Qantas16 wrote:

I tend to agree. If getting AKL-India requires two stops on the 757 then why not do it in one stop on a commercial airline... Hard to think of many destinations that you couldn't get to in one stop from AKL (or two from WLG)...

Apparently there was 150 people apart of the offical party traveling to India, probably was 'cheaper' to use an written down airforce asset.

ZK-NBT wrote:

No idea but the A340's have been prone to delays, sad to see them go this week but nice to have the A350.

It is a bit of a shame it is the 3rd to last flight and it is delayed to the next day. The departure screens at AKL showed CX198 is delayed to 0900 next day at least 1.5 hours before the inbound CX197 even landed. Wonder whether it is aircraft issue or crew issue.

cchan wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

No idea but the A340's have been prone to delays, sad to see them go this week but nice to have the A350.

It is a bit of a shame it is the 3rd to last flight and it is delayed to the next day. The departure screens at AKL showed CX198 is delayed to 0900 next day at least 1.5 hours before the inbound CX197 even landed. Wonder whether it is aircraft issue or crew issue.

Crew sickness.

In relation to the Air New Zealand Bond Issue, this presentation was made to London Investors.

https://www.nzx.com/files/attachments/246367.pdf

Slide 28 gives a breakdown of Air NZ's owned and leased aircraft.

The 77Ws are four owned and three leased. This is one less leased aircraft than previously. It could be an error or Air NZ has purchased ZK-OKN or ZK-OKO from the leasing company.
ZK-OKN and ZK-OKO were sold and leased back from DAE in 2011, but ZK-OKO was later transferred to BBAM. ZK-OKR and ZK-OKS were leased from ALC in 2014.

The 77Es are four owned and four leased.

PA515

There are two Air NZ ATR72-500s for sale on http://myairlease.com/available/available_for_lease_ATR
They are c/n 597 ZK-MCA available Jul 2017 and c/n 646 ZK-MCW available Sep 2017.

PA515

aerohottie wrote:

Jetstar315 wrote:

…mmmmm not a good idea to charter from NZ - they don't have aircraft just sitting round waiting to be chartered by the RNZAF. The next thing we'd have would be NZ commercial flights being cancelled at short notice because the airforce suddenly wants a jet for the day!! The government should buy a few A320 neos for the airforce and at least they'd have access to first class engineering services from NZ.

Or how about buy 2 x 789's, have one on "stand-by" with the other in the active NZ schedule and rotate the aircraft around for maintenance and share the cost of the "second" 789 with NZ???
Would keep the aircraft active, and available... and reduce capex contribution and opex...
Just a thought...

The problem is that the RNZAF operates the aircraft in different ways to commercial operators and into places that airlines don't want to go.
NZ would not want a hull loss with their name on the side of the plane. The RNZAF flys into Iraq, Antarctica etc.
They also have the aircraft modified to be quickly converted into carrying emergency supplies with a large cargo door added to the side.

Zkpilot wrote:

aerohottie wrote:

Jetstar315 wrote:

…mmmmm not a good idea to charter from NZ - they don't have aircraft just sitting round waiting to be chartered by the RNZAF. The next thing we'd have would be NZ commercial flights being cancelled at short notice because the airforce suddenly wants a jet for the day!! The government should buy a few A320 neos for the airforce and at least they'd have access to first class engineering services from NZ.

Or how about buy 2 x 789's, have one on "stand-by" with the other in the active NZ schedule and rotate the aircraft around for maintenance and share the cost of the "second" 789 with NZ???
Would keep the aircraft active, and available... and reduce capex contribution and opex...
Just a thought...

The problem is that the RNZAF operates the aircraft in different ways to commercial operators and into places that airlines don't want to go.
NZ would not want a hull loss with their name on the side of the plane. The RNZAF flys into Iraq, Antarctica etc.
They also have the aircraft modified to be quickly converted into carrying emergency supplies with a large cargo door added to the side.

For the standard PM delegations trips there is no real reason the RNZAF really need a passenger transporter at all any more. The 757 is a waste of time for most missions. They would be better off with snother transport plane. The government rarely use the 757 if the destination is served by direct commercial airlines like NZ/SQ. If they do need a full deligation and press on a junket then they would be better off paying the cash and not having the ongoing maintenance and crew costs the rest of the time.

PA515 wrote:

There are two Air NZ ATR72-500s for sale on http://myairlease.com/available/available_for_lease_ATR
They are c/n 597 ZK-MCA available Jul 2017 and c/n 646 ZK-MCW available Sep 2017.

PA515

Would be nice if Air Chats we're able to pick them up, but probably out of there price range.

Surely they would be an great CV-580 replacement in the longer term

zkncj wrote:

PA515 wrote:

There are two Air NZ ATR72-500s for sale on http://myairlease.com/available/available_for_lease_ATR
They are c/n 597 ZK-MCA available Jul 2017 and c/n 646 ZK-MCW available Sep 2017.

PA515

Would be nice if Air Chats we're able to pick them up, but probably out of there price range.

Surely they would be an great CV-580 replacement in the longer term

Don't think that will happen. Recently Air Chathams were saying they want the government to upgrade CHT to take 737s.

PA515

PA515 wrote:

Recently Air Chathams were saying they want the government to upgrade CHT to take 737s.

There's a big difference between Air Chathams saying that they want the government to upgrade the Chathams airfield to 737 standard and that actually happening. I'd be very surprised if the money for that was made available in the timeframe that Air Chathams requires for a CV580 replacement. In practice, another aircraft is likely to take over IMHO, and the ATR72 may well be a good candidate.

aerorobnz wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

aerohottie wrote:

Or how about buy 2 x 789's, have one on "stand-by" with the other in the active NZ schedule and rotate the aircraft around for maintenance and share the cost of the "second" 789 with NZ???
Would keep the aircraft active, and available... and reduce capex contribution and opex...
Just a thought...

The problem is that the RNZAF operates the aircraft in different ways to commercial operators and into places that airlines don't want to go.
NZ would not want a hull loss with their name on the side of the plane. The RNZAF flys into Iraq, Antarctica etc.
They also have the aircraft modified to be quickly converted into carrying emergency supplies with a large cargo door added to the side.

For the standard PM delegations trips there is no real reason the RNZAF really need a passenger transporter at all any more. The 757 is a waste of time for most missions. They would be better off with snother transport plane. The government rarely use the 757 if the destination is served by direct commercial airlines like NZ/SQ. If they do need a full deligation and press on a junket then they would be better off paying the cash and not having the ongoing maintenance and crew costs the rest of the time.

Interesting thoughts regarding replacing with just more transport aircraft. 2x757 + 5xC130 into 6x A400 perhaps?
My point in an earlier post is that whilst these VIP missions would mostly be better served on commercial flights, there are certain sunk costs for the Air Force that might as well be used (planes need to fly and crews need to keep their hours up so this rather than just training flights...).

Was the CX197 A359 inaugural supposed to be today or tomorrow? The flight departed on the 26th but will arrive here today (27th) but is being operated by a A343.

[quote="PA515"]The 77Es are four owned and four leased.]

The interesting but undisclosed detail is when the leases expire. Disclosure of this detail is apparently not required. Some of the 77E's must start in the early 2020's.

[quote="Zkpilot The problem is that the RNZAF operates the aircraft in different ways to commercial operators]

How? Airlines operate hundreds of 757 aircraft reliably day in and day out. Why should the RNZAF have trouble with two ? They should park them at AKL and have NZ service them as needed to keep them airworthy to airline standards.

[quote="Zkpilot 6x A400 perhaps?]
This aircraft still has a way to go to establish its credentials!

Nice to see that PR has been experiencing growth on the AKL-CNS-MNL route with the potential for the A321 to operate on key dates over the peak summer months. Hopefully this growth continues well into the future and that the A321 may become more regular.

http://www.cairnspost.com.au/business/a ... 1ac8b42491

sunrisevalley wrote:

[quote="Zkpilot The problem is that the RNZAF operates the aircraft in different ways to commercial operators]

How? Airlines operate hundreds of 757 aircraft reliably day in and day out. Why should the RNZAF have trouble with two ? They should park them at AKL and have NZ service them as needed to keep them airworthy to airline standards.[/quote]

Military regs are different to civil ones. As I have already mentioned the RNZAF operates into airports that NZ wouldn't fly into with a 50,000ft bargepole.

LamboAston wrote:

Was the CX197 A359 inaugural supposed to be today or tomorrow? The flight departed on the 26th but will arrive here today (27th) but is being operated by a A343.

Don't know, but just saw it (A350) over the harbour about half an hour ago - looked stunning in the sunlight.

PA515 wrote:

There are two Air NZ ATR72-500s for sale on http://myairlease.com/available/available_for_lease_ATR
They are c/n 597 ZK-MCA available Jul 2017 and c/n 646 ZK-MCW available Sep 2017.

PA515

Ties in nicely with delivery of MVP in Jul 2017 and MVQ in Aug 2017.
I'd expect MCW and MCY to be the next 2 to be leased.

LamboAston wrote:

zkeoj wrote:

I am on NZ103 tomorrow morning, and that one changed from 789 to 77W as well...

At least it didn't get changed to a 763

I love the 767 - had it on the way back. Nothing better than 2 seats at the window (B767 and A330/340). I will miss them!

ZKOAB wrote:

PA515 wrote:

There are two Air NZ ATR72-500s for sale on http://myairlease.com/available/available_for_lease_ATR
They are c/n 597 ZK-MCA available Jul 2017 and c/n 646 ZK-MCW available Sep 2017.

PA515

Ties in nicely with delivery of MVP in Jul 2017 and MVQ in Aug 2017.
I'd expect MCW and MCY to be the next 2 to be leased.

ZK-MCA and ZK-MCW are listed FOR SALE on http://myairlease.com/available/available_for_lease_ATR

ZK-MCX and ZK-MCY would appear to be next as they have not been repainted but ZK-MCA was the last -500 to be repainted, so something changed.

There are four ATR72-600s for delivery in FY 2018 (01 Jul 2017 and 30 Jun 2018). Anything on when ZK-MVR and ZK-MVS are due?

PA515

sunrisevalley wrote:

[quote="Zkpilot The problem is that the RNZAF operates the aircraft in different ways to commercial operators]

How? Airlines operate hundreds of 757 aircraft reliably day in and day out. Why should the RNZAF have trouble with two ? They should park them at AKL and have NZ service them as needed to keep them airworthy to airline standards.[/quote]

In a way you've answered your own question. One of the chief reasons for the reliability issues is the lack of regular flying. Almost any aircraft operated as infrequently as the Air Force 757s are going to have issues.
Having said that, older aircraft do have more reliability problems. Most of the time though they are being operated by an airline to somewhere that had good engineering support and parts supplies. Townsville certainly would not have a ready supply of 757 components.
FWIW I often see the 757s at the Air New Zealand engineering base at auckland receiving that critical maintenance.

B-LRC was today. I saw it arrive but had to settle for departure photos

ZKOJH wrote:

"Auckland Airport squeeze means more passengers on buses"


However, the company's chief executive Adrian Littlewood said the percentage of passengers put on buses was low by international standards. Overseas airports used buses for up to half their passengers, while at Auckland they were used in about 5 per cent of the cases.

Previously this has been around 2 per cent.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11732767

Looks like it won't change anytime soon then!

Which airports would those be because I don't see it often at the major airports I use in Europe.

[quote="Kiwirob Which airports would those be because I don't see it often at the major airports I use in Europe.]
Both LHR and FRA use bussing . T5 at LHR has at least one gate for it which seems to be in constant use.

sunrisevalley wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Which airports would those be because I don't see it often at the major airports I use in Europe.

Both LHR and FRA use bussing . T5 at LHR has at least one gate for it which seems to be in constant use.

My first three departures from LHR T5 all involved buses - most disappointing! All arrivals have been via air bridge though, and all subsequent departures.

I've also had buses at CIA and BUD, but to be fair those were for flights on LCC airlines, so perhaps more to be expected.

On a related note, I once arrived at LHR T3 on a NZ B744 and had to deplane using stairs and walk across the tarmac to the terminal due to the air bridge being broken. I thought it was great, but the 350-odd other people with me weren't so impressed.

Kiwirob wrote:

ZKOJH wrote:

"Auckland Airport squeeze means more passengers on buses"


However, the company's chief executive Adrian Littlewood said the percentage of passengers put on buses was low by international standards. Overseas airports used buses for up to half their passengers, while at Auckland they were used in about 5 per cent of the cases.

Previously this has been around 2 per cent.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11732767

Looks like it won't change anytime soon then!

Which airports would those be because I don't see it often at the major airports I use in Europe.

MUC has frequent bus services, so does FRA.

zkeoj wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

ZKOJH wrote:

"Auckland Airport squeeze means more passengers on buses"


However, the company's chief executive Adrian Littlewood said the percentage of passengers put on buses was low by international standards. Overseas airports used buses for up to half their passengers, while at Auckland they were used in about 5 per cent of the cases.

Previously this has been around 2 per cent.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11732767

Looks like it won't change anytime soon then!

Which airports would those be because I don't see it often at the major airports I use in Europe.

MUC has frequent bus services, so does FRA.

Which tend to be for budget carriers or NB aircraft (737/A320 etc). Meanwhile AKL tries to load up large WB by bus... what a joke!

Zkpilot wrote:

zkeoj wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Which airports would those be because I don't see it often at the major airports I use in Europe.

MUC has frequent bus services, so does FRA.

Which tend to be for budget carriers or NB aircraft (737/A320 etc). Meanwhile AKL tries to load up large WB by bus... what a joke!

Lufthansa A340s and A330s are neither of this, and I have been enough times on those and were bussed in and/or out...

CDG buses frequently, and I had to bus onto an EY 77W (before getting yelled at for taking a photo of the GE90).

LamboAston wrote:

CDG buses frequently, and I had to bus onto an EY 77W (before getting yelled at for taking a photo of the GE90).

We were bussed at PVG for the AKL flight ten days ago.

mariner

sunrisevalley wrote:

[quote="Kiwirob Which airports would those be because I don't see it often at the major airports I use in Europe.]
Both LHR and FRA use bussing . T5 at LHR has at least one gate for it which seems to be in constant use.[/quote]

I've been through LHR about ten times this year and not bussed once and I'm often at FRA and can't remember the last time I've been bussed. OSL uses busses a bit but that's due to the new terminal construction which has closed gates, this will end in December.

There's an important point I'd like to make regarding layover operations. There are two kinds of operations, Bus operations and walk-to stand departures. Walk to stand departures are simple and uncomplicated (and AKL would be fine to copy/add them eg:OOL) and hard stands are designed for quick loading unloading and refuelling. They would be ideal for all types,

Bus operations are less so, as they involve organising transport to aircraft onto isolated stands, they require more staff, more time to load, sufficient space to park GSE, integrated refuelling, enough buses to handle more than a couple at same time etc.. Layover 77,80,81,71,72,73 at AKL for example require the much slower Fuel Tankers rather than in ground tanks connected via fuel trucks. Tha is my problem with AKL, if they were set up properly Bus Ops would be fine, but the infrastructure is woely inadequate for Bus ops

True bus operations at overseas airports are far more infrequent AND airports better equipped to cope with them in the form of buses that can take 160 passengers in one trip etc.(AKL is constant - just QF has 3 bus ops this afternoon for example).

Airports I have, as a passenger had international layover arrivals/departures include HKG,FRA,DOH,EZE,LIM,CPT,JNB,BKK.ADD plus the walk-out layovers at GU,OOL,RAR,APW.

The first EK448 regular service A380 has just taken off, Operated by A6-EUF. Also the first regular service A380 operating EK418, operated by A6-EOD. Finally the last of the changes to Emirates NZ services is the change of EK412 to Christchurch, operated by the newest of Emirates' A380s A6-EUG.

On a side-note, does anyone know why the 429 economy seat A380s are operating these flights, instead of the A380s with the crew rest area?

ZKOXA

CA784 is on the 789 today instead of the A332

ZKOXA wrote:

The first EK448 regular service A380 has just taken off, Operated by A6-EUF. Also the first regular service A380 operating EK418, operated by A6-EOD. Finally the last of the changes to Emirates NZ services is the change of EK412 to Christchurch, operated by the newest of Emirates' A380s A6-EUG.

On a side-note, does anyone know why the 429 economy seat A380s are operating these flights, instead of the A380s with the crew rest area?

ZKOXA

The Crew Rest area in the most recent (and future) deliveries is now below the main deck, allowing 429 seats in Y

LamboAston wrote:

CA784 is on the 789 today instead of the A332

From today is scheduled.

ZKOXA wrote:

The first EK448 regular service A380 has just taken off, Operated by A6-EUF. Also the first regular service A380 operating EK418, operated by A6-EOD. Finally the last of the changes to Emirates NZ services is the change of EK412 to Christchurch, operated by the newest of Emirates' A380s A6-EUG.

Also the SQ285 shortly departing SIN iis an A380, and KE129 the 74H HL7630. UA917 is the last 787 for a while. The 777-200 is now daily. The Mayhem begins...

Fortunately, AAIL has done all the forward planning and infrastructure is well in place, so the average pax at AKL won't even notice the congestion....

Gasman wrote:

Fortunately, AAIL has done all the forward planning and infrastructure is well in place, so the average pax at AKL won't even notice the congestion....

Surely that's sarcasm

Forward planning and infrastructure are not terms I would associate with AIAL, certainly not on a scale that matches reality. All of my regular touch points with AIAL from air traffic, apron, terminal through to parking show both a distinct lack of planning and infrastructure that has really surprised this returning expat.

Gasman wrote:
Fortunately, AAIL has done all the forward planning and infrastructure is well in place, so the average pax at AKL won't even notice the congestion....

SelandiaBaru Wrote:

Surely that's sarcasm

Forward planning and infrastructure are not terms I would associate with AIAL, certainly not on a scale that matches reality. All of my regular touch points with AIAL from air traffic, apron, terminal through to parking show both a distinct lack of planning and infrastructure that has really surprised this returning expat.

With my experiences through Auckland I found that, sure it is a complete mess at the gate, such as boarding and disembarking. However, the actual control of crowds and massive queues is rather good. And check-in is much faster and more efficient than many other airports around the world. The airport feels more efficient than most large Australian airports, sure it's no Singapore Changi, but I can't find much to complain about with the airport. There is room for improvement, but the airport is far from a third world airport, as was previously said in either this thread or the previous one.

ZKOXA

What is the reason for the Singapore Airlines Cargo 747 flying between AVV-AKL today, I assume it's for the Melbourne cup, can someone please confirm or correct me if I'm wrong?

ZKOXA

ZKOXA wrote:

What is the reason for the Singapore Airlines Cargo 747 flying between AVV-AKL today, I assume it's for the Melbourne cup, can someone please confirm or correct me if I'm wrong?

ZKOXA

Bringing over the V8 Supercars for the Pukekohe round this weekend.

ZKOXA wrote:

With my experiences through Auckland I found that, sure it is a complete mess at the gate, such as boarding and disembarking. However, the actual control of crowds and massive queues is rather good. And check-in is much faster and more efficient than many other airports around the world. The airport feels more efficient than most large Australian airports, sure it's no Singapore Changi, but I can't find much to complain about with the airport. There is room for improvement, but the airport is far from a third world airport, as was previously said in either this thread or the previous one.

ZKOXA

Much of that comes down to airlines rather than the airport company.

Don't think there is much point referencing Changi, that's not really fair. I'm benchmarking Auckland against airports in the remote regions of Indonesia, smaller European airports at a stretch.

ZKOXA Wrote:

What is the reason for the Singapore Airlines Cargo 747 flying between AVV-AKL today, I assume it's for the Melbourne cup, can someone please confirm or correct me if I'm wrong?

ZKOXA

Haggis73 Wrote:

Bringing over the V8 Supercars for the Pukekohe round this weekend.

Thanks for the help, semis odd from AVV though does it not?

ZKOXA

ZKOXA wrote:

With my experiences through Auckland I found that, sure it is a complete mess at the gate, such as boarding and disembarking. However, the actual control of crowds and massive queues is rather good. And check-in is much faster and more efficient than many other airports around the world. The airport feels more efficient than most large Australian airports, sure it's no Singapore Changi, but I can't find much to complain about with the airport. There is room for improvement, but the airport is far from a third world airport, as was previously said in either this thread or the previous one.

ZKOXA

SelandiaBaru Wrote:

Much of that comes down to airlines rather than the airport company.

Don't think there is much point referencing Changi, that's not really fair. I'm benchmarking Auckland against airports in the remote regions of Indonesia, smaller European airports at a stretch.

I was trying to show, sure it will never be the best, but I was trying to compare it to large airports in Australia in the likes of Brisbane or Melbourne. What specific airports would you compare AKL to, for me it's no worse than Australian airports or various airports in Asia such as HKT.

haggis73 wrote:

Bringing over the V8 Supercars for the Pukekohe round this weekend.

Umm, I have just got back from the Gold Coast, and it was the V8 supercars THERE last weekend, not Melbourne . . .

Not that I'd want anyone to think I was a fan - real racing vars are open-wheelers. But I did just happen to be on the Gold Coast and had to avoid the crowds.

ZKOXA wrote:

I was trying to show, sure it will never be the best, but I was trying to compare it to large airports in Australia in the likes of Brisbane or Melbourne. What specific airports would you compare AKL to, for me it's no worse than Australian airports or various airports in Asia such as HKT.

I find a direct comparison hard as AKL is such a hotch potch of issues. I think operating in and out of it must make even more critical.

I would say it largely pales in comparison to Brisbane. That said Australia, in reference to anything aviation is not where the benchmark should be set.

Maybe Bordeaux-Mérignac is a good comparison airport. It's a bit of a hotch potch.

Anyone know how AKL handled 5 A380 services today? Can't wait to see the day that the SQ services runs an couple of hours late.

Latest Air NZ A320 ZK-OXM presently KUL-CNS between the Java Sea and Flores Sea.

https://www.flightradar24.com/ANZ6090/b78ec8e

PA515

And the last two ex Air NZ Beech 1900D's ZK-EAH and ZK-EAN went AKL-NLK-SYD-BWU today.

PA515