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

New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:14 am

Continue discussion here. The last part can be found here:

New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 121 (by ZKOJH Oct 29 2012 in Civil Aviation)

NZ1
Forum Moderator
--
NZ1
Head Forum Moderator
 
User avatar
NZ107
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:51 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:26 am

Zk-OKP is on approach for the WLG flyover right now... And I think FR24 lost him at 2700ft.
It's all about the destination AND the journey.
 
Megatop747-412
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2000 1:59 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:34 am

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 1):

Just saw it "from the top" via One News Live Broadcast - totally awesome. But wished we were back in Welly to witness it though!  
 
texan
Posts: 4060
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:23 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Wed Nov 28, 2012 8:04 am

Looked great from atop Mt Vic. Flew straight up Kent Tce.

Texan
"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
 
PA515
Posts: 903
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Wed Nov 28, 2012 12:09 pm

Quoting texan (Reply 3):
Looked great from atop Mt Vic. Flew straight up Kent Tce.

OKP departed AKL at 1624, 38,000 ft at 1637, descent at 1649, two circuits off Queen Charlotte Sound at 9,300 ft, over Island Bay at 1,400 ft, Kent Tce / Cambridge Tce at 1,300 ft, back in AKL at 1815. Good rate of climb.

Also, QFA27 SYD-SCL overflew WLG at 1640 and RAAF Challenger A37-002 as 'ASY343' arrived WLG from CBR at 1708.

PA515
 
777ER
Crew
Posts: 9863
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:20 am

Just booked a WLG-AKL-LAX and return flight for christmas and I was able to see/select my seats before I paid. How long has NZ allowed this? Didn't see the option when I booked a flight to AKL two days before the new seat purchase choices took effect!

Also booked a US F fare to DTW after reading/talking to Koruman about US fares and looking at UAs fares/options and yip US was certainly cheaper in EVERY fare class - especially F and NZs connecting fares. Thank you Kman for the advice! After booking I then discovered something that well......made me a little unhappy......I could have booked a Dreamliner ticket from Houstan - LAX at the time I was wanting!
Head Forum Moderator
moderators@airliners.net for all Moderator contact
 
ZKOJH
Posts: 1457
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:51 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:58 pm

''Air NZ to extend partnership with Cathay to other Asian cities''

Air New Zealand's strategic partnership with Hong Kong's Cathay Pacific Airways will "in time" expand beyond the Auckland-Hong Kong route to include parts of southern China and Southeast Asia, the airline's chief executive, Rob Fyfe, said.

Fyfe said on the sidelines of a Star Alliance gathering in Shenzhen that expanding the Cathay Pacific tie-up won't be easy.

"There are some constraints or respect we'd need to show to our alliance partners in terms of working with a member of another alliance," Fyfe told The Wall Street Journal.

He said the development of its strategic tie-up with Cathay Pacific would take place "only in areas where we don't have a viable Star Alliance solution". These include Southeast Asian countries like Vietnam and Malaysia, he said.

http://www.cargonewsasia.com/

We can rule out NZ flying to Vietnam or Malaysia in the future then
Vietnam time..
 
NZ6
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:46 pm

Quoting 777ER (Reply 5):
Just booked a WLG-AKL-LAX and return flight for christmas and I was able to see/select my seats before I paid. How long has NZ allowed this? Didn't see the option when I booked a flight to AKL two days before the new seat purchase choices took effect!

A few weeks, I'm very surprised this whole project hasn't been brought up here to be honest. It's been on the cards for a few years now.

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 6):
We can rule out NZ flying to Vietnam or Malaysia in the future then

Was it every ruled in? I mean AKL-HAN or AKL-SGN? Then, head to head with MH to KUL, on point to point traffic only? As well as all European traffic is trying to be forced over PVG and all Asian traffic is trying to be moved over HKG.

There is more network news coming in the near future.
 
777ER
Crew
Posts: 9863
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Fri Nov 30, 2012 8:07 pm

Quoting NZ6 (Reply 7):
Quoting 777ER (Reply 5):Just booked a WLG-AKL-LAX and return flight for christmas and I was able to see/select my seats before I paid. How long has NZ allowed this? Didn't see the option when I booked a flight to AKL two days before the new seat purchase choices took effect!
A few weeks, I'm very surprised this whole project hasn't been brought up here to be honest. It's been on the cards for a few years now.

Well I guess good things take time. Guess it also puts to rest the problem many passengers have of not being able to see what seats are still free before booking, even if it means you've got to do a 50% dummy booking first to see if the seats you want are there like I did.
Head Forum Moderator
moderators@airliners.net for all Moderator contact
 
NZ6
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Sat Dec 01, 2012 2:30 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 8):
Well I guess good things take time. Guess it also puts to rest the problem many passengers have of not being able to see what seats are still free before booking, even if it means you've got to do a 50% dummy booking first to see if the seats you want are there like I did.

Its part of the paid seat and pre paid bag project, the time was spent in IT development. The potential of these enhancements are now endless.

The benefit isn't design to be you seeing the seat map prior to payment (there is still hight risk that someone wont complete a booking based on not have their ideal seat available).The basis of this is to allow passengers to purchase their seat preference or excess baggage.

Depending on who you are the "good things take time" may not be so good
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 7485
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Sat Dec 01, 2012 4:16 am

IIRC It was available as an option from about the 14th to prepay your baggage, pay for a priority seat or assign yourself a seat for all flights after about the 22nd November. Golds can still select a bassinet or exit row FOC. At the same time Golds can now select a seat only fare and still check in 1 bag@23KG.

Yes it has been a long time, and if I had the choice I would have implemented it all at the same as the S2S was introduced, but US DoT once again forced the hand of the airlines with direct services to the USA to streamline all the baggage charges, so that all the baggage fees for an itinerary must now be charged at Origin, not at Point of Transfer.
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.
 
xiaotung
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:58 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Sat Dec 01, 2012 4:21 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 10):
At the same time Golds can now select a seat only fare and still check in 1 bag@23KG.

When was this announced? I must have missed it. I can't see this being updated on NZ website though.
 
byronicle6
Posts: 550
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:38 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Sat Dec 01, 2012 10:36 am

I was lucky enough to get ZK-MVA on a ROT-CHC flight yesterday, and want to echo the already glowing comments of both the outside and inside. Felt very spacious for a narrow-body turboprop and don't know if it was just me but it seemed quieter than the ATR-72 500 and other turboprop. Great little aircraft!
Travel is my thing
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 3713
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Sat Dec 01, 2012 11:42 am

Quoting NZ6 (Reply 7):

A few weeks, I'm very surprised this whole project hasn't been brought up here to be honest. It's been on the cards for a few years now.

About 5 years after most other airlines... NZ has really dragged the ball on this one!
56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Sat Dec 01, 2012 12:40 pm

Quoting NZ6 (Reply 7):
A few weeks, I'm very surprised this whole project hasn't been brought up here to be honest. It's been on the cards for a few years now.

Strange you didn't say so on the many occasions I've raised it in the last 3 years.

Quoting NZ6 (Reply 9):
The potential of these enhancements are now endless.

It's pretty clunky compared to most other sites. You have to go through the complete booking process, short of paying, before you can see the seats. On most other airline sites, you can just select a flight and see what's available.

Quoting NZ6 (Reply 9):

The benefit isn't design to be you seeing the seat map prior to payment (there is still hight risk that someone wont complete a booking based on not have their ideal seat available).

What a 1960's "we know what's good for you" attitude. This doesn't seem to be an issue for most other airlines. In my case, if I can't get a satisfactory seat on AC when it matters (e.g. red-eye YVR-YOW), I just look for alternate flights (on AC first). End result - I'm happy I'm not in a window/middle seat on a 5+ hour transcon, AC gets my repeat business because I can view available seats prior to booking.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
NZ6
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Sat Dec 01, 2012 10:32 pm

Quoting xiaotung (Reply 11):
When was this announced? I must have missed it. I can't see this being updated on NZ website though.

It's on there, go and make a booking and you will see the options.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 13):
About 5 years after most other airlines... NZ has really dragged the ball on this one!

Has it really?

Interesting comment and really shows your knowledge of where Air NZ is at, what it's working towards and where they are at with customer interaction.

I don't mean that to be a personal attack I just don't think you're aware of the bigger picture here.

I don't know if "dragging the ball' is the right analogy here when as you've seen over the past few years the introduction of more and more "add-on's" such as insurance, seats to suit, sky couch, credit card fees, grabaseat+bag, One Up etc

When you have a strategy like this you want to ensure they are launched when the right IT inferstructure is in place and when the time is best suited for customers, for example you will note this all started with a low impact credit card fee several years ago. Also other projects have taken priority and as I said earlier this IT work now opens the door to many more possibilities.

It will be interesting to see the annual results mid next year when QF announces another massive loss and NZ reports a profit again. I wonder then if some will still continue to pick apart NZ's performance and changes.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 14):
Strange you didn't say so on the many occasions I've raised it in the last 3 years.

And why would I share this confidential information on these forums?

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 14):
It's pretty clunky compared to most other sites.

That's a matter of opinion, personally I find it fantastic and I find the seats maps easier to read than other sites.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 14):
"we know what's good for you

As I said, the seat map is in there as way of "selling" something extra, there is strong opinion that offering a seat map when there an't 'good' seats available would deter potential purchasers. Personally I would go with the experts on this, the have done the industry research and watch user usage on the website so they know what customers look for and want.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 7485
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Sun Dec 02, 2012 12:48 am

Quoting NZ6 (Reply 15):
It will be interesting to see the annual results mid next year when QF announces another massive loss and NZ reports a profit again

I know both the initial projections for profits generated by this latest change, and the projections after the first 2 weeks of sales, and it will certainly help the bottom line in no small way.

Personally I think all the changes are fair and reasonable and for everyone who keeps within the bell curve (particularly regarding the prepaid luggage) they will find it advantageous.
Couples, Families and small groups now have a way of ensuring that they are getting seated together even if they do not book together without running the risk at the airport.
Seat only passengers have a means of not being sat down the back if they choose a priority/forward seat
Infants who require bassinets pay for them.
Tall people who cannot afford business or PE but who currently always miss out on exit rows gain a way of ensuring a seat is to their liking.
space seats are available for purchase at the airport (space available) which are a bargain for a 12h flight!

All I will say, as a single passenger I finally feel like I have options onboard NZ now - single customers having previously been shafted to fit between every other group on the plane.
The onus is on me as an informed consumer to decide what I value and whether or not I am prepared to pay to guarantee a specific seat.
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.
 
ZKSUJ
Posts: 6812
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 5:15 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Sun Dec 02, 2012 12:49 am

Quoting NZ6 (Reply 15):
Interesting comment and really shows your knowledge of where Air NZ is at, what it's working towards and where they are at with customer interaction.
Quoting NZ6 (Reply 15):
When you have a strategy like this you want to ensure they are launched when the right IT inferstructure is in place and when the time is best suited for customers

Reading another discussion board and it sounds like the customer interaction hasn't been that great with this new scheme. IT had a few hiccups as well with some not so happy customers (high value ones too apparantly)
 
xiaotung
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:58 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Sun Dec 02, 2012 2:07 am

Quoting NZ6 (Reply 15):
It will be interesting to see the annual results mid next year when QF announces another massive loss and NZ reports a profit again. I wonder then if some will still continue to pick apart NZ's performance and changes.

To be fair, NZ's success or otherwise should not be measured by how QF is performing. I am sure anyone will agree that NZ does't have the level of competition (both domestic and international) and the very ugly politics QF has to face everyday. NZ has most of their domestic and long haul routes to itself. The only long haul route ex AKL which they have direct competition will end up with an alliance with that very competitor (CX). I can't imagine similar pact getting regulatory approval in Australia. They are also allowed to established a Shanghai base where crew are paid Chinese rates. QF's unions would never let that happen.
 
777ER
Crew
Posts: 9863
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Sun Dec 02, 2012 4:06 am

Quoting NZ6 (Reply 15):
Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 14):
It's pretty clunky compared to most other sites.

That's a matter of opinion, personally I find it fantastic and I find the seats maps easier to read than other sites.

I thought the seat map was well presented and very easy to read compared to when I was looking at the US and UA seat maps several days ago for flights in the USA

Quoting ZKSUJ (Reply 17):
Quoting NZ6 (Reply 15):
Interesting comment and really shows your knowledge of where Air NZ is at, what it's working towards and where they are at with customer interaction.
Quoting NZ6 (Reply 15):
When you have a strategy like this you want to ensure they are launched when the right IT inferstructure is in place and when the time is best suited for customers

Reading another discussion board and it sounds like the customer interaction hasn't been that great with this new scheme. IT had a few hiccups as well with some not so happy customers (high value ones too apparantly)

I booked a few weeks ago a WLG-AKL day trip and couldn't select a seat on the WLG-AKL sector but could on the 'night rider' service coming back. The same thing happened last week after booking the NZ LAX sector, couldn't select the AKL-LAX seat but could on the other 3 flight. Phoned NZ reservations and a few mins later could select a seat. Teething problems maybe?
Head Forum Moderator
moderators@airliners.net for all Moderator contact
 
NZ6
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Sun Dec 02, 2012 5:04 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 16):
I know both the initial projections for profits generated by this latest change, and the projections after the first 2 weeks of sales, and it will certainly help the bottom line in no small way.
Quoting xiaotung (Reply 18):
To be fair, NZ's success or otherwise should not be measured by how QF is performing. I am sure anyone will agree that NZ does't have the level of competition (both domestic and international) and the very ugly politics QF has to face everyday.

I didn't mean to allude to the fact that this one or these projects will be the difference but overall they will all contribute to the bottom line.

Compare QF and NZ - QF is still flying around a fleet of aging 767 and 747's and in my opinion is doing all it can to keep it's in-flight product at a minimal level. They have had to cut half their 787 order and JQ and QF domestic are all but the only areas of the Qantas Group which is prevents them from being another Pam Am

NZ on the other hand has positioned itself well given the 787 was to be a game changer in 2009 or 2010 (I can't recall originally).

It's developing the China market well (to Koruman's horror) even though China is the fastest growing inbound market for New Zealand. Koruman will now claim it's low cost tourist that fly that route, well 74% of NZ's market is leisure.

You've seen NZ claim back $20+M in credit card fees, you've seen all 10% the growth in the Tasman go to NZ after the seats to suit option, you've seen the alliance with DJ be a winner for everyone.

DPS, MCY were successful, PER is now a 777 and LAX is back to 14x a week
PVG is working towards weekly

If you know the figures for what this latest add-on is predicted to earn annually then you'll need to increase it as it's increased already, you add that as 100% profit to the bottom line and when you're earning $70M a year (average) you'll know this is invaluable.

Do I need to go on?

Quoting ZKSUJ (Reply 17):
Reading another discussion board and it sounds like the customer interaction hasn't been that great with this new scheme. IT had a few hiccups as well with some not so happy customers (high value ones too apparantly)

I believe so as well, so to quote zkpilot, is NZ "dragging the ball?" probably not. Does this change need to happen, probably if NZ wants to increase revenue. Is there a right time for this? No, did NZ wait as long as possible to ensure the right measures where in place to build on it. Yes!
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Sun Dec 02, 2012 12:10 pm

Quoting 777ER (Reply 19):
I thought the seat map was well presented and very easy to read compared to when I was looking at the US and UA seat maps several days ago for flights in the USA

I agree the seat map itself is well presented. By clunky, I meant that you have to go all the way through entering pax info etc before you can see the map.

For example, from YOW I can fly NZ to AKL via LAX, SFO or YVR. If I'm bringing family, I have to enter complete information for 5 pax in three separate "dummy" bookings in order to look at available seating. On most other airlines' sites, I can enter the flights and see what's available.

But at least it's better than guessing which route will have the best available seats, which is what I've always had to do, and being thoroughly pissed off when I find myself in 26B on a 744.

Quoting NZ6 (Reply 15):
there is strong opinion that offering a seat map when there an't 'good' seats available would deter potential purchasers. Personally I would go with the experts on this

I guess other airlines must have different experts. AC's experience is that most pax are indifferent or will simply select the best that's available. Some, like me, will consider different flights/routings, but I'll ultimately be a happy return pax because I won't find myself stuck in an uncomfortable seat.

Another thing that AC does (well), is to present different available seats depending on FF status. If I'm flying Y, I'm almost always able to select a seat in the first 2 rows.

For me, being able to see the available seats is also useful when I want to use an upgrade credit. I'll choose an AC flight that has the most available J to maximize the likelihood of the upgrade being available. I realize that that's not applicable to NZ, which auctions upgrades.

Which brings me to another reason that I've taken my business (about $50K per year) elsewhere than NZ after 54 years. NZ represents itself as permitting *A points upgrades, but it doesn't in practice. After fruitless correspondence with NZ (stock PR responses which don't address my issue), I've finally written to *A pointing out that this is misrepresentation and suggesting that NZ be removed from the list of carriers on the *A website that offer points upgrades.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
NZ6
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Sun Dec 02, 2012 7:28 pm

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 21):
I guess other airlines must have different experts. AC's experience is that most pax are indifferent or will simply select the best that's available

AC operates in a completely different environment to NZ and comparing them wouldn't be that accurate, NZ's premium customers by in large get their favourable seating, the 74% leisure market aren't all seat driven entirely.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 14):
if I can't get a satisfactory seat on AC when it matters (e.g. red-eye YVR-YOW), I just look for alternate flights (on AC first). End result

And it's just this reason NZ was wary of including seat maps prior to payment. What if you can't see you're ideal seat or 2 seats together? you book elsewhere and if you're leisure / price sensitive you may book on someone else when NZ probably can still accommodate you request once "other" seats are made available.

It's almost like the saying - you don't know what you're missing till you've lost something.

It pays to remember that half a dozen or so opinions on this forum don't represent the 11.7 million passengers NZ carries each year. We should be discussing what needs to happen to accommodate the majority aside from what personally suits us individually.

Quoting xiaotung (Reply 18):
To be fair, NZ's success or otherwise should not be measured by how QF is performing

OneUp, OneSmart, Seats to Suit, Paid Seat, Pre Paid Baggage, Skycouch...

If all of these initiatives generated $10M per year, that would be $60M, add that to an average profit in recent years of $70M - you end up with $130M profit.

Someone remind me what QF has done in recent years?
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Mon Dec 03, 2012 12:22 am

Quoting NZ6 (Reply 22):
It pays to remember that half a dozen or so opinions on this forum don't represent the 11.7 million passengers NZ carries each year. We should be discussing what needs to happen to accommodate the majority aside from what personally suits us individually.

That's completely fair. On the other hand, I'll travel on what suits me personally - and NZ is $50K a year poorer.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Mon Dec 03, 2012 1:00 am

Quoting NZ6 (Reply 22):
It pays to remember that half a dozen or so opinions on this forum don't represent the 11.7 million passengers NZ carries each year. We should be discussing what needs to happen to accommodate the majority aside from what personally suits us individually.
Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 23):
That's completely fair. On the other hand, I'll travel on what suits me personally - and NZ is $50K a year poorer.

And you can add another $80K or so from my family. So Kaiarahi + 4 Korufamily = approx 130 casual short-haul/Tasman passengers.

I don't object to the idea of ancillary revenue, at all. I think its rank bad business to antagonise your HVCs any more than necessary when your long-haul fleet is so reliant upon a 1-2-1 Business cabin and a 2-2-2 Premium Economy one.
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2256
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Mon Dec 03, 2012 1:36 am

Quoting xiaotung (Reply 18):
To be fair, NZ's success or otherwise should not be measured by how QF is performing.

Agreed. Especially when the comparison tends to be pretty superficial. QF's losing big on international now (though isn't NZ as well?), but when the good times return, it generally outperforms on an earnings per share basis.

Quoting NZ6 (Reply 20):
Compare QF and NZ - QF is still flying around a fleet of aging 767 and 747's and in my opinion is doing all it can to keep it's in-flight product at a minimal level.

Some would argue this is just maximising your capital investment, squeezing every last dollar out of them. Admittedly, this is affected by diminishing returns, which QF is probably in the throws of now.

Quoting NZ6 (Reply 20):
They have had to cut half their 787 order and JQ and QF domestic are all but the only areas of the Qantas Group which is prevents them from being another Pam Am

Isn't it generally the same for NZ? Domestic is the profit maker and international the loss maker? At least it seemed to be for the past 5 or so years and it certainly was post Ansett-collapse.

Quoting NZ6 (Reply 20):
NZ on the other hand has positioned itself well

For what, takeover? Merger?

Quoting NZ6 (Reply 20):
It's developing the China market well (to Koruman's horror)

Actually didn't Koruman always argue the airline should put 767s on the Chinese market? Oh look, they're doing that now.

Quoting NZ6 (Reply 20):
Koruman will now claim it's low cost tourist that fly that route, well 74% of NZ's market is leisure.

Huh? How is that even an argument? And for what?

Quoting NZ6 (Reply 20):
you've seen the alliance with DJ be a winner for everyone.

Nice spin. I haven't seen DJ expand its trans-Tasman offering lately. Has it expanded its Pacific Island flights? No? Oh. "Winning".

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 21):
I guess other airlines must have different experts.

It would seem so.

Quoting NZ6 (Reply 22):
NZ's premium customers by in large get their favourable seating

"By in large"?? What kind of metric is that? 51%? 99%? I'd have thought given their oft-stated importance, they'd get their preference (when expressed).

Quoting NZ6 (Reply 22):
What if you can't see you're ideal seat or 2 seats together? you book elsewhere and if you're leisure / price sensitive you may book on someone else when NZ probably can still accommodate you request once "other" seats are made available.

Wow that's a lot of weight to pile on to seat selection as a consumer's deciding factor. Evidently the feeling is that too much information is dangerous. Odd approach, which things like the internet usually "solve" for consumers.

Quoting NZ6 (Reply 22):
We should be discussing what needs to happen to accommodate the majority aside from what personally suits us individually.

But the majority ofor NZ are still back-of-the-bus, cheap arse parasites, right? (Note: I can say that because I relish being one.) It's all about premium, no? Isn't that where the airline makes its money (or loses it)?

Quoting NZ6 (Reply 22):
Someone remind me what QF has done in recent years?

In my experience, their frequent flyer programme is a hell of a lot easier, more beneficial for me and has genuinely influenced my flight selections - easier to earn, never had a problem redeeming. Not to mention, they've turned their loyalty programme into a huge money spinner, while NZ continues to treat it as a liability.

They've also done pretty well on domestic given the competitive push from Virgin. Though they've made mistakes too, QF has been lumbered with a highly unionised workforce that hey've finally started to address.

They've also sorted out (almost) a tie-up with THE name in commercial aviation - Emirates.

The quesiton is - how has NZ readied itself for a leaner, meaner QF backed by the behemoth in commercial aviation? It painted its tails black, tweaked its website and commoditised even more of former ticket-inclusive features. Short-term revenue benefit but will it last? So when a stronger competition emerges that provides for all-inclusive fares, what will be the market repsonse? Because let's face it, NZ's been lucky with QF's relative inactivity in the New Zealand market for the past few years. Are they assuming the future will be likewise? They removed VA as competition - tick. They can't do that with QF. The introduced S2S - tick. But the competition has been increasingly JQ rather than QF. Will that still be the case in the future?
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:01 am

Quoting NZ6 (Reply 20):
It's developing the China market well (to Koruman's horror) even though China is the fastest growing inbound market for New Zealand. Koruman will now claim it's low cost tourist that fly that route, well 74% of NZ's market is leisure.

I don't understand the criticism here.

I don't object to China-New Zealand air services, not at all.

I just think that they require aircraft configured completely differently to LAX, SFO, YVR, HNL and even PER. It's a waste of money having a Premium Economy cabin and it's equally wasteful having Business Premier as opposed to Business Class recliners.

I would have a high-density 2 class 767 or even 747, using cheap recliner seats for Business Class. The model should be what the likes of Thomas Cook and Thomson use to fly from London Gatwick to Cancun, a comparable distance and a comparable package holiday demographic.

And I think we should be realistic. Auckland-Shanghai is actually further than the distance to extend NZ5/6 from Los Angeles to Manchester, and the latter route would be substantially easier to sell premium seating on.

But PR China is several decades behind Hong Kong in the development of air travel, especially high-yielding outward air travel. If HKG-LHR cannot work, there needs to be scrutiny of how best to operate AKL-PVG.
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:14 am

Quoting NZ6 (Reply 20):
well 74% of NZ's market is leisure

I apologise for the sneeringly elitist tone that I am going to reply in.

There is leisure travel, and there is leisure travel.

Air New Zealand failed to show any understanding that, for example, the Bora Bora market is different to the Western Samoa market, and they persisted in sending the same 763 with 90% Economy seating, no Premium Economy and no lie-flat beds.

Similarly, two years ago there were 9 weekly flights from Australia to Hawaii on a mixture of A332 and 763 aircraft. Now there are 28 such flights. Air New Zealand has gone up from 2 763s per week to, erm, 2 763s.

Quite frankly, I don't think that Air New Zealand is very good at managing the inbound leisure market from North America and Asia, or the outbound one to Hawaii and Tahiti or the transiting one from Australia.

They can handle low-yield leisure like Sunshine Coast, Gold Coast, Fiji, Rarotonga and Bali. But high-yielding leisure is something that goes right over their heads. To use an expression from Northern England, they have trouble distinguishing their a**e from their elbow.
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2256
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:51 am

Quoting koruman (Reply 27):
Similarly, two years ago there were 9 weekly flights from Australia to Hawaii on a mixture of A332 and 763 aircraft. Now there are 28 such flights. Air New Zealand has gone up from 2 763s per week to, erm, 2 763s.

Yeah it's a funny one. The main driver for this seems to be the appreciation of the Aussie dollar against the US, which makes sense - you get more bang for your buck. Well, the New Zealand dollar has appreciated as well yet traffic has been accommodated by 2-3 services per week, briefly bumping up to 777s for part of the year.

A lot of the Australian growth is coming from Hawaiian, of course and the same is due to happen into AKL (cannot WAIT to see those beauties on the tarmac). True, Hawaiian offers onward connections, but why was this not foreseen after their success in the Australian market? Where did NZ think HA was going to put all those Airbuses on order? Did they consider teaming up with Hawaiian, codesharing on the route and arrange onward conenctions to the continental US? Or did they just drop the ball on this one? Perhaps NZ figured it would dilute their LAX and SFO routes.

I suspect we're going to see Hawaiian excel here as it has in Australia, establishing itself as a long-term competitor.

I recognise the counterargument - the demand just wasn't there - but evidently it was, with Hawaiian upping capacity before the route even started. It would seem they stimulated a latent market that NZ has increasingly ignored or just plain overlooked. I wonder if it harks back to a lack of suitable equipment, i.e. too few 767s.
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Mon Dec 03, 2012 4:25 am

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 28):
Yeah it's a funny one. The main driver for this seems to be the appreciation of the Aussie dollar against the US, which makes sense - you get more bang for your buck. Well, the New Zealand dollar has appreciated as well yet traffic has been accommodated by 2-3 services per week, briefly bumping up to 777s for part of the year.

I suspect we're going to see Hawaiian excel here as it has in Australia, establishing itself as a long-term competitor.

I recognise the counterargument - the demand just wasn't there - but evidently it was, with Hawaiian upping capacity before the route even started. It would seem they stimulated a latent market that NZ has increasingly ignored or just plain overlooked. I wonder if it harks back to a lack of suitable equipment, i.e. too few 767s.

When I was two years out from university - which was 1994-95 - I used to work in Takapuna. My secretary was a spinster who used to go with her girlfriends to Waikiki every winter, and she loved it.

The awful exchange rate between 1996-2004 certainly put a brake on demand for trips to the USA for people paid in Kiwi dollars, but again Air New Zealand's appalling "one island fits all" mentality has shot themselves in the foot. They have been happy to funnel tourists to Fiji and Rarotonga and just haven't cottoned on to the fact that Kiwis love Hawaii not just for the beaches but also the shops and the affordable dining out.

Also, I suspect, they have wanted to keep fares artificially inflated in a monopoly market for as long as they could. It's only a 7000 km flight - fares should be much closer to the $900 Economy and $2600 Business Class return levels that Jetstar has from Sydney. The currency change more or less negates the difference in distance.
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2256
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Mon Dec 03, 2012 4:42 am

Quoting koruman (Reply 29):
When I was two years out from university - which was 1994-95 - I used to work in Takapuna. My secretary was a spinster who used to go with her girlfriends to Waikiki every winter, and she loved it.

Yeah, I had family who'd been wanting to go there for years, but found it too pricey on NZ, FJ had stopped offering connections and they weren't comfortable going via JQ, given its record for atrocious reliability and the fact it was quite indirect (though I tried to convince them it was only a few hours more each way, they pointe dout that it added up to about 10 hours of extra travel in total).

They waited three years to save, spending the rest of the time holidaying in Fiji and Samoa. But they got to Hawaii this year (on NZ), loved it and now want to go back every year. If they'd been able to earlier, they would've gone. Now, they're converts, they're taking HA. NZ, you there?

I guess we all have little anecdotes like this, but it's not the first time I've heard it. Presumably NZ has better market research, and it is about putting your resources where you earn the best return, but you do wonder.

Quoting koruman (Reply 29):
Also, I suspect, they have wanted to keep fares artificially inflated in a monopoly market for as long as they could. It's only a 7000 km flight - fares should be much closer to the $900 Economy and $2600 Business Class return levels that Jetstar has from Sydney. The currency change more or less negates the difference in distance.

Yeah and you can understand the thinking. But you can only do that for so long before a competitor notices and moves in to undercut - I just wish it would happen on the Japan routes where NZ used to (do they still?) try and get away with $2,000 return fares, which was a joke, forcing people via Thailand, Tahiti and Australia. Is it similar to Hawaii? Could lower fares/competition stimulate a surge in traffic? Maybe, though the Japanese do have pretty unique travelling behaviour, whereas I suspect Kiwis would jump on the opportunity.
 
IndianicWorld
Posts: 2806
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:32 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Mon Dec 03, 2012 8:55 am

Quoting NZ6 (Reply 20):
LAX is back to 14x a week

QF leaving the route has surely helped there too.

Quoting NZ6 (Reply 20):
PVG is working towards weekly

Daily you mean  
Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 6):
We can rule out NZ flying to Vietnam or Malaysia in the future then

I think that was quite clear anyway. They are likely too thin to make work.

Overall. NZ has made a few smart moves lately, especially around the CX partnership.
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5006
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Mon Dec 03, 2012 1:02 pm

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 28):
I wonder if it harks back to a lack of suitable equipment, i.e. too few 767s.

I would agree. Hind sight is 20:20 but they should have kept the ( was it) three 767's that they returned three or four years ago. They took a gamble on the 789 being on time and lost. If they had stayed with some of their original 788 order they could have been operating these since early 2012. Even at EIS weights, and as ANA showed, they could be operating 12hr sectors with 242 passengers and ~7t of cargo. Better than what they can do with the 767.
 
cchan
Posts: 952
Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 8:54 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:13 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 32):
They took a gamble on the 789 being on time and lost.

It seems they have gambled on this over a few fleet and upgrade decisions and have lost a few times, and somehow they still think the 789 is the solution to everything in the long haul market. If they have not put all their eggs in the 789, they would have a stronger 763 and 777 fleet, and be able to retire all 744 earlier. It appears NZ does need a 763 size fleet, which they won't have in the future once the 763 retire, and their solution to the problem is to pull out or reduce frequency on routes that don't have the demand for a 789 size aircraft, or get into bed with their competitors like with CX.

Quoting xiaotung (Reply 18):
The only long haul route ex AKL which they have direct competition will end up with an alliance with that very competitor (CX).

I suspect that this arrangement will allow NZ to reduce frequency on AKL-HKG in the future, which NZ is going to do. On days NZ doesn't operate on their own metal, they would still be able to put passengers on CX flights and have daily connection to HKG and China. Before NZ started HKG-LHR, their AKL-HKG flights never get full outside peak holiday periods, whether they operate with 763 or 772, especially on the Mon-Wed flights. It is a shame for the customers really, we used to have a choice, now we don't.
 
777ER
Crew
Posts: 9863
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:41 pm

NZ have shared NZ107s photo of the All Black 77W landing at AKL on their Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/#!/AirNewZealand
Head Forum Moderator
moderators@airliners.net for all Moderator contact
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 7485
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:30 am

Quoting cchan (Reply 33):
It is a shame for the customers really, we used to have a choice, now we don't.

You have plenty of options, given that New Zealand is such a small isolated island market with low population density. CX/KE/TG/NZ/QF/MH/SQ/CZ/CI all have competitive fares on the route AND to any of the destinations covered by the agreement. In reality there is still plenty of choice, and even though CX/NZ have an agreement I don't see too much in the way of passenger overlap, just a few more competitive fare options at more times of the day to the less common asian destinations, They cater for different clientele, and all it will do is share the demographic across both carriers more

Besides, if the flights are as empty currently off peak as you suggest then the market is not big enough to sustain 21 direct flights weekly - If the passengers choose not to make use of a service they have to expect that the service will go or at least be reduced. This would be true regardless of any arrangement that NZ/CX may have. On the other hand, the NZ/VA alliance has grown both the trans tasman market size and their own market share , so I don't see this being any different. There's plenty of things to apparently be concerned about with NZ, but I don't think this is one of them
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.
 
User avatar
NZ107
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:51 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:56 am

Wow.. AKL looks like a huge mess right now.. NZ102 has been on the tarmac for well over an hour. Must be a couple of other international flights waiting for gates too.
It's all about the destination AND the journey.
 
ZKSUJ
Posts: 6812
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 5:15 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:17 am

AKL was closed for a couple of hours today AFAIK. A few flights delayed for departure out of other domestic ports as there was no gate space in AKL. Very chaotic day for the whole NZ network
 
haggis73
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:42 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:11 pm

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 36):
Wow.. AKL looks like a huge mess right now.. NZ102 has been on the tarmac for well over an hour. Must be a couple of other international flights waiting for gates too.
Quoting ZKSUJ (Reply 37):
AKL was closed for a couple of hours today AFAIK. A few flights delayed for departure out of other domestic ports as there was no gate space in AKL. Very chaotic day for the whole NZ network

AKL Airport refuelling operations shut down from 1200-1730 due to lightning strikes in the vicinity. AIAL Emergency Operations Centre opened at 1630 due to AKL reaching saturation point for aircraft on ground. CZ305 directed to divert to CHC, ignored divert instructions, landed at AKL. NZ102 was close to 2 hours on the ground after arrival before taxiing down to hanger 3 & offloading passengers and bussing them back up to the international terminal along with 3 other NZ aircraft.

In all the years I have worked at AKL, this was the worst I have ever seen it.

24 International refuels in 2.5 hours, just under 1.1 million litres.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 3713
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Thu Dec 06, 2012 4:18 pm

Quoting haggis73 (Reply 38):
AIAL Emergency Operations Centre opened at 1630 due to AKL reaching saturation point for aircraft on ground.

I highly doubt a 5.5 hour halt in refueling would cause the airport to reach saturation point! Very busy yes.
There is plenty of space at AKL the mx area is also capable of handling quite a bit of overflow if needed.
Still I bet no-one has seen AKL that busy until today. I say they need to get on with building the 2nd runway, and extending the A380 pier (2 more A380 capable gates).
56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
User avatar
NZ107
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:51 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Thu Dec 06, 2012 7:10 pm

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 39):

Well if the outbound Asian wave never leaves, you're stuck with a heck of a lot of other arrivals wanting space at the gates! Doesn't help either when 2 A380s take up those 2 gates - there's 4 narrowbodies. So that's CX, MH, SQ, EK x3, TN, LA, NZ's numerous, QF, JQ, FJ..

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 39):
and extending the A380 pier (2 more A380 capable gates).

Indeed. That should probably be more of a priority than the new runway..

Quoting haggis73 (Reply 38):

Insane! Thanks for that info.
It's all about the destination AND the journey.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 7485
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:43 pm

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 39):
I highly doubt a 5.5 hour halt in refueling would cause the airport to reach saturation point!

then you would be wrong. It did reach saturation point as Haggis73 said, NZ136 diverted because of this.

Layovers 17,18,70,71,72,73,75,76,77,78,83,84,17,18,19 plus the taxiway gates all occupied by 'landed' aircraft, Hangar, Gates 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,15,16 all occupied. The Airport Gate allocation sheet was a sea of red "clashes" . This was beyond anything I have personally dealt with, including 70kt winds and the runway closure.

Airport fuel lines from Wiri had to be reset to repressurise the lines. I lost track of all the layover deparures but LA,QF56,QF126,QF44, SB,NZ739 were just the ones that I spotted around the height of the problem. Then there were the airlines that I don't deal with like JQ,CX,SQ,MH VA which were also subject to holding for a gate,towing off gates or bus ops. There were physically not enough steps, they were taking airstairs off one arrival to unload the next arrival, to take off to apply back to the original departure again...
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.
 
ZKSUJ
Posts: 6812
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 5:15 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:46 pm

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 39):
There is plenty of space at AKL the mx area is also capable of handling quite a bit of overflow if needed

They didn't allow check in for our flights due to no gate space, pax kept waiting alot of the time. A/C weren't even cleared to start at other ports due to the lack of space at AKL so it did happen (This from a domestic standpoint)

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 39):
Still I bet no-one has seen AKL that busy until today. I say they need to get on with building the 2nd runway, and extending the A380 pier (2 more A380 capable gates).

Agree, better to be well prepared with more spaces than you need than have this kind of shambles going on. Extend the pier and build the new Domestic terminal already
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:53 pm

Where did NZ136 go, I presume only CHC has a long enough runway for a wide body?
 
User avatar
NZ107
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:51 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:09 pm

Quoting koruman (Reply 43):

Sure did. I'd say it's probably more to do with the fact that CHC has the capability and room to handle a 772 internationally; and the far less risky place to operate into/out of.
It's all about the destination AND the journey.
 
zkncj
Posts: 1987
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:13 pm

Yup, NZ136 went to CHC.


I had a mate that was on NZ934, they waited on the ground for 3hours before being towed to a gate to get off!
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2256
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:51 pm

Quoting haggis73 (Reply 38):
CZ305 directed to divert to CHC, ignored divert instructions, landed at AKL.

Whoa whoa whoa! Can an aircraft simply ignore an instruction to divert?

Wow sounds like quite the scene at AKL. Anyone manage to grab any snaps in the ensuing chaos?

In slightly other news, I saw a 2 page spread an a recent edition of Airliner World of the Mt Cook black ATR72. Booootiful!
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Thu Dec 06, 2012 11:04 pm

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 46):
Whoa whoa whoa! Can an aircraft simply ignore an instruction to divert?

Sure, depending on the fuel situation, for example. But in this case, CHC was presumably the alternate for which fuel was calculated.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
ZKSUJ
Posts: 6812
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 5:15 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Thu Dec 06, 2012 11:13 pm

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 46):
Whoa whoa whoa! Can an aircraft simply ignore an instruction to divert?

Yea man, captains discretion at the end of the day in that case.
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 122

Thu Dec 06, 2012 11:44 pm

Quoting koruman (Reply 43):
Where did NZ136 go, I presume only CHC has a long enough runway for a wide body?
Quoting NZ107 (Reply 44):
Sure did. I'd say it's probably more to do with the fact that CHC has the capability and room to handle a 772 internationally; and the far less risky place to operate into/out of.

I'd be curious to know the knock-on effect of this.

In my experience, at this time of year there are lots of Kiwis flying to holiday in Queensland on NZ135 but NZ136 (BNE-AKL) like the rest of the year has around 20% Economy and 40% Business Class passengers connecting on to North America.

Obviously the flights departing to North America would have been impacted too, but what happened to presumably around 50 passengers at Christchurch who were going to miss onward connections?