Motorhussy
Posts: 3599
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:17 am

On the subject of more long haul flights into the capital, I've always been fairly ambivalent to positive about them but recently have become a bit of a NIMBY (I live on the hills at the NW end of the runway). The 77E that SQ flies in are still quite novel and, being at almost daily, are not an issue but any more deep throaty reverberant engines later at night and I think people will start getting actively-anti. WLG is inner-city and it may start affecting our house prices in the area, many now in the 7-figure category.
come visit the south pacific
 
User avatar
LamboAston
Posts: 618
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:46 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Sun Feb 19, 2017 6:21 pm

ZK-OXC is back in service
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
 
ZKOXA
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2016 9:47 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Sun Feb 19, 2017 7:46 pm

Sichuan Airlines is going to be starting Auckland from Chengdu beginning 13th June with a 3 weekly service. Making it the 6th Chinese carrier to Auckland after Air China, China Eastern, China Southern, Hainan Airlines and Tianjin Airlines.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Airlineroute/status/833006666656264192

ZKOXA
 
a7ala
Posts: 303
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Sun Feb 19, 2017 8:34 pm

CHCalfonzo wrote:

Interesting idea but I don't think it's likely, WLG doesn't add very much to the proposition for CX when it's easy enough to take a domestic flight to AKL or CHC. The big advantage for SQ starting CBR-WLG was that they could serve two completely untapped long-haul markets and an unserved trans-Tasman sector all in one. A triangular routing with a domestic leg wouldn't have any of these advantages for CX.


WLG actually adds quite a lot for CX - its a larger outbound Asia/Europe travel market than Canterbury, higher yeilding business market, and CX currently gets very little if any of it via AKL. Plus complements their AKL flights allowing open-jaw HKG-WLG overland AKL-HKG or HKG-WLG overland CHC-HKG just as SQ are now selling. Finally it would be a better product in WLG that what SQ currently do being non-stop in one direction and presumably with a better aircraft.

It would be a good temporary solution to overcome the WLG runway limitations, and if the service went well and the runway extension happened they could look to decouple in the future as HKG-CHC and HKG-WLG.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Mon Feb 20, 2017 12:32 am

aerorobnz wrote:
CHC-LAX was only 3 a week, which is a waste of time serving.

This is just silly. On that basis, NZ would never open any new route anywhere.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8310
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Mon Feb 20, 2017 1:21 am

DavidByrne wrote:
aerorobnz wrote:
CHC-LAX was only 3 a week, which is a waste of time serving.

This is just silly. On that basis, NZ would never open any new route anywhere.

Not really, considering the considerable additional costs to crew and fleet rotation that they will have to cover the cost of in higher airfares. it really is a waste of time when you consider the implications to North American routes ex AKL I mentioned. . We aren't talking about only 3 a week from AKL which has longhaul Cabin/Tech/Ground crew on tap 24/7 and therefore lower startup cost. We aren't talking about AKL which is able to offer transfer connections from Australia and the South Pacific at the time of day required for a US departure without major schedule change (again more cost) and we aren't talking about an airline flying in from their hub abroad (where they have the equivalent staff base)with a standard crew layover and turning around again and flying back 2 days later with only the minimum in administrative costs. Also from a disrupt perspective it doesn't give much flexibility with sub crew or aircraft
it isn't about just about whether CHC will make a profit, it's whether other expected routes ex AKL with a 787 are able to generate more revenue with fewer overheads. Until such time as the numbers stack up.
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
aerohottie
Posts: 812
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:52 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:17 am

Quick question: Flying business class on Air NZ, are you able to take a guest with you into the lounge who is flying premium economy?
What?
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8310
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Mon Feb 20, 2017 3:38 am

aerohottie wrote:
Quick question: Flying business class on Air NZ, are you able to take a guest with you into the lounge who is flying premium economy?

Only if you are Star Gold or koru club I think.
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.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:23 am

aerorobnz wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
aerorobnz wrote:
CHC-LAX was only 3 a week, which is a waste of time serving.

This is just silly. On that basis, NZ would never open any new route anywhere.

Not really, considering the considerable additional costs to crew and fleet rotation that they will have to cover the cost of in higher airfares. it really is a waste of time when you consider the implications to North American routes ex AKL I mentioned. . We aren't talking about only 3 a week from AKL which has longhaul Cabin/Tech/Ground crew on tap 24/7 and therefore lower startup cost. We aren't talking about AKL which is able to offer transfer connections from Australia and the South Pacific at the time of day required for a US departure without major schedule change (again more cost) and we aren't talking about an airline flying in from their hub abroad (where they have the equivalent staff base)with a standard crew layover and turning around again and flying back 2 days later with only the minimum in administrative costs. Also from a disrupt perspective it doesn't give much flexibility with sub crew or aircraft
it isn't about just about whether CHC will make a profit, it's whether other expected routes ex AKL with a 787 are able to generate more revenue with fewer overheads. Until such time as the numbers stack up.

OK, but I think you're assuming that the numbers don't stack up. I acknowledge the costs would be higher than from AKL, but that in itself doesn't invalidate the idea. Especially if, as I've suggested, it provides a ready way to offer daily PER-LAX without having to go double daily on AKL-PER. That NZ and CIAL were discussing the idea suggests to me that it may not be a complete non-starter.
Last edited by DavidByrne on Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8310
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:53 am

DavidByrne wrote:

OK, but I think you're assuming that the numbers don't stack up. I acknowledge the costs would be higher than from AKL, but that in itself doesn't invalidate the idea. Especially if, as I've suggested, it provides a ready way to offer daily PER-LAX without having to go double daily on AKL-PER. That NZ and CIAL were discussing the idea suggests to me that it may not be a complete non-starter.


Not really, I'm assuming that there are other routes which will make more money using the same aircraft including AKL-LAX,, I think it might well make money but not enough to justify the additional expense and operational complexity. Say it makes an arbitrary figure of 100,000 a flight, but has 60,000 in costs vs 45,000 at AKL., but at AKL they can make 110,000 a flight. It's not a bad route, but it's a non-starter when you're using the same aircraft that could have been better utilised out of AKL.
Airlines evaluate constantly and talk to airports to give their case studies up to date information., for them to pull the trigger they will have to have run out of options at AKL for the current density 789. When the costs get within their target range then they might act, but CHC market would be better served by another airline on the route..
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
77west
Posts: 939
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:55 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
77west wrote:
Mr AirNZ wrote:
What you are talking about is Cabotage and is not allowed for under the current Bilateral Agreement between Hong Kong and New Zealand. The New Zealand government is not adverse to such things though (as outlined in the current policy framework) however it requires give and take. What is another country prepared to offer from their end to achieve such an amendment?


Perhaps NZ being allowed to fly Hong Kong - Heathrow and sell tickets to passengers from HKG? Similar to the LAX-LHR agreement.


That's fifth freedom and NZ sold tickets on HKG-LHR, no way they would have flown it for 6.5 years with no traffic rights. To early a departure from HKG and lots of other airlines on that route made it hard to compete. Along with fares that couldn't command a high enough yield.

LAX-LHR is different in that NZ sell it effectively as AKL-LAX and LAX-LHR with a few going AKL-LHR. They have been on the route a long time and do pretty well.

So basically what you suggested NZ can already do but choose not to.


I didnt realize they used to do this, thanks for the info.
77West - AW109S - BE90 - JS31 - B1900 - Q300 - ATR72 - DC9-30 - MD80 - B733 - A320 - B738 - A300-B4 - B773 - B77W
 
tealnz
Posts: 580
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Mon Feb 20, 2017 6:32 am

a7ala wrote:
It would be a good temporary solution to overcome the WLG runway limitations, and if the service went well and the runway extension happened they could look to decouple in the future as HKG-CHC and HKG-WLG.

As a matter of interest, in an earlier tech/ops thread Zeke argued that an A359 could operate with a commercial payload off Wellington's current runway:

zeke wrote:
I ran some numbers on the Airbus performance database, off the current 16 it will takeoff with 255.5 tonnes dry and 245.0 wet. Off a dry runway 16 it will do PEK with 315 pax and 9.1 tonnes of payload, flight time of 12.43 (assumed 6000 air nautical miles).I ran the landing distance calculations, the A350-900 will be able to land on 16 at MLW in 5418 ft.

Make of that what you will...
 
User avatar
LamboAston
Posts: 618
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:46 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Mon Feb 20, 2017 6:59 am

tealnz wrote:
a7ala wrote:
It would be a good temporary solution to overcome the WLG runway limitations, and if the service went well and the runway extension happened they could look to decouple in the future as HKG-CHC and HKG-WLG.

As a matter of interest, in an earlier tech/ops thread Zeke argued that an A359 could operate with a commercial payload off Wellington's current runway:

zeke wrote:
I ran some numbers on the Airbus performance database, off the current 16 it will takeoff with 255.5 tonnes dry and 245.0 wet. Off a dry runway 16 it will do PEK with 315 pax and 9.1 tonnes of payload, flight time of 12.43 (assumed 6000 air nautical miles).I ran the landing distance calculations, the A350-900 will be able to land on 16 at MLW in 5418 ft.

Make of that what you will...

Very interesting. This could improve CX's case for a route like this by a lot, especially if an 8th freedom route between WLG and CHC was approved. New Zealand already has 8th freedom agreements with several other countries, so one with Hong Kong wouldn't be much of a stretch.
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
 
GW54
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 3:05 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Mon Feb 20, 2017 7:02 am

It's not about Avgeeks wanting fly WLG - CHC. It's an opportunity for a airline in this case CX to open up two new destinations out of Hong Kong. Locally it then gives customers in both WLG and CHC the oppurtunity to travel to Hong Kong on the same aircraft without the hassles of having to travel through Auckland. The logic is basically the same as the SQ Capital Connection however in this case pax in HKG destined for Christchurch would be transit passengers through Wellington and Wellington passengers joining locally would transit through Christchurch after which the aircraft would operate direct to HKG. Time on the ground in both WLG and CHC would be no more than 75mins.There would be no uplift domestically in WLG. This has worked In the past. When SQ first started there service to Christchurch using B747-300's the same triangular pattern was used only via AKL and not WLG. History has proven SQ got it right with CHC as it is now a 7day aweek non stop service.
 
User avatar
LamboAston
Posts: 618
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:46 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Mon Feb 20, 2017 7:03 am

aerorobnz wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:

OK, but I think you're assuming that the numbers don't stack up. I acknowledge the costs would be higher than from AKL, but that in itself doesn't invalidate the idea. Especially if, as I've suggested, it provides a ready way to offer daily PER-LAX without having to go double daily on AKL-PER. That NZ and CIAL were discussing the idea suggests to me that it may not be a complete non-starter.


Not really, I'm assuming that there are other routes which will make more money using the same aircraft including AKL-LAX,, I think it might well make money but not enough to justify the additional expense and operational complexity. Say it makes an arbitrary figure of 100,000 a flight, but has 60,000 in costs vs 45,000 at AKL., but at AKL they can make 110,000 a flight. It's not a bad route, but it's a non-starter when you're using the same aircraft that could have been better utilised out of AKL.
Airlines evaluate constantly and talk to airports to give their case studies up to date information., for them to pull the trigger they will have to have run out of options at AKL for the current density 789. When the costs get within their target range then they might act, but CHC market would be better served by another airline on the route..


I get what you are saying, but there is the counter argument that you can charge more for direct flights. NZ will be able to fill the plane to a high load factor, and probably with reasonable yields. You seem to be very AKL biased, and not open to suggestions of routes from other parts of New Zealand. Look at how a 77W wasn't big enough for EK at CHC, and how SQ had to go 10 weekly with the 772 to CHC, AND CAN SUSTAIN DAILY OVER THE WINTER, unlike UA's AKL flights with the same aircraft.
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: 6976
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:26 am

Re CHC EK don't send the A380 there because they fill it SYD-CHC but because it operates DXB-SYD, it's the same with SYD/MEL/BNE-AKL a 77W load wise most of the time is a much better fit and hauls a huge amount of freight but the A380 is on the DXB-OZ leg so they send them across th Tasman. DXB-AKL is different in that EK started with a 77L and did well, there is nothing else that could operate the route with a viable payload other than the A380.

Back to CHC like AKL it's seasonal CI are seasonal SQ, CZ increase in summer like everyone in AKL does, CHC will keep getting the odd new carrier mainly ones that do ok to AKL and want to increase their presence. AKL being 5 times bigger than CHC will pick up new carriers aswell some will be seasonal aswell. The bubble could burst where AKL does lose a few if the market changes. It's not about being biased its reality that AKL is a bigger market, Aerorob said it's better for another airline to serve the CHC than NZ. As a country we are to small I believe for NZ to have more than 1 long haul hub.

Domestic tags by overseas carriers were common everywhere in the 1980's, SQ did it with CHC/AKL when they started CHC, CX still have CNS-BNE-CNS though I think that will dissapper soon with CX maxed out on landing rights to the main cities. I just can't see CX doing a WLG-CHC tag flight in 2017, interesting re Zeke's post about the A359 and WLG. We will see if anything comes of it.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Mon Feb 20, 2017 12:40 pm

[quote="ZK-NBT"] there is nothing else that could operate the route (AKL-DXB) with a viable payload other than the A380.

Are you suggesting that QR is operating AKL-DOH with the 77L and that the payload available is not viable?
 
a7ala
Posts: 303
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Mon Feb 20, 2017 7:54 pm

tealnz wrote:
a7ala wrote:
It would be a good temporary solution to overcome the WLG runway limitations, and if the service went well and the runway extension happened they could look to decouple in the future as HKG-CHC and HKG-WLG.

As a matter of interest, in an earlier tech/ops thread Zeke argued that an A359 could operate with a commercial payload off Wellington's current runway:

zeke wrote:
I ran some numbers on the Airbus performance database, off the current 16 it will takeoff with 255.5 tonnes dry and 245.0 wet. Off a dry runway 16 it will do PEK with 315 pax and 9.1 tonnes of payload, flight time of 12.43 (assumed 6000 air nautical miles).I ran the landing distance calculations, the A350-900 will be able to land on 16 at MLW in 5418 ft.

Make of that what you will...


Would be interested in wet runway performance as I suspect that will be the limitation for the A359 on existing runway.
 
Mr AirNZ
Posts: 914
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2002 10:24 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Mon Feb 20, 2017 8:11 pm

tealnz wrote:
a7ala wrote:
It would be a good temporary solution to overcome the WLG runway limitations, and if the service went well and the runway extension happened they could look to decouple in the future as HKG-CHC and HKG-WLG.

As a matter of interest, in an earlier tech/ops thread Zeke argued that an A359 could operate with a commercial payload off Wellington's current runway:

zeke wrote:
I ran some numbers on the Airbus performance database, off the current 16 it will takeoff with 255.5 tonnes dry and 245.0 wet. Off a dry runway 16 it will do PEK with 315 pax and 9.1 tonnes of payload, flight time of 12.43 (assumed 6000 air nautical miles).I ran the landing distance calculations, the A350-900 will be able to land on 16 at MLW in 5418 ft.

Make of that what you will...

Dry 16 figures are almost irrelevant. The much more restricting scenario is going to be 34 wet and that is what a company would have to base ticket availability off, lest they leave a good whack of people behind every time it rains.
 
winginit
Posts: 2558
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:23 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:29 pm

sunrisevalley wrote:
Are you suggesting that QR is operating AKL-DOH with the 77L and that the payload available is not viable?


If the definition of viable in this context is a break-even or profitable flight, I'll be the first to say or agree with the notion that the available payload for QR's AKLDOH 77L operation is not viable. There is zero chance that the flight is anything short of a significant loss-maker with no prospects on the horizon for profitability.
 
Sylus
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 10:14 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:43 pm

Mr AirNZ wrote:
tealnz wrote:
a7ala wrote:
It would be a good temporary solution to overcome the WLG runway limitations, and if the service went well and the runway extension happened they could look to decouple in the future as HKG-CHC and HKG-WLG.

As a matter of interest, in an earlier tech/ops thread Zeke argued that an A359 could operate with a commercial payload off Wellington's current runway:

zeke wrote:
I ran some numbers on the Airbus performance database, off the current 16 it will takeoff with 255.5 tonnes dry and 245.0 wet. Off a dry runway 16 it will do PEK with 315 pax and 9.1 tonnes of payload, flight time of 12.43 (assumed 6000 air nautical miles).I ran the landing distance calculations, the A350-900 will be able to land on 16 at MLW in 5418 ft.

Make of that what you will...

Dry 16 figures are almost irrelevant. The much more restricting scenario is going to be 34 wet and that is what a company would have to base ticket availability off, lest they leave a good whack of people behind every time it rains.



Well those calculations were based on PEK which is almost 1000 nautical miles further than HKG. Also doesn't Airbus offer a higher thrust option for the A359? I remember reading somewhere that the Middle Eastern airlines requested such a type for hot and high operations. Probably wouldn't be of much use to WLG however unless someone like QR did DOH-HKG-WLG.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Mon Feb 20, 2017 11:19 pm

zeke wrote:
I ran some numbers on the Airbus performance database, off the current 16 it will takeoff with 255.5 tonnes dry and 245.0 wet. Off a dry runway 16 it will do PEK with 315 pax and 9.1 tonnes of payload, flight time of 12.43 (assumed 6000 air nautical miles).I ran the landing distance calculations, the A350-900 will be able to land on 16 at MLW in 5418 ft.

Make of that what you will...[/quote]

I wonder if this performance was based on still air or whether it factored in the typical 10k on the nose wind?
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6976
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Tue Feb 21, 2017 12:15 am

sunrisevalley wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
there is nothing else that could operate the route (AKL-DXB) with a viable payload other than the A380.

Are you suggesting that QR is operating AKL-DOH with the 77L and that the payload available is not viable?


What I meant was other than the 77L the A380 is their only other option, 77W would carry less pax than the 77L and probly zero freight.

winginit wrote:
sunrisevalley wrote:
Are you suggesting that QR is operating AKL-DOH with the 77L and that the payload available is not viable?


If the definition of viable in this context is a break-even or profitable flight, I'll be the first to say or agree with the notion that the available payload for QR's AKLDOH 77L operation is not viable. There is zero chance that the flight is anything short of a significant loss-maker with no prospects on the horizon for profitability.


That's purely conjecture surely unless you no someone within QR, the flight has been running less than 3 weeks. How ever they do have some very good fares. What I meant by viable was as above other than the 77L the A380 could do it with 100 plus seats blocked and little or no freight.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Tue Feb 21, 2017 12:38 am

winginit wrote:
If the definition of viable in this context is a break-even or profitable flight, I'll be the first to say or agree with the notion that the available payload for QR's AKLDOH 77L operation is not viable. There is zero chance that the flight is anything short of a significant loss-maker with no prospects on the horizon for profitability.


In terms of NZ O&D AKL-DOH, you may be right, who knows? AKL-DOH-XXX - with XXX representing any of the connectable cities in UK/Europe - could be a different story.

Qatar has always put it the other way, that they see the major demand for the flight as XXX-DOH-AKL. Given that the success of the ME3 is largely based on connections, this shouldn't surprise anyone.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
coolian2
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:34 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Tue Feb 21, 2017 3:08 am

The 757+Orion+2 C-130 formation flight over Auckland today was rather cool.
Q300/ATR72-600/737-200/-300/-400/-700/-800/A320/767-200/-300/757-200/777-300ER/
747-200/-300/-400/ER/A340-300/A380-800/MD-83/-88/CRJ-700/-900
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Tue Feb 21, 2017 4:26 am

coolian2 wrote:
The 757+Orion+2 C-130 formation flight over Auckland today was rather cool.

Yes, saw that from my balcony. Any particular reason for it?
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
CHCalfonzo
Posts: 118
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:56 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Tue Feb 21, 2017 6:19 am

http://www.airlinehubbuzz.com/cathay-pacific-looks-set-add-christchurch/

Looks like it's coming true! Press release expected tomorrow :)
 
User avatar
LamboAston
Posts: 618
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:46 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Tue Feb 21, 2017 8:48 am

ZK-NCL has just departed AKL as NZ6070. Is this another military charter or something else?
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
 
Luxair747SP
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 2:24 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Tue Feb 21, 2017 8:50 am

LamboAston wrote:
ZK-NCL has just departed AKL as NZ6070. Is this another military charter or something else?


It is an extra flight to PPT, as today's TN as well as tomorrows NZ flight are too full already to get all stranded pax rebooked onto.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6976
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Tue Feb 21, 2017 8:58 am

Luxair747SP wrote:
LamboAston wrote:
ZK-NCL has just departed AKL as NZ6070. Is this another military charter or something else?



That would be ZK-NCI. NCL left last year.


CHCalfonzo wrote:
http://www.airlinehubbuzz.com/cathay-pacific-looks-set-add-christchurch/

Looks like it's coming true! Press release expected tomorrow :)


Guess we will see. Good for CHC if true.
 
coolian2
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:34 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:05 am

DavidByrne wrote:
coolian2 wrote:
The 757+Orion+2 C-130 formation flight over Auckland today was rather cool.

Yes, saw that from my balcony. Any particular reason for it?

I assume preparations for Ohakea this weekend?
Q300/ATR72-600/737-200/-300/-400/-700/-800/A320/767-200/-300/757-200/777-300ER/
747-200/-300/-400/ER/A340-300/A380-800/MD-83/-88/CRJ-700/-900
 
PA515
Posts: 1543
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:38 am

Luxair747SP wrote:
It is an extra flight to PPT, as today's TN as well as tomorrows NZ flight are too full already to get all stranded pax rebooked onto.


The 20 Feb NZ40 got to about 320 kms from PPT before turning around. The FR24 playback for ZK-NZG has it at 37,000 ft then climbing to 38,000 ft in the turn. No news reports.

PA515
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8310
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:51 am

LamboAston wrote:

I get what you are saying, but there is the counter argument that you can charge more for direct flights. NZ will be able to fill the plane to a high load factor, and probably with reasonable yields. You seem to be very AKL biased, and not open to suggestions of routes from other parts of New Zealand. Look at how a 77W wasn't big enough for EK at CHC, and how SQ had to go 10 weekly with the 772 to CHC, AND CAN SUSTAIN DAILY OVER THE WINTER, unlike UA's AKL flights with the same aircraft.


I'm not AKL biased, the airlines operating here are - When THEY did their route justifications they chose AKL as their primary point of entry.. I am in favour of CHC developing as a hub - espcially as competition to this shithole we call AKL (airport). However, I am acutely aware of airline costs and limitations as well as the glut of seats we have that go unfilled every day..
New Zealand as a market is fickle, and load factors in AKL aren't necessarily profitable enough for sustainability for a number of carriers. If it came down to it I would prefer long term sustainability over an additional operation to CHC.

CHC didn't earn EK A380s, it got it by default. EK upgraded the remaining SYD flight to an A380 and had no other option or run a greater risk with a direct 77L which would have been very high risk. SQ got CHC with hard graft and persistence. They didn't give up, and eventually it paid off. They didn't charge more than AKL, but that is because their costs of operation there are not greater, they don't have to buy GSE, position staff, retime connections from their hub to fill it up etc. I say again, the best thing for CHC are airlines which do not have the weight of justifying AKL ops hanging over their heads as well. Look for new carriers, not NZ. NZ chose to base their international hub here, they are choosing to keep it that way by not adding additional flights ex CHC which negate that AKL hub demand. Secondly, competition is at an alltime high, you can charge extra for direct but ultimately the punters will pay to go via AKL if it costs less to do so (which it will)
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Tue Feb 21, 2017 1:48 pm

[quote="ZK-NBT"][quote="sunrisevalley"][quote="ZK-NBT"] What I meant was other than the 77L the A380 is their only other option, 77W would carry less pax than the 77L and probly zero freight.[quote="winginit"]

Gotcha..
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4321
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Wed Feb 22, 2017 4:21 am

DavidByrne wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
HR from Puhinui can be done quickly for around $1B including underground into the airport (cut n cover trench).

This is positively the worst option from a network point of view, even though it may appear on the surface to be very attractive (no pun intended!).
Reasons:
(a) It adds just one single station to the network for the sum of (let's say, your estimate of) $1 bn.
(b) It gives no benefit at all to the Mangere area, which desperately needs better public transport. Let alone any redundancy for the wider network.
(c) It pours all the trains onto the most congested already part of the NIMT. Yes, a third main line is on the schedule, but this is in itself a major undertaking, requiring serious work on each of the stations on the line as well.

This option scored much lower than the Onehunga HR line extension when the B?C analysis was done a few years ago.

a) That one station would be one of the busiest on the entire network.
b) Mangere will benefit from having less traffic passing through as more people will use train to get to the airport. Buslanes could easily be added to the Mangere Bridge to connect it with nearby Onehunga (which has rail). Bus lanes could also be added towards the airport until such time as another rail link (be it LR from Onehunga or HR from Onehunga/Otahuhu) is built in the future. LR is likely to be built along Dominion Road anyway. The cost of extending that to Onehunga then across the harbour and to the airport are quite expensive.
c) In reality the NIMT is not actually that busy (many rail lines around the world can handle 30+ TPH. That section of the NIMT is only expected to receive 15TPH plus 1-2 freight trains at certain times. Eventually it might reach 24TPH which is still not that busy compared to 30+. With the 3rd (and eventual 4th main) there won't be any capacity issues on this section for many decades. The 3rd is a foregone conclusion and while there is a bit of work needed to build it (which has already been costed at around $50m and is being built regardless of an airport line). The $1B is less than what LR from Dominion Road would cost and can be built much quicker and actually provides better airport access both for airport workers (the majority of which live to the South and East - meaning they gain absolutely nothing from LR via Onehunga) and for the rest of Auckland (barring those living around Dominion Road and Onehunga - and Onehunga can still train back to the NIMT and down to the airport if they wanted). For everyone else it will be faster than the LR option. The additional services to the airport can also transport regular passengers on it's way to/from the airport so the costs won't be as if it was a dedicated airport train.
59 types. 41 countries. 24 airlines.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Wed Feb 22, 2017 5:13 am

Zkpilot wrote:
a) That one station would be one of the busiest on the entire network.
b) Mangere will benefit from having less traffic passing through as more people will use train to get to the airport. Buslanes could easily be added to the Mangere Bridge to connect it with nearby Onehunga (which has rail). Bus lanes could also be added towards the airport until such time as another rail link (be it LR from Onehunga or HR from Onehunga/Otahuhu) is built in the future. LR is likely to be built along Dominion Road anyway. The cost of extending that to Onehunga then across the harbour and to the airport are quite expensive.
c) In reality the NIMT is not actually that busy (many rail lines around the world can handle 30+ TPH. That section of the NIMT is only expected to receive 15TPH plus 1-2 freight trains at certain times. Eventually it might reach 24TPH which is still not that busy compared to 30+. With the 3rd (and eventual 4th main) there won't be any capacity issues on this section for many decades. The 3rd is a foregone conclusion and while there is a bit of work needed to build it (which has already been costed at around $50m and is being built regardless of an airport line). The $1B is less than what LR from Dominion Road would cost and can be built much quicker and actually provides better airport access both for airport workers (the majority of which live to the South and East - meaning they gain absolutely nothing from LR via Onehunga) and for the rest of Auckland (barring those living around Dominion Road and Onehunga - and Onehunga can still train back to the NIMT and down to the airport if they wanted). For everyone else it will be faster than the LR option. The additional services to the airport can also transport regular passengers on it's way to/from the airport so the costs won't be as if it was a dedicated airport train.

(a) Think "network" - this option does nothing whatsoever for the network for your billion dollars. And it didn't stack up financially when they ran the numbers.
(b) Rail to the airport won't fly (no pun intended!) if it doesn't also service Mangere. And serving Ascot wouldn't be possible if the airport is served from Puhinui unless much more is spent and trains double back along the same line they came in on. Without Ascot, the potential to serve a good portion of the FTEs in the airport area is lost - along with a good deal of the economic rationale for the line.
(c) Yes, these are not insurmountable problems and, as you say, the third main is (sort of, in a rather haphazard way) committed to. But we're talking 18TPH for the three lines that would share that piece of track (Southern, Eastern and Airport lines) if they all operate to 6TPH at peak, as anticipated. But it's not really an issue of the capacity on the line, which as you say, is solvable. This option concentrates so much of the available passenger capacity on a section of the line that doesn't warrant it - while other parts of the region are desperate for rail service. Note that this stretch is already the best-served stretch of line in the network (Britomart-Newmarket excluded), and there's really no justification for more to be added. Re the benefits for airport workers in the south and east: I'd be more impressed by that argument if AT's Route 380 was packed with airport workers, but in reality it languishes and was downgraded from a "Frequent Service" route to a "Connector" route prior to implementation of the southern New Network late last year

In my heart, I'd prefer an extension of the Onehunga HR line but even this doesn't really stack up from a network perspective because it still concentrates capacity on the NIMT (but not as seriously as the Puhinui option would). If we're going to get the best bang for buck regionally from this venture, then the Dominion Road LR option is what the analysis has shown would deliver the best outcomes.

Of course, the Puhinui option is technically feasible, no question, and would probably be as fast as the Onehunga option - and faster than Dominion Road. But the choice of option for the airport rail line is never going to be made on the basis of journey time to the city alone - there are many contributing factors in the decision, and it can't just be reduced to a simplistic argument about highest speed and lowest capital outlay. Much, though, from an av-geek's perspective, we might think it should.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
PA515
Posts: 1543
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Wed Feb 22, 2017 6:33 am

PA515 wrote:
Luxair747SP wrote:
It is an extra flight to PPT, as today's TN as well as tomorrows NZ flight are too full already to get all stranded pax rebooked onto.


The 20 Feb NZ40 got to about 320 kms from PPT before turning around. The FR24 playback for ZK-NZG has it at 37,000 ft then climbing to 38,000 ft in the turn. No news reports.

PA515


Apparently 'torrential rain' at PPT was the reason NZ40 returned to AKL on Monday.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/international/ ... ti-airport

PA515
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 938
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Wed Feb 22, 2017 1:14 pm

sunrisevalley wrote:
zeke wrote:
I ran some numbers on the Airbus performance database, off the current 16 it will takeoff with 255.5 tonnes dry and 245.0 wet. Off a dry runway 16 it will do PEK with 315 pax and 9.1 tonnes of payload, flight time of 12.43 (assumed 6000 air nautical miles).I ran the landing distance calculations, the A350-900 will be able to land on 16 at MLW in 5418 ft.

Make of that what you will...


I wonder if this performance was based on still air or whether it factored in the typical 10k on the nose wind?[/quote]
IIRC the estimates were explictly done quite conservatively and did not include any of the normal headwinds you'd get out of WLG.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4321
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Wed Feb 22, 2017 8:39 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
a) That one station would be one of the busiest on the entire network.
b) Mangere will benefit from having less traffic passing through as more people will use train to get to the airport. Buslanes could easily be added to the Mangere Bridge to connect it with nearby Onehunga (which has rail). Bus lanes could also be added towards the airport until such time as another rail link (be it LR from Onehunga or HR from Onehunga/Otahuhu) is built in the future. LR is likely to be built along Dominion Road anyway. The cost of extending that to Onehunga then across the harbour and to the airport are quite expensive.
c) In reality the NIMT is not actually that busy (many rail lines around the world can handle 30+ TPH. That section of the NIMT is only expected to receive 15TPH plus 1-2 freight trains at certain times. Eventually it might reach 24TPH which is still not that busy compared to 30+. With the 3rd (and eventual 4th main) there won't be any capacity issues on this section for many decades. The 3rd is a foregone conclusion and while there is a bit of work needed to build it (which has already been costed at around $50m and is being built regardless of an airport line). The $1B is less than what LR from Dominion Road would cost and can be built much quicker and actually provides better airport access both for airport workers (the majority of which live to the South and East - meaning they gain absolutely nothing from LR via Onehunga) and for the rest of Auckland (barring those living around Dominion Road and Onehunga - and Onehunga can still train back to the NIMT and down to the airport if they wanted). For everyone else it will be faster than the LR option. The additional services to the airport can also transport regular passengers on it's way to/from the airport so the costs won't be as if it was a dedicated airport train.

(a) Think "network" - this option does nothing whatsoever for the network for your billion dollars. And it didn't stack up financially when they ran the numbers.
(b) Rail to the airport won't fly (no pun intended!) if it doesn't also service Mangere. And serving Ascot wouldn't be possible if the airport is served from Puhinui unless much more is spent and trains double back along the same line they came in on. Without Ascot, the potential to serve a good portion of the FTEs in the airport area is lost - along with a good deal of the economic rationale for the line.
(c) Yes, these are not insurmountable problems and, as you say, the third main is (sort of, in a rather haphazard way) committed to. But we're talking 18TPH for the three lines that would share that piece of track (Southern, Eastern and Airport lines) if they all operate to 6TPH at peak, as anticipated. But it's not really an issue of the capacity on the line, which as you say, is solvable. This option concentrates so much of the available passenger capacity on a section of the line that doesn't warrant it - while other parts of the region are desperate for rail service. Note that this stretch is already the best-served stretch of line in the network (Britomart-Newmarket excluded), and there's really no justification for more to be added. Re the benefits for airport workers in the south and east: I'd be more impressed by that argument if AT's Route 380 was packed with airport workers, but in reality it languishes and was downgraded from a "Frequent Service" route to a "Connector" route prior to implementation of the southern New Network late last year

In my heart, I'd prefer an extension of the Onehunga HR line but even this doesn't really stack up from a network perspective because it still concentrates capacity on the NIMT (but not as seriously as the Puhinui option would). If we're going to get the best bang for buck regionally from this venture, then the Dominion Road LR option is what the analysis has shown would deliver the best outcomes.

Of course, the Puhinui option is technically feasible, no question, and would probably be as fast as the Onehunga option - and faster than Dominion Road. But the choice of option for the airport rail line is never going to be made on the basis of journey time to the city alone - there are many contributing factors in the decision, and it can't just be reduced to a simplistic argument about highest speed and lowest capital outlay. Much, though, from an av-geek's perspective, we might think it should.


a) Network - yes it does add to the network. It can replace some of the trains going South (or be in addition to them). It adds potentially thousands of passengers to the network each day and encourages more people to use the network in the first place (it is not going to just be those that currently use trains that would use it, it would be many new passengers too). It did stack up they just had their eyes fixated on Onehunga (HR or LR) and dismissed the other options at the time. It is the most cost effective method of getting rail (of any kind) to the airport. There is no way that you can get LR there from Dominion Road for that price (since it will need to be built down to Onehunga, have a bridge across the harbour, have a long journey beside the motorway and require several elevated sections). LR from Puhinui would be cheaper but that has never been discussed as an option and unless it was built and continued on to Botany would be an orphan - better to have HR in that case.
b) What is your obsession with Mangere? Mangere doesn't have that large a population and can easily be serviced with buses to/from Otahuhu and Onehunga. Because it is now becoming quite expensive there (becoming the next Onehunga) there are fewer and fewer airport workers living there. Mangere to the airport is actually not too bad (motorway all the way) it is just currently congested because so many passengers from all over Auckland are forced to drive there - put a train in and that congestion would disappear).
As for Ascot - bring in a loop bus serving the whole airport area (in addition to the terminal bus - which will be disappearing soon when they finally get around to building the new domestic terminal). A loop bus would bring virtually door to door service which a train (HR or LR) wouldn't be able to do from a single Ascot station.
c) The airport line would operate as an additional service but it would also replace some Southern/Eastern Services (since it would cover almost all of those routes).
The thing about the airport 380 bus is that it is stuck in the same traffic as cars, is slower than cars (with the stops), and is a bus - trains are far more pleasant over a medium-long distance. It would be easy for someone to catch a train from Papakura/Pukekohe up and change at Puhinui through to the airport. Changing to a bus involves leaving the station and getting to the bus stop which obviously isn't as quick or easy.
The main things to consider are: Cost, Speed, Capacity, Catchment. This option wins out on the first three and arguably the third since it has the whole network to service versus CBD+Dom Rd+Mangere.
59 types. 41 countries. 24 airlines.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4321
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Wed Feb 22, 2017 8:45 pm

Air NZ posts impressive but reduced H1 profit.

"Air New Zealand has announced earnings before tax of $349 million for the first six months of the 2017 financial year--compared to $457 million in 2016. The result is the second highest for an interim period in the airline's history. Net profit after taxation was $256 million, compared to last year's $338 million.
Chairman Tony Carter described the interim profit as an impressive result in the face of unprecedented competitive capacity into the New Zealand market."

Good result from NZ.

Yesterday the NZ Herald forecast that it would be: "Underlying net profit is forecast to fall 44 per cent to $187 million" so $256m is a $69m more than that.

Main reason for the fall being that fuel prices are 54% higher than they were a year ago. Of course since NZ has one of the most efficient fleets in the world they feel it less than most. Will be interested to see what QFs (also to be released today) comes out as (with their older 744s - although admittedly they make up a fairly small part of their fleet now that they no longer have so many and have got rid of the 767).
59 types. 41 countries. 24 airlines.
 
PA515
Posts: 1543
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Thu Feb 23, 2017 3:21 am

Zkpilot wrote:
Air NZ posts impressive but reduced H1 profit.


One more 789 to be leased from ALC for delivery in FY2019. Probably for delivery before Dec 2018.

2017 Air New Zealand Interim Results Analyst Presentation (slide 15)
https://p-airnz.com/cms/assets/PDFs/201 ... tation.pdf

PA515
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4321
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Thu Feb 23, 2017 3:42 am

PA515 wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
Air NZ posts impressive but reduced H1 profit.


One more 789 to be leased from ALC for delivery in FY2019. Probably for delivery before Dec 2018.

2017 Air New Zealand Interim Results Analyst Presentation (slide 15)
https://p-airnz.com/cms/assets/PDFs/201 ... tation.pdf

PA515

Yes the 1x 789 is the only aircraft announcement. Although any other announcement they would probably keep private until such time as they wanted to announce it (ie 77E replacement etc. I note they still have those A320/321NEO options mentioned also). The aircraft average age jumps up rapidly towards 2020 but replacing the 77E would drop that back down to around 6 years.
59 types. 41 countries. 24 airlines.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Thu Feb 23, 2017 3:55 am

Zkpilot wrote:
[Yes the 1x 789 is the only aircraft announcement. Although any other announcement they would probably keep private until such time as they wanted to announce it (ie 77E replacement etc. I note they still have those A320/321NEO options mentioned also). The aircraft average age jumps up rapidly towards 2020 but replacing the 77E would drop that back down to around 6 years.


I wonder if this comes out of ALC's on orders or NZ's options. I would think the latter.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Thu Feb 23, 2017 4:00 am

Zkpilot wrote:
Air NZ posts impressive but reduced H1 profit.


Image

I think its an excellent result, the second highest interim in the airline's history.

There's only one tiny tease with regard to future plans:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11806065

"Any new routes on the horizon? The airline is leasing an additional Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner which will join the fleet in the 2019 financial year to "support future capacity growth."

Luxon is coy on where that extra capacity may be but the airline is actively considering new ultra long haul routes in North America and South America."


The writer, Grant Bradley, goes on to say that New York, Toronto and Brazilian cities Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro are possibilities that have been in the mix before. Hmmm. I don't remember much talk about Toronto, and I thought the airline had discounted Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo as both having to much of a payload restriction on the return. Maybe there have been some tweaks to the 787 since then that I don't know about?

But if they are "actively considering" more South America, I still have my fingers crossed for LIM. Image

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
User avatar
LamboAston
Posts: 618
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:46 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Thu Feb 23, 2017 4:41 am

PA515 wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
Air NZ posts impressive but reduced H1 profit.


One more 789 to be leased from ALC for delivery in FY2019. Probably for delivery before Dec 2018.

2017 Air New Zealand Interim Results Analyst Presentation (slide 15)
https://p-airnz.com/cms/assets/PDFs/201 ... tation.pdf

PA515

So is this one going to be ZK-NZN or NZO? Disappointing that it is only one more, and not more than that. Maybe there will be another one at the end of the FY. It does say in the top left of page 15 that they are forecasting nearly 200m for aircraft expenditure in the next 6 months
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
 
tealnz
Posts: 580
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Thu Feb 23, 2017 8:20 am

LamboAston wrote:
Disappointing that it is only one more, and not more than that. Maybe there will be another one at the end of the FY.


The 789 works well for leisure routes in Asia and it will no doubt be fine for EZE. It remains to be seen where the new 275 seater will fit into the network but it will not be the answer for US east coast, Chicago, Toronto etc. And NZ doesn't have the premium traffic to sustain yields with the sort of configuration you need for true ULH on a 789 (230 or so seats, like the new Qantas layout). When they finally bite the bullet on a 77E/77W replacement programme they will have to look at something with more versatility on ULH – which surely points to 359/35J or 77X.
 
aotearoa
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 1:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:14 am

Air New Zealand's ratio of aircraft owned versus leased is probably getting a little high. Leasing a 787 is a good way of building in growth options, without the risk of owning another aircraft.

Until they sit down to review their long term fleet strategy (like what would the airline's long haul fleet look like in 2027, ten years from now?), leasing a few extra 787s looks to be a safe bet.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Thu Feb 23, 2017 5:25 pm

mariner wrote:


The writer, Grant Bradley, goes on to say that New York, Toronto and Brazilian cities Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro are possibilities that have been in the mix before. Hmmm. I don't remember much talk about Toronto, and I thought the airline had discounted Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo as both having to much of a payload restriction on the return. Maybe there have been some tweaks to the 787 since then that I don't know about?mariner


NZ have tweaked it by adding a 275 seat version which would be good for ~ 17 hrs. at max passenger load. Probably a little short for EWR/JFK-AKL. unless NZ was satisfied with something like a 90% passenger load factor and no cargo. Payload for ORD/GRU-AKL would be ~ 36t which is max passenger plus 5t cargo or at a typical 85% passenger load factor close to 10t of cargo. Seems to me ORD/JFK could only be added based on market growth or a reduction in the number of seats offered out of SFO/LAX/IAH. If my figuring is right 4-275 seat frames would allow 2 daily rotations AKL/ North/ Sth. America/ Canada.
 
tealnz
Posts: 580
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Fri Feb 24, 2017 8:23 am

sunrisevalley wrote:
NZ have tweaked it by adding a 275 seat version which would be good for ~ 17 hrs. at max passenger load. Probably a little short for EWR/JFK-AKL. unless NZ was satisfied with something like a 90% passenger load factor and no cargo. Payload for ORD/GRU-AKL would be ~ 36t which is max passenger plus 5t cargo or at a typical 85% passenger load factor close to 10t of cargo. Seems to me ORD/JFK could only be added based on market growth or a reduction in the number of seats offered out of SFO/LAX/IAH. If my figuring is right 4-275 seat frames would allow 2 daily rotations AKL/ North/ Sth. America/ Canada.

Hard to square the JFK/789 speculation with real-world numbers. SFO-SIN is 300nm shorter still-air than JFK-AKL. Yet United can only ticket 220 pax westbound during winter - they're blocking 30 seats. QF had to configure their 789s for 230 seats to do PER-LHR which is only 150nm further than JFK-AKL. NZ would need a third configuration if they really want to do ULH with a 789. Since they've gone for 275 seats instead for their "premium" configuration we have to assume that they're going to stick with their current business model - which just won't sustain 230 seat 789s. I don't think the 789 is going to be the 77E replacement somehow.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6976
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - February 2017

Fri Feb 24, 2017 9:07 am

So what do you think will be the 77E replacement tealnz? The 789 premium config really is very similar to the 77E just a slightly smaller aircraft but more premium than than the current 789's. NZ's current business model points to smaller aircraft with more destinations, sure 230 on a 789 seems a bit low but say 250, with 35J 35W 180Y or there abouts.

I would see the 275 seat 789's going to YVR, IAH which are the longest 77E flights. However IAH may need a 77W at some point so the 789 would go to LAX/SFO instead.

That's the first I have read that UA block seats SFO-SIN.

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