User avatar
legacyins
Posts: 1792
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 1:11 pm

NZ To YVR (Part2)

Mon Feb 19, 2007 4:15 am

With the recent discussion regarding NZ and Vancouver, the below article seems to give creidance to the notion of NZ sarting direct service this year.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/3966629a34.html
 
flyjetstar
Posts: 678
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:37 am

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Mon Feb 19, 2007 5:14 am

Wow an NZ thread getting a Part Two!

The article also notes that financials are due Feb 27 so I wonder if we have to wait until then and not Friday 23 as someone quoted on the previous therad.
 
planetime
Posts: 612
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 3:16 pm

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:04 am

Sounds like it will be direct. Would make more sense to send it through SFO. I am sure it will not be a daily flight.
 
TG992
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2001 12:03 pm

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:40 am

Quoting Planetime (Reply 2):
Would make more sense to send it through SFO

No, it would absolutely not. Ground handling charges, crew costs, the costs of operating a widebody on such a short route, the increased travel time putting off passengers, would mean it would be financial suicide, something clearly expressed by Air NZ internally. The only stop that would make sense to me would be NAN.
-
 
planetime
Posts: 612
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 3:16 pm

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:05 am

Quoting TG992 (Reply 3):

is there enough of a market between AKL and YVR to have nonstop service. other than during some peak times? yes NAN would make sense.
 
DYK
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 2:29 pm

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:12 am

Quoting TG992 (Reply 3):
is there enough of a market between AKL and YVR to have nonstop service. other than during some peak times? yes NAN would make sense.

I doubt there is a market for a non-stop flight, NAN does make sense or possibly AKL-RAR-YVR?
AC,CP,PW,WD,ND,UA,AA,NW,CO,DL,WA,AS,QX,PR,SQ,AI,TG,MH,JL,9W,IC,UL,PG,BW,NZ,QF,DJ,BA,LH,KL,OA,OS,ME,RJ,HA,AQ
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18834
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:56 am

Quoting TG992 (Reply 3):
Quoting Planetime (Reply 2):
Would make more sense to send it through SFO

No, it would absolutely not. Ground handling charges, crew costs, the costs of operating a widebody on such a short route, the increased travel time putting off passengers, would mean it would be financial suicide, something clearly expressed by Air NZ internally. The only stop that would make sense to me would be NAN.

Fully agree. Any additional revenue generated from a tag-on sector like SFO-YVR will never offset the extra operating costs incurred. The days of routings like that with short tag-on sectors are over, with rare exceptions.

The NAN option might be interesting, especially with Air Pacific terminating their 737-800 service NAN-HNL-YVR on March 30. They will then codeshare with Canadian carrier Harmony Airways via HNL with FJ operating NAN-HNL and HQ HNL-YVR with their 757-200s. A nonstop NZ 777 NAN-YVR would obviously be more attractive but I question whether NZ would have rights under the Canada-Fiji and Canada-New Zealand air service agreements to operate NAN-YVR nonstop with 5th freedom rights. I would certainly thiink the Fiji government would do whatever they could to prevent such service to protect FJ.

Assuming the rumours are corrrect and AKL-YVR is nonstop, it will be interesting to see what frequency NZ plans.

[Edited 2007-02-19 01:58:56]
 
RichardJF
Posts: 565
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 7:07 pm

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:07 am

I don't believe in this one route per year idea. Existing setup needs repositioning. Very little case in NZ flying long haul directly out of Australia (with SYD-LAX / SFO possibly an exception. Hopefully nobody starts thinking NZ running BNE-YVR makes sense although good for HA. Good opportunities in Europe. For every 1 person in Asia or California that wants to go downunder there would be another 20 that want to go to Europe.
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 4951
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:38 am

I am a sceptic on the viability of this route. As a N.Z. ex-pat living in S.W. Ontario I will continue to use YYZ/ DTW -LAX/SFO -AKL for my biennial trip to see the relies. For me with a NEXUS card customs/immigration at the US/Canada border points is a non-event. An AKL-YVR service with an intermediate stop makes it even less attractive and if the walk from the domestic to international terminals at YVR is as long as I remember it 15-years ago ; no thanks.
Just my two cents worth...
 
DYK
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 2:29 pm

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Mon Feb 19, 2007 12:22 pm

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 8):
am a sceptic on the viability of this route. As a N.Z. ex-pat living in S.W. Ontario I will continue to use YYZ/ DTW -LAX/SFO -AKL for my biennial trip to see the relies. For me with a NEXUS card customs/immigration at the US/Canada border points is a non-event. An AKL-YVR service with an intermediate stop makes it even less attractive and if the walk from the domestic to international terminals at YVR is as long as I remember it 15-years ago ; no thanks.
Just my two cents worth...

[
I am pretty sure YVR did not have a domestic and International 15 years ago?
AC,CP,PW,WD,ND,UA,AA,NW,CO,DL,WA,AS,QX,PR,SQ,AI,TG,MH,JL,9W,IC,UL,PG,BW,NZ,QF,DJ,BA,LH,KL,OA,OS,ME,RJ,HA,AQ
 
RichardJF
Posts: 565
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 7:07 pm

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Mon Feb 19, 2007 12:28 pm

AKL-YVR on NZ and AC from YVR- LHR would be a great way of serving a direct NZ-UK market esp if they have a similar fitout. Much better than NZ metal at LHR. Germans can transfer at LHR or take SQ or TG.
 
CYQL
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:19 pm

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Mon Feb 19, 2007 2:40 pm

Quoting RichardJF (Reply 10):
Germans can transfer at LHR or take SQ or TG

The German passengers can take the LH FRA-YVR flight to connect to the NZ flight. AC has a couple of LHR flights in the summer. It would be a good STAR ALLIANCE connection, avoiding the US.
 
Jayce
Posts: 499
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 1999 10:36 am

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Mon Feb 19, 2007 3:58 pm

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 8):
if the walk from the domestic to international terminals at YVR is as long as I remember it 15-years ago ; no thanks.

Walk? YVR was a small airport back then, hardly a hike at all. I would say far, far less of a walk than anything I've ever experienced at SFO, LAX or even YYZ.

Quoting DYK (Reply 9):
I am pretty sure YVR did not have a domestic and International 15 years ago?

Back then, YVR had a domestic pier and an international pier in the old horseshoe, both of which now serve domestic flights. In 1996 the new international terminal opened, which is connected to the "old" terminal via moving walkways.
"Trying is the first step towards failure" -Homer Simpson
 
ktachiya
Posts: 1500
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 5:54 am

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Mon Feb 19, 2007 5:25 pm

Quoting TG992 (Reply 3):
Ground handling charges, crew costs, the costs of operating a widebody on such a short route, the increased travel time putting off passengers, would mean it would be financial suicide, something clearly expressed by Air NZ internally

OK, then how come QF can make this work? When the route first began, I thought it would soon be routed through LAX as QF have a mini-hub there. But rather, they have been operating SYD-SFO-YVR in January and summer of last year. I have read posts of where QF was thinking of making the SFO-YVR route daily at some point in the future.

If QF can operate the B744ER in the YVR-SFO segment, then shouldn't NZ probably be able to do the same? Probably, NZ wouldn't use the B744 but rather a B772ER or something of a smaller size.
Flown on: DC-10-30, B747-200B, B747-300, B747-300SR, B747-400, B747-400D, B767-300, B777-200, B777-200ER, B777-300
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 4870
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Mon Feb 19, 2007 5:41 pm

Quoting Ktachiya (Reply 13):
OK, then how come QF can make this work? When the route first began, I thought it would soon be routed through LAX as QF have a mini-hub there. But rather, they have been operating SYD-SFO-YVR in January and summer of last year. I have read posts of where QF was thinking of making the SFO-YVR route daily at some point in the future.

QF are QF, NZ are NZ, Australia has a much larger population than NZ. I think the main reason QF don't go via LAX is because SFO is a much nicer airport, I'm not sure what loads are like to YVR for QF though. QF are trying to re establish themselves in the Canada market so a seasonal 1 stop flight is a good start, QF will increase SFO soon to 5 weekly but YVR will stay at 3 weekly. It's more likely to me that QF will eventually introduce SYD-YVR non stop on a 787 to compete with AC.

Quoting Ktachiya (Reply 13):
If QF can operate the B744ER in the YVR-SFO segment, then shouldn't NZ probably be able to do the same? Probably, NZ wouldn't use the B744 but rather a B772ER or something of a smaller size.

TG992 knows what he's talking about. NZ would like to use the aircraft that sits at LAX all day to fly somewhere but as he said the costs to alot of the places NZ would consider wouldn't be viable. I doubt that QF makes alot on the SFO-YVR sector if any $ but some people may go from SYD through to YVR.


Anyway can't wait to hear something official from NZ.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 1529
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Mon Feb 19, 2007 5:52 pm

My 2 cents are on AKL-NAN-YVR. Although my personal favourite would be AKL-YVR non stop. How long would such a flight be?
 
cchan
Posts: 951
Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 8:54 pm

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:01 pm

Do they have spare 772 capacity to do YVR?
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 4870
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:12 pm

Quoting Planemanofnz (Reply 15):
Although my personal favourite would be AKL-YVR non stop. How long would such a flight be?

The fastest flight I can see via LAX is a 130 minute stopover from QF to AC is 16:43. I'm guessing about 14hrs for a non stop AKL-YVR and 15ish return.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 4870
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:19 pm

Quoting Cchan (Reply 16):
Do they have spare 772 capacity to do YVR?

Yes lots! If the 744's stay on NZ1/2 year round and until they start PVG-Europe there is spare capacity though they will probably increase other flights aswell still heaps of spare capacity for now though.
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:29 pm

I am getting a little concerned that we are all getting so carried away with Auckland-Vancouver (direct or via Honolulu or Nadi).

Wouldn't the obvious next expansion actually be to extend Auckland-Shanghai to either Frankfurt or Manchester, or to extend Auckland-San Francisco to one of those two European destinations.

I don't believe that in 2007 (compared with 1997) there is more daily premium traffic between Auckland and Canada than there is between Auckland and the population of 15 million serviced more easily by Manchester than London (i.e Manchester / Liverpool / Leeds / Sheffield / northern Midlands).

I know that northern England USED TO BE a low yield market, but even Leeds has a Harvey Nichols now.......
 
Quetzal
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:22 am

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:41 pm

Quoting ZK-NBT (Reply 14):
It's more likely to me that QF will eventually introduce SYD-YVR non stop on a 787 to compete with AC.


QF or would that be JQ?
No matter how far you push the envelope, it will always remain Stationery.
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3219
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:51 pm

Quoting Koruman (Reply 19):
Wouldn't the obvious next expansion actually be to extend Auckland-Shanghai to either Frankfurt or Manchester,

The legwork for one of these options I believe is in the pipeline. Good things can take time.

And BTW, why not AKL-NAN-YVR, AKL-RAR-YVR and AKL-YVR?

Regards
MH
come visit the south pacific
 
cchan
Posts: 951
Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 8:54 pm

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:56 pm

Quoting MotorHussy (Reply 21):
AKL-RAR-YVR

I have the impression that at some point, maybe 10 years ago, Canada 3000 used to fly this route? How well did they do?
 
xiaotung
Posts: 791
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:58 pm

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:00 pm

What happened to KIX? If not mistaken, there has been no more daily direct KIX services? Is the 777 being freed up?
 
TG992
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2001 12:03 pm

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:29 pm

Quoting Koruman (Reply 19):
I am getting a little concerned that we are all getting so carried away with Auckland-Vancouver (direct or via Honolulu or Nadi).

Wouldn't the obvious next expansion actually be to extend Auckland-Shanghai to either Frankfurt or Manchester, or to extend Auckland-San Francisco to one of those two European destinations.

I don't believe that in 2007 (compared with 1997) there is more daily premium traffic between Auckland and Canada than there is between Auckland and the population of 15 million serviced more easily by Manchester than London (i.e Manchester / Liverpool / Leeds / Sheffield / northern Midlands).

I know that northern England USED TO BE a low yield market, but even Leeds has a Harvey Nichols now.......

Well Koruman it's going to be AKL YVR direct, only a few more days now.

NZ1/2 will remain 744 and the extra 772 will do AKLYVR and extra AKLPVG.

Ground TG992
-
 
workflyer
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 7:49 am

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:41 pm

Quoting Cchan (Reply 22):
I have the impression that at some point, maybe 10 years ago, Canada 3000 used to fly this route? How well did they do?

That certainly was the cheapest way to get to North America, so long as you did not mind stopping everywhere. They serviced that un with an A330. However it was while they were doing the South Pacific run that it all went pear shaped for Canada 3000 and they went belly up. Whether the South Pacific route slowed down or sped up this process I do not know. But the loads were not bad.

I still have memories of watching those lumbering A330's using the full length of AKL's runway to get airborne, one of them rotating with less than 500 metres left - full to the brim with pax and gas I suppose. They were still below 1000ft when they went over Puhinui school (For those that know the area that is about 5 kms from the end of the runway.)

I suspect that if it is Vancouver there will be an uintermediate stop. Nadi sounds like a good option.
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 4951
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:46 am

Quoting TG992 (Reply 24):
Well Koruman it's going to be AKL YVR direct, only a few more days now.

On this basis the devil will be in the details. I would estimate a AKL-YVR flying time of about 13hr 15 min, one hour longer than to SFO. The flight MUST arrive in YVR by 1.00PM to make the YYZ and YUL connections on the 2.30PM flights. This sets a 7.00PM departure from AKL which will allow for MEL and BNE feeds. These could be pretty attractive for Aus. originating passengers until such time as AC fly SYD-YVR non-stop or the oft talked about YYZ-LAX-SYD route.
I speak from experience when I say that the trek via Wicki- wicki bus through US Customs /Immigration in the middle of the night in HNL is no fun.
Going westbound an 8.15Pm departure from YVR should get into AKL about 0530AM ; this would allow for a 500PM departure from YYZ. This would be pretty convenient.
If they schedule the flight to make the 2.30PM connection in YVR to the East I could become much less negative about the service.
 
v2fix
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2003 4:55 pm

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:24 am

Can anyone share what the kind of cargo/weight restrictons flying to YVR will actually pose ?

Cheers.
742; 744; DC10, DC3, 321, 320, 319, 170,190, 772, 773,333, 346, 343
 
747433
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:01 pm

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:35 am

Quoting Ktachiya (Reply 13):
OK, then how come QF can make this work? When the route first began, I thought it would soon be routed through LAX as QF have a mini-hub there

QF does not have 5ths between LAX and Canada. Only HNL and SFO.
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 4951
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:13 am

Quoting V2fix (Reply 27):
Can anyone share what the kind of cargo/weight restrictons flying to YVR will actually pose ?

The operation ready OEW of NZ's -200ER's is not public information so someone on the outside can only make an approximation.
I took a look at one of Widebodyphotogs tables that he did up for a SQ mission comparison analysis for a -200ER with the passenger ready weight at 324900lb for a 284 seat setup and 6000nm mission. The payload was 76500lb. Assuming NZ's passenger ready weight is at least 330000lb and that YVR is about 6200nm via the airways and disregarding negative or positive winds, and taking into account the load/ range slope on the -200ER load/range table the payload would be around 66000lb which is right where full passenger load is at. The NZ long haul load factor is about 80% so that would help on those days of 250 odd passengers. However there could be days, westbound when they might have to reduce the payload or make a tech stop at HNL or NAN.
E & OE...
 
ZKOKA
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 12:50 pm

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:56 am

Quoting TG992 (Reply 24):

TG992 Is absolutely correct, announcement this friday at 8am The Hub Fanshawe St. Have heard from Top Management it will be seasonally from November, Canadians coming to a kiwi summer, and Kiwis to a Canadian winter!
 
DYK
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 2:29 pm

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:06 am

Quoting ZKOKA (Reply 30):
TG992 Is absolutely correct, announcement this friday at 8am The Hub Fanshawe St. Have heard from Top Management it will be seasonally from November, Canadians coming to a kiwi summer, and Kiwis to a Canadian winter!

I have heard from the NZ GSA that they will be seasonally much like QF into YVR?
AC,CP,PW,WD,ND,UA,AA,NW,CO,DL,WA,AS,QX,PR,SQ,AI,TG,MH,JL,9W,IC,UL,PG,BW,NZ,QF,DJ,BA,LH,KL,OA,OS,ME,RJ,HA,AQ
 
ZKOJH
Posts: 1446
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:51 am

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Tue Feb 20, 2007 5:05 pm

think a lot of us new this anyway, it was all round the office tonight, just love that downtime.. even better that a team leader spoke about JNB for 2008.
Vietnam time..
 
darenw
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 12:55 pm

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:50 pm

Quoting ZKOKA (Reply 30):
TG992 Is absolutely correct, announcement this friday at 8am The Hub Fanshawe St. Have heard from Top Management it will be seasonally from November, Canadians coming to a kiwi summer, and Kiwis to a Canadian winter!

So does this mean it is only going to operate for a few months every year???
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:10 pm

I believe I started a NZ to Johannesburg thread last July!

At the risk of being a miserable bast*rd, I like the idea of Auckland-Vancouver non-stop, but to start it on a payload-restricted 777-200ER is just nuts.

It further reinforces that at least half a dozen 777-200LRs should have been purchased, given their superior operating economics on AKL-PVG, AKL-NRT, AKL-KIX, AKL-SFO, AKL-LAX and LAX-LHR, which is basically every single long-haul flight Air NZ operates the 777-200ER on.

This is a flight which should have awaited the 787s.

Moreover, Air NZ is now going to have to operate the 777-200ER with something like 20% of the economy seats unavailable for sale, i.e. a 26J / 18U / 210Y configuration for a total of 254 seats.

I have argued all along that the 777-200ER should have had the same number of premium seats as the 747-400, to maximise yield on long-haul sectors, with roughly a 46J / 31 U / 170Y configuration for 245 seats.

And here comes the irony. Vancouver will end up with virtually the same seat count, but with 20J and 13U seats replaced by 40Y which massively highlights the error of the original configuration.

And could Koruman finish a reply without mentioning LAX-PPT, which is now doing sensationally for Air France now that it has ripped out economy seats and replaced them with Business ones? Let me just remind you that by going below a seat count of 300 the 777-200ER would have been allowed on the LAX-PPT cash-cow. A few months ago it couldn't be done. Now, all of a sudden, it turns out that it could. And Air France proved to be more nimble than Air New Zealand in taking advantage of that route. Mr Fyfe likes to consider his airline to be nimble, but Air France has proven on LAX-PPT that Fyfe's vanity is just misplaced hubris, not that I would expect him to understand the meaning of the word hubris.
 
TG992
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2001 12:03 pm

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:37 pm

Quoting Koruman (Reply 34):

It further reinforces that at least half a dozen 777-200LRs should have been purchased, given their superior operating economics on AKL-PVG, AKL-NRT, AKL-KIX, AKL-SFO, AKL-LAX and LAX-LHR, which is basically every single long-haul flight Air NZ operates the 777-200ER on.

Hi Koruman,

I'd be interested in your figures for this claim, taking into account Air NZ's operating rules, average fuel burn, average/mean cargo and passenger load factors.

LR's are something I've wondered about and I'd be interested to know more.
-
 
planetime
Posts: 612
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 3:16 pm

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:38 pm

Quoting Koruman (Reply 34):
Mr Fyfe likes to consider his airline to be nimble, but Air France has proven on LAX-PPT that Fyfe's vanity is just misplaced hubris, not that I would expect him to understand the meaning of the word hubris.

I think Mr. Fyfe takes his personal hatred of LAX to heart.  Smile

That is true how much of a cash cow that LAX-PPT is for AF and Air Tahiti. If Mr. Fyfe would have some common sense he would use a 777 below 300 seats for that route rather than YVR which will be much much less yielding.
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:13 pm

TG992, I'd love to answer your question but I can't actually give the technical answers you're looking for. What I can say as a layman (and I'm rightly going to get slaughtered for the vagueness of this assertion) is that my understanding is that:

1) The 777-200ER is more efficient than the 777-200LR for sectors below 5 hours (ie AKL-BNE, AKL-MEL, AKL-RAR, AKL-NAN).

2) They are comparable on sectors from 5-8 hours.

3) The 777-200LR is markedly more efficient than the 777-200ER for any given flight longer than 8 hours in duration.

I received that explanation from a Qantas engineer, who was explaining why Qantas aren't buying 777s at all, and are jumping straight to the 787.

There is another, crucial, factor in assessing Air New Zealand's potential use for the 777-200LR. China is a massively expanding but extremely low-yield market. The highest yielding aviation markets served by Air New Zealand now are the USA, the UK and Australia (and Western Australia in particular, but not PER-AKL but PER-LHR and PER-LAX).

I wish the airline would identify potentially high-yield routes and then match aircraft types to them rather than doing it the other way around. If it did, it would see that there are obvious opportunities in flying SYD-LAX (but it says that its 777-200ERs can't operate with a full payload), PER-LHR and PER-LAX - and it has operating rights on each of those routes. And, by definition, only the 777-200LR is capable of flying those routes.

The comment about Mr Fyfe's dislike of LAX unfortunately resonates all too true. I can't stand the airport, but I'm well aware of what a key market it is in terms of high yield passengers to London, New Zealand, Australia, Fiji and Tahiti.

But Mr Fyfe's judgment has clearly been poor in this regard, especially on the two main counts of cutting premium capacity LAX-LHR beyond a point at which business passengers had to switch to other carriers, and failing to identify that LAX-PPT's demographics had just changed as Bora Bora evolved from an overpriced destination for low-yield leisure passengers into arguably the world's highest-yield leisure market. Air France is reportedly about to rip even more economy class seats out in favour of Business Class ones for LAX-PPT, and Air Tahiti Nui has approached the new French Polynesian government for financial support to purchase two Airbus A318 Elite corporate jets to fly Los Angeles - Bora Bora return with 20 flat bed suites (and a refueling stop at Papeete on the return flight). Fyfe and his mates committed suicide by sending only an obsoletely-configured 767 on LAX-PPT, and the latest figures and actions of TN and AF just highlight that misjudgment.

I argue more passionately than most on this board that North America and the UK rather than Asia or Latin America should be the growth destinations for Air New Zealand. I just think that the 777-200ER is the wrong vehicle for AKL-YVR, just as the 747-400 was too big and too payload-restricted for SYD-LAX.

[Edited 2007-02-20 14:23:59]
 
v2fix
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2003 4:55 pm

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:50 pm

Quoting Koruman (Reply 37):
I wish the airline would identify potentially high-yield routes and then match aircraft types to them rather than doing it the other way around

I agree with much of your logic - I think you are being a little hard on Air NZ and Mr Fyfe with regard to the aircraft !

I dont think he was responsible for the use of the 744s on the SYD-LAX route
I dont beleive he was soley responsible for the 772 purchase, altough I accept he was a member of the management team.

Air NZ is working with aircraft which are a legacy of a different world (744s) and a different regime (777s). The long thin routes it has to operate are good candiates for the 787s, which it is ordering.

Air NZ runs an operational analysis group (forgotten the actual name of them) who are responsible for matching aircraft to sectors and the calculations behind that decision are horrendous, involving cost of aircraft, servicing and maintainence, spares and logistics; staffing levels; route and altitude flown; fuel costs, passenger load (inc. baggage), cargo load, brand premium factor, competiton etc etc.

At the end of the day the decision comes out, on average, at being at most 60% correct, such is the level of varabiity and lack of influence that AIr NZ has over controlling these factors.
742; 744; DC10, DC3, 321, 320, 319, 170,190, 772, 773,333, 346, 343
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:07 pm

V2fix, I have never had a problem with the airline buying 777-200ERs, my issues are just that:

1) They put far too many economy and far too few Business Premier and Premium Economy seats in them, and...

2) They should by now have also purchased 777-300ERs to replace the fuel-guzzling 747s. Who cares if they've only just been refurbished. They are inefficient and they should be replaced by 2010, not 2014.

3) They should also have purchased 777-200LRs to open up multiple routes between both Australia and NZ and North America.

The 787 is a great vehicle for Qantas, but the extreme length of many of Air NZ's sectors actually makes the 777-200LR and 777-300ER more suitable aircraft than the 787 for many of its routes.

AKL-YVR non-stop may seem like a great way to use a redundant 777-200ER but it is basically undermined by the fact that Air New Zealand crams far too many passengers onto its 777-200ERs, and, even worse, far too few of those seats are high-yield Business and Premium Economy seats.

Wouldn't it be better to have 777-200LRs configured 46J / 31U / 170 Y (instead of the current 26J / 18U / 269 Y) and to fly them on AKL-YVR -LHR, LHR-PER, PER-LAX, SYD-LAX, SYD-SFO, MEL-LAX and AKL-PVG-LHR?

There would be real money on those routes, not the sort of low-yield nightmare that is LAX-RAR-AKL.
 
v2fix
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2003 4:55 pm

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Wed Feb 21, 2007 2:00 am

Quoting Koruman (Reply 39):
Wouldn't it be better to have 777-200LRs configured 46J / 31U / 170 Y (instead of the current 26J / 18U / 269 Y) and to fly them on AKL-YVR -LHR, LHR-PER, PER-LAX, SYD-LAX, SYD-SFO, MEL-LAX and AKL-PVG-LHR?

There would be real money on those routes, not the sort of low-yield nightmare that is LAX-RAR-AKL

I agree with you comment - there maybe better higher yielding routes to start up before AKL-YVR.

BUT....

The question we can't answer it when those 772s are 'spare' can they do a PER-LAX or a PER-LAX and get back - without having to rejig the entire Air NZ International schdule. As you will know there is nothing that annoys a business flyer (high yield) passenger more than the airline rearrangeing the time of its flights - especially when they have been running that schedule for years - especially if the business person fins out its to accomodate some new route (thus inconviencing exsiting loyal customers for new potetnial ones).

I think - to be honest - the whole expansion into AUS angle opportunity has gone. With Virgin Blue going for 773ER's and Qantas with (eventually) the A380 - economies of scale will impact those sectors and make it uneconomic for Air NZ to compete.
742; 744; DC10, DC3, 321, 320, 319, 170,190, 772, 773,333, 346, 343
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Wed Feb 21, 2007 6:26 am

Air New Zealand has a massively lower cost base than Qantas, not to mention a better product at present - and for as long as it makes sure that it stays ahead of the game. Replacing the 747s with 777-300ERs in 2009-10 would allow a new in-flight product to be operated at a time 5 years after the last upgrade when normally an airline would be falling behind.

Moreover, New Zealand's air traffic agreements with the UK, USA and Australia actually make it easier for it to open long-haul routes out of Australia than Virgin/Pacific Blue.

The opportunity to fly Australia-USA and Australia-UK did not die with Ansett. In fact, all that ended was the risk of it being a high-cost union-undermined nightmare on inefficient 747s which were too big for SYD-LAX anyway.

The opportunity to fly Australia-USA won't go away, all that is required is aircraft capable of flying SYD-LAX with a full payload.

I believe that it is Qantas which is vulnerable on Australia-USA, not Air NZ. Qantas seems to be trying to put its lower-yielding passengers onto Jetstar, which is proving very unpopular on all but the lowest demographic groups of passengers on MEL-HNL and SYD-HNL, and it is also putting all its long-haul Qantas-branded eggs into the A380 SYD-LAX basket.

Qantas passengers from Sydney wanting to go to San Francisco or beyond, or from Brisbane, Perth and Melbourne wanting to go anywhere in North America are going to find by 2009 that Qantas is not a convenient option, because it will involve either direct LCC services operated by Jetstar or flying to Sydney in discomfort on Jetstar to pick up the A380 to LAX, and then connecting again on AA to San Francisco or wherever..
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 4951
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:13 am

Koruman,

Is there a market for PER-CNS-LAX ?

Quoting Koruman (Reply 39):
They should by now have also purchased 777-300ERs

I would not be surprised if you see the -300ER introduced before 2010. To me it is extremely likely NZ has slots for as early as late 2008 certainly for 2009. Maybe the situation will become clearer in the next few days.
 
jimyvr
Posts: 1597
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:08 pm

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Wed Feb 21, 2007 12:20 pm

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 42):
Is there a market for PER-CNS-LAX ?

I'd guess only jetStar will find the way to fly on this route
1000 - 01MAR07 | http://airlineroute.blogspot.com/
 
ZKOJH
Posts: 1446
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:51 am

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Wed Feb 21, 2007 3:22 pm

read somewhere at work that there won't be any aircarft dilvered in 2008/9 so intresting to see what happens, maybe use some of the 744,s (last count was 4 of them parked the other day) + 2 763's and a 772. that are always parked up at akl!
Vietnam time..
 
RichardJF
Posts: 565
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 7:07 pm

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Wed Feb 21, 2007 3:30 pm

Quoting V2fix (Reply 38):
Air NZ runs an operational analysis group (forgotten the actual name of them) who are responsible for matching aircraft to sectors and the calculations behind that decision are horrendous, involving cost of aircraft, servicing and maintainence, spares and logistics; staffing levels; route and altitude flown; fuel costs, passenger load (inc. baggage), cargo load, brand premium factor, competiton etc etc.

I think you need gut feeling of where you should and shouldn't be putting the long haul jets. I'm sure formula's are fine domestically. You should be boxing in your competitors on the tasman with a next day ability to enter their market. The more on the attack you are the less likely they'll be in your home market.
 
cchan
Posts: 951
Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 8:54 pm

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:08 pm

Quoting Koruman (Reply 39):
They should by now have also purchased 777-300ERs to replace the fuel-guzzling 747s. Who cares if they've only just been refurbished. They are inefficient and they should be replaced by 2010, not 2014.

My feeling is that they shouldn't have refurbished the 744s for a start, and instead replace the entire 744 fleet with 773s. The 763s can stay for longer, especially in the pacific and tasman market where there is very little competition in terms of comfort. A few 772s would be needed to do the Asian routes. From a customer's perspective, if they replace their aging 744 fleet in 2008 with 773s, I would be happy like you wouldn't believe.
 
ZKNBX
Posts: 440
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:24 pm

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:50 pm

Quoting Koruman (Reply 34):
Moreover, Air NZ is now going to have to operate the 777-200ER with something like 20% of the economy seats unavailable for sale, i.e. a 26J / 18U / 210Y configuration for a total of 254 seats.

Hang on a minute. despite the reported problems with configuration of the toilets, my understanding is that the plan is still to increase the PPE seating on the 772ER, so that there are more high yeild seats. This could mean seating drops below 300 seats. There are also plans afoot, to further expand PPE on the 744, down both sides of the cabin 3 galley on the 744 rather than just the left hand side at present. And I thought this was gonna happen pretty quickly, becuase there is just no room for airpoints upgrades any more to and from North America!

Quoting Koruman (Reply 37):
just think that the 777-200ER is the wrong vehicle for AKL-YVR,

You may be right - but with more PPE seats, its less of an issue.

Quoting Koruman (Reply 39):
) They should by now have also purchased 777-300ERs to replace the fuel-guzzling 747s


May already be in the pipeline via lease.

Quoting Koruman (Reply 39):
Air New Zealand crams far too many passengers onto its 777-200ERs

Yes they do. I agree.

Quoting Koruman (Reply 41):
Air New Zealand has a massively lower cost base than Qantas

Yes they do. I agree with that too!
 
TG992
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2001 12:03 pm

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:52 pm

Quoting Cchan (Reply 46):
. From a customer's perspective, if they replace their aging 744 fleet in 2008 with 773s, I would be happy like you wouldn't believe.

The customer would see very little if any difference between 744 and 773 - in fact, business class passengers would have a slightly less comfortable cabin, because of the lack of upper deck and less quiet nose area.
I think you meant 'from a plane nerd's perspective'  Wink

Quoting Cchan (Reply 46):
My feeling is that they shouldn't have refurbished the 744s for a start, and instead replace the entire 744 fleet with 773s.

That's easy to say now, but don't forget the refurbishment programme began..what..two years ago? The industry changes since then have been vast.
-
 
cchan
Posts: 951
Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 8:54 pm

RE: NZ To YVR (Part2)

Wed Feb 21, 2007 6:05 pm

Quoting TG992 (Reply 48):
That's easy to say now, but don't forget the refurbishment programme began..what..two years ago? The industry changes since then have been vast.

When they announced the refurbishment programme some years ago, I was wondering what they are doing with those old 744s? At that time, 744s were already losing popularity in orders. The first planes which need to go from the NZ fleet are probably the 744s and some of the older 733s, rather than the 763s which are still good for another 5-8 more years flying short haul.