• 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 12
 
PA515
Posts: 1373
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Wed Feb 14, 2018 12:45 pm

planemanofnz wrote:
The A321neoLRs will be able to fly up to 4,000 nm - AKL - DPS is 3,642 nm and CHC - DPS is 3,637 nm. Given the regional Australia interest of the airlines, could regional New Zealand also be in play too (WLG and ZQN - which would be extremely exciting for both)?


It's been discussed previously that Air NZ will not be using the A321NEO into ZQN as the runway length restricts takeoff weight. Can't see anyone else doing it. I believe the same applies to WLG.

PA515
 
NZ321
Posts: 929
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Wed Feb 14, 2018 1:13 pm

Agree about CGK. Gees Planeman either you are in a different timezone or burning the midnight oil :)! Just not sure I see this as on NZ's radar and with Garuda's woes and it needing a widebody not sure who will do it. Love to see the passenger numbers between CGK and AKL via intermediate points. I suspect a fair few travel SQ. That may be to do with Air NZ's reluctance.
Plane mad!
 
DavidJ08
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:18 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:51 pm

planemanofnz wrote:
Given that people visit the South Island overwhelmingly for tourism, and it's an in-bound market, the population distribution of New Zealand (or indeed CHC) should not matter that much? CHC has a similar population to, say, CBR, but is able to sustain a lot more airlines, because its in-bound focused market is not limited by its population size.

True, but the tourism market is heavily tilted towards Asia; not coincidentally the peak CHC services are from Asian carriers (SQ CX CI). QR would only really be trying for the European visitors (10-15% of the market), where it goes head to head with EK.

planemanofnz wrote:
I'm not really sure I understand your point here, but what I'll say is this - the reference to there only being a few daily narrow-bodies to SYD and MEL is relevant (suggesting not that much demand for on-ward connections beyond Australia), but QR could take Europe traffic away from the long-haul operators (EK, CI, CX, CZ, SQ and others).

You got it - not much demand for all those airlines routing into CHC via Aus, which includes CI and CX outside their peak services. So QR could only take from EK, SQ, and CZ; and I'm not quite sure there is enough demand to sustain all four of them year round - keeping in mind that CZ and SQ will have a fair amount of traffic from Asia (colleague who took the CZ flight found the pax overwhelmingly Asian - but that's anecdotal) so QR wouldn't be competing for all their traffic.

Seems like QR would be on the back foot - assuming any CHC service would operate as a tag on an Australian route, QR is disadvantaged compared to SQ and CZ being a two-stop service rather than a one-stop service, and is disadvantaged compared to EK because of EK's partnership with QF, which sees a variety of CHC traffic routed onto the EK A380 for the first/last leg (the SYD-CHC leg departs after the main bank of QF early morning international arrivals in SYD so can receive traffic from Europe, North America and Asia).
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5051
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Wed Feb 14, 2018 4:56 pm

NZ321 wrote:
Would a change of engine selection to CFM be on the cards given CFM efforts to ramp up production?

Don't forget that Air New Zealand Engineering and P&W have hitched their wagons together with the Christchurch Engine Centre. While a switch to CFM couldn't be ruled out if the PW1000 programme continues to turn to custard, I would have to think it is pretty unlikely at the moment.

V/F
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh
 
NZ6
Posts: 658
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Wed Feb 14, 2018 8:33 pm

DavidJ08 wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
QR definitely will not want New Zealand connections on its SYD flights - SYD was important enough as a destination in its own right for QR to add the CBR tag (which I assume loses money in its own right), just to get a second service to SYD. MEL is the same - it is already maxed out, at 1x daily A380 flight. With AKL, I also doubt that QR would want a) its passengers connecting through an LCC, or b) to support the QF Group with connections, unless totally necessary.

Why then are they going out of their way to have promo fares on routings they "definitely will not want"?


I think stating, "Going out of their way" is a huge exadjuration.

Airlines file "special" fares to all regions, even those beyond their own metal network all the time. I seriously fail to see how this is going 'out of their way' vs BAU. As an example, refer to this page; https://www.airnzagent.co.nz/fare-advice-asia click special fares, then onto the China deal. That's been on sale since 12 Feb, the last few days has been a priority of "Islands on sale" with media and digital advertising.

DPS expansion won't happen for a while, from NZ's end anyway, They're still focusing on balancing an expanding season and adding more capacity into the season. There will become a point where too much capacity in the market.

Have a think about what is severed year round, served almost daily or daily and has a large enough population based that is somewhat geographically spread (RAR v AIT) as an example
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4184
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:42 pm

AKL has released further details on the proposed second runway.

"The second runway is 833m longer and further to the north than the one originally approved, meaning the airport is this morning publicly notifying the plans and will go through a new round of consent hearings."

The second runway will be used for wide-body long-haul flights.

See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11994293.

Cheers,

C.
 
DavidJ08
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:18 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:31 pm

NZ6 wrote:
DavidJ08 wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
QR definitely will not want New Zealand connections on its SYD flights - SYD was important enough as a destination in its own right for QR to add the CBR tag (which I assume loses money in its own right), just to get a second service to SYD. MEL is the same - it is already maxed out, at 1x daily A380 flight. With AKL, I also doubt that QR would want a) its passengers connecting through an LCC, or b) to support the QF Group with connections, unless totally necessary.

Why then are they going out of their way to have promo fares on routings they "definitely will not want"?


I think stating, "Going out of their way" is a huge exadjuration.

And so was the statement I was responding to, that QR "definitely will not want NZ connections on its SYD flights" - in fact the rest of that post dismisses all the routing options ex-CHC as being "things QR don't want". My interpretation is that at the very least, QR is not bothered by them - since they are willing to let these routings exist and go on sale.

They may well not want this arrangement to continue indefinitely, but until QR comes out launching the speculated CHC tag, I think it's premature to be dealing in absolutes in terms of what they do and don't want.
 
georgiabill
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 11:53 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:51 pm

If NZ were to order additional 789'S would NZ consider opening routes from AKL-JNB,AKL-CPT,AKL-DEL,AKL-BOM or AKL-LIM. I doubt any of the routes I mentioned would operate anymore than 3x or 4x weekly frequencies if NZ were ever to operate them. Could the 787-10 serve NZ'S Asian routes without significant payload restrictions?
 
NZ6
Posts: 658
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:52 pm

planemanofnz wrote:
AKL has released further details on the proposed second runway.

"The second runway is 833m longer and further to the north than the one originally approved, meaning the airport is this morning publicly notifying the plans and will go through a new round of consent hearings."

The second runway will be used for wide-body long-haul flights.

See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11994293.

Cheers,

C.


Auckland Airport really can't make up their mind. Sadly like most infrastructure in New Zealand, they build the cheapest and most minimal amount possible only to find out months after completion, if not before completion that it's not going to meet demand. I mean has the international terminal almost been in a constant state of development over the past two decades? and will continue until 204 ish.

I can't believe the airports 'Master Plan' as little as 15 years ago underestimated what the second runway requirements! Given this second runway will likely be the only additional runway ever built on this airfield and this was the only opportunity to get that right.

Speechless

40M passengers in 25 years, gosh I really hope they don't wait until 2040 or 2050 (whenever it was) for a rail connection, I don't know if 'trams' will work either. They better be, darn good light rail.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4184
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Thu Feb 15, 2018 12:25 am

DavidJ08 wrote:
... And so was the statement I was responding to, that QR "definitely will not want NZ connections on its SYD flights"

I accept your point on semantics - perhaps "is unlikely to want many such connections" would be appropriate? Remember, within the ME3:

- EK recently referred to SYD as a "gold mine," and the strongest of its markets in Australia.
- EY recently re-allocated its MEL 388 to SYD (SYD now has two daily 388's - MEL, none).
- QR is putting up with a hugely expensive CBR tag, just to get a second daily SYD service.

QR is highly restricted in its ability to add SYD capacity - it is petitioning Australia strongly for more air rights. SYD is a hugely strong market.

I still believe that QR is unlikely to want that many CHC - SYD transfers, indefinitely. Indeed, it does not market such transfers on its website.

DavidJ08 wrote:
My interpretation is that at the very least, QR is not bothered by them - since they are willing to let these routings exist and go on sale.

Temporarily not bothered? Maybe. Indefinitely? Unlikely. NZ also had a sale ex-AKL to LHR on NZ2, but does not really want AKL - LHR traffic.

Now and again, there might be some spare capacity, and now and again, it cannot hurt to offer a couple of seats at a heavily discounted rate.

georgiabill wrote:
If NZ were to order additional 789'S would NZ consider opening routes from AKL-JNB,AKL-CPT,AKL-DEL,AKL-BOM or AKL-LIM.

- CPT, no - AFAIK, AKL - CPT is too far south, and too much over Antarctica, to be feasible - special, costly rules would apply to such flights.
- DEL, no - the India - New Zealand bilateral air services agreement restricts NZ to only flying to India through BOM - re-negotiation is needed.
- LIM, no - Cam Wallace from NZ told CAPA only a few months ago that the strategy is on expanding EZE operations in South America only.

BOM and JNB are possibilities, but both would be very far, very low-yielding, and unable to pick up lucrative connecting traffic from Australia.

NZ6 wrote:
Speechless.

:checkmark: +1. Is there more to this - for example, AKL wanting to delay paying for such infrastructure, by going through the regulatory process again?

Cheers,

C.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4159
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Thu Feb 15, 2018 3:05 am

NZ6 wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
AKL has released further details on the proposed second runway.

"The second runway is 833m longer and further to the north than the one originally approved, meaning the airport is this morning publicly notifying the plans and will go through a new round of consent hearings."

The second runway will be used for wide-body long-haul flights.

See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11994293.

Cheers,

C.


Auckland Airport really can't make up their mind. Sadly like most infrastructure in New Zealand, they build the cheapest and most minimal amount possible only to find out months after completion, if not before completion that it's not going to meet demand. I mean has the international terminal almost been in a constant state of development over the past two decades? and will continue until 204 ish.

I can't believe the airports 'Master Plan' as little as 15 years ago underestimated what the second runway requirements! Given this second runway will likely be the only additional runway ever built on this airfield and this was the only opportunity to get that right.

Speechless

40M passengers in 25 years, gosh I really hope they don't wait until 2040 or 2050 (whenever it was) for a rail connection, I don't know if 'trams' will work either. They better be, darn good light rail.

I think they have finally reached the point that myself and several others made a long time ago. That is that AKL will need 2 full length runways capable of full parallel operations at the same time. Also that since most international traffic is heading North and most domestic traffic is heading South that it makes sense to use the Northern runway for international where possible and the Southern for domestic to avoid ground congestion of aircraft as well as congested airspace.
59 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
NZ6
Posts: 658
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Thu Feb 15, 2018 4:00 am

Zkpilot wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
AKL has released further details on the proposed second runway.

"The second runway is 833m longer and further to the north than the one originally approved, meaning the airport is this morning publicly notifying the plans and will go through a new round of consent hearings."

The second runway will be used for wide-body long-haul flights.

See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11994293.

Cheers,

C.


Auckland Airport really can't make up their mind. Sadly like most infrastructure in New Zealand, they build the cheapest and most minimal amount possible only to find out months after completion, if not before completion that it's not going to meet demand. I mean has the international terminal almost been in a constant state of development over the past two decades? and will continue until 204 ish.

I can't believe the airports 'Master Plan' as little as 15 years ago underestimated what the second runway requirements! Given this second runway will likely be the only additional runway ever built on this airfield and this was the only opportunity to get that right.

Speechless

40M passengers in 25 years, gosh I really hope they don't wait until 2040 or 2050 (whenever it was) for a rail connection, I don't know if 'trams' will work either. They better be, darn good light rail.

I think they have finally reached the point that myself and several others made a long time ago. That is that AKL will need 2 full length runways capable of full parallel operations at the same time. Also that since most international traffic is heading North and most domestic traffic is heading South that it makes sense to use the Northern runway for international where possible and the Southern for domestic to avoid ground congestion of aircraft as well as congested airspace.


Yes and No,

They won't need dual full length runways for another 50-60years, what they need is an alternative when maintenance, emergencies come around. Remove all the domestic traffic on the main runway and there's a heap of capacity in her. Just build it where it needs to be with the ability to extend when required or do what they're doing hopefully, build it bigger than you need and use it as an alternative.

It's all still back to front, domestic terminal will run parallel with the longest runway, while international will migrate and grow towards the northern runway.

I'm not going to rule out a change that see's the new 'Pier C' become the domestic terminal, with regional services coming off that towards the east, while the new domestic terminal which it to be built by 2022 will become a short-haul pier once Pier C is up and running.

This will see Domestic Ops run from the northern end and international ops from the southern end, all be it with some international ops arriving / departing from the northern runway.

Of course they could use one for take off the other for landing, however it would make for some long taxi's in a Q300 to TRG, may as well drive to whole way lol
 
zkncj
Posts: 3020
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Thu Feb 15, 2018 4:17 am

georgiabill wrote:
If NZ were to order additional 789'S would NZ consider opening routes from AKL-JNB,AKL-CPT,AKL-DEL,AKL-BOM or AKL-LIM. I doubt any of the routes I mentioned would operate anymore than 3x or 4x weekly frequencies if NZ were ever to operate them. Could the 787-10 serve NZ'S Asian routes without significant payload restrictions?


New Zealand to South Africa will not happen, unless the New Zealand and South Africain government drop there current stance on access.l

Currently New Zealand passports require an visa to enter South Africa (to get that Visa one must travel to Wellington in person). South Africain passport holders wishing to travel to New Zealand must get an visa too. Then to through it into the works if your from SA (but have an New Zealand Passport) you must get an visa to travel back to SA.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4184
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Thu Feb 15, 2018 6:51 am

zkncj wrote:
georgiabill wrote:
If NZ were to order additional 789'S would NZ consider opening routes from AKL-JNB,AKL-CPT,AKL-DEL,AKL-BOM or AKL-LIM. I doubt any of the routes I mentioned would operate anymore than 3x or 4x weekly frequencies if NZ were ever to operate them. Could the 787-10 serve NZ'S Asian routes without significant payload restrictions?


New Zealand to South Africa will not happen, unless the New Zealand and South Africain government drop there current stance on access.

Fair point. Aside from PVG, does NZ fly to any other destination where New Zealanders need pre-arranged visas?

I know visas are required for some destinations, like SGN, but these can be obtained upon arrival, at the airports.

Cheers,

C.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3020
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Thu Feb 15, 2018 7:10 am

planemanofnz wrote:
New Zealand to South Africa will not happen, unless the New Zealand and South Africain government drop there current stance on access.

Fair point. Aside from PVG, does NZ fly to any other destination where New Zealanders need pre-arranged visas?

I know visas are required for some destinations, like SGN, but these can be obtained upon arrival, at the airports.

Cheers,

C.[/quote]

With an New Zealand passport - very little destinations require visas. There is the US/Canda's ESTA programme, but really thats an quick online process unlike an visa.

PVG (China mainland) would be the only current route that visas are require (although only if traveling to China for more than 72hr and not trasniting)
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5051
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Thu Feb 15, 2018 7:30 am

NZ6 wrote:
It's all still back to front, domestic terminal will run parallel with the longest runway, while international will migrate and grow towards the northern runway.

I'm not going to rule out a change that see's the new 'Pier C' become the domestic terminal, with regional services coming off that towards the east, while the new domestic terminal which it to be built by 2022 will become a short-haul pier once Pier C is up and running.

This will see Domestic Ops run from the northern end and international ops from the southern end, all be it with some international ops arriving / departing from the northern runway.

Of course they could use one for take off the other for landing, however it would make for some long taxi's in a Q300 to TRG, may as well drive to whole way lol

That's all well and good on the assumption that the southern runway is the longer, but there's an elephant in the room as described above:

Zkpilot wrote:
I think they have finally reached the point that myself and several others made a long time ago. That is that AKL will need 2 full length runways capable of full parallel operations at the same time. Also that since most international traffic is heading North and most domestic traffic is heading South that it makes sense to use the Northern runway for international where possible and the Southern for domestic to avoid ground congestion of aircraft as well as congested airspace.

The question is what percentage of international arrivals and departures could use the northern 3000m strip. Personally I think we really need to go with a full-length (3600m?) northern strip, and just be done with it, but perhaps the 3000m one will allow the bulk of international traffic to use it, with only some aircraft having to cross over to the south side.

V/F

P.S. it is great to see this thread venturing into territory other than a perpetual discussion of a thousand and one potential new routes!
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4184
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:00 am

zkncj wrote:
PVG (China mainland) would be the only current route that visas are require (although only if traveling to China for more than 72hr and not trasniting)

The visa-free transit scheme has been extended to 144 hours (6 days). I wish the visas would be relaxed - they cost ~200 NZD, which is a lot if your ticket is just ~500 NZD (e.g. GS to CKG).

See: https://www.shine.cn/archive/metro/Ever ... aily.shtml.

VirginFlyer wrote:
The question is what percentage of international arrivals and departures could use the northern 3000m strip. Personally I think we really need to go with a full-length (3600m?) northern strip, and just be done with it ...

Why? The second runway will be subject to a curfew, so traffic will be limited irregardless of its length. Doesn't AKL have sufficient short-haul services that can avail of the shorter runway length?

VirginFlyer wrote:
P.S. it is great to see this thread venturing into territory other than a perpetual discussion of a thousand and one potential new routes!

I disagree, and it's hardly "a thousand and one" potential new routes. This month's thread has already had far more comments, views and overall engagement than the previous few threads. :)

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4184
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:23 am

For anyone interested, here is a rendition of the new proposed runway at AKL, expected to be operational in 2028:

Image

See: https://corporate.aucklandairport.co.nz ... ond-runway.

Cheers,

C.
 
haggis73
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:42 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:25 am

VirginFlyer wrote:
The question is what percentage of international arrivals and departures could use the northern 3000m strip. Personally I think we really need to go with a full-length (3600m?) northern strip, and just be done with it, but perhaps the 3000m one will allow the bulk of international traffic to use it, with only some aircraft having to cross over to the south side.


From the discussions I've had with AIAL, all arrivals and everything departing, with the exception of EK449 currently will be able to use the Northern Runway.
 
Deepinsider
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:36 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:28 am

Very little info here or in the general media, about the 787/Trent situation.
The wet lease seems to be going OK, but I'm surprised for such a big
event there is no real info. Sad to see those planes parked there without
engines. Who's got their ear to the ground on this?
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4184
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:37 am

QR has just reported that its AKL service is "doing well" - AKL will get the new QSuites in 2019, and will eventually be served with the 777X-8 next decade.

Al Baker told the Herald he was ''pleasantly surprised'' by the Auckland route. ''We wouldn't be flying just for the sake of flying, we need to make money.''

QR has no plans to expand further within New Zealand - while he was happy with the performance of .. New Zealand .. there were no plans to expand.

See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11995103.

Cheers,

C.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1219
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:44 am

planemanofnz wrote:
I know visas are required for some destinations, like SGN, but these can be obtained upon arrival, at the airports.

My experience a couple of years ago at SGN was that you had to go through a pre-approval process well before departure and only then did you get your visa on arrival. Not sure if it’s changed since then.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 11643
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:46 am

NZ6 wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

Auckland Airport really can't make up their mind. Sadly like most infrastructure in New Zealand, they build the cheapest and most minimal amount possible only to find out months after completion, if not before completion that it's not going to meet demand. I mean has the international terminal almost been in a constant state of development over the past two decades? and will continue until 204 ish.

I can't believe the airports 'Master Plan' as little as 15 years ago underestimated what the second runway requirements! Given this second runway will likely be the only additional runway ever built on this airfield and this was the only opportunity to get that right.

Speechless

40M passengers in 25 years, gosh I really hope they don't wait until 2040 or 2050 (whenever it was) for a rail connection, I don't know if 'trams' will work either. They better be, darn good light rail.

I think they have finally reached the point that myself and several others made a long time ago. That is that AKL will need 2 full length runways capable of full parallel operations at the same time. Also that since most international traffic is heading North and most domestic traffic is heading South that it makes sense to use the Northern runway for international where possible and the Southern for domestic to avoid ground congestion of aircraft as well as congested airspace.


Yes and No,

They won't need dual full length runways for another 50-60years, what they need is an alternative when maintenance, emergencies come around. Remove all the domestic traffic on the main runway and there's a heap of capacity in her. Just build it where it needs to be with the ability to extend when required or do what they're doing hopefully, build it bigger than you need and use it as an alternative.

It's all still back to front, domestic terminal will run parallel with the longest runway, while international will migrate and grow towards the northern runway.

I'm not going to rule out a change that see's the new 'Pier C' become the domestic terminal, with regional services coming off that towards the east, while the new domestic terminal which it to be built by 2022 will become a short-haul pier once Pier C is up and running.

This will see Domestic Ops run from the northern end and international ops from the southern end, all be it with some international ops arriving / departing from the northern runway.

Of course they could use one for take off the other for landing, however it would make for some long taxi's in a Q300 to TRG, may as well drive to whole way lol


All that’s good and logical but AIAL management have shown for a long time that they aren’t logical thinkers, they’re a short term profit company, they don’t do long term thinking, that’s why AKL needs to be nationalised along with all the other airports in NZ, they should be govt owned.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1219
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:55 am

Kiwirob wrote:
All that’s good and logical but AIAL management have shown for a long time that they aren’t logical thinkers, they’re a short term profit company, they don’t do long term thinking, that’s why AKL needs to be nationalised along with all the other airports in NZ, they should be govt owned.

Hmmm. Not sure that public ownership guarantees logical thinking or long-term planning. I’d support such critical infrastructure being in public hands but not because of these reasons.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:32 am

Deepinsider wrote:
Very little info here or in the general media, about the 787/Trent situation.
The wet lease seems to be going OK, but I'm surprised for such a big
event there is no real info. Sad to see those planes parked there without
engines. Who's got their ear to the ground on this?

Perhaps that's because RR care services contracts include a confidentiality agreement. Interesting to see who in NZ is looking for a change of employment.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4159
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:48 am

VirginFlyer wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
It's all still back to front, domestic terminal will run parallel with the longest runway, while international will migrate and grow towards the northern runway.

I'm not going to rule out a change that see's the new 'Pier C' become the domestic terminal, with regional services coming off that towards the east, while the new domestic terminal which it to be built by 2022 will become a short-haul pier once Pier C is up and running.

This will see Domestic Ops run from the northern end and international ops from the southern end, all be it with some international ops arriving / departing from the northern runway.

Of course they could use one for take off the other for landing, however it would make for some long taxi's in a Q300 to TRG, may as well drive to whole way lol

That's all well and good on the assumption that the southern runway is the longer, but there's an elephant in the room as described above:

Zkpilot wrote:
I think they have finally reached the point that myself and several others made a long time ago. That is that AKL will need 2 full length runways capable of full parallel operations at the same time. Also that since most international traffic is heading North and most domestic traffic is heading South that it makes sense to use the Northern runway for international where possible and the Southern for domestic to avoid ground congestion of aircraft as well as congested airspace.

The question is what percentage of international arrivals and departures could use the northern 3000m strip. Personally I think we really need to go with a full-length (3600m?) northern strip, and just be done with it, but perhaps the 3000m one will allow the bulk of international traffic to use it, with only some aircraft having to cross over to the south side.

V/F

P.S. it is great to see this thread venturing into territory other than a perpetual discussion of a thousand and one potential new routes!

3000m is sufficient for all but the heaviest slow climbers. It is plenty to land on for all types.
If in future they decide to extend there is always the option of reclaiming into the Harbour like the existing runway to gain another 300m.
59 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
DavidJ08
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:18 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:01 am

planemanofnz wrote:
QR has just reported that its AKL service is "doing well" - AKL will get the new QSuites in 2019, and will eventually be served with the 777X-8 next decade.

Al Baker told the Herald he was ''pleasantly surprised'' by the Auckland route. ''We wouldn't be flying just for the sake of flying, we need to make money.''

QR has no plans to expand further within New Zealand - while he was happy with the performance of .. New Zealand .. there were no plans to expand.

Seems like they are content with the CHC-SYD-DOH, CHC-AKL-DOH, and CHC-PER-DOH arrangements after all. (For the few people that actually book in/out of CHC.)

Going back to that StatsNZ release, adding up CHC arrivals for visitors from UK, Germany and France (the three biggest ones - other European countries didn't have detailed data) gives a total of 66000ish annually, which averages 181 people per day, so definitely not going to sustain QR on top of EK/QF and SQ. (Theoretically CZ as well - but under "closest port of flight" Guangzhou doesn't even come up for the year-to-date figures - which means more European visitors come via NAN and PPT than CAN.)

Speculation time: looking at those European visitors, other than the UK providing a sizeable chunk of "visiting friends & relatives" visitors, the majority of European visitors are holidaymakers, with a lot of young people (under 35), and the vast majority stay more than 2 weeks. I would speculate that they are likely to be here to explore the whole country during their stay, so I'm not surprised that few fly directly to CHC despite the option being offered by EK/QF and SQ. (That and they'd be more price-sensitive and the amount of competition in AKL makes it favourable.)
 
DavidJ08
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:18 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:04 am

planemanofnz wrote:
The visa-free transit scheme has been extended to 144 hours (6 days). I wish the visas would be relaxed - they cost ~200 NZD, which is a lot if your ticket is just ~500 NZD (e.g. GS to CKG).

Would be nice (he says having forked out $140 for a single-entry tourist visa to China recently), but I can't see China letting foreigners (even former Chinese citizens) in without a visa any time soon.
 
NZ321
Posts: 929
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:07 am

NZ6 wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

They won't need dual full length runways for another 50-60years, what they need is an alternative when maintenance, emergencies come around. Remove all the domestic traffic on the main runway and there's a heap of capacity in her. Just build it where it needs to be with the ability to extend when required or do what they're doing hopefully, build it bigger than you need and use it as an alternative.

It's all still back to front, domestic terminal will run parallel with the longest runway, while international will migrate and grow towards the northern runway.

I'm not going to rule out a change that see's the new 'Pier C' become the domestic terminal, with regional services coming off that towards the east, while the new domestic terminal which it to be built by 2022 will become a short-haul pier once Pier C is up and running.

This will see Domestic Ops run from the northern end and international ops from the southern end, all be it with some international ops arriving / departing from the northern runway.

Of course they could use one for take off the other for landing, however it would make for some long taxi's in a Q300 to TRG, may as well drive to whole way lol


My thoughts too, NZ6. They have it back to front. If they changed the terminal configuration around then the long runway would be adjacent to the international ops and the domestic could move to the other side for the shorter runway. Now we seem to be getting a second long runway 50 years before it will be needed and who will pay for it? This is emerging along the make-it-up-as-you-go-along strategy we have come to know from Auckland Airport. However, perhaps one reason for placing the domestic runway to the south is that the vast proportion of domestic flights in and out of AKL are from the south? Could simply air-traffic control.

I am not speechless - this is all more of the same. Sad though, I agree. It's not rocket science after all.
Plane mad!
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 3336
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Thu Feb 15, 2018 2:24 pm

Regarding discussions about Mexico City & Latin America; I would have thought that PTY would make the most sense. Actual O&D is obviously very low, but PTY is a Star Alliance hub (thanks to Copa) and probably one of the best examples of a connecting hub in the world. I'm sure a 3x weekly flight timed to connect with COPA's main hub banks could do quite well.

Destinations it would open up:
- The top of South America BOG/MDE/CLO/UIO/GYE/CTG
- Eastern Caribbean CUR/AUA/PUJ/SJU/KIN/POS/SDQ
- Mexico, CostaRica, Honduras, Guatemala MEX/GDL/CUN/MTY/SJO/GUA/HAV
- Secondary destinations in South America MAO/REC/BSB

Getting to somewhere like Bogota is actually a real pain from New Zealand or Australia. LATAM's website quotes 29 hours. Expedia quotes 28 hours (via LAX).

planemanofnz wrote:
I wonder if Batik Air or Malindo Air would be interested in New Zealand. Batik Air has spoken to CAPA earlier this month about wanting to launch several more Australia-Bali routes in 2019, using its future fleet of A321neoLRs. This includes "smaller regional destinations."

The A321neoLRs will be able to fly up to 4,000 nm - AKL - DPS is 3,642 nm and CHC - DPS is 3,637 nm. Given the regional Australia interest of the airlines, could regional New Zealand also be in play too (WLG and ZQN - which would be extremely exciting for both)? :stirthepot:

Image


I cannot think of many things more ridiculously dangerous than letting an airline like LionAir (or their subsidiaries) fly into Queenstown. An airline that regularly screws up very simple approaches into Jakarta, Bali & Surabaya has no business flying anywhere near Queenstown.


NZ321 wrote:
ZKSUJ wrote:
So with the A320 engine issues, would this delay NZ's fleet replacement and expansion?

Would a change of engine selection to CFM be on the cards given CFM efforts to ramp up production? Or does NZ wait another 6-12 months through a further deferral of deliveries or take the plunge.


A key reason for the order of P&W engines was due to the Christchurch Engine Centre being the Oceania service centre for the GTF.

planemanofnz wrote:
AKL has released further details on the proposed second runway.

"The second runway is 833m longer and further to the north than the one originally approved, meaning the airport is this morning publicly notifying the plans and will go through a new round of consent hearings."

The second runway will be used for wide-body long-haul flights.



I don't see why they don't extend the runway towards the West into the harbour. That will reduce the noise footprint over the city, presumably making the approval process much less painful due to less local residents objecting.
Most recent aircraft flown: A318 F-GUGQ, A319 F-GRHR, A320ceo D-AIZH, A320neo D-AINE, A330-300 VH-QPD, A350-900 B-LRA, A380-800 D-AIMH, 717 VH-YQW, 737-600 LN-RPA, 737-700 OY-JTY, 737-800 LN-NGA, 767-300 ZK-NCI, 777-300 ZK-OKN, 787-9 VH-ZNA, CS100 HB-JBG
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 3336
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Thu Feb 15, 2018 3:02 pm

planemanofnz wrote:
For anyone interested, here is a rendition of the new proposed runway at AKL, expected to be operational in 2028:

I didn't think AIAL would be the kind of company to splash out on two parallel taxiways! :lol:
Most recent aircraft flown: A318 F-GUGQ, A319 F-GRHR, A320ceo D-AIZH, A320neo D-AINE, A330-300 VH-QPD, A350-900 B-LRA, A380-800 D-AIMH, 717 VH-YQW, 737-600 LN-RPA, 737-700 OY-JTY, 737-800 LN-NGA, 767-300 ZK-NCI, 777-300 ZK-OKN, 787-9 VH-ZNA, CS100 HB-JBG
 
NZ321
Posts: 929
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Thu Feb 15, 2018 3:44 pm

As to the aforementioned PTY possibility by ZK-OJQ, I agree that PTY makes the most sense in Central America along with LIM in South America. Better than MEX. Copa have a superb network and frequency that they have capitalised on and this would be a more logical point than MEX given alliance connections. Indeed, over and above EZE it could be argued that this would be a next logical destination for NZ south of North America. Open up the Caribbean and so on. However, considering yields and knowing NZ, I just can't see PTY on the agenda in the near future. Nor MEX. Would love to see it happen though.
Plane mad!
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5051
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Thu Feb 15, 2018 4:31 pm

zkojq wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
For anyone interested, here is a rendition of the new proposed runway at AKL, expected to be operational in 2028:

I didn't think AIAL would be the kind of company to splash out on two parallel taxiways! :lol:

Interesting observation, I hadn't looked at that detail. But wait there's more:

planemanofnz wrote:

Look carefully at the colour in that rendition; the northern of the parallel taxiways has the same colouration and centreline markings as the runway. I wonder if they are planning a relief runway on that taxiway akin to the current 05L/23R?

V/F
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh
 
User avatar
SelandiaBaru
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 2:39 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:25 pm

NZ321 wrote:
Agree about CGK. Gees Planeman either you are in a different timezone or burning the midnight oil :)! Just not sure I see this as on NZ's radar and with Garuda's woes and it needing a widebody not sure who will do it. Love to see the passenger numbers between CGK and AKL via intermediate points. I suspect a fair few travel SQ. That may be to do with Air NZ's reluctance.


Garuda was doing so well but made a few silly decisions that have placed them in their current predicament. I'm certain they'll sort it out but the 777-300ER, especially in the original configuration was not the best aircraft for them.

For many years I travelled between AKL and CGK anywhere up to 5 times a year. There were always a lot of us transferring in SIN from all cabins. SQ is huge in CGK, running around 10 SIN-CGK-SIN services a day. I have no doubt that there will be lots of transfers in SIN from the NZ flight onwards to CGK as well and I agree that the SQ presence in CGK would be a big factor in their reluctance to entertain serving CGK themselves despite the obvious cargo potential.
 
Gasman
Posts: 1935
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:28 pm

Deepinsider wrote:
Very little info here or in the general media, about the 787/Trent situation.
The wet lease seems to be going OK, but I'm surprised for such a big
event there is no real info. Sad to see those planes parked there without
engines. Who's got their ear to the ground on this?

I completely agree. I'm also surprised there is very little news and/or discussion about this.

It could be that there is nothing really to discuss - the situation is what it is, after all. But I know a few very disgruntled NZ frequent fliers. Both the hard and soft product of the A340s are well below par; people are having J class tickets downgraded (and still not being permitted to use Koru facilities), the lease period has been extended.......... this is a PR disaster for NZ. Whether or not they are haemorrhaging customers as a result only they will know; but they need to get those 789s back in the air yesterday.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4184
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:11 pm

Speaking of AKL, their profit is up 17%.

I laughed at this statement from AKL: "The first half of the 2018 financial year also saw the company maintain its strong focus on upgrading its airport infrastructure and providing the best possible customer experience during a time of significant change," chairman Henry van der Heyden said.

See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11995804.

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4184
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Fri Feb 16, 2018 12:15 am

CBR is pushing for New Zealand services, and is eyeing NZ to AKL and QF to WLG.

The numbers by themselves for Canberra-Wellington, ignoring the transit passengers going through to Singapore, demonstrates support for a four times a week Boeing 737 service

See: https://www.ausbt.com.au/canberra-eyes- ... ource=hero.

IMO, QF will not be interested in flying internationally ex-CBR, but NZ might be. :stirthepot:

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4184
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Fri Feb 16, 2018 12:20 am

The first ever flight from WTB to AKL will take place on 11 June - it will be a one-off flight, for a Toowoomba business development-related tour of New Zealand.

See: https://www.chinchillanews.com.au/news/ ... r/3336137/.

Does anyone know what plane will be used for this flight? I wonder if WTB representatives will be meeting with AKL or NZ, to talk about a permanent air service.

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4184
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Fri Feb 16, 2018 12:28 am

More families are speaking out in protest at NZ's upcoming Antarctica safety video, this time saying that NZ should sponsor an "Erebus National Memorial" before launching such a video.

NZ has supposedly refused to do so, until the government is on-board. I am interested to hear people's views on this - should NZ sponsor this memorial itself, and where should it be at?

See: http://www.times.co.nz/news/family-memb ... eo-pulled/.

It will be interesting to see what form any protests will take, upon the actual launch of the video next month. Could it end up back-firing for NZ? I do not see them dropping the video now.

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4184
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Fri Feb 16, 2018 12:45 am

zkojq wrote:
PTY is a Star Alliance hub (thanks to Copa) and probably one of the best examples of a connecting hub in the world.

NZ321 wrote:
Copa have a superb network ... this would be a more logical point than MEX given alliance connections.

NZ will not fly to PTY, simply because of a Star Alliance hub - look at its AR partnership at EZE, and its CX partnership at HKG.

IMHO, NZ could easily set up a partnership with AM out of MEX. Places like BOG are still closer to MEX, than they are to EZE.

SelandiaBaru wrote:
... lots of transfers in SIN from the NZ flight onwards to CGK ... the SQ presence in CGK would be a big factor in their reluctance to entertain serving CGK themselves.

I wonder if SQ made pre-conditions in their JV expansion that NZ was not to expand to key ASEAN cities, like CGK or MNL?

That being said, does NZ really care what SQ thinks, when SQ did the dirt on NZ by launching their own metal to WLG in '16?

Cheers,

C.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Fri Feb 16, 2018 1:15 am

planemanofnz wrote:
More families are speaking out in protest at NZ's upcoming Antarctica safety video, this time saying that NZ should sponsor an "Erebus National Memorial" before launching such a video.


Are a number of them not the same families re-visited? And this time using their position in indulge in a spot of blackmail - if the video can be shown after the memorial is built, why can't it be shown before? It's the same video.

I would have thought they'd get much more support if the general public is onside because of the Air NZ video, but - I haven't seen that video yet, so I've on idea what I think of it. The promo looks good, suitably serious - an elegant piece of tightrope walking.

mariner
Last edited by mariner on Fri Feb 16, 2018 1:40 am, edited 2 times in total.
aeternum nauta
 
User avatar
SelandiaBaru
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 2:39 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Fri Feb 16, 2018 1:18 am

planemanofnz wrote:
I wonder if SQ made pre-conditions in their JV expansion that NZ was not to expand to key ASEAN cities, like CGK or MNL?


You would have to think so given the SQ reliance of connecting that traffic through SIN.

planemanofnz wrote:
That being said, does NZ really care what SQ thinks, when SQ did the dirt on NZ by launching their own metal to WLG in '16?


I think CGK and MNL would be different propositions. NZ has no interest in serving WLG-CBR but would have certainly looking with interest at the SQ attempt. But to attempt CGK and MNL certainly puts the existing alliance in jeopardy as there wouldn't be the traffic to ensure the SIN flow on the SQ and NZ flights splitting out MNL and CGK terminating traffic. At least not at the outset.
 
NZ6
Posts: 658
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Fri Feb 16, 2018 1:56 am

zkojq wrote:
Regarding discussions about Mexico City & Latin America; I would have thought that PTY would make the most sense. Actual O&D is obviously very low, but PTY is a Star Alliance hub (thanks to Copa) and probably one of the best examples of a connecting hub in the world. I'm sure a 3x weekly flight timed to connect with COPA's main hub banks could do quite well.

Destinations it would open up:
- The top of South America BOG/MDE/CLO/UIO/GYE/CTG
- Eastern Caribbean CUR/AUA/PUJ/SJU/KIN/POS/SDQ
- Mexico, CostaRica, Honduras, Guatemala MEX/GDL/CUN/MTY/SJO/GUA/HAV
- Secondary destinations in South America MAO/REC/BSB

Getting to somewhere like Bogota is actually a real pain from New Zealand or Australia. LATAM's website quotes 29 hours. Expedia quotes 28 hours (via LAX).



Specifically

zkojq wrote:
Regarding discussions about Mexico City & Latin America; I would have thought that PTY would make the most sense. Actual O&D is obviously very low, but PTY is a Star Alliance hub (thanks to Copa) and probably one of the best examples of a connecting hub in the world.


Star Alliance supports customer loyalty through shared lounges, status recognition and supports routes via incremental passenger numbers. NZ or any other airline for that matter won't operate a route on the basis of having a high load factor filled with interline passengers.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1219
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:00 am

DavidByrne wrote:
Can someone point me to the report in which NZ indicates the possibility of adding 777 capacity? It’s been referred to here but I’d be interested in seeing exactly what was said. Thanks!

No takers? Was it just another of those A-net rumours that becomes “fact” by virtue of constant repetition, but actually has no substance?
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
User avatar
LamboAston
Posts: 597
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:46 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Fri Feb 16, 2018 4:09 am

PA515 wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
The A321neoLRs will be able to fly up to 4,000 nm - AKL - DPS is 3,642 nm and CHC - DPS is 3,637 nm. Given the regional Australia interest of the airlines, could regional New Zealand also be in play too (WLG and ZQN - which would be extremely exciting for both)?


It's been discussed previously that Air NZ will not be using the A321NEO into ZQN as the runway length restricts takeoff weight. Can't see anyone else doing it. I believe the same applies to WLG.

PA515

I heard precisely the opposite about WLG - I heard that all of them will be based there. We'll just have to wait and see
AS350, B733/4/7/8, B744/8, B762/3, B77E/L/W, B789, A319, A320, A321, A332, A346, A380, AT73/5/6, Q300, Q400, CR2/7, E190, S340, B1900C/D, E110 (E for epic)
NZ, EK, QF, SQ, UA, US, CO, FZ, FR, U2, BA, VA, VS, MH, EI, EY, LH, EN, NM, TG, GZ
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 9990
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Sat Feb 17, 2018 2:00 pm

Gasman wrote:
Deepinsider wrote:
Very little info here or in the general media, about the 787/Trent situation.
The wet lease seems to be going OK, but I'm surprised for such a big
event there is no real info. Sad to see those planes parked there without
engines. Who's got their ear to the ground on this?

I completely agree. I'm also surprised there is very little news and/or discussion about this.

It could be that there is nothing really to discuss - the situation is what it is, after all. But I know a few very disgruntled NZ frequent fliers. Both the hard and soft product of the A340s are well below par; people are having J class tickets downgraded (and still not being permitted to use Koru facilities), the lease period has been extended.......... this is a PR disaster for NZ. Whether or not they are haemorrhaging customers as a result only they will know; but they need to get those 789s back in the air yesterday.

I know a RR employee personally and he has stated RR has banned all talk (even in the office) on any of the B787 engine issues world wide. Only certain staff are allowed to know about it.

Any idea on how long the A340's will be operating for NZ for?
Head Forum Moderator
moderators@airliners.net
Flown: 1900D,S340,Q300,AT72-5/6,DC3,CR2/7,E145,E70/75/90,A319/20/21,A332/3,A359,A380,F100,B717,B733/4/8/9,B742/4,B752/3,B763,B772/3, B789
With: NZ,SJ,QF,JQ,EK,VA,AA,UA,DL,FL,AC,FJ,SQ,TG,PR
 
NZ321
Posts: 929
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Sat Feb 17, 2018 2:37 pm

RR have to limit speculation and get a fix in place. Put a stop to rumour mill. Control the info flow. I'm not sure I've seen an official statement re the fix. But I've probably missed it
Plane mad!
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6304
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:00 pm

777ER wrote:
Gasman wrote:
Deepinsider wrote:
Very little info here or in the general media, about the 787/Trent situation.
The wet lease seems to be going OK, but I'm surprised for such a big
event there is no real info. Sad to see those planes parked there without
engines. Who's got their ear to the ground on this?

I completely agree. I'm also surprised there is very little news and/or discussion about this.

It could be that there is nothing really to discuss - the situation is what it is, after all. But I know a few very disgruntled NZ frequent fliers. Both the hard and soft product of the A340s are well below par; people are having J class tickets downgraded (and still not being permitted to use Koru facilities), the lease period has been extended.......... this is a PR disaster for NZ. Whether or not they are haemorrhaging customers as a result only they will know; but they need to get those 789s back in the air yesterday.

I know a RR employee personally and he has stated RR has banned all talk (even in the office) on any of the B787 engine issues world wide. Only certain staff are allowed to know about it.

Any idea on how long the A340's will be operating for NZ for?



Currently end of March, it has been pushed out already a couple of times, was initially end JAN.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4159
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Sun Feb 18, 2018 2:01 am

777ER wrote:
Gasman wrote:
Deepinsider wrote:
Very little info here or in the general media, about the 787/Trent situation.
The wet lease seems to be going OK, but I'm surprised for such a big
event there is no real info. Sad to see those planes parked there without
engines. Who's got their ear to the ground on this?

I completely agree. I'm also surprised there is very little news and/or discussion about this.

It could be that there is nothing really to discuss - the situation is what it is, after all. But I know a few very disgruntled NZ frequent fliers. Both the hard and soft product of the A340s are well below par; people are having J class tickets downgraded (and still not being permitted to use Koru facilities), the lease period has been extended.......... this is a PR disaster for NZ. Whether or not they are haemorrhaging customers as a result only they will know; but they need to get those 789s back in the air yesterday.

I know a RR employee personally and he has stated RR has banned all talk (even in the office) on any of the B787 engine issues world wide. Only certain staff are allowed to know about it.

Any idea on how long the A340's will be operating for NZ for?

RR apparently offered NZ some refurbished engines but they weren’t up to NZs standards so were declined and brand new engines demanded instead. Would have still left NZE parked up as the damage caused to it will take some time to be repaired.
59 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4184
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018

Sun Feb 18, 2018 8:23 am

777ER wrote:
I know a RR employee personally and he has stated RR has banned all talk (even in the office) on any of the B787 engine issues world wide. Only certain staff are allowed to know about it.

I would be very interested to read the confidentiality agreement that is in place - sure, NZ may not be able to speak about direct issues with RR, such as compensation figures, but I doubt RR would be able to limit talk about matters that are indirect to the engine issues, such as NZ's disclosure to customers and shareholders of its fleet and product plans, pending resolution of any dispute with RR. For example, will there be a dry or wet-lease, and how long for?

Cheers,

C.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 12

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos