Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Air New Zealand Order  
User currently offlineFlying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4166 posts, RR: 36
Posted (12 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2057 times:

ANZ has signed the awaited A320 deal. It covers 5 firm orders for the A320 FAMILY (!!) and another 10 will be leased. In addition ANZ has taken 20 options. No engine choice has been announced. The first plane will be delivered in 10/03.

Regards
Flying-Tiger
http://fly.to/rorders


Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A380,AT4,AT7,B732/3/4/5/7/8,B742/4,B762/763,B772,CR2,CR7,ER4,E70,E75,F50/70,M11,L15,S20
23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineB727-200 From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1051 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (12 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2039 times:


Not bad for a near bankrupt airline...........


User currently offlineBoeing767-300 From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 664 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (12 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2018 times:

Without wishing to get into an A v B war here it amazes me that ANZ would be so desperate to obtain new planes.

Many Airlines are struggling financially because the perceive that newer is better. Most of their 733s are not very old and in fact the 4 733s they OWN NGG NGH NGI and the VERY LAST 733 built NGJ are only 3 years old!!

I fail to see how they can afford the huge cost that is associated with fleet changes. (Training,maintanence etc)

Northwest are in no great hurry to retire their DC9 fleet... not the newest.. sure... more expensive to maintain.. probably.. but they OWN them and the reliable old girls OWE them nothing and still make good dollars for NW.

What are the diferences in operating costs between 737NG and A32X. I bet the difference is so insignificant it hardly warrants ANZ changing the fleet. Why did Qantas and Virgin Blue not go A32X???


User currently offlineBigo747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1977 times:

Extra cargo capacity, cheap offer from Airbus are some factors that ANZ goes A320s.

User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8171 posts, RR: 54
Reply 4, posted (12 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1966 times:

Bigo 747 is right, I bet their got the planes for the price of an apple and an egg; plus NZ is one of the most isolated countries in the world and it's national airline needs loads of cargo capacity. The A320 is miles better than the 737 for cargo space, plus it's got longer legs for those long routes out of NZ. Don't know about the 737 but the A320 flies in BA colours from London to Central Asia, Tehran, northeast Africa etc. I never thought I'd live to say this after what those fuckers did to Ansett but...GO AIR NZ!


fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineBoeing767-300 From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 664 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (12 years 1 month 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1878 times:

"Cedarjet" I never thought I'd live to say this after what those fuckers did to Ansett but...GO AIR NZ!

It is ironic how ANZ were relatively strong BEFORE the Ansett takeover and Ansett nearly killed both of them.

ANZ were forced into the sale of Ansett(lemon) to gain access to the Australian market to which they had been denied.

Ansett was failing anyhow in many ways and with ANZ ownership Australians loved to reminisce about the 'good old Ansett' and then FLY Qantas because Ansett was owned by kiwis. Doomed for failure ... move on ...

Perhaps the National Rugby League Trophy will cross the ditch in an Air New Zealand Jet bound for Auckland... GO THE WARRIORS!!!!!


User currently offlineSkystar From Australia, joined Jan 2000, 1363 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (12 years 1 month 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1865 times:

NZ weren't forced to buy AN, and I don't think anyone apart from Cushing actually wanted them to buy all of AN!

I don't really think Aussies flew QF, because AN was Kiwi owned - quite frankly I don't think many people cared about that until the end. You didn't see people say "boycott DJ because they're British" when they started, did you?

Dick Smith hasn't moved into the Australian airline industry, so I don't think we'll see too much jingoistic marketing for the time being.


User currently offlineQFTJT From Australia, joined Dec 2000, 278 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 1781 times:

Cedarjet

If the A320 is "miles better than the 737", why didn't AirNZ order them in the first place.

Boeing767-300

"It is ironic how ANZ were relatively strong BEFORE the Ansett takeover and Ansett nearly killed both of them."

"ANZ were forced into the sale of Ansett(lemon) to gain access to the Australian market to which they had been denied".

It is ironic how for the past 10 years Ansett had been running strong until the ANZ take-over. Maybe ANZ is now the new "Pacific lemon" with a 737/A320/747/767 fleet which is a almost identical copy of Ansett. Is ANZ going the same way Ansett went?

Anyway let's hope that those A320 which will be flying to Australia won't drop parts on Australian soil like the two ANZ 747's ZK-*** and ZK-***.


User currently offlineNZ767 From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 1620 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1726 times:

QFTJT,

"Maybe ANZ is now the new "Pacific lemon" with a 737/A320/747/767 fleet which is a almost identical copy of Ansett. Is ANZ going the same way Ansett went?"

Like I said to you before, the A320s are replacements for the 737 fleet.
All the 737s will eventually be leaving but that doesn't happen overnight so no way are they going to have a fleet mix like Ansett had.
Has it sunken in yet?
And regarding parts falling off aircraft, I recall a Qantas 767 over the Northern Territory dropping something recently.
Not to mention a 747 losing a major part (the whole bloody fuselage) at Bangkok not too long ago.
Do you remember those or is your memory too selective for that?  Insane


User currently offlineBeno From Australia, joined Aug 2002, 428 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1685 times:

In response to NZ767 comments at the end of your post, you must remember that QF has double the 747 fleet and triple the 767 fleet of Air NZ and flies hundreds more flights each week.

User currently offlineV Jet From Australia, joined May 1999, 719 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1661 times:

Come on now NZ767. At least they found the fuselage in BKK and put it back together....
Done worry it wont be long before all NZs troubles are over, you know, with QF going for the 25% or thereabouts!  Innocent


User currently offlineQFTJT From Australia, joined Dec 2000, 278 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1619 times:

NZ767

Seeing my memory is not too selective, the Qantas Bangkok incident did not write-off the aircraft or kill anyone, un-like the Antarctic NZ DC-10 excursion, but let's not go there.


User currently offlineTG992 From New Zealand, joined Jan 2001, 2910 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1597 times:

QFTJT - that last comment was disgusting and trivialises the memory of the 257 passengers, crew, and staff who died in Erebus. Many staff from 1979 still work at the company and I can assure you that day will never be forgotten.

Both airlines, like airlines worldwide, suffer from the occasional mishap. 3 QF flights to NZ have been delayed until the early hours of the morning this week, and 3 NZ flights to RAR/LAX/MEL have been delayed until similar times. QF lost the landing gear doors from a 767 last year because the pilot opened them at a too-high speed, causing them to shear off. NZ lost a fuselage panel because the engineer made a mistake and signed it off when it shouldn't have been. QF escaped losing a 744 and 400 lives at BKK with pure luck and a lot of repair money - the mishap ocurring because of a misguided company policy to avoid the use of reverse thrust if possible. NZ wasn't so lucky, and lost a D10 and 257 lives because of a combination of pilot error and the flight planning department correcting the coordinates and not telling the crew.

My point is, no airline is perfect, no airline ever will be perfect. Both airlines operate to an extremely high standard, and are considered among the world's best. Let's not play these childish games, and instead get back to the topic of this post.

The engine choice should be announced shortly! Any guesses on what it's gonna be?



-
User currently offlineBigo747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1564 times:

QFTJT:
Seeing my memory is not too selective, the Qantas Bangkok incident did not write-off the aircraft or kill anyone, un-like the Antarctic NZ DC-10 excursion, but let's not go there.

It doesn't make any sense to compare these 2 accidents (or you might say incidents, because no one died on QF 747 in Bangkok). Technology itself has kept updating and revolutionizing. One happened in 1979 and one happened in 1999. Both happened at different places with different use of technology. You're just trying to compare an apple and an orange.

You're just trying to bring Air New Zealand down because ANZ has brough Ansett to an end. It's a "revenge" attitude. PATHETIC ATTITUDE.

Anyway let's hope that those A320 which will be flying to Australia won't drop parts on Australian soil like the two ANZ 747's ZK-*** and ZK-***.

You're being too immature like Singapore_Air, begin doubting one's safety record with the incidents happened within a short period of time.

ANZ may have some technical problem, but this doesn't GUARANTEES that same thing won't happen to Qantas.

Let's wait until someday when we hear something negative about Qantas, and it would be very interesting to see your reaction.

It is ironic how for the past 10 years Ansett had been running strong until the ANZ take-over.

I doubted. Perhaps Ansett had some "hidden problems" before ANZ take over. ANZ just happened to be the scapegoat because these "hidden problems" pops-up one by one.


User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4575 posts, RR: 41
Reply 14, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1559 times:

QFTJT - um, Ansett was a mess for those past ten years. The management under NewsCorp and TNT was at best poor. The airline's books were a disaster - why NZ ever bought them without proper due diligence is completely beyond me. At the end TNT and NewsCorp just wanted to extract as much of their original investment from the mess they had created. Perhaps one of the ex-ANers on this forum could explain the problems Ansett faced in the first half of the 90s in more detail.

As for the Bankok incident, don't forget that the cost of repairing the aircraft was greater than the book value of the aircraft. For all intents and purposes it should have been written off. However, as QF have never written off an aircraft, this would have adversly affected both their publicity, and more importantly, their insurance. Hence, they spent big bucks repairing/rebuilding the aircraft. There was quite an in depth article in Australian Aviation at the time, perhaps someone could fish it up...

V/F



"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offlineAJ From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 2396 posts, RR: 24
Reply 15, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1541 times:

TG992, your statement "QF lost the landing gear doors from a 767 last year because the pilot opened them at a too-high speed, causing them to shear off." is rubbish. The report, http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occurs/occurs_detail.cfm?ID=373 states that During the approach, and while below the maximum limit speed of 270 Kts, the flight crew of the Boeing 767 aircraft lowered the landing gear to assist in speed reduction....
The statement that VH-OJH was more expensive to repair is also not true. Insurance costs are not just direct hull value, but lost revenue. Waiting for a replacement airframe from Seattle would have cost a lot more in lost revenue than repairing the aircraft.


User currently offlineBigo747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1535 times:

During the approach, and while below the maximum limit speed of 270 Kts, the flight crew of the Boeing 767 aircraft lowered the landing gear to assist in speed reduction....

Well, the investigation is done by Australia. What can you comment on this? It could be a totally different story if New Zealand or US holds the investigation.


User currently offlineAJ From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 2396 posts, RR: 24
Reply 17, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1516 times:

Actually there is no hiding it. Qantas Boeing 767-338ERs are fitted with a quick access recorder that immediately records any exceedances and cannot be erased by the flight crew. The ATSB has access to these records in the event of an incident or accident and they are incorporated into the reports, just like this one. Crews simply do not exceed limits as the fleet manager and chief pilot know about it before they hit the crew transport!

User currently offlineAerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2743 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1505 times:

From what I had understood earlier, the leased A320s were supposed to come from GECAS, meaning they would have CFMs. While the other ten were supposed to come direct from Airbus. Maybe some of those are being leased from them too.

But with the IAE maintenance contract, I understand Air NZ would be happy to operate both CFM and IAE, to keep up to date with them both and maximise the customer base. Personally, I'd like to see the IAE. They've grown on me, and I reckon look a bit cooler than the more clunky CFMs. I don't really know enough about the technicalities of each to comment on which is better though.

And for all those who have hijacked this topic (clearly itching to whinge about NZ) - you are VERY VERY boring. Shit happens. To ALL airlines at some point. They recognize a problem, they fix it. They get over it. So should you.


User currently offlineQFTJT From Australia, joined Dec 2000, 278 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1457 times:

Sorry form my immature comments

User currently offlineHkgspotter1 From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1436 times:

The QF 744 in Bangkok was because the co-pilot had already hit the go-around button thing, when the captain said no and forced the plane down to land.

User currently offlineKiwi dave From New Zealand, joined Aug 2000, 895 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1403 times:

Will Air New Zealand order both engines types for there A320s?

User currently offlineB727-200 From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1051 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1373 times:


The reason ANZ would choose A320's over B737NG's are numerous. These are range, uplift, comfort (although Boeing have done a good job with their interior cabin dimensions on the NG), the knowledge they would have gained from Ansett's A320 v' B737 operation, and a bloody big handshake from Airbus no doubt.

Boeing767-300, your referal to Ansett as a "lemon" and "failing anyhow" again highlights your lack of knowledge on the subject. True, Ansett were teetering on the edge, but it will always be ANZ's poor management and investment choice that pushed them over. Pushed the right way, ANZ would have been using AN as a cash-cow by now, like TNT and Newscorp before them.

B727-200.


User currently offlineBoeing767-300 From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 664 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1352 times:

B727-200 You have said it for me... Pushed the right way, ANZ would have been using AN as a cash-cow by now, like TNT and Newscorp before them. If your not stating that Ansett had already been fleeced then you might want to explain what you did mean. As some said in an earlier post in this thread the poorest management from ANZ was surely not doing proper due diligence for if thay had they should have run a mile!!!


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Air New Zealand Order For 747X & 777? posted Wed Nov 29 2000 04:29:02 by MattNZ
Air New Zealand Doubles 787 Order posted Fri Oct 28 2005 06:00:14 by FlyingHippo
Air New Zealand Approves Boeing Order posted Fri Aug 6 2004 20:06:45 by Klkla
Significant 2003 Order: Air New Zealand? posted Sat Feb 15 2003 02:22:24 by Bigo747
Air New Zealand Fleet Order posted Mon Mar 19 2001 02:55:24 by Kiwi dave
Air New Zealand Switch Terminals At SFO? posted Sat Nov 11 2006 16:00:55 by SFOFlyer
Air New Zealand's New Livery? posted Wed Aug 9 2006 07:08:59 by 767ER
Ex-Air New Zealand 747-219s Sold posted Wed Jul 26 2006 03:49:57 by Clippern7471sp
Air New Zealand Link DHC-8 In GRR? posted Sat Jun 24 2006 18:36:02 by KingAir200
Latest Air New Zealand 777 - ZK-OKF posted Fri Jun 23 2006 04:25:23 by UAL747-600