Looks like AirAisaX is back on the AKL-OOL sales again, this time its even cheaper at $68/ow. Seems like they have allot of spare seats that they need to dump in early 2017?

Funny when the cheapest baggage option $39 for 20kg, at-least the meals are only $6.

Fares 5.00 NZD
Airport Tax 32.00 NZD
Arrival Tax 27.00 NZD
Border Clearance Levy 4.00 NZD

zkncj wrote:

Border Clearance Levy 4.00 NZD

Dumb question, perhaps, I've never known what the Border Clearance Levy is for?

mariner

mariner wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Border Clearance Levy 4.00 NZD

Dumb question, perhaps, I've never known what the Border Clearance Levy is for?

mariner

https://www.mpi.govt.nz/news-and-resources/consultations/border-clearance-levy/

I think this is it? but its meant to be $21.58?

To make it more weird the taxes on D7 add up to $63, yet only $50 on NZ?
NZ:
F1 Border Clearance Levy $3.37
IA Passenger Security Charge $12.08
KK Passenger Service Charge $18.50
WG Safety and Security Charge $4.80
WY Passenger Service Charge International $11.80
Total $50.55

zkncj wrote:

I think this is it? but its meant to be $21.58?

Thanks. It certainly seems to be it, but unless it means the cost of passport control I suppose I'm not sure why it is charged for outgoing passengers, who cease to be any threat to NZ. Then again, it's always been a slight puzzle to me that both NZ and Australia, among others, have passport control for outgoing pax.

Hey ho - the ways of bureaucracy, I suppose.

mariner

mariner wrote:

zkncj wrote:

I think this is it? but its meant to be $21.58?

Thanks. It certainly seems to be it, but unless it means the cost of passport control I suppose I'm not sure why it is charged for outgoing passengers, who cease to be any threat to NZ. Then again, it's always been a slight puzzle to me that both NZ and Australia, among others, have passport control for outgoing pax.

Hey ho - the ways of bureaucracy, I suppose.

mariner

Yet NZ only charges $3.37 for the same fee, looks like D7 is up to make every cent.

Find it pretty pricy for the Tasman we're most passengers are NZ/AU Passport Holders and use SmartGate.

"Air NZ allows Bluetooth on flights"

Air New Zealand will allow passengers to use Bluetooth devices "gate to gate'' across its entire fleet.

From this Thursday customers flying on any domestic or international flight will be able to operate Bluetooth devices from the departure gate to the arrival gate, provided their devices are set to flight mode.

This means customers can remain connected with their wearable Bluetooth tech such as Fitbit devices, Apple watches and Bluetooth headsets, as well as operate a wireless mouse and wireless keyboard during cruise.

Air New Zealand's general manager customer experience, Carrie Hurihanganui said it was a way of meeting customer demand


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11677350

"Air New Zealand NW16 Dreamliner Pacific Islands Operation"

for Northern winter 2016/17 season. Effective 30OCT16, updated Dreamliner operation for South Pacific Islands as follow.

Auckland – Apia
05NOV16 – 07DEC16 Day 6
08DEC16 – 22DEC16 Day 246
23DEC16 – 04FEB17 Day 6
Boeing 787-9 also scheduled to operate on 09DEC16, 23DEC16, 03JAN17, 25MAR17

Auckland – Nadi
30OCT16 – 20NOV16 Day x24
23NOV16 – 04DEC16 Day x124
05DEC16 – 11DEC16 Day x35
13DEC16 – 19DEC16 Day 125
22DEC16 – 27DEC16 Day 124
02JAN17 – 10JAN17 Day 12
12JAN17 – 02FEB17 Day x356 (Except selected dates)
11FEB17 – 24MAR17 Day 56

also in the mix is -

Auckland – Nuku’Alofa
Auckland – Papeete
Auckland – Rarotonga

http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/air ... operation/

zkncj wrote:

zkeoj wrote:

zkncj & bonzolab: Thanks, guys. I am doing AKL-TRG, NPL and PMR, so no ZQN. Just gotta be lucky I guess... I did my first -600 flight on SK in May, and it was pretty nice and sleek looking inside. You noticed the difference right away.

Recently did an AKL-NPE on the -500, then NPE-AKL on the -600. The -600 out did any of the -500 flights, it seems quieter too?

That's interesting; as the engines on the -500/-600 are identical; as is most of the airframe and wing.

NZ1 wrote:

That's interesting; as the engines on the -500/-600 are identical; as is most of the airframe and wing.

Then what makes the two frames different enough for ATR to market them as two separate variations if the majority of key structural components are identical?

Andrensn wrote:

Then what makes the two frames different enough for ATR to market them as two separate variations if the majority of key structural components are identical?

500/600 are just marketing names as you say, of the ATR 72-212A. The 600 got updated Thales avionics and a refreshed passenger cabin. The avionics are a significant upgrade over those on the 500.

zkncj wrote:

zkeoj wrote:

zkncj & bonzolab: Thanks, guys. I am doing AKL-TRG, NPL and PMR, so no ZQN. Just gotta be lucky I guess... I did my first -600 flight on SK in May, and it was pretty nice and sleek looking inside. You noticed the difference right away.

Recently did an AKL-NPE on the -500, then NPE-AKL on the -600. The -600 out did any of the -500 flights, it seems quieter too?

I didn't have a direct comparison, so I am hoping I'll get a -500 one way, and a -600 the other

What a shame emergency aircraft are included in the no fly zone introduced for Joe Biden's visit. Disgraceful that the CAA and the NZ Govt aren't putting the needs and lives of New Zealanders first. Shit, they would probably enforce a 'stay at home' policy if the top dog decides to visit.

wstakl wrote:

What a shame emergency aircraft are included in the no fly zone introduced for Joe Biden's visit. Disgraceful that the CAA and the NZ Govt aren't putting the needs and lives of New Zealanders first. Shit, they would probably enforce a 'stay at home' policy if the top dog decides to visit.

Which emergency aircraft?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6El8XiODwE

Latest NZ Safety Video is out - note they say "WIFI isn't available on this aircraft" make it sound like they are pretty close to Wifi on part of the fleet?

Reported on Airline Route, more good news for CHC. AKL will also be getting a CZ 77W again this summer.

Guangzhou – Christchurch 12DEC16 – 27FEB17 Increase from 3 to 5 weekly
CZ617 CAN0050 – 1710CHC 787 x26
CZ618 CHC2230 – 0530+1CAN 787 x26

Guangzhou – Auckland Operational aircraft changes, CZ305/306 operated by 777-300ER, CZ335/336 by 787-8 (Schedule updated around Late-June/Early-July)
CZ305 CAN0030 – 1700AKL 77W D
CZ335 CAN1430 – 0700+1AKL 787 D

Introducing ZK-NZI which has now been painted:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sabian404/28269584221

and ZK-NZJ which just rolled out of the factory a few days ago:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/woodysaer ... 8392795466

NZ1 wrote:

That's interesting; as the engines on the -500/-600 are identical

PW127F vs PW127M?

zkojq wrote:

Introducing ZK-NZI which has now been painted:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sabian404/28269584221

and ZK-NZJ which just rolled out of the factory a few days ago:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/woodysaer ... 8392795466

NZ1 wrote:

That's interesting; as the engines on the -500/-600 are identical

PW127F vs PW127M?

Both of those 787's are due in the next month or so right?

zkojq wrote:

and ZK-NZJ which just rolled out of the factory a few days ago:

ZK-NZJ rolled out of final assembly on 08 July but went to the 40-24 for a week for additional work. Similar thing happened to ZK-NZI which went to the EMC Paint Hangar for a week but not to get painted. Could be planned finishing work, or final assembly has slipped a week behind and this is how they maintain the roll out schedule. This has happened in the past.

77west wrote:

Both of those 787's are due in the next month or so right?

ZK-NZI is now due for delivery at Paine on 28 July (was 15 July), so AKL on 29 or 30 July.
ZK-NZJ is still showing as due for delivery at Paine on 16 August, so AKL on 17 or 18 August.
ZK-NZK is still showing as due for delivery at Paine on 21 October, so AKL on 22 or 23 October.

PA515

The $64 question is how the unallocated time for -NZK is going to be used. I believe there has to be some schedule changes still to be announced. How do you find out the number of unsold seats per class on the day of departure?

sunrisevalley wrote:

The $64 question is how the unallocated time for -NZK is going to be used. I believe there has to be some schedule changes still to be announced.

Well, the mystery deepens with the latest schedule change to the AKL-PVG flights.
The increase to 10 weekly is now effective 10 Jan instead of 17 Dec. And the three additional flights are now AKL-PVG 1755/0110 Tu Th Sa and PVG-AKL 0245/1910 We Fr Su, instead of AKL-PVG 1015/1720 Tu Sa Su and PVG-AKL 2355/1620 Tu Sa Su.

http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/air ... -increase/

PA515

Napier,Nelson and Wellington-Christchurch etc get an even mix on -500/-600s. I have flown both on all those routes. Generally the -600s now do flights like ROT-CHC etc now too. If the flight time is upward of 1h20 then it seems -600s are the usual. so Christchurch-Dunedin and Christchurch-Invercargill and Dunedin-Wellington seem highly likely to get -600s and ZQN -600s for obvious reasons.. I like the ATRs but I can't say I notice much difference since the -500 retrofit.

aerorobnz wrote:

I like the ATRs but I can't say I notice much difference since the -500 retrofit.

The cabin appearance is much nicer on the -600, e.g. LED Lighting, lighter wall colours and more detailing to the overhead lockers.

I really wish when they re-fitted the -500 with the new seats, that they would have recovered the forward bulkhead wall to match the -600s.

Anyone know what the -500 got new seats, yet the Q300s just got replacement seat covers?

zkncj wrote:

aerorobnz wrote:

I like the ATRs but I can't say I notice much difference since the -500 retrofit.

The cabin appearance is much nicer on the -600, e.g. LED Lighting, lighter wall colours and more detailing to the overhead lockers.

I really wish when they re-fitted the -500 with the new seats, that they would have recovered the forward bulkhead wall to match the -600s.

Anyone know what the -500 got new seats, yet the Q300s just got replacement seat covers?

In the case of the Q300s it's probably just a matter of time before they go as well and they saw no monetary value in doing so whereas the older ATRs offer extra capacity and growth opportunity for existing markets so were worth more to invest in. The ATRS were all about standardising the ATR fleets as much as possible (being all one airline). Eventually Air Nelson will probably close as Eagle has when the Q300s retire.

I'm not sold on Neon lights and the other stuff anyway, as long as the overheads take the same sized carryon then that's the main thing. Same with all the gimmickry on 787s. it looks fancy but it adds nothing to the experience. Like sugarcoating a dog poo, if the physical seat and overhead locker is no good then the aircraft is no good and no amount of LED lights and cosmetics can change how unpleasant it is. It's better to invest less and get more than spend more on frippery. How I wish for an A350 order for NZ, they are far superior in cabin ergonomics to the 787 and have windowshades which don't get blacked out from takeoff to touchdown by overzealous crew .

aerorobnz wrote:

In the case of the Q300s it's probably just a matter of time before they go as well and they saw no monetary value in doing so whereas the older ATRs offer extra capacity and growth opportunity for existing markets so were worth more to invest in. The ATRS were all about standardising the ATR fleets as much as possible (being all one airline). Eventually Air Nelson will probably close as Eagle has when the Q300s retire.

According to this ATR Spec Sheet - the new cabin, has bins that increase the volume by 10%.

http://www.atraircraft.com/products_app/media/pdf/Armonia_Cabin-nov2014-light.pdf
Increased volume by about 10%
About 30% more roller bags stowage with 66%
of passengers able to stow a standard bag

PA515 wrote:

sunrisevalley wrote:

The $64 question is how the unallocated time for -NZK is going to be used. I believe there has to be some schedule changes still to be announced.

Well, the mystery deepens with the latest schedule change to the AKL-PVG flights.
The increase to 10 weekly is now effective 10 Jan instead of 17 Dec. And the three additional flights are now AKL-PVG 1755/0110 Tu Th Sa and PVG-AKL 0245/1910 We Fr Su, instead of AKL-PVG 1015/1720 Tu Sa Su and PVG-AKL 2355/1620 Tu Sa Su.

http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/air ... -increase/

PA515

Thinking about it wonder if the PVG has be differed to allow the 789 to enable additional short-haul upgrades between 17 December to 10 January?

For example this has been allot of additional 789 Pacific Island flights been put in over this period recently, freeing up some A320s maybe?

zkncj wrote:

PA515 wrote:

sunrisevalley wrote:

The $64 question is how the unallocated time for -NZK is going to be used. I believe there has to be some schedule changes still to be announced.

Well, the mystery deepens with the latest schedule change to the AKL-PVG flights.
The increase to 10 weekly is now effective 10 Jan instead of 17 Dec. And the three additional flights are now AKL-PVG 1755/0110 Tu Th Sa and PVG-AKL <a href="tel:0245/1910">0245/1910</a> We Fr Su, instead of AKL-PVG 1015/1720 Tu Sa Su and PVG-AKL 2355/1620 Tu Sa Su.

http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/air ... -increase/

PA515

Thinking about it wonder if the PVG has be differed to allow the 789 to enable additional short-haul upgrades between 17 December to 10 January?

For example this has been allot of additional 789 Pacific Island flights been put in over this period recently, freeing up some A320s maybe?

While I'm sure they will put the 789's to good use during this time there is absolutely no way they would delay long haul expansion to cover a few short haul routes IMO. Has to be slots at PVG or something. Terrible timings to. This flight was meant to offer shorter connections to EZE which it does and has a minimum 55 min connection PVG-AKL-EZE probably almost due to luck more than anything.

aerorobnz wrote:

zkncj wrote:

aerorobnz wrote:

I like the ATRs but I can't say I notice much difference since the -500 retrofit.

The cabin appearance is much nicer on the -600, e.g. LED Lighting, lighter wall colours and more detailing to the overhead lockers.

I really wish when they re-fitted the -500 with the new seats, that they would have recovered the forward bulkhead wall to match the -600s.

Anyone know what the -500 got new seats, yet the Q300s just got replacement seat covers?

In the case of the Q300s it's probably just a matter of time before they go as well and they saw no monetary value in doing so whereas the older ATRs offer extra capacity and growth opportunity for existing markets so were worth more to invest in. The ATRS were all about standardising the ATR fleets as much as possible (being all one airline). Eventually Air Nelson will probably close as Eagle has when the Q300s retire.

I'm not sold on Neon lights and the other stuff anyway, as long as the overheads take the same sized carryon then that's the main thing. Same with all the gimmickry on 787s. it looks fancy but it adds nothing to the experience. Like sugarcoating a dog poo, if the physical seat and overhead locker is no good then the aircraft is no good and no amount of LED lights and cosmetics can change how unpleasant it is. It's better to invest less and get more than spend more on frippery. How I wish for an A350 order for NZ, they are far superior in cabin ergonomics to the 787 and have windowshades which don't get blacked out from takeoff to touchdown by overzealous crew .

I don't see how NZ could justify removing the 50 seat from the fleet. When the time comes I see NZ ordering the 42-600 with operation by Mt Cook.

If NZ fully removed the 50 seater from its fleet then more routes will be axed like AKL-TUO, WLG-TIU and NZ would simply become a joke on regional services while enabling JQ to expand more with Q300s. Air Chathams and Sounds Air would scramble to find more aircraft if they've already done their home work on the route and decided to take it on.

777ER wrote:

If NZ fully removed the 50 seater from its fleet then more routes will be axed like AKL-TUO, WLG-TIU and NZ would simply become a joke on regional services while enabling JQ to expand more with Q300s. Air Chathams and Sounds Air would scramble to find more aircraft if they've already done their home work on the route and decided to take it on.

Are routes like AKL-TUO/WLG-TIU worth operating to NZ is the question? If they are pretty weak as it is they might decide its worth dropping them and letting someone like Air Chathams take the route over.

Isn't the 72-600 operating costs meant to be lower than the Q300? maybe that could off-set the additional seats into the market.

I see no reason to diversify the fleet. the ATR42 hasn't had new orders in ages because the costs are so similar to the ATR72. May as well have the larger frame and really compete against JQ into a market to try and keep those whinging people who live in the sticks quieter. A larger aircraft ALWAYS results in lower fares overall.

777ER wrote:

aerorobnz wrote:

zkncj wrote:

If NZ fully removed the 50 seater from its fleet then more routes will be axed like AKL-TUO, WLG-TIU and NZ would simply become a joke on regional services while enabling JQ to expand more with Q300s. Air Chathams and Sounds Air would scramble to find more aircraft if they've already done their home work on the route and decided to take it on.

]

Which city pairs would be in danger if the 50-seaters were to go? This could only happen over an extended period, sort of like the phase out of the Beech airplanes.

sunrisevalley wrote:

Which city pairs would be in danger if the 50-seaters were to go? This could only happen over an extended period, sort of like the phase out of the Beech airplanes.

PMR-WLG
AKL-TUO

AKL-WAG recently got cut with only 3 months notice, as it couldn't support the upgrade to an the Q300 as planned. NZ seems to be very bold with making cuts to regional routes that don't make any money, its been the negative side of Jetstar starting its regional operations - basically has got them to review all there cost and cut anything that doesn't make money.

Within the next 5 years I could see the NZ Regional Network reduced to:
AKL
- KKE
- WRE
- TRG
- GIS
- NPE
- PMR
- PPQ
- NPL
- NSN

WLG
- TRG
- GIS
- NPE
- NPL
- NSN
- CHC
- IVC
- DUD

CHC
- TRG
- GIS
- NPE
- NPL
- NSN
- CHC
- IVC
- ZQN
- DUD

zkncj wrote:

sunrisevalley wrote:

Which city pairs would be in danger if the 50-seaters were to go? This could only happen over an extended period, sort of like the phase out of the Beech airplanes.

PMR-WLG
AKL-TUO

AKL-WAG recently got cut with only 3 months notice, as it couldn't support the upgrade to an the Q300 as planned. NZ seems to be very bold with making cuts to regional routes that don't make any money, its been the negative side of Jetstar starting its regional operations - basically has got them to review all there cost and cut anything that doesn't make money.

Within the next 5 years I could see the NZ Regional Network reduced to:
AKL
- KKE
- WRE
- TRG
- GIS
- NPE
- PMR
- PPQ
- NPL
- NSN

WLG
- TRG
- GIS
- NPE
- NPL
- NSN
- CHC
- IVC
- DUD

CHC
- TRG
- GIS
- NPE
- NPL
- NSN
- CHC
- IVC
- ZQN
- DUD

Have you forgotten about ROT and HLZ or are you suggesting they could be cut in the future?

Sylus wrote:

Have you forgotten about ROT and HLZ or are you suggesting they could be cut in the future?

My bad had completely forgotten about HLZ,ROT I recon they both will have some chance to stay.

zkncj wrote:

Sylus wrote:

Have you forgotten about ROT and HLZ or are you suggesting they could be cut in the future?

My bad had completely forgotten about HLZ,ROT I recon they both will have some chance to stay.

Both HLZ and ROT are dead certs to remain in the network. ROT is NZ's second tourist destination, way ahead of KKE which you've no hesitation in including on your "retain" list, and HLZ is the fourth largest urban centre in the country.

DavidByrne wrote:

Both HLZ and ROT are dead certs to remain in the network. ROT is NZ's second tourist destination, way ahead of KKE which you've no hesitation in including on your "retain" list, and HLZ is the fourth largest urban centre in the country.

HLZ saving grace will also be the Auckland Housing market growing closer and closer to HLZ, if anything maybe by 2030 HLZ could have Tasman Services again and maybe peak hour WLG/CHC jet services.

zkncj wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

Both HLZ and ROT are dead certs to remain in the network. ROT is NZ's second tourist destination, way ahead of KKE which you've no hesitation in including on your "retain" list, and HLZ is the fourth largest urban centre in the country.

HLZ saving grace will also be the Auckland Housing market growing closer and closer to HLZ, if anything maybe by 2030 HLZ could have Tasman Services again and maybe peak hour WLG/CHC jet services.

HLZ doesn't need a "saving grace" to stay in the network! Though I admit it only has 40 times the population of KKE.

zkncj wrote:

Within the next 5 years I could see the NZ Regional Network reduced to:

I think the political cost of your list would make it untenable (as well as the economic, social and cultural costs). Yes, Air NZ should be run a a business enterprise - use it or lose it - but it is not that in the hearts and minds of many Kiwis, certainly in the regions., and it is still, conceptually, the national airline.

I agree that we may see a wee bitty more rationalisation of the regional routes, but it's a heck of a tightrope because it is a matter of cumulative effect - too many cuts and there will be uproar. That is obviously mitigated somewhat if the small fry step in - Air Chats and/or Sounds - but they have their own huge limitations, such as lack of capital or even access to capital, which leads to lack of equipment and staff.

mariner

I have been casually watching AA83 on Flightradar24. Everyday I have checked it is running late to very late. At this moment it is 2hrs 25 min late. This tail did ORD-MAN-ORD-LAX-AKL. It was into ORD at 15.27 out at 20.03 into LAX at 21.38 which only left it one hour for turn around to AKL. But it took until 01.23 before it was out. I wonder why the 4 1/2 hour turn around at ORD and almost 4 hrs. at LAX.

sunrisevalley wrote:

I have been casually watching AA83 on Flightradar24. Everyday I have checked it is running late to very late. At this moment it is 2hrs 25 min late. This tail did ORD-MAN-ORD-LAX-AKL. It was into ORD at 15.27 out at 20.03 into LAX at 21.38 which only left it one hour for turn around to AKL. But it took until 01.23 before it was out. I wonder why the 4 1/2 hour turn around at ORD and almost 4 hrs. at LAX.

I've noticed that too - I'm wondering if they have been holding it back at LAX, due to gate spare in AKL? Its pretty much 2 hours or more late every day. Maybe they we're disliking using stairs/buses to deboard in AKL during the winter months?

At-least by 9am you have an few gates freed-ed up by NZ123 (77W) and NZ103 (789/772) both leaving, before that the terminal is pretty full.

aerorobnz wrote:

A larger aircraft ALWAYS results in lower fares overall.

That's only true if the average cost per seat sold works out better than on a smaller aircraft. Otherwise by the "larger always equals lower fares" logic, we'd have A380s flying Auckland-Whakatane.

V/F

VirginFlyer wrote:

That's only true if the average cost per seat sold works out better than on a smaller aircraft. Otherwise by the "larger always equals lower fares" logic, we'd have A380s flying Auckland-Whakatane.

But it is the reason Airbus has sold some 4000 x A320Neo/A321Neo against 58 x A319Neo.

There is always the question of how many seats the airline actually sell on a specific route, which is you won't see the A380 on Auckland-Whakatane, and it is is why the mid-capacity, thus less-risk, A320Neo will be the workhorse of the family, but the fact remains that the CASK of the (higher capacity) A321Neo will be lower than the CASK of the (mid-capacity) A320Neo, just as the A320Neo has a lower CASK than the (less capacity) A319Neo, although the trip costs of the three types are very roughly similar.

mariner

Was checking Air NZ 789 ZK-NZI on flightradar24 and the delivery flight is NZ6094 departing PAE at 1110 PDT on Tue 26 Jul. So, arriving AKL about 2000 on Wed 27 Jul.

PA515

mariner wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Within the next 5 years I could see the NZ Regional Network reduced to:

I think the political cost of your list would make it untenable (as well as the economic, social and cultural costs). Yes, Air NZ should be run a a business enterprise - use it or lose it - but it is not that in the hearts and minds of many Kiwis, certainly in the regions., and it is still, conceptually, the national airline.

I agree that we may see a wee bitty more rationalisation of the regional routes, but it's a heck of a tightrope because it is a matter of cumulative effect - too many cuts and there will be uproar. That is obviously mitigated somewhat if the small fry step in - Air Chats and/or Sounds - but they have their own huge limitations, such as lack of capital or even access to capital, which leads to lack of equipment and staff.

mariner

Of course what perhaps should be done that would be a win/win/win would be for NZ to either code-share on those smaller flights or to at least work out some through-check arrangement.
Win for the small airline - extra business (and since passengers will feel safer about booking them more business)
Win for NZ - can serve more destinations without having to use their own metal
Win for the passenger - gets to have the domestic flight as an add-on to their international ticket, also gets the peace of mind knowing that if the small airline goes belly up that NZ will look after them/at the very least allow them to make changes to their other tickets for free/mis-connections don't become a costly issue.

Zkpilot wrote:

Of course what perhaps should be done that would be a win/win/win would be for NZ to either code-share on those smaller flights or to at least work out some through-check arrangement.
Win for the small airline - extra business (and since passengers will feel safer about booking them more business)
Win for NZ - can serve more destinations without having to use their own metal
Win for the passenger - gets to have the domestic flight as an add-on to their international ticket, also gets the peace of mind knowing that if the small airline goes belly up that NZ will look after them/at the very least allow them to make changes to their other tickets for free/mis-connections don't become a costly issue.

Oh, absolutely, that would change things and it has been discussed. But - Mr. Luxon says it would be very expensive for the small fry:

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/ ... -agreement

"Air New Zealand's chief executive Christopher Luxton said he had not been approached by any of the regional airlines about setting up such an arrangement. He says that could be down to cost.

"There's highly complex systems that are big constraints for I suspect what are quite nimble and quite agile smaller airlines, for them to be able to have the IT system and infrastructure to be able to track baggage, track customers, is a massive investment."

Although the small fry (or at least Air Chats) say they could afford it:

"Air Chathams now flies in and out of Whakatane in Air New Zealand's absence, and said it could afford to set up a system to link the two airlines. Chief executive officer Craig Emeny said it had had interline agreements with Air New Zealand before.

"For us it's a case of actually how do we make it happen and there are a lot of technical issues, but it's been done before and I know of other airlines that are currently doing it, so it's something that's possible to do."

And then there's the role of government as a possible facilitator:

"However, Whakatane mayor Tony Bonne said if money was the problem and no agreement could be reached, the Government could pull strings as a major shareholder.

But beyond that interlining, the point remains that any big expansion by the small fry would require large amounts of capital, for additional aircraft, infrastructure and staff.

mariner

mariner wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Within the next 5 years I could see the NZ Regional Network reduced to:

I think the political cost of your list would make it untenable (as well as the economic, social and cultural costs). Yes, Air NZ should be run a a business enterprise - use it or lose it - but it is not that in the hearts and minds of many Kiwis, certainly in the regions., and it is still, conceptually, the national airline.

I agree that we may see a wee bitty more rationalisation of the regional routes, but it's a heck of a tightrope because it is a matter of cumulative effect - too many cuts and there will be uproar. That is obviously mitigated somewhat if the small fry step in - Air Chats and/or Sounds - but they have their own huge limitations, such as lack of capital or even access to capital, which leads to lack of equipment and staff.

mariner

If routes need to remain for political and social purposes then there is no other option except for the govt to subsidise the route, it's what happens in Norway, public service obligation routes are bid on by airlines and the govt picks up the tab.

Kiwirob wrote:

If routes need to remain for political and social purposes then there is no other option except for the govt to subsidise the route, it's what happens in Norway, public service obligation routes are bid on by airlines and the govt picks up the tab.

Not in my book.

I said I agree that Air NZ should be run as a commercial organisation - use it or lose it - but it isn't owned as a free market corporation and a very real part of its success, good times and bad, is maintaining the goodwill of the market, "goodwill" being a quantifiable element of any successful company's balance sheet.

Part of that goodwill is vested in the bailout after Ansett, and part of it is vested in the idea that we - tax-paying Kiwis - own the airline, which we do. Kiwis will bear some regional cuts - they'll make a noise about 'em, as happened but they'll likely eventually come to terms with them. If the airline cuts too hard, though, there will be a much more aggressive noise and surely a loss of goodwill.

Nor is it just the routes themselves that are the issue. They may lose money, but what has to be considered is the feed they provide to other flights, domestic and, importantly, international. It's one reason why Jetstar set up the regional routes - they may be barely profitable, they may even lose money, but they may be worth it to Qantas/Jetstar if they help fill planes on the international flights, or get incoming tourists easily to the non-urban parts of NZ. That's why a fair few come here and it's more than just Queenstown and Rotorua.

As I said in my earlier post, it is a balancing act, a tightrope act.

mariner

In reply to PA515 ZK-NZI was scheduled for a C-3 (Customer Acceptance) flight on 24 Jul which has been pushed back to 25 Jul.
All things 787 is showing departure from Paine on 28 Jul (and they're usually very accurate) so surprised to see departure on FR24 as 26 Jul!!

zkncj wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

Both HLZ and ROT are dead certs to remain in the network. ROT is NZ's second tourist destination, way ahead of KKE which you've no hesitation in including on your "retain" list, and HLZ is the fourth largest urban centre in the country.

HLZ saving grace will also be the Auckland Housing market growing closer and closer to HLZ, if anything maybe by 2030 HLZ could have Tasman Services again and maybe peak hour WLG/CHC jet services.

I fly out of HLZ a fair bit and most flights are almost full. I would love to see jet flights to at least CHC at some point. 2hr on the ATR is annoying when AKL-CHC is only 1.15