• 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 11
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 11650
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:34 am

DavidByrne wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
That's a really cheap shot at the consultants - there's no proof or even suggestion that they have deliberately skewed the outcome. Unworthy.


Consultants killed Auckland's trolley bus network in favour of increased spending on motorways, look at the result!! In the 60's and 70's motorway construction was seen as the answer to Auckland transport problems, all because of consultants making some pretty appaling errors, just like trams terminating at AKL, it's going to be a huge waste of rate and taxpayer money. Finish the heavy rail network then fill in the gaps with trams or rapid busways.

So if consultants are out, how exactly should we make decisions on things like an Airport rail link? Perhaps a ouja board?


Consultants don't always get it right. Wever started going down one track, we should finish it before changing to another, that just makes sense imo.
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2512
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:41 am

DavidByrne wrote:
aerokiwi wrote:
My understanding was that government had only agreed to fund "Stage 1" - the Dominion Road component, leaving "Stage 2" (the airport) to a later date. If so, then a classic government manoeuvre to kick the can, while satisfyng the inner-city types who have some gilded view of trams.

True that it is being done in two stages, but Stage 2 will also be light rail. You can't read anything into government not funding Stage 2 at this point, because no government can commit funds that far ahead. Light rail to the airport will be in the next revision (this year) of the Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP), the triennial rolling "road map" (no pun intended!) for the next ten years. Also, engineering decisions taken re the Kirkbride Road overpass over SH20A have now compromised the ability to provide heavy rail from Onehunga.

aerokiwi wrote:
I completely agree with Councillor Lee on this one. I live with trams every day here in Melbourne. Great for short hops - atrocious for longer ones. They're inflexible (unlike buses), very very expensive to introduce and maintain, slow, have far lower seating capacity than you'd think and require full grade separation from road traffic to be even remotely effective (in which case, just re-do the Northern Busway in the south).



But that's exactly it - it doesn't need to be two stage process. Make it one project, with one objective. But... public transport for commuters + reduce buses clogging up roads in CBD + service airport pax + increase PT to Mangere etc etc... that many objectives is a sure-fire way of massive project failure (insert: cost overruns,time delays, finger pointing, blame games etc). Essentially this government is like all others when it comes to Auckland. I realise (by your GA posts) that you support Labour's policy, but a critical eye would see the airport plan as a balls-up in the making.

Need an example? Look at what's happening with Sydney's light rail construction - billion dollar overruns and a year's delay with massive disruption and court battles. Compared to Melbourne's "Skyrail" project, which has a pretty depressing cost-benefit ratio, and it's sailed through (minus some justified concern from residents). Why? I'd argue because the Skyrail project had two, complimentary objevtives (increase rail capacity adn remove level crossings). Sydney's light rail has been to rejuvenate this, increase that, integrate them.

What Sydney has done well is its rail access to the airport - I use it a lot and demonstrates that, in appropriately sized equipment with dedicated carriageways (trains!), PT can mix commuters with airport passengers, who have very specific needs. Yes it gets critcised for the airport station access fee but with it integrated into a much larger rail network, it really is quite impressive and serves airline passengers and workers very well.

And on infrastructure, I liked the story recently about Steven Joyce's reaction to the Waterview motorway build - add another lane and cut costs by a billion. And they did. His "professional" analysis was zero. But a gut feel that he pushed through by sheer dint of character. I think we need that for AKL's terminal development and supporting transport infrastructure more than ever. And I absolutely disagree that "good enough is good enough" - it's like NZ's mantra of "She'll be right" that gets us into half-baked messes in the first place.
Last edited by aerokiwi on Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:49 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2512
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:44 am

On the VA/NZ divorce - surely now it's plain to see that the entire partnership was grossly uncompettiive and it made a mockery of the Commerce Commission's approval of it and the QF/EK one.

The reaction has been new services, increased frequencies, more seats. Also known as... competition. Meaning we were being shortchanged with their cosy little marriages.

As a shareholder in both carriers, probably not so great. As a consumer, I say bring it on.
Last edited by aerokiwi on Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 789
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:44 am

Zkpilot wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
Kashmon wrote:
AT might not realize this but other cities have had far more complications and built heavy rail where needed...

this is the same AT that hires staff to open their train doors, when the rest of the world has automatic door opening....
hard to take them seriously when doing things the most INEFFICIENT WAY possible is their goal.

I guess the point at issue is who decides that HR is "needed" - and who would fund the expensive and extremely low B/C Airport HR option? Not a lot of enthusiasm for spending money anywhere.

And I guess you're also not up to speed with the fact that there has been industrial disruption over AT's plans to have driver-only trains. If that's your best shot against AT, then I think they're doing pretty well.

Lots of preconceived ideas and not a lot of critical thinking in this debate . . .

I think you have perhaps been drinking a bit too much of the AT and GA blog koolaid. Don't get me wrong GA have some wonderful ideas and I'm glad to see both AC/AT and the government have selected many of them but they do have a fixation on Light Rail and aren't interested in anyone questioning the reliability of the AT consultants report that has led to this LR decision.
    As others have mentioned LR will be slower (the expected speed is unlikely).
    LR will have less seated capacity (which is preferable for longer journeys - LR is primarily designed for shorter journeys). Less seats also means less space for passengers to store their luggage in a comfortable way.
    It appears that the costs for LR have been underestimated (compared to recent LR projects in Australia etc) while the costs of HR have been inflated to make it uncompetitive.
    Improvements in HR speed (actually running the EMU's at proper speed with network improvements ETCS, reduced dwell times etc, and express services taking advantage of the 3rd/4th main) have not been taken into account either.


What Greater Auckland kool-aid? They've stated before their preference is for the extra investment in the Heavy Rail option. But they also won't let perfect be the enemy of good enough. So more importantly just want one of them built. Light Rail is good enough if it means it gets built faster.

But the main issue is not Light Rail OR Heavy Rail. It's that currently there is NEITHER. One of them needs to be built, and the Light Rail is the frontrunner selection. So just build the thing already.

Good enough is good enough.
 
Kashmon
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 8:08 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:49 am

DavidByrne wrote:
Kashmon wrote:
HR is inefficient?
really?


Hilarious! No, it was you that used the word inefficient!

Time to retire from this discussion - zero serious analysis and too much trash-talk. No fun.


yes because you can't handle that your 10km/hr trams are inefficient
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4185
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:55 am

aerokiwi wrote:
On the VA/NZ divorce - surely now it's plain to see that the entire partnership was grossly uncompettiive and it made a mockery of the Commerce Commission's approval of it and the QF/EK one.

The reaction has been new services, increased frequencies, more seats. Also known as... competition. Meaning we were being shortchanged with their cosy little marriages.

There's an argument as to sustainability of those increases, and whether unsustainability may force one carrier out altogether (i.e. VA), which would be worse for consumers in the long-term. However, I broadly agree with you - time and time again the NZCC has proven to have made questionable approvals - look at HKG, where the entire premise of the CX - NZ JV being approved was on the basis that the route was so marginal that a third carrier would never come on-board, and that for the two existing carriers to continue and grow, co-operation was needed. Then, when HX came onto the scene, the NZCC demanded the CHC service to make it appear as though the JV was continuing to have benefits for consumers. Had the JV not been approved, I highly doubt that NZ would've dropped HKG, or that CX would've seriously dropped its capacity to AKL.

It would've been great to see the NZCC set a higher threshold for JV approvals, like:

- Requiring North American services from CHC on NZ or UA, even if just seasonally, in exchange for the NZ - UA JV (I guess we got IAH and ORD, which is good)

- Requiring QF to serve a secondary destination trans-tasman (like HLZ, CBR, PMR or HBA), in exchange for the QF - EK JV, in line with VA having to serve DUD

Cheers,

C.
 
getluv
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:11 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:44 am

planemanofnz wrote:
aerokiwi wrote:
On the VA/NZ divorce - surely now it's plain to see that the entire partnership was grossly uncompettiive and it made a mockery of the Commerce Commission's approval of it and the QF/EK one.

The reaction has been new services, increased frequencies, more seats. Also known as... competition. Meaning we were being shortchanged with their cosy little marriages.

There's an argument as to sustainability of those increases, and whether unsustainability may force one carrier out altogether (i.e. VA), which would be worse for consumers in the long-term. However, I broadly agree with you - time and time again the NZCC has proven to have made questionable approvals - look at HKG, where the entire premise of the CX - NZ JV being approved was on the basis that the route was so marginal that a third carrier would never come on-board, and that for the two existing carriers to continue and grow, co-operation was needed. Then, when HX came onto the scene, the NZCC demanded the CHC service to make it appear as though the JV was continuing to have benefits for consumers. Had the JV not been approved, I highly doubt that NZ would've dropped HKG, or that CX would've seriously dropped its capacity to AKL.

It would've been great to see the NZCC set a higher threshold for JV approvals, like:

- Requiring North American services from CHC on NZ or UA, even if just seasonally, in exchange for the NZ - UA JV (I guess we got IAH and ORD, which is good)

- Requiring QF to serve a secondary destination trans-tasman (like HLZ, CBR, PMR or HBA), in exchange for the QF - EK JV, in line with VA having to serve DUD

Cheers,

C.


Competition authorities can't and won't force airlines to start new routes unless the airlines indicate they will start said routes in their application. The market should dictate whether an airline should commence new routes not the government. If routes from SYD-HLZ or HBA-AKL were worthwhile, other airlines would have started them by now.
You meant lose, not loose.
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2512
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:23 am

getluv wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
aerokiwi wrote:
On the VA/NZ divorce - surely now it's plain to see that the entire partnership was grossly uncompettiive and it made a mockery of the Commerce Commission's approval of it and the QF/EK one.

The reaction has been new services, increased frequencies, more seats. Also known as... competition. Meaning we were being shortchanged with their cosy little marriages.

There's an argument as to sustainability of those increases, and whether unsustainability may force one carrier out altogether (i.e. VA), which would be worse for consumers in the long-term. However, I broadly agree with you - time and time again the NZCC has proven to have made questionable approvals - look at HKG, where the entire premise of the CX - NZ JV being approved was on the basis that the route was so marginal that a third carrier would never come on-board, and that for the two existing carriers to continue and grow, co-operation was needed. Then, when HX came onto the scene, the NZCC demanded the CHC service to make it appear as though the JV was continuing to have benefits for consumers. Had the JV not been approved, I highly doubt that NZ would've dropped HKG, or that CX would've seriously dropped its capacity to AKL.

It would've been great to see the NZCC set a higher threshold for JV approvals, like:

- Requiring North American services from CHC on NZ or UA, even if just seasonally, in exchange for the NZ - UA JV (I guess we got IAH and ORD, which is good)

- Requiring QF to serve a secondary destination trans-tasman (like HLZ, CBR, PMR or HBA), in exchange for the QF - EK JV, in line with VA having to serve DUD

Cheers,

C.


Competition authorities can't and won't force airlines to start new routes unless the airlines indicate they will start said routes in their application. The market should dictate whether an airline should commence new routes not the government. If routes from SYD-HLZ or HBA-AKL were worthwhile, other airlines would have started them by now.


Except those carriers are trying to distort the market by colluding, with permission of course. In which case, make them swallow dead rats. And all evidence points to capacity being artificially restricted as a result of the NZ/VA collusion. Sorry... "alliance".

It was always farcical to base service levels and coverage on existing pax numbers. Forecast out growth over 5 years and require growth to meet that demand at existing load factors. Or something similar. That'll spook em!

If it requires a law change to give them power to inflict dead rats, so be it.
 
getluv
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:11 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:45 am

aerokiwi wrote:
getluv wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
There's an argument as to sustainability of those increases, and whether unsustainability may force one carrier out altogether (i.e. VA), which would be worse for consumers in the long-term. However, I broadly agree with you - time and time again the NZCC has proven to have made questionable approvals - look at HKG, where the entire premise of the CX - NZ JV being approved was on the basis that the route was so marginal that a third carrier would never come on-board, and that for the two existing carriers to continue and grow, co-operation was needed. Then, when HX came onto the scene, the NZCC demanded the CHC service to make it appear as though the JV was continuing to have benefits for consumers. Had the JV not been approved, I highly doubt that NZ would've dropped HKG, or that CX would've seriously dropped its capacity to AKL.

It would've been great to see the NZCC set a higher threshold for JV approvals, like:

- Requiring North American services from CHC on NZ or UA, even if just seasonally, in exchange for the NZ - UA JV (I guess we got IAH and ORD, which is good)

- Requiring QF to serve a secondary destination trans-tasman (like HLZ, CBR, PMR or HBA), in exchange for the QF - EK JV, in line with VA having to serve DUD

Cheers,

C.


Competition authorities can't and won't force airlines to start new routes unless the airlines indicate they will start said routes in their application. The market should dictate whether an airline should commence new routes not the government. If routes from SYD-HLZ or HBA-AKL were worthwhile, other airlines would have started them by now.


Except those carriers are trying to distort the market by colluding, with permission of course. In which case, make them swallow dead rats. And all evidence points to capacity being artificially restricted as a result of the NZ/VA collusion. Sorry... "alliance".

It was always farcical to base service levels and coverage on existing pax numbers. Forecast out growth over 5 years and require growth to meet that demand at existing load factors. Or something similar. That'll spook em!

If it requires a law change to give them power to inflict dead rats, so be it.


Considering any airline is permitted to operate TT, I'm inclined to disagree with you. Markets will always keep the airlines in check.

Competition authorities do their own analysis on future demand when approving partnerships.
You meant lose, not loose.
 
NZ321
Posts: 932
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:59 am

Actually folks - while we all may love HR, LR comes in many forms and in some forms if in the same gauge LR can use hard rail tracks flexibly like in Melbourne. This can speed up some LR services. I haven't seen any confirmed spec for Auckland LR yet so I am waiting to see whether we are destined to have street trams that are completely confined to the street or able to operate on stretches of hard rail tracks. Wait an see I guess.
Plane mad!
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4185
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:11 am

getluv wrote:
Considering any airline is permitted to operate TT ...

Yes and no - there are still Australian traffic rights for third-country carriers to consider. For example, AFAIK, UAE carriers only have rights for 28x weekly frequencies ex-Australia to New Zealand. That's not an issue now, but it arguably has been for the past ~15 years.

getluv wrote:
Markets will always keep the airlines in check.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the case that the NZ - VA JV approval was dependent on maintaining international flights at DUD? Now that the JV is over, and VA is keeping DUD, doesn't that show that regulation can help develop the market to a sustainable point?

getluv wrote:
Competition authorities can't and won't force airlines to start new routes unless the airlines indicate they will start said routes in their application.

The NZCC can indicate to the airlines, and indeed the general public, what it would like to see, encouraging the inclusion of such routes in such applications. As has already been stated, a law change can be made to facilitate direct power, in limited circumstances, if need be.

Cheers,

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

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:55 am

http://australianaviation.com.au/2018/0 ... -concerns/

It's official, "Package C" RR Trent 1000 engines have now been downgraded to ETOPS 140, because in the event of an engine failure, operating the remaining engine at max continuous thrust (to perform the diversion) increases the chance of a failure of the remaining engine.
 
getluv
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:11 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:23 pm

planemanofnz wrote:
getluv wrote:
Considering any airline is permitted to operate TT ...

Yes and no - there are still Australian traffic rights for third-country carriers to consider. For example, AFAIK, UAE carriers only have rights for 28x weekly frequencies ex-Australia to New Zealand. That's not an issue now, but it arguably has been for the past ~15 years.

EK and EY are not the only airlines in the world. Many others competitors have given and are still giving it a shot.

planemanofnz wrote:
getluv wrote:
Markets will always keep the airlines in check.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the case that the NZ - VA JV approval was dependent on maintaining international flights at DUD? Now that the JV is over, and VA is keeping DUD, doesn't that show that regulation can help develop the market to a sustainable point?


It'll be interesting to see VA keep BNE-DUD after next summer. I'm not sure how many flights VA ran in January, but I don't think the LF was over 70% and that was with NZ feed.

planemanofnz wrote:
getluv wrote:
Competition authorities can't and won't force airlines to start new routes unless the airlines indicate they will start said routes in their application.

The NZCC can indicate to the airlines, and indeed the general public, what it would like to see, encouraging the inclusion of such routes in such applications. As has already been stated, a law change can be made to facilitate direct power, in limited circumstances, if need be.


It can but it doesn't. Changing the law is overkill. NZ is a free market.

ACCC have stopped imposing minimum seat requirements possibly because it deters competitors from starting on those routes.
You meant lose, not loose.
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 3336
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:25 pm

Regarding the Light Rail debate, how many stops would there be on the way from central Auckland (Britomart, presumably?) to the airport? Because that's far more of a time constraint than the actual speed that it operates at. I was on a tram to the airport at Bergen last year and whilst the speed itself was good, there was 18 stops between my hotel and the airport. Took forever.. :hissyfit:

aerohottie wrote:
Posted this in the Australian thread but figured it is just as relevant here

aerohottie wrote:
IMHO Air NZ's announced trans-tasman flight changes aren't nearly enough additional capacity, and I think NZ have much more to come.
Under the JV both NZ and VA stated or implied that VA contributed 30% of the capacity, but only 20% of the revenue. Air NZ's additional capacity amounts to about a 15% increase in seat numbers... shouldn't this be more like a 20-30% increase in an attempt to put capacity pressure on VA and QF?


Is there more to come from NZ, VA and QF in the coming months?


Like I said upthread, I suspect that Air New Zealand will hold onto some International A320s that were previously earmarked to leave the fleet once NEOs arrived. That will allow extra Trans Tasman frequencies/destinations and probably some additional domestic capacity also.

DavidJ08 wrote:
http://australianaviation.com.au/2018/04/faa-curtails-trent-powered-787-etops-flights-over-blade-failure-concerns/

It's official, "Package C" RR Trent 1000 engines have now been downgraded to ETOPS 140, because in the event of an engine failure, operating the remaining engine at max continuous thrust (to perform the diversion) increases the chance of a failure of the remaining engine.

So, once they've shuffled some engines around between aircraft, how many 787s will this apply to?
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
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 11650
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:31 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
That's a really cheap shot at the consultants - there's no proof or even suggestion that they have deliberately skewed the outcome. Unworthy.


Consultants killed Auckland's trolley bus network in favour of increased spending on motorways, look at the result!! In the 60's and 70's motorway construction was seen as the answer to Auckland transport problems, all because of consultants making some pretty appaling errors, just like trams terminating at AKL, it's going to be a huge waste of rate and taxpayer money. Finish the heavy rail network then fill in the gaps with trams or rapid busways.

So if consultants are out, how exactly should we make decisions on things like an Airport rail link? Perhaps a ouja board?


Going back to the report, p.83 of the report shows the catchment for the heavy rail option. It clearly does miss out stations on the Western line, as well as the yet-to-be-built K Rd and Parnell stations. That's a lot of people, add them back in and the case looks stronger for heavy rail.
 
Deepinsider
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:36 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:54 pm

Deepinsider wrote:
LR, HR. In many cities they work together, sharing some lines, connections. Critical to
that is using the same gauge.
Politically it seems we will go down the LR road. Without debating that, I do see it as
therefore vital, that LR uses the same gauge as NZ Rail. Onehunga, Otahuhu, Puinui,
etc. all have potential for joint use. Remember, this infrastructure is going to be around
for 50+ years, long after most of us are gone. The LR lobby must acknowledge that their
new system needs to match local rail lines, dual power, etc.


Not sure where, but there must be some Auckland Transport threads.
LR, HR, consultants vs. politicians ..... etc.
Should we move that stuff there, and here carry on with planes, airlines, JV's etc?
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:04 pm

planemanofnz wrote:
The NZCC can indicate to the airlines, and indeed the general public, what it would like to see, encouraging the inclusion of such routes in such applications. As has already been stated, a law change can be made to facilitate direct power, in limited circumstances, if need be.


That's not the Commissioner's job. There are quite enough laws governing the airline industry already, and if Mr. Jones is to be believed, more are on the way.

Whatever happened to the "free market" - or was it only ever a fantasy?

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4159
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:50 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
Probably because consultants (especially when it comes to government/council work) have a habit of skewing results to suit whoever has tapped them on the shoulder and/or flip flopping to allow them to keep on consulting....planning to plan etc.

That's a really cheap shot at the consultants - there's no proof or even suggestion that they have deliberately skewed the outcome. Unworthy.

Every year AC/AT spend more and more on consultants to the point where consultants are a significant part of their annual budget.
A lot of this used to be done in house by people who had good working relationships with each other and knew how to get things done. These days a consultant will be paid 3x the amount to do the same job and even then often don't get the job done completely so another consultant is needed. It's a bit of a gravy train. Sounds like it may have hit a bit close to home for you. :scratchchin:
59 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4159
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:21 pm

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
I guess the point at issue is who decides that HR is "needed" - and who would fund the expensive and extremely low B/C Airport HR option? Not a lot of enthusiasm for spending money anywhere.

And I guess you're also not up to speed with the fact that there has been industrial disruption over AT's plans to have driver-only trains. If that's your best shot against AT, then I think they're doing pretty well.

Lots of preconceived ideas and not a lot of critical thinking in this debate . . .

I think you have perhaps been drinking a bit too much of the AT and GA blog koolaid. Don't get me wrong GA have some wonderful ideas and I'm glad to see both AC/AT and the government have selected many of them but they do have a fixation on Light Rail and aren't interested in anyone questioning the reliability of the AT consultants report that has led to this LR decision.
    As others have mentioned LR will be slower (the expected speed is unlikely).
    LR will have less seated capacity (which is preferable for longer journeys - LR is primarily designed for shorter journeys). Less seats also means less space for passengers to store their luggage in a comfortable way.
    It appears that the costs for LR have been underestimated (compared to recent LR projects in Australia etc) while the costs of HR have been inflated to make it uncompetitive.
    Improvements in HR speed (actually running the EMU's at proper speed with network improvements ETCS, reduced dwell times etc, and express services taking advantage of the 3rd/4th main) have not been taken into account either.


What Greater Auckland kool-aid? They've stated before their preference is for the extra investment in the Heavy Rail option. But they also won't let perfect be the enemy of good enough. So more importantly just want one of them built. Light Rail is good enough if it means it gets built faster.

But the main issue is not Light Rail OR Heavy Rail. It's that currently there is NEITHER. One of them needs to be built, and the Light Rail is the frontrunner selection. So just build the thing already.

Good enough is good enough.

They have given up on HR effectively. Once the CRL is completed and the 3rd/4th main built that is it so far as GA are concerned for HR in Auckland. They are promoting Regional Rapid Rail (which connects Hamilton and Tauranga and should be great to help access the airport by transferring at Puhinui) but that doesn't really do anything for Auckland itself. They don't want HR out to Kumeu etc (despite the tracks already being in place and it costing only a tiny amount to implement). They don't want the Avondale-Southdown Line either. They don't want HR to the North Shore (despite the North Shore not having any rail. Trying to built LR on the busway when it will be approaching capacity is going to cause massive disruption and only slightly bumps up capacity compared to frequent Double Decker buses. On the other hand a new HR line would access a separate catchment and provide a huge boost in capacity - not just on the shore but also on a CRL2 from Wynyard to the Hospital and then on to either the Eastern Line or Newmarket). Yes it will cost a lot, so will trying to build LR on a busy active busway (and the tunnel/bridge costs would be similar).
Comparing Auckland to other cities we have probably about half the amount of HR that we should do. Sydney has around 815km of HR line (for commuter trains not including some of the freight lines and not including the new NW metro line which adds another 36km of HR line or the LR lines they have) and they consider themselves underserved by HR. Most of those lines have been in place since Sydney had a population smaller than Auckland's. Auckland has around 200km of HR lines. Sydney is 3x the urban land area of Auckland.

You say one of them needs to be built. I agree. However the LR plan isn't going to happen to the airport for probably a decade. If it is LR then actually both will be needed to be built (Onehunga-Airport and Airport-Puhinui-Manukau-Botany with the Puhinui line likely to be built as a busway first). I would like to see at least one of those options be HR. It would make more sense probably for the Puhinui line to be LR as it would continue on through to Botany which is ideally suited to have a LR line. Dom Rd can still have it's LR line as that makes sense to have an urban line (could have more stops too since it wouldn't be trying to make up time to the airport). HR could then be built from either Onehunga or Otahuhu (Onehunga would be better but more expensive due to double tracking existing line and the bridge over the harbour, Otahuhu would be faster and cheaper and could cause urban regeneration around the new line).
With Otahuhu option, the Onehunga line could be repurposed in time to LR with some type of cross town line (as Harriet Gale from GA posted about without the need to double track).
59 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1219
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:30 pm

Zkpilot wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
Probably because consultants (especially when it comes to government/council work) have a habit of skewing results to suit whoever has tapped them on the shoulder and/or flip flopping to allow them to keep on consulting....planning to plan etc.

That's a really cheap shot at the consultants - there's no proof or even suggestion that they have deliberately skewed the outcome. Unworthy.

Every year AC/AT spend more and more on consultants to the point where consultants are a significant part of their annual budget.
A lot of this used to be done in house by people who had good working relationships with each other and knew how to get things done. These days a consultant will be paid 3x the amount to do the same job and even then often don't get the job done completely so another consultant is needed. It's a bit of a gravy train. Sounds like it may have hit a bit close to home for you. :scratchchin:

Not at all - I have no brief for or against consultants, nor for or against AT policies and practices. It just really riles me to see sweeping generalisations based on supposition and prejudice, trashing the integrity of people who are for the most part hardworking, sincere and committed - and more expert in their field than the in-house people you think could do the job much better. I don't think you realise that most of the work that is outsourced is because there simply isn't the specialisation or capacity at AT to do the job. If in-house staff were hired to fill those roles there would (a) be too many peaks and troughs in workload to be efficient, and (b) the salary bill would go through the roof (and there'd be public and media moaning about the huge number of six-figure salaries, because this level of expertise doesn't come cheap).

I said I'd leave this issue alone, and I will now. I'm sick of debating with people who have little interest in genuine discussion, who use glib one-liners to avoid inconvenient facts, and whose main tactic is to attack the integrity of industry professionals and other people who they disagree with - even though they know nothing about those people, their skills and experience.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4159
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:42 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
That's a really cheap shot at the consultants - there's no proof or even suggestion that they have deliberately skewed the outcome. Unworthy.

Every year AC/AT spend more and more on consultants to the point where consultants are a significant part of their annual budget.
A lot of this used to be done in house by people who had good working relationships with each other and knew how to get things done. These days a consultant will be paid 3x the amount to do the same job and even then often don't get the job done completely so another consultant is needed. It's a bit of a gravy train. Sounds like it may have hit a bit close to home for you. :scratchchin:

Not at all - I have no brief for or against consultants, nor for or against AT policies and practices. It just really riles me to see sweeping generalisations based on supposition and prejudice, trashing the integrity of people who are for the most part hardworking, sincere and committed - and more expert in their field than the in-house people you think could do the job much better. I don't think you realise that most of the work that is outsourced is because there simply isn't the specialisation or capacity at AT to do the job. If in-house staff were hired to fill those roles there would (a) be too many peaks and troughs in workload to be efficient, and (b) the salary bill would go through the roof (and there'd be public and media moaning about the huge number of six-figure salaries, because this level of expertise doesn't come cheap).

I said I'd leave this issue alone, and I will now. I'm sick of debating with people who have little interest in genuine discussion, who use glib one-liners to avoid inconvenient facts, and whose main tactic is to attack the integrity of industry professionals and other people who they disagree with - even though they know nothing about those people, their skills and experience.


All I will say is that they used to have the experience in-house and then went down the slippery slope of out-sourcing it. Most of the consultants are former staff who left because of the better pay checks on offer. Thing is if the council/AT had kept more of the work in house then there would have been less of those big paychecks on offer in the private industry. Sure consultants are needed for certain things to avoid those peaks and troughs but they shouldn't be needed for everything. As mentioned they often charge a lot more for a project that would quite easily pay the wages of several staff inside council/AT instead. You would have less consultants disagreeing with each other and causing situations like Orewa Beach where the council is effectively suing itself because the consultants couldn't agree with each other.
59 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
SleeplessInZh
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:24 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:42 am

So philippine airlines will deploy their A330 to auckland.which is great!finally
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4185
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Wed Apr 18, 2018 2:55 am

I find it strange that CAPA suggests that SQ could look at SYD - CHC.

This would compete with EK, and likely piss of NZ - its alliance partner.

See: https://blueswandaily.com/virgin-austra ... -airlines/.

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4185
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Wed Apr 18, 2018 2:58 am

Will NZ be annoyed that SQ is now going to code-share with FJ on SIN - NAN? I doubt that NZ carries much traffic from ASEAN, India or Europe to Fiji, but there would likely be some, and the South Pacific is really the only place aside from regional New Zealand and EZE that NZ can offer connections to for the SQ alliance.

See: https://centreforaviation.com/members/d ... ays-412158.

Cheers,

C.
 
PA515
Posts: 1373
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Wed Apr 18, 2018 7:08 am

Photo of ZK-MVR at BNE earlier today. No temporary HF aerial attached to the rear underside on this delivery.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/79487691@N ... ed-public/

Presently mid Tasman and out of Flightradar24 range.

PA515
 
zkncj
Posts: 3021
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Wed Apr 18, 2018 7:31 am

planemanofnz wrote:
I find it strange that CAPA suggests that SQ could look at SYD - CHC.

This would compete with EK, and likely piss of NZ - its alliance partner.

See: https://blueswandaily.com/virgin-austra ... -airlines/.



Could it be at NZ's request? they already have an Joint Venture with SQ on AKL-SIN.

SQ has serval aircraft that sit for hours in Australian airports - NZ's now in need of extra seats on the Tasman to replace VA.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6306
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Wed Apr 18, 2018 7:35 am

planemanofnz wrote:
I find it strange that CAPA suggests that SQ could look at SYD - CHC.

This would compete with EK, and likely piss of NZ - its alliance partner.

See: https://blueswandaily.com/virgin-austra ... -airlines/.

Cheers,

C.



It seems a lot of hot air in that article, surely given SQ codeshare on many of NZ’s Tasman services they have no interest in flying anymore other than MEL-WEL which enables them to serve WLG, can NZ codeshare on this?

Doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6306
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Wed Apr 18, 2018 7:39 am

zkncj wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
I find it strange that CAPA suggests that SQ could look at SYD - CHC.

This would compete with EK, and likely piss of NZ - its alliance partner.

See: https://blueswandaily.com/virgin-austra ... -airlines/.



Could it be at NZ's request? they already have an Joint Venture with SQ on AKL-SIN.

SQ has serval aircraft that sit for hours in Australian airports - NZ's now in need of extra seats on the Tasman to replace VA.


SQ have zero aircraft sitting for hours im pretty sure now that CBR will be linked with the evening SYD flight which up to now does overnight SYD. The longest is 4-5 hours, I really can’t see with the A320/321NEO’s about to be delivered that NZ would have any interest in asking SQ to serve their own backyard or Trans Tasman. NZ will likely hold onto several owned A320CEO’s in order to boost capacity out of WLG/CHC/ZQN.
 
ZKOAB
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2016 9:59 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:13 am

PA515 wrote:
Photo of ZK-MVR at BNE earlier today. No temporary HF aerial attached to the rear underside on this delivery.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/79487691@N ... ed-public/

Presently mid Tasman and out of Flightradar24 range.

PA515


When is ZK-MVT due? Last info I had was before end of June.
 
DavidJ08
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:18 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:21 am

zkojq wrote:
So, once they've shuffled some engines around between aircraft, how many 787s will this apply to?

If we assume "9 engines" reported is literally 9 individual engines at NZ, then up to 5 airframes are affected (could be fewer depending on the number of unaffected spare engines). So all it really means is about 5 NZ 787 airframes aren't able to fly to EZE or North America. For context, EZE is currently operated with 772 and the only North American flight on 789 is IAH, which uses NZL and NZM, of which NZM definitely isn't affected (because it has RR Trent 1000 TEN engines).

Meanwhile, some chaos in the schedule as NZ implements the EASA-required checks. As predicted, it all comes to a head when it kicks in, when a lot of aircraft have to be done at the same time, we will have some disruptions over the next week: https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/travel- ... 3MGlii7RwS Kudos to the Air NZ ops team - despite the dozens of flights affected (either time change or aircraft change) only 7 individual flights have been cancelled.
 
User avatar
SXI899
Posts: 226
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:02 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Wed Apr 18, 2018 12:51 pm

PA515 wrote:
Photo of ZK-MVR at BNE earlier today. No temporary HF aerial attached to the rear underside on this delivery.

Thankfully ATR have introduced a new HF setup, with an aerial built into the vertical stab, and the rest of the unit integrated into the comms system. According to the crew it’s a massive improvement over the old bolt-on system!!

ZKOAB wrote:
When is ZK-MVT due? Last info I had was before end of June.

MVS & MVT are being skipped (Sierra is in use, and Tango belonged to an aircraft that was written off). Next is MVU which is MSN1500. MVR is MSN1487, so Uniform shouldn’t be too far off.
We deliver......
 
Deepinsider
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:36 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:06 pm

787 RR Troubles.
take a look at this reschedule by NZ for just one week!
Incredible that they've set up all the logistics involved;
Catering, Crewing, Cargo, pax reservations.....etc
What a fantastic effort.
https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/travel- ... 3MGlii7RwS
 
PA515
Posts: 1373
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Thu Apr 19, 2018 1:53 am

SXI899 wrote:
Thankfully ATR have introduced a new HF setup, with an aerial built into the vertical stab, and the rest of the unit integrated into the comms system. According to the crew it’s a massive improvement over the old bolt-on system!!


Good move by ATR. It raises my hopes that eventually Air NZ ATR 72-600s will go to NLK and CHT.

Can the HF aerial in the vertical stabilizer be fitted to earlier ATR 72-600s?

PA515
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8139
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Thu Apr 19, 2018 2:31 am

Deepinsider wrote:
787 RR Troubles.
take a look at this reschedule by NZ for just one week!
Incredible that they've set up all the logistics involved;
Catering, Crewing, Cargo, pax reservations.....etc
What a fantastic effort.
https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/travel- ... 3MGlii7RwS


My IAH flight has been affected, 3h30min late still 78N though. Such is life. Here's hoping it isn't further delayed due to being late ex NZ9 or further technical issues..
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3021
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:30 am

PA515 wrote:
SXI899 wrote:
Thankfully ATR have introduced a new HF setup, with an aerial built into the vertical stab, and the rest of the unit integrated into the comms system. According to the crew it’s a massive improvement over the old bolt-on system!!


Good move by ATR. It raises my hopes that eventually Air NZ ATR 72-600s will go to NLK and CHT.


Or CV purchases so of the 72-500s that NZ is off loading, you should be able to refit them with an aftermarket HR setup.
 
NZ321
Posts: 932
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Thu Apr 19, 2018 1:19 pm

I see that TG are shifting to 77W into AKL for the month of May. I imagine this is temporary to cover 789 mx which seems quite a significant period for aircraft delivered end of last year. Hard to know if these aircraft have the Trent 1000 Ten or just the regular 1000 or what the reason would be for the aircraft change given such recent delivery.Not discernable from Planespotters website. Or perhaps it is to do with demand / yields. 77W has 42 flatbeds compared to 30 on the 789 and 32 on the 359. What happened to the rumoured and once advertised A359?
Plane mad!
 
DavidJ08
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:18 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Thu Apr 19, 2018 1:47 pm

NZ321 wrote:
I see that TG are shifting to 77W into AKL for the month of May. I imagine this is temporary to cover 789 mx which seems quite a significant period for aircraft delivered end of last year. Hard to know if these aircraft have the Trent 1000 Ten or just the regular 1000 or what the reason would be for the aircraft change given such recent delivery.Not discernable from Planespotters website. Or perhaps it is to do with demand / yields. 77W has 42 flatbeds compared to 30 on the 789 and 32 on the 359. What happened to the rumoured and once advertised A359?

Their two 789 will both have regular Trent 1000, as they were both delivered before the TEN's debut on the 789. (Their second one was delivered in October 2017, same as NZL, whereas NZM in November 2017 was one of the first to get the TEN.)

https://www.caa.govt.nz/aircraft/Type_A ... _Trent.pdf This document provides some background on the RR Trent 1000's "packages". Package A were the standard models at entry into service, and all Package A engines have now been retired. Package B engines cannot be fitted to the 787-9. This means all 787-9 have Package C engines by default (other than the post-Nov2017 ones which have the TEN.) Boeing is also cited as saying all RR-powered 787-9 were affected https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... oe-445143/
Last edited by DavidJ08 on Thu Apr 19, 2018 2:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
NZ321
Posts: 932
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Thu Apr 19, 2018 1:50 pm

Thanks David. Helpful information. So can we assume then that all 789s delivered from December 2017 have the Trent 1000 Ten? Hard to find out where this information would be available if one wanted to know.
Plane mad!
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 3336
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Thu Apr 19, 2018 2:13 pm

Zkpilot wrote:
Every year AC/AT spend more and more on consultants to the point where consultants are a significant part of their annual budget.
A lot of this used to be done in house by people who had good working relationships with each other and knew how to get things done. These days a consultant will be paid 3x the amount to do the same job and even then often don't get the job done completely so another consultant is needed. It's a bit of a gravy train. Sounds like it may have hit a bit close to home for you. :scratchchin:

There's a lot of this in many central government departments too. The previous government's ideological mindset that there were "too many public servants" resulted in a lot of departments making staff redundant.....and then using their services again on a semi-permanent basis as consultants (at a substantially higher cost).


Zkpilot wrote:
They are promoting Regional Rapid Rail (which connects Hamilton and Tauranga and should be great to help access the airport by transferring at Puhinui) but that doesn't really do anything for Auckland itself.


Zkpilot wrote:
They don't want HR out to Kumeu etc (despite the tracks already being in place and it costing only a tiny amount to implement).


In an ideal world, you'd have decent highspeed train services up to Kumeu, Kaukapakapa and Wellsford (ideally Warkworth, but the exiting lines don't go particularly close) so that those places would be viable commuter suburbs. Same with Pukekohe and Waiuku in the other direction. Smart urban planning would also involve having quicker ferries going to/from Gulf Harbour and Beachlands.

zkncj wrote:
Could it be at NZ's request? they already have an Joint Venture with SQ on AKL-SIN.

SQ has serval aircraft that sit for hours in Australian airports - NZ's now in need of extra seats on the Tasman to replace VA.


Given that SQ is still a shareholder in VA, I don't see why they would. It's not in their interest to see VA's financials suffer (even more).
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: 932
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Thu Apr 19, 2018 2:20 pm

zkojq wrote:
In an ideal world, you'd have decent highspeed train services up to Kumeu, Kaukapakapa and Wellsford (ideally Warkworth, but the exiting lines don't go particularly close) so that those places would be viable commuter suburbs. Same with Pukekohe and Waiuku in the other direction. Smart urban planning would also involve having quicker ferries going to/from Gulf Harbour and Beachlands.



Actually I am not so sure about this. Train service yes. Light Rail yes. Even Heavy Rail and Light Rail operating on a common gauge to maximise opportunities. But high speed to Kumeu, Kaukapakapa and Wellsford? Population not there to support it.

It is even questionable whether the population is there to justify HSR between Auckland and Hamilton. Certainly, I agree that an express rail service with a travelling time around 75 minutes from central Hamilton to downtown would be desirable and possibly doable and justifiable - maybe even with a stop near Manakau City and AKL airport, along with new rolling stock and a significant upgrade to lines. But the infrastructure required for a proper HSR service is IMHO well beyond NZ's needs and affordability at present.
Plane mad!
 
DavidJ08
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:18 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Thu Apr 19, 2018 2:21 pm

NZ321 wrote:
Thanks David. Helpful information. So can we assume then that all 789s delivered from December 2017 have the Trent 1000 Ten? Hard to find out where this information would be available if one wanted to know.

Sorry, I edited my post with some more information on the sub families of the Trent 1000 just then.

I found another article that says RR's production of Package C is transitioned to the TEN through 2017, so I think that assumption probably is safe. http://www.mro-network.com/manufacturin ... number-ten

Also Boeing's statement on it says "does not affect current production 787s" suggesting all the new 2018 airframes are fitted with the TEN. http://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-releas ... tem=130181
 
NZ321
Posts: 932
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Thu Apr 19, 2018 2:33 pm

NZ321 wrote:
zkojq wrote:
In an ideal world, you'd have decent highspeed train services up to Kumeu, Kaukapakapa and Wellsford (ideally Warkworth, but the exiting lines don't go particularly close) so that those places would be viable commuter suburbs. Same with Pukekohe and Waiuku in the other direction. Smart urban planning would also involve having quicker ferries going to/from Gulf Harbour and Beachlands.



Actually I am not so sure about this. Train service yes. Light Rail yes. Even Heavy Rail and Light Rail operating on a common gauge to maximise opportunities. But high speed to Kumeu, Kaukapakapa and Wellsford? Population not there to support it.

It is even questionable whether the population is there to justify HSR between Auckland and Hamilton. Certainly, I agree that an express rail service with a travelling time around 75 minutes from central Hamilton to downtown would be desirable and possibly doable and justifiable - maybe even with a stop near Manakau City and AKL airport, along with new rolling stock and a significant upgrade to lines. But the infrastructure required for a proper HSR service is IMHO well beyond NZ's needs and affordability at present.


Further to above I sincerely doubt claims (having travelled along the Hamilton Auckland line a few times) that the track can support speeds of up to 160 km per hour without very significant investment and rebuilding of track and associated infrastructure. I think without this sort of investment these statements are ludicrous and would love to see an analysis of this / justified claims to the contrary.
Plane mad!
 
NZ6
Posts: 657
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Thu Apr 19, 2018 9:50 pm

planemanofnz wrote:
Will NZ be annoyed that SQ is now going to code-share with FJ on SIN - NAN? I doubt that NZ carries much traffic from ASEAN, India or Europe to Fiji, but there would likely be some, and the South Pacific is really the only place aside from regional New Zealand and EZE that NZ can offer connections to for the SQ alliance.

See: https://centreforaviation.com/members/d ... ays-412158.

Cheers,

C.


I'm really at a loss as to why NZ would be annoyed?

SQ is in the Star Alliance and is in a stand alone Alliance on NZ-Singapore routes with NZ. Outside of this SQ is it's own airline and can do what it likes (Would QF be annoyed with NZ code-sharing NAN-LAX?). So being annoyed with another business is like saying McDonald's is annoyed that Burger King opened up next door. You could argue it it's bad for NZ's business but even that's very highly doubtful.

Do you really think high volumes of passengers are flying SIN-AKL-NAN and as as a result of a code-share with FJ is now going to impact the NZ's AKL-SIN routes, which would then also impact SQ given the agreements withing the alliance.

I'd see this as minimal growth for SQ that'll be potentially picking up tourist markets within Asia visiting Fiji only therefore having no effect on NZ operations at all.
 
NZ6
Posts: 657
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:26 pm

NZ321 wrote:
zkojq wrote:
In an ideal world, you'd have decent highspeed train services up to Kumeu, Kaukapakapa and Wellsford (ideally Warkworth, but the exiting lines don't go particularly close) so that those places would be viable commuter suburbs. Same with Pukekohe and Waiuku in the other direction. Smart urban planning would also involve having quicker ferries going to/from Gulf Harbour and Beachlands.



Actually I am not so sure about this. Train service yes. Light Rail yes. Even Heavy Rail and Light Rail operating on a common gauge to maximise opportunities. But high speed to Kumeu, Kaukapakapa and Wellsford? Population not there to support it.

It is even questionable whether the population is there to justify HSR between Auckland and Hamilton. Certainly, I agree that an express rail service with a travelling time around 75 minutes from central Hamilton to downtown would be desirable and possibly doable and justifiable - maybe even with a stop near Manakau City and AKL airport, along with new rolling stock and a significant upgrade to lines. But the infrastructure required for a proper HSR service is IMHO well beyond NZ's needs and affordability at present.


100% agree with you, currently Auckland has a western and southern line. All be it the southern line also has a "Eastern loop" which doesn't even go to East Auckland, the Onehunga and Manakau branches.

Ideally, what Auckland needs is

Western Line: As today ,Britomart - Swanson
Inner Western Line: Britomart via Pt Chev, Te Atatu, Westgate, Kumeu/Huapai with selected and peak services extending to Helensville.
Southern: As today but with selected and peak services extending on further into the Waikato.
Eastern Line: Britomart to Glen Innes then branching off towards Pakuranga, Botany, East Tamaki and onto Manakau
Northern Line: Britomart to Silverdale with selected and peak services extending to Warkworth.

What you could then see is something like this.

North South Line
Manurewa > Silverdale via Britomart

East West Line
Haupai > Manukau via Westgate, Te Atatu, Pt Chev, Briotmart, Orakei, GI, Pakurang, Botany, East Tamaki.

West South Line
Swanson to Manukau via New Lynn, Britomart, Newmarket

Southern Loop Line
Manukau to Onehunga via Mt Wellington, Britomart, Newmarket, Greenlane with light rail from Manakau to the airport.

This has taken less than 10 minutes to think of but it's about trying to connect a spreading Auckland with rail at each key growth area and ensuring transiting options exist . Completely not affordable and not realistic, i'd say this is easily $30-40B. Imagine the fuel tax on that.

This is not aviation related at all except the fact that whatever Auckland does they need to make the airport connection however it looks a priority. In my opinion and experience that doesn't have to be to the doorstep provided it gets you close and allows you to connect onto a regular, comfortable and convent link that does. This does not mean getting on a bus sitting in traffic though.
 
NZ6
Posts: 657
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Fri Apr 20, 2018 1:50 am

NZ6 wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
Will NZ be annoyed that SQ is now going to code-share with FJ on SIN - NAN? I doubt that NZ carries much traffic from ASEAN, India or Europe to Fiji, but there would likely be some, and the South Pacific is really the only place aside from regional New Zealand and EZE that NZ can offer connections to for the SQ alliance.

See: https://centreforaviation.com/members/d ... ays-412158.

Cheers,

C.


I'm really at a loss as to why NZ would be annoyed?

SQ is in the Star Alliance and is in a stand alone Alliance on NZ-Singapore routes with NZ. Outside of this SQ is it's own airline and can do what it likes (Would QF be annoyed with NZ code-sharing NAN-LAX?). So being annoyed with another business is like saying McDonald's is annoyed that Burger King opened up next door. You could argue it it's bad for NZ's business but even that's very highly doubtful.

Do you really think high volumes of passengers are flying SIN-AKL-NAN and as as a result of a code-share with FJ is now going to impact the NZ's AKL-SIN routes, which would then also impact SQ given the agreements withing the alliance.

I'd see this as minimal growth for SQ that'll be potentially picking up tourist markets within Asia visiting Fiji only therefore having no effect on NZ operations at all.


I've been putting some thought into this today as I've read several comments like this over time.

Let's say QF announced AKL-LAX next month; would NZ be annoyed at QF? The answer is no, worried, prepared, battle, airline war, competition all spring to mind. Annoyed isn't one because they're a competitor and it's normal.

So why is if so different for SQ, I mean in this example it's SIN-NAN, not even an NZ direct route.

There are some conditions being a Star member which starts to get into the network territory. I'm wondering if some people are taking this known condition (I say known but I imagine many probably don't know full definition). and take this to extreme end of the meaning where Star carriers are not to compete in another carries region so to speak.

Linking back to this scenario; Are we assuming NZ would be annoyed as SQ is encroaching into NZ's backyard?

Any black and white rule like this would become anti competitive wouldn't it?

Star Alliance don't run the airlines, they don't tell them what they can and can't do. If a particular rule was 'breached' what is the exact consequences of this?

Keeping it super simple, you join a membership (Star Alliance) in return you have some things you need to do (logo placed on website, plane and the airport etc, provide reward points, lounge access etc) this helps build the brand and attack customers to an alliance loyalty when they travel beyond their preferred carries own network.

In return of joining you earn interline revenue which could have otherwise have been lost to a competitor.

Any Star Carrier can still grow their network, SQ can add WLG-MEL by was of attacking customers beyond their AKL and CHC directs. They don't have to use NZ's codeshare WLGAKL, WLGCHC or WLGMEL to connect. Likewise they can also grow demand Asia to Fiji by codesharing with FJ.

So this is normal and therefore being annoyed is unusual, to be annoyed you'd have to first feel the airline should not have started it up for some type of loyalty/ethical or moral reasons but have let you down.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4185
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Fri Apr 20, 2018 2:20 am

TG must be doing well at AKL - they're upgrading us again from the 789 to the 77W, from 1 May - 31 May.

Or, is there something more to this - like the need for their small 789 fleet to get maintenance or the like?

See: https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... t-changes/.

Cheers,

C.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8139
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Fri Apr 20, 2018 3:34 am

TG has been having issues with 787s. They have used 772s intermittently while -TWA is out and delayed -TWB a couple of times to operate back to back BKK-AKL-BKK-AKL. That said, their loads have improved significantly with daily service again.
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4185
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Fri Apr 20, 2018 3:41 am

aerorobnz wrote:
TG ... That said, their loads have improved significantly with daily service again.

Obviously loads don't tell the full story, but this is promising to hear - do you know what the approximate loads are? IMO, their biggest risk will be if XJ decides to head down under - aside from SIN, ASEAN destinations are a price-sensitive O&D market, which D7's success has shown. Currently, most Malaysian tourists here use D7 (not MH) via OOL, while most Thai tourists use the non-stop TG BKK service. I imagine traffic the other way (i.e. Kiwis) is price-sensitive too. That said, they have an increasing number of European connections (like VIE, just launched), as well as Indian traffic, which may help them.

Cheers,

C.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8139
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:35 am

Thai's business has always been freight. Fresh produce, fresh flowers, fresh meat/seafood. That is where they have an advantage over XJ IMO.. The transfer passengers have increased as they have gone from marketing Thailand to marketing broader fares because they have more seats available. All in all, it is a positive for the market and a return to the glory days at AKL for TG when they served SYD and BNE.
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
NZ321
Posts: 932
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Fri Apr 20, 2018 10:45 am

I really hope AKL is upgraded by TG permanently to 77W or even better A359. A sub fleet of just 2 aircraft operating AKL and KIX is a bit tight IMHO.
Plane mad!
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 11

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