User avatar
NZ1
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 1774
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 1:32 pm

New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Sat Dec 31, 2011 11:27 pm

Previous thread here: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 107 (by cchan Dec 6 2011 in Civil Aviation)

Please continue discussion below.

Happy New Year

NZ1
Forum Moderator
--
✈ NZ1 / Mike
Head Forum Moderator
www.airliners.net
www.twitter.com/airliners_net
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 4984
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Sun Jan 01, 2012 6:40 am

quoting Koruman..
If they were lucky - - enough to have me in charge, they would be about to receive 788s configured 16J / 28U / 180Y.

Perhaps you could look at the seating to improve it to something like 24J/42U/180Y. However lets see what you would have had to work with with your layout . Using the analysis of Piano X , if you were to take delivery mid-2012 you would have an aircraft with a DOW of about 123t, perhaps a little less.. some 7t more than what is expected after LN90 in about early 2013.
Your problem amongst others is AKL-HKG-LHR. You are throwing about 300-seats a day at it with indifferent load factors and yields.
The long leg is HKG-LHR with an ESAD of ~6450nm. The 788 that you have will do this with a 29.5t payload, that is full 224-passenger load plus 8.5 t of cargo. The fuel load will be about 74t. Considerably less than the 772E's of 111t with the same payload on the same sector. The payload LHR-HKG will improve to 35t eastbound with an ESAD of ~5600nm. The AKL-HKG-AKL sectors are about the same at 5200nm where you can reach the max volume limited payload of ~40t.
It should be noted that the 123t 788 burns about 3.4% more fuel than the 116t version. Which is a drop in the bucket compared to what the 772E burns for the same payload. As a guide the fuel burn is about 90% of the fuel load.The fuel saving HKG-LHR is about 33t and at the current spot price of ~$973t saves some real change !
A 246-seat layout ups the passenger load by ~2.1t and reduces the cargo accordingly. But full it beats a 303-seat 772E running at a 75% load factor. The WOW factor of the 788 on that route has to guarantee full loads and good yields for at least two years.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 7445
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Sun Jan 01, 2012 11:08 am

OKQ flew today FYI.

I think sunrisevalley is as usual spot on with his analysis.
Flown to 120 Airports in 44 Countries on 73 Operators. Visited 55 Countries and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
Unclekoru
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:00 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:13 am

Quote from 777ER (thread 107)

"This morning I booked a WLG - MEL on QF (full service sale fare was cheaper then NZs 'seat' service). The service being offered is a lunch meal. Anyone able to tell me what service QF provide in terms of drinks and is the lunch just a snack type service or a real lunch type?"



In my opinion, the food offerings on QF trans Tasman flights are far better than what's generally found with NZ on comparable routes. It's a pity really, as most of my Tasman travel is with NZ!
It sounds like english, but I can't understand a word you're saying
 
vhebb
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 5:37 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Mon Jan 02, 2012 10:44 am

Hi,

QF offers full service on all trans tasman routes.

So a lunch service will include a hot meal, all beverages including alcohol, and in some cases a dessert is also offered.

Hope this helps
 
User avatar
NZ1
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 1774
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 1:32 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Mon Jan 02, 2012 11:43 am

See link below for video of OKQ performing a landing and high speed taxi test at Boeing.

A lovely looking beast. Due here in AKL next week.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gswkxNiIyuI

Video of first flight below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSeatUsgNNc

NZ1

[Edited 2012-01-02 04:00:04]
--
✈ NZ1 / Mike
Head Forum Moderator
www.airliners.net
www.twitter.com/airliners_net
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 4984
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Mon Jan 02, 2012 4:52 pm

Quoting NZ1 (Reply 5):
Due here in AKL next week

Will you post the date and flight number , please.

Thanks
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 7445
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Mon Jan 02, 2012 11:55 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 6):
Will you post the date and flight number , please.

It arrives 12th at 0900 I think.
Flown to 120 Airports in 44 Countries on 73 Operators. Visited 55 Countries and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
cchan
Posts: 951
Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 8:54 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Tue Jan 03, 2012 12:25 am

any updates on the NZ long haul review, from memory they were saying the review would finish in Dec 11?
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 7445
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Tue Jan 03, 2012 12:48 am

Quoting cchan (Reply 8):
from memory they were saying the review would finish in Dec 11?

Most of the people in town making those decisions are on holiday still.
Flown to 120 Airports in 44 Countries on 73 Operators. Visited 55 Countries and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:54 am

Quoting cchan (Reply 8):
any updates on the NZ long haul review, from memory they were saying the review would finish in Dec 11?

It's not ready because they are still trying to concoct the following:

1) Justification for why 1-stop flights to UK/Europe via the USA are less profitable than non-stop routes from East Asia which are almost entirely VFR and package tourists.

2) Absurd arguments for why passengers want Seats 2 Suit long-haul, which Air Asia X and Oasis Hong Kong have proved they emphatically DON'T want.

3) More Boeing-bashing to blame late 787 deliveries for network stagnation, when in fact the airline has chosen not to exercise its existing 777-200ER, 777-200LR and 777-300ER purchase options.

4) More ways of devaluing the ability to earn significant frequent flyer points from long-haul economy ticket purchases. The ultimate aim is to go even beyond the current point where a member of the scheme can buy his ticket to London from Emirates and then hop down to BNZ and buy more Air NZ Airpoints than Air NZ would have awarded for buying an Air NZ ticket. The goal is to complete the transformation from the original and foolish "Fly to Earn" to the current "Earn to Fly" to the Holy Grail, which is "Don't Buy Flights from Us, Buy from our Competitors".

Once they have finished concocting more ways of self-harm along those lines the review will be made public, along with detailed explanations of why the public will love the changes.

[Edited 2012-01-02 18:58:09]
 
777ER
Crew
Posts: 9855
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:49 am

Quoting koruman (Reply 10):

1) Justification for why 1-stop flights to UK/Europe via the USA are less profitable than non-stop routes from East Asia which are almost entirely VFR and package tourists.

I fully agree that flights to UK/Europe are right now more better then Asia flights using B772ERs in a high premium config. If NZ are so keen on Asia (which clearly they are) then why arn't they having a B777 sub fleet with reduced premium seating and more economy? If other flights need reduced premium seating and more economy then NZ could put one of those B777s on a route when an Asia flight isnt needed.

Quoting koruman (Reply 10):
4) More ways of devaluing the ability to earn significant frequent flyer points from long-haul economy ticket purchases. The ultimate aim is to go even beyond the current point where a member of the scheme can buy his ticket to London from Emirates and then hop down to BNZ and buy more Air NZ Airpoints than Air NZ would have awarded for buying an Air NZ ticket. The goal is to complete the transformation from the original and foolish "Fly to Earn" to the current "Earn to Fly" to the Holy Grail, which is "Don't Buy Flights from Us, Buy from our Competitors".

I'm only really interested in the status points earning (but the airpoints are nice for upgrades), can those airpoints you can buy also earn you the same amount in status points?
Head Forum Moderator
moderators@airliners.net
 
hornetfan
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 5:56 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Tue Jan 03, 2012 8:15 am

Quoting koruman (Reply 10):
It's not ready because they are still trying to concoct the following:

Having seen the complete disaster that Fyfe made in the UK running ITV digital, it is amazing that he is still in charge, and is being allowed to make the same mistakes again of backing the wrong horses, and not taking the tough decisions before the company falls on its backside again.

In the past 12 months the company has underperformed the NZX50 by around 35% and since early december when the review became public it has underperformed by around 8%, at a time when a review of operations would normally be seen as positive, unless the market does have faith in the management.

The final consideration is the sell down of some of the government shares, which is likely to happen in 2013, so they will want some quick wins.
 
777ER
Crew
Posts: 9855
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Tue Jan 03, 2012 9:45 am

Quoting hornetfan (Reply 12):
and since early december when the review became public it has underperformed by around 8%

The reviews been released? Link to the release please
Head Forum Moderator
moderators@airliners.net
 
hornetfan
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 5:56 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Tue Jan 03, 2012 8:00 pm

Quoting 777ER (Reply 13):
The reviews been released? Link to the release please

I was referring to the fact the review is being conducted being made public. If you want a link, type Air NZ review into google. This is when the herald reported it.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ticle.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10772878

When a public company announces these reviews if the market believes it will be positive it usually has a upward impact on share price, whereas in this case the market has seen it as negative, reflecting I suspect the same fears Koruman has raised on here, and I agree with.

Links to his time there,

Feb 2002 - Fyfe puts on the record that his plan is working (2nd paragraph)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2...al-turns-on-46000-new-viewers.html

May 2002 - He is made redundant as the company he was CEO of failed, having been placed into administration on 17 March no less than 32 days after he said all was going well and his plan was on track.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/4...igns-over-ITV-Digital-debacle.html
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:13 am

Quoting hornetfan (Reply 12):
Having seen the complete disaster that Fyfe made in the UK running ITV digital, it is amazing that he is still in charge, and is being allowed to make the same mistakes again of backing the wrong horses, and not taking the tough decisions before the company falls on its backside again.

The problem is that he inherited from Ralph Norris a company in good shape. And he then took an ultra-conservative position in a recession, which made the operating figures look better than they were.

But a number of appalling decisions were made on Fyfe's watch.

He ignored that fact that his large markets in Queensland and Victoria had no recession, but rather had robust growth combined with a lack of service from Qantas, which was also true of Perth which could/should have been a staging post to London and South Africa. And while he fiddled, Virgin Australia seized Queensland and Victoria and got into bed across the Pacific with Delta and Hawaiian rather than Air NZ. Air NZ is now 15% owner of an airline which funnels passengers to the USA to those airlines, not itself! You couldn't make it up. Especially when Air NZ's 77E and 77L options are a perfect fit for Virgin Australia's needs.

Fyfe also decided to give leisure travellers to the UK, Europe and North America a special little gift, too. For as long as anyone could remember, Air NZ's point of difference had been the ability to take an online stopover in Tahiti, Fiji or Samoa. This was prominent in Air NZ's marketing in the UK - remember the "cups of tea" billboard across London showing the Pacific network options? So he closed the sectors from there to Los Angeles which enabled that. And suddenly demand from LHR to LAX fell from 744-size to 77E size, almost overnight.

Fyfe also ignored his company's own existing market research and data, which showed that long-haul passengers chose to pay a premium to fly Air NZ for the extra personal space (34 inch pitch on the 744, for example). When the 77W configuration was decided the airline distributed to every frequent flyer a brochure trumpeting "the extra personal space long-haul passengers value". And then put inadequate pitch in Premium Economy and made Economy 10-abreast on a 777. The clear message to their most loyal passengers was "we hereby acknowledge in writing that we've heard what you want, and we're giving you the opposite, take it or leave it."

And on that subject, on Fyfe's watch the management also elected not to exercise any of the existing options for 777 family aircraft which could have done in 2009 what the 787 will now do in 2015.

But most importantly, Fyfe allowed (and that is too passive a word) the frequent flyer program to be repositioned in such a way that it discourages frequent flyers from remaining loyal to his airline, and instead targets retail shoppers.

Russell Brand made some beastly comments about George Bush a number of years ago, which I won't repeat out of context here. But he finished with a comment that entirely suits whoever dreamed up, approved and then implemented an "Earn to Fly" retail-based frequent flyer program. His words were that the person he was describing "wouldn't be trusted with scissors" where he came from. And as soon as I read the airline's spin about "Earn to Fly" and understood the damage to airline loyalty, that phrase instantly sprang to mind.

All of these changes were precisely that - a radical change in direction. Which exhibits a surprising level of hubris, a "we (I?) know better than my predecessors" attitude. Except those predecessors didn't lose money long-haul, whereas under Mr Fyfe the airline now does.

So basically the last few years can be described as follows. Listen to what your long-haul customers want, then give them the opposite. And make your loyalty scheme discourage loyalty. And then be surprised why you're not making profits long-haul.

[Edited 2012-01-03 19:35:33]

[Edited 2012-01-03 19:38:34]
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 2283
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:30 am

I've been following the NZ threads for a few years. Time to make a first post:
In another thread on this site about Lufthansa retiring its 744s, reply 25 mentions that Air New Zealand has a second 747 that will be scrapped soon. I assume that this is just a rumor but wonder if there is any truth in it?
Here is the link: First LH 744 Retired (by na Jan 3 2012 in Civil Aviation)

Current 744s in Air New Zealand fleet:
ZK-SUH - GE engines - owned
ZK-NBT - Rolls Royce engines - leased
ZK-NBU - Rolls Royce engines - leased
ZK-NBV - GE engines - owned

Since both the GE aircraft are owned, I assume that the next 744 to leave the fleet will be a leased one with RR engines, probably ZK-NBT as its older. I am aware that, as fewer airlines operate them, 744s with Rolls Royce engines are less sought after than their GE counterparts but surely disposing them selling them to a Rolls Royce 744 operator such as Transaero would be more profitable for the lessor than scrapping them?
First to fly the 787-9 with Air New Zealand and ZK-NZE (2014-10-09, NZ103)
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 7445
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:30 am

There's plenty in the last few posts I may or may not agree w/K'man about, but one thing we do agree on is that the Board of Directors should be voting on whether or not to keep the CEO. Right now. Before any other 'cost cutting' measures are implemented. There is much to be done if we want to keep this company viable, and fresh eyes on the (actual - rather than potential/invented) problems is essential right now - this goes for the whole of NZ management upper and lower.
Flown to 120 Airports in 44 Countries on 73 Operators. Visited 55 Countries and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
hornetfan
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 5:56 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:46 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 17):
There's plenty in the last few posts I may or may not agree w/K'man about, but one thing we do agree on is that the Board of Directors should be voting on whether or not to keep the CEO. Right now.

Alternatively the Government being the majority shareholder could in effect force their hand. The bottom line is he needs to go before another one of his hairbrained schemes puts the airline beyond the point of no return. I simply can't see the logic of becoming focused on North Asia where the money is from package deals, rather than focusing on the long haul routes which have served NZ so well for so long.

If there was no market from NZ to Europe, how come Emirates, Singapore, Qantas et al all manage to fill planes and take people to Europe and North America. The prime reason is the range of stopover options they provide.

I don't know where to find numbers of people flying to various places, but I suspect that a simple analysis would show passenger numbers to Europe and North America exceed those to China and Japan.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18177
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:59 am

Quoting hornetfan (Reply 18):
I simply can't see the logic of becoming focused on North Asia where the money is from package deals, rather than focusing on the long haul routes which have served NZ so well for so long.

If there was no market from NZ to Europe, how come Emirates, Singapore, Qantas et al all manage to fill planes and take people to Europe and North America. The prime reason is the range of stopover options they provide.

Qantas has has said it isn't making money on long haul international and is reducing service to the UK.

The world has changed, partly because of airlines like Emirates, partly because of the woeful economies of the northern hemisphere

As to "North Asia" it's an old battle here, but the economic reality is simple:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ticle.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10753061

"Chinese tourists are on track to spend more money than visitors from the UK and the United States by the middle of next year.

Ministry of Economic Development forecasts show Chinese tourists will spend $604 million during 2013, easily overtaking the expenditure of US and UK tourists."


mariner
aeternum nauta
 
alangirvan
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2000 2:13 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:35 am

Quoting hornetfan (Reply 18):
If there was no market from NZ to Europe, how come Emirates, Singapore, Qantas et al all manage to fill planes and take people to Europe and North America. The prime reason is the range of stopover options they provide.

I am sorry, did you really say Qantas - as you will know, Qantas is dropping two of its daily flights to London, including its flight through Hong Kong. There is quite a strong possibility that Qantas will drop its only flight to Continental Europe (FRA), in favour of codesharing on other airline's services.

Apparently, some Australian commentators point to AirNZ as the way to do things. Those Australian commentators do not read the NZ thread.
 
User avatar
NZ1
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 1774
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 1:32 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:47 am

Quoting zkojq (Reply 16):

I've been following the NZ threads for a few years. Time to make a first post:
In another thread on this site about Lufthansa retiring its 744s, reply 25 mentions that Air New Zealand has a second 747 that will be scrapped soon. I assume that this is just a rumor but wonder if there is any truth in it?
Here is the link: First LH 744 Retired (by na Jan 3 2012 in Civil Aviation)

Current 744s in Air New Zealand fleet:
ZK-SUH - GE engines - owned
ZK-NBT - Rolls Royce engines - leased
ZK-NBU - Rolls Royce engines - leased
ZK-NBV - GE engines - owned

Since both the GE aircraft are owned, I assume that the next 744 to leave the fleet will be a leased one with RR engines, probably ZK-NBT as its older. I am aware that, as fewer airlines operate them, 744s with Rolls Royce engines are less sought after than their GE counterparts but surely disposing them selling them to a Rolls Royce 744 operator such as Transaero would be more profitable for the lessor than scrapping them?

NBT and NBU leave the fleet in Feb and Mar of ths year. I cannot disclose where they are going yet, but they are not being scrapped.

NZ1
--
✈ NZ1 / Mike
Head Forum Moderator
www.airliners.net
www.twitter.com/airliners_net
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 2283
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:25 am

Quoting NZ1 (Reply 21):
I cannot disclose where they are going yet, but they are not being scrapped.

Pleased to hear it  . I hope they have long and useful lives with their next operator, whoever that might be.
First to fly the 787-9 with Air New Zealand and ZK-NZE (2014-10-09, NZ103)
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 7445
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:44 am

Quoting zkojq (Reply 22):
Pleased to hear it . I hope they have long and useful lives with their next operator, whoever that might be.

Southern Air Cargo have taking the previous two 744sI believe, so I wonder if they want any more???
Flown to 120 Airports in 44 Countries on 73 Operators. Visited 55 Countries and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:44 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 19):
Qantas has has said it isn't making money on long haul international and is reducing service to the UK.

Qantas has exceptional circumstances - apart from a few A380s all its long-haul flying is on inefficient 744s.

Quoting mariner (Reply 19):
As to "North Asia" it's an old battle here, but the economic reality is simple

I don't dispute that, and I don't challenge the idea of Air NZ operating services to China and Japan. I just think they should use dedicated high-density aircraft for the China operations.

Unlike Mr Fyfe, I have faith that Air NZ's fundamental long-haul business model was sound. An end-of-the line carrier based in a small, poor country has to offer 1-stop and even 2-stop services in addition to non-stop ones. And it has to take every opportunity to link wealthier markets than its own as part of those 1-stop services. And a balanced portfolio of long-haul to/from NZ, Australia, North America and East Asia makes more sense to me than betting your shirt on Asia and cutting everything else.

Unlike Mr Fyfe, I think that the long-haul operations would benefit from development rather cuts. I think Air NZ has always enjoyed superior yields by offering superior space in all classes, and that cutting that is very risky.

Unlike Mr Fyfe, I think that the old Airpoints was as good as a dollar-denominated loyalty program could be - but I also think that other airlines don't denominate in dollars because they would expose themselves with each inevitable devaluation.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18177
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:29 am

Quoting koruman (Reply 24):
Qantas has exceptional circumstances - apart from a few A380s all its long-haul flying is on inefficient 744s.

You could find excuses for everything or you could dump on Qantas management for only having "inefficient" 747's.

I suppose you could find excuses for the dramatic drop in profits at both Emirates and Singapore, or the huge up-coming loss at Air France/KLM, but around the world airlines are struggling to work out how to deal with the twin evils of disastrous (western) economies and high fuel costs.

Quoting koruman (Reply 24):
Unlike Mr Fyfe, I have faith that Air NZ's fundamental long-haul business model was sound.

You can have as much faith as you like, but you can't prove it. No one on a.net has the actual numbers. No one on a.net has the financial projections.

And what might have been true with oil at $50 bbl, may be a complete fantasy with oil at $100 bbl - and rising.

Do I think Air NZ could have done - or could do - some things differently? You bet. But I think it is no small achievement that the airline is still flying and nominally profitable.

mariner

[Edited 2012-01-04 02:31:09]
aeternum nauta
 
cxb744
Posts: 219
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 7:31 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Wed Jan 04, 2012 11:04 pm

Everyone might be consider that this talk of dropping Air NZ's 2 London routes might be in protest of the new Carbon trading scheme imposed by the E.U. Airlines all over the world are hopping mad about it and Air NZ sounds like no exception. Hopefully it's all bravado, hopefully.
What is it? It's A 747-400, but that's not important right now.
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:13 am

I'm not actually sure why there are these leaks about London services being under particular review, or for that matter Rob Fyfe's statements about the airline not engaging in any more 1-stop routes.

Well, I do have a theory. I'm not at liberty to give any details, but I know that at least three times in the last fifteen years the airline has commissioned internal business plans for operating further 1-stop routes. Obviously I've never seen this stuff, I only know what people have told me.

The ones I'm aware of were from SFO and LAX to the UK and from Australia to South Africa. (SA were apparently willing to switch their QF codeshare to an NZ codeshare, but NZ felt that the 744 had too much capacity at the time). From what I understand, the US-UK extensions did not have compelling financials if operated by 744 aircraft, but they demonstrably did if operated by 763s (coming in from 1 or 2 stop Pacific island flights) or by 77E or 77L aircraft.

Furthermore, it's my understanding that the financial projections for SFO-LHR as the second daily UK flight were marginally superior to those for HKG-LHR, but that HKG was preferred due to a hope that Asian growth would power it.

My take is this. The airline currently operates three types of long-haul flight.

1) Mixed yield flights non-stop to the USA and 1-stop to the UK.
2) Mixed yield flights to Hong Kong and Japan.
3) VFR and inbound package tourist flights to China.

The airline's long-haul division is supposedly losing money, but we are being expected to believe that this is the fault of the mixed-yield flights, not the low-yield ones.

I interpret the avowed unhappiness with UK route performance and with 1-stop flying - which has been leaked since just before the long-haul review was commenced - not so much as a response to a finding as a strategic assault to ensure that the existing business plans are not explored in too much inconvenient detail. I think that dogma fuelled by the experience of mid-point hub carriers is leading the management to put all its eggs into a non-stop Asian basket. And I think that Rob Fyfe still is angry about what happened to him as a failed executive in the UK.

But any decision for Air New Zealand to draw down its UK services or fail to develop 1-stop flying is the equivalent action to Emirates dropping its UK and Australia services in favour of focussing on India, Bangladesh and Pakistan.

Quoting alangirvan (Reply 20):
I am sorry, did you really say Qantas - as you will know, Qantas is dropping two of its daily flights to London, including its flight through Hong Kong.

Qantas has a 24 million home market with a per capita GDP of US$ 41,000.

New Zealand has a 4 million home market with a per capita GDP of US$ 27,000.

Qantas has a wealthy and large enough market to focus on non-stop flying to and from its home market. Whereas New Zealand's market is smaller and poorer than Taiwan, Greece or Israel.

Consider the per capita gross economic product of the markets for the following two flights.

AKL-PVG = $27,000: $11,540
LAX-LHR = $58,890: $50,611

That's why LAX-LHR has been such an important route for Air NZ for so long. Fyfe's comments about buying seats on LAX-LHR from Virgin Atlantic are somewhere beyond inane and insane: that may allow a theoretical AKL-LAX-LHR route, but it will be the end of selling LAX-LHR tickets, and vice versa.

But then the same nonsense was peddled about the use of TN-codeshares on LAX-PPT having "no adverse impact" upon passengers travelling to Tahiti. So how many LAX-PPT-LAX tickets does Air NZ sell now on that much-vaunted codeshare? A big fat zero, when previously they had to be contrained to sell no more than 900 per week.

Aerobnz is right to worry about the long-haul review.

The airline has a senior management team with limited experience in civil aviation which has been making radical decisions which have antagonised many of its customers, and has then been using unsophisticated spin which many - perhaps most - of their high value customers don't just see through, but are further antagonised by.

If I were an investor I'd be amenable to a confidential external review of long-haul operations, but I wouldn't want the management which is supposedly presiding over long-haul failure to be allowed to conduct another of their internal reviews. It's a recipe for disaster - it's like putting the turkeys in charge of a review of Christmas.
 
xiaotung
Posts: 798
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:58 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Thu Jan 05, 2012 5:07 am

http://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/Air...te-pay-cut-abc-1795635927.html?x=0

I haven't seen anyone posting this. Union secretary Andrew Little says airline staff are upset to have been treated as liabilities rather than assets. Why does this sound so familiar? That's right. Frequent flyer loyalty seems to the airline like liabilities rather than assets. That's exactly what they did to Airpoints.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 7445
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Thu Jan 05, 2012 5:28 am

Quoting xiaotung (Reply 28):
I haven't seen anyone posting this.

I don't know which ground-staff they mean. there is nothing I have seen internally that backs that article up yet.
Flown to 120 Airports in 44 Countries on 73 Operators. Visited 55 Countries and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
777ER
Crew
Posts: 9855
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Thu Jan 05, 2012 5:51 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 25):
Quoting koruman (Reply 24):Qantas has exceptional circumstances - apart from a few A380s all its long-haul flying is on inefficient 744s.You could find excuses for everything or you could dump on Qantas management for only having "inefficient" 747's.

Koruman is 100% correct IMHO about the situation QF long haul is in in regards to its long haul fleet being B744s and A380s.

If QF ordered B772ERs and B77Ws as soon as possible many years ago then QFs fuel bill would have reduced around 15-25% for some flights and some flights would be operating right now with the correct aircraft/seat count required for the route. Just hope the B787s arrive before its too late for QF. I read on here last week a comment about a conversation a QF B744 flight crew had with a DL B772LR flight crew while both aircraft were enroute to LAX from SYD. The B772 carried around 20-30pax less then the B744 but the fuel usuage difference between the two flights was that much that it would make the QF bean counters cry
Head Forum Moderator
moderators@airliners.net
 
ZKOJH
Posts: 1449
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:51 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Thu Jan 05, 2012 5:58 am

WOW! that's strange here we are all talking about the long haul plan and cutting London, and they go for home-ground kills first. and go for the ground staff again. we had this all when I worked for them in 2007, and it went right done to the wire with 'swissport'' great start to 2012 then, is the review just going to be chop at everything then! i'd say start at the top! about time someone needs to move on..
Vietnam time..
 
777ER
Crew
Posts: 9855
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Thu Jan 05, 2012 6:05 am

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 31):

I vote for the CEO and some of the Senior staff. I fear NZ is shortly going to once again become the laughing joke of the Pacific/long haul as NZ was before IFE was installed on its B744s
Head Forum Moderator
moderators@airliners.net
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18177
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Thu Jan 05, 2012 6:29 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 30):
Koruman is 100% correct IMHO about the situation QF long haul is in in regards to its long haul fleet being B744s and A380s.

It is quite extraordinary to me that so many blame Qantas long haul problems on fleet choice and completely ignore both (a) the very high level competition that has arrived on the those routes (b) the global economy and (c) Boeing.

If the 787's had arrived even close to when they were supposed to, no one would be would dumping on Qantas fleet choices.

It should also be remembered that Qantas went for the 787 - instead of the then A350 - in large part because of the 2008 delivery slots promised by Boeing:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...87-beat-the-a350-at-qantas-203664/

"Qantas chief executive officer Geoff Dixon says that a guarantee from Boeing of first deliveries in 2008 was a “big determinant” in its selection – the A350 is not available until mid-2010 at the earliest."

If it has ordered the then A350 instead, that aircraft would be flying for Qantas now.

The same could have been true for Air New Zealand, of course.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
kiwiandrew

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Thu Jan 05, 2012 6:44 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 33):
Qantas chief executive officer Geoff Dixon says that a guarantee from Boeing of first deliveries in 2008 was a “big determinant” in its selection – the A350 is not available until mid-2010 at the earliest."

If it has ordered the then A350 instead, that aircraft would be flying for Qantas now.

Really? I haven't noticed a lot of A350s flying around with any carrier. Or are you suggesting that if QF had ordered the first version of the A350 that it would now be in service and that the A350 XWB would never have been launched? If that is the case then perhaps it is a good thing that QF didn't order them as the market completely rejected that version.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18177
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Thu Jan 05, 2012 7:28 am

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 34):
Really? I haven't noticed a lot of A350s flying around with any carrier. Or are you suggesting that if QF had ordered the first version of the A350 that it would now be in service and that the A350 XWB would never have been launched?

Pretty much.

The then A350 already had 200 orders.

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 34):
If that is the case then perhaps it is a good thing that QF didn't order them as the market completely rejected that version.

Indeed, "the market" did - if Stephen Udvar Hazy can be called "the market." But then, of course, "the market" said that the 787 would kill the A330 stone dead as well.

"The market" was suffering from what Richard Aboulafia later called "the drug like rush of the 787."

mariner

[Edited 2012-01-05 00:03:42]
aeternum nauta
 
Unclekoru
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:00 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Thu Jan 05, 2012 7:43 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 33):
It is quite extraordinary to me that so many blame Qantas long haul problems on fleet choice and completely ignore both (a) the very high level competition that has arrived on the those routes (b) the global economy and (c) Boeing.



I agree, once all delivered, they will have a good mix of aircraft. The 777 certainly hasn't been a magic bullet for Air NZ either. I think the only thing they got wrong fleet wise, was not giving the 767 a refurb. Even prior to the full extent of the 787 delay becoming apparent, they were tired and still looking at a further five years in QF service. The difference between the cabins in NZ 767's and QF 767's is like night and day. I believe this state of affairs has/will help Virgin increase market share on Domestic flights.

Quoting hornetfan (Reply 18):
Alternatively the Government being the majority shareholder could in effect force their hand. The bottom line is he needs to go before another one of his hairbrained schemes puts the airline beyond the point of no return. I simply can't see the logic of becoming focused on North Asia where the money is from package deals, rather than focusing on the long haul routes which have served NZ so well for so long.



The direction the airline's taking is a result of the majority shareholder wishing to offload a significant proportion of their shares, not sure you will find any sympathy there. All the current changes are a result of a directive to achieve an appropriate return on investment in preparation for sale.

Quoting koruman (Reply 15):
The problem is that he inherited from Ralph Norris a company in good shape. And he then took an ultra-conservative position in a recession, which made the operating figures look better than they were.


The airline under Ralph Norris made a number of good decisions, express on domestic, BP and the elimination of first are some of the more obvious examples. Employees became, for the most part, highly engaged and Fyfe did little to alter this in his first few years. The current situation is reminiscent of project save, those who were with NZ during the dark days will know what I'm referring to.

To be sure, Norris had it easy in comparison, he only had to make an average airline good, the present management team need to combat a changing competitive environment and a challenging global economy as well as a shareholder that's wants to see an improved financial performance, even if it's at the expense of what we presume to be the "normal operating model" for an airline that's long been our flag carrier (an outdated concept in itself).

It would be my preference to see the airline supported during the difficult times to ensure it maintained or even grew our links with Europe, America and Asia, flying the flag and helping grow tourism in off shore markets. That's why we bailed the airline out wasn't it? That's not to say it should become some sort of bloated government department, but do we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater?
It sounds like english, but I can't understand a word you're saying
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4301
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Thu Jan 05, 2012 7:47 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 30):
If QF ordered B772ERs and B77Ws as soon as possible many years ago then QFs fuel bill would have reduced around 15-25% for some flights and some flights would be operating right now with the correct aircraft/seat count required for the route

Assuming this is true, which is highly debatable, that still does not mean that QF would be better off with the B777 because you have not accounted for ALL the extra costs that QF would have incurred by introducing the type. Maybe the fuel savings would have made up for the extra costs or maybe they wouldn't, the point is you just don't know.


Gemuser
DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
 
deconz
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 11:14 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Thu Jan 05, 2012 7:49 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 29):
Quoting xiaotung (Reply 28):
I haven't seen anyone posting this.

I don't know which ground-staff they mean. there is nothing I have seen internally that backs that article up yet.

Well it's an Australian website and quotes savings over 5 years in A$'s so I'm guessing it's NZ's Australian based work force?
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Thu Jan 05, 2012 8:47 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 33):
It is quite extraordinary to me that so many blame Qantas long haul problems on fleet choice and completely ignore both (a) the very high level competition that has arrived on the those routes (b) the global economy and (c) Boeing.

If the 787's had arrived even close to when they were supposed to, no one would be would dumping on Qantas fleet choices.

Are you serious?

Qantas ordered a paper plane late in 2005, which had only just had its name changed from 7E7 to 787, and they expected it to enter service in 2008? And you blame Boeing for the fact that it didn't.

Let's be quite clear about what happened with Qantas. They had a fleet full of 744s and ordered a few A330s and A380s for medium-long haul and high-capacity long-haul respectively.

But they were controlled by management and a board with a (pathological, in my opinion) desire to cut costs, and so they decided to give away many of the A330s to their LCC subsidiary and to minimise new aircraft type acquisition by Qantas (320, 777) so that their imagined adversaries (known to the rest of us as their staff) didn't get to use those types.

There were dogmatic reasons for skipping a generation and leaping from the 744 to the 787 without the 777/340 in between. And it was a gamble which required the cost of fuel to remain low. Which it didn't.

But you can't tell me that Qantas wouldn't have better survived high oil prices if it had acquired a 777 fleet. And you can't compare Air NZ's long-haul woes with Qantas', as the causes are entirely different.

Rob Fyfe is trying to grow North Asian services, just as the Qantas group has done with Japan, for similar discount economy inbound tourists. The difference is that Qantas uses an LCC subsidiary to do so, whereas Air NZ's CEO seems to want to close down the full-service long-haul routes in favour of using full-service configured aircraft and staff to fly LCC routes. Which is innovative.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18177
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Thu Jan 05, 2012 9:03 am

Quoting koruman (Reply 39):
Qantas ordered a paper plane late in 2005, which had only just had its name changed from 7E7 to 787, and they expected it to enter service in 2008? And you blame Boeing for the fact that it didn't.

Who else to blame? Boeing didn't deliver on its contractual promise. That promise had swung the deal away from Airbus.

Nor was Qantas the first airline to order the 787 - others had already done so, ANA in 2004. Qantas didn't order until December 2005.

Quoting koruman (Reply 39):
But you can't tell me that Qantas wouldn't have better survived high oil prices if it had acquired a 777 fleet. And you can't compare Air NZ's long-haul woes with Qantas', as the causes are entirely different.

The 777 is the backbone of the Air France/KLM long haul fleet. How's that airline surviving the current economic realities?:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...3/air-france-idUSL6E7NN08T20111223

" Air France-KLM could post an operating loss of around 300 million euros ($392 million) in 2011 and even bigger losses in 2012 as economic woes and higher fuel prices take their toll, French daily Liberation reports.

Liberation, citing a report conducted by research firm Secafi for the central workers committee of Air France-KLM, said the operating loss could exceed 500 million euros in 2012 if economic parameters remained unchanged."


But if you ignore the current economic realities, any theory is possible.

mariner

[Edited 2012-01-05 01:12:54]
aeternum nauta
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Thu Jan 05, 2012 9:23 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 40):
The 777 is the backbone of the Air France/KLM long haul fleet. How's that airline surviving the current economic realities?:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...3/air-france-idUSL6E7NN08T20111223

" Air France-KLM could post an operating loss of around 300 million euros ($392 million) in 2011 and even bigger losses in 2012 as economic woes and higher fuel prices take their toll, French daily Liberation reports.

Ah yes, Air France. The airline that has 125 permanent staff at Papeete, where it flies in and out fewer than 900 seats per week. While Air New Zealand flies in and out 468 seats per week, with six permanent staff.

I wonder why Air France loses money? Hmmm, must be the cost of fuel.

Mariner, no-one disputes that fuel is expensive, and that airlines are operating in difficult times.

But I object to the way that Air New Zealand's management implements weird and unorthodox measures for an airline in its market niche (high density seating and and a loyalty program which discourages loyalty) while ignoring growth opportunities from economically-robust neighbouring ports in favour of carrying low-yield inbound package tourists from the third world.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18177
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Thu Jan 05, 2012 9:35 am

Quoting koruman (Reply 41):
I wonder why Air France loses money? Hmmm, must be the cost of fuel.

Not just the cost of oil, no.

But it isn't just Air France. Why did Emirates and Singapore post such lousy results?

Quoting koruman (Reply 41):
But I object to the way that Air New Zealand's management implements weird and unorthodox measures for an airline in its market niche (high density seating and and a loyalty program which discourages loyalty) while ignoring growth opportunities from economically-robust neighbouring ports in favour of carrying low-yield inbound package tourists from the third world.

I don't know what that has to do with anything I have said.

Much as I would like to see Air NZ use its beyond Australia rights, it is a New Zealand airline and if the hub at AKL isn't (long haul) profitable, there's a problem.

mariner

[Edited 2012-01-05 01:38:30]
aeternum nauta
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:06 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 42):
Much as I would like to see Air NZ use its beyond Australia rights, it is a New Zealand airline and if the hub at AKL isn't (long haul) profitable, there's a problem.

Alaska Airlines is really more a Seattle and Portland airline than a pure Alaska one, isn't it?

Why should Air NZ limit itself to a sole long-haul hub at Auckland, when there are just under 200,000 New Zealand citizens in BNE's catchment area, whose combined GDP is larger than Wellington's or Christchurch?

This should be perceived as an opportunity, not as "Non-core business".
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18177
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:46 am

Quoting koruman (Reply 43):
Alaska Airlines is really more a Seattle and Portland airline than a pure Alaska one, isn't it?

It has very little to do with the name.

Alaska (the state) is in the US and Alaska (the airline) is a US airline and if its primary hub - SEA - in the US were not profitable, then there would be a very real problem.

Quoting koruman (Reply 43):
Why should Air NZ limit itself to a sole long-haul hub at Auckland, when there are just under 200,000 New Zealand citizens in BNE's catchment area, whose combined GDP is larger than Wellington's or Christchurch?

I don't think it should "limit" itself, that isn't what I said.

It is a New Zealand airline, majority state owned, and if the primary hub in New Zealand is not profitable, then there is a problem.

mariner

[Edited 2012-01-05 02:47:38]
aeternum nauta
 
777ER
Crew
Posts: 9855
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:14 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 33):
Qantas chief executive officer Geoff Dixon says that a guarantee from Boeing of first deliveries in 2008 was a “big determinant” in its selection – the A350 is not available until mid-2010 at the earliest."If it has ordered the then A350 instead, that aircraft would be flying for Qantas now. The same could have been true for Air New Zealand, of course.

since when was the A350 flying? The A350 hasn't even been built, yet done any flights

Quoting gemuser (Reply 37):

Its a known fact the B777 has lower operating costs then the B744s, if it wasn't true then the B777 wouldn't have ripped apart the A340s sales or Boeing would have faced some problems with false advertising. Yes introducing a new type is more money for an airline. Do you really believe that QF has the right long haul fleet right now with only B744s and A380s with nothing around the A340/B777 size for routes that don't require B744s? If QF had ordered the B777/A340 like many other airlines around the world for routes that didn't require Jumbos then do you believe the B787 delays wouldn't be affecting QFs fleet plans as badly? Are you trying to say that its not worth introducing a new type because of extra costs? If so they why did QF introduce the A330 when it already had B767s perfectly able to fly the routes the A330s are currently flying? QF introduced the A330 because it saw a need for the aircraft. The same can be said for the A380.
Head Forum Moderator
moderators@airliners.net
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3223
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Thu Jan 05, 2012 7:52 pm

Quoting 777ER (Reply 45):
since when was the A350 flying? The A350 hasn't even been built, yet done any flights

Pretty sure this was in reference to the original A350 (the A330 plus).
come visit the south pacific
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18177
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Thu Jan 05, 2012 7:55 pm

Quoting 777ER (Reply 45):
since when was the A350 flying? The A350 hasn't even been built, yet done any flights

I never said it was built, that was the whole point. The Qantas order for 787's - based on the 2008 delivery slots - helped put the kibosh on it.

But - how much for the 2008 deliveries to Qantas for the 787?

mariner

[Edited 2012-01-05 11:56:30]
aeternum nauta
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18177
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Thu Jan 05, 2012 8:04 pm

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 46):
Pretty sure this was in reference to the original A350 (the A330 plus).

  

Just to clarify, when I refer to "the then A350", it is to that aircraft - the souped up A330 - planned for delivery in 2010.

The A350XWB being built now is a different aircraft.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
anstar
Posts: 2868
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 3:49 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Thu Jan 05, 2012 8:10 pm

Quoting koruman (Reply 41):
Ah yes, Air France. The airline that has 125 permanent staff at Papeete, where it flies in and out fewer than 900 seats per week. While Air New Zealand flies in and out 468 seats per week, with six permanent staff.

Doesn't AF have a crew base in PPT which would inflate these numbers?

If so you could say similar things about Air NZ and their UK personnel head count... must be around 500 full timers taking into consideration office staff and the cabin crew base.