ZKNBX
Topic Author
Posts: 440
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:24 pm

Why Doesn't NZ Re-enter The SYD-LAX Market?

Sun Nov 12, 2006 1:06 pm

Given that SYD-LAX is one of the most profitable routes in the world, and given that SQ and EK among others, have been chomping at the bit, to get their hands on SYD-LAX... it seems highly odd that

NZ have 744s spare (literally sitting around) and
NZ are not exercising their rights to operate the route.

There has been much discussion about NZ leasing 744s to Air India, and other carriers. This has yet to eventuate, and NZ 744s are now on wet-lease to the Singapore military this month.... flying charters back and forth between SIN and Rockhampton. Latest rumours are that NZ 744s will be based in Europe, on lease.... (BUT NZ just spent tonnes of money refitting the 744s)

Now the QF - NZ tie-up is definitely off the agenda, and while NZ have the superior product, would seem the ideal time to me, for NZ to re-enter that market.... rather than waiting for competitors to establish a market presence.

Fyfe says it will be October 2007 before another new destination... (likely to be AKL-PVG-MUC or AKL-PVG-FRA) and there is now an expectation the 77W will enter the fleet within 5 years to replace the 744. So what gives? Why did they spend the money on the refit? What are the chances of the 744 re-entering the SYD-USA market?
 
TG992
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2001 12:03 pm

RE: Why Doesn't NZ Re-enter The SYD-LAX Market?

Sun Nov 12, 2006 1:18 pm

None, given that if they did, UA would re-enter AKL-LAX.

Another reason is that NZ can't offer the domestic connections that UA and QF can. This made us unattractive as an option at both ends. The new longhaul product has also added a considerable amount of weight to our B744s. We would only be able to carry around 320 pax on on this sector (capacity 393), making it uneconomical to fly.

(BTW, Qantas and United Airlines both have different operating rules and onboard products than we do which allows them to carry more payload. This is why those airlines are able to effectively fly SYDLAX)
-
 
aircanada014
Posts: 1224
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:24 pm

RE: Why Doesn't NZ Re-enter The SYD-LAX Market?

Sun Nov 12, 2006 1:36 pm

If and when Canada and Australia reach their agreement AC will be able to fly YYZ-LAX-SYD and when they do UA, NZ along with US will be able to codeshare on AC's flight from LAX-SYD portion.
 
VHVXB
Posts: 5309
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 7:54 pm

RE: Why Doesn't NZ Re-enter The SYD-LAX Market?

Sun Nov 12, 2006 1:43 pm

Quoting ZKNBX (Thread starter):
EK among others, have been chomping at the bit, to get their hands on SYD-LAX... it seems highly odd that

when did EK ever say they were interested in flying to the US from Aust?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...ory/0,20867,20588293-23349,00.html

[Edited 2006-11-12 05:55:09]
 
User avatar
eta unknown
Posts: 1782
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 5:03 am

RE: Why Doesn't NZ Re-enter The SYD-LAX Market?

Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:37 am

NZ was always the last to fill up on SYD-LAX. There was also significant AN feed- now that's gone, the service would be even more difficult to operate.

As for the 747 lease on ZK-SUH, please remember the lease renewal terms on this particular aircraft were ***extremely*** generous and NZ can still make a profit operating this aircraft even if it means leasing it out.
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: Why Doesn't NZ Re-enter The SYD-LAX Market?

Mon Nov 13, 2006 6:28 am

UA would never return to LAX-AKL under any conditions: they reported that it was too low-yield and a waste of a 747.

Air NZ's 747-400 was and is too big to operate SYD-LAX without domestic Australian feed. But a 777-200ER would be fine if it had more premium and fewer economy seats (say 46 Business / 40 Premium Economy / 180 Economy for a total of 266 seats). This would not only optimise yield but would also maximise payload for the long sector.

Moreover, the afternoon A320 aircraft flying AKL-BNE could actually operate AKL-BNE-SYD-AKL to provide feed from BNE to SYD if needed.

No, the only real reason why Air NZ is not operating SYD-LAX with 777s and intending to operate MEL-LAX and BNE-LAX with 787 aircraft is because it is afraid of threatening Qantas and jeopardising its fantasies of bondage with QF.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Why Doesn't NZ Re-enter The SYD-LAX Market?

Mon Nov 13, 2006 6:37 am

If NZ operated LAX-SYD, they wouldn't have Australian feed, and the feed from LAX is limited since United passengers would probably be continuing on United's flight rather than go through the hassle of switching to terminal 2 and changing airlines even though NZ offers a superior product in both business and economy class. There would be little feed from Air Canada since they already fly to SYD. HP/US feed is pretty minimal.

Quoting Koruman (Reply 5):
UA would never return to LAX-AKL under any conditions: they reported that it was too low-yield and a waste of a 747.

Never is a strong word. I think it is possible that UA could return to LAX-AKL or start SFO-AKL. It doesn't seem very imminent, but it is possible.

Quoting Koruman (Reply 5):
Moreover, the afternoon A320 aircraft flying AKL-BNE could actually operate AKL-BNE-SYD-AKL to provide feed from BNE to SYD if needed.

What would that accomplish? NZ already has 5 daily SYD-AKL flights, and can feed its flights to SFO and LAX with connections from Australia.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: Why Doesn't NZ Re-enter The SYD-LAX Market?

Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:11 am

What it would accomplish is ensuring that there was feed on NZ metal from BNE to SYD for the SYD-LAX flight. It would replace on of the daily SYD-AKL flights.

Similarly, the morning AKL-SYD A320 would continue up to BNE to drop off arrivals from the LAX-SYD service, before flying back to AKL from BNE.

That effectively increases the market from 4 million Sydney residents to 6 million Sydney and south-east Queensland residents. MEL already has 1 stop flights to LAX via AKL on NZ 5/6, this would reproduce the situation for BNE.

I may sound like simpilicity, but I'm not!
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why Doesn't NZ Re-enter The SYD-LAX Market?

Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:13 am

Quoting Koruman (Reply 5):
UA would never return to LAX-AKL under any conditions: they reported that it was too low-yield and a waste of a 747.

The problem wasn't so much yields per se, it was a combination of yields and load factors. Since the United 772ERs don't have the range to do the route with a profitable enough payload to support the operational need, United dropped it. If United were to ever go back to AKL, it would behoove them to run from both LAX and SFO

Quoting Koruman (Reply 5):
Moreover, the afternoon A320 aircraft flying AKL-BNE could actually operate AKL-BNE-SYD-AKL to provide feed from BNE to SYD if needed.

There is a little problem of cabotage, unless NZ can operate Australian domestic services
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Why Doesn't NZ Re-enter The SYD-LAX Market?

Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:23 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 8):
Quoting Koruman (Reply 5):
Moreover, the afternoon A320 aircraft flying AKL-BNE could actually operate AKL-BNE-SYD-AKL to provide feed from BNE to SYD if needed.

There is a little problem of cabotage, unless NZ can operate Australian domestic services

I believe Air New Zealand can operate domestically in Australia just as Qantas operates domestically in New Zealand. Air New Zealand had a controlling interest in Ansett Australia. New Zealand and Australia have very liberal regulations. Any airline can operate between the two, which is why there are so many airlines flying AKL-SYD.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: Why Doesn't NZ Re-enter The SYD-LAX Market?

Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:23 am

Just to clarify, it is not cabotage: Air NZ has full rights to operate domestic services in Australia.

Two weeks ago I was seated on an Air NZ 777 Trans-Tasman behind Maurice Williamson, whose handling of the cabotage debacle in 1994 led to the Ansett investment. I was surprised he still travels Air NZ after the consequences of that. But yes, air NZ eventually ended up with full rights to carry passengers

1) To Australia.
2) Within Australia (whether foreign or Australian passengers).
3) Through and beyond Australia.
4) From Australia to New Zealand.
5) From Australia to any other country.

The idea of the Ansett mess was partly to exercise those rights from Australia long-haul to elsewhere, but Air NZ was so busy protecting AKL-LAX that it neglected Ansett's SYD-LAX and lost Ansett, and with it in turn the domestic feed for SYD-LAX on Air NZ.

But 777s are smaller than the 747s, and could operate MEL-LAX and SYD-LAX without feed, and 787s could operate PER-BNE-LAX, SYD-SFO and MEL-SFO.

And there's a lot more potential for growth there than on China-NZ.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why Doesn't NZ Re-enter The SYD-LAX Market?

Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:28 am

Quoting Koruman (Reply 10):
Just to clarify, it is not cabotage: Air NZ has full rights to operate domestic services in Australia.

Well, it is cabotage, they are just legally able to do it.

Quoting Koruman (Reply 10):
But 777s are smaller than the 747s, and could operate MEL-LAX and SYD-LAX without feed

The problem becomes that NZ would be at a significant CASM disadvantage to United and Qantas.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
aerohottie
Posts: 716
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:52 pm

RE: Why Doesn't NZ Re-enter The SYD-LAX Market?

Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:18 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 11):
The problem becomes that NZ would be at a significant CASM disadvantage to United and Qantas.

I'm not too sure how much of an issue that would be considering NZ's much lower operating costs compared to QF and UA esp. Really wouldn't surprise me if NZ could operate a 772ER with lower CASM than a 744 of QF or UA.
What?
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why Doesn't NZ Re-enter The SYD-LAX Market?

Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:20 pm

Quoting Aerohottie (Reply 12):
I'm not too sure how much of an issue that would be considering NZ's much lower operating costs compared to QF and UA esp. Really wouldn't surprise me if NZ could operate a 772ER with lower CASM than a 744 of QF or UA.

A similar comparison would be Southwest competing on a route with United where Southwest flew a 73G and United a 752. Though Southwest has lower costs overall, hte 752's nominal CASM advantage would more than make up for that.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
TonyBurr
Posts: 1060
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2001 1:00 pm

RE: Why Doesn't NZ Re-enter The SYD-LAX Market?

Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:24 pm

I am not sure about some of the comments here. As to the NZ product vs the UA, NZ C is I think far superior. As to changing terminals in LAX, I would do it for the superior product. As to feed in SYD, what feed dooes UA have, yet it seems to go out full alot. So I am not sure why NZ does not get in the market.
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5073
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: Why Doesn't NZ Re-enter The SYD-LAX Market?

Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:28 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 11):
The problem becomes that NZ would be at a significant CASM disadvantage to United and Qantas.

Maybe, but with the potential yield's from the seating layout that Koruman has outlined this is probably not too relevant.
In the "Flight" article Fyfe claimed that NZ was saving $NZ62million a year in fuel by using the -200ER's over the -400's on the AKL-LAX-LHR route. If you don't have the payload then what sense is there in putting excessive capacity on the route?. When you take the load factor times the number of premium seats on the -400 and subtract from the resulting number; the count of premium seats on the -200ER , the lost revenue is not all that great. Probably not close to $NZ62 million!
Probably just a coincidence, but NZ's load factor with the -400 on the AKL-LAX-LHR route is about 80% which gives a seat occupancy right around the 313 seats of their -200ER's.
 
ChiGB1973
Posts: 1394
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 6:39 am

RE: Why Doesn't NZ Re-enter The SYD-LAX Market?

Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:34 pm

Quoting ZKNBX (Thread starter):
Given that SYD-LAX is one of the most profitable routes in the world

Add supply, decrease demand, decrease yields. It works in some cases, not in others as far as breaking even or making a profit. Of course, I have no idea how much and it might still be profitable, but the idea that, one guy is making money at it, I can too, is just that, an idea.

M
 
kiwiflyer791
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 5:49 pm

RE: Why Doesn't NZ Re-enter The SYD-LAX Market?

Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:07 pm

Basically our aircraft are now just to dammed heavy to operate this service now. The upgrade added a huge amount of extra weight to the planes and operating SYD-LAX with a reduced payload just doesn't make sense.
 
QantasA380
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:22 pm

RE: Why Doesn't NZ Re-enter The SYD-LAX Market?

Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:37 pm

I know that SYD-AKL-LAX isn't the same as SYD-LAX, and I'm not sure if it still works like this now, but a couple of years ago there were NZ flights from BNE, SYD and MEL planned to arrive in AKL in time for a reasonably quick connection to LAX, and the same in return. The outbound flight from SYD left around 11am, IIRC, and there was around 60-90 minutes connection time in AKL...
Virgin Blue - what colour's RED????
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 5008
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

RE: Why Doesn't NZ Re-enter The SYD-LAX Market?

Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:20 pm

Quoting QantasA380 (Reply 18):
I know that SYD-AKL-LAX isn't the same as SYD-LAX, and I'm not sure if it still works like this now, but a couple of years ago there were NZ flights from BNE, SYD and MEL planned to arrive in AKL in time for a reasonably quick connection to LAX, and the same in return. The outbound flight from SYD left around 11am, IIRC, and there was around 60-90 minutes connection time in AKL...

Sure is, NZ offer NZ5/6 as a MEL-AKL-LAX service, sometimes with a change of aircraft in AKL.

I think yeild is the problem for NZ to return to SYD-LAX even with a 777, and the lack of domestic feed into SYD.
 
ZKNBX
Topic Author
Posts: 440
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:24 pm

RE: Why Doesn't NZ Re-enter The SYD-LAX Market?

Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:30 pm

I'm also not sure about some of the coments here... there seem to be a rash of assumptions underpinning a lot of the talk above.

Air NZ could form an alliance with Virgin Blue... there are new rumours of cooperation on the other side of the Tasman.

QF is seriously loosing money in NZ via their Jetconnect operation because they don't have adequate feed. NZ can solve this via an interline with Virgin Blue on the other side of the ditch... QF have no such options here in NZ now.

Regardless of whether you accept or don't accept the suggestions of cooperation with Virgin Blue, QF have sucessfuly maintained operation between NZ and the United States (via AKL) despite a lack of presence in the NZ domestic market. Why? Becuase they have a solid product and fly the Tasman comprehensively. They also link with other Oneworld Alliance members (LA & CX) via AKL... and AA via LAX

Australia - and in particular its East coast cities of MEL and SYD - are all significantly larger than AKL in terms of population concentration. Therefore, I cannot see the logic in NZ NOT exercising its rights out of Australia. NZ could be flying AKL-SYD-HKG, AKL-MEL-HKG and AKL-BNE-HKG (to feed HKG-LHR service); similarly there is surely room for NZ to offer nonstop service between Australia and the USA, just as QF do from Australia via AKL to LAX. If not with 744, NZ could use a reconfigured 777 with larger Premium and PPE cabins. It seems as if NZ are surrendering their rights (literally standing aside) if they allow AC to enter the LAX-Australasia market, and likely adding the nail in the coffin of their HNL route to boot...

In short, I still don't understand why NZ don't leverage off their rights out of OZ because no other airline has or can get those rights out of Australia. QF have scant presence in NZ domestic market now... yet they still attract patronage between AKL and LAX... NZ could have the same or greater success via Australia.
 
Curmudgeon
Posts: 682
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:19 pm

RE: Why Doesn't NZ Re-enter The SYD-LAX Market?

Mon Nov 13, 2006 3:34 pm

Quoting ZK-NBT (Reply 19):

I think yeild is the problem for NZ to return to SYD-LAX even with a 777, and the lack of domestic feed into SYD.

I think that future yields are very much the problem, but not because of connections. NZ already serves most of the other major centres anyway via AKL, and there aren't many regional cities with a notable population in Australia.

Yields will become critical in three years or so when the A380 replaces some QF 744's on the route, and AC and JQ services are established. By that time fares will approach commodity pricing levels, and nobody will be getting fat.
Jets are for kids
 
777ER
Crew
Posts: 9875
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: Why Doesn't NZ Re-enter The SYD-LAX Market?

Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:49 pm

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 9):
Quoting N1120A (Reply 8):
Quoting Koruman (Reply 5):
Moreover, the afternoon A320 aircraft flying AKL-BNE could actually operate AKL-BNE-SYD-AKL to provide feed from BNE to SYD if needed.

There is a little problem of cabotage, unless NZ can operate Australian domestic services

I believe Air New Zealand can operate domestically in Australia just as Qantas operates domestically in New Zealand. Air New Zealand had a controlling interest in Ansett Australia. New Zealand and Australia have very liberal regulations. Any airline can operate between the two, which is why there are so many airlines flying AKL-SYD.

The reason why NZ purchased 50% of AN was because of the Australian Government and backing out of its fair share of the NZ/OZ agreement

Quoting ZKNBX (Reply 20):
Air NZ could form an alliance with Virgin Blue... there are new rumours of cooperation on the other side of the Tasman.

Read that in Wellingtons main paper on saturday, in a very nice article on NZ, QF and DJ. Apparantly back in 2002 DJ apprached NZ, while NZ and QF were holding talks about code-sharing
Head Forum Moderator
moderators@airliners.net for all Moderator contact
 
aerohottie
Posts: 716
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:52 pm

RE: Why Doesn't NZ Re-enter The SYD-LAX Market?

Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:59 pm

Quoting 777ER (Reply 22):
Quoting ZKNBX (Reply 20):
Air NZ could form an alliance with Virgin Blue... there are new rumours of cooperation on the other side of the Tasman.

Read that in Wellingtons main paper on saturday, in a very nice article on NZ, QF and DJ. Apparantly back in 2002 DJ apprached NZ, while NZ and QF were holding talks about code-sharing

I'm not sure if I could see NZ working with DJ or not....
What?
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: Why Doesn't NZ Re-enter The SYD-LAX Market?

Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:53 pm

Fyfe's argument about saving $62 million per year on fuel by flying AKL-LAX-LHR with a 777 instead of a 747 reveals just how little he understands about yields.

Every day all 4 sectors now have 20 fewer Business Class seats and 13 fewer Premium Economy seats. If we assume 80% loads, that is a total of 64 fewer Business Class sectors sold per day and 40 fewer Premium Economy sectors sold per day.

If we then assume a median per sector fare (e.g. AKL-LAX or LAX-LHR) of $2000 in Business class and $1000 in Premium Economy, the switch to the 777 is costing $128,000 per day in lost Business Class revenue and $40,000 per day in lost Premium Economy revenue. That is almost $170,000 per day in lost revenue, or $1.2 million dollars per week, or the same $62 million dollars per year - and that is without factoring in Economy Class losses too, and the effects of losing premium customers on LHR-LAX to British Airways and Virgin Atlantic, and LAX-AKL passengers to Qantas.

In short, Fyfe can claim to be saving $62 million on his fuel bill, and spin it to impress his shareholders, but his lost yield is much more than the $62 million.

As usual, short-term cost-cutting to prepare for selling off the airline.

If he really wanted to make his 777 work, he should have kept the same 46 Business and 31 Premium Economy that the 747 has, and just ripped out low-yield Economy seats. But the refit would have cost money in the short-term, and we wouldn't want to do that, would we?
 
aerohottie
Posts: 716
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:52 pm

RE: Why Doesn't NZ Re-enter The SYD-LAX Market?

Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:23 pm

Koruman - I agree, the emphasis should be on growing the number of passengers travelling on the airline, not just manipulating passenger flows from LAX to HKG. I persoanly believe BOTH routes could sustain 744 service.
What?
 
nzrich
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:51 pm

RE: Why Doesn't NZ Re-enter The SYD-LAX Market?

Wed Nov 15, 2006 6:08 am

Quoting Koruman (Reply 24):
Fyfe's argument about saving $62 million per year on fuel by flying AKL-LAX-LHR with a 777 instead of a 747 reveals just how little he understands about yields.

Every day all 4 sectors now have 20 fewer Business Class seats and 13 fewer Premium Economy seats. If we assume 80% loads, that is a total of 64 fewer Business Class sectors sold per day and 40 fewer Premium Economy sectors sold per day.

If we then assume a median per sector fare (e.g. AKL-LAX or LAX-LHR) of $2000 in Business class and $1000 in Premium Economy, the switch to the 777 is costing $128,000 per day in lost Business Class revenue and $40,000 per day in lost Premium Economy revenue. That is almost $170,000 per day in lost revenue, or $1.2 million dollars per week, or the same $62 million dollars per year - and that is without factoring in Economy Class losses too, and the effects of losing premium customers on LHR-LAX to British Airways and Virgin Atlantic, and LAX-AKL passengers to Qantas.

In short, Fyfe can claim to be saving $62 million on his fuel bill, and spin it to impress his shareholders, but his lost yield is much more than the $62 million.

As usual, short-term cost-cutting to prepare for selling off the airline.

If he really wanted to make his 777 work, he should have kept the same 46 Business and 31 Premium Economy that the 747 has, and just ripped out low-yield Economy seats. But the refit would have cost money in the short-term, and we wouldn't want to do that, would we?

Also depends on a lot of factors
1 how many business class passengers have paid for the seat
2 how many have now changed to travelling via HKG to LHR instead of via LAX now they have a choice and believe me from hearing people always complaining about transiting LAX i bet quite a few are now travelling via HKG now instead..
you can put on lots of business class seats, as you like on a plane but you have to fill them up.. And if those passengers have swapped from flying via LAX to HKG than those future loads may not of been as good as what they were..Also Air NZ planes are configured to operate on all routes operated by that fleet the 772 may be able to fill 50 business between AKL-LAX-LHR but it sure wont on AKL-KIX/NRT so there has to be a balance..Unfortunately if we had a big fleet having two different configurations would be a plausible option.. Unfortunately planes need maintenance and its easier if the whole fleet is the same when you only operate a small number of a certain type of plane.. This way planes can easily be swapped if things go wrong ie delays etc ..
"Pride of the pacific"
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: Why Doesn't NZ Re-enter The SYD-LAX Market?

Wed Nov 15, 2006 6:25 am

Firstly, the changes to Airpoints mean that almost all Business Class passengers have paid for their seats: on AKL-LAX-LHR the airline no longer even loads I class inventory!

Secondly, a premium-class heavy 777 would be perfect for high yield routes such as LHR-LAX, LAX-AKL, SFO-AKL and, dare I say it, LAX-PPT and SFO-LHR, which are routes with high premium class demand but demand for fewer than 200 economy seats per flight.

Thirdly, for those of us connecting from Australia, the flights via Hong Kong involve an extra three hours in transit en route to LHR, so no matter how bad LAX is we will still never choose the HKG option. And for those people with the liberty to take a stopover between AKL and LHR, 90% or more will choose to fly via LAX as it opens up American and Pacific Island options. I travel on business, but am entitled to 3-7 days for a stopover, and I always take it.

Even for people stopping over at the refuelling point, how many Kiwis or English passengers would choose Disneyland Hong Kong over Disneyland California - none, obviously!

So a premium-config 777 would make sense on LAX-LHR.

And if routes like NRT and KIX can't cut it for premium loads, they, not SIN or LAX-PPT, should be getting the chop or being downgraded to a 767 (especially as there is no competition on those routes).

But no, that would be admitting that North Asia doesn't work, even a mature market like Japan. Couldn't do that!

[Edited 2006-11-14 22:35:51]
 
nzrich
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:51 pm

RE: Why Doesn't NZ Re-enter The SYD-LAX Market?

Wed Nov 15, 2006 7:19 am

Quoting Koruman (Reply 27):
Firstly, the changes to Airpoints mean that almost all Business Class passengers have paid for their seats: on AKL-LAX-LHR the airline no longer even loads I class inventory!

Secondly, a premium-class heavy 777 would be perfect for high yield routes such as LHR-LAX, LAX-AKL, SFO-AKL and, dare I say it, LAX-PPT and SFO-LHR, which are routes with high premium class demand but demand for fewer than 200 economy seats per flight.

Thirdly, for those of us connecting from Australia, the flights via Hong Kong involve an extra three hours in transit en route to LHR, so no matter how bad LAX is we will still never choose the HKG option. And for those people with the liberty to take a stopover between AKL and LHR, 90% or more will choose to fly via LAX as it opens up American and Pacific Island options. I travel on business, but am entitled to 3-7 days for a stopover, and I always take it.

Even for people stopping over at the refuelling point, how many Kiwis or English passengers would choose Disneyland Hong Kong over Disneyland California - none, obviously!

So a premium-config 777 would make sense on LAX-LHR.

And if routes like NRT and KIX can't cut it for premium loads, they, not SIN or LAX-PPT, should be getting the chop or being downgraded to a 767 (especially as there is no competition on those routes).

But no, that would be admitting that North Asia doesn't work, even a mature market like Japan. Couldn't do that!

As for transiting HKG i would prefer the 2 hour transit there than at LAX ..Also from talking to the NZ passengers for nearly 8 years now passengers hate having to transit at LAX..

As for SIN it was all transit passengers on that flight very few actually were from SIN or were going to SIN as its destination so it was easy to swap that traffic to HKG ...

As for a premium config 777 it may make sence IF the NZ fleet was bigger otherwise you cant easily swap aircraft for maintenance delays etc

LAX-PPT unfortunately its gone anyway..But at least LAX will still have some island flights left and able to code share on TN to ppt and also air pacific to make a daily connection to nan.. Also RAR direct is starting again yes i know you will say its low yield BUT the back of the plane on the LAX-PPT-RAR flights were mainly going to RAR..

As for Australian connections the flights and times are made to try and connect with transits to Aussie but the main bulk of the plane is for NZ .. and also needs to be convienient for NZ domestic transfers as well..

As for Japan yes it may not have the huge quantities of premium passengers but it usually makes up for it in quantity and freight.. A premium orientated 777 would kill this route..Not saying its a dead market its just not a big business class market NZ-JAPAN
"Pride of the pacific"
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: Why Doesn't NZ Re-enter The SYD-LAX Market?

Wed Nov 15, 2006 7:35 am

The Japan routes are worse than marginal, which is why 2 have already been axed and the other 2 should be, and probably will be.

Anyone flying from Auckland to London has 2 choices of Air NZ flights which can be taken in the evening, after work. The earlier LAX-routed flight arrives in mid-morning, the later HKG-routed flight arrives in mid-afternoon. The only argument for flying via HKG is the extra 2 inches of leg-room for Economy pax, but they don't earn the profits anyone, the business pax do.

Like everyone else, I don't much like LAX. But it turns out to be so much better connected than HKG for me - and most Air NZ frequent flyers I know - that we are almost all choosing to take the LAX flight instead of the HKG one.

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