Air New Zealand's anyway? Their London-centricity means that most passengers from northern England to New Zealand fly Emirates or Singapore Airlines.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 17):
Anyhow for those that espouse such service - its a rather small'ish market from LAX - mere 114 average daily passengers.

Isn't that plenty?

You are saying that there are 800 passengers per week flying Manchester-Los Angeles. We already know that each day there are around 100 passengers flying Emirates from Manchester to New Zealand, and then you can add on the Singapore Airlines passengers and those routing via LHR on Air New Zealand.

Nobody is suggesting operating a 77W from Manchester to Los Angeles daily. The suggestion is a 250 seat aircraft 2-4 times weekly.

[Edited 2013-03-07 01:01:38]

User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 40, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 14354 times:

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 36):
'' we have had a good look at Manchester. The challenge for us is the through traffic – we are at a material disadvantage flying a route where we don’t have a home market at one end of the route. The home market carriers at either end of the Hong Kong – UK market have a material advantage over Air New Zealand in terms of feed, contracted Corporate customers and loyalty schemes and the through traffic to New Zealand is far lower value than the sector traffic … with the whole situation further exacerbated by the APD tax grab and current oil-prices.''

unless this changes under Chris then think it says it all..

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 said similar things when HKG-LHR was opened: that Air NZ could never compete with Cathay Pacific for point-to-point sector traffic and had no hope of making it work unless it obtained the rights and aircraft to use Hong Kong as a scissor-hub from multiple UK/Ireland ports to BNE/MEL/CNS/SYD/AKL/WLG/CHC. When they decided not to do that they sealed the fate of the HKG-LHR sector.

The whole point of Manchester is that it serves a market of around 10 million, and that the whole Wilmslow/Prestbury/Bowdon/Hale Barns stockbroker belt is very similar to the southeast of England.

And there is major problem attached to Virgin Atlantic or British Airways operating MAN-LAX, in that their flights would only service the US West Coast and at a pinch Hawaii, whereas Air New Zealand could combine the whole of that market with the Pacific Islands, New Zealand and even Australia.


User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3290 posts, RR: 1
Reply 41, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 14263 times:

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 operation wasn't clever. How many peeps fly GLA-NZ per day? MAN is also very much like that other airport amongst stockbrokers, Gatwick. How's long haul at LGW? Clue, latest B767 for BW had been registered 9Y-LHR..... I can't honestly believe that multiple wide bodies feeding at Honk Kong, a Oneworld hub, was ever remotely viable. NZ001 needs feed enough of it's own at LHR without the significant expense of market fragmentation.

User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 42, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 14117 times:

Skipness1E, the HKG Koruhub was intended to aggregate feed for all major Australian ports, not just New Zealand.

User currently offline2travel2know2 From Panama, joined Apr 2010, 2656 posts, RR: 1
Reply 43, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 13793 times:

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 - if any - are the favourable points for NZ returning to LGW?



I'm not on CM's payroll.
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25789 posts, RR: 50
Reply 44, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 13745 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 39):
You keep beating this drum,

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 country and NZ as an airline is changing.

Quoting koruman (Reply 39):
Isn't that plenty?

Hardly - a nonstop would likely at best capture 50% of that traffic, so maybe 50 pax a flight. (which ironically is about what BA got many days on its attempted LAX-MAN nonstop)
You will always have folks chose alternate means whether for FF benefits, fares, flight times, or general preference for other airlines.

As mentioned prior, LA has many other larger longhaul markets that don't enjoy nonstop service today. Manchester is rather low on the list, and certainly not one that has some magical link to LA that would vault the importance to have air service link.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25432 posts, RR: 86
Reply 45, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 13555 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 44):
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 country and NZ as an airline is changing.

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 changing face of NZ - the new sources of immigration - and advocate a return to the more traditional markets.

It's well within my lifetime that the UK was called "home" and Kiwis going there were "going home." But the UK isn't "home" anymore, the socio-economics are changing and those changes obviously affect the national carrier.

At some point, the airline is going to have to address South America - I think it missed the bus there some time ago - and eventually, beyond that Central America. New Zealand's trade with Mexico is really quite strong - more than three times stronger Chile - and the NZ government is trying to foster better air links.

This doesn't mean the "old" NZ is dying. I think that there will be a route to London - AKL-LAX-LHR? - as long as I'm around and more - but by definition, the airline must embrace the new markets. I don't know if a non-stop to India is yet viable, but I'm sure a one-stop would be embraced by the surging Indian population in NZ.

Presently, for that Kiwi/Indian population, the airline of choice is Singapore - one stop to just about anywhere in India - and I think that needs to change.

mariner

[Edited 2013-03-07 10:43:13]


aeternum nauta
User currently offline2travel2know2 From Panama, joined Apr 2010, 2656 posts, RR: 1
Reply 46, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 13499 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 45):
At some point, the airline is going to have to address South America - I think it missed the bus there some time ago - and eventually, beyond that Central America. New Zealand's trade with Mexico is really quite strong - more than three times stronger Chile - and the NZ government is trying to foster better air links.

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/TA LIM hub.
NZ B767-300ER used on the RAR-LAX route may have the range and ETOPS to fly RAR-LIM non-stop,

In the subject of LAX-LHR, are there any LAX connecting passengers flying NZ between RAR and LHR?



I'm not on CM's payroll.
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5056 posts, RR: 5
Reply 47, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 13348 times:

Quoting 2travel2know2 (Reply 46):
NZ B767-300ER used on the RAR-LAX route may have the range and ETOPS to fly RAR-LIM non-stop,

The fact that IPC is not far off any track ( generally about 100nm) from RAR/PPT -LIM/GRU/SCL is very helpful.


User currently offlinedeconz From New Zealand, joined Nov 2010, 139 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 13233 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 44):
Hardly - a nonstop would likely at best capture 50% of that traffic, so maybe 50 pax a flight. (which ironically is about what BA got many days on its attempted LAX-MAN nonstop)

but koruman wasn't suggesting a daily service - rather 2-4 per week!


User currently offlinedeconz From New Zealand, joined Nov 2010, 139 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 13245 times:

Quoting 2travel2know2 (Reply 46):
In the subject of LAX-LHR, are there any LAX connecting passengers flying NZ between RAR and LHR?

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 via codeshare op by FJ and PPT via codeshare op by TN.


User currently offlineMercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 1615 posts, RR: 2
Reply 50, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 13213 times:

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 are very pronounced and happening very fast.
From trade, tourism to immigration and of course geopolitics.

Yes some do not like the change, but one cannot stop this tide. Frankly I think the changes present many opportunities for enterprises such as an airline for example.

For Air NZ, being a excellent brand it should indeed focus to the Pacific rim as its backyard and indeed look to serve beyond markets eventually via sister companies. I believe one of the keys for business is to focus on your strengths and over time, I think routes to Europe will diminish in importance for this region.


User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3290 posts, RR: 1
Reply 51, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 13159 times:

Quoting deconz (Reply 48):
but koruman wasn't suggesting a daily service - rather 2-4 per week!

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's the number one rule for business travel and connectivity.


User currently offlinesonomaflyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1851 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 13054 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 route, the a/c are full and I've seen lots of cargo either in the hold transiting LAX or being loaded.

With the 789s coming on board, NZ will have more options available to pursue an Asian strategy if it makes economic sense. They could also pursue business in Latin America though whether there's enough to justify a daily flight to someplace like MEX is questionable.


User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 53, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 12997 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 31):
With such high cost inputs to run an enterprise in this industry, I don't believe airlines need to carry on with historic flag waving exercises and serve every corner of the world, but can instead very well share cost and revenues via JVs and making best use of ones partner networks.

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 not flag-waving - it's cold, hard economics.


Quoting mariner (Reply 45):
At some point, the airline is going to have to address South America - I think it missed the bus there some time ago - and eventually, beyond that Central America

I do agree - but there is almost no business conducted between New Zealand and Latin America, and New Zealand has an invisible profile in Brazil and elsewhere in South America.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 51):
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's the number one rule for business travel and connectivity.

Yes, but they could route via LHR on the other days of the week, still on Air NZ.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 31):
In regards to NZ specifically, I feel its natural strength and future lies in the Pacific basin (eg booming Asia), not multi-stop segement halfway around the world.

a) Japan
Air NZ has already axed 2 of its 4 Japanese routes due to underperformance, and now flogs half its seats to/from Japan on mixed carrier tickets to/from Europe, which is a pretty grim indication of underperformance as stand-alone destinations.

b) China
Anyone who can read Mandarin can see precisely how much Air New Zealand gets as revenue for its Shanghai services simply by reading travel agency brochures. And don't forget that the sector is actually LONGER than LAX-LHR.

The fare passengers pay for Economy PVG-AKL is around US$600 return, and for $200 per sector they can buy up at the time of purchase to Premium Economy, and for $500 per sector they can buy up to lie-flat Business Premier.

In other words, PVG fare levels are $600 return Economy, $1000 return Premium Economy and $1600 return Business Premier.

Looking ahead to tomorrow, inventory is currently: C4 D4 (there are only 24 Business seats, and 10 are currently unsold), Y4 B4 M4 H4 etc.

Meanwhile lead-in fares from LAX to LHR are $1149 return Economy, $2500 return Premium Economy and $3400 return Business Premier - which is a temporary promotion on normal published fare levels of $5900.

Again, looking ahead to tomorrow they are sold out in every subclass of Business Premier, Premium Economy and Economy!

Laxintl would have the airline subcontract LAX-LHR to United, in order that they can do more Asian flights with those fare levels and those levels of unsold inventory on NZ-China while LAX-LHR is sold out at more than twice the fares?

Incidentally, Hong Kong looks like it's struggling seasonally too now without LHR feed. In researching the fare levels above, I went to the Air NZ China website.

Published fares from PVG to AKL were $970 return (CNY8000), which of course is more than package tourists pay. But from Beijing, Dalian, Qindao, Xian, Chengdu, Fuzhou, Wuhan and Shenyang they are publically selling Auckland return via Hong Kong for CNY4860 (US$780), which of course includes sectors to/from HKG on a partner airline, which presumably takes around $300 of the $780 fare, meaning that HKG-AKL fare levels have tanked to with the loss of through traffic, although the HKG market is of course quite seasonal.

[Edited 2013-03-07 15:21:36]

User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25789 posts, RR: 50
Reply 54, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 12953 times:

Quoting deconz (Reply 48):
but koruman wasn't suggesting a daily service - rather 2-4 per week!

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 being less then daily, you will undoubtedly also turn off an lose the business crowd who wont sit around to wait till the next flight on Tuesday. The British track-suit crowd might love it, but then again 4 airlines have tried MAN-LAX prior and outside of carrying package tourist and leisure travelers fell on their faces.

If NZ needs another beyond market to Europe from LAX, there certainly are several - including ones that are more then triple in size versus little Manchester.

Quoting koruman (Reply 53):
Again, looking ahead to tomorrow

Look ahead 5-years, maybe 10-years.

Travel and business patterns are changing fast in the Pacific region. We are still in the infancy of China, while places further a field like Latin America and India are still sorting themselves out.

Air NZ (and everyone for that matter) need to keep an eye to the future, and not just settle on doing the same old of the past.
Atleast it seems the NZ government is onboard with such thinking having instructed various ministries to focus on Asia - from foreign language education in schools, to fostering trade and investment, to focusing on inbound tourism from Asia.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25432 posts, RR: 86
Reply 55, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 12917 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting koruman (Reply 53):
I do agree - but there is almost no business conducted between New Zealand and Latin America, and New Zealand has an invisible profile in Brazil and elsewhere in South America.

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 top Latin American trading partners and among our most important milk powder markets in the world.

From 2010 to 2012 the average value of New Zealand exports to Mexico was NZ$362 million per year.

Mexico was New Zealand's 29th most important trading partner, 18th most important market for dairy products, 12th most important butter market and 5th most important market for New Zealand casein and caseinate"

Within the framework of the Latin American Strategy, New Zealand’s initiatives with Latin America are focussed on the following priority areas:

"Underpinning economic links with political engagement
Promoting a better understanding of the region among New Zealand businesses
Lowering barriers to business
Promoting New Zealand tourism in the region
Improving air links between New Zealand and the region
Deepening education links with the region
Expanding research and science links
Aligning New Zealand’s development assistance programme with New Zealand’s economic and political interests in Latin America.""


Developing those trade links is why the PM has just been there and I think the potential for NZ tourism to Mexico is quite high.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ticle.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10869429

As an anecdotal side-note, I was amused to hear on NZ Masterchef last week that Mexican cuisine is now the trendiest cuisine in Auckland and I know my Mexican food supplier simply can't get enough. I've been waiting two months for new supplies of canned salsa verde - which, he promises me, I shall have as soon as he can get new stocks. There's been such a run he's sold out.  

mariner

[Edited 2013-03-07 15:42:52]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 56, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 12915 times:

Quoting Mercure1 (Reply 50):
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 are very pronounced and happening very fast.
From trade, tourism to immigration and of course geopolitics.

Yes some do not like the change, but one cannot stop this tide. Frankly I think the changes present many opportunities for enterprises such as an airline for example.

For Air NZ, being a excellent brand it should indeed focus to the Pacific rim as its backyard and indeed look to serve beyond markets eventually via sister companies. I believe one of the keys for business is to focus on your strengths and over time, I think routes to Europe will diminish in importance for this region.

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 Australian and New Zealand airlines have: bilateral commerce is not enough to fill premium cabins to/from Asia, there are significant visa issues in allowing vistors from countries with rampant corruption unrestricted entry and the profile of our countries in the eyes of the public is invisible.

Anyone in France earning more than 50,000 Euros per year knows where Bora Bora is, just as everyone in England earning more than 50,000 pounds per year knows where Christchurch is. Less than 10% of Americans of similar income, let alone Chinese people, could give a positive reply.

It's easy - but intellectually lazy - to disparage AKL-LAX-LHR and PPT-LAC-CDG as "colonial relics".

But have a look at tonight's programmes on mainstream TV in New Zealand and Tahiti.

TNTV is showing the NRJ music awards from Paris - and that's the local station! Polynesie 1ere is showing a French movie "Semaine de la femme".

Meanwhile TV One in New Zealand has Coronation Street (730-830) followed by a relocation show from Manchester (830-930) and another English building restoration show from 930-1030, ie.all three primetime shows are English.

There may be changing ethnic minority populations, but at the end of the day New Zealand is far closer to the UK culturally than it is to Australia, let alone China or the USA. Similarly, any French Polynesian finds it considerably easier to adapt to any life in France (including DOM/POM/TOM) than anywhere else on earth.

And airlines disrespect that demographic fact at their peril.

[Edited 2013-03-07 15:44:11]

User currently offlinemercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 1615 posts, RR: 2
Reply 57, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 12851 times:

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 even US.

Even Polynesia now starting to realize it might eventually be more linked to place like China then colonial France for its economical and industries like tourism future.

I think the sooner one wake up to new global realities the better one can take advantage of these shifts.

Already NZ has cut LHR basically in half with dropping via HKG service. Maybe LAX-LHR does ok today, but like other say this might change as other opportunities play out. On surface UK-NZ is declining market, while other markets to NZ are growing. I think dangerous concept not to accept that maybe one day UK air link go bye-bye in favor of other options.

Quoting koruman (Reply 56):
You say this, but how are Air Tahiti Nui's Japanese routes doing? And why are there still no China flights?

Thank you for highlighting this. Very exciting opportunity in China.

Tahiti open 2 trade and sales office already, and looks very promising.

But problem is distance - almost 14-hour flight. Also there is visa problem for China. FP has to await what metropolitan France does for immigration policy. There is new push by hotel industry to begin training staff in Chinese language to get ready and serve customers best way. In maybe 10-years China provide more visitors then other nations.


User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 58, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 12758 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 56):
You say this, but how are Air Tahiti Nui's Japanese routes doing? And why are there still no China flights?
Quoting mercure1 (Reply 57):
Thank you for highlighting this. Very exciting opportunity in China.

Tahiti open 2 trade and sales office already, and looks very promising.

But problem is distance - almost 14-hour flight. Also there is visa problem for China. FP has to await what metropolitan France does for immigration policy.

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 Caledonia have many common factors.

All of us would like the discretionary spending of high-earning Asian visitors. But Japan has been an underperforming market for years, and China seems to take an eternity to work as an inbound leisure market from the point of view of our carriers - I would prefer airlines like China Southern to carry that risk and try to develop those markets.

And the visa restrictions are there with good reason. The front page headline yesterday in my local newspaper (Gold Coast Bulletin) was the trial of the local Pizza Hut franchisee, a man from China who is charged with the importation of millions of dollars worth of narcotics.

It's pretty difficult to abolish visa restrictions - even for French Polynesia - when the possible consequence is an increase in serious crime. You know as well as I do what the demographics of Papeete businesses are, and it doesn't take much of a stretch to view how Papeete could end up as a staging post for any number of criminal activities if organised crime from China gets into bed with their cousins in Tahiti.

I don't think that there is a miracle solution for Tahiti (or New Zealand) in terms of inbound tourism from China or Laos or Outer Mongolia. It's a fantasy. At best, there could be significant visitor numbers spending big $$$, but the actual airline carrying them is not likely to make money on what is essentially a long-haul Ryanair flight.

The Tahitians would do much better to ask themselves why American visitor numbers have halved since Air New Zealand and Qantas stopped flying LAX-PPT. Finding a way of ensuring that PPT is serviced by a carrier from every major alliance and that there is competition in terms if pricing might restore traditional markets.

Let's not forget, tourism to Hawaii is booming while Tahiti lies on its deathbed.

My priorities for your market - Tahiti - are not totally different to what I think New Zealand should aim for:

1. Direct flights to Sao Paulo.
2. Aim at having a range of carriers to LAX, rather than a near-monopoly. Too many visitors nowadays consider Alliance loyalty when investing in such an expensive long-haul ticket.
3. Encourage Chinese carriers to fly from China.
4. Do not lobby for removal of visa restrictions - they are there for a good reason.
5. Consider pooling Asian services from several Chinese and Japanese ports with Air Calin and Air New Zealand at Noumea. TN could use its 343 to do the long-haul flying from China to Noumea, and Air New Zealand could use A320s from Noumea to Queenstown, Auckland and Christchurch. NOU-PPT could either be done on Air Calin 330s or a TN 343.

[Edited 2013-03-07 16:45:58]

User currently offlinesonomaflyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1851 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 12656 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 apparantly hoping for enough business traffic in the future to justify the investment. Yet...

A.netters think the AKL-LAX-LHR route is obsolete and not worth the effort despite the fact yields appear to be far above the China routes.

???

NZ isn't going to fly to GRU or any new destination in Latin/South America unless there is a business case to be made for the route. The addition of the 789s will help lower to costs to the point that they might take a chance but there's no reason to do it now. The global economic doldrums certainly isn't helping.

Vacations by Americans to PPT went into the toilet due to the economic downturn and the expense of a PPT based vacation versus Hawaii. Lack of competition on the route certainly didn't help fares. In the end, folks fly on AS and other carriers to Hawaii and save a ton of money plus avoid the hassles/distances of international travel.


User currently offlinesonomaflyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1851 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 12478 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 flies that makes more money.

If anything, NZ should consider a joint venture/code share in the near term on most of the Asian routes until things pick up.

I checked what it would take to fly AKL-GRU. It's 6,504 nm and would pass through ETOPS 330 zones. IIRC that rules out all but the 744 and perhaps the 773ER? I don't think their 77Es could make that route at all or if they could, the penalties would make it unprofitable.

Hopefully NZ will take advantage of their STAR connections and encourage joint ventures to lessen the risk of opening new routes at least until the world-wide economy picks up.


User currently offlinegasman From New Zealand, joined Mar 2004, 862 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 12217 times:

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-LHR route as per the OP's question. The debate is centered around whether this is sustainable or even desirable long term, given the declining anglo-centric outlook from New Zealand and conversely, the possibility of other as yet untapped markets in the UK.

In the end, it doesn't really matter. If NZ was making money on an Antigua to Dubai route and infrastructure, they would be silly to stop doing it. Unless the 77W severely damages the NZ brand (in comparison to BA's A380 for example) then I think we'll see NZ flying LAX-LHR for a few decades yet.


User currently offlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2988 posts, RR: 23
Reply 62, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 11938 times:

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. 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.

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 in 1987 twice weekly and then five weekly from March 1993 to September 1994. That's TWENTY FIVE years since they first tried and 19 years since their second attempt ceased.

British Airways supplied the airframe to operate the service. Despite being for all intents and purposes a British Airways service through and through, the aircraft was placed on Regional's books as a lease arrangement which, to the benefit of mainline, was charged amazingly at the full market lease value of the day.

Crewing involved positioning up from LHR and night stopping in MAN the night before and a 2 or 3 night layover in LAX. On arrival back in MAN, crew night stopped again before positioning back down to LHR. It made MAN-LAX a 7 day trip for flightdeck, quite a ridiculous and expensive arrangement, all charged to Regional.

Fare discounting was rare to preserve as much revenue as possible; it was often cheaper to shuttle down to LHR and catch the 283.

Conversely, LHR-LAX was often blocked out for redemption travel and people on Miles tickets would be shuttled up to MAN to catch the 277.

With those charges, the route was never destined to succeed.

When assessing possible new routes, MAG have this to say about LAX:

Quote:
Los Angeles
Indirect traffic from MAN in 2011 to LAX was 41,000 (MIDT 2011). Leakage from the MAN catchment to London airports to LAX was 98,000 (CAA 2011).

Their statistics suggest there are nearly 270 people daily travelling from MAN's catchment area to LAX.

I'm of the belief if any carrier can make a success of MAN-LAX (-CHC or AKL), Air New Zealand is the most likely candidate as it would cater to more than pure O&D.

I can't accept wholly that interpretation of bmi's long haul presence out of MAN either. IAD was a cobbled and botched attempt to place one of the A332s onto a route. Loads were less than stellar, granted, but for 3 years of long haul Ops., bmi were the third largest cargo hauler out of MAN, only behind two dedicated cargo carriers, Air Hong Kong and Dragonair; some achievement.

It was the act of taking the A332 away and presuming the business crowd would accept a 757 with sub par amenities and facilities that decimated loads and its viability on the IAD, not the other way round. The month the Icelandair 757 took over the route, loads went through the floor, never to recover, and, as someone then close to the debacle, bmi IMO got all they deserved from the shambles. Hopefully United will show how it can be done successfully with a narrow body.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 51):
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's the number one rule for business travel and connectivity.
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"?

Emirates started MAN as twice weekly, via Germany. Seems Tim Clark's been doing it wrong all these years.  

Rgds



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offline2travel2know2 From Panama, joined Apr 2010, 2656 posts, RR: 1
Reply 63, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 11685 times:

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 fly LAX-MAN (w/UA code-share) daily, 6-5 days per week depending the seasonal demand?
IMO, With airlines like SQ, TH, EK, EH, QR, CX, TK in between New Zealand/Australia and Europe, there's little room for any NZ attempt to successfully fly to Europe via the Eastern Hemisphere. Most grow has to come from the Pacific and selected - some very niche - Asian routes.
Routes may be thin, but NZ could use AKL as a connecting airport between NZ/Australia/South East Asia and South America (read Star Alliance hub LIM). If thin South transpacific routes wouldn't be profitable big airline group LATAM surely wouldn't be flying them.



I'm not on CM's payroll.
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3290 posts, RR: 1
Reply 64, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 11636 times:

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 77):
Emirates started MAN as twice weekly, via Germany. Seems Tim Clark's been doing it wrong all these years.

Well he built a hub from scratch and changed the world of travel, Emirates is exceptional. Worth repeating, "exceptional", quite literally. UK-DXB-xyz was an emerging market that stole market share from abc-LHR-def-xyz. As a result that market is now very competitive, one thing Emirates now tends to do is throw a lot of capacity in quickly and daily as they are still stealing market share from a legacy. Not quite sure how that relates to two mature and declining markets like UK-New Zealand. Certainly basing a B767 at LAX to fly to Manchester into a declining market does sound like a practice of yesteryear, not something I would predict would make anyone any money.

Remember it's not about what ANZ "could" do, it's about what ANZ "must" do to make money. Look at QANTAS, halved thei LHR operation recently and now getting into bed in the sandpit. It's a commercial necessity.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25789 posts, RR: 50
Reply 65, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 11576 times:

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 declined about 2.6% per annum.

While London is still a Top-10 international market from LAX, it has seen its preeminence decline as it no longer serves as the defacto gateway to broader Europe with growth of ever more direct services to the continent, and also as the Los Angeles economy and populace pivots more looking South and West to Latin America and Pacific basin.

Just something else to think about .....



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25432 posts, RR: 86
Reply 66, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 11518 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 77):
I'm of the belief if any carrier can make a success of MAN-LAX (-CHC or AKL), Air New Zealand is the most likely candidate as it would cater to more than pure O&D.

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 Qantas couldn't make MAN to Australia work why should Air NZ have any more luck?

It's too easy to say that was a long time ago because the reality is that traffic between the UK and NZ has declined since then and both Qantas and Air NZ have considerably reduced their service to the UK/Europe.

It is one thing for a.netters to have dreams, we all have those. It's simply silly when a.netters castigate a small - but consistently profitable - airline for not fulfilling those dreams.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2988 posts, RR: 23
Reply 67, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 11393 times:

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 Cal

2. MAN - LAX - Star alliance connectivity beyond to Pacific/ west USA and Hawaii

3. MAN - LAX - New Zealand thru traffic

4. LAX originating flow both to CHC or AKL and the other way to MAN

The stats suggest LHR - AKL is in slow decline. Conversely, the stats also suggest nearly 260 passengers travel daily from MAN's catchment area to LAX alone. My conclusion is that NZ might be able to make both LHR and MAN work. If Asia is the pot of gold some believe it will be for NZ, they will need the B77W to be redeployed there. Both LHR and MAN could be B789 routes, timed to arrive together in LAX, one going on to AKL and the other to CHC, giving the whole of the UK customer base and LAX originating passengers the option of non-stop service to the 2 main destinations in NZ.

Is it really too far fetched?

Rgds



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25432 posts, RR: 86
Reply 68, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 10958 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 67):
Is it really too far fetched?

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 static or declining market.

It is nothing against MAN - it is about the future of NZ/Air NZ. If it were possible for the airline to fly AKL-India-MAN, with full traffic rights on both legs, I might cheer because I would see a value for the large Indian population in NZ, which community is ill-served by the national carrier.

Always look after your own first. So I was very pleased to see the airline start AKL-DPS (to the scorn of some here) because it is a place that Kiwis want to go, involves no real risk and may prove to be a growth market - it's already been expanded.

As is shown by Qantas (reducing services to UK/Europe) Virgin Australia (which doesn't even bother with its own metal) and Air NZ (reducing UK service) I believe our future is elsewhere.

I;ve no idea what the new CEO thinks and maybe he sees it differently, but from my perspective, it is a long time since Air NZ was called TEAL - Tasman Empire Airlines - and I would rather see the airline developing new markets.

It is reflected in the changing nature of NZ society, which is dramatically more cosmopolitan than it was even a decade ago, as witnessed by the expansion of trade links with Chile announced today.

mariner

[Edited 2013-03-08 15:43:39]


aeternum nauta
User currently offline1400mph From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 1055 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 10654 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 67):
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 Cal

2. MAN - LAX - Star alliance connectivity beyond to Pacific/ west USA and Hawaii

3. MAN - LAX - New Zealand thru traffic

4. LAX originating flow both to CHC or AKL and the other way to MAN

The stats suggest LHR - AKL is in slow decline. Conversely, the stats also suggest nearly 260 passengers travel daily from MAN's catchment area to LAX alone. My conclusion is that NZ might be able to make both LHR and MAN work. If Asia is the pot of gold some believe it will be for NZ, they will need the B77W to be redeployed there. Both LHR and MAN could be B789 routes, timed to arrive together in LAX, one going on to AKL and the other to CHC, giving the whole of the UK customer base and LAX originating passengers the option of non-stop service to the 2 main destinations in NZ.

Is it really too far fetched?

Rgds

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 not have the wherewithal to recognise such a sales opportunity ? (if it existed that is)

260 passengers a day ? Is that what you are basing your assumptions on ?


User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 70, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 10570 times:

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 69):
You are still not answering my question. i.e Why no such service ?

Are you suggesting that Air New Zealand (and everyone else) do not have the wherewithal to recognise such a sales opportunity ? (if it existed that is)

260 passengers a day ? Is that what you are basing your assumptions on ?

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 carriers don't is that it has (well, had!) a diversified network of its own beyond Los Angeles and so was not reliant upon point-to-point traffic.

Quoting mariner (Reply 68):
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 static or declining market.

Always look after your own first.

This is the major difference in philosophy between you and I.

I see New Zealand as a small, poor end-of-the-line place (much as I love it) which has very few natural routes upon which Air New Zealand can profit as a full-service carrier obtaining relatively high yields.

Yet London-Los Angeles traffic rights have been the goose that lays the golden egg, with Air New Zealand having for three decades been able to sit at a far higher table than it otherwise could because it can link two huge, affluent markets.

Qantas has Sydney, Qantas has Melbourne. Qantas has London. Manchester was scarcely an opportunity for them. But for Air New Zealand, any opportunity to anywhere near approach the yields of its LAX-LHR sector would be a godsend. It's why I would have looked seriously at using the original 788 order and 763s to fly:

SFO-LHR
YVR-LHR
LAX-MAN.

Air NZ part-owns Virgin Australia, and could have looked to replace Delta both as its Trans-Pacific partner and to link LAX to the UK, so that passengers to/from Australia to the UK had a one-way or return North American option.

Similarly, Virgin Atlantic now runs those SFO-LHR and YVR-LHR sectors, and by their standards the yields aren't great, although by Air NZ's network standards they are enormous. It's not unrealistic to wonder why VA and VS couldn't have codeshared on NZ-operated services, rather than NZ codesharing on VS-operated services that noone whatsoever buys from Air NZ because no Status Points can be earned.

It's also, as you know, why I'm still flabbergasted at the ludicrous exit from LAX-PPT, which was another relatively high-yielding sector which the airline stuffed up by flying a high-density aircraft with no flat beds, no Premium Economy cabin and 88% of seats in Economy class. I spoke to a senior executive responsible for that debacle a few years ago, and he could not grasp my assertion that there was a difference between the AKL-PPT and the PPT-LAX markets: he explained that there was a policy for "islands routes" and that was that!

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 65):
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 declined about 2.6% per annum.

Well that's pretty disingenuous too, isn't it?

Air NZ followed your model of palming off beyond sectors onto other carriers and codesharing with them. The closure of HNL-LAX was reasonable due to cabotage laws, and I won't challenge it.

But the closure of LAX-PPT and LAX-NAN was a simple act of corporate self-harm, which wiped out the French and European markets on NZ1 LHR-LAX (who used to connect to PPT) and the German and European markets to Fiji and Tonga who connected on the same NZ1.

In the days of the Pacific Island network, Air NZ's LHR-LAX used to be configured 12 First Class plus 64 Business Class. The suicidal surrender has reduced that to 44 Business Class only.

I have been flying LAX-LHR on Air NZ regularly for the last two decades, and I notice the loss of European feed to the Pacific islands.

[Edited 2013-03-09 01:23:42]

User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7216 posts, RR: 57
Reply 71, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 10544 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 70):
In the days of the Pacific Island network, Air NZ's LHR-LAX used to be configured 12 First Class plus 64 Business Class. The suicidal surrender has reduced that to 44 Business Class only.

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 holiday going through the roof for the US folks?

You need to drop the hyperbole of Suicidal, Catastrophic and Kamikaze - I feel i'm reading a daily mail article.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2988 posts, RR: 23
Reply 72, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 10525 times:

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 69):
You are still not answering my question. i.e Why no such service ?

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: the clue is in the fact I've made mention of the B789.

Your problem is that you do not consider the reasoning I put forward and instead seem to want to fixate on the same question until you get an answer which suits you. That suggests you don't want reasoned discussion as you are refusing to see any alternative view to your own well entrenched opinion.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 69):
In a word....YES.

I'd love to read your reasons. One word responses in informed discussion doesn't cut it.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 69):
260 passengers a day ? Is that what you are basing your assumptions on ?

I'm not sure I've assumed anything, unless you can point me in the appropriate direction. 260 is a factual statistic of daily movement between the MAN catchment area and LAX point to point, O & D, get on get off, with no consideration or assumption paid to passengers using the route to connect onwards or to boardings made at a point downline (eg boarding at LAX to continue to AKL). If you have an alternative benchmark base figure to start from, let's try it..

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 71):
You have heard that there is a serious recession in Europe?

Yet a considerable sample of major airports are showing passenger movements in rude health with positive gains and year on year increases. There's one thing worse than hyperbole and that is the histrionics of talking the economy down and of dwelling on the past. The Daily Mail would be proud.  

Rgds



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 73, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 10531 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 71):
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 holiday going through the roof for the US folks?

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 does lose out in a recession? The pain is pretty rarely evenly spread, and it's not the Bora Bora overwater bungalow market which finds itself most hit.

And let's not forget, luxury tourism to Hawaii is now at its highest EVER levels. You have to ask yourself why Hawaiian tourism is booming and Tahitian tourism is moribund. And I fear that the answer is the near-monopoly that Air Tahiti Nui enjoys, and the high fares that it and Air France both charge to pay for their bloated payrolls.


User currently offline1400mph From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 1055 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 10536 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting koruman (Reply 70):
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 carriers don't is that it has (well, had!) a diversified network of its own beyond Los Angeles and so was not reliant upon point-to-point traffic.

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 apart with an airport that is 12,000 miles away.

Air New Zealand is not EK. You may think that the UK civil aviation market can somehow be a panacea that will supply limitless opportunity from just about every airport within the realm but it just ain't gonna happen.

EK is an exception to the rule.


User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 75, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 10521 times:

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 74):
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 apart with an airport that is 12,000 miles away.

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 potential long-haul routes for Air New Zealand which link markets which could generate yields equal to or greater than SFO-LHR or LAX-MAN?

I'll give you some help to get going. Air New Zealand has already had to close the following routes from Auckland due to commercial failure:

Singapore, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, Beijing, Taipei, Nagoya, Fukuoka, Manila.

(And in case you think that's ancient history, Beijing failed in 2012, Singapore and Taipei failed in 2006, and Nagoya and Fukuoka failed in 2009-10).

Meanwhile Osaka is best described as on life-support, and Auckland (as opposed to Shanghai) based cabin crew openly deride the performance of the Shanghai route, and in particular its empty Business Class and Premium Economy cabins which even $200 and $500 sector upgrade offers can't fill.

Maybe once you've fixed that conundrum you'll understand why none of us who are actually Kiwis share LAXintl's haste to exit LAX-LHR, and why many of us are desperately trying to find ways to clone it!

But in the meantime, I'll await your advice as to why Vientiane or Hanoi or Yangon or Kathmandu would be better route options.

[Edited 2013-03-09 01:45:36]

User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7271 posts, RR: 13
Reply 76, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 10495 times:

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 with NZ2, otherwise it would be cut, as that is how the airline is operating currently. The fact is that most passengers are either AKL-LAX & LAX-LHR now, not AKL-LHR as it used to be originally.

User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3290 posts, RR: 1
Reply 77, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 10401 times:

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? Good luck with that. There are already much better deals on existing legacies out of MAN than NZ would need to beat in a price sensitive market. Not enough people would pay the premium to go non stop, Delta, US, American and United already offer a competitive one stop service to a loyal customer base, as do BA over LHR. NZ would get a fraction of that even with a daily non stop. The market is a fraction the size of London and is already over arguably served to the US,(DL dropping JFK-MAN for example).

User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7216 posts, RR: 57
Reply 78, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 10365 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 77):
DL dropping JFK-MAN for example

I missed that one. Who is left flying NYC-MAN - just CO on a 757?



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlinerutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 3016 posts, RR: 7
Reply 79, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 10288 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 78):
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 viability however think it for a separate thread.

However just to add to Skipness'es comments the problem ALL European and US carriers have with LAX (and it struggles from just about everywhere other the LHR) is it requires more than one frame to operate even a single daily rotation !


User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 80, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10255 times:

@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 rotation would give them four sectors to sell. They already fly the second daily AKL-LAX service, and the aircraft sits on the Tarmac at LAX for nine hours before turning around.

It's pretty inefficient utilisation, and they only cancelled LAX-FRA in the first place because their smaller long-range aircraft left the fleet and the 744 was so big that they had to discount deeply and yields ended up too low.

As I keep saying, New Zealand has four million people with a low per capita GDP. A challenge for Air NZ is to find somewhere - anywhere - viable beyond the USA which could link LAX or SFO with a big enough, rich enough market which itself could also generate through traffic to New Zealand.


User currently offline1400mph From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 1055 posts, RR: 0
Reply 81, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10240 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Would somone mind telling me which / how many airlines offer 'viable' travel to AKL from LHR please ?

Thanks.

Quoting koruman (Reply 75):
No worries.

koruman I am not trying to scupper Air New Zealand they are a fine carrier so I hear.

  

[Edited 2013-03-09 05:19:34]

User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 82, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10210 times:

@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 current reverse situation.

Do you consider that as ill-conceived as AKL-LAX-MAN?

After all, Air NZ is even sitting on an unused LHR slot pair.


User currently offlineg500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 1000 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10199 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 76):
The fact is that most passengers are either AKL-LAX & LAX-LHR now, not AKL-LHR as it used to be originally.

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 or the Gulf. which means Air New Zealand is on its own on the LAX-LHR leg


User currently offline1400mph From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 1055 posts, RR: 0
Reply 84, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10187 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting koruman (Reply 82):
@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 current reverse situation.

Do you consider that as ill-conceived as AKL-LAX-MAN?

After all, Air NZ is even sitting on an unused LHR slot pair.

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 a non-starter.

EK has confused everything a la QF etc etc, should NZ be in another alliance, is the best way for them to serve London to co-operate with BA...I don't know !!! It's all changing so quickly. Enlighten me, that's what i'm here for.


User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 85, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10178 times:

@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 who do get better connections are the ones going to those UK ports beyond LHR who can arrive at their destination on EK or SQ.

Air NZ thought that passengers would prefer to transit HKG than LAX, but the LAX transit is fine, and most of us prefer a stopover in the US or Pacific Islands to the heat and humidity of Singapore and Dubai.

Problem is, with the demise of HKG-LHR, more seats on the LAX flights will again get clogged up with less profitable through passengers.


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7216 posts, RR: 57
Reply 86, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10146 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 85):
Air NZ thought that passengers would prefer to transit HKG than LAX, but the LAX transit is fine, and most of us prefer a stopover in the US or Pacific Islands to the heat and humidity of Singapore and Dubai.

I've transited through LAX on a CDG LAX PPT before and the transit was terrible.

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 72):
Yet a considerable sample of major airports are showing passenger movements in rude health with positive gains and year on year increases.

In Europe, only MAN and DUB out of the large airports are growing at present.

Quoting koruman (Reply 85):
Problem is, with the demise of HKG-LHR, more seats on the LAX flights will again get clogged up with less profitable through passengers.

Perhaps the EK, CZ, KE, SQ, etc services will also be 'clogged' up with one stop transit.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineg500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 1000 posts, RR: 0
Reply 87, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10093 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting koruman (Reply 85):

I hear connecting via the U.S is a real hassle. Plus I'd think the Gulf carriers are cheaper than Air New Zealand


User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 88, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 10045 times:

No, Air NZ's transit at LAX is relatively civilised: they have their own transit gate and immigration officer and no customs process.

User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7216 posts, RR: 57
Reply 89, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 9982 times:

just Like the AF transit - its terrible.


The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25789 posts, RR: 50
Reply 90, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9990 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 70):
Well that's pretty disingenuous too, isn't it?

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 flights for instance. Like UK-NZ, London-LAX is a declining market.

People are simply not travelling between the cities the same manner they did in the past. (much to the benefit of other European gateways)

Quoting koruman (Reply 82):
After all, Air NZ is even sitting on an unused LHR slot pair.

NZ relinquished it effective effective March 2013 to CX.

Also for info, the slot transaction was separate from the commercial agreement NZ-CX entered into.

Quoting koruman (Reply 88):
No, Air NZ's transit at LAX is relatively civilised: they have their own transit gate and immigration officer and no customs process.

Wait till next year and move to TBIT.
Hope is to give you time to enjoy the new shops and restaurants by making everyone clear first.
You'll also have a new fancy star lounge to play in, time permitting.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offline1400mph From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 1055 posts, RR: 0
Reply 91, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9947 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 90):
The entire LAX-London market is declining slowly - average 2.6% per annum last 8 years.

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.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25789 posts, RR: 50
Reply 92, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9939 times:

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 91):
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 decline. London is no longer the defacto gateway to Europe as ever growing number of alternate nonstops are available from West Coast now.

LA-London airline capacity has declined over the years - gone are the 2nd AA and UA nonstops, VS no longer can run 2x daily year round plus they are using smaller A346s.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7216 posts, RR: 57
Reply 93, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9890 times:

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 772 LHR LAX and the EI 332 DUB LAX


The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25432 posts, RR: 86
Reply 94, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9910 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting koruman (Reply 70):
This is the major difference in philosophy between you and I.

I see New Zealand as a small, poor end-of-the-line place (much as I love it) which has very few natural routes upon which Air New Zealand can profit as a full-service carrier obtaining relatively high yields.


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 - yet your views on where the airline should fly are dominated by the front end of the aircraft, which most Kiwis can't afford.

But your "flabbergasted-ness" with Air NZ ignores one thing - that for the past several years and especially during the GFC, the airline has been consistently profitable.

Qantas can't say that, Virgin Australia can't say that, and it is astonishing to me that you give no credit to Air New Zealand for that whatsoever. Instead your attacks on the airline seem to increase.

I understand that Air NZ is becoming the airline you don't want it to be and that it is flying to places you don't want it to, but it is doing so profitably, and it doesn't make that profit just from LAX-LHR.

Quoting koruman (Reply 75):
But in the meantime, I'll await your advice as to why Vientiane or Hanoi or Yangon or Kathmandu would be better route options.

If Air NZ has fifth freedom "beyond" rights from any Asian country, then I'd urge them to fly from that country to Yangon - with an A320 - asap.  

mariner

[Edited 2013-03-09 10:03:44]


aeternum nauta
User currently offline1400mph From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 1055 posts, RR: 0
Reply 95, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 9872 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 92):
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 decline. London is no longer the defacto gateway to Europe as ever growing number of alternate nonstops are available from West Coast now.

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's on the route ?

If it is in decline why is BA swapping one of the winter schedule services for an A380 and retaining the second 744 service aswell ?


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7216 posts, RR: 57
Reply 96, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 9856 times:

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 95):
If it is in decline why is BA swapping one of the winter schedule services for an A380 and retaining the second 744 service aswell ?

Because you are looking at one airline. Other airlines have downsized or exited the market. BA probably also sees a potential in stealing higher yield pax from competitor carriers by using the A380 which attracts a yield premium, making it more difficult for the lesser quality competitor product.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25789 posts, RR: 50
Reply 97, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 9839 times:

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 95):
So to be clear the O&D and the transfer market is in decline on LHR/LAX ?

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 - full 2012 numbers not out yet
2011 - 1,326,764
2010 - 1,388,367
2005 - 1,522,737
2000 - 1,596,728

This decline is not unique to London. Frankfurt a long established hub has also seen decline - 17% over 9 years. AMS also a smaller decline.
Where has this traffic gone now? - new nonstops to places like Istanbul, Dubai, Tel Aviv, Madrid, or added capacity to places like Paris. People no longer need to make historic connections via LHR as in the past, or use London as the defacto gateway to Europe from the West Coast.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinegasman From New Zealand, joined Mar 2004, 862 posts, RR: 0
Reply 98, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 9755 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 97):
London as the defacto gateway to Europe from the West Coast.

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 been my default gateway to Europe from New Zealand for 20 years now. In fact, in 5 trips from New Zealand to Europe over the last 4 years, I've not flown LAX-LHR once.

[Edited 2013-03-09 12:04:44]

User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7271 posts, RR: 13
Reply 99, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 9756 times:

Quoting g500 (Reply 83):
It seems to me that people from New Zealand traveling to the UK would do it via Hong Kong, Singapore or the Gulf. which means Air New Zealand is on its own on the LAX-LHR leg

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 flying, unless you're Koruman who travels business class, many people want to stop wherever they are for a short stay to break up the trip.

Most people are cost driven on this route, whichever is the cheapest, or whoever is offereing the cheapest stopover package is the one NZers go for, unless they are frequent flyers.


User currently offline1400mph From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 1055 posts, RR: 0
Reply 100, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 9754 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 97):
Here is the total traffic (includes O&D component)
2012 - full 2012 numbers not out yet
2011 - 1,326,764
2010 - 1,388,367
2005 - 1,522,737
2000 - 1,596,728

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 or will it flatten out ?

What is the reason for decline in O&D between Los Angeles and London ?

An overall decline of 270,000 over 11 years given the rise as you say of other airlines and airports is actually quite a surprisingly low drop is it not ?

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 92):
LA-London airline capacity has declined over the years - gone are the 2nd AA and UA nonstops, VS no longer can run 2x daily year round plus they are using smaller A346s.

Considering that only 270,000 less people are travelling over an 11 year period it seems that the route was suffering from over capacity considering the 2nd AA, UA and VS flights that were operating. Plus the maintained schedules of BA and NZ. We all know over-capacity can warp the fares (cheaper) and increase the attractiveness of a route to the passenger.

Instead of in decline I would say that from the operators perspective it is much healthier.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25432 posts, RR: 86
Reply 101, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 9736 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting g500 (Reply 83):
It seems to me that people from New Zealand traveling to the UK would do it via Hong Kong, Singapore or the Gulf. which means Air New Zealand is on its own on the LAX-LHR leg

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 Asia, they may well fly an Asian airline.

But many prefer a stopover, extended or otherwise, in that very exotic place - to many Kiwis - the US.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 99):
t 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 flying, unless you're Koruman who travels business class, many people want to stop wherever they are for a short stay to break up the trip.

  

It isn't just budget conscious travellers. A friend of mine, for whom money is no object, haggles among the airlines for the best stopover options.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25789 posts, RR: 50
Reply 102, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 9661 times:

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 100):
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 or will it flatten out ?

What is the reason for decline in O&D between Los Angeles and London ?

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 Europe markets etc)
o UK ticket taxes
o Reduced UK tourism to California (in 2012 it was down 11.8%, while overall tourism was up 8%)
o LA itself looks ever more South and West as populace ethnicity and commerce shifts

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 100):
An overall decline of 270,000 over 11 years given the rise as you say of other airlines and airports is actually quite a surprisingly low drop is it not ?

The decline is much worse when one considers the entire international travel market from LA grew 68.8% since 2000.

So in reality if LA-LON kept pace it should be cracking 2.5 million enplanments today, not sinking backwards to 1.3mil.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2261 posts, RR: 1
Reply 103, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 9591 times:

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 67):
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 Cal

2. MAN - LAX - Star alliance connectivity beyond to Pacific/ west USA and Hawaii

3. MAN - LAX - New Zealand thru traffic

4. LAX originating flow both to CHC or AKL and the other way to MAN

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. What about UA or AA? After all they have connectivity beyond to the Pacific/Hawaii/West coast on their own metal (more convenient than alliance codeshares), and in the case of UA, have star alliance connectivity to New Zealand, along with the ability to tap into the North UK-SoCal O/D market.

Why would NZ have a better shot than either of them?


User currently offlineZKSUJ From New Zealand, joined May 2004, 7108 posts, RR: 12
Reply 104, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 9560 times:

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 81):
Would somone mind telling me which / how many airlines offer 'viable' travel to AKL from LHR please ?

Thanks

Quite a few: NZ, QF, EK, SQ, CX, MH, TG, KE


User currently offlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2988 posts, RR: 23
Reply 105, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 9453 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 103):
Why would NZ have a better shot than either of them?

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-aider; just reference my post history. Despite what some claim on here though, I do believe NZ want a compelling case to commence MAN. Internal politics may currently bear more leverage on that position, but people in authority aren't there for ever.

Going back full circle, I wager when the B789's are on line and established in the NZ fleet, we should revisit this thread and see who needs a portion of humble pie...

Just my V V H O   

Rgds



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25432 posts, RR: 86
Reply 106, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 9363 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 105):
Reputation in the UK, quite simply, and because NZ has repeatedly come back to look at MAN and appreciate the potential market.

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 knows? I still can't work out why it should be Air NZ.

mariner

[Edited 2013-03-09 16:35:43]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 107, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 9338 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 97):
Yes both the O&D and absolute market size are in decline between LA and London.

This decline is not unique to London. Frankfurt a long established hub has also seen decline - 17% over 9 years. AMS also a smaller decline.
Where has this traffic gone now? - new nonstops to places like Istanbul, Dubai, Tel Aviv, Madrid, or added capacity to places like Paris. People no longer need to make historic connections via LHR as in the past, or use London as the defacto gateway to Europe from the West Coast.

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 is in decline.

But then I'm being told that LHR-LAX is in decline because people no longer need to make connections via LHR and can fly from the airport they actually live nearer to.

But then I'm being told again that UK markets beyond London shouldn't be considered because London itself is in decline.

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 105):
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-aider; just reference my post history. Despite what some claim on here though, I do believe NZ want a compelling case to commence MAN. Internal politics may currently bear more leverage on that position, but people in authority aren't there for ever.

There are two issues here.

Firstly, unlike Qantas, Air NZ does not have a large affluent market of its own. It has to rely upon sneaking a share of other countries' markets.

Secondly, I would refer you to:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 90):
Wait till next year and move to TBIT.
Hope is to give you time to enjoy the new shops and restaurants by making everyone clear first.
You'll also have a new fancy star lounge to play in, time permitting.

This is the internal politics to which BlueShamu330 was referring.

The last CEO Rob Fyfe had had a bad business failure in the UK, and was what former Queensland Premier Peter Beattie described (himself) as a "media tart". He loved being the rotating chair of the Star Alliance almost as much as his colleagues say privately but widely that he wanted Air NZ out of the UK lock, stock and barrel.

He commissioned a long-haul review expecting it to dismiss LHR services, and it did quite the opposite. He then seems to have seized the opportunity of Air NZ running the TBIT Star Alliance lounge as a means of ensuring that it will have to move its LAX operations to that terminal, and that through services to London would become impossible.

Now, one of two scenarios then applies.

Either he understood what the rest of us did, tout de suite. That means no more transit lounge, no more baggage reclaim and customs exemptions, and no more 120 minute stops AKL-LAX-LHR because every single passenger including those in transit has to join the immigration and customs lines at LAX, reclaim their luggage, and recheck it. That means he accepted leadership of the LAX TBIT lounge as a conscious strategy to kill his own LHR services even though the business review supported it.

Or he was simply too disconnected - this was the man who said that he spent "most" of his working day "engaging" his customers on social media, too cognitively limited or not sufficiently competent to notice that the end of LAX-LHR would be an unintended consequence of the vanity prize of running the Star Alliance lounge at TBIT.

I'm not sure which alternative would actually be worse: maleficence or incompetence. Hopefully one of you can come up with a third, more worthy alternative for which we should applaud him rather than censure him. I'd be delighted if you could: I was the only Air NZ customer on the Air NZ thread on this forum to actually wish him farewell and good luck when he left. I found him good company when I met him on my travels, but he really was a CEO of the Facebook generation, and to be honest I felt as if he delegated to an unusual degree even for a big company and had a very cursory grasp of his network and fleet.

[Edited 2013-03-09 16:50:18]

User currently offlineaklrno From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 952 posts, RR: 0
Reply 108, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 9299 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 103):
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. What about UA or AA? After all they have connectivity beyond to the Pacific/Hawaii/West coast on their own metal (more convenient than alliance codeshares), and in the case of UA, have star alliance connectivity to New Zealand, along with the ability to tap into the North UK-SoCal O/D market.

Why would NZ have a better shot than either of them?

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 class, so I am trying them in June, but the fact that the LHR-LAX flight arrives too late at LAX for domestic connections is the main reason I'm flying UA. I'm flying with a group and overnighting in LA would be a hassle. If I were alone I'd prefer to fly NZ and spend a night in LA over flying UA.


User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2261 posts, RR: 1
Reply 109, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 9287 times:

Quoting aklrno (Reply 108):
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 class, so I am trying them in June, but the fact that the LHR-LAX flight arrives too late at LAX for domestic connections is the main reason I'm flying UA. I'm flying with a group and overnighting in LA would be a hassle. If I were alone I'd prefer to fly NZ and spend a night in LA over flying UA.

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 to fly them for their nonstop service rather than schlepping to LHR or connecting somewhere else. Believe it or not American carriers carry many foreign nationals on their international route...it is not just Americans on their flights.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25432 posts, RR: 86
Reply 110, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 9253 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting koruman (Reply 107):
I'm not sure which alternative would actually be worse: maleficence or incompetence. Hopefully one of you can come up with a third, more worthy alternative for which we should applaud him rather than censure him.

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 the man. That's the second time in this thread - see post #8.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 111, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 9200 times:

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, but New Zealand has a single aviation market with Australia, and Australia wasn't in recession during his tenure, it was booming.

So in the most charitable interpretation possible, he squeaked narrow profits during a boom period in his own marketplace by cutting capacity.

But it's actually far worse than that, isn't it?

Everyone on this forum knew perfectly well that the two states with the biggest booms - Western Australia and Queensland - were the most grievously under-served by Qantas. There were specific routes I spelled out explicitly for him (BNE-LAX, BNE-HNL, (AKL-)PER-JNB, AKL-PER-LHR) which he chose to ignore and which other airlines with more nimble and astute executives pounced upon. (The first three are already in operation, and Virgin Atlantic has announced its intention to use its 787s to fly LHR-PER if they are capable.)

Moreover, Virgin Australia was handicapped by having no long-range aircraft smaller than the 777-300ER and Qantas the 747-400ER, while Fyfe had 777-200ER and 777-300ER aircraft in his fleet and allowed numerous 777-200ER, 777-200LR and 777-300ER options to expire on him, as well as cancelling the 787-8 orders which would have given him a right-sized aircraft for smaller markets.

It's fine to applaud someone who shrinks to record marginal profits in a recession. It's absurd to applaud someone who did that during a boom.

(And Mariner, you know my views on Alan Joyce. Please don't tell me that Fyfe outperformed him, because I hardly consider that to be an achievement, as I believe that most of the cleaning staff at Qantas could have put in a better shift as CEO).

[Edited 2013-03-09 18:09:40]

User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25432 posts, RR: 86
Reply 112, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 9167 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting koruman (Reply 111):
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, but New Zealand has a single aviation market with Australia, and Australia wasn't in recession during his tenure, it was booming.

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 was officially in recession and during that, Mr. Fyfe did what neither Qantas nor Virgin Australia could do - stay profitable.

Quoting koruman (Reply 111):
It's fine to applaud someone who shrinks to record marginal profits in a recession. It's absurd to applaud someone who did that during a boom.

Again, there was no boom here. More importantly, the competition was extraordinarily fierce - I guess you don't remember Virgin Australia's disastrous foray into NZ domestic.

I think it is outrageous, given all that was going on, to accuse anyone, let along a successful CEO, of malfeasance or incompetence with zero proof of it, just because you don't like what he did.

But I guess profit is a dirty word here.

Quoting koruman (Reply 111):
And Mariner, you know my views on Alan Joyce. Please don't tell me that Fyfe outperformed him, because I hardly consider that to be an achievement, as I believe that most of the cleaning staff at Qantas could have put in a better shift as CEO).

Why would I do that? Mr. Joyce has zero nothing to do with this thread - which has already been successfully hijacked by the MAN cheerleaders.

mariner

[Edited 2013-03-09 18:39:49]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25789 posts, RR: 50
Reply 113, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 9147 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 107):
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 is in decline.

But then I'm being told that LHR-LAX is in decline because people no longer need to make connections via LHR and can fly from the airport they actually live nearer to.

But then I'm being told again that UK markets beyond London shouldn't be considered because London itself is in decline.

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 in summary - travel between NZ-UK is declining, and so is travel between UK-LA.

Only bright spot is NZ-USA that is holding its own.  



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 114, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 8965 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 113):
I'll make it easier - how about a simpler sentence

Travel between the UK and California is on a decline.

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 its cause and why Rob Fyfe might have been correct.

The UK is now run by the same south-eastern boarding school elite who advocate LHR as the UK's sole international gateway worth serving. These are people who see no irony in Emirates, Etihad, Singapore Airlines, American Airlines, US Airways and United serving UK destinations that they consider to be unviable - not even when Emirates gets Manchester up to double-daily A380s plus a 77W! These are people who inherited an outrageously high departure tax and decided to make it bigger.

And they are so ensnared by their quaint economic dogma that they appear to truly believe that a country can save its way out of a recession. The ensuing double-dip and imminent triple dip are clearly, in their minds, the fault of their predecessors for over-spending, and the idea that spending stimulates an economy during a recession is anathema to them. I was educated in the UK at a university I won't identify, and I was all too exposed these people, but to even my amusement my sister, who lives just a few minutes from the British Chancellor's former school in Surrey, refuses to have her own son apply for entry there for fear of him developing a similar brain. She clearly thinks that the exposure would act as a sort of contagious brain-damaging disease.

As long as the UK economy is piloted by people who think that Keynes is a place somewhere just north of the end of the civilised world rather than an important economic theorist the UK's economic policy will continue to be driven by Thatcherite homilies about housewives and their household budgets, and the decline that LAXintl has identified will endure.

And maybe, just maybe, Rob Fyfe was right all along with his reputed "get out of the UK market" instincts. Maybe Air NZ was right to toss away its second daily LHR slot pair as it clearly considered it to be useless. The fact that Qantas too has discarded two LHR slot pairs out of four adds weight to that argument. Maybe the UK really is a place where Air NZ should severely restrict its exposure until it comes under the political control of a more economically competent government.

It's my nature to be thought-provoking, especially in a forum like this. But I'll admit defeat when I'm losing an argument!


User currently offlineklinit From Australia, joined Jan 2013, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 115, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 8924 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 114):
The UK is now run by the same south-eastern boarding school elite who advocate LHR as the UK's sole international gateway worth serving. These are people who see no irony in Emirates, Etihad, Singapore Airlines, American Airlines, US Airways and United serving UK destinations that they consider to be unviable - not even when Emirates gets Manchester up to double-daily A380s plus a 77W! These are people who inherited an outrageously high departure tax and decided to make it bigger.

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 serving Manchester-insert destination traffic only. Emirates et al will have traffic from Manchester to India, Southeast Asia, Africa, Middle East, Australia perhaps even East Asia all sitting on that same flight to Dubai (just like BA would on a MAN-LHR flight). Where is the irony?


User currently offline1400mph From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 1055 posts, RR: 0
Reply 116, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8887 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting koruman (Reply 114):
The UK is now run by the same south-eastern boarding school elite who advocate LHR as the UK's sole international gateway worth serving. These are people who see no irony in Emirates, Etihad, Singapore Airlines, American Airlines, US Airways and United serving UK destinations that they consider to be unviable - not even when Emirates gets Manchester up to double-daily A380s plus a 77W!

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 the UK's geographical location and EVEN then they can only manage 3 flights a day.

How long would BA last if they sent 2 A380's and one 777 to DXB from MAN daily with no onward connections available ?

Similarly how long would say UA last if they sent 5/6 744's daily from JFK to LHR as BA does ?

Quoting koruman (Reply 114):
And they are so ensnared by their quaint economic dogma that they appear to truly believe that a country can save its way out of a recession. The ensuing double-dip and imminent triple dip are clearly, in their minds, the fault of their predecessors for over-spending, and the idea that spending stimulates an economy during a recession is anathema to them. I was educated in the UK at a university I won't identify, and I was all too exposed these people, but to even my amusement my sister, who lives just a few minutes from the British Chancellor's former school in Surrey, refuses to have her own son apply for entry there for fear of him developing a similar brain. She clearly thinks that the exposure would act as a sort of contagious brain-damaging disease.

That paragraph is as fundamentally flawed as your views on MAN lonh-haul ops.

[Edited 2013-03-09 23:37:16]

User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7216 posts, RR: 57
Reply 117, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8879 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 114):
hoist by my own petard
Quoting koruman (Reply 114):
south-eastern boarding school elite
Quoting koruman (Reply 114):
outrageously
Quoting koruman (Reply 114):
ensnared by their quaint economic dogma
Quoting koruman (Reply 114):
anathema
Quoting koruman (Reply 114):
contagious brain-damaging disease

And that's where I gave up on your hyperbole.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 118, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8892 times:

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 116):
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 the UK's geographical location and EVEN then they can only manage 3 flights a day.

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, naively thought that Heathrow was BA's hub, and that they had one of those network thingies fanning out north, south, east and west from there. So passengers from Manchester to, say, Mumbai could choose to connect at Heathrow or Dubai, whichever tickles their fancy.

Thing is, when I took a BA flight from MAN to LHR last August there were only about 20 people on it. So for some strange reason, people in northern England seem to want to depart internationally from their local airport rather than be funnelled through LHR. Which is a lesson for BA, certainly, but also arguably for NZ.

This is an unsual thread. I've run up the white flag, admitted defeat and I'm still getting into arguments.


User currently offline1400mph From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 1055 posts, RR: 0
Reply 119, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 8803 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting koruman (Reply 118):
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.

Yes.

Quoting koruman (Reply 118):
I, of course, naively thought that Heathrow was BA's hub, and that they had one of those network thingies fanning out north, south, east and west from there

Yes.

Quoting koruman (Reply 118):
Thing is, when I took a BA flight from MAN to LHR last August there were only about 20 people on it. So for some strange reason, people in northern England seem to want to depart internationally from their local airport rather than be funnelled through LHR. Which is a lesson for BA, certainly, but also arguably for NZ.

  

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 service from MAN to LHR becasue they are worried about the ***feed*** they've lost due to BD's demise.


User currently onlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5714 posts, RR: 6
Reply 120, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 8765 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 114):
The fact that Qantas too has discarded two LHR slot pairs out of four adds weight to that argument.

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 slot pair. Leased or sold to CX sure, but that is not discarded, particularly if they were leased.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineMillwallSean From Singapore, joined Apr 2008, 1270 posts, RR: 6
Reply 121, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 8738 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 85):
Air NZ thought that passengers would prefer to transit HKG than LAX, but the LAX transit is fine, and most of us prefer a stopover in the US or Pacific Islands to the heat and humidity of Singapore and Dubai.

Problem is, with the demise of HKG-LHR, more seats on the LAX flights will again get clogged up with less profitable through passengers.
Quoting koruman (Reply 88):
No, Air NZ's transit at LAX is relatively civilised: they have their own transit gate and immigration officer and no customs process.

NZ started HongKong when the protests over the US transfer treatment/rules grew to loud from their corporate accounts. LAX transfers compared with transfers in Asia is like day and night. Not comparable, HKG, SIN etc are the best airports in the world and LAX is well governed by the TSA and on par with a transit in Dhaka...

MAN doesnt have that high demand from LAX. See the stats. Brussels the capital of the EU, ARN, CPH etc is bigger markets than MAN. MAN traffic to AKL is also low yielding. NZ might have lower costs than BA but flying between MAN and AKL is not a way to increase revenues.
IF NZ so desperately needs to fly to another point in Europe (Which I strongly disagree with) FRA would have been the logical choice.
I do believe that NZ in ten years wont be flying to Europe at all. Instead they will deliver their passengers in California or Vancouver and kiwis will fly a partner airline from there. That i see as a much better way to use NZ finite resources.
Flying two stops isn't profitable with today's oil-prices.

And football players isnt a market. But even for rich northerners, California is too far off.
If they for some weird reason would choose to visit the US instead of their own countries, id say Miami, NY etc would be the most logical choices. Shorter travel if nothing else.



No One Likes Us - We Dont Care.
User currently offlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2988 posts, RR: 23
Reply 122, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 8706 times:

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 119):
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 service from MAN to LHR becasue they are worried about the ***feed*** they've lost due to BD's demise.

"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 Government for taking the west coast rail franchise off them. The fact bmi was absorbed into BA and none OneWorld carriers suddenly had no MAN-LHR feed was a very, very fortuitous coincidence.

That said, four rotations a day is unlikely to make Little Red work from MAN. Scotland may be a different story, but I'll bow to the opinion of those more involved in Scottish Ops to comment.

Whether BA made the right decision to de-link themselves almost totally from MAN is a debate which will roll on and on ad infinitum and the salient points in history will continue to be changed to suit different opinions. It's a topic for a different thread, but I'll address it briefly seeing as it has been dragged into the debate. The debate shouldn't be whether BA was right to become a one hub giant; it clearly was. Despite years of purposely objecting to any other carrier establishing themselves in the regions, BA came to the conclusion not that regional flying was inherantly unprofitable, but that better profit could be made at Fortress Heathrow. Where BA were wrong and quite naive was in believing their customer base from regional UK would happily give up their non-stops to Europe and North America and funnel through LHR.

Twenty five years ago, that might have been the case; both MAN-LHR and LGW used to run B757s from 0630 until late evening and it was quite a competition to see if we could get away with the LGW 0635 before the first shuttle of the day. The mid morning was also a B763 - on a 30 minute route ! Those were the halcyon days, and a full english breakfast was served before 0900.

Virgin has come into this market when Manchester and Scottish travellers are more savvy and know they have that golden gift of choice.

Star and Sky Team carriers have effectively lost that portion of their MAN customer base who previously connected through LHR. In the 9 months since bmi's MAN-LHR flights disappeared, during which MAN originating passengers couldn't book flights on the websites of Thai, Air NZ, Asiana, South African etc, they have gone elsewhere.

In response, Singapore has rebounded remarkably and it is increasingly likely the 328 will be de-linked from MUC, Emirates has already assigned flight numbers and a provisional date for their 4th daily service, Qatar's plan is for a return to double daily as they have put BHX on the back burner to focus on strengthening their position at MAN, Finnair is adding capacity again. BA's loss is a gain for many others which, from a selfish enthusiast's point of view is fantastic; I'd rather see a kaleidoscope of different tales any day over a row of the same; it means choice, and choice means competition, which means ticket prices remain keen.

For those reasons, I can not see Virgin Red being anything other than a financial disaster; just up the road, Leeds' new BA service to LHR leaves with single digit loads on many occasions, and BA has a total monopoly on that route! It's slot sitting, nothing more.

The era of ultra short distance air travel in the UK is all but dead. APD is doing its best to ensure its final demise. BA and Virgin will not go bankrupt over the loss of regional customers. They will adapt and source revenue elsewhere; joint ventures, openings to China, strengthening their dominance to N. America, as will MAN; free from the stranglehold and often held ransom to BA in the past (give us sole occupancy of Terminal 3 and we'll base 6 B772s), MAN passengers will find alternatives to flying BA.

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 121):
And football players isnt a market. But even for rich northerners, California is too far off.
If they for some weird reason would choose to visit the US instead of their own countries, id say Miami, NY etc would be the most logical choices. Shorter travel if nothing else.

I agree, to pin a route's hope for success on footballers would be folly; but, on a technicality, you'll find many of them do infact have property in So Cal as opposed to Miami.  
Quoting gemuser (Reply 120):
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 slot pair. Leased or sold to CX sure, but that is not discarded, particularly if they were leased.

Is this indicative of some cosying up to OneWorld? Seems bizarre to lease, sell or discard prime LHR slots to direct competitors from another alliance....



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 123, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 8615 times:

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 121):
And football players isnt a market. But even for rich northerners, California is too far off.
If they for some weird reason would choose to visit the US instead of their own countries, id say Miami, NY etc would be the most logical choices. Shorter travel if nothing else.

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 persuading Mrs Messi or Mrs Cavani that a move to Manchester can be consistent with a glamorous life in the sun in a Spanish-speaking enclave. Miami's a bit too mainstream for Latin American glamour - it's perceived as "too Cuban" and too full of middle-class Brazilian tourists on package holidays - whereas southern California still has that cachet.

If you have a twice weekly route with 26 Business Class seats, that's only 208 seats to shift per month, or 2500 per year.If you can get ten Spanish-speaking footballers to each bulk-buy 30 return tickets per year for their wives, kids, siblings, parents and entourages - and I think 50 would be doable, let alone 30 - that sets back each footballer around 100,000 pounds per year - i.e. four days basic wages, before endorsements are even considered - but you have already sold 1/8 of your entire Business Class inventory for the year.

And the beauty of it is that once one of them bites, the rest will follow. If Luis Suarez (Liverpool) buys the package, then Sergio Aguero and Carlos Tevez (Man City) will follow. Then Mrs Cavani tells Mr Cavani she'd happily swap Naples for Manchester and Beverly Hills.

It's a miniscule market of people, but every customer signed up takes 1% of the entire annual Business Class inventory. I can't believe that the clubs don't already do it.

Manchester may be the British airport with the second largest affluent population after LHR/LGW, but filling premium cabins would still be a problem. But footballers are one resource they do have in terms of people with lots of disposable income, limited education and a magnetic pull to a glamorous city with a Spanish-speaking infrastructure.


User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3290 posts, RR: 1
Reply 124, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 8572 times:

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, things are back to normal. Last summer was a one off chance to fly in ERJs and get the biz jet feeling for very little money. The route does very well on connections for BA and p2p fares remain high in the week.

User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3035 posts, RR: 28
Reply 125, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8468 times:

Quoting gasman (Reply 98):

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 been my default gateway to Europe from New Zealand for 20 years 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 about 1 min walk from check-in.



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3290 posts, RR: 1
Reply 126, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8415 times:

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 the front, it's far from pointless as a hub. BA would close tomorrow if they had to make money solely on O&D.

User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25432 posts, RR: 86
Reply 127, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 8268 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 121):
I do believe that NZ in ten years wont be flying to Europe at all. Instead they will deliver their passengers in California or Vancouver and kiwis will fly a partner airline from there.

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 is doing pretty well and the greater surprise may be that HKG-LHR wasn't profitable, nor expected to be so for the foreseeable future - I assume the level of competition on the route had something to do with this.

But dropping the UK (on its own metal) would be wrenching decision for New Zealand as it would be for Australia if Qantas made a similar decision, but it might be a reflection of the changing economic reality.

When I first arrived in NZ in 1965, the UK dominated the country - it was called home, going there was going home and virtually all NZ exports were headed for "home." Now, half a century later, the UK doesn't make it into the top five trading partners of NZ which are, in descending order, Australia, China, the US, Japan and Korea. Europe (including the UK) comes sixth, but that is a declining number.

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/economy/overview/2012/22.htm

The ties that bind, historical and sentimental, still run deep, but waning with each passing day. So what interests me is how the new CEO of Air New Zealand sees the world.

No CEO operates in a vacuum - and especially not at a small airline of a small country, which airline is majority owned by that country's government. Despite the claimed "hands off" approach the pressures on the CEO are enormous.

So will Mr. Luxon turn his head back to the UK and/or Europe? Or will he look to the future world of New Zealand and its airline?

mariner

[Edited 2013-03-10 13:08:22]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 128, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 8101 times:

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 course now live in Australia, and I visit NZ several times per year and the UK at least once.

The changes you describe all track back to the UK's entry into the then-EEC (now EU) in 1973, which cut New Zealand and Australia adrift economically.

But what I find remarkable in 2013 is that while Australia has become an independent-thinking nation, strongly influenced culturally by the USA, New Zealand really remains far, far closer to the UK.

There have certainly been waves of immigration - Hong Kong Chinese in the years up to 1997 and mainland Chinese in the last decade.

There are now around 400,000 New Zealand residents of Asian origin, but there are still 3.1 million of European origin, 600,000 who identify as Maori and around 300,000 of Pacific Island origin. Perhaps the best comparison I have heard about whether there is a changing identity in New Zealand is the comparison with Polish immigration in the UK.

London has double New Zealand's population and has absorbed twice as many Polish immigrants in the last 12 years as New Zealand has absorbed mainland Chinese migrants. Those Polish immigrants have their own culture, language, religious denomination and traditions and most Londoners have encountered them as workers.

But they are a clip-on to the local population, and have not changed local cultural, linguistic or social practices at all. The other 95% of the population of greater London is not becoming more Polish or less English. The 5% of the population which is Polish probably travels a lot to Poland. The other 95% almost certainly doesn't. Similarly, PIA even services Leeds/Bradford Airport, as well as Manchester, but it doesn't mean that the non-Pakistani population of England is becoming more Pakistani.

Unlike many others on this thread, I find it very hard to predict where New Zealanders are going to want to or need to travel in 2033. Even now, at a time when China is the major trading partner and source of inbound tourism, practically no-one who is not ethnically Chinese buys air tickets to China. And still young Kiwis depart en masse on the Big OE, and overwhelmingly it seems to involve being based in London, although the rise of Ryanair and Easyjet seems to have increased the number of European destinations visited. Still people want to have a beach holiday in Fiji or Rarotonga, and still kids want their parents to take them to Disneyland in California, not Hong Kong Disneyland.

If I had to guess, my guess would be that in 2033 outbound aviation demand from New Zealand's non-Asian 4 million people will be to Sydney, Queensland, the Pacific Islands, the USA and the UK. While there will still be significant outbound demand to China from the other 10% of the population.

It's why I'm always a bit suspicious of expected major changes.

As I flagged earlier, I'm not sure about the viability of the UK as a destination for Air New Zealand if its current government weaves its economic magic much longer. But I can't see demand for travel to the UK from New Zealand waning significantly.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25432 posts, RR: 86
Reply 129, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 8019 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting koruman (Reply 129):
But what I find remarkable in 2013 is that while Australia has become an independent-thinking nation, strongly influenced culturally by the USA, New Zealand really remains far, far closer to the UK.

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 twenty years."

The waves of (non-Briitsh) migration have been more problematic than in Australia, because here it was so sudden and comparatively recent. Australia had the benefit of an easing process, the arrivals of the vast masses of Italians and Greeks after WW2. They paved the way for the later migrants from other countries.

Of course, those Greeks and Italians who had been derided as "wogs" then turned on the newer arrivals and used the same epithet against them.

Even by your figures some 10% of New Zealand is "non-British" but that is an average for the country and in Auckland it is much higher - 19% Asian - and projected to be 27% in less than ten years:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6338...he-changing-face-of-NZs-population

"Projections show that by 2021, for every 100 people in Auckland, 53 will be European, 27 will be of Asian heritage, 17 will be Pacific Islanders, and 12 will be Maori."

Out here in the woop-woop where I live it is very much lower, but five years ago it was zero. Whangarei now has a small but vibrant community of South Americans, mostly from Paraguay and Uruguay. if only they'd open a restaurant!

Quoting koruman (Reply 129):
Unlike many others on this thread, I find it very hard to predict where New Zealanders are going to want to or need to travel in 2033

I find it impossible to predict. I can only go by two things (i) the numbers that we know and UK visitors are down and (ii) that the balance of migration has changed - it used be all, almost exclusively, from the UK (my British passport got me into the country without let or hindrance and gave me the ability to work here, and, later in Australia).

But it isn't that anymore.

Quoting koruman (Reply 129):
It's why I'm always a bit suspicious of expected major changes.

So am I. The only constant that I know is change, but I don't think it is predictable. I do know that stasis - the state of being static - is probably the most lethal thing for any airline, any company.

The only other truth I know is that where trade is - people follow. The Paraguayans and Uruguayans of Whangarei all arrived on LAN Chile.

At a well run airline, the market dictates the route map, not the airline.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 130, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 7945 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 130):
Even by your figures some 10% of New Zealand is "non-British" but that is an average for the country and in Auckland it is much higher - 19% Asian - and projected to be 27% in less than ten years:

"Projections show that by 2021, for every 100 people in Auckland, 53 will be European, 27 will be of Asian heritage, 17 will be Pacific Islanders, and 12 will be Maori."

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 Asian are in my opinion probably quite similar to their parents of the previous generations of Pakeha, Maori and Pacific Islanders. And I'm not sure that they are any less influenced by the USA and UK than their parents were, and any less likely to travel to Los Angeles and London.

I admitted defeat earlier in this thread when LAXintl demonstrated the decline in UK-California traffic. I can't argue with that: the current UK government is so economically incompetent that I would be a fool to.

But NZ-US and NZ-UK is a different matter, and I see the ties and the relationships evolving but I don't see any evidence that they are actually weakening.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25432 posts, RR: 86
Reply 131, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7909 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting koruman (Reply 131):
I guess my point is that the 73% who won't be ethnically Asian are in my opinion probably quite similar to their parents of the previous generations of Pakeha, Maori and Pacific Islanders.

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 - I call it the tyranny of Auckland.

I also think that the attitudes of some of that 53% may change, if only because of the people who are their new neighbours. The next important step of this migration will be the developing relationship between the Asians and Maori/Pacific Islanders.

I find it all astonishing and exciting. I miss aspects of traditional New Zealand - I had a grand time back in the 1960's - but that may be because I was young and I wouldn't trade the new benefits for the old disadvantages.

The day Air NZ starts a service to South America, I'll probably book a ticket on one of the first flights because then I'll start to feel that the country and the airline have really grown up and left home.

mariner

[Edited 2013-03-10 18:08:32]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25432 posts, RR: 86
Reply 132, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 7584 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mariner (Reply 131):
I find it all astonishing and exciting.

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 haul to profitability and the actual revenue percentages:

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-...says-long-flights-profitable-again

" Air New Zealand said Thursday its long-distance international flights are profitable again for the first time in five years after it axed its Hong Kong to London route and upped its offerings in Asia.

The airline announced in January it was increasing the number of flights to Shanghai and Tokyo in response to strong growth in Asian markets.

North American revenue was up 17 percent from a year earlier and up by 9 percent in Asia. Revenue from the U.K. and Europe was down by 18 percent while revenue from Australia and the Pacific Islands was up by 2.5 percent."


Negative 18% a fairly alarming decline from UK/Europe, and surely the growth has to be directed to growth markets, as Mr. Luxon says in another article:

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/busine...h-potential-in-asia-pacific-region

"While it hasn't been decided where the aircraft will be deployed, Mr Luxon said the Pacific and Asia offer great growth opportunities for Air New Zealand.

He said Asia offered the greatest growth opportunities and China has now overtaken the UK as New Zealand's second biggest tourism market with 195,000 visitors."


It sure looks like a Pacific Rim airline to me.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25789 posts, RR: 50
Reply 133, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7523 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 132):
It sure looks like a Pacific Rim airline to me.

  

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 shifts and hanging onto nostaligic concepts of airline route maps.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineZKSUJ From New Zealand, joined May 2004, 7108 posts, RR: 12
Reply 134, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 7322 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 133):
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 shifts and hanging onto nostaligic concepts of airline route maps

Yup but if LAX to LHR is doing well and making cash, why not tap into it.


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7216 posts, RR: 57
Reply 135, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 7255 times:

Quoting ZKSUJ (Reply 134):

They have made it profitable by reducing capacity, not 'tapping' into it!



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineZKSUJ From New Zealand, joined May 2004, 7108 posts, RR: 12
Reply 136, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 7177 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 135):

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.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25432 posts, RR: 86
Reply 137, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 7152 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ZKSUJ (Reply 136):
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 gone through HKG may be routed through LAX.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25789 posts, RR: 50
Reply 138, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7121 times:

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 the UK.

At some point one needs to also consider the lost opportunity cost for NZ. With a relative small fleet, is better for the status quo, or take the frame and do some other flying with it? Maybe tap into other markets that display better long term prospects.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 139, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7080 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 129):
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 twenty years."

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 twenty years".

[Edited 2013-03-11 20:34:19]

User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25432 posts, RR: 86
Reply 140, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7069 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting thegeek (Reply 139):
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 twenty years".

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



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 141, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7065 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 132):
North American revenue was up 17 percent from a year earlier and up by 9 percent in Asia. Revenue from the U.K. and Europe was down by 18 percent while revenue from Australia and the Pacific Islands was up by 2.5 percent."

Negative 18% a fairly alarming decline from UK/Europe, and surely the growth has to be directed to growth markets, as Mr. Luxon says in another article:

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 14x weekly to 12x weekly you are reducing frequency by 14%. So the revenue shrinkage seems normal.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25432 posts, RR: 86
Reply 142, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7054 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting koruman (Reply 141):
And this doesn't simply reflect that the frequency of HKG-LHR was reduced from daily to 5 times weekly in that period?

I'm sure it does. I suggested that when I posted it in another thread.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 143, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7062 times: