Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
PA515
Posts: 1614
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Sat Sep 10, 2016 12:09 am

NZ321 wrote:
Does anybody know what the issue was with the CX A340 which was in the NZ hangar at AKL for several days until Thursday this week? When I flew in from Wellington last Saturday it was clearly evident outside the hangar and it was still in the hangar when I left again for Wellington on Wednesday.


A few nights back a CX 340 was towed from the Air NZ hangars past the International Terminal to the taxiway extension adjacent to the end of the runway. That spot is used for engine tests.

PA515
 
User avatar
LamboAston
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:46 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Sat Sep 10, 2016 5:14 am

NZ9 had a flat tyre landing in Auckland earlier today. Incident free landing
AS350, B733/4/7/8, B744/8, B762/3, B77E/L/W, B789, A319, A320, A321, A332, A346, A380, AT73/5/6, Q300, Q400, CR2/7, E190, S340, B1900C/D, E110 (E for epic)
NZ, EK, QF, SQ, UA, US, CO, FZ, FR, U2, BA, VA, VS, MH, EI, EY, LH, EN, NM, TG, GZ
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Sat Sep 10, 2016 9:11 am

Heard a rumour that 33 out of 36 fanblades in one engine were out of shape on arrival into Auckland. No idea if it was engine blowout or birds or what.
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Sat Sep 10, 2016 6:52 pm

ZK NZJ was out of KPAE at 1000 local time as NZ6094. Estimated AKL at 1740 local time.
 
User avatar
LamboAston
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:46 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Sat Sep 10, 2016 11:44 pm

aerorobnz wrote:
Heard a rumour that 33 out of 36 fanblades in one engine were out of shape on arrival into Auckland. No idea if it was engine blowout or birds or what.

Of what flight?
AS350, B733/4/7/8, B744/8, B762/3, B77E/L/W, B789, A319, A320, A321, A332, A346, A380, AT73/5/6, Q300, Q400, CR2/7, E190, S340, B1900C/D, E110 (E for epic)
NZ, EK, QF, SQ, UA, US, CO, FZ, FR, U2, BA, VA, VS, MH, EI, EY, LH, EN, NM, TG, GZ
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Sun Sep 11, 2016 12:22 am

LamboAston wrote:
aerorobnz wrote:
Heard a rumour that 33 out of 36 fanblades in one engine were out of shape on arrival into Auckland. No idea if it was engine blowout or birds or what.

Of what flight?

The Cathay A340 mentioned earlier
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
aerohottie
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:52 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Tue Sep 13, 2016 12:19 am

Anyone going to the NZ Airports Conference in Nelson over the next 3 days?
What?
 
PA515
Posts: 1614
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Tue Sep 13, 2016 5:56 am

ZK-NCL had an engine test yesterday, so not long before it goes. http://flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zk-ncl#af8be10

Icelandair will be putting ex ZK-NCK and ZK-NCL into service in 'early 2017'. From memory Icelandair's ex ZK-NCN and ex ZK-NCO got their repaint and new interiors earlier this year somewhere in China.

PA515
 
Gasman
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:52 am

777ER wrote:
Over the last few years I've been unhappy with NZ's long haul offering and Airpoints. Yesterday I returned from the USA on a QF booking with a transfer in SYD and AA connections in DFW.

Because of the QF/AA experience I'm now switching my FF to QF. QF are miles ahead of NZ in terms of comfort and offering. The A380 comfort kicks NZs 777 fleet for comfort. The meal offering was better with a midflight snack offering like what UA offer on Australian services. The inflight snack/drinks bar at the rear of the A380 was amazing. The crew on every service including WLG-SYD-WLG were excellent and were quick to respond to requests. The meals offered were excellent even for a basic fare.

NZ IMHO have some serious thinking to do. Yes they have won awards but their FF programme isn't worth it and when your able to fly on an A380 which doesn't feel cramped like NZs 77W fleet does then more customers will jump ship now that QF/AA offer AKL-LAX.


I agree 100% with all your points, and I've been preaching this to deaf ears for years. And now that I've made QF platinum status and tasted that particular perk, my chances of returning loyalty to NZ any time soon are zero.

The only reason, IMHO that NZ have any loyal travelers left at all are because a) they are mesmerised by all the marketing and bogus survey-based internet awards and b) haven't tried the competition long haul.
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 973
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Wed Sep 14, 2016 6:15 am

Gasman wrote:
777ER wrote:
Over the last few years I've been unhappy with NZ's long haul offering and Airpoints. Yesterday I returned from the USA on a QF booking with a transfer in SYD and AA connections in DFW.

Because of the QF/AA experience I'm now switching my FF to QF. QF are miles ahead of NZ in terms of comfort and offering. The A380 comfort kicks NZs 777 fleet for comfort. The meal offering was better with a midflight snack offering like what UA offer on Australian services. The inflight snack/drinks bar at the rear of the A380 was amazing. The crew on every service including WLG-SYD-WLG were excellent and were quick to respond to requests. The meals offered were excellent even for a basic fare.

NZ IMHO have some serious thinking to do. Yes they have won awards but their FF programme isn't worth it and when your able to fly on an A380 which doesn't feel cramped like NZs 77W fleet does then more customers will jump ship now that QF/AA offer AKL-LAX.


I agree 100% with all your points, and I've been preaching this to deaf ears for years. And now that I've made QF platinum status and tasted that particular perk, my chances of returning loyalty to NZ any time soon are zero.

The only reason, IMHO that NZ have any loyal travelers left at all are because a) they are mesmerised by all the marketing and bogus survey-based internet awards and b) haven't tried the competition long haul.


And how could NZ justify A380's when even QF won't be taking the rest of their order? Be realistic here.
77West - AW109S - BE90 - JS31 - B1900 - Q300 - ATR72 - DC9-30 - MD80 - B733 - A320 - B738 - A300-B4 - B773 - B77W
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1231
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Wed Sep 14, 2016 6:19 am

Gasman wrote:
777ER wrote:
Over the last few years I've been unhappy with NZ's long haul offering and Airpoints. Yesterday I returned from the USA on a QF booking with a transfer in SYD and AA connections in DFW.

Because of the QF/AA experience I'm now switching my FF to QF. QF are miles ahead of NZ in terms of comfort and offering. The A380 comfort kicks NZs 777 fleet for comfort. The meal offering was better with a midflight snack offering like what UA offer on Australian services. The inflight snack/drinks bar at the rear of the A380 was amazing. The crew on every service including WLG-SYD-WLG were excellent and were quick to respond to requests. The meals offered were excellent even for a basic fare.

NZ IMHO have some serious thinking to do. Yes they have won awards but their FF programme isn't worth it and when your able to fly on an A380 which doesn't feel cramped like NZs 77W fleet does then more customers will jump ship now that QF/AA offer AKL-LAX.


I agree 100% with all your points, and I've been preaching this to deaf ears for years. And now that I've made QF platinum status and tasted that particular perk, my chances of returning loyalty to NZ any time soon are zero.

The only reason, IMHO that NZ have any loyal travelers left at all are because a) they are mesmerised by all the marketing and bogus survey-based internet awards and b) haven't tried the competition long haul.



For me, it is neither a) nor b). I am still not prepared to add the 3+ hours trans-Tasman, plus the layover there, to a longhaul trip, if I can avoid it. No A380 experince (in Y) can compensate for the additonal hours, as much as I like the A380. Going to Europe or even North America "nonstopover" in Y is long enough, and I sure do not want it to be any longer than necessary. Flying in J would make it a bit easier, but for many business people time is money, and transiting in OZ still adds 5 hours or so to a trip.

Having said that, I have to go to YOG end of the month for work, and since the ticket is paid for by the host in Indonesia I have to go on GA. They booked me AKL-SYD-DPS-YOG and back YOG-CGK-MEL-AKL, with AKL-SYD/MEL-AKL on QF. I will see how that is going to be, but I am looking forward to my first flights on GA, and also can handle the OZ transfers easier because of the relatively short "longhaul" sectors of about 6 hours.

Cheers
micha
 
Gasman
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Wed Sep 14, 2016 6:54 am

77west wrote:
And how could NZ justify A380's when even QF won't be taking the rest of their order? Be realistic here.


That was never the point. Sure the A380 and 744 are very pleasant aircraft to fly on, but no-one forced NZ to go 10 abreast in Y on their 777s. And no-one forced them to adopt the cramped, privacy lacking storage-free herringbone config in J. The jokesy safety videos are well past their use by date. I could go on and on.

That said, an argument could have been made for a small fleet of 748is to operate AKL-LAX-LHR.

For me, the epiphanal moment came when I took my daughters to JFK on QF in Y. We flew AKL-SYD-LAX-JFK in one go, on a 744 (apart from AKL-SYD). We arrived feeling rested. The service and attitude was exemplary. I've repeated this long haul experience on QF in all classes (except Y+) many times since.
 
User avatar
SelandiaBaru
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 2:39 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Wed Sep 14, 2016 7:07 am

zkeoj wrote:

Having said that, I have to go to YOG end of the month for work, and since the ticket is paid for by the host in Indonesia I have to go on GA. They booked me AKL-SYD-DPS-YOG and back YOG-CGK-MEL-AKL, with AKL-SYD/MEL-AKL on QF. I will see how that is going to be, but I am looking forward to my first flights on GA, and also can handle the OZ transfers easier because of the relatively short "longhaul" sectors of about 6 hours.

Cheers
micha


GA flights are also offered on the Air NZ site when booking to Indonesia. I have done the trans-tasman leg on NZ connecting to GA before.

When I lived in Indonesia I was a frequent flyer with them, mainly domestically but also did a fair few international sectors over the years. Their service is perfectly acceptable. Not SQ level but I would suggest better than TG.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7591
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Wed Sep 14, 2016 7:15 am

Gasman wrote:
77west wrote:
And how could NZ justify A380's when even QF won't be taking the rest of their order? Be realistic here.


That was never the point. Sure the A380 and 744 are very pleasant aircraft to fly on, but no-one forced NZ to go 10 abreast in Y on their 777s. And no-one forced them to adopt the cramped, privacy lacking storage-free herringbone config in J. The jokesy safety videos are well past their use by date. I could go on and on.

That said, an argument could have been made for a small fleet of 748is to operate AKL-LAX-LHR.

For me, the epiphanal moment came when I took my daughters to JFK on QF in Y. We flew AKL-SYD-LAX-JFK in one go, on a 744 (apart from AKL-SYD). We arrived feeling rested. The service and attitude was exemplary. I've repeated this long haul experience on QF in all classes (except Y+) many times since.



Hmm and 10 abreast 777's are an NZ problem only?

I love the 747 as well, but we have seen how well the 748i has sold though LH seem to like them and CA, KE have them as well. They are much larger than NZ and can justify extra types where as NZ are trying to reduce types and a small fleet of 748's wouldn't be that flexible with the current fleet. NZ are being competitive by adding more destinations with 777, 787 aircraft where they couldn't do that with the 747.
 
PA515
Posts: 1614
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Wed Sep 14, 2016 9:26 am

ZK-NEB returned from TSV today. Photo at BNE.

http://flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/29042384983/

PA515
 
User avatar
CanadaFair
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 5:22 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Wed Sep 14, 2016 6:47 pm

Would the space seat work for airlines wanting a two class cabin of Y+ and Y?
 
PA515
Posts: 1614
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Wed Sep 14, 2016 11:08 pm

Noticed recently the schedule of the We Fr Su NZ178 PER-AKL has been changed between 30 Oct 16 and 24 Mar 17.
Instead of PER-AKL 0615/1730 (6hrs 15m), it's now 0700/1810 (6hrs 10m).
And some other 789 sector times into AKL have also been reduced by 5 min.

PA515
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7591
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Thu Sep 15, 2016 12:44 am

PA515 wrote:
Noticed recently the schedule of the We Fr Su NZ178 PER-AKL has been changed between 30 Oct 16 and 24 Mar 17.
Instead of PER-AKL 0615/1730 (6hrs 15m), it's now 0700/1810 (6hrs 10m).
And some other 789 sector times into AKL have also been reduced by 5 min.

PA515

0615 is pretty early ex PER it will be interesting to see how they do with connections to LAX,SFO, IAH, EZE, YVR, HNL getting a good network now. And if they offer a split PER schedule in NS 17 to offer connections both ways some days, atm they have gone back to the 1425 ex AKL but that changes again to 1050 from OCT 30th.

I do wonder weather QF will make their seasonal service year round at some point? Surely they can't lose to much?
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Thu Sep 15, 2016 2:22 am

[quote="ZK-NBT 0615 is pretty early ex PER it will be interesting to see how they do with connections to LAX,SFO, IAH, EZE, YVR, HNL getting a good network now. And if they offer a split PER schedule in NS 17 to offer connections both ways some days, atm they have gone back to the 1425 ex AKL but that changes again to 1050 from OCT 30th.]
You are right , the Aus. feed network is filling in nicely. Any clues on the number of Aus. passengers using the AKL transfer hub?
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1231
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:10 am

SelandiaBaru wrote:
zkeoj wrote:

Having said that, I have to go to YOG end of the month for work, and since the ticket is paid for by the host in Indonesia I have to go on GA. They booked me AKL-SYD-DPS-YOG and back YOG-CGK-MEL-AKL, with AKL-SYD/MEL-AKL on QF. I will see how that is going to be, but I am looking forward to my first flights on GA, and also can handle the OZ transfers easier because of the relatively short "longhaul" sectors of about 6 hours.

Cheers
micha


GA flights are also offered on the Air NZ site when booking to Indonesia. I have done the trans-tasman leg on NZ connecting to GA before.

When I lived in Indonesia I was a frequent flyer with them, mainly domestically but also did a fair few international sectors over the years. Their service is perfectly acceptable. Not SQ level but I would suggest better than TG.


Yeah, I gave those as my preference, but by the time they booked they said it was booked out. Surely, the flight is not booked out, but the fare is gone. So they moved to the QF/GA combo...
 
PA515
Posts: 1614
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:19 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
atm they have gone back to the 1425 ex AKL but that changes again to 1050 from OCT 30th.

NZ175 AKL-PER has already changed to 1055/1420 and remains a morning flight until 29 May 2017. That's nine months of the year now, so another schedule update could make it year round.

PA515
 
Gasman
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Thu Sep 15, 2016 5:12 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
Hmm and 10 abreast 777's are an NZ problem only?


No, and no one said they were.

But the point is - could NZ have continued to provide the high end "legacy" product they did through the 80's, 90's and early 2000's and still been viable? QF don't have 10 abreast 777s (or indeed those ghastly aircraft at all) - yet they're managing to turn out a pretty decent profit, and they've stolen my loyalty from NZ which is worth about $40,000 NZD pa.
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 973
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Thu Sep 15, 2016 6:45 am

Gasman wrote:
77west wrote:
And how could NZ justify A380's when even QF won't be taking the rest of their order? Be realistic here.


That was never the point. Sure the A380 and 744 are very pleasant aircraft to fly on, but no-one forced NZ to go 10 abreast in Y on their 777s. And no-one forced them to adopt the cramped, privacy lacking storage-free herringbone config in J. The jokesy safety videos are well past their use by date. I could go on and on.

That said, an argument could have been made for a small fleet of 748is to operate AKL-LAX-LHR.

For me, the epiphanal moment came when I took my daughters to JFK on QF in Y. We flew AKL-SYD-LAX-JFK in one go, on a 744 (apart from AKL-SYD). We arrived feeling rested. The service and attitude was exemplary. I've repeated this long haul experience on QF in all classes (except Y+) many times since.


I guarantee you if QF had 777s they would be 10-abreast, and mark my words, as soon as someone certifies and deploys 3-5-3 on the A380, QF will deploy it as well. Most likely EK.

I do agree about the safety videos but that's like 2min on a long flight...

I think the 779 is much more likely than the 748i and the timing may be right as well.
77West - AW109S - BE90 - JS31 - B1900 - Q300 - ATR72 - DC9-30 - MD80 - B733 - A320 - B738 - A300-B4 - B773 - B77W
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Thu Sep 15, 2016 7:19 am

77west wrote:
I do agree about the safety videos but that's like 2min on a long flight...


I enjoy the safety videos.

They have to be there, they're deathly boring on most other airlines and the Air NZ ones keep my attention. What's not to like?

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
User avatar
LamboAston
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:46 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Thu Sep 15, 2016 7:36 am

Not quite aviation, but did anyone else see the International Space Station tonight?
AS350, B733/4/7/8, B744/8, B762/3, B77E/L/W, B789, A319, A320, A321, A332, A346, A380, AT73/5/6, Q300, Q400, CR2/7, E190, S340, B1900C/D, E110 (E for epic)
NZ, EK, QF, SQ, UA, US, CO, FZ, FR, U2, BA, VA, VS, MH, EI, EY, LH, EN, NM, TG, GZ
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 973
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Thu Sep 15, 2016 7:55 am

mariner wrote:
77west wrote:
I do agree about the safety videos but that's like 2min on a long flight...


I enjoy the safety videos.

They have to be there, they're deathly boring on most other airlines and the Air NZ ones keep my attention. What's not to like?

mariner


They used to be OK. (Think LOTR etc) But on a recent domestic trip, having to listen to that stupid men in black one 8 times in 2 days did my head in. It is the definition of cringeworthy.
77West - AW109S - BE90 - JS31 - B1900 - Q300 - ATR72 - DC9-30 - MD80 - B733 - A320 - B738 - A300-B4 - B773 - B77W
 
User avatar
LamboAston
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:46 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Thu Sep 15, 2016 7:59 am

77west wrote:
mariner wrote:
77west wrote:
I do agree about the safety videos but that's like 2min on a long flight...


I enjoy the safety videos.

They have to be there, they're deathly boring on most other airlines and the Air NZ ones keep my attention. What's not to like?

mariner


They used to be OK. (Think LOTR etc) But on a recent domestic trip, having to listen to that stupid men in black one 8 times in 2 days did my head in. It is the definition of cringeworthy.

Personally, I think that the Bear Grylls one, or the body paint ones were the best.
AS350, B733/4/7/8, B744/8, B762/3, B77E/L/W, B789, A319, A320, A321, A332, A346, A380, AT73/5/6, Q300, Q400, CR2/7, E190, S340, B1900C/D, E110 (E for epic)
NZ, EK, QF, SQ, UA, US, CO, FZ, FR, U2, BA, VA, VS, MH, EI, EY, LH, EN, NM, TG, GZ
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 973
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Thu Sep 15, 2016 8:12 am

LamboAston wrote:
77west wrote:
mariner wrote:

I enjoy the safety videos.

They have to be there, they're deathly boring on most other airlines and the Air NZ ones keep my attention. What's not to like?

mariner


They used to be OK. (Think LOTR etc) But on a recent domestic trip, having to listen to that stupid men in black one 8 times in 2 days did my head in. It is the definition of cringeworthy.

Personally, I think that the Bear Grylls one, or the body paint ones were the best.


Yeah those were ok as well. But that stupid puppet from a few years back, and this MIB one, are shite.
77West - AW109S - BE90 - JS31 - B1900 - Q300 - ATR72 - DC9-30 - MD80 - B733 - A320 - B738 - A300-B4 - B773 - B77W
 
Gasman
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Thu Sep 15, 2016 9:52 am

77west wrote:
But that stupid puppet from a few years back, and this MIB one, are shite.


"Ricco" was the name of said stupid puppet. It was that episode that really made me stop and realise that the airline I had been passionate about since I was a kid had lost me.

This used to really bother me, because I had emotionally bought in to Air NZ from an early age, and I hated to see them head off in a direction that I (still) believe would be detrimental to their long term viability. Thankfully, however, I no longer care. As long as air services are maintained by someone, I couldn't give a rat's if NZ disappeared tomorrow.
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 973
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Thu Sep 15, 2016 10:10 am

Gasman wrote:
77west wrote:
But that stupid puppet from a few years back, and this MIB one, are shite.


"Ricco" was the name of said stupid puppet. It was that episode that really made me stop and realise that the airline I had been passionate about since I was a kid had lost me.

This used to really bother me, because I had emotionally bought in to Air NZ from an early age, and I hated to see them head off in a direction that I (still) believe would be detrimental to their long term viability. Thankfully, however, I no longer care. As long as air services are maintained by someone, I couldn't give a rat's if NZ disappeared tomorrow.


For me its a professionalism one. I still make an extra effort to get dressed up nice for a flight. I respect aircrew and airline operations as a step above what we get on the ground; I entrust my life and well-being to these people in a tube going almost the speed of sound 10km up. And I respect what they have done to get there. I am the sort of person who will greet the Captain as "Good afternoon, Captain" or at least, Sir. I have great respect for the professionalism shown; and training; that the cabin crew go through. But to see all that trashed by some stupid puppet saying "I like herrr bussshhh" or ghastly MIB video... very sad. And that uniform... Heifers in tight sacks alright.

BUT

I still think NZ has a great product and generally great service (I will leave out the altercation I had at CHC regional a year or so back, silly tart went postal on me for picking up a boarding pass someone had dropped and handing it to them, called me a security risk). I think they are certainly in the same class as QF, even if they may need to reign in the casualarity (Is that a word) and focus on a slightly less matey image. Still not enough to make me add 5 hours on a trip to the US unfortunately.



Now, if they did a Justin Beiber safety video, I'm pulling the emergency door and heading right for the QF lounge. (Jokes) ((Well, not entirely jokes))
77West - AW109S - BE90 - JS31 - B1900 - Q300 - ATR72 - DC9-30 - MD80 - B733 - A320 - B738 - A300-B4 - B773 - B77W
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Thu Sep 15, 2016 10:33 am

I have to say I have felt the last few times I have flown NZ. they have been much better than they were 2-3 years ago. Friendly but none of that casual no tie/ first name bollocks they went through under Fyfe.
Let me just say that QF are also great, we are spoiled fot choice from AKL. between NZ/QF you have two of the top 5 best airlines IMO., I like SQ still, but I happily use all 3. Better NZ to USA than AA?UA which are distinctly average. I would fly AR/ET/CZ over those two.
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4442
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Thu Sep 15, 2016 11:39 am

Can anyone here (please) tell me the DOW of Air New Zealand's 77Ws?

Gasman wrote:
77west wrote:
And how could NZ justify A380's when even QF won't be taking the rest of their order? Be realistic here.


That was never the point. Sure the A380 and 744 are very pleasant aircraft to fly on, but no-one forced NZ to go 10 abreast in Y on their 777s.

This. The 77Es were marvelously comfortable in Y when they were nine abreast. A really nice aircraft to travel in. Now I think about it, the fabric was green also, wasn't it? Noone force Air New Zealand to switch to a 10 across in Y configuration. CX, BA, SQ and VA all chose to remain at 9 abreast in their 77Ws.

Gasman wrote:
But the point is - could NZ have continued to provide the high end "legacy" product they did through the 80's, 90's and early 2000's and still been viable? QF don't have 10 abreast 777s (or indeed those ghastly aircraft at all) - yet they're managing to turn out a pretty decent profit, and they've stolen my loyalty from NZ which is worth about $40,000 NZD pa.

Where's the checkmark symbol thing gone?

77west wrote:
I guarantee you if QF had 777s they would be 10-abreast

and yet they don't and instead have nice, comfortable A380s. :)

77west wrote:
as soon as someone certifies and deploys 3-5-3 on the A380, QF will deploy it as well. Most likely EK.

3-5-3 is already certified, no? EK already declined.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... op-399926/

77west wrote:
They used to be OK. (Think LOTR etc) But on a recent domestic trip, having to listen to that stupid men in black one 8 times in 2 days did my head in. It is the definition of cringeworthy.

Agree. It would be nice if they rotated between them*. Whilst its cringy watching the same one multiple times, having different ones wouldn't be so bad. I forgot about the LOTR one, but that one in particular was fantastic. Speaking of safety videos, Qantas's current one is fantastic; incredibly classy yet still memorable enough and makes all the relevant points. Once again, Air New Zealand could learn something from the big Q.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhbXFHrDmTg

*so long as the 'fit to fly' one never again sees the light of day

77west wrote:
Now, if they did a Justin Beiber safety video

The sad thing is that they probably would do that if he would agree to participate. They're trying to get James Corden to do one at the moment. You can imagine how tacky it would be... :(
First to fly the 787-9
 
wawaman
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 2:05 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Thu Sep 15, 2016 12:51 pm

I know BA used to have an arrangement where NZ DC-10's were swapped in the US somewhere, but did BA ever serve AKL with there own metal, and if so what was the route to/from London?
 
Gemuser
Posts: 5095
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Thu Sep 15, 2016 1:17 pm

wawaman wrote:
I know BA used to have an arrangement where NZ DC-10's were swapped in the US somewhere, but did BA ever serve AKL with there own metal, and if so what was the route to/from London?

BA served AKL in the pre B747 era. Sorry can't give you exact dates. Main aircraft types were B707 and I think Comet 4 before that. They MAY have used Britannia's before the current AKL airport opened in the mid 1960s, but am not sure. Route was from LHR via Europe, the Middle East, India, South East Asia & Australia to Sydney then on to AKL For some period the route was extended to NAN, where in the late 1960s it connected to the SVC10 route MEL-SYD-NAN-HNL-JFK-LHR.
The exact route across Europe & Asia varied all over the place depending on era, day of week and current political events. There were 5 to 7 stops between LHR & SYD, so 6 to 8 to AKL.

Hope this general overview is useful but BA's RTW services across both the South & North Pacific were complex and varied over the 25-30 years they were operated.

Gemuser
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Thu Sep 15, 2016 2:58 pm

[quote="zkojq"]Can anyone here (please) tell me the DOW of Air New Zealand's 77Ws? ]

From EK weights for the 77W ULH it is likely that the spread between the oldest OEW (171072kg)and the newest ( 169772kg) is ~ 1500kg. Since NZ has no F class seats and EK has no Y+ seats I estimate that NZ has a seat weight advantage of almost 1800kg. EK use 5660kg as the pantry + crew and bags weight. I believe ~ 4000kg is typical for the 77E so I use 4500kg for the 77W. The upshot of all this is based on my guess/estimates I put the DOW of NZ's 77W's in the 171500 to 173800kg range.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:18 pm

[[quote="Gasman0 But the point is - could NZ have continued to provide the high end "legacy" product they did through the 80's, 90's and early 2000's and still been viable? QF don't have 10 abreast 777s (or indeed those ghastly aircraft at all) - yet they're managing to turn out a pretty decent profit]]

Also of interest and some puzzlement is that QF can do all these things within a CASK some 20% less than that of NZ. On the oft quoted comfort advantages of the A380 if these were being operated at the same payload/ DOW ratio as the 77W there would be an additional 100 occupied seats . I am sure this would come at a reduction in comfort levels. SQ's failure to renew the leases on some of their A380's suggests these may not be the money makers they have said to have been.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Thu Sep 15, 2016 4:29 pm

[quote="sunrisevalley. On the oft quoted comfort advantages of the A380 if these were being operated at the same payload/ DOW ratio as the 77W there would be an additional 100 occupied seats .
Taking this a bit further, if the 77W was operated at the same ratio as the A380 it would have about 290 seats . Both SQ and CX have these sort of layouts . This allows in Y 9 seats wide; 32" pitch and 19" seat width . Sounds close to what Gasman and others believe it should be. So happens IF NZ's 77W had ~290 seat's, at their typical load factor they would fly full most days.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Thu Sep 15, 2016 7:58 pm

77west wrote:
They used to be OK. (Think LOTR etc) But on a recent domestic trip, having to listen to that stupid men in black one 8 times in 2 days did my head in. It is the definition of cringeworthy.


I loved the MIB safety video and if they were lucky enough to get James Corden for one, it could be fantastic. I saw him give a great comedy performance on Broadway three years ago, he won a Tony award for for it.

http://www.playbill.com/video/james-cor ... com-224001

"James Corden: 2012 Tony Winner for Best Actor in a Play"

aerorobnz wrote:
I have to say I have felt the last few times I have flown NZ. they have been much better than they were 2-3 years ago. Friendly but none of that casual no tie/ first name bollocks they went through under Fyfe.


No one ever called me by my first name on the airline, and if they did, they'd hear about it. But it is a wretched fashion in NZ - I had a running battle with Spark for about a year because they insisted on calling me "Dave" if I rang them. They don't do that anymore.

77west wrote:
Let me just say that QF are also great, we are spoiled fot choice from AKL. between NZ/QF you have two of the top 5 best airlines IMO., I like SQ still, but I happily use all 3. Better NZ to USA than AA?UA which are distinctly average. I would fly AR/ET/CZ over those two.


Image

I agree. Emirates remains my airline of choice simply because of the A380, and certainly not because of the (onboard) food. It's my one quibble with Air NZ - I'm not fond of Peter Gordon's menus, but he's a millionaire and I'm not - LOL. Hopefully, Michael Meredith will make a few changes.

I agree about Qantas, too, but it does amuse me to read all this positive commentary. Only 5 years ago, Qantas was a pariah on a.net because of the grounding. Times change. Image

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1231
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Thu Sep 15, 2016 8:46 pm

aerorobnz wrote:
, we are spoiled fot choice from AKL. .


I think this is important to remember. What other airport in a country with a population of 4.5 million has so many services? With the massive recent influx of new air services (and all the capacity problems associated with it), we truly are spoiled: NZ, QF, EK, LA, AA, UA, SQ, TG, KE, SZ, MU, CA, CI, PR, D7 and a host of samller short/medium range airlines (and I am sure I have forgotten some) we sure have choice over choice for flights to pretty much every corner of the globe. We are incredibly lucky!

Cheers
micha
 
Gasman
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Thu Sep 15, 2016 9:00 pm

mariner wrote:
Times change. Image mariner


They do. Which is why I persevered with loyalty to NZ for as long as I did - from 2008-2014 I just thought it was a bit of a lull. But no. They have repeatedly demonstrated they're hell bent on a race to the bottom (although as some have pointed out, there are some indicators that this may be levelling off).

On the other hand, when I starting raving to colleagues about how great QF is; I got incredulous looks. Few had flown long haul with them in recent years however, so I suspect I've caught QF on the crest of a wave.

With NZ, we were repeatedly told the changes were *necessary*. Jokesy safety videos and Ricco? Vital to the survival of the airline; it achieves something called "cut-through", and if you haven't got a marketing degree you'll be too dim to understand. And the travelling public love them - an internet based survey site says so. 10 abreast on a 777? Necessary for viability. No airline that has 9 will survive. Nothing to do with squeezing every last dime out of the travelling passenger. And those amazing skycouches make up for everything anyway. $9000 for a J class trip to the USA? A bargain. And if you don't like it, like you're actually going to travel to the USA on QF via Australia!

Actually, I think I will..............
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1684
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Thu Sep 15, 2016 10:13 pm

Gemuser wrote:
wawaman wrote:
I know BA used to have an arrangement where NZ DC-10's were swapped in the US somewhere, but did BA ever serve AKL with there own metal, and if so what was the route to/from London?

BA served AKL in the pre B747 era. Sorry can't give you exact dates. Main aircraft types were B707 and I think Comet 4 before that. They MAY have used Britannia's before the current AKL airport opened in the mid 1960s, but am not sure. Route was from LHR via Europe, the Middle East, India, South East Asia & Australia to Sydney then on to AKL For some period the route was extended to NAN, where in the late 1960s it connected to the SVC10 route MEL-SYD-NAN-HNL-JFK-LHR.
The exact route across Europe & Asia varied all over the place depending on era, day of week and current political events. There were 5 to 7 stops between LHR & SYD, so 6 to 8 to AKL.

Hope this general overview is useful but BA's RTW services across both the South & North Pacific were complex and varied over the 25-30 years they were operated.

Gemuser

The DC10s were swapped over with BA at LAX.

As for the Comets, IIRC they started in 1963, out of Whenuapai, but BA never used Britannias on the route. However, Canadian Pacific (now folded into Air Canada) did use Britannias on a routing which went AKL-NAN-Canton Island-HNL-YVR. BA switched to 707s on the London and Nadi routes as soon as Mangere opened.

Other early operators after Mangere opened were QF, obviously, with 707s, PA to the US also with 707s (replacing DC7s and before that, Stratocruisers on the route), and that was pretty much it IIRC. There had been a complication with the French government which saw TEAL terminate services to Tahiti in 1960, but I'm not sure when the jet services by TAI or UTA to Mangere commenced. NZ started serving PPT again in 1966 when it added a third frequency to the USA. I think also that when Mangere opened Canadian Pacific moved to DC8s on the route but ceased after a while for some reason relating to rights or frequencies, can't remember precisely.

And that was pretty much it for international operators, unless I've forgotten something. Services by SQ, CX and JL came along in a few years, and AA was also one of the earlier users of the airfield, in the late '60s(?). TEAL's international operations to Asia began in 1966 and initially consisted of 2x weekly AKL-SYD-HKG returning HKG-BNE-SYD-AKL, and then 1x weekly AKL-SYD-SIN (though this terminated after the loss of the DC8 at Mangere which reduced the fleet from three to two). Electra operations continued on the Tasman to Essendon, prior to the construction of MEL - can't recall when BNE services went jet. And of course there was the oddball DC4 service on AKL-NLK which survived many years after AKL opened.

But back to the Comets: BOAC's route extension to NAN also appeared to be done in co-operation with TEAL, as BA had the same timetable on AKL-NAN-AKL as TEAL, and TEAL did not operate on the days that BA operated the route (Mo/Fr IIRC). From memory, the outbound flight was AKL2130-0020NAN, connecting originally not to BOAC flights between SYD and LAX, but to QF flights from SYD to SFO (BOAC came later on SYD to LAX). The return flight was NAN0505-0755AKL (again connecting from SFO), except on the one day a week when the outward flight extended to PPG, in which case the return was a few hours later. QF was also a partner of sorts on the AKL-NAN route, and many of the flights were styled "TE/QFxxx", even though it was TEAL metal. I don't know the details of the arrangement with either BA or QF, however.

One little-known by-product of the operation of the BOAC Comets to Auckland was that they actually operated on NZ services from AKL-NOU for a while during some "down-time" in AKL. Technically NZ's first jet services!

I well remember as a 12-year old coming to AKL with my Dad and spending hours at Mangere just watching the magnificent DC8s and 707s that had brought New Zealand into the jet age. And you did have to wait for hours just to see a few departures in those days. NZ's DC8 services to SYD initially were 2x daily: AKL0900-1005SYD, SYD1115-1600AKL, AKL1700-1805SYD, SYD1900-2345AKL. Note the sector times were very much faster than today's! This was also in the days when TEAL operated 2x weekly to LAX with their DC8s, departing at 1015 via NAN and HNL and arriving in LAX in the early morning. With spectacularly low loads initially - staff were reported in the press at the time as being forbidden to speak about loadings, but reports were rife that as few as 8 pax were on board some flights. How times have changed . . .
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

anats -n yay! I;m an Aussiem I can understand that.

Thu Sep 15, 2016 10:13 pm

Gasman wrote:
mariner wrote:
Times change. Image mariner


They do. Which is why I persevered with loyalty to NZ for as long as I did - from 2008-2014 I just thought it was a bit of a lull. But no. They have repeatedly demonstrated they're hell bent on a race to the bottom (although as some have pointed out, there are some indicators that this may be levelling off).

On the other hand, when I starting raving to colleagues about how great QF is; I got incredulous looks. Few had flown long haul with them in recent years, so I suspect I've caught QF on the crest of a wave.


I'm not sure why it should be the crest of a wave - Qantas has always been a darn good airline and perhaps only those with Kiwi blinkers on were unable to see it.

I can understand your antipathy to Ricco - an extraordinary blunder - but that was a while ago and I doubt we'll see a repeat of it. Similarly, I can also understand people's antipathy to the Qantas grounding, which left passengers stranded all over the world. But that was a while ago, too, and I doubt we'll see a repeat of it, at least with this CEO, who successfully broke the profound union disruption.

And I'm not sure about the race to the bottom levelling off - even Emirates is planning to introduce some ancillary charges. Virgin Australia tried to take on Qantas, and however much the passengers loved it, it was an economic disaster. The only reason there is some hope for Virgin's financial futures (a) because it waved the white flag with Qantas in the battle for market share and (b) because of increased use of the subsidiary Tiger - the LCC.

Air NZ has to straddle those two worlds, but for you, there are choices - just enjoy them.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Thu Sep 15, 2016 10:16 pm

Gemuser wrote:
wawaman wrote:
I know BA used to have an arrangement where NZ DC-10's were swapped in the US somewhere, but did BA ever serve AKL with there own metal, and if so what was the route to/from London?

BA served AKL in the pre B747 era. Sorry can't give you exact dates. Main aircraft types were B707 and I think Comet 4 before that. They MAY have used Britannia's before the current AKL airport opened in the mid 1960s, but am not sure. Route was from LHR via Europe, the Middle East, India, South East Asia & Australia to Sydney then on to AKL For some period the route was extended to NAN, where in the late 1960s it connected to the SVC10 route MEL-SYD-NAN-HNL-JFK-LHR.
The exact route across Europe & Asia varied all over the place depending on era, day of week and current political events. There were 5 to 7 stops between LHR & SYD, so 6 to 8 to AKL.

Hope this general overview is useful but BA's RTW services across both the South & North Pacific were complex and varied over the 25-30 years they were operated.

Gemuser

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that BA served AKL up until around 1998 which would have been with 747s.
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7591
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Thu Sep 15, 2016 10:35 pm

Zkpilot wrote:
Gemuser wrote:
wawaman wrote:
I know BA used to have an arrangement where NZ DC-10's were swapped in the US somewhere, but did BA ever serve AKL with there own metal, and if so what was the route to/from London?

BA served AKL in the pre B747 era. Sorry can't give you exact dates. Main aircraft types were B707 and I think Comet 4 before that. They MAY have used Britannia's before the current AKL airport opened in the mid 1960s, but am not sure. Route was from LHR via Europe, the Middle East, India, South East Asia & Australia to Sydney then on to AKL For some period the route was extended to NAN, where in the late 1960s it connected to the SVC10 route MEL-SYD-NAN-HNL-JFK-LHR.
The exact route across Europe & Asia varied all over the place depending on era, day of week and current political events. There were 5 to 7 stops between LHR & SYD, so 6 to 8 to AKL.

Hope this general overview is useful but BA's RTW services across both the South & North Pacific were complex and varied over the 25-30 years they were operated.

Gemuser

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that BA served AKL up until around 1998 which would have been with 747s.


Ba flew to AKL until March 1995, something like LHR-BOM-SIN-PER-AKL was one of the last routings with 744's 2-3 weekly.
 
Jetstar315
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 5:54 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Thu Sep 15, 2016 11:25 pm

Don't forget that for a relatively short time after Mangere opened in 1966, BA also operated the VC10 on the AKL-NAN-HNL-mainland USA route.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Thu Sep 15, 2016 11:53 pm

Jetstar315 wrote:
Don't forget that for a relatively short time after Mangere opened in 1966, BA also operated the VC10 on the AKL-NAN-HNL-mainland USA route.

Except it was as BOAC. I flew this route in 1974 - LHR-JFK-LAX-HNL-NAN in one hit. I still almost get nightmares.

And yes, BA operated 747s into AKL through the late 70s and up until the late 1980's I think.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:02 am

Gemuser wrote:
BA served AKL in the pre B747 era. Sorry can't give you exact dates.


I flew it in 1968. My father was a BOAC engineer who had retired because of ill-health and could no longer fly, so BOAC gave me a freebie to go and see him.

We flew AKL-NAN where we had dinner at the Nandi Hotel before getting on the 707 which had come in from SYD. To HNL and then SFO where we were put into a very good airport motel for seven or eight hours (and given dinner again), in order to avoid getting to JFK too early. At JFK the flight was overbooked and BOAC switched me to first class on the VC-10 - wonderful!

Coming back wasn't nearly so interesting. Image

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 13160
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Fri Sep 16, 2016 7:06 pm

Gasman wrote:

This used to really bother me, because I had emotionally bought in to Air NZ from an early age, and I hated to see them head off in a direction that I (still) believe would be detrimental to their long term viability. Thankfully, however, I no longer care. As long as air services are maintained by someone, I couldn't give a rat's if NZ disappeared tomorrow.


Then why post in this topic if you don't give a rats? The thing is they have gone from strength to strength and continue to make record profits. They aren't going anywhere.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 13160
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Fri Sep 16, 2016 7:09 pm

77west wrote:
Still not enough to make me add 5 hours on a trip to the US unfortunately.


That and having to listen to Australian English for hours on end.
 
ZKSUJ
Posts: 6884
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 5:15 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 181

Fri Sep 16, 2016 10:06 pm

wawaman wrote:
I know BA used to have an arrangement where NZ DC-10's were swapped in the US somewhere, but did BA ever serve AKL with there own metal, and if so what was the route to/from London?



I remember seeing the BA 744s here in the mid to late 90's. 4 times a week IIRC via SIN and either PER or BNE. It was great

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos