Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Fri Dec 23, 2016 10:41 am

A bit of ass kissing in the NZH today to AKL.
"Tianjin Airlines is arriving in Auckland at an exciting time. A major upgrade of our international departure area is well underway, as is the expansion of Pier B of the international terminal, which will add two more gates that can each accommodate an

A380 or two smaller aircraft," he said.
Wow they must be going mad... a whole TWO GATES!!! How on earth would they ever find use for them?
Oh yeah that's right they should have been built with the rest of pier B 8 years ago!
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
QF46
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:09 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Fri Dec 23, 2016 11:32 am

Well, it's two MARS gates (with capacity for two wide-bodies or four narrow-bodies).

I feel that discussion regarding AKL and Auckland International Airport Limited (AIAL) could really benefit from some additional information:

- What's the nature of the conversations between AIAL and its airline customers, regarding capital development? Typically, the biggest opponents of capital investments are airlines themselves, given the associated impact on landing fees. As I understand it, unless the investment is retail orientated, the costs associated with capital development are passed on to airlines in a reasonably direct manner. A reasonable portion of AKL's airline customers are price-sensitive budget airlines, which seek to minimise fixed costs to the extent possible. I imagine they would be resistant to any gold plating and possibly even supportive of bussing - if JQ had the option of bussing its passengers for a discount in landing fees, I'm sure it'd take it. That raises the question as to whether AKL differentiates between budget and full-service airlines when allocating hard-stands and remote-stands.

- What standard of service does AIAL's regulatory framework require? Most will be aware that AIAL exists within a regulated industry, under the Commerce Act 1993. This regime is intended to recreate the competitive environment that would exist if the airport weren't a monopoly. What does it require? See more here: http://www.comcom.govt.nz/regulated-ind ... /airports/

- What returns to shareholders expect from the company, and how much leeway do these expectations allow for capital development? AKL's always been very proud of the fact they've built capacity to match demand, and not to exceed it. From a shareholder's perspective, that's eminently sensible. There may be an argument that they're not building capacity to meet demand but, then again, might the 1-2 months of pain per year be outweighed by the enhanced profitability?

- And to those who say the company shouldn't be run for profit, well, on what basis should it be run? Should it be bought into public ownership? Is that a good use of public funds (relative to all the other calls on taxpayers), and would the company be better run by the government?

- In terms of quality standards, I'm pretty sure IATA has an objective assessment framework for evaluating airports. Anybody know what I'm talking about? It's something along the lines of "A-Grade: Ability to move X passengers through in Y minutes, with 30% experiencing queuing of more than X minutes" etc. I'm pretty sure AIAL will have an objective standard in mind.

I guess my overall point is that AKL makes its investment decisions subject to a range of incentives and trade-offs. While I really enjoy the AKL discuss that goes on here, it would be interesting to have more information about these incentives and trade-offs.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Sun Dec 25, 2016 11:22 pm

QF46 wrote:
Well, it's two MARS gates (with capacity for two wide-bodies or four narrow-bodies).

I feel that discussion regarding AKL and Auckland International Airport Limited (AIAL) could really benefit from some additional information:

- What's the nature of the conversations between AIAL and its airline customers, regarding capital development? Typically, the biggest opponents of capital investments are airlines themselves, given the associated impact on landing fees. As I understand it, unless the investment is retail orientated, the costs associated with capital development are passed on to airlines in a reasonably direct manner. A reasonable portion of AKL's airline customers are price-sensitive budget airlines, which seek to minimise fixed costs to the extent possible. I imagine they would be resistant to any gold plating and possibly even supportive of bussing - if JQ had the option of bussing its passengers for a discount in landing fees, I'm sure it'd take it. That raises the question as to whether AKL differentiates between budget and full-service airlines when allocating hard-stands and remote-stands.

- What standard of service does AIAL's regulatory framework require? Most will be aware that AIAL exists within a regulated industry, under the Commerce Act 1993. This regime is intended to recreate the competitive environment that would exist if the airport weren't a monopoly. What does it require? See more here: http://www.comcom.govt.nz/regulated-ind ... /airports/

- What returns to shareholders expect from the company, and how much leeway do these expectations allow for capital development? AKL's always been very proud of the fact they've built capacity to match demand, and not to exceed it. From a shareholder's perspective, that's eminently sensible. There may be an argument that they're not building capacity to meet demand but, then again, might the 1-2 months of pain per year be outweighed by the enhanced profitability?

- And to those who say the company shouldn't be run for profit, well, on what basis should it be run? Should it be bought into public ownership? Is that a good use of public funds (relative to all the other calls on taxpayers), and would the company be better run by the government?

- In terms of quality standards, I'm pretty sure IATA has an objective assessment framework for evaluating airports. Anybody know what I'm talking about? It's something along the lines of "A-Grade: Ability to move X passengers through in Y minutes, with 30% experiencing queuing of more than X minutes" etc. I'm pretty sure AIAL will have an objective standard in mind.

I guess my overall point is that AKL makes its investment decisions subject to a range of incentives and trade-offs. While I really enjoy the AKL discuss that goes on here, it would be interesting to have more information about these incentives and trade-offs.

In this case almost all airlines are wanting more gates as it is costing them big $$ having aircraft waiting for a gate to free up etc. Where most have an issue is with these big A380 gates that only benefit EK and to a lessor extent SQ and I think one of the Chinese carriers?
That said they can also be used by 2x NB a/c so not too much of an issue. JQ can bus if they like and would likely not have to pay for new gates, considering full service carriers are using buses due to lack of gates that shouldn't be an issue.

Shareholders have nothing to complain about (except for AKL brand being damaged by overcrowding). AKL is making large profits at a good rate of return. Building new gates would barely dent their profits and of course it is an asset anyway.

It literally comes down to AIAL being shortsighted with their investments and doing it piecemeal and on the cheap.

Then there is the 2nd runway issue and domestic terminal.
I guess those are more capital intensive but probably should be done.
As I understand it the current thinking is to actually build the new runway full length for international flights (since they are all basically West/North/East with none to the South. Conversely domestic flights are almost entirely to the Sourh so it makes sense for them to use the Southern runway.
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
ZKSUJ
Posts: 6884
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 5:15 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Mon Dec 26, 2016 12:08 am

Zkpilot wrote:
QF46 wrote:
Well, it's two MARS gates (with capacity for two wide-bodies or four narrow-bodies).

I feel that discussion regarding AKL and Auckland International Airport Limited (AIAL) could really benefit from some additional information:

- What's the nature of the conversations between AIAL and its airline customers, regarding capital development? Typically, the biggest opponents of capital investments are airlines themselves, given the associated impact on landing fees. As I understand it, unless the investment is retail orientated, the costs associated with capital development are passed on to airlines in a reasonably direct manner. A reasonable portion of AKL's airline customers are price-sensitive budget airlines, which seek to minimise fixed costs to the extent possible. I imagine they would be resistant to any gold plating and possibly even supportive of bussing - if JQ had the option of bussing its passengers for a discount in landing fees, I'm sure it'd take it. That raises the question as to whether AKL differentiates between budget and full-service airlines when allocating hard-stands and remote-stands.

- What standard of service does AIAL's regulatory framework require? Most will be aware that AIAL exists within a regulated industry, under the Commerce Act 1993. This regime is intended to recreate the competitive environment that would exist if the airport weren't a monopoly. What does it require? See more here: http://www.comcom.govt.nz/regulated-ind ... /airports/

- What returns to shareholders expect from the company, and how much leeway do these expectations allow for capital development? AKL's always been very proud of the fact they've built capacity to match demand, and not to exceed it. From a shareholder's perspective, that's eminently sensible. There may be an argument that they're not building capacity to meet demand but, then again, might the 1-2 months of pain per year be outweighed by the enhanced profitability?

- And to those who say the company shouldn't be run for profit, well, on what basis should it be run? Should it be bought into public ownership? Is that a good use of public funds (relative to all the other calls on taxpayers), and would the company be better run by the government?

- In terms of quality standards, I'm pretty sure IATA has an objective assessment framework for evaluating airports. Anybody know what I'm talking about? It's something along the lines of "A-Grade: Ability to move X passengers through in Y minutes, with 30% experiencing queuing of more than X minutes" etc. I'm pretty sure AIAL will have an objective standard in mind.

I guess my overall point is that AKL makes its investment decisions subject to a range of incentives and trade-offs. While I really enjoy the AKL discuss that goes on here, it would be interesting to have more information about these incentives and trade-offs.

In this case almost all airlines are wanting more gates as it is costing them big $$ having aircraft waiting for a gate to free up etc. Where most have an issue is with these big A380 gates that only benefit EK and to a lessor extent SQ and I think one of the Chinese carriers?
That said they can also be used by 2x NB a/c so not too much of an issue. JQ can bus if they like and would likely not have to pay for new gates, considering full service carriers are using buses due to lack of gates that shouldn't be an issue.

Shareholders have nothing to complain about (except for AKL brand being damaged by overcrowding). AKL is making large profits at a good rate of return. Building new gates would barely dent their profits and of course it is an asset anyway.

It literally comes down to AIAL being shortsighted with their investments and doing it piecemeal and on the cheap.

Then there is the 2nd runway issue and domestic terminal.
I guess those are more capital intensive but probably should be done.
As I understand it the current thinking is to actually build the new runway full length for international flights (since they are all basically West/North/East with none to the South. Conversely domestic flights are almost entirely to the Sourh so it makes sense for them to use the Southern runway.


Throw KE in there too for their 747 needing a A380 gate
 
zkncj
Posts: 3972
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Mon Dec 26, 2016 1:24 am

With AIAL I do wonder how much of the passenger levy is going towards developing more retail space, rather than airport factitlties?
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Mon Dec 26, 2016 6:58 am

ZKSUJ wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
QF46 wrote:
Well, it's two MARS gates (with capacity for two wide-bodies or four narrow-bodies).

I feel that discussion regarding AKL and Auckland International Airport Limited (AIAL) could really benefit from some additional information:

- What's the nature of the conversations between AIAL and its airline customers, regarding capital development? Typically, the biggest opponents of capital investments are airlines themselves, given the associated impact on landing fees. As I understand it, unless the investment is retail orientated, the costs associated with capital development are passed on to airlines in a reasonably direct manner. A reasonable portion of AKL's airline customers are price-sensitive budget airlines, which seek to minimise fixed costs to the extent possible. I imagine they would be resistant to any gold plating and possibly even supportive of bussing - if JQ had the option of bussing its passengers for a discount in landing fees, I'm sure it'd take it. That raises the question as to whether AKL differentiates between budget and full-service airlines when allocating hard-stands and remote-stands.

- What standard of service does AIAL's regulatory framework require? Most will be aware that AIAL exists within a regulated industry, under the Commerce Act 1993. This regime is intended to recreate the competitive environment that would exist if the airport weren't a monopoly. What does it require? See more here: http://www.comcom.govt.nz/regulated-ind ... /airports/

- What returns to shareholders expect from the company, and how much leeway do these expectations allow for capital development? AKL's always been very proud of the fact they've built capacity to match demand, and not to exceed it. From a shareholder's perspective, that's eminently sensible. There may be an argument that they're not building capacity to meet demand but, then again, might the 1-2 months of pain per year be outweighed by the enhanced profitability?

- And to those who say the company shouldn't be run for profit, well, on what basis should it be run? Should it be bought into public ownership? Is that a good use of public funds (relative to all the other calls on taxpayers), and would the company be better run by the government?

- In terms of quality standards, I'm pretty sure IATA has an objective assessment framework for evaluating airports. Anybody know what I'm talking about? It's something along the lines of "A-Grade: Ability to move X passengers through in Y minutes, with 30% experiencing queuing of more than X minutes" etc. I'm pretty sure AIAL will have an objective standard in mind.

I guess my overall point is that AKL makes its investment decisions subject to a range of incentives and trade-offs. While I really enjoy the AKL discuss that goes on here, it would be interesting to have more information about these incentives and trade-offs.

In this case almost all airlines are wanting more gates as it is costing them big $$ having aircraft waiting for a gate to free up etc. Where most have an issue is with these big A380 gates that only benefit EK and to a lessor extent SQ and I think one of the Chinese carriers?
That said they can also be used by 2x NB a/c so not too much of an issue. JQ can bus if they like and would likely not have to pay for new gates, considering full service carriers are using buses due to lack of gates that shouldn't be an issue.

Shareholders have nothing to complain about (except for AKL brand being damaged by overcrowding). AKL is making large profits at a good rate of return. Building new gates would barely dent their profits and of course it is an asset anyway.

It literally comes down to AIAL being shortsighted with their investments and doing it piecemeal and on the cheap.

Then there is the 2nd runway issue and domestic terminal.
I guess those are more capital intensive but probably should be done.
As I understand it the current thinking is to actually build the new runway full length for international flights (since they are all basically West/North/East with none to the South. Conversely domestic flights are almost entirely to the Sourh so it makes sense for them to use the Southern runway.


Throw KE in there too for their 747 needing a A380 gate

Isn't Gate 10 (maybe 8?) a dual air bridge gate these days? Even if not 747s have been operating at the other AKL single gates for years no drama. Sure a 748 is a bit larger but not hugely so.
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
haggis73
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:42 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Mon Dec 26, 2016 7:20 am

Zkpilot wrote:
ZKSUJ wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
In this case almost all airlines are wanting more gates as it is costing them big $$ having aircraft waiting for a gate to free up etc. Where most have an issue is with these big A380 gates that only benefit EK and to a lessor extent SQ and I think one of the Chinese carriers?
That said they can also be used by 2x NB a/c so not too much of an issue. JQ can bus if they like and would likely not have to pay for new gates, considering full service carriers are using buses due to lack of gates that shouldn't be an issue.

Shareholders have nothing to complain about (except for AKL brand being damaged by overcrowding). AKL is making large profits at a good rate of return. Building new gates would barely dent their profits and of course it is an asset anyway.

It literally comes down to AIAL being shortsighted with their investments and doing it piecemeal and on the cheap.

Then there is the 2nd runway issue and domestic terminal.
I guess those are more capital intensive but probably should be done.
As I understand it the current thinking is to actually build the new runway full length for international flights (since they are all basically West/North/East with none to the South. Conversely domestic flights are almost entirely to the Sourh so it makes sense for them to use the Southern runway.


Throw KE in there too for their 747 needing a A380 gate

Isn't Gate 10 (maybe 8?) a dual air bridge gate these days? Even if not 747s have been operating at the other AKL single gates for years no drama. Sure a 748 is a bit larger but not hugely so.


Gate 10 is the only ICAO "Code F" gate on Pier A.

The 748 is classed as a ICAO "Code F" aircraft along with the A380. Previous versions of the 747 would have fallen under ICAO "Code E"

http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/ICAO ... rence_Code
 
zkncj
Posts: 3972
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Mon Dec 26, 2016 7:15 pm

Zkpilot wrote:
Isn't Gate 10 (maybe 8?) a dual air bridge gate these days? Even if not 747s have been operating at the other AKL single gates for years no drama. Sure a 748 is a bit larger but not hugely so.


Just do it in true AIAL style and park it on an hardstand with stairs, it has been done recently with an EK A388!


If anything AIAL needs to build an quick Tasman/Pacific Pier as an quick short-term solution to enable more gates to be ready, even if it was OOL style with direct walkout access to the aircarft it has to be better than busing.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1643
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Mon Dec 26, 2016 10:27 pm

Does anyone have any information on the current expansion to pier B. I don't mean AIAL long term vision. I've seen that website and had a chuckle.
 
NPL8800
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 5:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Tue Dec 27, 2016 12:27 am

NZ6 wrote:
Does anyone have any information on the current expansion to pier B. I don't mean AIAL long term vision. I've seen that website and had a chuckle.


Gate 17-18 under construction, 17 opening in Dec 2017, 18 a few months later. There are pics of progress on the AKL website
 
NZ6
Posts: 1643
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Tue Dec 27, 2016 12:45 am

NPL8800 wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Does anyone have any information on the current expansion to pier B. I don't mean AIAL long term vision. I've seen that website and had a chuckle.


Gate 17-18 under construction, 17 opening in Dec 2017, 18 a few months later. There are pics of progress on the AKL website


Sorry I should have been more specific. I'm looking for airfield layout diagram, terminal maps etc.
 
NPL8800
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 5:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Tue Dec 27, 2016 2:01 am

NZ6 wrote:
NPL8800 wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Does anyone have any information on the current expansion to pier B. I don't mean AIAL long term vision. I've seen that website and had a chuckle.


Gate 17-18 under construction, 17 opening in Dec 2017, 18 a few months later. There are pics of progress on the AKL website


Sorry I should have been more specific. I'm looking for airfield layout diagram, terminal maps etc.

[threeid][/threeid]

The 2016 annual report presentation had a brief section about the project with an image that 'may' be more what you're after
 
zkncj
Posts: 3972
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Tue Dec 27, 2016 2:47 am

NPL8800 wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Does anyone have any information on the current expansion to pier B. I don't mean AIAL long term vision. I've seen that website and had a chuckle.


Gate 17-18 under construction, 17 opening in Dec 2017, 18 a few months later. There are pics of progress on the AKL website


It's amazing how long it takes to do an simple two gate addition to Pier B, yet it was designed to be expanded from the start and the apron is already there. Yet it only takes couple of years to build an 2 2.5km tunnels on the South Western Motorway.
 
ZKSUJ
Posts: 6884
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 5:15 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Wed Dec 28, 2016 7:19 am

Zkpilot wrote:
ZKSUJ wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
In this case almost all airlines are wanting more gates as it is costing them big $$ having aircraft waiting for a gate to free up etc. Where most have an issue is with these big A380 gates that only benefit EK and to a lessor extent SQ and I think one of the Chinese carriers?
That said they can also be used by 2x NB a/c so not too much of an issue. JQ can bus if they like and would likely not have to pay for new gates, considering full service carriers are using buses due to lack of gates that shouldn't be an issue.

Shareholders have nothing to complain about (except for AKL brand being damaged by overcrowding). AKL is making large profits at a good rate of return. Building new gates would barely dent their profits and of course it is an asset anyway.

It literally comes down to AIAL being shortsighted with their investments and doing it piecemeal and on the cheap.

Then there is the 2nd runway issue and domestic terminal.
I guess those are more capital intensive but probably should be done.
As I understand it the current thinking is to actually build the new runway full length for international flights (since they are all basically West/North/East with none to the South. Conversely domestic flights are almost entirely to the Sourh so it makes sense for them to use the Southern runway.


Throw KE in there too for their 747 needing a A380 gate

Isn't Gate 10 (maybe 8?) a dual air bridge gate these days? Even if not 747s have been operating at the other AKL single gates for years no drama. Sure a 748 is a bit larger but not hugely so.


The 74H still needs a A380 (code F) gate. Hence only 10, 15 & 16 are avaliable with the airbridges. have seen teh KE jumbo using stairs a few times in recent weeks.

As per the AIAL extension of pier B, not that its anything new but it's too little too late
 
NZ6
Posts: 1643
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Wed Dec 28, 2016 8:48 pm

2 gates by the end of next year. Isn't that only going to be enough gates for last year? let alone 2018+

When are the going to expand beyond today's demand?

I've still got a AKL Air Expo brochure from 1991 showing the second runway in their future plans and a photo from the late 90's with the model which used to be below the observation deck.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1684
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Thu Dec 29, 2016 12:19 am

NZ6 wrote:
2 gates by the end of next year. Isn't that only going to be enough gates for last year? let alone 2018+

It will be enough for 2018 because AIAL has made the decision that pax will be bussed to and from many aircraft. It's pretty clear to me that this is a strategic decision, not just a whim. Whether we like that or not is another question, but let's face it, they're in charge.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
NZ321
Posts: 1269
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Thu Dec 29, 2016 6:23 am

It doesn't change the fact that at New Zealand's and NZ's main entry point the international-domestic and v/v inter-terminal connection is an embarrassment and domestic is still operating in a modified cargo shed decades after they said we needed a new terminal. If WLG and CHC can have decent integrated terminals why can't AKL? Relying on a bus that runs every 15-20 minutes between terminals along sometimes grid-locked roads just doesn't cut it for an airport that reminds us frequently that it is one of th best airports in the Asia-Pacific region.
Plane mad!
 
NZ321
Posts: 1269
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Thu Dec 29, 2016 6:26 am

BTW did anybody notice that NZ is increasing DPS frequency? See Routes Online. Also, did anybody happen to snap a shot of Tianjin Airlines or Hainan at AKL yet?
Plane mad!
 
zkncj
Posts: 3972
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Thu Dec 29, 2016 7:54 am

DavidByrne wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
2 gates by the end of next year. Isn't that only going to be enough gates for last year? let alone 2018+

It will be enough for 2018 because AIAL has made the decision that pax will be bussed to and from many aircraft. It's pretty clear to me that this is a strategic decision, not just a whim. Whether we like that or not is another question, but let's face it, they're in charge.


The question is how much have they spend on this massive new shopping expansion? that could of been spent on building additional gates.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 13160
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Thu Dec 29, 2016 10:14 am

Probably time to close this thread and open a new one.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3972
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Sat Dec 31, 2016 9:04 am

Anyone know if any of the ex-NZ DC10-30s are still around? Looks like ZK-NZS was still sitting in HAV a couple years ago, anyone know if it still there?
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7590
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Sat Dec 31, 2016 9:38 am

NZ321 wrote:
BTW did anybody notice that NZ is increasing DPS frequency? See Routes Online. Also, did anybody happen to snap a shot of Tianjin Airlines or Hainan at AKL yet?



I did see that the other day re DPS just during certain periods mainly school holidays they will add a third flight. They did this with the 763 sometimes as well. Seems a good route.
 
ZKNCI
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:38 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Sat Dec 31, 2016 9:47 am

zkncj wrote:
Anyone know if any of the ex-NZ DC10-30s are still around? Looks like ZK-NZS was still sitting in HAV a couple years ago, anyone know if it still there?


Google Earth image from 22 June 2016 shows ex-ZK-NZS (F-GTLY) still there. Good to know one survives. Planespotters.net lists it as a training aid.
Here it is on Google Maps
https://www.google.co.nz/maps/place/Jos%C3%A9+Mart%C3%AD+International+Airport+(HAV)/@22.9841272,-82.4226584,245m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x88cd6fea5acb6d31:0x6fba77f095296219!8m2!3d22.991533!4d-82.4100642
-edited to try fixing link-

Also, PP-TPC was in Manaus, previously ZK-NZC, the last surviving Air NZ DC-8. Not sure about the state of that one. Would be nice to think it could one day come back, as the last of the first jet airliner based in NZ.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3972
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:13 am

ZKNCI wrote:
Also, PP-TPC was in Manaus, previously ZK-NZC, the last surviving Air NZ DC-8. Not sure about the state of that one. Would be nice to think it could one day come back, as the last of the first jet airliner based in NZ.


Seems like a couple of years back NZC is still in Manaus, seems crazy the lack of preservation of some iconic aircraft.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1684
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Sun Jan 01, 2017 6:13 am

zkncj wrote:
ZKNCI wrote:
Also, PP-TPC was in Manaus, previously ZK-NZC, the last surviving Air NZ DC-8. Not sure about the state of that one. Would be nice to think it could one day come back, as the last of the first jet airliner based in NZ.


Seems like a couple of years back NZC is still in Manaus, seems crazy the lack of preservation of some iconic aircraft.

Now wouldn't that be a wonderful project - to secure a DC8 and get it shipped back to NZ, paint it up in NZ colours and gift it to MOTAT. No idea how much it would cost, but maybe there's a crowd-funding initiative there?

While we're at it, how about a DC6 and an Electra . . . ?
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
zkncj
Posts: 3972
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Sun Jan 01, 2017 6:36 am

DavidByrne wrote:
Now wouldn't that be a wonderful project - to secure a DC8 and get it shipped back to NZ, paint it up in NZ colours and gift it to MOTAT. No idea how much it would cost, but maybe there's a crowd-funding initiative there?

While we're at it, how about a DC6 and an Electra . . . ?


I was hoping that NZ would have done an project for the 75 years thing to at least try get one aircraft back to New Zealand. They put allot of effort into DC8 cabin mock-up for it, if only they have of source the aircraft.

From what I understand previous Teal/Nac/Air NZ aircraft around the country are limited too:
- Solent Mk @ Motat
- F27 a couple around the country
- DC3 a couple around the country // 1x still being operated.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Sun Jan 01, 2017 7:15 pm

Happy New Year to all - and since there isn't a lot happening, Steve at 3rd Level has made some predictions about the small fry airlines for 2017. Basically it's all steady as she goes - unless Air NZ drops some more regional routes:

http://3rdlevelnz.blogspot.co.nz/2017/0 ... -year.html

"Air New Zealand
Last year we saw the end of Eagle's services and the Beech 1900s... this led to Whanganui being dropped from the national carrier's network as well as flights between Blenheim and Christchurch. Sadly, I don't think we have seen the end of the cuts... I suspect Timaru, Hokitika and Whangarei will all be under the microscope as well as Hamilton-Palmerston North-Wellington"


Were any of those to happen, I assume there would be a divvying up by island - Air Chats for the North Island and Sounds Air for the South. I was a wee bit surprised to see Timaru on his list, but it is a small-ish town and anyone knows more about it than I do.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Sun Jan 01, 2017 8:37 pm

There was the ALC Grumman that did a whistle and stop in AKL then onto Noumea where they did some business with Air Caitlin. Immediately following this CEO Luxon did a quick trip to the Seattle area returning on the delivery flight of -NZK . The consensus at the time was that the two events were connected. In the meantime all has gone quiet ! Anything fresh to help the speculation?
 
PA515
Posts: 1614
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Mon Jan 02, 2017 12:59 am

sunrisevalley wrote:
In the meantime all has gone quiet ! Anything fresh to help the speculation?


http://nyc787.blogspot.com updated his 787 delivery spreadsheet to January 2018 and just the previously ordered ZK-NZL and ZK-NZM for Air NZ. Any additional 787s will be 2018 or later.

None of the 77E's were repainted in Nov / Dec 2016, but some had maintenance in AKL instead of the usual QPG.

Also, ATR72-500s ZK-MCA and ZK-MCW listed for sale on http://www.myairlease.com have had their availability dates changed.
ZK-MCA (c/n 597) was available Jul 2017. Now available Sep 2017.
ZK-MCW (c/n 646) was available Sep 2017. Now available Oct 2017.

PA515
 
ZKOAB
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2016 9:59 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Mon Jan 02, 2017 7:07 am

PA515 wrote:
http://nyc787.blogspot.com updated his 787 delivery spreadsheet to January 2018 and just the previously ordered ZK-NZL and ZK-NZM for Air NZ. Any additional 787s will be 2018 or later.

Updated ETA for delivery of NZL and NZM pushed out a month compared to last update.

PA515 wrote:
None of the 77E's were repainted in Nov / Dec 2016, but some had maintenance in AKL instead of the usual QPG.

Does anyone know when the remaining 5 are going to be repainted?
Speaking of repaints, when will NEC-NEM be done?

PA515 wrote:
Also, ATR72-500s ZK-MCA and ZK-MCW listed for sale on http://www.myairlease.com have had their availability dates changed.
ZK-MCA (c/n 597) was available Jul 2017. Now available Sep 2017.
ZK-MCW (c/n 646) was available Sep 2017. Now available Oct 2017.

Times in nicely with delivery of MVP and MVQ in July and August respectively. I guess MCX and MCY will be phased out with the future delivery of MVR and MVS?
 
zkncj
Posts: 3972
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Mon Jan 02, 2017 8:03 am

mariner wrote:
Happy New Year to all - and since there isn't a lot happening, Steve at 3rd Level has made some predictions about the small fry airlines for 2017. Basically it's all steady as she goes - unless Air NZ drops some more regional routes:

http://3rdlevelnz.blogspot.co.nz/2017/0 ... -year.html


Do agree with Jetstar giving AKL-TRG ago in the near future, although think it will be hard for them to compete with NZ on this route.

There is allot of Business Traffic between AKL-TRG, which are going to demand frequency and an flight that departs around the same time as you booked!
 
zkncj
Posts: 3972
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Tue Jan 03, 2017 4:46 am

Whats the chances that we could see NZ return to Germany within the next couple of years? even though double hop flights expect LHR had ruled out.

Have noticed twice recently NZ has done something related to Germany on YouTube account, for example there recent Christmas Video we're an FA flies to Germany, and they did upload an copy of the new Safety Video in German.

Make we wonder if they are trying to test the waters again, or planning an more in-depth partnership with the LH Group? Having recently traveled on LX/LH for connections from New Zealand was supprized by the amount of New Zealand passport holders on these flights.
 
richcandy
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2001 4:49 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Tue Jan 03, 2017 9:28 am

When did NZ (TE I guess) operate service to FRA? I am guessing that it was in the 1980's

Does anyone have a timetable that lists the service. If so what were the flight numbers and schedule.

Thanks

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

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Tue Jan 03, 2017 10:04 am

NZ688 was delayed several hours out of Dunedin today. The inbound NZ689 was close to on time. Does anyone know the reason for the delay? Mechanical?
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: 7590
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Tue Jan 03, 2017 11:22 am

richcandy wrote:
When did NZ (TE I guess) operate service to FRA? I am guessing that it was in the 1980's

Does anyone have a timetable that lists the service. If so what were the flight numbers and schedule.

Thanks

Alex


NZ served FRA from 1987/01 with 742's and 744's. Max 3x weekly, via various routings but generally LAX which connected from PPT/RAR/NAN/AKL/HNL/SYD. The aircraft originated in AKL as NZ18/19 and was 1/2 stops along the way. Also AKL-PPT-LAX-LGW-FRA.

zkncj wrote:
Whats the chances that we could see NZ return to Germany within the next couple of years? even though double hop flights expect LHR had ruled out.

Have noticed twice recently NZ has done something related to Germany on YouTube account, for example there recent Christmas Video we're an FA flies to Germany, and they did upload an copy of the new Safety Video in German.

Make we wonder if they are trying to test the waters again, or planning an more in-depth partnership with the LH Group? Having recently traveled on LX/LH for connections from New Zealand was supprized by the amount of New Zealand passport holders on these flights.


NZ won't return when they codeshare with LH via So many ports, even if that deal stopped they would use or continue in some cases to use SQ, AC, CA via their home ports. FRA was I remember hearing low yielding but always full, times have changed but it would be very unlikely for NZ to return given their network now.
 
Jetstar315
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 5:54 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Tue Jan 03, 2017 2:21 pm

The inaugural service AKL-FRA departed AKL on 30 Oct 87 via HNL and LAX using a B747-219B. It was initially a weekly service and the 2nd weekly service commenced on 29 Oct 1991.
These 2 services departed AKL on Tuesdays and Fridays. The 3rd service commenced on 4 Nov 1993 with a B747-419. On 18 March 1996, LH commenced selling seats on Air NZ services from LAX to FRA and in Apr 1991 NZ dropped FRA as a destination in favour of LH flights being code shared with NZ daily on LAX-FRA.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Tue Jan 03, 2017 4:52 pm

I remember sitting in the terminal at DFW and seeing a NZ 747 arrive. Don't recollect which year. What was it's routing ? I thought it went onto FRA.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7590
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Wed Jan 04, 2017 1:01 am

sunrisevalley wrote:
I remember sitting in the terminal at DFW and seeing a NZ 747 arrive. Don't recollect which year. What was it's routing ? I thought it went onto FRA.


OCT 87 March 89. Was 1/2 weekly and both AKL-PPT-DFW and AKL-HNL-DFW were operated at some point and continued to LGW-FRA I believe they didn't stop in LGW on return.

Jetstar315 wrote:
The inaugural service AKL-FRA departed AKL on 30 Oct 87 via HNL and LAX using a B747-219B. It was initially a weekly service and the 2nd weekly service commenced on 29 Oct 1991.
These 2 services departed AKL on Tuesdays and Fridays. The 3rd service commenced on 4 Nov 1993 with a B747-419. On 18 March 1996, LH commenced selling seats on Air NZ services from LAX to FRA and in Apr 1991 NZ dropped FRA as a destination in favour of LH flights being code shared with NZ daily on LAX-FRA.



NZ may have dropped FRA seasonally in 1996 they did for a season around 99 aswell when the 742's retired but the last flight to FRA was in March 2001 with a 744 routing AKL-NAN-LAX-FRA 2 weekly on Thursdays and Fridays ex AKL.
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1231
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Wed Jan 04, 2017 5:59 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
sunrisevalley wrote:
I remember sitting in the terminal at DFW and seeing a NZ 747 arrive. Don't recollect which year. What was it's routing ? I thought it went onto FRA.


LAX to FRA and in Apr 1991 NZ dropped FRA as a destination in favour of LH flights being code shared with NZ daily on LAX-FRA.



NZ may have dropped FRA seasonally in 1996 they did for a season around 99 aswell when the 742's retired but the last flight to FRA was in March 2001 with a 744 routing AKL-NAN-LAX-FRA 2 weekly on Thursdays and Fridays ex AKL.[/quote]

I did FRA-LAX-AKL-LAX-FRA in June/July 1994 and in June/July 1996, all on B744. Then FRA-LAX (B744) and LAX-FRA (B742) in June 1997. I remember that I was surprised that we had to take the carry-on with us (usually you could leave it on board duringt the LAX stop), and then realised that we were on a 742 for the second leg, i.e. on a different aircraft. That was my only B742 flight on NZ!

Ever since, I have done quite a few NZ/LH combinations, which I quite enjoy. Especially LH's A380, B748i and B744, but also the A340-600s, due to the 2 seat rows at the window. Will be on the B744 YVR-FRA and B748i FRA-HND in June again. But would also be nice to see NZ back in FRA, and if oil stays low, it is not out of the question: Even QF is talking about going back to FRA from PER nonstop with the B789 some time after the PER-LHR inaugural. Never say never - what doesn't seem plausile or feasible now, might be in the future (again), but I don't see it in the near future...

Happy New Year everybody!
micha
 
zkncj
Posts: 3972
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:20 am

zkeoj wrote:
Ever since, I have done quite a few NZ/LH combinations, which I quite enjoy. Especially LH's A380, B748i and B744, but also the A340-600s, due to the 2 seat rows at the window. Will be on the B744 YVR-FRA and B748i FRA-HND in June again. But would also be nice to see NZ back in FRA, and if oil stays low, it is not out of the question: Even QF is talking about going back to FRA from PER nonstop with the B789 some time after the PER-LHR inaugural. Never say never - what doesn't seem plausile or feasible now, might be in the future (again), but I don't see it in the near future...


AKL-PER-FRA would be great, although only an dream that would happen.

FRA is an pretty decent airport to transfer from in Europe, and happy todo it again. If only LH would run an service down to AKL, although thanks to *A not likely.
 
PA515
Posts: 1614
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Wed Jan 04, 2017 7:08 pm

zkeoj wrote:
Even QF is talking about going back to FRA from PER nonstop with the B789 some time after the PER-LHR inaugural. Never say never - what doesn't seem plausile or feasible now, might be in the future (again), but I don't see it in the near future...


PER-MUC could probably be done by the NZ 789s due from 2017. Or LH could use their new MUC based 359s to return to Australia.

Can anyone say what's happened with ZK-NZH. It's been in PER since doing NZ175 AKL-PER on 03 Jan (1050/1315). NZ178 PER-AKL on 04 Jan (0700/1810) was cancelled, and NZH is showing on FR24 as NZ6001 PER-SIN 05 Jan (1430/......).

PA515
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1231
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Wed Jan 04, 2017 9:18 pm

zkncj wrote:
zkeoj wrote:
Ever since, I have done quite a few NZ/LH combinations, which I quite enjoy. Especially LH's A380, B748i and B744, but also the A340-600s, due to the 2 seat rows at the window. Will be on the B744 YVR-FRA and B748i FRA-HND in June again. But would also be nice to see NZ back in FRA, and if oil stays low, it is not out of the question: Even QF is talking about going back to FRA from PER nonstop with the B789 some time after the PER-LHR inaugural. Never say never - what doesn't seem plausile or feasible now, might be in the future (again), but I don't see it in the near future...


AKL-PER-FRA would be great, although only an dream that would happen.

FRA is an pretty decent airport to transfer from in Europe, and happy todo it again. If only LH would run an service down to AKL, although thanks to *A not likely.


They did run FRA-BKK-SYD-MEL in the 1990s - I once flew FRA-BKK-SYD on the spanking new B744 in 1990 with them. It was always full, but low yield, so code sharing was teh better option for them, unfortunately. The return was my only flight on a B743: SYD-SIN-BAH-FRA with QF.
 
richcandy
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2001 4:49 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:43 am

"They did run FRA-BKK-SYD-MEL in the 1990s - I once flew FRA-BKK-SYD on the spanking new B744 in 1990 with them. It was always full, but low yield, so code sharing was teh better option for them, unfortunately. The return was my only flight on a B743: SYD-SIN-BAH-FRA with QF."

That was the problem, if they reduced the fares low enough they could get the passengers, just not make any money. For a while Condor operated the route on behalf of Lufthansa.

The problem with Australia/New Zealand for european carriers is the distance in relation to the fares. (I admit this is not very scientific) But if I look at expedia for FRA-CPT outbound 10 Feb and back 17 Feb. The lowest fare is Emirates at GBP651. The lowest fare to PER is GBP590 with Qatar. So Perth is slightly cheaper. However in distance FRA-CPT (using great circle mapper, and not including the stop) is 9358 kms. FRA-PER is 13849 kms.

Do you not think it might be a case of waiting to see how well PER-LHR with QF works before NZ has ago at AKL-PER-FRA? I would love to see NZ back at FRA and also maybe back trying a second route to LHR, perhaps via SFO, but just not sure that its that likely.

Alex
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7590
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:01 am

You won't see NZ back at FRA and I NZ have said and continue to say no more 1 stop flights.

NZ and QF flying to Europe have the same problem as the European carriers flying to OZ/NZ takes a lot of aircraft and crew and is expensive. NZ do well LAX-LHR effectively as a standalone route since they have been there so long. QF have EK alliance and only serve LHR which still struggles a bit.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Posts: 11370
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Thu Jan 05, 2017 11:24 am

PA515 wrote:
Can anyone say what's happened with ZK-NZH. It's been in PER since doing NZ175 AKL-PER on 03 Jan (1050/1315). NZ178 PER-AKL on 04 Jan (0700/1810) was cancelled, and NZH is showing on FR24 as NZ6001 PER-SIN 05 Jan (1430/......).

PA515


ZK-NZH is operating tonight's NZ176 PER-AKL, why it has been on the ground I don't know but will try and find out. ZK-NZI which operated NZ175 AKL-PER today is the aircraft that has position to SIN. Could it be positioning to SIN for another charter?
Forum Moderator
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Thu Jan 05, 2017 1:43 pm

[quote="PA515Can anyone say what's happened with ZK-NZH. It's been in PER since doing NZ175 AKL-PER on 03 Jan (1050/1315). NZ178 PER-AKL on 04 Jan (0700/1810) was cancelled, and NZH is showing on FR24 as NZ6001 PER-SIN 05 Jan (1430/......).

PA515[/quote]
Sounds like a lot of slack in the 789 schedule, particularly for this time of he year.
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1231
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Thu Jan 05, 2017 10:03 pm

richcandy wrote:
"They did run FRA-BKK-SYD-MEL in the 1990s - I once flew FRA-BKK-SYD on the spanking new B744 in 1990 with them. It was always full, but low yield, so code sharing was teh better option for them, unfortunately. The return was my only flight on a B743: SYD-SIN-BAH-FRA with QF."

That was the problem, if they reduced the fares low enough they could get the passengers, just not make any money. For a while Condor operated the route on behalf of Lufthansa.

The problem with Australia/New Zealand for european carriers is the distance in relation to the fares. (I admit this is not very scientific) But if I look at expedia for FRA-CPT outbound 10 Feb and back 17 Feb. The lowest fare is Emirates at GBP651. The lowest fare to PER is GBP590 with Qatar. So Perth is slightly cheaper. However in distance FRA-CPT (using great circle mapper, and not including the stop) is 9358 kms. FRA-PER is 13849 kms.

Do you not think it might be a case of waiting to see how well PER-LHR with QF works before NZ has ago at AKL-PER-FRA? I would love to see NZ back at FRA and also maybe back trying a second route to LHR, perhaps via SFO, but just not sure that its that likely.

Alex


I once talked to an LH person back then, he he said it was easy to fill the plane, but only at low yields, because there was huge comeptition.

The route must have been very expensive to operate. I talked toone of teh FAs on the FRA-BKK leg,and she said the trip was a 2-week stint for her: a couple of days layover in BKK, then the BKK-SYD leg, then days in SYD, then SYD-MEL-SYD, then time in SYD again. Then deadheading to CGK (no idea why?), and operating CGK-FRA...

I agree that QF's PER-LHR will be a good test. If they can make it work, othersw may follow...
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1231
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Thu Jan 05, 2017 10:06 pm

ZK-NBT wrote:
You won't see NZ back at FRA and I NZ have said and continue to say no more 1 stop flights.

NZ and QF flying to Europe have the same problem as the European carriers flying to OZ/NZ takes a lot of aircraft and crew and is expensive. NZ do well LAX-LHR effectively as a standalone route since they have been there so long. QF have EK alliance and only serve LHR which still struggles a bit.


Sure NZ said that, but times change. The CEO has changed since then, and oil has dropped significantly. Not saying that they WILL run one-stops again, but I would never say never. When the environment changes, plans and policies can change as well... But, looking at NZ at the moment, I agree that it is unlikely in the near(er) future...
 
PA515
Posts: 1614
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Thu Jan 05, 2017 11:30 pm

qf789 wrote:
ZK-NZH is operating tonight's NZ176 PER-AKL, why it has been on the ground I don't know but will try and find out. ZK-NZI which operated NZ175 AKL-PER today is the aircraft that has position to SIN. Could it be positioning to SIN for another charter?

Thanks qf789.

NZH was meant to do NZ6001 PER-SIN, but must have still been unservicable. NZ6001 was initially meant to be an AKL-SIN positioning flight for a SIN-AKL charter NZ1942 which departed SIN about 5 hrs late.

sunrisevalley wrote:
Sounds like a lot of slack in the 789 schedule, particularly for this time of he year.

This must be due to delayed commencement of the seasonal AKL-PVG flights (Tu Th Sa 10 Jan to 04 Mar 2017).
Was announced as Tu Sa Su eff. 17 Dec 2016.

PA515
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1231
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 184

Fri Jan 06, 2017 2:06 am

UA is going seasonal on SFO-AKL

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1351873
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

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