• 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 11
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 3086
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:22 am

VA will fire back against NZ's decision to dump it, by boosting capacity to New Zealand, including:

- SYD - WLG (5x weekly)
- MEL - ZQN (4x weekly)

However, there will be capacity reductions on MEL - CHC and BNE - WLG, which is disappointing.

VA's launch of SYD - WLG comes after SQ's launch of MEL - WLG - will NZ feel the heat at WLG?

See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=12033594.

Cheers,

C.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4105
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:26 am

aerokiwi wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
Actually
1. There isn't any doubt any more as to which way to go. The decision to go light rail was taken around two years ago more or less, and the current government has said it will commit funding to light rail without even mentioning the heavy rail alternative. Because it no longer is an alternative. The ongoing sniping about the issue is generated by those who fundamentally disagree with the decision, but it's a waste of breath because there is no doubt whatsoever how this will play out. Time for people to accept that their favoured option hasn't been adopted, and to look for the positives that will arrive when the light rail reaches the airport.

2. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Why would a future QF decision to go for (say) the 777-8 result in a re-examination of an NZ decision to go for (say) the A359? In MEL's case, they did their homework and came to a decision based on the local circumstances. In AKL's case, the homework was also done, but with a different outcome for different local circumstances.

I liken this discussion to the discussion about NZ and its "multiple botch-ups". Behind the decision on light rail there is a wealth of analysis based on multiple and often independent factors that most of us are completely ignorant of, and which indicate that overall (for the network, not just the airport) light rail is the way to go. It's easy for the armchair critics to pronounce that the decision is "wrong", based on a simplistic back-of the envelope analysis - or even based on personal instincts and prejudices. But thankfully, decisions on transport infrastructure are based on more rigorous analysis than this.

[Edit] Excepting, of course, the previous government's decisions on RONS, which were solely politically driven and didn't need analysis.


Yeah I'll give you that regarding point 1. Still, until soil is turned and tracks laid I don't have any confidence that this will happen.

Regarding point 2, I'm not saying we must follow MEL's direction, I'm just saying we must understand the circumstances around how they came this conclusion and consider if any of that applies to our situation, there are some similarities (largely end of line airport, 24km from CBD etc etc) but there are also many vast differences so it's not a clone of MEL.

Looking at it another way, given the extensive use of trams in MEL and to $10B cost for build heavy rail, why has this option been taken. Imagine, for example its due to the slower journey time and boarding time etc of trams therefore MEL is able to move 4x as many passengers via heavy rail and trams reaching capacity at x point. I'm not saying this fact it's hypothetical however if true is this an issue for AKL?


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.

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).

There's even a tram here that gets within cooee of the Airport (the 59 - its destination is 'Airport West'), but no one has talked about extending that since forever because the severe limitations are recognised, not least of which being the intermingling of commuters and airport passengers in very very space-confined vehicles.

For once I hope Auckland invests in the longer term and goes for heavy rail for Auckland Airport, using elevated tracks if necessary to reduce cost (tunneling is insanely expensive).

Literally the only places that are tricky to get heavy rail to the airport are over the harbour (if extending from Onehunga which both light and heavy rail would need anyway) or over/under Kirbride Road if extending from either Onehunga or Otahuhu. From Puhinui a bridge would be needed over the Puhinui inlet (which would be needed for either light or heavy rail anyway). So most of the costs are the same whether it is heavy rail or light rail (except Kirkbride road which shouldn't be a huge difference). What brings the cost of Onehunga up is double tracking the existing section of track and probably building a flyover where it meets the main trunk line for South bound airport trains).
I agree that Light rail should be built up Queens Street and along Dominion Road but that it should end there and that Heavy Rail should link up the airport (be it from Onehunga, Otahuhu, or Puhinui). The arguments that Light Rail is about connecting Mangere up to the network are bogus since Heavy rail can also do that (a station at Mangere Bridge/Favona, one at Mangere, one at the airport industrial area and then the terminals itself - for the Onehunga or Otahuhu options). Some say that Light Rail is cheaper because it can go above ground through the airport... well there is no reason that Heavy Rail couldn't do that too. Even better though is to trench it under the runway into the terminal (not needed if coming from Puhinui just the trench). The airport surely must prefer this option so that they can keep the land free above for any variety of reasons.
MUC is a good example of how to do this.
The thing is that an Heavy rail extension could be built from Puhinui along with light rail up Queen Street and along Dominion Road for probably about the same cost as building LR the whole way. If in future they decided they wanted to have Light Rail to the airport also they could then extend it along and all good for those that don't mind a slower journey.

Thinking long term though probably the best option would be as follows:
Heavy Rail from Otahuhu to airport.
Remove Heavy rail to Onehunga.
Install Light rail up Queen St and Dominion Road (and then eventually to Onehunga if heavy rail removed in Onehunga).
Install Light rail from Botany to Manukau to Airport.
Build a cross town light rail line from New Lynn to Onehunga and through to Botany along the soon to be built AMETI busway - or if the Avondale-Southdown line is going to be built then the light rail would only need to connect from Onehunga through to Botany.
Light rail from city to Westgate alongside motorway.

All of this would cost a lot but over the space of 20 years it is probably within the realm of being possible and would give 2 options of getting to the airport as well as a separate Light rail network.
57 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 11361
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:49 am

mariner wrote:
I've read the Herald - why do they still call them Dreamliners?

mariner


It’s written on the side of a lot of 787’s.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:14 am

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).


A couple of comments: Surely heavy rail is just as inflexible as light rail? Also, capacity is not going to be an issue with the light rail vehicles proposed for Auckland - they will be big, and will operate every 5-10 minutes. As for separation from other traffic, from Mt Roskill to the airport the right of way will be completely separated from roads, just as heavy rail would be. And between Mt Roskill and the city, it will be separated from other traffic except at major intersections, where most of the stops will in any event be located. Buses (a combination of articulated and double deckers) were seriously considered for the route but to provide the same kind of capacity would have led to very serious bus congestion, bunching, and overall passenger dissatisfaction, especially in the already congested central city area. And in any event would not have satisfied the heavy rail advocates either.

aerokiwi wrote:
There's even a tram here that gets within cooee of the Airport (the 59 - its destination is 'Airport West'), but no one has talked about extending that since forever because the severe limitations are recognised, not least of which being the intermingling of commuters and airport passengers in very very space-confined vehicles.

For once I hope Auckland invests in the longer term and goes for heavy rail for Auckland Airport, using elevated tracks if necessary to reduce cost (tunneling is insanely expensive).

Of course, the HR option also has the "intermingling of commuters and airport passengers" in vehicles only a little larger in cross-section than LR. Note that LR is the only option that produces a B/C ratio >1 - the bus options and HR are down in the 0.3 to 0.4 range. The cost is around $1bn cheaper than the heavy rail alternative (comparing, I believe, LR from Mt Roskill to the Airport with HR from Penrose via Onehunga to the Airport). The potential passenger and employment catchments for the LR option also beat the HR and bus options hands down. As for the network possibilities, which are critical to any serious PT expenditure, the HR options are abysmal compared with LR. And so on and so on.

As I said, it's easy for people (generally, not aimed at you) to take pot shots at AC/AT because of personal prejudices or whatever back-of-the-envelope analysis they have done. Just as it's easy to take pot shots at NZ's decisions when none of us have the detailed analysis that led to them. In this case, the consultants' report is publicly available, and is pretty clear that LR is the best option overall, partly because this is not just about airport access, but about the wider PT network, and this is an absolutely critical factor. I can promise you that if it was just about airport access the answer would be "no heavy rail OR light rail" because the numbers just wouldn't stack up. Fitting this efficiently into the overall PT network is an essential prerequisite for any rail-based solution.

For further info, try this link to the consultants' report: https://at.govt.nz/media/1927342/draft- ... s-case.pdf
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
bevan7
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:44 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:29 am

aerorobnz wrote:
zkojq wrote:
What's the point of the 4-hour check-in restriction?


Because all passengers are being questioned by security staff in a secured part of check-in. They are only there for the 4 hours ahead.


What airport will this be at? What happens to connecting passengers if they transfer airside?
 
zkncj
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 16, 2018 7:15 am

zkojq wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
With NZ getting A321's and able to match aircraft capacity to flights quite easily VA is going to find it very tough on the Tasman especially with QF stepping up it's game also.


zkncj wrote:
Does anyone know how much of Air Berlin's fleet is remaining to find an new home? Could NZ pickup a couple of short-term leases on A320s from AB previous fleet.

There always the option that HiFly will be back next Christmas.....



I certainly get the impression that the airline intends to keep five or so International A320s (say ZK-OJA through OJE) for longer than intended inorder to open up additional frequencies/destinations and make up for the VA capacity.



The question will just be how will they find extra crew in time? unless they already have an surplus of cabin and flight crew trained for the A320s?

Or they could go down the poaching route .e.g VA is currently phasing out TT's A320s (are replacing with 738s) - these could flight crews could be an prime target, of already type rated A320 crew.

Another option would be to targets VANZ crew based - which could hurt VA hard in the short-term with the additional services they have just added.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 3086
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 16, 2018 7:22 am

So neat to see Sounds Air's high-quality marketing now on YouTube - see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAg1VrW80ks.

Cheers,

C.
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 9974
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 16, 2018 7:48 am

planemanofnz wrote:
VA will fire back against NZ's decision to dump it, by boosting capacity to New Zealand, including:

- SYD - WLG (5x weekly)
- MEL - ZQN (4x weekly)

However, there will be capacity reductions on MEL - CHC and BNE - WLG, which is disappointing.

VA's launch of SYD - WLG comes after SQ's launch of MEL - WLG - will NZ feel the heat at WLG?

See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=12033594.

Cheers,

C.

Be good to see more business class competition for Qantas for WLG. BNE is still pretty much 2x daily with NZ announcing 5x weekly WLG-BNE, unless some days have both carriers operating.
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,A380,F100,B717,B733/4/8/9,B742/4,B752/3,B763,B772/W,B789
With: NZ,SJ,QF,JQ,EK,VA,AA,UA,DL,FL,AC,FJ
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 9974
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 16, 2018 7:48 am

planemanofnz wrote:
VA will fire back against NZ's decision to dump it, by boosting capacity to New Zealand, including:

- SYD - WLG (5x weekly)
- MEL - ZQN (4x weekly)

However, there will be capacity reductions on MEL - CHC and BNE - WLG, which is disappointing.

VA's launch of SYD - WLG comes after SQ's launch of MEL - WLG - will NZ feel the heat at WLG?

See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=12033594.

Cheers,

C.

Be good to see more business class competition for Qantas for WLG. BNE is still pretty much 2x daily with NZ announcing 5x weekly WLG-BNE, unless some days have both carriers operating.
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,A380,F100,B717,B733/4/8/9,B742/4,B752/3,B763,B772/W,B789
With: NZ,SJ,QF,JQ,EK,VA,AA,UA,DL,FL,AC,FJ
 
NPL8800
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 5:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 16, 2018 7:53 am

I try not to get too involved with the HR/LR to airport debate as it tends to end up going round in circles very quickly and can digress away from aviation so i'll try and be brief, but I having spent a fair bit of time on google maps as well as reading numerous for and against arguments and accompanying documents on the topic, and looking at the area the HR would likely follow from Puhinui I really don't understand why it is deemed to be such an "easy" option.

I feel like people may be getting blinded by the middle green space and neglecting the fact that the other two thirds of the route are in highly dense, fully developed areas. At the Puhinui end a complex flyover/trench would be needed to traverse the SW motorway as well as costly land acquisition and the potential to have to bulldoze extensive amounts of high quality industrial land in the process to fit in a rail corridor to the airport.

At the airport end a bridge across the river is the least of the concerns. There is no easy place for an elevated or trenched rail corridor to go as it is a solid line of likely long term tenants including Gate Gourmet, LSG, Air NZ maintenance, freight forwarders and many others, and that is assuming the route went via Laurence Stevens Dr. Going via Tom Pearce Dr isn't any cleaner whether above or below.

I am not saying these issues are not insurmountable and yes no doubt some will say this is an overly simplistic observation, but it provides an alternative to the narrative that has been often pumped out with little explanation. I would suggest it may not be wise to be calling the Puhunui route easy or straightforward because quite frankly it looks anything but.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 3086
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 16, 2018 8:14 am

777ER wrote:
Be good to see more business class competition for Qantas for WLG. BNE is still pretty much 2x daily with NZ announcing 5x weekly WLG-BNE, unless some days have both carriers operating.

Yes - and not just on VA, but on SQ too, to MEL. I wonder what VA's lounge arrangements will be in WLG, after the alliance ends?

Cheers,

C.
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 613
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 16, 2018 8:24 am

The one thing that hasn't been pointed out in this episode of heavy rail vs light rail is that the costs are not just extending the line to the airport.

To get a reasonable frequency you will need to double track the whole line. Which is currently single track. And you will then need to triple or quadruple track the North Island Main Trunk through to Britomart. And, most importantly, you will have to find space in Britomart which is currently full. Even with the opening of the CRL, Britomart will still be platform constrained as the extra capacity the CRL provides will be eaten up instantly by largely existing suburban use increases.

Personally I agree with the viewpoint of the Greater Auckland group. Heavy rail would be ideal, light rail is acceptable. But dammit, just build one of them already. Either is hugely better than the current state of things.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 16, 2018 8:48 am

NPL8800 wrote:
I try not to get too involved with the HR/LR to airport debate as it tends to end up going round in circles very quickly and can digress away from aviation so i'll try and be brief, but I having spent a fair bit of time on google maps as well as reading numerous for and against arguments and accompanying documents on the topic, and looking at the area the HR would likely follow from Puhinui I really don't understand why it is deemed to be such an "easy" option.

I feel like people may be getting blinded by the middle green space and neglecting the fact that the other two thirds of the route are in highly dense, fully developed areas. At the Puhinui end a complex flyover/trench would be needed to traverse the SW motorway as well as costly land acquisition and the potential to have to bulldoze extensive amounts of high quality industrial land in the process to fit in a rail corridor to the airport.

At the airport end a bridge across the river is the least of the concerns. There is no easy place for an elevated or trenched rail corridor to go as it is a solid line of likely long term tenants including Gate Gourmet, LSG, Air NZ maintenance, freight forwarders and many others, and that is assuming the route went via Laurence Stevens Dr. Going via Tom Pearce Dr isn't any cleaner whether above or below.

I am not saying these issues are not insurmountable and yes no doubt some will say this is an overly simplistic observation, but it provides an alternative to the narrative that has been often pumped out with little explanation. I would suggest it may not be wise to be calling the Puhunui route easy or straightforward because quite frankly it looks anything but.

You're correct in that the Puhinui "option" has many obstacles to breach, not least the SW motorway. It also adds just one single stop to the network for the gazillions of dollars it would cost - not a good bang for buck.

But additionally, it concentrates a huge amount more traffic on the Southern/Eastern lines, thereby adding significant complexity to the operating patterns that would need to be run. Along this corridor you would have literally four routes - the Southern and Eastern lines, the Onehunga line (further up the corridor) and adding now the Airport extension. All of which is the antithesis of good operating practice. In many respects, the Puhinui option is the worst of all.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
Deepinsider
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:36 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:05 am

bevan7 wrote:
aerorobnz wrote:
zkojq wrote:
What's the point of the 4-hour check-in restriction?


Because all passengers are being questioned by security staff in a secured part of check-in. They are only there for the 4 hours ahead.


What airport will this be at? What happens to connecting passengers if they transfer airside?


All this sounds quite disruptive to all concerned. Pax, Security, Airline. I'm surprised it has not attracted more
media attention. Of course if we want to go to the US, then we have to do what we have to do!

Separately, ZK-NZE teased recently by appearing near the Int Terminal (with engines attached!) Since then it got
removed from planned domestic/Perth flights. Hmmm....
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19463
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:20 am

planemanofnz wrote:
So neat to see Sounds Air's high-quality marketing now on YouTube - see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAg1VrW80ks.


It's more than Youtube - they've now done done a deal with Sabre:

https://www.eturbonews.com/182708/sound ... tic-growth

Sounds Air counts on SABRE for domestic growth

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
zkncj
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:49 am

Deepinsider wrote:

Separately, ZK-NZE teased recently by appearing near the Int Terminal (with engines attached!) Since then it got
removed from planned domestic/Perth flights. Hmmm....


About time that NZE got somewhere near being back into service, was starting to wonder if it was going to become featured at Moat.
 
Deepinsider
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:36 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:52 am

Deepinsider wrote:
bevan7 wrote:
aerorobnz wrote:

Because all passengers are being questioned by security staff in a secured part of check-in. They are only there for the 4 hours ahead.


What airport will this be at? What happens to connecting passengers if they transfer airside?


All this sounds quite disruptive to all concerned. Pax, Security, Airline. I'm surprised it has not attracted more
media attention. Of course if we want to go to the US, then we have to do what we have to do!

Separately, ZK-NZE teased recently by appearing near the Int Terminal (with engines attached!) Since then it got
removed from planned domestic/Perth flights. Hmmm....
Wouldn't it be incredibly bad luck if the newly fitted repaired engines, are then discovered to have the just found out
package C problem! (Hindsight expert might say AirNZ botched engine selection) Wish the NZ schedule planners
good luck.
 
Kashmon
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 8:08 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:01 am

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
The one thing that hasn't been pointed out in this episode of heavy rail vs light rail is that the costs are not just extending the line to the airport.

To get a reasonable frequency you will need to double track the whole line. Which is currently single track. And you will then need to triple or quadruple track the North Island Main Trunk through to Britomart. And, most importantly, you will have to find space in Britomart which is currently full. Even with the opening of the CRL, Britomart will still be platform constrained as the extra capacity the CRL provides will be eaten up instantly by largely existing suburban use increases.

Personally I agree with the viewpoint of the Greater Auckland group. Heavy rail would be ideal, light rail is acceptable. But dammit, just build one of them already. Either is hugely better than the current state of things.


a tram that is basically no different to the northern express rail bus is no better....
typical shortsighted Auckland Council

I can't wait till this thing opens and most people realize that going by motorway 20 is faster than an outdated tram down dominion road....

Most civilized efficient nations- high speed rail to airport
Auckland- lets build a tram.... hilarious

and they wonder why Aucklander's love their cars
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 11361
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:57 am

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
The one thing that hasn't been pointed out in this episode of heavy rail vs light rail is that the costs are not just extending the line to the airport.

To get a reasonable frequency you will need to double track the whole line. Which is currently single track. And you will then need to triple or quadruple track the North Island Main Trunk through to Britomart. And, most importantly, you will have to find space in Britomart which is currently full. Even with the opening of the CRL, Britomart will still be platform constrained as the extra capacity the CRL provides will be eaten up instantly by largely existing suburban use increases.

Personally I agree with the viewpoint of the Greater Auckland group. Heavy rail would be ideal, light rail is acceptable. But dammit, just build one of them already. Either is hugely better than the current state of things.


There are already plans in place to increase the main trunk capacity in Auckland. The whole purpose of the CRL is to double the capacity of Britimart. I don't see the point in spending large on CRL, new trains and all the rest unless we are going to expand the heavy rail network. If AT also build the Mt Roskill Spur off the WQestern Line that will go a long way to relieving congestion along Sandringham Dominion Roads, it's also cheap, less than $100m.

If the Govt finally builds the Avondale Southdown line that would then enable rail transport from the West to link to Onehunga and on to the airport.

This govt is going to go belly up by the end of this year anyway, the next govt will have plenty of opportunity to reverse the decision and build the future, not for the present.

Besides the longer it takes to do anything the better the business cased is for heavy rail. At the moment they're taking 2025 as the kick off for the Dominion Rd light rail system, continuing on to the airport will be sometime in the 2030's, by the time the capacity required will be that much higher making the decision to change to heavy rail via Onehunga a better proposition.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4105
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:22 am

NPL8800 wrote:
I try not to get too involved with the HR/LR to airport debate as it tends to end up going round in circles very quickly and can digress away from aviation so i'll try and be brief, but I having spent a fair bit of time on google maps as well as reading numerous for and against arguments and accompanying documents on the topic, and looking at the area the HR would likely follow from Puhinui I really don't understand why it is deemed to be such an "easy" option.

I feel like people may be getting blinded by the middle green space and neglecting the fact that the other two thirds of the route are in highly dense, fully developed areas. At the Puhinui end a complex flyover/trench would be needed to traverse the SW motorway as well as costly land acquisition and the potential to have to bulldoze extensive amounts of high quality industrial land in the process to fit in a rail corridor to the airport.

At the airport end a bridge across the river is the least of the concerns. There is no easy place for an elevated or trenched rail corridor to go as it is a solid line of likely long term tenants including Gate Gourmet, LSG, Air NZ maintenance, freight forwarders and many others, and that is assuming the route went via Laurence Stevens Dr. Going via Tom Pearce Dr isn't any cleaner whether above or below.

I am not saying these issues are not insurmountable and yes no doubt some will say this is an overly simplistic observation, but it provides an alternative to the narrative that has been often pumped out with little explanation. I would suggest it may not be wise to be calling the Puhunui route easy or straightforward because quite frankly it looks anything but.

The airport end would have to be be it LR or HR from anywhere.
Most of the journey is over green fields. From Puhinui a busway and eventually LR are going to be built anyway so there’s your bridge and costs at the other end. For the Puhinui option really the cost difference between PR and HR is negligible.
Only thing with Puhinui is that it would probably be better suited to LR as the plan is to continue it on through Manukau and on to Botany. This is why HR should be built from Otahuhu (to keep the costs down and simplify the network) or Onehunga (more expensive though). If Otahuhu then Onehunga can be repurposed as a LR Line and hopefully eventually connecting through to Botany.
57 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
Deepinsider
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:36 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:43 am

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.
 
Kashmon
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 8:08 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:50 am

Kiwirob wrote:
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
The one thing that hasn't been pointed out in this episode of heavy rail vs light rail is that the costs are not just extending the line to the airport.

To get a reasonable frequency you will need to double track the whole line. Which is currently single track. And you will then need to triple or quadruple track the North Island Main Trunk through to Britomart. And, most importantly, you will have to find space in Britomart which is currently full. Even with the opening of the CRL, Britomart will still be platform constrained as the extra capacity the CRL provides will be eaten up instantly by largely existing suburban use increases.

Personally I agree with the viewpoint of the Greater Auckland group. Heavy rail would be ideal, light rail is acceptable. But dammit, just build one of them already. Either is hugely better than the current state of things.


There are already plans in place to increase the main trunk capacity in Auckland. The whole purpose of the CRL is to double the capacity of Britimart. I don't see the point in spending large on CRL, new trains and all the rest unless we are going to expand the heavy rail network. If AT also build the Mt Roskill Spur off the WQestern Line that will go a long way to relieving congestion along Sandringham Dominion Roads, it's also cheap, less than $100m.

If the Govt finally builds the Avondale Southdown line that would then enable rail transport from the West to link to Onehunga and on to the airport.

This govt is going to go belly up by the end of this year anyway, the next govt will have plenty of opportunity to reverse the decision and build the future, not for the present.

Besides the longer it takes to do anything the better the business cased is for heavy rail. At the moment they're taking 2025 as the kick off for the Dominion Rd light rail system, continuing on to the airport will be sometime in the 2030's, by the time the capacity required will be that much higher making the decision to change to heavy rail via Onehunga a better proposition.


why do most Kiwi's not understand this!
explained so well....
 
Deepinsider
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:36 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 16, 2018 12:20 pm

NZ vs. Virgin. Media reports make it look somehow sinister, but in such big business, surely
the writing was on the wall, both parties mindful which way things were heading.
Virgin retaliates, reports say. Seems like fiddling at the fringes, good luck.
In the meantime, although it looks like NZ will be wide body on it's AKL-SYD main drag (Tasman)
It still seems surprising that their future A320/1 fleet is without business class. Flexibility,is NZ's
specialty, and I'm really surprised they intend to forego that option. Latest events might change
that although NZ will have known for months of course, what's just happened.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 16, 2018 12:59 pm

Kashmon wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
There are already plans in place to increase the main trunk capacity in Auckland. The whole purpose of the CRL is to double the capacity of Britimart. I don't see the point in spending large on CRL, new trains and all the rest unless we are going to expand the heavy rail network. If AT also build the Mt Roskill Spur off the WQestern Line that will go a long way to relieving congestion along Sandringham Dominion Roads, it's also cheap, less than $100m.

If the Govt finally builds the Avondale Southdown line that would then enable rail transport from the West to link to Onehunga and on to the airport.


why do most Kiwi's not understand this!
explained so well....

Getting a little off-topic with the Airport rail connection now, but I seriously suggest that posters might read the consultants' report at https://at.govt.nz/media/1927342/draft- ... s-case.pdf, and there'd be a much better appreciation of the sort of factors that have to be considered in any connection along any alignment. Factors like catchment, network implications, terminal capacity and operating patterns and efficiencies are all critical - just as they are with airlines. It's not just a matter of joining two dots on the map.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 11361
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:55 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
Kashmon wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
There are already plans in place to increase the main trunk capacity in Auckland. The whole purpose of the CRL is to double the capacity of Britimart. I don't see the point in spending large on CRL, new trains and all the rest unless we are going to expand the heavy rail network. If AT also build the Mt Roskill Spur off the WQestern Line that will go a long way to relieving congestion along Sandringham Dominion Roads, it's also cheap, less than $100m.

If the Govt finally builds the Avondale Southdown line that would then enable rail transport from the West to link to Onehunga and on to the airport.


why do most Kiwi's not understand this!
explained so well....

Getting a little off-topic with the Airport rail connection now, but I seriously suggest that posters might read the consultants' report at https://at.govt.nz/media/1927342/draft- ... s-case.pdf, and there'd be a much better appreciation of the sort of factors that have to be considered in any connection along any alignment. Factors like catchment, network implications, terminal capacity and operating patterns and efficiencies are all critical - just as they are with airlines. It's not just a matter of joining two dots on the map.


I see some flaws in the report and it's mainly due to catchment, there's no reason why there couldn't be a HR station between Mangere Town Centre and the Airport Business District, at Ascot like the LR proposal has, this reduces the HR catchment area. If/when the Avondal Southdown line is built that adds significantly more catchment area from West Auckland, which is one of the main locations earmarked for intensification in Auckland. This line would add signficiant capacity to the HR network without having to go through Britomart and the CRL. It would also reduce the need to choke one of Auckland busiest roads with a LR line down the middle of it.
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 3202
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:21 pm

NZ6 wrote:

1: VA Shareholding:
Hindsight is such a powerful tool, let's not forget you have this and the NZ Exco team & Board did not. NZ wanted to reenter the Australian aviation market and to support many of their long term growth aspirations. South America, deepening routes into USA etc. It also also allowed them to coordinated their Tasman operations strengthening this market and making NZ more attractive to the AU corporate base by offering lounge, loyalty and other benefits when in an alliance.

VA also had a strategy to moving from a LCC brand into a more full service brand.

At this time the shareholding looked like a sound decision as VA were coming off a long continued period to strong performance, also not forgetting a QF alliance was rejected several years earlier and no one wanted a repeat of Ansett.

Throughout the duration of the alliance NZ has preformed exceptionally well financially, they've changed their entire international fleet and/or in-flight product. 767, 744's gone A320's replaced and 777's refurbed etc.

VA on the other hand hasn't lived up to expectation and Luxon has been putting heat on VA performance however with no immediate benefit or turn around in sight NZ has considered a new approach going forward.

Criticize NZ all you like, however I question anyone who believes they knew better at the time of where VA would be positioned in the market now vs where they were at the time.


I agree with you. Hindsight is great, but at the time of Air New Zealand's investment in Virgin Australia seemed like a logical decision to strengthen the airline's position in Australasia. How could NZ know back then that JB had such little concern about profits?
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
aerorobnz
Posts: 8077
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 16, 2018 7:31 pm

bevan7 wrote:
aerorobnz wrote:
zkojq wrote:
What's the point of the 4-hour check-in restriction?


Because all passengers are being questioned by security staff in a secured part of check-in. They are only there for the 4 hours ahead.


What airport will this be at? What happens to connecting passengers if they transfer airside?


AKL. Transit passengers will be questioned upstairs by security, at the entrance to the secure gate lounges where the random searches and swabbing occur. All up, allow time if you want to make your connections.
Flown to 128 Airports in 48 Countries on 81 Operators. Visited 56 Countries and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
Kashmon
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 8:08 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:06 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
Kashmon wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
There are already plans in place to increase the main trunk capacity in Auckland. The whole purpose of the CRL is to double the capacity of Britimart. I don't see the point in spending large on CRL, new trains and all the rest unless we are going to expand the heavy rail network. If AT also build the Mt Roskill Spur off the WQestern Line that will go a long way to relieving congestion along Sandringham Dominion Roads, it's also cheap, less than $100m.

If the Govt finally builds the Avondale Southdown line that would then enable rail transport from the West to link to Onehunga and on to the airport.


why do most Kiwi's not understand this!
explained so well....

Getting a little off-topic with the Airport rail connection now, but I seriously suggest that posters might read the consultants' report at https://at.govt.nz/media/1927342/draft- ... s-case.pdf, and there'd be a much better appreciation of the sort of factors that have to be considered in any connection along any alignment. Factors like catchment, network implications, terminal capacity and operating patterns and efficiencies are all critical - just as they are with airlines. It's not just a matter of joining two dots on the map.

some of us have read that

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.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19463
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:16 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
It’s written on the side of a lot of 787’s.


It was a rhetorical question.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:27 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
I see some flaws in the report and it's mainly due to catchment, there's no reason why there couldn't be a HR station between Mangere Town Centre and the Airport Business District, at Ascot like the LR proposal has, this reduces the HR catchment area. If/when the Avondal Southdown line is built that adds significantly more catchment area from West Auckland, which is one of the main locations earmarked for intensification in Auckland. This line would add signficiant capacity to the HR network without having to go through Britomart and the CRL. It would also reduce the need to choke one of Auckland busiest roads with a LR line down the middle of it.

Sure, there could be a HR station at Ascot, but if people are worried about the speed penalty that LR has compared with HR, then the best way to reverse that is to increase the number of HR stations. The addition of an Ascot station probably brings the HR journey time up to pretty much equal to the LR option, negating most of the argument people have advanced in favour of HR. Not that, in reality, the gain of about 2 minutes in a 40-minute journey is going to be the critical factor in determining patronage.

Increasing the catchment area by building the Avondale-Southdown link would definitely work - but that's way, way off the current agenda. But it's never going to be a replacement for Dominion Road LR, which was under consideration well before the idea of extending the line to the Airport was mooted. "Choking" Dominion Road with a LR down the middle: I think there's a misunderstanding here. The aim of LR is to move more people (not cars) more quickly within a given corridor. The expectation is that if you get people out of their cars there is less car demand and the remaining traffic flows more freely. Classic example: the Northern Busway has confounded the sceptic and now carries around 50% of the people across the harbour bridge at peak times in a fraction of the road space that the other 50% use. And guess what? Vehicular traffic on the harbour bridge has declined slowly/stabilised to the point where a second (third, actually) harbour crossing is no longer being seriously considered within the next couple of decades.

I do find it amusing that on a quick read by an A-netter the "flaws" in the Airport Rail report are so obvious. I don't know why anyone ever hires consultants! Just sayin . . .
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:33 pm

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 . . .
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
Sylus
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 10:14 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:51 pm

 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4105
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:30 am

DavidByrne wrote:


I do find it amusing that on a quick read by an A-netter the "flaws" in the Airport Rail report are so obvious. I don't know why anyone ever hires consultants! Just sayin . . .

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.
It's interesting that back in the day a lot of projects were built not only faster, cheaper and better without stacks of consultants and all without a lot of the modern technology we now have.
If Robbies Rail had been built back in the day we would have a vastly larger rail network now and it would have cost less than the cost of the CRL being built now (and would have included one) and that's inflation adjusted.
57 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
getluv
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:11 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:39 am

planemanofnz wrote:
getluv wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:


There's still a point, albeit not as much of a point - but more AA to AKL may hurt NZ, which would in-directly benefit the QF Group.



UA expanding flights to Australia does more hurt to NZ than a AA daily 788 service between AKL-LAX ever could.

So? More - maybe, but it's not a zero-sum equation - AA at AKL without a doubt also has some negative effect on NZ's North American operations, even if only to LAX.

Is it in QF's interests for AA to continue to fly to AKL, even at the expense of QF losing some New Zealand - North America traffic on its own metal via SYD? Definitely.


What would the AA share be of seats between the US-NZ? Less than 5%. NZ would only feel pain if it was a daily flight. Further, if QF/AA have a JV in place it wouldn't matter what direction or plane the pax was on, as long as the seat was filled.

NZ6 wrote:
getluv wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

Really, even though both carriers have done it before standalone? Even though they're both One World Carriers so already in an alliance or sorts?

Sure - alliances are the way forward but given NZ has a monopoly on such "lucrative" route I'm surprised and disappointed neither carrier has done more.


I don't think its that 'lucrative' if NZ is the cheapest option for Australian based pax.

Both of them being in oneworld without having a JV would mean they're nothing more than just good friends. Legally they have to compete against each other.

zkncj wrote:
It’s really an YES/NO answer, even though the JV only covers NZ/US flights, the two would of been fully aware of each other’s plan, and it helps the two them claim more market share of the Pacific.


It would actually be against Australian and USA competition laws if NZ knew about UA's plans and no other airline did for SYD-IAH. That's anti-competitive behaviour.


From the original post, a comment was made about profits and questioning if they were sustainable now NZ had lost the monopoly. From this you take it that the poster is implying the routes are 'lucrative'. NZ is cleaver in how they attract price sensitive customers ex Australia to support their NZ-US operations, they do this by pricing themselves in the market for non direct AU-US without lowing their NZ-US booking classes.

QF could do the exact same thing, QF have a added advantage of creating a circle trip on their own mental for people wanting to visit all 3 countries for either business or leisure, no other carrier can do this. It's also support by AA internally. For example

SYD-LAX
LAX-AKL
AKL-SYD

You could also do

NYC-LAX
LAX-AKL
AKL-MEL
ADL-SYD
SYD-DFW

With the final leg back to NYC on AA.

NZ, AA, UA, DL can't compete as aggressively like QF can, don't forget JQ domestic also offers domestic NZ options.

One World and your usual agreements mean AA and QF can code-share AKL-LAX and sell on each others metal. You can buy AKL-LAX now operated by AA on the QF website.


You will find that when QF/AA first lodged their application for a JV that was a selling point, to create triangle itineraries between the 3 countries. However, QF and AA do not have a JV in place, unless QF wants a small commission there's no incentive for QF to direct pax via AKL on AA flights until QF have filled every seat on their own aircraft.

I would say the AU-NZ-USA route was way more lucrative when it was just QF, UA and NZ competing. NZ's only selling point to AU based passengers is price. Therefore NZ is not cleverer, it has to charge less than virtually everyone else because it is a one stop option. While I commend NZ for creating brand awareness in Australia, I ultimately believe it was a futile exercise they are only attracting price sensitive customers to the Americas.
You meant lose, not loose.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4105
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:41 am

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.
57 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
PA515
Posts: 1287
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:49 am

Flightradar24 has ZK-NZL doing NZ175 AKL-PER on 19 Apr and ZK-NZH is doing NZ28 AKL-IAH. This would be the first trip to IAH by a Code 1 789.

Presumably this is related to the 'Package C' engine issue and confirms ZK-NZL does not have the Trent TEN.

ZK-NZH was out of service 06 Dec 2017 to 23 March 2018 and would have received modified engines, so no restrictions?

PA515
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4105
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:49 am

getluv wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
getluv wrote:


.


You will find that when QF/AA first lodged their application for a JV that was a selling point, to create triangle itineraries between the 3 countries. However, QF and AA do not have a JV in place, unless QF wants a small commission there's no incentive for QF to direct pax via AKL on AA flights until QF have filled every seat on their own aircraft.

I would say the AU-NZ-USA route was way more lucrative when it was just QF, UA and NZ competing. NZ's only selling point to AU based passengers is price. Therefore NZ is not cleverer, it has to charge less than virtually everyone else because it is a one stop option. While I commend NZ for creating brand awareness in Australia, I ultimately believe it was a futile exercise they are only attracting price sensitive customers to the Americas.

Except that NZ has diversified and now offers more destinations in North America than QF on a permanent basis (YVR,LAX,SFO,IAH,ORD,HNL - QF barely does YVR, doesn't do ORD and substitute DFW for IAH).
From most places in Australia besides SYD, NZ actually offers a better connection option than QF/DL/UA/AC does since it is an international to international transfer (that is very easy). It also helps to break up the journey slightly (2 hours extra in a plane can make a big difference). You are correct that it is mostly the more price-conscious traveller that is booking NZ but not entirely and NZ has better service than all of those airlines bar QF where they are on a par with each other generally.
57 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
PA515
Posts: 1287
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:33 am

PA515 wrote:
This would be the first trip to IAH by a Code 1 789.


Apparently not. ZK-NZF did a 23 Dec 2017 AKL-IAH as NZ1390.

PA515
 
NTLDaz
Posts: 146
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 7:56 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:53 am

Zkpilot wrote:
getluv wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:

You will find that when QF/AA first lodged their application for a JV that was a selling point, to create triangle itineraries between the 3 countries. However, QF and AA do not have a JV in place, unless QF wants a small commission there's no incentive for QF to direct pax via AKL on AA flights until QF have filled every seat on their own aircraft.

I would say the AU-NZ-USA route was way more lucrative when it was just QF, UA and NZ competing. NZ's only selling point to AU based passengers is price. Therefore NZ is not cleverer, it has to charge less than virtually everyone else because it is a one stop option. While I commend NZ for creating brand awareness in Australia, I ultimately believe it was a futile exercise they are only attracting price sensitive customers to the Americas.

Except that NZ has diversified and now offers more destinations in North America than QF on a permanent basis (YVR,LAX,SFO,IAH,ORD,HNL - QF barely does YVR, doesn't do ORD and substitute DFW for IAH).
From most places in Australia besides SYD, NZ actually offers a better connection option than QF/DL/UA/AC does since it is an international to international transfer (that is very easy). It also helps to break up the journey slightly (2 hours extra in a plane can make a big difference). You are correct that it is mostly the more price-conscious traveller that is booking NZ but not entirely and NZ has better service than all of those airlines bar QF where they are on a par with each other generally.


You are correct to a point. If going to Canada AC is probably the best option for BNE and SYD and seasonally Melbourne. SFO has non stops from SYD and MEL. IAH is not that great unless going there or more obscure places you can't connect to from the West Coast - most places of interest have connections. ORD is a good one

I hate the AKL stopover - it's either a pain having to get off the plane after a few hours flying or having to get off when you're so close to home. When I fly to SCL I'll always opt for the QF flight to avoid AKL.

NZ has been doing heavy marketing over here which tells me they badly need Australian feed.

Having said that NZ is great for some including a mate of mine who travels NZ to US a couple of times a year but he always takes a cheapie.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:26 am

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.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
getluv
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:11 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:57 am

Zkpilot wrote:
getluv wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:

You will find that when QF/AA first lodged their application for a JV that was a selling point, to create triangle itineraries between the 3 countries. However, QF and AA do not have a JV in place, unless QF wants a small commission there's no incentive for QF to direct pax via AKL on AA flights until QF have filled every seat on their own aircraft.

I would say the AU-NZ-USA route was way more lucrative when it was just QF, UA and NZ competing. NZ's only selling point to AU based passengers is price. Therefore NZ is not cleverer, it has to charge less than virtually everyone else because it is a one stop option. While I commend NZ for creating brand awareness in Australia, I ultimately believe it was a futile exercise they are only attracting price sensitive customers to the Americas.

Except that NZ has diversified and now offers more destinations in North America than QF on a permanent basis (YVR,LAX,SFO,IAH,ORD,HNL - QF barely does YVR, doesn't do ORD and substitute DFW for IAH).
From most places in Australia besides SYD, NZ actually offers a better connection option than QF/DL/UA/AC does since it is an international to international transfer (that is very easy). It also helps to break up the journey slightly (2 hours extra in a plane can make a big difference). You are correct that it is mostly the more price-conscious traveller that is booking NZ but not entirely and NZ has better service than all of those airlines bar QF where they are on a par with each other generally.


QF has to consider three Australian cities to service flights to/from the US, NZ only has one. So you're comparing apples and oranges.

NZ doesn't do ORD yet and won't for another few more months and. Even then, it will still be a one stop proposition to get there. Combined with the fact that NZ doesn't have the FF base like QF and VA, so NZ has to be the cheapest otherwise no one would fly them.
You meant lose, not loose.
 
aerohottie
Posts: 745
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:52 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:46 am

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?
What?
 
getluv
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:11 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:05 am

NZ and VA will have to allocate more resources to keep their remaining share which may not be more fruitful if they can earn more profit elsewhere. So NZ's response seems appropriate for now.
You meant lose, not loose.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6053
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:12 am

PA515 wrote:
PA515 wrote:
This would be the first trip to IAH by a Code 1 789.


Apparently not. ZK-NZF did a 23 Dec 2017 AKL-IAH as NZ1390.

PA515


I’m sure there were 2-3 rotations with code 1 frames around that time?!
 
Kashmon
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 8:08 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:28 am

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 . . .


HR is inefficient?
really?
so a loop from puhinui to avondale via mt roskill and mangere will be inefficient
not to mention the second cargo route option....
I do not think you understand public transport systems..../ HAVE you ever actually been on dominion road

hilarious....
yeah it took AT how many years to realize that the wages of their pointless staff could be saved?!

enjoy your 10km/hr toy tram and all the stops on dominion rd
lots of critical thinking there, pure genius.

The complain and whine about why Auckland residents prefer cars....

anyways with any luck the current government will be out soon and the monstrosity stopped.
( I love PT but the pro PT parties keep trying to make PT as inconvenient as possible and then insult the public for using cars)
 
Kashmon
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 8:08 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:32 am

DavidByrne wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
I see some flaws in the report and it's mainly due to catchment, there's no reason why there couldn't be a HR station between Mangere Town Centre and the Airport Business District, at Ascot like the LR proposal has, this reduces the HR catchment area. If/when the Avondal Southdown line is built that adds significantly more catchment area from West Auckland, which is one of the main locations earmarked for intensification in Auckland. This line would add signficiant capacity to the HR network without having to go through Britomart and the CRL. It would also reduce the need to choke one of Auckland busiest roads with a LR line down the middle of it.

Sure, there could be a HR station at Ascot, but if people are worried about the speed penalty that LR has compared with HR, then the best way to reverse that is to increase the number of HR stations. The addition of an Ascot station probably brings the HR journey time up to pretty much equal to the LR option, negating most of the argument people have advanced in favour of HR. Not that, in reality, the gain of about 2 minutes in a 40-minute journey is going to be the critical factor in determining patronage.

Increasing the catchment area by building the Avondale-Southdown link would definitely work - but that's way, way off the current agenda. But it's never going to be a replacement for Dominion Road LR, which was under consideration well before the idea of extending the line to the Airport was mooted. "Choking" Dominion Road with a LR down the middle: I think there's a misunderstanding here. The aim of LR is to move more people (not cars) more quickly within a given corridor. The expectation is that if you get people out of their cars there is less car demand and the remaining traffic flows more freely. Classic example: the Northern Busway has confounded the sceptic and now carries around 50% of the people across the harbour bridge at peak times in a fraction of the road space that the other 50% use. And guess what? Vehicular traffic on the harbour bridge has declined slowly/stabilised to the point where a second (third, actually) harbour crossing is no longer being seriously considered within the next couple of decades.

I do find it amusing that on a quick read by an A-netter the "flaws" in the Airport Rail report are so obvious. I don't know why anyone ever hires consultants! Just sayin . . .


everyone knows NZ's "consultants" are sub par, especially on PT

ask the masses why they hate public transport
too slow, to expensive ( wasting money on pointless staff) ,no wifi on trains, consultants think a train every 15 min is high frequency....

if they saved the millions on consultants and put it in ticket prices PT will actually be attractive.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 11361
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:00 am

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.


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.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6053
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:06 am

I find this rail talk fairly boring so haven’t said anything yet however.

I do think they have to go heavy rail mainly because that’s what the rest of the network already uses and while it will take some time (it will either way) it’s not that far from Wiri or Onehunga to the airport to have a line obviously underground for a fair bit of the way to avoid industrial built up areas.

I just can’t see the point of Trams, we aren’t in 1900, and light rail really imo doesn’t fit in with the current network. AKL population isn’t that big to justify another type of train. CRL seems an absolute wait of time and money.

I’m guessing we will still be having this discussion in 2040.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:12 am

Kiwirob 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.


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?
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:14 am

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.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 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