cchan
Topic Author
Posts: 951
Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 8:54 pm

New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:11 am

Welcome to the 111th New Zealand aviation thread. In New Zealand Aviation Thread #110 (by 777ER Feb 13 2012 in Civil Aviation) we discussed:

- 2 new destinations for Air NZ: Bali and Sunshine Coast
- Practicalities for NZ to start serving South America
- QANTAS pulling out of AKL-LAX, opportunities for Air NZ
- Should Air NZ start non-stop WLG-ZQN flights
- Is Air NZ going to keep their 767s for longer
 
Mr AirNZ
Posts: 856
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2002 10:24 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:58 pm

Amongst all the six monthly financials released today by Air NZ, news that two 787-9 options have been converted to firm orders. Modified delievery schedule agreed to with the first aircraft now due second quarter 2014.

http://www.3news.co.nz/Air-NZ-slashi.../209/articleID/244064/Default.aspx

[Edited 2012-02-23 13:00:02]
 
kiwiandrew

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:50 pm

Quoting Mr AirNZ (Reply 1):
Amongst all the six monthly financials released today by Air NZ, news that two 787-9 options have been converted to firm orders. Modified delievery schedule agreed to with the first aircraft now due second quarter 2014.

http://www.3news.co.nz/Air-NZ-slashi....aspx

Interesting that they also mention a charter flight in October to Buenos Aires using the 77W !

“Today I am also pleased to announce our first foray into South America, with a charter flight in September using our new all black Boeing 777-300.”

The flight will take the All Blacks and their fans to Buenos Aires for the first game against Argentina in the expanded Four Nations competition. Tickets and packages will go on sale in the coming weeks.


Hopefully a taste of things to come.
 
cchan
Topic Author
Posts: 951
Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 8:54 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:51 pm

I am disappointed to hear about the job cuts, and no 777 options have been converted.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 7413
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:52 pm

Quoting cchan (Reply 3):
and no 777 options have been converted.

yep agreed, instead of

Quoting Mr AirNZ (Reply 1):
two 787-9 options have been converted

Which is still relying on a theoretical airline with theoretical range and payload at very least until Boeing produce the first 789. How can anything like routes be forecast effectively (Unless they are for tasks well below their design like DPS) when they don't even know accurately what distance the aircraft can fly, how heavy it is, how much fuel burn (even whether it will save any fuel per passenger onboard at all over a 77W which hauls more) or even if it will gain EDTO 330 immediately when it enters service...
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.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 653
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:56 pm

One of the authoritative airline blogs is reporting that NZ's AKL-HNL will increase to 4x weekly this (southern) summer, up from 2x weekly in the current summer. I am aware that HNL is served 3x weekly for a few months mid-year most years, but this year the 3x weekly schedule continues right through to November, and then increases to 4x weekly. The changes are not yet reflected in NZ's schedule. This is a very significant increase - K'man should be pleased. Maybe it's an attempt to forestall a restart by HA?

The same blog site also outlines the seasonal increases to LAX, SFO and YVR, but these have been in the schedules for a long time.

It also provides flight numbers from ANA's schedule which show the servces on which ANA will codeshare on NZ to and from Japan. This clearly includes AKL-KIX, and the implication of that is that KIX must not be for the chop when the review of the international network is completed.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
ZKOJH
Posts: 1446
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:51 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:31 pm

not s good set of numbers, they are really going to have to work hard the next 6 months, lets hope the two new routes make some money!

Shame they went for more 787 options now, 2 years to go and they have hardly even started making the plane yet! I hate to be in there shoes when 2014 comes and they have no planes!!
Vietnam time..
 
ZKOJH
Posts: 1446
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:51 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:35 pm

''Labour: 'Worst time' for Air NZ sale''

Air New Zealand's profit plunge shows it would be the "worst time'' for the Government to sell shares in the company, Labour says.

The Government has flagged the airline as one of five state-owned assets it could sell shares in under its "mixed-ownership model'' plans.

Finance Minister Bill English last week admitted a Treasury prediction that the sales of Air New Zealand and four power companies would raise $6 billion was "just a guess'', and Opposition parties are now questioning how the airline's profits have been factored into that estimate.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ticle.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10787733
Vietnam time..
 
nz2
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:38 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:24 am

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 2):
Interesting that they also mention a charter flight in October to Buenos Aires using the 77W !

Great news - anyone know how I can book on that flight? We have about 10 of us going.


Something I just dicovered, being Gold member I have always been able to select any seat even if travelling on seat only option. I go to Oz quite a bit on biz and often there and back in the day so having a good seat helps. I just booked an overnight trip to MEL next week, staying overnight coz the return (seat only option) was $800 so cheaper to stay over, added bonus is a 744 ride home. Going over is a 772 but when coming to select a seat, there is only 3 or 4 middle seats available for me to chose. Speaking with customer service they advise that even gold should never have had seat selection available and that as I am on the cheap seat option (costing $1,000 return so hardly cheap!) I only gain access to selection of middle seats. She did put a request in for me to be seated forward in the cabin as there are seats available but i wont know till check in

Anyone else have this happen to them? Normally I could select the PE seats if any were available but now, basically nothing, not even down the back! My last trip was maybe a month ago to SYD and I could chose from all over the plane

Lastly, with QF pulling out of LAX, could SFO see the return of the 744 on the Mon/Tues flight and the 772 deployed to LAX? I am booked to return from UK through SFO on NZ7 on Tues May 8th currently a 772 - anyone know if there may be an equipment change in the wings ?? - it was a 744 when I booked and being booked in PE I am really bummed about it

cheers
 
cchan
Topic Author
Posts: 951
Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 8:54 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:31 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 4):
Which is still relying on a theoretical airline with theoretical range and payload at very least until Boeing produce the first 789. How can anything like routes be forecast effectively (Unless they are for tasks well below their design like DPS) when they don't even know accurately what distance the aircraft can fly, how heavy it is, how much fuel burn (even whether it will save any fuel per passenger onboard at all over a 77W which hauls more) or even if it will gain EDTO 330 immediately when it enters service...
Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 6):
Shame they went for more 787 options now, 2 years to go and they have hardly even started making the plane yet! I hate to be in there shoes when 2014 comes and they have no planes!!

I am somewhat given the impression that the fleet planners at NZ think that the 787 is the solution to everything. Whereas many other airlines are actively expanding their 777 and 330 fleets, or even buying 767 to cover 787 delays, NZ seems to have done nothing other than wait for their 789 to be delivered. IMHO, NZ can build a very good long haul network with an enhanced 767 and 777 fleet, even without the 787. But somehow they opt to do nothing and just sit there to wait for the 789 to happen, which could be 2014, or maybe 2015, or 2016. I don't see how the 787 can be "game changing" when all their opportunities are taken and established by competitors in the first place while they wait for aircraft deliveries.
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 4953
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Fri Feb 24, 2012 1:01 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 4):
Which is still relying on a theoretical airline with theoretical range and payload at very least until Boeing produce the first 789.

.

Rob you are being overly pessimistic . The performance of the 788 is now well documented and the 789 is the same aircraft with a plug in it which according to Ferpe adds a little more parasitic drag and makes it about 10t heavier. I believe it will make it's weights. Boeing is ahead of their self imposed deadline to get the weight out of the 788 and these changes will be incorporated into the 789. The modelling provided by PIANO-X very closely approximates what it will do so I don't believe in the hypothesis that nothing is known about it's expected performance. On the bellwether AKL-LAX route it is good for 50t although it is likely that it would be volume limited. Southbound it will be good for about 45t. Fuel burn will be about 67t northbound and 72t southbound.
 
PA515
Posts: 850
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Fri Feb 24, 2012 1:36 am

Quoting nz2 (Reply 8):
I am booked to return from UK through SFO on NZ7 on Tues May 8th currently a 772 - anyone know if there may be an equipment change in the wings ?? - it was a 744 when I booked and being booked in PE I am really bummed about it

NZ7 Thu May 10th is a 77W, but I guess that could change too.

PA515
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 4953
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Fri Feb 24, 2012 1:44 am

Quoting PA515 (Reply 11):
NZ7 Thu May 10th is a 77W, but I guess that could change too.

Is there any sort of regular frequency for the 77W on the SFO route?
 
PA515
Posts: 850
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Fri Feb 24, 2012 1:49 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 12):
Is there any sort of regular frequency for the 77W on the SFO route?

Only Thu 03 May and Thu 10 May.

PA515
 
ZKOJH
Posts: 1446
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:51 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Fri Feb 24, 2012 2:31 am

here is a few updates to code-shares and scheduled changes over the coming months,

ANA and Air New Zealand starting 25MAR12 is to begin codeshare operation, subject to Government approval. In 25MAR12 edition of ANA timetable, the Japanese carrier has listed codeshare flight numbers on flights operated by Air New Zealand.

Reservation at this time is not yet open. Codeshare flight numbers:

Route NH Codeshare NZ Operating
Auckland – Osaka Kansai NH7953/7952 NZ097/098
Auckland – Tokyo Narita NH7951/7950 NZ099/090

http://airlineroute.net/2012/02/23/nhnz-codeshare-s12/

Air New Zealand’s initial changes to Northern Winter 2012/13 season to North America as follows.

Think this is some good news, but shame that they have put the 763 back on the route.

Auckland – Honolulu eff 15NOV12 Service Increases from 3 to 4 weekly, compared to 2 in Northern Winter 2011/12 season
NZ010 AKL1030 – 2015-1HNL 763 x135
NZ009 HNL2145 – 0600+2AKL 763 x247

Auckland – Los Angeles eff 11DEC12
NZ002/001 77W Daily
NZ006/005 77W Day x2 772 Day 2

This bit is Fantastic, I think this could really go to daily sooner then later.

Auckland – Vancouver eff 13DEC12 Service Increase to 5 weekly, compared to 4 weekly in Northern Winter 2011/12 season
NZ084 AKL2000 – 1215YVR 772 x12
NZ083 YVR1815 – 0530+2AKL 772 x12

http://airlineroute.net/2012/02/23/nz-w12update1/
Vietnam time..
 
PA515
Posts: 850
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Fri Feb 24, 2012 2:47 am

Quoting PA515 (Reply 11):
Quoting nz2 (Reply 8):
I am booked to return from UK through SFO on NZ7 on Tues May 8th currently a 772 - anyone know if there may be an equipment change in the wings ?? - it was a 744 when I booked and being booked in PE I am really bummed about it

NZ7 Thu May 10th is a 77W, but I guess that could change too.
Quoting PA515 (Reply 13):
Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 12):
Is there any sort of regular frequency for the 77W on the SFO route?

Only Thu 03 May and Thu 10 May.

Just checked. In the last two weeks the 10 May NZ7 77W has been switched with the NZ5 772. Only the Thu 03 May NZ7 is a 77W now. I guess the need was greatest on AKL-LAX due QF ceasing 06 May.

PA515
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 2237
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Fri Feb 24, 2012 2:53 am

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 2):
Interesting that they also mention a charter flight in October to Buenos Aires using the 77W !


The reporter made it sound like they were seriously considering beginning a route to South America. I hope this is true.

Quoting nz2 (Reply 8):
Great news - anyone know how I can book on that flight? We have about 10 of us going.

Air New Zealand's facebook page says tickets will go on sale 'In the coming weeks'. Rather vague.
First to fly the 787-9 with Air New Zealand and ZK-NZE (2014-10-09, NZ103)
 
xiaotung
Posts: 791
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:58 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Fri Feb 24, 2012 4:02 am

QUEST: Earlier this week, Willie Walsh said on this program that $115 a barrel was manageable. He didn't say he liked it. $150 becomes pain- worthy.

What would you say?

FYFE: You know, if you really ask me, I'd actually be happy with fuel at $150. I'd be happy with fuel at $200. We are actually an incredible robust airline. We've got a very strong balance sheet. There's a lot of airlines out there that struggle to economically survive. They get by by the skin of their teeth.

To be honest, if high fuel started to claim some of the struggling airlines out of the industry, it wouldn't concern me at all.

QUEST: Oh, oh, oh, that's a polite way -- you just want to -- you want to nut cracker the competition.

FYFE: Well, the reality is the strong should get stronger and those that aren't strong enough should actually fall by the wayside. Unfortunately, in the airline industry, often, you find a lot of intervention in the industry that stops that from happening.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1103/31/qmb.01.html

This is a transcript from a CNN interview almost a year ago in which Rob Fyfe said he would be happy even if fuel was $200. Today's fuel price is $124 a barrel and NZ is not robust. What has happend?
 
PA515
Posts: 850
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Fri Feb 24, 2012 4:32 am

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 14):
here is a few updates to code-shares and scheduled changes over the coming months,

This is interesting.
Auckland - San Francisco eff. 10DEC12 Daily
NZ008 AKL1930-1030SFO 744 x357
NZ008 AKL1930-1045SFO 772 357

NZ007 SFO1900-0500+2AKL 744 x357
NZ007 SFO1900-0510+2AKL 772 357

What will the 744 be doing We Fr Su in peak season?

PA515
 
nz2
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:38 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Fri Feb 24, 2012 5:19 am

Quoting PA515 (Reply 18):
Auckland - San Francisco eff. 10DEC12 Daily
NZ008 AKL1930-1030SFO 744 x357
NZ008 AKL1930-1045SFO 772 357

NZ007 SFO1900-0500+2AKL 744 x357
NZ007 SFO1900-0510+2AKL 772 357

Excuse my ignorance but isn't this the same time and days of week for both the 772 and 744 - am i missing a date when they swap over?
 
kiwiandrew

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Fri Feb 24, 2012 5:40 am

Quoting nz2 (Reply 19):
Excuse my ignorance but isn't this the same time and days of week for both the 772 and 744 - am i missing a date when they swap over?

I may have misinterpreted what you are asking... but the 744 operates x357 ie every day except Wed, Fri and Sun whereas the 772 operates 357 ie Wed Fri and Sun
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:12 am

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 14):
Auckland %u2013 Honolulu eff 15NOV12 Service Increases from 3 to 4 weekly, compared to 2 in Northern Winter 2011/12 season
NZ010 AKL1030 %u2013 2015-1HNL 763 x135
NZ009 HNL2145 %u2013 0600 2AKL 763 x247

There is still a fundamental problem here: the rest of NZ's North American services have around 25% feed to/from Brisbane and Melbourne, but Honolulu doesn't because the northbound flight departs too early in the day to get connecting traffic.

My strong preference would be for Air NZ to operate a daily 77E AKL-HNL-YVR.

This would inconvenience passengers to/from Canada by adding two hours to their journey, but the trade-off is that they would have the added convenience of a daily frequency.

And a daily AKL-HNL-YVR wouldn't require any more overnight crew accommodation to be purchased than the existing 2x weekly HNL flight and 3x weekly YVR flight.
 
alangirvan
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2000 2:13 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:47 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 10):
ob you are being overly pessimistic . The performance of the 788 is now well documented and the 789 is the same aircraft with a plug in it which according to Ferpe adds a little more parasitic drag and makes it about 10t heavier. I believe it will make it's weights. Boeing is ahead of their self imposed deadline to get the weight out of the 788 and these changes will be incorporated into the 789.

We have waited so long since those two 7E7s were tagged on to the order for 777, and now the 789s are rather different plane from the original 7E7s. In previous thread, we have seen that the first few routes for the 789s will be China and Japan, so these planes will start life by primarily bringing Asian tourists. They will replace the 763s, so apparently, they will be appropriate aircraft for Bali, if Bali is still being operated in 2014 and beyond. Is the 789 the right aircraft for AKL-RAR-LAX. It might be good for turning YVR into a daily service, and even a better than daily service for SFO.

I thought one of the problems with operating AKL-HNL-YVR is that the Americans make it inconvenient to transit at HNL. As I remember it from my trip to HNL in 2010, AirNZ and Air Canada use the same gate at HNL airport - I suppose transit passengers could stay in the gate lounge, which would be a bit uncomfortable.
 
kiwiandrew

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:00 am

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
My strong preference would be for Air NZ to operate a daily 77E AKL-HNL-YVR.

This would inconvenience passengers to/from Canada by adding two hours to their journey, but the trade-off is that they would have the added convenience of a daily frequency.


Oh great, let's make people deal with the whole hassle of going through the US . Isn't the point of the non-stop flight to avoid the farce of dealing with the TSA and the charming folks from US customs and immigration?

A stop in HNL also sounds like a really good way to piss off AKL-YVR pax in BP who could otherwise have had a reasonable nights unbroken sleep on the flight.

As if both of those weren't bad enough it would also change Australia-YVR from a one stop service to a two stop service.
 
cchan
Topic Author
Posts: 951
Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 8:54 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:17 am

Quoting alangirvan (Reply 22):
Is the 789 the right aircraft for AKL-RAR-LAX.

It will depend on whether the Cook Islands government is willing to pay extra money to underwrite an aircraft of larger capacity. If the Cook Islands government is willing to do so, any aircraft is the right aircraft as long as it has the range.
 
alangirvan
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2000 2:13 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:31 am

Quoting cchan (Reply 24):
It will depend on whether the Cook Islands government is willing to pay extra money to underwrite an aircraft of larger capacity. If the Cook Islands government is willing to do so, any aircraft is the right aircraft as long as it has the range.

Doesn't the money come from NZ Foreign Affairs Aid?
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:21 am

Quoting koruman (Reply 21):
My strong preference would be for Air NZ to operate a daily 77E AKL-HNL-YVR.
Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 23):
Oh great, let's make people deal with the whole hassle of going through the US . Isn't the point of the non-stop flight to avoid the farce of dealing with the TSA and the charming folks from US customs and immigration?

Vancouver Airport has US arrival pre-clearance, so passengers don't have to go through any security whatsoever upon arrival in the USA. If Air New Zealand wanted the same arrangements at Auckland it would be as simple to arrange as the Irish and Canadians found it. That would mean that passengers between Auckland and Vancouver would only encounter US customs and immigration staff at Auckland and Vancouver Airports, where it would be less intrusive. At Honolulu all they would do would be get off and on the plane.

And it would be much nicer for passengers travelling from Auckland to Honolulu, as upon arrival they would do nothing except collect their baggage and leave the airport - there would be no customs, no immigration.

You could schedule the flights something like:

NZ10: AKL 2100 HNL 0600
NZ10 HNL 0800 YVR 1600

NZ9 YVR 1800 HNL 2200
NZ9 HNL 0000 AKL 0800+2

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 23):
A stop in HNL also sounds like a really good way to piss off AKL-YVR pax in BP who could otherwise have had a reasonable nights unbroken sleep on the flight.

In what way do they lose their night's sleep in my model?

On the northbound flight they get eight hours in a flat 777 Business Premier bed between AKL and HNL. In contrast, on the current AKL-YVR flight they sleep far too late into the morning and make themselves jetlagged.

Similarly, on the return flight they get eight hours' sleep between HNL and AKL at a time when they will actually be tired, and at a time which fits well with where they are arriving.

Yes, they get two hours on the ground at HNL in both directions.

But the trade-offs are:

1) They get daily AKL-YVR flights.
2) Air NZ offers daily connections to both HNL and YVR from major Australian cities.

Obviously I'm dazzled by my own brilliance   but I'm really struggling to see the downside. The impost of the HNL connection would be minimised by use of pre-clearance at both ends, which would certainly make arrival a far better experience for passengers terminating at HNL.

And the timing which I have proposed means that aircraft utilisation is actually pretty much identical to the existing status quo for SFO and YVR flights anyway.

And yields on the AKL-HNL sector would be balanced by higher yields for AKL-YVR passengers, plus of course Air Canada could sell HNL-YVR as a codeshare service.

[Edited 2012-02-24 00:36:12]

[Edited 2012-02-24 00:40:16]
 
kiwiandrew

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:37 am

Quoting koruman (Reply 26):
Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 23):
A stop in HNL also sounds like a really good way to piss off AKL-YVR pax in BP who could otherwise have had a reasonable nights unbroken sleep on the flight.


In what way do they lose their night's sleep in my model?


Are you serious? Not everyone manages to get to sleep within 5 minutes of take off. A lot of pax will only be settling down to sleep 2 or three hours into the flight... then, after only a few hours sleep under your model they have to wake up for landing, get off the aircraft to go through a completely unnecessary ( for pax who do not have HNL as their destination) customs and immigration screening before getting back on the plane and trying to salvage a couple of hours nap on the remaining sector.

On the few occassions when I have travelled in BP I have arrived rested after a deep sleep, but if the flight had been interrupted by an unnecessary stop the quality as well as the quantity of my sleep would have been seriously degraded.

Quoting koruman (Reply 26):
Vancouver Airport has US arrival pre-clearance, so passengers don't have to go through any security whatsoever upon arrival in the USA. If Air New Zealand wanted the same arrangements at Auckland it would be as simple to arrange as the Irish and Canadians found it.

Regardless of whether they 'enter' the US in AKL HNL or YVR your model is requiring AKL-YVR pax to go through a completely unnecessary screening - why should pax face an extra stop entailing an unwanted and unnecessary trip through border formalities of a country they don't want to go to? Has it ever occurred to you that part of the reason for the success of the non-stop service is because a large number of people don't want to go through the US to get to Canada.
 
cchan
Topic Author
Posts: 951
Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 8:54 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:57 am

Quoting alangirvan (Reply 25):
Doesn't the money come from NZ Foreign Affairs Aid?

From the news articles I read some years ago, it seems it is a deal between the Cook Islands government and Air NZ, NZAID is not directly involved.
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:58 am

Quoting koruman (Reply 26):
NZ10: AKL 2100 HNL 0600
NZ10 HNL 0800 YVR 1600

NZ9 YVR 1800 HNL 2200
NZ9 HNL 0000 AKL 0800+2
Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 27):
Are you serious? Not everyone manages to get to sleep within 5 minutes of take off. A lot of pax will only be settling down to sleep 2 or three hours into the flight... then, after only a few hours sleep under your model they have to wake up for landing

Look carefully at the times.

AKL-HNL is a flight covering the entire night, and it's just over 9 hours long. HNL-YVR is in broad daylight, during the daytime hours at the passengers' destination, and they really don't need to be sleeping then.

Similarly, YVR-HNL takes off at 6pm local time - I can't imagine anyone wants to sleep then. By the time the plane departs Honolulu it is very late - it's midnight local time - and passengers from both Canada and Hawaii would probably fall asleep very quickly.

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 27):
Regardless of whether they 'enter' the US in AKL HNL or YVR your model is requiring AKL-YVR pax to go through a completely unnecessary screening - why should pax face an extra stop entailing an unwanted and unnecessary trip through border formalities of a country they don't want to go to? Has it ever occurred to you that part of the reason for the success of the non-stop service is because a large number of people don't want to go through the US to get to Canada.

Have you ever been through US pre-clearance? It is completely unobtrusive, and it feels just like going through "departure security" at your departure airport.

You check in with your airline and go through normal security formalities, but you still have your suitcase. You then go to US pre-clearance and show your passport and submit your luggage for check-in, and they do whatever checks they would have done upon arrival. You then go through security and down sealed corridors to the gate area and any shops and cafes and lounges in that area.

In the case of Auckland, if they used my timetable they would have 2 flights to LAX plus 1 to SFO and 1 to HNL every night. That would be enough to support a duty-free shop, a lounge and a cafe or two, and passengers would scarcely notice that they were being funneled in a new direction.

And I tell you what, for passengers on NZ2, NZ6 and NZ8 as well as NZ10 it would be a vastly preferable experience. They would get off the plane at LAX or SFO or HNL and collect their luggage and leave the airport, without having to wait in line for any security or arrivals processes whatsoever.

And I suspect that around 25-30% of the AKL-YVR passengers would chose to take advantage of the HNL stop to have a stopover there. My GP in Queensland goes to Canada every year with his family, and had a fixed routine of having a four day stopover at Honolulu when Air Canada flew SYD-HNL-YVR. They were mortified when the 77L's extra range saw the HNL stop dropped.
 
kiwiandrew

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:02 am

Quoting koruman (Reply 29):
Have you ever been through US pre-clearance? It is completely unobtrusive, and it feels just like going through "departure security" at your departure airport.

Yes, I have been through it... around 20 years ago in YVR.

It doesn't matter how "easy" it is ( and I might remind you that not everyone on the flight will necessarily be on a passport which makes it easy) it is still completely unnecessary for pax who don't actually want to go to the US. ( or in some cases, may not actually be allowed to go to the US)
 
PA515
Posts: 850
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:19 am

Quoting koruman (Reply 29):
Look carefully at the times.

AKL-HNL is a flight covering the entire night, and it's just over 9 hours long. HNL-YVR is in broad daylight, during the daytime hours at the passengers' destination, and they really don't need to be sleeping then.

For Australian pax (like you) it's an 0200 arrival at HNL and an 0400 departure, for NZ pax an 0400 arrival and 0600 departure. If Air NZ did this they would lose the Australian feed for AKL-YVR and NZ'ers would go via LAX or SFO. It won't work.

PA515
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:42 am

Quoting koruman (Reply 26):
And it would be much nicer for passengers travelling from Auckland to Honolulu

You mean... much nicer for you, right?
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:48 am

Quoting PA515 (Reply 31):
If Air NZ did this they would lose the Australian feed for AKL-YVR

The Australian market to HNL is currently several times larger than the market to YVR, and Air NZ gets none of it.

YVR currently is a 3x weekly proposition. I accept that my model might not suit all, but at the end of the day it permits a daily Air NZ AKL-YVR service, which is more than double the current status quo.

I generally work on the principle that passengers will go to some lengths to avoid catching a flight which requires them to board or disembark between 0000 and 0600. I chose the times I gave as an example because they fit in well with the NZ schedule for other North American flights, and because they involve no embarkation or disembarkation between 0000 and 0600.

Quoting PA515 (Reply 31):
If Air NZ did this they would lose the Australian feed for AKL-YVR and NZ'ers would go via LAX or SFO.
Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 30):
It doesn't matter how "easy" it is ( and I might remind you that not everyone on the flight will necessarily be on a passport which makes it easy) it is still completely unnecessary for pax who don't actually want to go to the US. ( or in some cases, may not actually be allowed to go to the US)

Bear in mind:

1) All Qantas flights from Australia to Vancouver in recent years routed via San Francisco, and
2) Until recently, all Air Canada flights from Australia to Vancouver routed via Honolulu.
3) No-one else is going to enter the market and offer non-stop AKL-YVR services.

So I would think that the blow of routing Vancouver passengers via Honolulu would be more than mitigated by the more appealing frequency and by US pre-clearance.

But it doesn't matter what I think, because the airline has already excluded the option of additional 1-stop long-haul routes.
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 4953
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:43 pm

Quoting koruman (Reply 29):
And I tell you what, for passengers on NZ2, NZ6 and NZ8 as well as NZ10 it would be a vastly preferable experience. They would get off the plane at LAX or SFO or HNL and collect their luggage and leave the airport, without having to wait in line for any security or arrivals processes whatsoever.

Except that it needs 400,000 passengers a year for the U.S. to set up pre-clearing. I don't think AKL is there yet.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 7413
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Fri Feb 24, 2012 1:06 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 10):
Rob you are being overly pessimistic

Yes I am I'm afraid- not really because now 787 is underway finally or that I honestly think the 789 will have too much wrong with it, more because I do not think that NZ have planned for the "unforeseen" enough and their blind faith that everything will be ok, even in the face of very definite problems in the past few years with earthquakes, tsunamis, fuel prices, aircraft delivery delays(77w/789, product delays (PE/Skycouch/77E retrofit and a la carte longhaul inflight catering), certification problems (skycouch) just because they will have the 789 - I'm neglecting to mention any perceived problems (3-4-3/airpoints etc) from a.nutter POVs.

Life does not work that way and I believe they should be planning for the worst case scenarios rather than the best case scenarios then they should be pleasantly surprised when it turns out better than forecast.

Believe it or not I agree with what you, I'm just very disappointed that they did not even attempt to negotiate any extra 777/788 into their order (if they could get them before the 789s especially...)

Quoting xiaotung (Reply 17):
What has happend?

Management perhaps misunderstood being "nimble" as meaning making it up as they go along as being the solution to all their problems, rather than the cause of many of them. Unfortunately they have ostracized their frequent flyer elite, made their product gimmicky, fiddly, overcomplicated, confusing and inconsistent (and therefore expensive to maintain) and spent large sums on changing their minds, adaptation of their projects after completion etc etc. Had they worked on consistency of product (changing aircraft configurations rather than overall product) between their destinations and their fleet, had they planned everything fully and then launched, rather than the other way around they would not have dropped their yields to the point they have to completely rethink just about every decision of the past 7 years...

It is possible to fly BNE-AKL-LAX-LHR-Hong Kong-AKL-BNE and get at least 3 different interior economy products/levels of service (and four for business class or lack thereof 763/77W/77E/A320).....

NZ has typically been making the very kiwi decision to take the cheapest option offered, rather than invest in the more expensive but ultimately more sustainable (and therefore profitable) option. Had the bullet been bitten to order the correct aircraft in the correct numbers for their current needs/ambitions (rather than waiting for 787s/deferring growth) while NZ was still doing well several years ago and they still had that nest egg stashed, there would not be in the predicament now, with few options, and a declining yield. A single type long haul fleet would already have been achievable, they'd have their profitable new routes in developing markets, they'd have a consistent long-haul product and be well on the way to grooming these markets from frequencies of 2-3 times a week using 777s to daily/multiple daily flights using their new 789 aircraft once they arrive AND importantly still be in a position to dominate other failing carriers in the way that was mentioned in that CNN interview.

Ultimately though I know deep inside that I am just an armchair CEO playing with theoretical figures, aircraft/staff but I think the last few years initially showed much promise but have ended up in the current position. All the short-term holiday charters you like won't be a bandaid on a gangrenous limb. A new CEO and management and hopefully a new vision/direction as well.

PS I love NZ - despite my criticisms, it is purely because I want it to be the best it can be and want to see it succeed like I know it can. I'm sure all of us can agree on that..
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.
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Fri Feb 24, 2012 1:27 pm

Quoting koruman (Reply 29):
Similarly, YVR-HNL takes off at 6pm local time

That's 21:00 - 22:30 for pax connecting from Eastern Canada.

Quoting PA515 (Reply 31):
For Australian pax (like you) it's an 0200 arrival at HNL and an 0400 departure, for NZ pax an 0400 arrival and 0600 departure.

  

Quoting koruman (Reply 29):
Have you ever been through US pre-clearance? It is completely unobtrusive, and it feels just like going through "departure security" at your departure airport.

Except it involves being photographed and fingerprinted, which are not required when you enter Canada or NZL.

Quoting koruman (Reply 26):
If Air New Zealand wanted the same arrangements at Auckland it would be as simple to arrange as the Irish and Canadians found it.

Not so much. The Canada-U.S. Pre-Clearance Treaty took 3+ years to negotiate. New legislation was required to give U.S. CBP officers the right to carry out U.S. procedures in Canada. AKL airport would be required to fund the pre-clearance facility, built to U.S. CBP requirements. CBP requires that security screening be to U.S. standards (full-body millimeter wave scanners). And I just can't see CBP picking up the cost of stationing 8-10 officers in AKL to work 4 hours a day for 4 flights.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Fri Feb 24, 2012 2:25 pm

I'd be surprised if Shannon has enough US-bound passengers to be eligible for pre-clearance while Auckland doesn't.

In fact, I'd say the same of Dublin, Halifax, Edmonton and Winnipeg.
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Fri Feb 24, 2012 5:06 pm

But it's much cheaper to rotate staff through YHZ, YEG, YWG than AKL. If necessary, replacement officers can get there in an hour or two.

I'm not sure where the 400,000 number comes from, but in any event transborder pax for 2011 were:
YWG 478,000
YEG 1,085,000
YHZ 409,000

For 2008, DUB pax to JFK and ORD (couldn't find stats for other routes) were 723,000.

If every NZ flight had a 100% load, the total would be 380,000.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
mercure1
Posts: 2731
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:13 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Fri Feb 24, 2012 5:44 pm

Quoting koruman (Reply 33):
I generally work on the principle that passengers will go to some lengths to avoid catching a flight which requires them to board or disembark between 0000 and 0600. I

I guess there goes the business plan of airlines like Emirates.

Frankly, I doubt it matters much to most. People tend to look at departure/arrival times at A and B, not transit stations.
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:14 pm

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 39):
People tend to look at departure/arrival times at A and B, not transit stations.

Depends on your experience, I guess. I did so many middle of the night U.S. immigration/customs clearances in HNL with small kids that I'm totally allergic to them.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 653
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:28 pm

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 35):
Yes I am I'm afraid- not really because now 787 is underway finally or that I honestly think the 789 will have too much wrong with it, more because I do not think that NZ have planned for the "unforeseen" enough and their blind faith that everything will be ok, even in the face of very definite problems in the past few years with earthquakes, tsunamis, fuel prices, aircraft delivery delays(77w/789, product delays (PE/Skycouch/77E retrofit and a la carte longhaul inflight catering), certification problems (skycouch) just because they will have the 789 - I'm neglecting to mention any perceived problems (3-4-3/airpoints etc) from a.nutter POVs.

I'm not quite sure how you plan for the unforeseen . . . isn't that a contradiction in terms? I think that A-netters generally are way too harsh on NZ. Look on the positive side: consistently winning awards for all sorts of things, still in profit at a time that many other carriers are losing money hand over fist or are going out of business entirely, widely acknowledged as an innovator - and despite the rants by A-netters, retaining a strong brand loyalty.

The impatience of many that the airline should be expanding at a time when traffic on almost all long-haul routes is taking a hammering also surprises me, especially given the carrier doesn't have the aircraft right now to efficiently operate some of the routes that people would like to commence. And the antipathy toward the 787 is also very interesting, notwithstanding that it has had some weight issues and delivery is seriously delayed. Given that the details of NZ's relationship with Boeing (and especially, the content and outcome of negotiations over delays to the 787) is something that we don't know (and are unlikely ever to know) I find it amusing that so many are convinced that NZ's strategy is all wrong.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
TravellerPlus
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 9:45 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:48 pm

This is an interesting article on developments with Vrgin Australia's ownership structure and how they might relate to Air NZ.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/air-n...help-end-slump-20120224-1ttmu.html

It seems logical that the airlines will work more closely together in future. I would not be surprised if NZ's long haul review results in some sort of similar sepearte share-holding structure for the long haul network. A merger seems logical to give both airlines greater critical mass.
What goes around comes around....unless your luggage is not on the carousel...
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 4953
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:57 pm

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 38):
I'm not sure where the 400,000 number comes from,

It was quoted in the newspaper in the context of Toronto Island airport and Porter adding additional destinations to the U.S. which it is hoped will meet the pre-clearing thresh hold of over 400,000.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 7413
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:10 am

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 41):
I'm not quite sure how you plan for the unforeseen . . . isn't that a contradiction in terms?

Sure, my choice of words may be wrong, but being better prepared for the worst case scenario instead of always hoping for the best case scenario and being horribly disappointed and spending unforecast sums of money when it doesn't go exactly to plan doesn't sound like a bad idea does it??

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 41):
especially given the carrier doesn't have the aircraft right now to efficiently operate some of the routes that people would like to commence

Extended Inactivity is ultimately not going to achieve strong financial results longterm, perhaps they're finally realizing this now as they start new routes again. Nothing and nobody (award winning or not) in an industry this volatile can expect that long term stagnation is a good thing.

The lack of route growth, shortage of suitable aircraft at least 7 years after they ordered the 787 is no longer Boeing's problem for the 787 delays, It is the airline's myopia with regard to sourcing enough of the best aircraft for the interim job (interim being the 9 year period from order through to ultimate delivery to the company). That's at least five years with little in the way of back up plans, growth or even adequate stop gaps except to choose to delay delivery of their 787s by an extra 3 years to take delivery of the -9 variant, and extending the lease on their unsustainable 744s. Keep in mind on an AKL-LAX flight you can probably save between 15-25t of fuel by operating a 77W over a 744... I'm sure sunrisevalley can confirm via Piano X.

Regardless of whether they can fly all over the pacific rim with new routes or not that's a very very long time to be stagnant in the airline industry - and ultimately has been harmful with these financial results. Ahead now, but only by enough that one medium sized calamity somewhere important for NZ could fritter any profit away very quickly.

As I said earlier, they could have still achieved the growth goal timelines they originally set pre 787 had they used their "nimble thinking" and ability to "adjust quickly" to the given climate at the time. Just retiring the 744 to time would have saved serious money in a number of areas, even once the additional costs of a 7 or 10 year lease of either 77Es or 77Ws are taken into account.

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 41):
Given that the details of NZ's relationship with Boeing (and especially, the content and outcome of negotiations over delays to the 787) is something that we don't know (and are unlikely ever to know)

Exactly. For all we know it could be the compensation package that is keeping the airline out of the red right now... A mystery that we just don't know nor can we assume to know.

Ultimately the 787 is going to be good for NZ, but if it means that the company in the meantime has gone into severe debt/bankruptcy waiting for it then it is definitely a case of too little too late, when the opportunity was there to limit the losses much earlier on. That's all I'm saying.

Of course we are all harsh on NZ, they have excelled over the years and drawn us into being their Elite frequent flyer clientele, and employment with their product and brand values, and constantly beaten and then raised our expectations up to the point where they can't do much more than maintain those standards, which some now argue they aren't.

There is no person on this forum that wishes ill of NZ, they feel passionately compelled enough to debate, congratulate and critique the airline for 111 threads of at least 200 posts a time..
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 111

Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:35 am

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 41):
I'm not quite sure how you plan for the unforeseen

To me, the problem is that Air NZ increasingly wants the 789 to be all things to all men, a bit like Qantas in the 1980s with its "all 747 fleet".

It isn't going to be an ULH aircraft plus a high density package tourist aircraft, which for some reason seem to be the current intended missions.

What it is going to be is a light 77E, capable of Trans-Pacific and Trans-Altantic flights but without significant freight carriage.

I still don't understand why Air New Zealand hasn't bought the 777-200LR. On the flights to LHR, HKG, China, USA and Canada it would be significantly more economic and capable than the 77E which is used for many of those flights and of course would be more economic than the 744. Only on Tasman flights would it be significantly less efficient than the 77E -although reportedly more viable than the 744. In addition, of course, it could open South America, New York or Chicago as soon as permitted.

I think Aerorobnz's point is that Air NZ could already be operating a fleet of 8 x 77E (as a 763 replacement), 8 x 77L (as a 77E replacement) and 8 x 77W (as a 744 replacement), with 788 aircraft to eventually replace the 77Es for HNL / RAR / PPT / PER / DPS / Tasman and with the option of using 789 aircraft to replace or augment the 77L and 77W if the economics were favourable.

But instead of that the airline persists with inefficient types and has failed to open new routes and has allowed the partly-owned Virgin Australia to seize growth opportunities - and profits - which could have been Air NZ's.

I don't know if any of you noticed, but Virgin Australia's long-haul profits are now in the same ballpark as the entire Qantas group, at a time when Air NZ claims to be losing money long-haul.

And the only long-haul flights which Virgin Australia operates itself are BNE/MEL/SYD-LAX, plus Koruhub style flights through Asia to Europe.

Those profits would have been Air NZ's, would have been Rob Fyfe's legacy, if only they had had the foresight to seize the market opportunity.
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:00 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 43):
Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 38):
I'm not sure where the 400,000 number comes from,

It was quoted in the newspaper in the context of Toronto Island airport and Porter adding additional destinations to the U.S. which it is hoped will meet the pre-clearing thresh hold of over 400,000.

Thanks. I think it must be a CBP "internal" threshold, as it's certainly not in the pre-clearance treaty.

I forgot to include AKL-HNL in my AKL-U.S. seat count, but it would still be barely 400,000 at 100% load factors. Still nowhere near SNN's 763,000, and SNN is the only pre-clearance site outside Canada/Caribbean.

[Edited 2012-02-24 17:06:27]
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:28 am

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 38):
If every NZ flight had a 100% load, the total would be 380,000.

Soon to be:
NZ2 AKL-LAX - 121,180 seats per year.
NZ6 AKL-LAX - 103,869 seats per year.
NZ8 AKL-SFO - 103,869 seats per year
NZ10 AKL-HNL - 48,672 seats per year.

That already makes 377,590 seats per year, and the exit of Qantas will presumably increase that further.

And in the unlikely event that the next Air NZ CEO re-endorsed one stop flying and introduced "my" AKL-HNL-YVR flight, that would lead to the loss of 48,672 AKL-HNL seats on that service but the introduction of 110,960 seats on AKL-HNL-YVR, which well and truly surpasses the 400,000 threshold.

It's only since 2009 that Australia has started to have a single flight to Vancouver which doesn't transit Honolulu or San Francisco. I really do think my model is a reasonable way to do it.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 40):
I did so many middle of the night U.S. immigration/customs clearances in HNL with small kids that I'm totally allergic to them.

Aren't we all? But passengers to Vancouver would clear US customs/immigration at Auckland prior to a 9 pm departure and passengers to Auckland would clear the same at Vancouver prior to a 6 pm departure. At Honolulu they would do no more than get on and off the plane.

My point is predicated upon that. And I believe that with all four daily flights clustered in a five hour block at Auckland the working arrangements should be fairly foolproof. The only people who would be even slightly inconvenienced would be people like me who connect from Australia and would have to go through luggage reclaim at AKL en route to the USA.

But even that is a plus. I often find that I land at AKL at 1725, then have 4 hours 5 minutes until I catch NZ 2 to Los Angeles at 2130. Then I get to LAX at 1445, and it can take up to 90 minutes to get to the front of the passport control line.

I quite like the idea that at AKL I would use the first hour of my 4 hour layover to clear both NZ and US customs and immigration formalities, so that at LAX I could then just claim my luggage and leave, just like Air Canada arriving passengers do in the same Terminal 2.

Last time I had a 1 night stopover in LA with my kids we ended up getting to our hotel at Santa Monica around 3 hours after we touched down at 1445, because large numbers of Italian arrivals in front of us were taking an eternity to process. If pre-clearance at Auckland had existed we'd have been in a much better situation.
 
ZKOJH
Posts: 1446
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:51 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:10 am

its really funny how you read that VA profits are up, NZ spends 300 million on 20% of them, another 350 million on new planes ATR 600, and yet can only deliver a small but crap profit 38 million,

I am like others wondering how they will reach the goal of 115 million profit on long haul by 2015 and 195 + million overall if they do nothing! just by shedding 441 jobs is not going to make the cut.

They go on about the Long Haul review nearly complete but what has really happened except two Summer Routes been announced one of which is more of a leisure route and will be hard to fill (Bali)

I think they need to introduce the 2nd bag charge - you get say one bag at 25-30 KG's free with your ticket and any more you charge, put this on all routes like LHR/LAX/SFO/ ETC

Open up the MAN-HKG route at the moment 150,000 PAX's transfer through LHR per year, say start with 4 weekly flights (it's a Gold route sitting there waiting to be grabbed at) but to do this you would need at least one more T7. take the gamble and get one.

Already the rumor of them going to South America for the rugby is showing lots of interest and could be a pull off.

The idea of no-one stop flying is not going work, if they want to go for the business markets to get profit, can the Pacific Rim really give that to them?? what are we left with - PNG , Indonesia, Vietnam and the Philippines. and of course China! They have already said a no return to Sin.

the New CEO needs some balls and brains to pull this one off.!
Vietnam time..
 
kiwiandrew

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 111

Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:24 am

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 48):
They go on about the Long Haul review nearly complete but what has really happened except two Summer Routes been announced one of which is more of a leisure route and will be hard to fill (Bali)

Summer routes? So far as I am aware both of these seasonal routes have been announced for winter.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 76er, 9vswr, airway1, Dutchy, hayzel777, jenzie, JerseyFlyer, Mortyman, QANTAS747-438, qf789, skedguy, wrcairline, Yahoo [Bot], zkncj and 184 guests