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

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Wed Nov 16, 2016 12:19 am

Bostrom wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
I am actually starting to think that NZ might skip the 779 and just have a 787 fleet (789+7810). My previous thinking was that they would want the big bird for LHR however I think perhaps they could operate a 2nd UK/EU service from either LAX or SFO (maybe ORD) so they wouldn't be losing any capacity (and actually grow). This could have some decent cost savings by just having one aircraft type.
LAX capacity would itself decrease however with an increase of flights to other destinations that would make more space on those flights for O&D traffic.


Why not a resumed AKL-HKG-LHR route instead? 450 km shorter than via LAX and avoids the trouble with a US stop.


If they went double daily 789 to HKG, and one continued to LHR, that could work (if there was demand, now with HX serving the route as well as the CX A359 and summer 77W)
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
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7064
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Wed Nov 16, 2016 12:45 am

HKG-LHR was dropped as it was unprofitable and while some routes do get revived I don't think this one will, if another LHR flight was added which NZ have said they won't do one stops anyway I think they would go via SFO or somewhere in the US, remember yield aren't great NZ-UK especially for a carrier like NZ who prefer to sell AKL-LAX-LHR as 2 seperate sectors.

As for PER-CHC-LAX while there is a chance they could do CHC-LAX again I think they would do it for O&D rather than connections but with 1 789 they could do something like

CHC 2359 LAX 1400
LAX 2000 CHC 0500

CHC 0700 PER 0930
PER 1100 CHC 2200

I also agree with the suggestion that UA could maybe operate the LAX flight with a 788 3 weekly. Not sure how that would impact their aircraft rotations, maybe they would try from SFO instead. UA doing LAX-AKL if NZ cut capacity further could work as well, more frequency.

I can't personally see AA in CHC, certainly not until AKL has LAX/DFW on 789's at-least.

Re the AKL hub, I guess it depends if they want their pax to have the long haul product all the way through to OZ when thinking of a second hub at 1700. The wide bodies connect to the 1900 bank.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1489
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Wed Nov 16, 2016 1:02 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
As for PER-CHC-LAX while there is a chance they could do CHC-LAX again I think they would do it for O&D rather than connections but with 1 789 they could do something like

CHC 2359 LAX 1400
LAX 2000 CHC 0500

CHC 0700 PER 0930
PER 1100 CHC 2200

The connection traffic at CHC is a bonus for sectors that they might be able to justify anyway. If CHC-LAX is marginal, then filling it up with PER-originating traffic is surely a real plus. And yes, the schedule you outline is pretty much what I had in mind. An 1100 departure from PER is also much more pax-friendly than the 0600 or 0700 departure that NZ currently offers via AKL.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
Gasman
Posts: 2102
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Wed Nov 16, 2016 1:31 am

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=11749129

Apparently this passenger lost it while the safety video was being played. I can certainly sympathise - the safety videos have triggered life-ending emotions in myself at times.

On another note, I flew J on the 789 over the weekend - the last time was two years ago. A long-haul J class product this is *not*. Not long enough, not wide enough, not private enough and totally lacking in storage space. How does it compare with other 787 J products - eg American Airlines?
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4360
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Wed Nov 16, 2016 1:39 am

DavidByrne wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
I do wonder about the PER flight - that really should connect in time for the first bank so that it can connect with all ports since PER is the one city (ok potentially ADL/HBA/CBR/MCY/NTL) that NZ really does have an advantage with the one stop to a variety of destinations.

In an ideal world, you're of course correct, but PER requires an 0600/0700 departure just to connect with the current evening bank. To meet a 1700-ish bank the departure time would need to be 0400/0500. Just don't think that's going to attract meaningful custom.

Another option for PER, at least in summer, might be to combine a seasonal PER-CHC service with a seasonal CHC-LAX service. Same plane, no "transfer" as such required.

You mention NTL as well - I see no reason why in the medium term this shouldn't be a serious consideration, given that SJ did it 3x weekly for a period when traffic was significantly lower than it is today. Suggestions that it might "cannibalise" SYD traffic are not credible if the market is growing the way that it is. If NZ is serious about getting the most from its Australian feed then it needs to be working hard on those ports where it has, as you say, a natural advantage.

For PER they could move it to a 0200 departure. It would make for a much earlier arrival into AKL around 1300 but that would allow for good connections to domestic flights rather than having to overnight and would mean a leisurely transit in AKL - not ideal I know but if they are serious about hubbing then they might need to consider it.
64 types. 43 countries. 24 airlines.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Wed Nov 16, 2016 1:51 am

Gasman wrote:
On another note, I flew J on the 789 over the weekend - the last time was two years ago. A long-haul J class product this is *not*. Not long enough, not wide enough, not private enough and totally lacking in storage space.


Based on my flight to SGN I might have agreed with you - apart from the wonderful crew - but that was on the aging 767.

Coming back (unexpectedly, I was supposed to fly back through EZE but ended up flying via PVG) I was on the Air NZ 787 and I thought business class was excellent in all regards, and, again, the splendid Shanghai high based cabin crew.

For comparisons, I had flown the Vietnam A350 HAN-CDG which was a sweet ride, but the cabin crew was a tad bland and CDG-PVG on the Air France 777 - again a terrific cabin crew, but the aircraft felt a bit cramped.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
NZ6
Posts: 1260
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Wed Nov 16, 2016 5:45 am

Bostrom wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
I am actually starting to think that NZ might skip the 779 and just have a 787 fleet (789+7810). My previous thinking was that they would want the big bird for LHR however I think perhaps they could operate a 2nd UK/EU service from either LAX or SFO (maybe ORD) so they wouldn't be losing any capacity (and actually grow). This could have some decent cost savings by just having one aircraft type.
LAX capacity would itself decrease however with an increase of flights to other destinations that would make more space on those flights for O&D traffic.


Why not a resumed AKL-HKG-LHR route instead? 450 km shorter than via LAX and avoids the trouble with a US stop.



I actually enjoy the new route discussion but sadly pacific rim strategy is here to stay. So is taking long haul traffic over AKL from within NZ.

Expect to only see existing route growth and exploring new routes in the USA, China and Japan from AKL.

DRW will not happen in the next 20 years in my own opinion. It's never even made a the consideration list from I'm aware of.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2102
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Wed Nov 16, 2016 5:45 am

mariner wrote:
Gasman wrote:
On another note, I flew J on the 789 over the weekend - the last time was two years ago. A long-haul J class product this is *not*. Not long enough, not wide enough, not private enough and totally lacking in storage space.


Based on my flight to SGN I might have agreed with you - apart from the wonderful crew - but that was on the aging 767.

Coming back (unexpectedly, I was supposed to fly back through EZE but ended up flying via PVG) I was on the Air NZ 787 and I thought business class was excellent in all regards, and, again, the splendid Shanghai high based cabin crew.

For comparisons, I had flown the Vietnam A350 HAN-CDG which was a sweet ride, but the cabin crew was a tad bland and CDG-PVG on the Air France 777 - again a terrific cabin crew, but the aircraft felt a bit cramped.

mariner

Interesting. Are you a big guy? I'm 6'3", 78kg............ and the J product in the 789 just doesn't work for me. It's noticeably smaller than what the 744 product was (and I suspect even the 77W product). Can't design seating to cater for all shapes & sizes; but I must say I find the products on EK, QF, SQ, KL to be totally fine.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:03 am

Gasman wrote:
Interesting. Are you a big guy? I'm 6'3", 78kg............ and the J product in the 789 just doesn't work for me.


I'm not big at all, but the bloke sitting in front of me PVG-AKL - on his way to Niue - was a very big, well over 6.4 or even 6.5 I guess and hefty. He tucked into his dinner, said he didn't want breakfast, set up the bed and slept like a baby all the way through to AKL. I was green with envy because I have trouble sleeping on planes.

I'm not wild keen on the herringbone seating cuz I like to look out of the window and they don't make it easy, but I was otherwise perfectly comfortable.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
PA515
Posts: 1558
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:52 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
As for PER-CHC-LAX while there is a chance they could do CHC-LAX again I think they would do it for O&D rather than connections but with 1 789 they could do something like

CHC 2359 LAX 1400
LAX 2000 CHC 0500

CHC 0700 PER 0930
PER 1100 CHC 2200


DavidByrne wrote:
The connection traffic at CHC is a bonus for sectors that they might be able to justify anyway. If CHC-LAX is marginal, then filling it up with PER-originating traffic is surely a real plus. And yes, the schedule you outline is pretty much what I had in mind. An 1100 departure from PER is also much more pax-friendly than the 0600 or 0700 departure that NZ currently offers via AKL.


CHC-PER 0700/0915, PER-CHC 1100/2200 is unlikely for the same reason AKL-PER, PER-AKL at similar times was dropped. No domestic NZ connections without an overnight stay. Pax from IVC/ZQN/DUD/NSN/WLG would transit AKL, MEL or SYD instead.

It will be interesting to see If CHC-PER continues as a 789 or gets the A321NEO.

If CHC-LAX were reintroduced, then MEL could be linked.

Also, the seasonal PER-AKL will be an 0700 departure for the whole season.

PA515
 
DobboDobbo
Posts: 927
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 1:02 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Wed Nov 16, 2016 1:31 pm

NZ6 wrote:
I actually enjoy the new route discussion but sadly pacific rim strategy is here to stay. So is taking long haul traffic over AKL from within NZ.

Expect to only see existing route growth and exploring new routes in the USA, China and Japan from AKL.


I also like new route discussion but agree the rim strategy looks a good one for ANZ.

It is fairly easy for ANZ to partner with *A and other codeshare airlines (e.g. VS) to gain multiple routes and timings for travel to NZ from Europe.

For example from MAN (where I fly from) there is the opportunity to fly one stop via:

DXB (Emirates)
DOH (Qatar)
SIN (Singapore - to AKL and CHC)
HKG (Cathay)
IAH (Singapore)
SFO (ANZ and Virgin Atlantic)

There may soon be the opportunity to transfer via a number of Chinese hubs (PKK, PVG), via BKK on Thai, via LAX on ANZ/VS and YVR on ANZ/AC.

There is simply not the value in ANZ running its own metal to a place like MAN when it has all these options unless it sees value in selling separate sectors like the AKL-LAX-LHR flight.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Wed Nov 16, 2016 4:28 pm

[quote="Bostrom
Why not a resumed AKL-HKG-LHR route instead? 450 km shorter than via LAX and avoids the trouble with a US stop.[/quote]

AKL-HKG-LHR would probably have worked with the 788 or the 789 high premium version. The ~21% higher fuel consumption of the 77E probably made the difference and a later departure from HKG to LHR would have helped. NZ would need to get the LHR slot back from CX , ideally with slot times that CX is presently using if they were considering restarting LHR service from HKG.
 
NZ321
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Wed Nov 16, 2016 7:45 pm

I doubt AKL-HKG-LHR will ever be resumed; the yields weren't sufficient to justify this route from what I understand and CX / BA / VS dominate this market. If NZ were to reactivate it's second LHR slot then I could imagine it would be via North America, for instance via SFO, IAH or SEA or YVR. I somehow doubt that NZ would go up against UA out of SFO or IAH to LHR. I'm interested though in weather NZ would consider splitting its PNW service between YVR and SEA; SEA is home to Boeing, Microsoft, Amazon and an increasingly lucrative destination (EK, NH, BR, OZ, KE, HU, AC, BA, LH) and has no Star Alliance service to LHR.
Plane mad!
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4360
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Wed Nov 16, 2016 9:00 pm

NZ321 wrote:
I doubt AKL-HKG-LHR will ever be resumed; the yields weren't sufficient to justify this route from what I understand and CX / BA / VS dominate this market. If NZ were to reactivate it's second LHR slot then I could imagine it would be via North America, for instance via SFO, IAH or SEA or YVR. I somehow doubt that NZ would go up against UA out of SFO or IAH to LHR. I'm interested though in weather NZ would consider splitting its PNW service between YVR and SEA; SEA is home to Boeing, Microsoft, Amazon and an increasingly lucrative destination (EK, NH, BR, OZ, KE, HU, AC, BA, LH) and has no Star Alliance service to LHR.

A through service AKL-SEA-LHR would certainly help the loads on the AKL-SEA and SEA-LHR sectors rather than just relying purely on O&D traffic. It would also take some pressure off the YVR service which currently needs more capacity during peak times which is hard to do. However if 25% of the traffic for SEA came off the YVR flight then that would free that space up on that service (especially if it downgauged to the 789). This would tie in with my theory that NZ might be looking to go all 787 and dropping the 77E in the next few years and also dropping the 77W over the next decade. In a decade I could see NZ with a fleet of 20x 789 and 10x 7810 - this would be a total of 30 WB aircraft (an increase of 5 from now, but in terms of seats probably only an increase of about 4 so if growth continues these numbers could be conservative).
64 types. 43 countries. 24 airlines.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Thu Nov 17, 2016 12:27 am

NZ321 wrote:
I doubt AKL-HKG-LHR will ever be resumed; the yields weren't sufficient to justify this route from what I understand and CX / BA / VS dominate this market.


I'd be surprised if HKG-LHR came back as well, or any new LHR route. I think LAX-LHR is the exception and may remain so.

I prefer the Pacific Rim strategy, which - I think - is more interesting.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
ZKOXA
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2016 9:47 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Thu Nov 17, 2016 7:05 am

RP-C7778 Philippine Airlines 777 is on the way to AKL from Davao City. According to FR24, the aircraft is stopping over on its way to Lima, Peru.
Does anybody have any information on the reasons for this flight.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/pr1

ZKOXA
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7064
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Thu Nov 17, 2016 7:28 am

ZKOXA wrote:
RP-C7778 Philippine Airlines 777 is on the way to AKL from Davao City. According to FR24, the aircraft is stopping over on its way to Lima, Peru.
Does anybody have any information on the reasons for this flight.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/pr1

ZKOXA


Sounds like a presidential visit.

Zkpilot wrote:
NZ321 wrote:
I doubt AKL-HKG-LHR will ever be resumed; the yields weren't sufficient to justify this route from what I understand and CX / BA / VS dominate this market. If NZ were to reactivate it's second LHR slot then I could imagine it would be via North America, for instance via SFO, IAH or SEA or YVR. I somehow doubt that NZ would go up against UA out of SFO or IAH to LHR. I'm interested though in weather NZ would consider splitting its PNW service between YVR and SEA; SEA is home to Boeing, Microsoft, Amazon and an increasingly lucrative destination (EK, NH, BR, OZ, KE, HU, AC, BA, LH) and has no Star Alliance service to LHR.

A through service AKL-SEA-LHR would certainly help the loads on the AKL-SEA and SEA-LHR sectors rather than just relying purely on O&D traffic. It would also take some pressure off the YVR service which currently needs more capacity during peak times which is hard to do. However if 25% of the traffic for SEA came off the YVR flight then that would free that space up on that service (especially if it downgauged to the 789). This would tie in with my theory that NZ might be looking to go all 787 and dropping the 77E in the next few years and also dropping the 77W over the next decade. In a decade I could see NZ with a fleet of 20x 789 and 10x 7810 - this would be a total of 30 WB aircraft (an increase of 5 from now, but in terms of seats probably only an increase of about 4 so if growth continues these numbers could be conservative).


I can't see SEA personally, it doesn't make sense to split YVR and SEA IMO, SEA isn't a star hub. I do agree with your fleet, I keep saying watch the 78J I turn no it will find its way in the NZ fleet somewhere along the line.
 
haggis73
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:42 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Thu Nov 17, 2016 8:32 am

ZKOXA wrote:
RP-C7778 Philippine Airlines 777 is on the way to AKL from Davao City. According to FR24, the aircraft is stopping over on its way to Lima, Peru.
Does anybody have any information on the reasons for this flight.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/pr1

ZKOXA


Heading to APEC, which is in Lima this year.
 
Qantas16
Posts: 713
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 3:51 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Thu Nov 17, 2016 11:19 am

haggis73 wrote:
ZKOXA wrote:
RP-C7778 Philippine Airlines 777 is on the way to AKL from Davao City. According to FR24, the aircraft is stopping over on its way to Lima, Peru.
Does anybody have any information on the reasons for this flight.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/pr1

ZKOXA


Heading to APEC, which is in Lima this year.


At first I thought this was a ridiculous detour, but having looked at it on gcmaps, it only adds 2.1% to the distance.
 
User avatar
LamboAston
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:46 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:23 pm

CZ305/6 is now on the 77W
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
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:38 pm

Sounds Air has stepped up to the plate to help out Kaikoura:

http://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/sounds- ... 2016111722

"Sounds Air starts special flights to quake-hit Kaikoura

Sounds Air has announced it will start flying in and out of Kaikoura five days per week, just days after a devastating earthquake hit the town.

The family-owned business has announced two new routes between Kaikoura, and Blenheim and Christchurch, from November 21.

The flights will be operating on a varying timetable because the pilots are working around other commitments.


The flights aren't intended to be permanent, their Facebook page says for at least three weeks, but given the reported situation in Kaikoura, I guess they could be extended. I've no idea what will happen with the tourist high season coming up.

Sounds has put them on the airline's route map.

http://www.soundsair.com/routes/

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12410
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:40 pm

Gasman wrote:
Interesting. Are you a big guy? I'm 6'3", 78kg.............


I think we should all chip in and buy Gasman some pies.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Thu Nov 17, 2016 7:33 pm

[ZKOXA[/quote] At first I thought this was a ridiculous detour, but having looked at it on gcmaps, it only adds 2.1% to the distance.]

via PPT is only 3nm more than GC
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1489
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Thu Nov 17, 2016 8:47 pm

Qantas16 wrote:
ZKOXA wrote:
RP-C7778 Philippine Airlines 777 is on the way to AKL from Davao City. According to FR24, the aircraft is stopping over on its way to Lima, Peru.
Does anybody have any information on the reasons for this flight.
.


At first I thought this was a ridiculous detour, but having looked at it on gcmaps, it only adds 2.1% to the distance.

Reinforces the potential merit of AKL being a hub for Asia-South America traffic.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6620
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Thu Nov 17, 2016 10:52 pm

ZKOXA wrote:
RP-C7778 Philippine Airlines 777 is on the way to AKL from Davao City.

Seems a bit over the top. A lightly loaded A340 or A330 could do the trip as well...could there be plenty of hangers on? A very large entourage is not called for. :x

sunrisevalley wrote:
ZKOXA wrote:
At first I thought this was a ridiculous detour, but having looked at it on gcmaps, it only adds 2.1% to the distance.


via PPT is only 3nm more than GC


CXI is almost perfectly halfway between MNL and LIM.....

Image

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=MNL-CXI-LIM&MS=wls&DU=nm


They could have chartered a Global Express and made a tech stop at Kiribati.....

Image
http://cdn.zoxexivo.com/blogphotos/kiri ... ati-33.jpg

.....Could have saved on the 77W and cut off some distance from the trip. It's just not sure if they could refuel at CXI. :) :)
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
NPL8800
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 5:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Fri Nov 18, 2016 4:22 am

Pretty disappointing to see OZ pulling their CHC charters, would have been interesting to know if those coming over had tours that were even going near the Kaikoura area in the first place
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Fri Nov 18, 2016 4:33 pm

...[..Could have saved on the 77W and cut off some distance from the trip. It's just not sure if they could refuel at CXI. :) :)[/quote]

FJ appear to run a NAN-CXI-HNL service so I assume there is fuel available. The 6900ft runway might not be sufficient for the CXI-LIM leg.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6620
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Fri Nov 18, 2016 6:29 pm

sunrisevalley wrote:
FJ appear to run a NAN-CXI-HNL service so I assume there is fuel available. The 6900ft runway might not be sufficient for the CXI-LIM leg.

Yes...I was just wondering if it's limited to FJ's consumption based on this photo.....

Image
http://cdn.zoxexivo.com/blogphotos/kiri ... ati-34.jpg


As to the runway, would a Global 6000 @ max payload need more than the available length at Cassidy Int'l. to do the ~4,861nm eastbound segment to LIM?.....


Image


Image
http://www.ponceby.com/TouchdownXmasIs1.jpg


Although I must say...the facilities look better in the 'other' Christmas Island. :)
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Fri Nov 18, 2016 7:18 pm

[Reinforces the potential merit of AKL being a hub for Asia-South America traffic.[/quote]]

I wonder which carrier will be the first to utilize AKL for this purpose? Perhaps a Chinese carrier?
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Fri Nov 18, 2016 7:25 pm

As to the runway, would a Global 6000 @ max payload need more than the available length at Cassidy Int'l. to do the ~4,861nm eastbound segment to LIM?.....


The Global 6000 needs 6476ft at MTOW which is good enough for ~ a 6000nm sector.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1489
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Fri Nov 18, 2016 8:44 pm

sunrisevalley wrote:
[
Reinforces the potential merit of AKL being a hub for Asia-South America traffic.
]

I wonder which carrier will be the first to utilize AKL for this purpose? Perhaps a Chinese carrier?


You could argue that NZ was already doing that with its "extra" PVG-AKL schedule 3x weekly in summer connecting through to EZE. But it's a rather desultory attempt, so far.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
zkncj
Posts: 3311
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Fri Nov 18, 2016 9:27 pm

sunrisevalley wrote:
...[..Could have saved on the 77W and cut off some distance from the trip. It's just not sure if they could refuel at CXI. :) :)


FJ appear to run a NAN-CXI-HNL service so I assume there is fuel available. The 6900ft runway might not be sufficient for the CXI-LIM leg.[/quote]

The fuel in AKL is most likely cheaper than CXI, and AKL is more prepared to handle an 77W than CXI.

For example does CXI even have stairs / fuel equipment for an 77W?
 
User avatar
LamboAston
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:46 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Fri Nov 18, 2016 9:40 pm

sunrisevalley wrote:
As to the runway, would a Global 6000 @ max payload need more than the available length at Cassidy Int'l. to do the ~4,861nm eastbound segment to LIM?.....


The Global 6000 needs 6476ft at MTOW which is good enough for ~ a 6000nm sector.

So it would be fine for that sector.
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
 
NZ321
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Sat Nov 19, 2016 4:44 am

I see that AA and QF have had their application for a joint venture USA - NZ - Australia denied by the US Department of Transportation. I wonder if this will have a bearing on AA's continuation of its recently inaugurated LAX-AKL flight. Not sure how this flight is doing in terms of load factors. Sure hope they hang around.
Plane mad!
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6620
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Sat Nov 19, 2016 4:47 am

zkncj wrote:
The fuel in AKL is most likely cheaper than CXI

Please see the first point in post #225 for context...and the suggested use of A330 or A340 instead. The hypothetical tech stop at CXI was to refuel a Global Express to obviate the need for much bigger aircraft...and to discourage tag alongs.

zkncj wrote:
AKL is more prepared to handle an 77W than CXI. For example does CXI even have stairs / fuel equipment for an 77W?

Can CXI's runway even handle a 77W for that matter...not to mention one on a ~4,890 nm voyage :?:
The newest PR 77W via AKL would have been understandable if it were still on its probing flights and carrying paying passengers up to AKL...and would fly back with the advance party already in Lima and pick up pax from AKL (who would otherwise be on PR's regular AKL-CNS leg) on the way to MNL (if that's not a violation of the bilaterals).

More laudable if teams were onboard to help with the earthquake relief effort (and return the favor for the Kiwi's help after typhoon Haiyan). As it turned out, there were only 60 people in the President's official party on that flight.....

http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/ ... e-worth-it

Quote:
"The President and his party of about 60 people took a Philippine Airlines Boeing 777 chartered flight on a more than 24-hour flight to Lima, transiting through Auckland, New Zealand."


Maybe PR is showing off its latest 'big bird' to promote their services? :scratchchin:
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
ZKOXA
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2016 9:47 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Sat Nov 19, 2016 7:42 am

Devilfish Wrote:
Maybe PR is showing off its latest 'big bird' to promote their services? :scratchchin:


Maybe on the way back, but I doubt it since the flight landed at 3am in the morning. :D

ZKOXA
 
hornetfan
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 5:56 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Sat Nov 19, 2016 11:21 pm

There has been some discussion on here in the past few weeks about the 787, PER flights and Auckland Airport.

Having just done a quick AKL to PER return I thought I would offer some observations.

AKL to PER makes you realise just how big Australia is, timings on NZ are pretty good now and allow onward connections into WA. The return flight is just horrible, the timing means you lose a nights sleep and the jet lag drags on for days. I vow never to do it again and for my sanity will come back via the East Coast. Compunding it is the economy layout in the 787, the flight was full, how they expect people to travel long haul in this plane is beyond me, clearly a case of the executives being out of touch. Maybe they should all have to do a long haul in the middle seat and then see what they think.

AKL is a disgrace. It is overcrowded, when we arrived they didn't have enough luggage belts, there were flights from several long haul locations, the belt they used for our flights was being used by flights from Tokyo and Shanghai at the same time. No wonder it broke down several times. On arrival there was no airbridge driver, we had to wait 10 minutes for him/her to arrive. The Ministry of Primary Industries line has not improved, rude staff, understaffed, and what impression this gives people who arrive in NZ after a long haul flight is a good question. The queues are long and the staff are jobs worths, when in reality they are just shifting paper. They need a lesson in customer service, quickly.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Sat Nov 19, 2016 11:41 pm

hornetfan wrote:
AKL is a disgrace. It is overcrowded, when we arrived they didn't have enough luggage belts, there were flights from several long haul locations, the belt they used for our flights was being used by flights from Tokyo and Shanghai at the same time.


I'm not disputing that AKL is overcrowded, but since you mention Shanghai, when I flew into AKL from PVG a couple of weeks ago I got through quite quickly, with no fuss, and I found everyone quite pleasant.

At PVG on the other hand, because I flew in on Air France and had to change terminals I needed a transit visa for China and that was chaos - it took nearly an hour just to get the visa. Since I had to go through both immigration and customs as well (at CDG they wouldn't tag the bag through to AKL), a fair bit of my six hours in China was spent just getting in.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
PA515
Posts: 1558
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Sun Nov 20, 2016 12:31 am

hornetfan wrote:
The return flight is just horrible, the timing means you lose a nights sleep and the jet lag drags on for days. I vow never to do it again and for my sanity will come back via the East Coast.


Sounds like you were on NZ176 1855/0605. The We Fr Su NZ178 0700/1810 (mid Sep 2016 to 29 Apr 2017) is the one you need. Maybe Air NZ will make NZ177/NZ178 year round and reduce NZ175/NZ176 to about four weekly in the low season.

PA515
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7064
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Sun Nov 20, 2016 5:18 am

There isn't that many good schedules you can use for PER-AKL with the time difference.

Typical schedule has always been something like

PER 1900 AKL 0600. I guess for a 6.5 hr flight its tough if you don't sleep on planes and even if you do it's still hard. You also have

PER 0700 AKL 1800. Very early start and daylight flight but there for North American connections, maybe as discussed in another thread if the US bank ex AKL could potentially be pushed back from 1930-2000 to say 2030-2100 they could have the PER-AKL as 0815-1915.

PER 0200 AKL 1300. Not much good if you don't sleep and probably even worse than the current schedule. Certainly no good for business people IMO.

There was a couple of years where NZ did an AKL-PER 0645-0915 and PER-AKL 1030-2130 which didn't offer a lot of connections at either end, this was summer only 1-2 weekly back when the 763 still ran it in 2010/12.

I do agree PA515 that maybe they will run the NZ177/178 year round 3 weekly and reduce NZ175/176 in the winter to say 4 weekly. They went back to NZ175 leaving AKL at 1425 last winter rather than the summer 1050 departure, I wonder if they will do the same again, probly the later departure is to allow more connections at the AKL end.
 
User avatar
LamboAston
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:46 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Sun Nov 20, 2016 6:34 am

NZ176 was awful when I flew it as well a couple of years ago. I had just connected off an EY 77W CDG-AUH and then EY A332 AUH-PER
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
 
hornetfan
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 5:56 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Sun Nov 20, 2016 9:39 am

As mentioned the time zone does create issues, but I guess NZ want to maximise the utilisation of the plane, so I also wonder if having it sit in Perth for 6-7 hours is ideal.

I was on one of the last domestic arrivals from the Country areas and still had 4 hours to wait, I wonder if leaving a couple of hours early would make a difference, as the plane would be back in Auckland earlier, it doesn't seem if people use that flight for connections, and if they did it wouldn't make any difference to be a bit earlier and it means for people who have Auckland as their final destination you can grab a few hours sleep before getting on with the day and would make the adjustment easier, and if going onto a domestic destination would be able to get the first flights out of Auckland, as it stood today I suspect several would have missed their onward flights due to the incompetence of MPI.

The jet lag on this flight is worse than any flight I have done including non stops from Europe, it normally takes me a week to adjust back.
 
PA515
Posts: 1558
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Sun Nov 20, 2016 11:49 am

hornetfan wrote:
As mentioned the time zone does create issues, but I guess NZ want to maximise the utilisation of the plane, so I also wonder if having it sit in Perth for 6-7 hours is ideal.

I was on one of the last domestic arrivals from the Country areas and still had 4 hours to wait, I wonder if leaving a couple of hours early would make a difference, as the plane would be back in Auckland earlier, it doesn't seem if people use that flight for connections, and if they did it wouldn't make any difference to be a bit earlier and it means for people who have Auckland as their final destination you can grab a few hours sleep before getting on with the day and would make the adjustment easier, and if going onto a domestic destination would be able to get the first flights out of Auckland, as it stood today I suspect several would have missed their onward flights due to the incompetence of MPI.

The jet lag on this flight is worse than any flight I have done including non stops from Europe, it normally takes me a week to adjust back.


So NZ175 AKL-PER 1050/1315, NZ176 PER-AKL 1455/0205 (arrival AKL 2105 PER time) and provides a better connection for the JNB-PER 2100/1220 pax. Also means the aircraft is available to do NZ101 AKL-SYD 0700/0835 etc.

Would you consider an overnight in the other direction, like AKL-PER 0130/0355? Longer flight westbound with more opportunity to sleep (arrival PER 0855 AKL time).

PA515
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Sun Nov 20, 2016 2:27 pm

[quote="hornetfan"]Compunding it is the economy layout in the 787, the flight was full, how they expect people to travel long haul in this plane is beyond me, clearly a case of the executives being out of touch. Maybe they should all have to do a long haul in the middle seat and then see what they think.

NZ need to take a leaf out of the AA/UA book and convert a section of Y to ~ 36" pitch for an additional fare of ~$250 SFO/LAX-AKL and return. The NZ upcharge for premium economy is obscene. For my next trip down under I will be looking closely at the AA/UA option .
 
Gasman
Posts: 2102
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Sun Nov 20, 2016 7:45 pm

hornetfan wrote:
Compunding it is the economy layout in the 787, the flight was full, how they expect people to travel long haul in this plane is beyond me, clearly a case of the executives being out of touch. Maybe they should all have to do a long haul in the middle seat and then see what they think.


I don't think it's a case of executives being "out of touch" as such - they're not stupid. More a case of greed, and arrogance. I voted with my wallet some time ago; but it would seem few have followed suit as NZ's bottom line doesn't seem to be hurting yet.

The key word is "yet". In January I have booked a return flight AKL-LAX on AA which cost me $1100. That's practically *free*. And that's getting me a 38" pitch seat in the economy plus section (although I suspect that has something to do with my QF frequent flier status). As Sunrise Valley says, what NZ charge for Y+ is obscene - but if people are willing to pay; why would they stop? Sure; I suspect NZ's "like it or lump it" philosophy in terms of pax comfort and value for money will be detrimental to the airline long term; but they would seem to disagree.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8318
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Sun Nov 20, 2016 9:40 pm

A couple of things, Firstly, the NZ 787 is really no different from just about every other 787 in service on the planet. I have flown 787s longhaul on enough carriers and been onboard more that I haven't flown so I know that 787s in 9 abreast are not good on any airline - If I had it totally my own way I would avoid them entirely, the 787 is a dog in Y. 9 across on a 787 is narrow, thinly bolstered and hard to find a comfortable position for long regardless off seat pitch, If you flew QR or LA 788s you'd say there was no legroom and the IFE box was badly positioned.

Secondly,on the premium economy debate, while from the outside we think a basic Y+ is a good idea, for the bottom line it is not as good as you think when you already have a third cabin you are trying to fill (for two class different dynamics apply) , The only people that pay for that are people that currently fill PE. The reason the fares are higher is because the flights are full.. I have flown Premium economy 5 times commercially this year, and AKL-LAX-NRT-SIN-AKL and AKL-NRT-AKL - all at what was relative to the Y fare on the day, a very reasonable price. The service was also a step up from Y class. and it was worth the price differential (which was about 800 return to tokyo - and yes I know the difference gets much larger than that often).. Of course you can get business class on CZ/MU for the same price pretty much anywhere NZ flies, so there's always a choice

What is very evident on NZ 787s/SQ A380s/77Ws is that because they are smaller cabins than they could potentially fill they are affected more acutely by limited supply related issues. I priced and bought my tickets to Tokyo, when the flight was already , there were 2 /15 seats left after me, when I went to price those seats again 5min after I booked the price had jumped $350 - the same thing used to happen on 19 seat 1900Ds ,

If the flight is already selling full on those flights with people that can afford it then adding a Y+ would likely just cannibalise those yields, add in more U class then? Yes up until a very finite point, because it also slackens demand on the seats, which lowers the price of U and means that more people who price just U and C will just opt for U because of the difference up to C (same is they do Y to U) - The people willing to pay for anything extra these days in Y you could count on your hands, even across the whole flight is finite , so the people you are actually drawing into those Y+ seats are people that would have otherwise flown U class for higher yield, and a few people who would have paid to assign an exit row or bulkhead..

Thirdly there is no point bemoaning aerobridge operators to AIAL - that is solely NZ's job to provide a driver, if you're directing a complaint anywhere then it needs to go to the correct company. .Also, if there was a NRT as you mentioned on the carousel prior to NZ176 then it must have been some 20h late - the normal time is 0920 or thereabouts, so logically that is 300 extra passengers at a time of day that MPI/Customs didn't schedule their staff for, especially ontop of their #1 risk flight PVG for contraband food and bio risks, smuggled GST goods/money and narcotics. . It's important to realise whenever you see an airport anywhere that has a lot of "rescheduled" flights that all staff at an airport from every agency, every department of airport company, ground handler are planned to fit what was the schedule when the roster was planned only, anyone who is extra is starting early or staying late voluntarily so the effect is worse at the very beginning and end of a day when virtually noone is there . If a plane comes in 30-40min early or late although it is a good thing for people with connections and pilots who need to get home to their mistresses before they go home to their wives, it is not good for staffing levels, as much like runway slots, once you are off your slot time you are out of luck.

There is plenty the airport and Air New Zealand should be ashamed about,, but I would suggest this scenario was about trying to make the best of a bad situation during an off peak time rather than just the usual scheduled overload between 1700-1830 or 0600-0800.
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
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Sun Nov 20, 2016 11:06 pm

Gasman wrote:
The key word is "yet". In January I have booked a return flight AKL-LAX on AA which cost me $1100. That's practically *free*. And that's getting me a 38" pitch seat in the economy plus section (although I suspect that has something to do with my QF frequent flier status).


But how representative is that fare? It is, as you say, "practically free" and I doubt they're making much money on it.

We can all get lucky with sales or we can can use FF status or we can book early, which changes the equation. I just tried AKL-LAX on American for random dates in January and I was offered $3,400 round trip, in economy, on most (not all) dates.

Looking at early February, I was offered several dates at $1400 round trip, but later February was (usually) $1700 and I had to look really, really hard to find the sale prices they have announced, and without a lot of luck.

posting.php?mode=quote&f=3&p=19195075

"Flights on sale from NZD1,098

I understand that you're sour on Air NZ, but fair suck of the sav.

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

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:53 am

The Brunei Govt 747-8 is about to arrive in Auckland from Lima
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
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Mon Nov 21, 2016 8:06 pm

According to that interesting blog "3rd Level", about the small fry airlines in NZ, Sounds Air has acquired another Pilatus PC 12, for a total of five in the fleet:

http://3rdlevelnz.blogspot.co.nz/2016/1 ... s-air.html

Another PC12 for Sounds Air

Apparently, it arrived from SYD last night (21 November). I haven't seen anything about it anywhere else, and I'm hoping it's correct.

There's also an article in Stuff claiming that Sounds is running 6 flights a day to Kaikoura.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/8667753 ... a--tourism

"Sounds Air has begun running up to six flights a day into and out of Kaikoura, carrying 10 passengers a time.

Hmmmm? According to the Sounds website it is 5 flights a week! LOL. Maybe they're planning to boost Kaikoura with the new aircraft, but ti seems like a heck of a jump.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 183

Tue Nov 22, 2016 1:20 am

hornetfan wrote:
AKL to PER makes you realise just how big Australia is, timings on NZ are pretty good now and allow onward connections into WA. The return flight is just horrible, the timing means you lose a nights sleep and the jet lag drags on for days. I vow never to do it again and for my sanity will come back via the East Coast.

The loss of a night's sleep certainly isn't helpful, but it is worth being aware that from a physiological point of view, the body struggles more with eastbound travel than with westbound. The body's natural rhythm is about 25 hours, and resets against the day-night light cycle every day. So travelling westbound, your body adjusts by sitting on the 25 hour cycle until it gets back in sync with the day-night cycle. Travelling eastbound, you are compacting the 25 hour cycle even more than what the body does under normal circumstances.

V/F
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh

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