• 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4304
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 14, 2017 6:02 am

zkncj wrote:
Could an Saab 340 be used to re-open the AKL-NLK route? provided they could get an ETPOS 90 minutes coverage it seems that it could be do able, after all the DC3 and F27 have both operated this route in the past. Surely an 33 seater aircraft would be much more suited to the route an could probably be an daily service.

I doubt that this would be competitive, both from a passenger comfort perspective, as well as from a cargo perspective.

mariner wrote:
I was surprised that Air Chats didn't jump at it. It would be like their flight from AKL to the Chathams, only in a different direction - LOL.

Indeed, AKL - NLK is 678 mi, while AKL - CHT is 658 mi.

Image

If NZ co-operate with CV to CHT, NLK and elsewhere, just as it has done with GZ to AIT, expansion by CV could be far more viable.

Cheers,

C.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8318
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 14, 2017 6:55 am

zkncj wrote:
How open would passengers be to travelling TRG-SYD in a turboprop on a second tier airline?

TRG-SYD: 2,292km on an ETPOS 90minute route.

The Saab 2000 has a published range of 2900km, which should be enough to allow a divert. With a rough travel time of 3h40minutes, it wouldn't be to bad.


It wouldn't worry me but it would be a concern for a lot of people. I tend to think the ERJ135/145XR would be more acceptable for more people, however, it is relevant that with smaller aircraft still come with higher costs per seats, and the load factor wouldn't have to be very high before the cost was at a point that would be unacceptable for many people and uncompetitive with flight cost via AKL. I have done 3h15min on an ERJ, and it certainly isn't that bad.

In answer to planemannz's question about government influence, I don't see it is the government's responsibility to interfere in this matter with subsidies or with draconian regulation on the airline industry. Why should an airline take on a loss-leading route just to make money on a route they actually want to fly. There is only one way they should impact this discussion and that is target growth in particular regions to try and make cities a size of critical mass that can handle more air service for profit. If it doesn't sustainably profit airlines hen it doesn't deserve international air service of any kind.
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 14, 2017 8:04 am

aerorobnz wrote:
It wouldn't worry me but it would be a concern for a lot of people. I tend to think the ERJ135/145XR would be more acceptable for more people, however, it is relevant that with smaller aircraft still come with higher costs per seats, and the load factor wouldn't have to be very high before the cost was at a point that would be unacceptable for many people and uncompetitive with flight cost via AKL. I have done 3h15min on an ERJ, and it certainly isn't that bad.


Image

A few years ago I was privy to some research by a US airline which was exploring the use of E-jets (E135/145) for regular service (they'd been flying them on contract for a major airline)

They established that the BELF (break even load factor) of the E jets, with standard fares and mid-priced fuel, was close to 150%. I can't imagine what fares an airline would have to charge to use them on TRG-SYD.

aerorobnz wrote:
In answer to planemannz's question about government influence, I don't see it is the government's responsibility to interfere in this matter with subsidies or with draconian regulation on the airline industry. Why should an airline take on a loss-leading route just to make money on a route they actually want to fly. There is only one way they should impact this discussion and that is target growth in particular regions to try and make cities a size of critical mass that can handle more air service for profit. If it doesn't sustainably profit airlines hen it doesn't deserve international air service of any kind.


Image

I think we're in a good (free market) place, where most of the country is well-catered for air service without, to my knowledge, any subsidies. There may be some who'd grumble and every city/town/village thinks that if only they had more (or even any) air service the tourists would come a'flocking in. Samoa was so sure of it that they canned a divided-returning airline out and have revived a failed airline to take its place. I wish 'em luck.

And there may - may - be a couple of places in NZ that could support trans-Tasman service, but I'm intrigued that ROT-SYD didn't work and that was subsidised by the RDC to the tune of $1 million a year:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industr ... hts-canned

"Rotorua to Sydney flights canned

Rotorua Airport's sole shareholder, Rotorua District Council (RDC), made the decision in conjunction with Air New Zealand after deciding the route subsidy - $1 million in the last financial year - could be better invested elsewhere.


If ROT can't work, which has tourism up the wazoo, and ultimately HLZ didn't work, then I don't know where else would, although I could be persuaded - perhaps - about TRG. I think it would rely heavily on VFR, with some business traffic. Most tourists want to see more than just one place and I think fares would have to be quite low to bring tourists to TRG as their point of entry.

I suppose it's possible the then high price of fuel killed HLZ and I I grant that someone much cleverer than I am and with access to a very great deal of money, could come along and make it all work, and I'd watch with fascination, because mostly, within my experience and with a few exceptions, subsidies are simply throwing money down the dunny.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
USAOZ
Posts: 443
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2017 4:34 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 14, 2017 8:56 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
Aside from expanded Trans-Tasman services, I wonder if any of these secondary cities could support seasonal flights to the Pacific Islands too.

In the past, HLZ and PMR sustained Freedom Air flights to NAN.

Fiji Airways has a smaller 737-700, which might be perfect for re-instating some of these flights - it could offer Asian and North American connections too.

Fiji Airways is not afraid to offer low-frequency flights to secondary cities (look at its new NAN - ADL service, as an example), though, it was not successful in some smaller cities in the past (like CBR, though, that was nearly 15 years ago, and times have changed).

Image

VirginFlyer wrote:
I guess any are possible, some are definitely more likely, and I would imagine it probably wouldn't be viable for all to be offered; I would guess more an either/or scenario.

Absolutely - IMO, the HLZ - ROT - TRG catchment area should be able to sustain some seasonal flights.

In particular, TRG would be interesting, because:

- Tauranga has overtaken Dunedin's population of 127,000, clocking in at 128,200 people in 2016 (growing by 48,400 since 1996)
- Tauranga's GDP grew by 4.4 percent in 2016, and the Western Bay district's by 6.0 percent in the same period (the national average was 2.5 percent)
- Figures showed 573 new businesses set up in Tauranga in 2016, four percent more than 2015 and higher than the national average of 1.6 percent
- In 2016, both Hamilton and Tauranga's house prices surged by nearly 30 percent (among the fastest in the country)

The "wealth effect" is clearly evident, with multi-million dollar shopping malls and other entertainment facilities in the region under construction.

VirginFlyer wrote:
If New Plymouth gets a longer runway, I would add it to your list...

Yes, and Nelson too - but, neither are likely to receive a runway extension.

Cheers,

C.


FJ will retire the current 737 fleet in the next 2 years all replaced by MAX8's.
maybe FJ should keep a couple of older 738's or they could lease a few older 738 models, jam them with max seating which i think is 189. With slimline seats, legroom might actually be increased, even with decrease in seat pitch.

These aircraft could operate a lower cost version of Fiji Air, maybe called Fiji Express an LCC & do bikini/board short fares to Fiji, ie. stuff all check luggage (or none "FREE") included like with OZ Jetstar & fly to 2ndary airports in NZL + could also offer connections onto rest of FJ network to Asia/USA.

Also, there's stuff all daylight flights MEL/NAN in daylight hours. 95% of them are red eyes. FJ managed to find some spare 737 time to jam in a few daylight flight over Dec-Jan I think it is.

BNE/NAN still has 2 red eyes a week. These flights suck. By the time they give you a snack, you might get 90 minutes sleep before they wake you up. Obviously, FJ need at least 1 or 2 most jets in their fleet !!!
 
USAOZ
Posts: 443
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2017 4:34 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 14, 2017 8:58 am

no one wants to change terminals at bloody awful AKL,just like no one wants to at bloody awful SYD either.
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5267
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 14, 2017 10:01 am

USAOZ wrote:
no one wants to change terminals at bloody awful AKL,just like no one wants to at bloody awful SYD either.

Thankfully a domestic terminal physically connected to the international terminal is on the cards (hopefully in the next decade!):
https://corporate.aucklandairport.co.nz ... the-future

V/F
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh
 
NZ321
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 14, 2017 10:17 am

I imagine Sounds are looking at beech 1900D or Saab 340. There isn't much else they can look at is their? ATR 42 seems too big. Don't rate the chances of EMB120. Thoughts?
Plane mad!
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4304
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 14, 2017 11:24 am

aerorobnz wrote:
Why should an airline take on a loss-leading route just to make money on a route they actually want to fly. There is only one way they should impact this discussion and that is target growth in particular regions to try and make cities a size of critical mass that can handle more air service for profit

There are interesting arguments on both sides of the debate - in particular, some people might argue that in order to grow a smaller region, additional connectivity is necessary. That is to say, if it is easier to get to a destination, more people will invest in, and move to, that destination. On the flip side, other people might say that destinations like TRG are growing enough already without international flights, and so international flights should not be forced upon airlines for the sake of them. IMO, government should have some role to play, if not by compelling airlines to fly to the regions (in exchange for a benefit to the airlines, like sustained access to first-tier cities), then by incentivising them to do so. For example, the Australian and New Zealand governments could co-ordinate with each other, and say to NZ and VA that their alliance can stand for 7 years (instead of 5), if they commit to international flights to 1 regional city, in each of Australia and New Zealand.

Regarding monetary subsidies for flights across Australia and New Zealand, there are various examples, across multiple airlines:

- MI's BME - SIN (not yet commenced)
- MI's KTA - SIN (not yet commenced)
- NZ's SYD - NLK
- SQ's CBR - WLG
- VA's PER - XCH

A regional New Zealand city might follow the model of BME or KTA - see: https://thewest.com.au/news/pilbara-new ... b88363099z.

In addition, even without government support, various 'thin' international routes in the region have proven to be sustainable of late:

- NF's BNE - SON
- NZ's AKL - MCY
- PX's TSV - POM
- VA's BNE - DUD
- VA's PHE - DPS

As one comparison, the Sunshine Coast's population is similar to that of HLZ and TRG combined (and not even including ROT).

In any event, it will be interesting to watch the growth of aviation in regional New Zealand (with or without regulation and subsidies).

mariner wrote:
If ROT can't work, which has tourism up the wazoo, and ultimately HLZ didn't work, then I don't know where else would

Be careful in writing off routes, just because they did not work several years ago - times change (as NZ's re-entry into the likes of AKL - DPS, AKL - KIX , AKL - SIN and AKL - YVR over the years has shown). In respect of HLZ specifically, since the last HLZ - BNE flight in October 2012, the following factors are relevant:

- Operating outlays have dropped greatly (Brent Crude Oil averaged USD 112 per barrel in 2012, while today, it is about half that, and is fluctuating at between USD 50 - 60)
- Visitor arrivals to New Zealand grew by 5.4% to ~2.6 million in the 2011/12 financial year, while in the 2016/17 financial year, they grew by a much higher 10.2% to ~3.6 million
- People feel more prosperous, with property prices increasing by 59.9% in Hamilton, by 62.0% in Tauranga, and by 54.0% in Rotorua, between January 2013 and September 2017

The viability of short-haul routes may develop further over the coming years - for example:

- New aircraft will be delivered to Australia and New Zealand, such as 737 MAXs and A320 NEOs, with improved operating efficiencies
- NZ's relationship with VA may sour further, in which case VA might be more willing to expand itself, or TT, further across New Zealand
- Australia and New Zealand may remove border controls, like in the Schengen Area, reducing the need for customs and immigration

See, for example: https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-wants-t ... -australia.

zkncj wrote:
Could an Saab 340 be used to re-open the AKL-NLK route?

aerorobnz wrote:
Smaller aircraft still come with higher costs per seats, and the load factor wouldn't have to be very high before the cost was at a point that would be unacceptable for many people

People are prepared to pay higher fares if the destination is unique and/or there are limited alternative options for transport (e.g. CHT).

As such, and with all of this talk about the viability of AKL - NLK on CV, I wonder if CV could launch AKL - LDH on a charter or seasonal basis too, like QF's PQQ - LDH flight? Distance would not be an issue, as AKL - LDH comes in at 974 mi (quite a bit further than AKL - NLK (at 678 mi), but still within the range of the CV 580 and SAAB 340A). In addition, profitability is also not likely to be an issue, as fares on SYD - LDH are regularly more than AUD 1,000 return. Indeed, niche demand to LDH is high, with the island having been awarded "UNESCO World Heritage" status.

AFAIK, there would be two main issues that would be need to be addressed, prior to any such AKL - LDH service on CV being launched:

1. Airport facilities
QF use a Dash 8-200 to LDH, as it is the only aircraft in the QF fleet that can serve LDH, due to the size and nature of LDH's runway (which is 846 m in length). An AUD 8 million upgrade to the LDH airport runway was opened in 2015, which mainly addressed drainage and sealing, but not the size and nature of the runway. However, with QF likely to retire the Dash 8-200 in the future (as QF transitions to the Dash 8-400), the NSW Government in May 2017 committed AUD 450,000 for a feasibility study to investigate the extension of the runway at LDH. It is highly likely that the runway will get extended, and if it is extended to accommodate the Dash 8-400, it will need to be 1,250 - 1,400 m in length. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the CV 580 and SAAB 340A have broadly equivalent runway length requirements to this, for take-off. These figures can obviously be reduced with restrictions on passengers and weight allowances. Therefore, with any runway extension at LDH, CV's fleet would be able to perform AKL - LDH sufficiently.

Separate to runway length, there is an issue on customs and immigration, with AKL - LDH being an international flight. I do not see this as an issue. A number of other airports support, or have supported, only one international flight (e.g. BME, NLK, PHE and TSV), and maintain the necessary border facilities to do so. Indeed, BME is likely going to support "three to four return [international] flights" to SIN (on MI), on a trial basis - why can LDH not do the same, in respect of AKL? The relevant personnel could be flown in, on an ad-hoc basis. Notably, the terminal at LDH is currently being upgraded to provide more space, which would further facilitate ad-hoc immigration checks. If the cost of providing these immigration checks is an issue, then that could be added within the price of any flight ticket or holiday package - indeed, fares to LDH are already high, and travelers to LDH are not likely to be price-conscious. Going forward, Australia and New Zealand may scrap border checks, like in the Schengen Area, which would solve the issue altogether.

2. Tourism capacity
There are approximately 400 residents on LDH, and tourism is the major industry and source of income on the island. Over 15,000 people visit LDH each year, and there are 18 accommodation lodges. However, only 400 tourists are permitted to visit LDH at any one time. Importantly, tourism to LDH is seasonal - for example, QF runs a seasonal PQQ - LDH service, weekly, from February to June, and from September to December. This creates a window for any AKL - LDH charter or seasonal service to be arranged, ensuring that accommodation would be available for New Zealand tourists (i.e. the AKL - LDH service could run in January, when the PQQ - LDH service is not running). In addition, given that local residents rely almost exclusively on tourism for their livelihood, I am sure that the Lord Howe Island Board as well as the NSW Government would be willing to enter into discussions with CV as to the possibility of tourism opportunities from New Zealand, if not to openly facilitate and support such an operation.

For comparison:

Image

Here are some photos of LDH, to inspire you:

Image

Image

Cheers,

C.
 
NZ321
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:00 pm

Wow that's some landing strip. I didn't know they had one. Beautiful environment too.
Plane mad!
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4304
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:40 pm

NZ321 wrote:
Wow that's some landing strip. I didn't know they had one. Beautiful environment too.

Indeed, it is arguably the most scenic approach in Australia.

Relevantly for a future AKL - LDH service, the new terminal building at LDH (which will be completed in December 2017), includes a dedicated space for bio-security and the border-force.

Image

See: http://www.lhib.nsw.gov.au/sites/lordho ... 20Size.pdf.

Cheers,

C.
 
USAOZ
Posts: 443
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2017 4:34 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:50 pm

[url]bu[/url]
VirginFlyer wrote:
USAOZ wrote:
no one wants to change terminals at bloody awful AKL,just like no one wants to at bloody awful SYD either.

Thankfully a domestic terminal physically connected to the international terminal is on the cards (hopefully in the next decade!):
https://corporate.aucklandairport.co.nz ... the-future

V/F
yes but a change of aircraft at nan by walking a few metres sure beats changing terminals at akl.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2102
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 14, 2017 8:51 pm

mariner wrote:
If ROT can't work, which has tourism up the wazoo, and ultimately HLZ didn't work, then I don't know where else would, although I could be persuaded - perhaps - about TRG. I think it would rely heavily on VFR, with some business traffic. Most tourists want to see more than just one place and I think fares would have to be quite low to bring tourists to TRG as their point of entry.

I suppose it's possible the then high price of fuel killed HLZ and I I grant that someone much cleverer than I am and with access to a very great deal of money, could come along and make it all work, and I'd watch with fascination, because mostly, within my experience and with a few exceptions, subsidies are simply throwing money down the dunny.

mariner

They are, with the possible exception of the Wellington City Council's subsidy for the WLG-CBR-SIN service although there remains debate on this forum as to whether this route is doing well and has long term sustainability or not.

I think some of the routes being hypothesised here have even less chance of Luxon announcing AKL-CBR; and that's a route that on the service does have some merit however the practicalities mean the likelihood of it happening without a seismic shift in population or economics is zero.

I see no new new international routes out of anywhere except AKL at this point in time; and even then I don't agree that routes like AKL-ORD and AKL-NYC are all but a certainty as some seem to be implying. Remember it costs airlines nothing to spin out an image of continued expansion to new exciting destinations "just around the corner" - in a sense it's free advertising. Because of all the prior hype one gets the impression that it's now just a tiny logistical step to make a route like AKL-ORD an actuality; but of course the gulf (and risk) to it being a reality remains huge until it happens (and starts making money).

So I see discussions along the lines of "could QR start DOH-AMZ with a 789 - look at the ballooning population in Papakura" as somewhat fanciful. NZ have started quite a few new routes in the last 5 years or so; some seasonal & some not. I see growth in the next 5 years being far more about consolidation than new destinations although yes, there will probably still be the odd one.
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5267
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:03 pm

planemanofnz wrote:
People are prepared to pay higher fares if the destination is unique and/or there are limited alternative options for transport (e.g. CHT).

As such, and with all of this talk about the viability of AKL - NLK on CV, I wonder if CV could launch AKL - LDH on a charter or seasonal basis too, like QF's PQQ - LDH flight? Distance would not be an issue, as AKL - LDH comes in at 974 mi (quite a bit further than AKL - NLK (at 678 mi), but still within the range of the CV 580 and SAAB 340A). In addition, profitability is also not likely to be an issue, as fares on SYD - LDH are regularly more than AUD 1,000 return. Indeed, niche demand to LDH is high, with the island having been awarded "UNESCO World Heritage" status.

AFAIK, there would be two main issues that would be need to be addressed, prior to any such AKL - LDH service on CV being launched:

1. Airport facilities
QF use a Dash 8-200 to LDH, as it is the only aircraft in the QF fleet that can serve LDH, due to the size and nature of LDH's runway (which is 846 m in length). An AUD 8 million upgrade to the LDH airport runway was opened in 2015, which mainly addressed drainage and sealing, but not the size and nature of the runway. However, with QF likely to retire the Dash 8-200 in the future (as QF transitions to the Dash 8-400), the NSW Government in May 2017 committed AUD 450,000 for a feasibility study to investigate the extension of the runway at LDH. It is highly likely that the runway will get extended, and if it is extended to accommodate the Dash 8-400, it will need to be 1,250 - 1,400 m in length. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the CV 580 and SAAB 340A have broadly equivalent runway length requirements to this, for take-off. These figures can obviously be reduced with restrictions on passengers and weight allowances. Therefore, with any runway extension at LDH, CV's fleet would be able to perform AKL - LDH sufficiently.

Separate to runway length, there is an issue on customs and immigration, with AKL - LDH being an international flight. I do not see this as an issue. A number of other airports support, or have supported, only one international flight (e.g. BME, NLK, PHE and TSV), and maintain the necessary border facilities to do so. Indeed, BME is likely going to support "three to four return [international] flights" to SIN (on MI), on a trial basis - why can LDH not do the same, in respect of AKL? The relevant personnel could be flown in, on an ad-hoc basis. Notably, the terminal at LDH is currently being upgraded to provide more space, which would further facilitate ad-hoc immigration checks. If the cost of providing these immigration checks is an issue, then that could be added within the price of any flight ticket or holiday package - indeed, fares to LDH are already high, and travelers to LDH are not likely to be price-conscious. Going forward, Australia and New Zealand may scrap border checks, like in the Schengen Area, which would solve the issue altogether.

2. Tourism capacity
There are approximately 400 residents on LDH, and tourism is the major industry and source of income on the island. Over 15,000 people visit LDH each year, and there are 18 accommodation lodges. However, only 400 tourists are permitted to visit LDH at any one time. Importantly, tourism to LDH is seasonal - for example, QF runs a seasonal PQQ - LDH service, weekly, from February to June, and from September to December. This creates a window for any AKL - LDH charter or seasonal service to be arranged, ensuring that accommodation would be available for New Zealand tourists (i.e. the AKL - LDH service could run in January, when the PQQ - LDH service is not running). In addition, given that local residents rely almost exclusively on tourism for their livelihood, I am sure that the Lord Howe Island Board as well as the NSW Government would be willing to enter into discussions with CV as to the possibility of tourism opportunities from New Zealand, if not to openly facilitate and support such an operation.

For comparison:

Image

Here are some photos of LDH, to inspire you:

Image

Image

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:
NZ321 wrote:
Wow that's some landing strip. I didn't know they had one. Beautiful environment too.

Indeed, it is arguably the most scenic approach in Australia.

Relevantly for a future AKL - LDH service, the new terminal building at LDH (which will be completed in December 2017), includes a dedicated space for bio-security and the border-force.

Image

See: http://www.lhib.nsw.gov.au/sites/lordho ... 20Size.pdf.

Cheers,

C.

Again, you do seem quite determined to join every imginable dot.

Regarding Border Force and biosecurity, Lord Howe is listed as Restricted Use International Airport in GEN 1.2.2 of the Australian AIP (Aeronutical Information Publication)
“Restricted Use International Airport” means an airport of entry and departure at which the formalities incident to Customs, immigration, and biosecurity and similar procedures are made available on a restricted basis, to flights with prior approval only. The airline or its agent/representatives may be responsible for covering additional expenses relating to the positioning of resources from another border agency base to a Restricted Use International Airport.

...

Lord Howe Island

Customs, immigration and biosecurity clearances services are provided to coincide with approved flights only.

Department of Agriculture and Water Resources does not currently have any approved officers on Lord Howe Island that are trained to undertake international aircraft clearances.

https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/ai ... eneral.pdf

The intention here though is clearly not so much for international airline services as much as transiting small aircraft - hence why the dedicated space for border force and biosecurity you refer tomin the new terminal design are two small offices, not what would be necessary to cope with 30 passengers arriving from overseas.

For your reference, GEN 1.2.2 lists the following airports as Restricted Use International Airports:
  • Avalon
  • Brisbane West Wellcamp
  • Broome
  • Canberra
  • Coffs Harbour
  • Gold Coast
  • Hobart
  • Learmonth
  • Lord Howe Island
  • Port Hedland
  • Sunshine Coast
  • Townsville

But please feel free to restrain yourself from suggesting each and all of those should be served from Auckland :lol:

The biggest issue for Lord Howe Island is actually going to be the need for an alternate. Coffs Harbour is the nearest, with a great circle distance AKL-LDH-CFS of 1162nm, but should CFS itself require an alternate then you're going to need to look at others (OOL, NTL, BNE, SYD, which would give between 1200nm and 1271nm great circle distances). Let's use 1200nm for reference; if you look at Saab's data for the 340B at http://www.saabaircraftleasing.com/prod ... 0B_JAR.pdf you will see that for 1200nm, you are payload restricted to 5000lb at long range cruise. Using 77kg as a standard passenger weight and 20kg luggage allowance (for a total of 97kg or 214lb), that means you could carry 23 passengers and luggage. But wait, we need to account for the fact the westbound leg is going to be into a headwind. With a cruise speed in the order of 250kt (the document doesn't give what speed is used to calculate long range cruise), a 50kt headwind means that to cover 1200nm over the ground, we are covering an equivalent still air distance of 1500nm. Our payload for a Saab 340B is now 3000lb, or 14 passengers. Of course Air Chathams' model is a 340A, which for a 1500nm stage length can only manage about 1500lb, or 7 passengers each with their 20kg of luggage (assuming the average weight of the passengers is 77kg, but with only 7 that's not a safe assumption to be making). I can't find a payload-range chart for the Convair 580, but I would be surprised if it wasn't also taking somewhat of a payload hit on a 1500nm mission. Looking at the payload-range chart published for the ATR 72-600, it looks like it can carry 5000kg over a 1500nm stage length, which works out to 51 77kg passengers and their 20kg bags.

Really, making the numbers stack up for AKL-LDH seems quite difficult. Going via Sydney or Brisbane seems much more feasible.

V/F
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:10 pm

planemanofnz wrote:
IMO, government should have some role to play, if not by compelling airlines to fly to the regions (in exchange for a benefit to the airlines, like sustained access to first-tier cities), then by incentivising them to do so. For example, the Australian and New Zealand governments could co-ordinate with each other, and say to NZ and VA that their alliance can stand for 7 years (instead of 5), if they commit to international flights to 1 regional city, in each of Australia and New Zealand.


There we disagree. The less central government is involved, the better, in my book. I worked in then US for twenty years, I have enormous faith in the market place.

planemanofnz wrote:
Regarding monetary subsidies for flights across Australia and New Zealand, there are various examples, across multiple airlines:

- MI's BME - SIN (not yet commenced)
- MI's KTA - SIN (not yet commenced)
- NZ's SYD - NLK
- SQ's CBR - WLG
- VA's PER - XCH


If Wellington City Council wants to roll the dice, hey, go for it - as long as they can square it with the rate-payers. I can't stop subsidies and there have been a few successes. I'd prefer that they don't happen because they often end in tears. So I have all my fingers and toes crossed that CBR-WLG does work, but I'm not sure that the subsidy was actually necessary.

MCY and DPS are examples of what I mean - destinations that have been developed without subsidy and have found a market.

planemanofnz wrote:
Be careful in writing off routes, just because they did not work several years ago - times change (as NZ's re-entry into the likes of AKL - DPS, AKL - KIX , AKL - SIN and AKL - YVR over the years has shown). In respect of HLZ specifically, since the last HLZ - BNE flight in October 2012, the following factors are relevant:


I don't "write off" anywhere. I'm far too conscious of the external factors, such as the price of fuel, for that.. I follow an airline in the US which is presently going back to several cities it has previously dropped.

But - ROT didn't work even with a subsidy and that makes me wary.

Same with HLZ, which, I think, should work. I think there are many factors at play in this, for sure the price of fuel, and one of them may have been - may - NZ's desire to concentrate on AKL. There are other factors, such as the state of the economy and whether the airline was offering service to where people wanted to go and how often. And - always - the question of the proximity to Auckland, and whether that's a negative, as many think, or a badly used positive.

The greater puzzle for me was Virgin's failure at HLZ, but there may have been external factors at work there, too. John Borghetti had recently been appointed CEO and we now know he had very grand (and unsustainable) dreams for the airline.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4304
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:45 pm

Gasman wrote:
Remember it costs airlines nothing to spin out an image of continued expansion to new exciting destinations "just around the corner" - in a sense it's free advertising. Because of all the prior hype one gets the impression that it's now just a tiny logistical step to make a route like AKL-ORD an actuality; but of course the gulf (and risk) to it being a reality remains huge until it happens (and starts making money).

With all due respect, NZ rarely puts a "spin" on its route development comments - in fact, its comments on this subject are often well considered, and they eventually turn out to be accurate. For example, NZ revealed that in terms of China, it was considering either flying to a new destination, like CTU, or increasing its frequencies at PVG - it eventually went for the latter. Your comments are more appropriate for describing the likes of FR (which often puts a "spin" on its Trans-Atlantic ambitions), MH (which has put a "spin" on whether to add a second route to Europe, and where to put its A350s), QR (which often "spins" a route announcement, and then postpones the route's commencement, like DOH - LAS) or VA (which put a "spin" on its plans to develop PER as a hub to AUH, using A330-200s). Where I will say that NZ puts a "spin" on itself, is around product development (think the Skycouch, the Spaceseat and various others).

Gasman wrote:
I see discussions along the lines of "could QR start DOH-AMZ with a 789 - look at the ballooning population in Papakura" as somewhat fanciful.

Gasman wrote:
NZ have started quite a few new routes in the last 5 years or so; some seasonal & some not. I see growth in the next 5 years being far more about consolidation than new destinations although yes, there will probably still be the odd one.

There is nothing "fanciful" about it - if you look at NZ's balance sheet, its order books, its planned delivery schedule for new frames, in addition to the constantly evolving competitive landscape, considering new routes (with economic and population growth, as just some of a range of metrics), is more than reasonable, in respect of NZ. This leads me into why I also disagree with your comments on consolidation - If you look at North America, as an example, the competitive landscape is evolving rapidly. While NZ is currently a strong force in connecting Australian passengers with the United States, QF is likely to undercut that force in the coming years, as it seeks to open new destinations, like ORD. In that case, should NZ "consolidate," west of IAH? Probably not. This is particularly so when, AFAIK, all of NZ's year-round long-haul routes are profitable, and at least close to daily (except EZE) - there is not much to "consolidate."

Cheers,

C.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2102
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 14, 2017 10:56 pm

planemanofnz wrote:
There is nothing "fanciful" about it - if you look at NZ's balance sheet, its order books, its planned delivery schedule for new frames, in addition to the constantly evolving competitive landscape, considering new routes (with economic and population growth, as just some of a range of metrics), is more than reasonable, in respect of NZ. This leads me into why I also disagree with your comments on consolidation - If you look at North America, as an example, the competitive landscape is evolving rapidly. While NZ is currently a strong force in connecting Australian passengers with the United States, QF is likely to undercut that force in the coming years, as it seeks to open new destinations, like ORD. In that case, should NZ "consolidate," west of IAH? Probably not. This is particularly so when, AFAIK, all of NZ's year-round long-haul routes are profitable, and at least close to daily (except EZE) - there is not much to "consolidate."

Cheers,

C.

Plenty to consolidate. AKL-IAH could go daily year round with a 77W. AKL-LAX could return to three times daily, or twice daily with a 779 in the future, and on to LHR. There could be an increase in capacity across the Tasman. China could slowly but steadily increase in capacity and frequency. Of course, I don't know if any of that will actually happen; but I see it as a far more likely scenario than some of the new routes being postulated making their way to fruition.

NZ definitely spins "paper" destinations. As I have said, I can remember ORD being talked about as a possibility in the early 2000s when they clearly had no serious intention of it. LAS around 2010 I think it was. I think they will eventually go to NYC, but probably not for another 5-10 years or so during which time we'll all be given the impression the route will start any day now.There's nothing wrong with the practice..... but perhaps we shouldn't convince ourselves of the viability and certainty of routes until they're actually announced.
 
Qantas16
Posts: 711
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 3:51 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 14, 2017 11:41 pm

planemanofnz wrote:
NZ321 wrote:
Wow that's some landing strip. I didn't know they had one. Beautiful environment too.

Indeed, it is arguably the most scenic approach in Australia.

Relevantly for a future AKL - LDH service, the new terminal building at LDH (which will be completed in December 2017), includes a dedicated space for bio-security and the border-force.

Image

See: http://www.lhib.nsw.gov.au/sites/lordho ... 20Size.pdf.

Cheers,

C.


IIRC, the Q200's that fly to LDH do not refuel and carry enough fuel (ex BNE or SYD) for the return journey. Are there even refuelling facilities at LDH? If so, I do not believe they have the capacity for regular flights. Any aircraft operating AKL-LDH would need to have the capability to carry enough fuel to operate AKL-LDH-AKL safely (whilst still landing on the short runway). Either that or the route is operated as AKL-LDH-SYD-LDH-AKL, in which case the aircraft still has to carry enough fuel for the AKL-LDH-SYD leg which I don't think any type can at the moment?
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 14, 2017 11:42 pm

Argentina - the government - wants to work with Air NZ, Ramiro Alem, the assistant Minister for Tourism (Argentina), said in Auckland.

https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/argentina ... z-b-208785

Unfortunately, the article won't let me copy and paste, but essentially, Argentina wants to encourage Asian tourism, especially from China, using Air NZ's service AKL-EZE as the basic building block. I've transcribed a couple of para's.

"A combination of tourism, international education and sporting links - increasingly rugby - are supporting the route which Air NZ said had "performed well" since its launch almost two years ago.

Overall visitor arrivals New Zealand from Argentina have more than tripled over this period (two years)" an airline spokeswoman said. In response to strong demand, we will operate 15% more capacity between Auckland and Buenos Aires in FY18 than in FY17."

Said Alem" "The strategic thinking is that Auckland to Buenos Aires is one of the most seasonal routes for Air New Zealand, so the opportunity is Chinese people flying in the low season. There is an opportunity to work together to build that traffic.
'

It's an interesting read.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
ZKOAB
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2016 9:59 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 14, 2017 11:52 pm

Quint1 wrote:
How much time is there usually between delivery of an aircraft and first revenue flight?
I noticed -NZL has been delivered on the 7th but hasn't flown after.


It's first revenue flight was NZ101 to SYD this morning.
It looks like it will do 2 AKL-SYD rotations today and tomorrow.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4304
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:27 am

Gasman wrote:
Plenty to consolidate. AKL-IAH could go daily year round with a 77W. AKL-LAX could return to three times daily, or twice daily with a 779 in the future, and on to LHR.

For most AKL - North America services, once a 5 - 7x weekly frequency is achieved, there is no real competitive advantage in adding further frequencies (particularly because there are multiple daily connecting flights at both ends, and further, a 12 - 15 hour flight is not nearly as frequency sensitive as a 2 hour flight is). Therefore, NZ may as well add a new destination, and get a competitive advantage from that. The only exception to this is LAX, which has disproportionately higher O&D traffic to and from Australasia. However, AFAIK, AKL - LAX was never 21x weekly year-round on NZ - that was only seasonal (if at all) - and with AA now competing for peak period traffic too, I do not see the point in further LAX expansion by NZ.

NZ's North American strategy is two-fold - 1) to capture traffic to and from Australia, and 2) to capture in-bound "premium leisure" traffic, to New Zealand. This is not me putting a "spin" on things - it is fact. NZ has not only spent significant sums of money advertising its connections in Australia (evidenced by its "A Better Way To Fly" campaign), but it has also created a dedicated fleet of premium-heavy 787s, for the higher-yielding North American routes (which, IMO, reduces the need for the 77W on AKL - IAH, as you proposed). In both strategies, continuing to rely on existing routes is becoming less sustainable, as airlines join more dots together (like YVR - BNE / MEL on AC, IAH - SYD on UA, or even the proposed BNE - ORD on QF).

Gasman wrote:
NZ definitely spins "paper" destinations. As I have said, I can remember ORD being talked about as a possibility in the early 2000s when they clearly had no serious intention of it. LAS around 2010 I think it was.

Apples and oranges.

You are referring to NZ's "spin" under a different management, and at a different time - Toomey and Fyfe are long gone, and the comparisons are redundant. My comparisons were between airlines under their current management (O'Leary at FR, Bellew at MH, Al Baker at QR and Borghetti at VA) - Luxon has not put a "spin" on NZ's route development.

The suggestion that LAS and ORD have been around for years, and so would have been opened by NZ already if the logistics stacked up, is meaningless. Times change, and what was relevant to an airline's analysis 10 - 20 years ago, might not still be so. Alliance developments, economic growth and more efficient aircraft are just some of the factors at play.

Gasman wrote:
we shouldn't convince ourselves of the viability and certainty of routes until they're actually announced.

Why not? We are clearly capable of accurately predicting routes for NZ that have eventuated, with careful consideration - for example, go back and read some of the comments several years ago on this forum, regarding AKL - EZE / South America. Let us analyse potential routes for NZ in some detail, before simply writing them off in a sentence or two.

Qantas16 wrote:
Are there even refuelling facilities at LDH? If so, I do not believe they have the capacity for regular flights.

Yes, there are refueling facilities at LDH - these are used by both QF, as well as by private operators:

Image

Image

VirginFlyer wrote:
The biggest issue for Lord Howe Island is actually going to be the need for an alternate

What about NLK?

mariner wrote:
Argentina wants to encourage Asian tourism, especially from China, using Air NZ's service AKL-EZE as the basic building block.

mariner wrote:
It's an interesting read.

The article does not really tell us anything that we already do not know. It says that there is an opportunity to "work together" - but, doing what though? Clear arguments in support of the strategy (aside from seasonality) would have been good. I fail to see how NZ can really gain traction in the China - South America corridor, with just one route to Mainland China, which does not even always connect to its EZE service. There needs to be non-traditional incentives, for example, in coordinated visa policies between Argentina and New Zealand.

Further, growth in this market might be picked up by CZ, who are actively considering a CAN - EZE service (which would align well with AR, as a SkyTeam partner).

See: http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/ ... expand-its.

IMHO, if Argentina truly wants to develop tourism from China, it should be looking to European carriers, as they offer far more frequencies and routes:

Image

Cheers,

C.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 15, 2017 4:24 am

planemanofnz wrote:
The article does not really tell us anything that we already do not know. It says that there is an opportunity to "work together" - but, doing what though? Clear arguments in support of the strategy (aside from seasonality) would have been good. I fail to see how NZ can really gain traction in the China - South America corridor, with just one route to Mainland China, which does not even always connect to its EZE service. There needs to be non-traditional incentives, for example, in coordinated visa policies between Argentina and New Zealand.

Further, growth in this market might be picked up by CZ, who are actively considering a CAN - EZE service (which would align well with AR, as a SkyTeam partner)..


Within my experience of the business world it's always better to have friends than enemies, and if nothing else this suggests that the Argentininian government looks kindly on NZ. I also assume this is all exploratory - it was the "assistant" minister who came., not the big wallah himself. But I still think its interesting.

The opportunity for Asia/Argentina traffic has always existed, Mr. Luxon mentioned it (especially in terms of Singapore) when the route was announced, but I surely didn't know that the Argentinians would consider some sort of relationship. I guess you must have much better sources than I.

If anything comes of it, the times of the AKL-EZE service could be changed, I guess, and if any competitor started direct service CAN-EZE that might put the kibosh on it - but that's true of many things in this world and I don't think it's a good idea to operate in fear of the competition.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
Gasman
Posts: 2102
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 15, 2017 4:29 am

planemanofnz wrote:
For most AKL - North America services, once a 5 - 7x weekly frequency is achieved, there is no real competitive advantage in adding further frequencies (particularly because there are multiple daily connecting flights at both ends, and further, a 12 - 15 hour flight is not nearly as frequency sensitive as a 2 hour flight is). Therefore, NZ may as well add a new destination, and get a competitive advantage from that. The only exception to this is LAX, which has disproportionately higher O&D traffic to and from Australasia. However, AFAIK, AKL - LAX was never 21x weekly year-round on NZ - that was only seasonal (if at all) - and with AA now competing for peak period traffic too, I do not see the point in further LAX expansion by NZ.


No, I disagree. If there is a perceived increased demand to the USA, it would be far far less risky to add capacity to an existing route (like IAH or LAX) than it would be to start a whole new one. And don't forget that increased capacity can come in the form of larger aircraft, not just increased frequency.

planemanofnz wrote:
Apples and oranges.

You are referring to NZ's "spin" under a different management, and at a different time - Toomey and Fyfe are long gone, and the comparisons are redundant. My comparisons were between airlines under their current management (O'Leary at FR, Bellew at MH, Al Baker at QR and Borghetti at VA) - Luxon has not put a "spin" on NZ's route development.


Absolutely he has - he's been spinning ORD and NYC just as his predecessors did. He was part of the same management team that was doing it last decade. As I said above; there's nothing *wrong* with the practice - but we should know better than to be mesmerised by it.

planemanofnz wrote:
The suggestion that LAS and ORD have been around for years, and so would have been opened by NZ already if the logistics stacked up, is meaningless. Times change, and what was relevant to an airline's analysis 10 - 20 years ago, might not still be so. Alliance developments, economic growth and more efficient aircraft are just some of the factors at play.


Absolutely times change, in a myriad of relevant ways as you say. But if you can't clearly identify what is different right now from 2, 5, 10 years ago and in sufficient magnitude to make route X viable now where it wasn't before; you don't have much of an argument for a new route. But yes sometimes it doesn't take much - in the case of PER-LHR it is the advent of the 787. I don't see similar forces at play when talking about AKL-CBR, for example.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4304
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 15, 2017 6:26 am

Gasman wrote:
I disagree. If there is a perceived increased demand to the USA, it would be far far less risky to add capacity to an existing route (like IAH or LAX) than it would be to start a whole new one. And don't forget that increased capacity can come in the form of larger aircraft, not just increased frequency.

You say that it would be "far less risky" for NZ to increase its presence at its existing North American destinations, but fail to articulate why this is so.

On the contrary - the real risk is in NZ merely maintaining its existing route offering, while competitors:

a) take on NZ on existing routes (like, HA's AKL - HNL and AA's AKL - LAX services);
b) overtake NZ on existing corridors (like, AC's MEL - YVR and UA's SYD - IAH services); and
c) establish new routes and corridors (like QF's proposed Australia - ORD and Australia - JFK services).

Ultimately, in the coming years, NZ will have to do two things in order to succeed in North America, being:

1) Keep NZ relevant to Australians who seek to travel to North America, by offering more destinations

For example, Australians traveling from MEL to YVR are less likely to use NZ via AKL now, as they can use AC's new MEL - YVR non-stop service. However, they would be more willing to use NZ, if NZ offered a service to a North American destination with no non-stop service from MEL (be it ORD or elsewhere). Therefore, it makes more sense for NZ to direct any additional growth to establishing a new route like AKL - ORD, than to increase capacity or frequencies on an existing route, like AKL - YVR.

2) Keep New Zealand relevant to North Americans, by offering flights to AKL from destinations with no flights to Australia

For example, North Americans living in a city that has a new, non-stop flight to Australia established, but no non-stop flight to New Zealand, are more likely to fly to Australia, as opposed to taking a one-stop flight to AKL via LAX or SFO. Some people would still travel to New Zealand no matter what, but in this high-yielding market, convenience trumps all, and the simple fact of the matter is that a one-stop ORD - New Zealand service would be much less marketable than a non-stop ORD - Australia one.

Separately, you also appear to argue that NZ's growth opportunity in North America is either to increase its presence at existing destinations, or to explore new destinations - the reality is that it is not a zero-sum game, particularly in light of NZ's fleet renewal plans - both capacity and frequency increases, and new destinations are viable.

Gasman wrote:
Absolutely he has - he's been spinning ORD and NYC just as his predecessors did. He was part of the same management team that was doing it last decade.

Actually, no - Luxon was not part of the management team of NZ prior to ~2011, which was putting on a "spin" on the routes that you cited. Prior to joining NZ in ~2011, he was CEO at Unilever Canada, which was one of several senior leadership roles he held during an 18 year career at the Unilever Group.

Luxon's comments on AKL - ORD / JFK are not comparable to comments made by NZ 15 - 20 years ago as to AKL - ORD, and are not akin to a "spin," as the comments are supported by established fundamentals and trends, neither of which supported comparable comments by NZ before, including (but not limited to):

- The actual viability of ULH routes now like AKL - ORD / JFK, given the performance and range of the 787s (in comparison to, say, the 767s). This is not a "spin" - it is evidenced both by the advent of other ULH routes to and from North America, like MEL - YVR, SIN - SFO and SYD - IAH, as well as by the explicit consideration of comparable ULH routes like Australia - ORD / JFK by competitors like QF.

- The actual demand for travel from North America to New Zealand now, which is not just "perceived." Arrivals from the United States to New Zealand increased 20 percent in the year to August 2017, to 320,000, and are forecast to increase to 440,000 by 2023. At least some growth is beyond IAH, as AKL - IAH itself has limited O&D demand, and the route sustains strong load factors (with UA's IAH hub).

Gasman wrote:
But if you can't clearly identify what is different right now from 2, 5, 10 years ago and in sufficient magnitude to make route X viable now where it wasn't before; you don't have much of an argument for a new route.

I have clearly identified factors that are different now - see post 84, as well as my comments above. Whether these are of a "sufficient magnitude" or not to make a new route viable is impossible to settle, but I would argue that they are.

mariner wrote:
I still think its interesting

Yes, definitely - in particular, I would like to see what non-traditional incentives Argentina and New Zealand might develop, such as coordinated visa policies for Chinese tourists. Do you have any proposals for additional incentives?

Cheers,

C.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 15, 2017 7:21 am

planemanofnz wrote:
Yes, definitely - in particular, I would like to see what non-traditional incentives Argentina and New Zealand might develop, such as coordinated visa policies for Chinese tourists. Do you have any proposals for additional incentives?


I wouldn't try to guess, it isn't what I do. I prefer strategy to tactics.

I do speculate occasionally on routes I'd like to see, but this is something different - a collaborative deal between Argentina and a foreign (to them) airline, without using Aerolineas as the vehicle? I remember how protective the country has been of its flag carrier, which used to fly here, and I think this is outside the box.

I agree with your comment on visas, but mostly I want to see what they, the negotiators, come up with, assuming that they can reach an agreement. I think it has the potential to be quite exciting as a concept, but I suspect I may have to be patient.

I can do that. I waited for NZ to start DPS for years and I'm still waiting for MEX. Image

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4304
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:06 am

mariner wrote:
I'm still waiting for MEX.

Me too :hyper:

I have often wondered who, out of AM, NZ and QF, would be first to launch an Australasia - MEX service.

Notably, MEX - AKL (6,809 mi) is shorter than MEX - NRT (7,004 mi), which is operated by AM and NH on 787s.

Image

Cheers,

C.
 
NZ321
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:59 am

planemanofnz wrote:
Gasman wrote:
I disagree. If there is a perceived increased demand to the USA, it would be far far less risky to add capacity to an existing route (like IAH or LAX) than it would be to start a whole new one. And don't forget that increased capacity can come in the form of larger aircraft, not just increased frequency.

You say that it would be "far less risky" for NZ to increase its presence at its existing North American destinations, but fail to articulate why this is so.

On the contrary - the real risk is in NZ merely maintaining its existing route offering, while competitors:

a) take on NZ on existing routes (like, HA's AKL - HNL and AA's AKL - LAX services);
b) overtake NZ on existing corridors (like, AC's MEL - YVR and UA's SYD - IAH services); and
c) establish new routes and corridors (like QF's proposed Australia - ORD and Australia - JFK services).

Ultimately, in the coming years, NZ will have to do two things in order to succeed in North America, being:

1) Keep NZ relevant to Australians who seek to travel to North America, by offering more destinations

For example, Australians traveling from MEL to YVR are less likely to use NZ via AKL now, as they can use AC's new MEL - YVR non-stop service. However, they would be more willing to use NZ, if NZ offered a service to a North American destination with no non-stop service from MEL (be it ORD or elsewhere). Therefore, it makes more sense for NZ to direct any additional growth to establishing a new route like AKL - ORD, than to increase capacity or frequencies on an existing route, like AKL - YVR.

2) Keep New Zealand relevant to North Americans, by offering flights to AKL from destinations with no flights to Australia

For example, North Americans living in a city that has a new, non-stop flight to Australia established, but no non-stop flight to New Zealand, are more likely to fly to Australia, as opposed to taking a one-stop flight to AKL via LAX or SFO. Some people would still travel to New Zealand no matter what, but in this high-yielding market, convenience trumps all, and the simple fact of the matter is that a one-stop ORD - New Zealand service would be much less marketable than a non-stop ORD - Australia one.


C.


Agree with this rationale.

Would love to see direct AKl-MEX. I have no idea what the actual traffic between AKL and MEX or between SYD, MEL, BNE and MEX would be. Are these stats available? Maybe it would be sufficient for a 3x weekly service. The advantage with LIM is the star alliance connections. From MEX, heading south, you have AV and CM which gives you 1 stop service to just PTY, LIM and BOG, no direct service to other destinations in Columbia. Nothing to Ecuador and Brazil is that much further away.
Plane mad!
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4304
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:03 am

NZ321 wrote:
The advantage with LIM is the star alliance connections

IMHO, there is nothing stopping NZ from entering into a partnership with AM on AKL - MEX, similar to the partnership with AR on AKL - EZE.

Cheers,

C.
 
NZ321
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:12 am

planemanofnz wrote:
NZ321 wrote:
The advantage with LIM is the star alliance connections

IMHO, there is nothing stopping NZ from entering into a partnership with AM on AKL - MEX, similar to the partnership with AR on AKL - EZE.

Cheers,

C.


Agreed. This would make sense.
Plane mad!
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4304
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:37 am

NZ321 wrote:
Agreed. This would make sense.

I can envisage a dual-feeder approach for Latin America, whereby AKL - MEX (with AM) services the North, while AKL - EZE (with AR) services the South:

Image

There are a few factors that play to MEX's favour here, as opposed to LIM's, including (but not limited to):

- Mexico has greater tourism desirability and infrastructure than Peru, with far more tourists visiting Mexico than Peru (albeit many of these are Americans)
- Mexico has four times the population of Peru, its economy is four times the size of Peru's, and its GDP per capita is one third higher than that of Peru's

Further, AKL's geographic advantage is particularly useful for NZ at MEX (with hot and high conditions limiting range) - indeed, MEX's current longest flight (MEX - NRT) is more than 1,000 mi shorter than SYD - MEX would be, making it less likely that QF (or AM) could make any Australia - MEX service viable.

One downside to NZ selecting AKL - MEX over AKL - LIM, is the inability of AKL - MEX to feed NZ's Asia - South America corridor aspirations.

Cheers,

C.
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5267
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:39 pm

planemanofnz wrote:
VirginFlyer wrote:
The biggest issue for Lord Howe Island is actually going to be the need for an alternate

What about NLK?

It's not going to help much. Great circle distance AKL-LDH-NLK is 846+484=1330nm. Applying the same calculation on the assumption of a 50kt westerly, that gives an equivalent still air distance @250KTAS of 1058+403=1461nm. It doesn't offer much over the east coat options - you might be able to get in one extra passenger and bags. Even if NLK was close enough to be truly useful, you couldn't plan an operation just on the existence of one alternate, otherwise any time that that alternate itself required an alternate (i.e. it couldn't be nominated as an alternate), you would need to offload payload to ensure you can get to the next available alternate.

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I do want to point out that the series of quite lengthy posts about mostly long-shot possibilities are beginning to take over this thread and drown out discussion of actual events in New Zealand aviation. I'm not suggesting you stop altogether, but perhaps you could pace yourself a bit, simultaneously allowing other topics to have some oxygen in this thread and allowing each of your proposals to be looked at in greater detail rather the getting a few comments and being forgotten about as the next set of great circle maps appear. Perhaps limiting yourself to discussion of one set of possible new routes per monthly thread might work well? Or if you don't want to pace yourself but go all-out with multiple daily suggestions, it may be worth starting a separate thread for "1001 possible new routes to, from, and around Australia, New Zealand, the Pacific Islands and Antarctica"

V/F
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh
 
NPL8800
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 5:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:08 pm

Theres a CAPA summit in Auckland tomorrow and wednesday, I wonder if there may be any interesting announcements/comments that come as a result, not necessarily new route related but other things as well such as new/amended air service agreements, airport dynamics, where the new growing markets are, any new issues that the various bodies are facing that are specific to the NZ market, etc.

There's definitely a good line up of airline speakers including: NZ, UA, LH, HX, MH, MU, AC, CZ and VietJet
 
DavidJ08
Posts: 165
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:18 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 15, 2017 11:22 pm

VirginFlyer wrote:
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I do want to point out that the series of quite lengthy posts about mostly long-shot possibilities are beginning to take over this thread and drown out discussion of actual events in New Zealand aviation. I'm not suggesting you stop altogether, but perhaps you could pace yourself a bit, simultaneously allowing other topics to have some oxygen in this thread and allowing each of your proposals to be looked at in greater detail rather the getting a few comments and being forgotten about as the next set of great circle maps appear. Perhaps limiting yourself to discussion of one set of possible new routes per monthly thread might work well? Or if you don't want to pace yourself but go all-out with multiple daily suggestions, it may be worth starting a separate thread for "1001 possible new routes to, from, and around Australia, New Zealand, the Pacific Islands and Antarctica"

V/F

This.

I've been following the monthly NZ Aviation Threads to keep up with the goings-on, and although it's always fun to have some speculation, I, too, feel like there's been too many long-shot ideas floated in a short space of time, which aren't necessarily related to each other, so as VF pointed out, there's not enough space for discussion of each idea (let alone any discussion about actual events) before the next idea appears and snuffs out the previous discussion. I would concur that these ideas should really be in a separate thread - or at least there should be more discussion rather than a stream of new long-shot ideas appearing almost daily.
 
User avatar
JBusworth
Posts: 173
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 8:55 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 15, 2017 11:22 pm

Qantas talking year round AKL-PER to connect PER-LHR.
https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-plots-d ... nd-flights
 
Gasman
Posts: 2102
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 15, 2017 11:44 pm

JBusworth wrote:
Qantas talking year round AKL-PER to connect PER-LHR.
https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-plots-d ... nd-flights

Darn. I was concerned this might happen.

- No F class/Platinum lounge at PER
- No F class on the 789
- Still prefer the A380 over the 789 in a general sense.

Of course it'll still be possible to fly AKL-SYD-SIN-LHR; but you'll probably have to go through a travel agent to do it and it'll cost more.
 
getluv
Posts: 549
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:11 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Mon Oct 16, 2017 12:17 am

Gasman wrote:

Of course it'll still be possible to fly AKL-SYD-SIN-LHR; but you'll probably have to go through a travel agent to do it and it'll cost more.


QF.com brings up several options, MEL-PER/SIN-LHR, SYD-SIN-LHR, or BNE-DXB-LHR with EK..
I'm that bad type.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2102
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Mon Oct 16, 2017 12:20 am

getluv wrote:
Gasman wrote:

Of course it'll still be possible to fly AKL-SYD-SIN-LHR; but you'll probably have to go through a travel agent to do it and it'll cost more.


QF.com brings up several options, MEL-PER/SIN-LHR, SYD-SIN-LHR, or BNE-DXB-LHR with EK..

That's because the connecting AKL-PER service hasn't started yet. But once it does, you can bet they'll channel all AKL outbound traffic through PER
 
getluv
Posts: 549
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:11 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Mon Oct 16, 2017 12:27 am

Gasman wrote:
getluv wrote:
Gasman wrote:

Of course it'll still be possible to fly AKL-SYD-SIN-LHR; but you'll probably have to go through a travel agent to do it and it'll cost more.


QF.com brings up several options, MEL-PER/SIN-LHR, SYD-SIN-LHR, or BNE-DXB-LHR with EK..

That's because the connecting AKL-PER service hasn't started yet. But once it does, you can bet they'll channel all AKL outbound traffic through PER


This may be true as QF have ready retimed QF112 from 25MAR2018. However QF.com always price several options (I've also noticed they've priced interlines with CX via HKG for ex-AU pax) and the same will apply for ex-AKL pax in order to offer choice.
I'm that bad type.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3309
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Mon Oct 16, 2017 4:28 am

JBusworth wrote:
Qantas talking year round AKL-PER to connect PER-LHR.
https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-plots-d ... nd-flights


Could see the current Domestic A332 fleet transferred to an AKL base an possibly put under Jetconnect.
 
USAOZ
Posts: 443
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2017 4:34 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Mon Oct 16, 2017 8:40 am

planemanofnz wrote:
Gasman wrote:
I disagree. If there is a perceived increased demand to the USA, it would be far far less risky to add capacity to an existing route (like IAH or LAX) than it would be to start a whole new one. And don't forget that increased capacity can come in the form of larger aircraft, not just increased frequency.

You say that it would be "far less risky" for NZ to increase its presence at its existing North American destinations, but fail to articulate why this is so.

On the contrary - the real risk is in NZ merely maintaining its existing route offering, while competitors:

a) take on NZ on existing routes (like, HA's AKL - HNL and AA's AKL - LAX services);
b) overtake NZ on existing corridors (like, AC's MEL - YVR and UA's SYD - IAH services); and
c) establish new routes and corridors (like QF's proposed Australia - ORD and Australia - JFK services).

Ultimately, in the coming years, NZ will have to do two things in order to succeed in North America, being:

1) Keep NZ relevant to Australians who seek to travel to North America, by offering more destinations

For example, Australians traveling from MEL to YVR are less likely to use NZ via AKL now, as they can use AC's new MEL - YVR non-stop service. However, they would be more willing to use NZ, if NZ offered a service to a North American destination with no non-stop service from MEL (be it ORD or elsewhere). Therefore, it makes more sense for NZ to direct any additional growth to establishing a new route like AKL - ORD, than to increase capacity or frequencies on an existing route, like AKL - YVR.

2) Keep New Zealand relevant to North Americans, by offering flights to AKL from destinations with no flights to Australia

For example, North Americans living in a city that has a new, non-stop flight to Australia established, but no non-stop flight to New Zealand, are more likely to fly to Australia, as opposed to taking a one-stop flight to AKL via LAX or SFO. Some people would still travel to New Zealand no matter what, but in this high-yielding market, convenience trumps all, and the simple fact of the matter is that a one-stop ORD - New Zealand service would be much less marketable than a non-stop ORD - Australia one.

Separately, you also appear to argue that NZ's growth opportunity in North America is either to increase its presence at existing destinations, or to explore new destinations - the reality is that it is not a zero-sum game, particularly in light of NZ's fleet renewal plans - both capacity and frequency increases, and new destinations are viable.

Gasman wrote:
Absolutely he has - he's been spinning ORD and NYC just as his predecessors did. He was part of the same management team that was doing it last decade.

Actually, no - Luxon was not part of the management team of NZ prior to ~2011, which was putting on a "spin" on the routes that you cited. Prior to joining NZ in ~2011, he was CEO at Unilever Canada, which was one of several senior leadership roles he held during an 18 year career at the Unilever Group.

Luxon's comments on AKL - ORD / JFK are not comparable to comments made by NZ 15 - 20 years ago as to AKL - ORD, and are not akin to a "spin," as the comments are supported by established fundamentals and trends, neither of which supported comparable comments by NZ before, including (but not limited to):

- The actual viability of ULH routes now like AKL - ORD / JFK, given the performance and range of the 787s (in comparison to, say, the 767s). This is not a "spin" - it is evidenced both by the advent of other ULH routes to and from North America, like MEL - YVR, SIN - SFO and SYD - IAH, as well as by the explicit consideration of comparable ULH routes like Australia - ORD / JFK by competitors like QF.

- The actual demand for travel from North America to New Zealand now, which is not just "perceived." Arrivals from the United States to New Zealand increased 20 percent in the year to August 2017, to 320,000, and are forecast to increase to 440,000 by 2023. At least some growth is beyond IAH, as AKL - IAH itself has limited O&D demand, and the route sustains strong load factors (with UA's IAH hub).

Gasman wrote:
But if you can't clearly identify what is different right now from 2, 5, 10 years ago and in sufficient magnitude to make route X viable now where it wasn't before; you don't have much of an argument for a new route.

I have clearly identified factors that are different now - see post 84, as well as my comments above. Whether these are of a "sufficient magnitude" or not to make a new route viable is impossible to settle, but I would argue that they are.

mariner wrote:
I still think its interesting

Yes, definitely - in particular, I would like to see what non-traditional incentives Argentina and New Zealand might develop, such as coordinated visa policies for Chinese tourists. Do you have any proposals for additional incentives?

Cheers,

C.
as ac only airline flying mel yvr nonstop fares will be high so many will still fly via akl + much easier to change at akl than awful syd
 
NZ321
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Mon Oct 16, 2017 11:08 am

Well there is a big rumour in the QF 787 forum that Qf will announce BNE-ORD in the next week. If it's true that means they will beat NZ to it.
Plane mad!
 
NZ321
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Mon Oct 16, 2017 11:11 am

I am growing increasingly enthusiastic about AKL-MEX for NZ. And other LR destinations not in easy reach of Australia. This is another reason why NZ should look at GRU with the Brazil economy on the up. Mind you for the vast majority of travellers from Australia BNE-ORD still means an aircraft change in BNE.
Plane mad!
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10061
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Mon Oct 16, 2017 12:16 pm

Gasman wrote:
JBusworth wrote:
Qantas talking year round AKL-PER to connect PER-LHR.
https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-plots-d ... nd-flights

Darn. I was concerned this might happen.

- No F class/Platinum lounge at PER
- No F class on the 789
- Still prefer the A380 over the 789 in a general sense.

Of course it'll still be possible to fly AKL-SYD-SIN-LHR; but you'll probably have to go through a travel agent to do it and it'll cost more.

Be a far better service/offering then NZs Seat to Suit and give NZ a run for their money
Head Forum Moderator
[email protected]
Flown: 1900D,S340,Q300,AT72-5/6,DC3,CR2/7,E145,E70/75/90,A319/20/21,A332/3,A359,A380,F100,B717,B733/4/8/9,B742/4,B752/3,B763,B772/3, B789
With: NZ,SJ,QF,JQ,EK,VA,AA,UA,DL,FL,AC,FJ,SQ,TG,PR
 
NZ321
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:55 pm

I can't believe how long NZ has had this market to themselves. Clock's been ticking on this one. Glad it's come to fruition.
Plane mad!
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:45 pm

777ER wrote:
Of course it'll still be possible to fly AKL-SYD-SIN-LHR; but you'll probably have to go through a travel agent to do it and it'll cost more.
Be a far better service/offering then NZs Seat to Suit and give NZ a run for their money


I've been flying for meow than seven decades on a multitude of airlines in every class, and the last time I flew NZ PVG-AKL, in Busines, it was up there with the best of them. The cabin staff (Chinese) were wonderful and would give some Emirates crews a run for their money.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
Gasman
Posts: 2102
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Mon Oct 16, 2017 7:23 pm

mariner wrote:
777ER wrote:
Of course it'll still be possible to fly AKL-SYD-SIN-LHR; but you'll probably have to go through a travel agent to do it and it'll cost more.
Be a far better service/offering then NZs Seat to Suit and give NZ a run for their money


I've been flying for meow than seven decades on a multitude of airlines in every class, and the last time I flew NZ PVG-AKL, in Busines, it was up there with the best of them. The cabin staff (Chinese) were wonderful and would give some Emirates crews a run for their money.

mariner

It says something (and I don't really want to know what) that your autocorrect defaults to "meow" :)

I've had an identical experience with the Chinese crews in J on NZ, and I'd also suggest that "giving Emirates crews a run for their money" isn't saying *that* much, really..... However of course on NZ the J hard product in my opinion is well below par (especially on the 789) whereas on EK it's fantastic. And on EK you have the option of F class, where you can receive dopey service in a football pitch sized seat.

Yep, and "seats to suit" needs to be consigned to the recycle bin.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Mon Oct 16, 2017 10:24 pm

Gasman wrote:
It says something (and I don't really want to know what) that your autocorrect defaults to "meow" :)


It's your assumption that it's my autocorrect - LOL.

Gasman wrote:
I've had an identical experience with the Chinese crews in J on NZ, and I'd also suggest that "giving Emirates crews a run for their money" isn't saying *that* much, really..... However of course on NZ the J hard product in my opinion is well below par (especially on the 789) whereas on EK it's fantastic. And on EK you have the option of F class, where you can receive dopey service in a football pitch sized seat.


The flight I was talking about was in Business class on the 787. I could find nothing to fault. Even the food which is sometimes NZ's weaker point, was very good.

Gasman wrote:
Yep, and "seats to suit" needs to be consigned to the recycle bin.


If you don't like it, don't use it. I like it, but I only use it for domestic and trans-Tasman. Anything more distant - or more complex - I'm off to a travel agent, she can sort it out.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5267
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Mon Oct 16, 2017 10:47 pm

777ER wrote:
Be a far better service/offering then NZs Seat to Suit and give NZ a run for their money

Gasman wrote:
Yep, and "seats to suit" needs to be consigned to the recycle bin.

What's wrong with seats to suit? I've always found it quite useful - if I don't want meals, movies, or bags, I'm happy to pay a bit less.

V/F
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh
 
Gasman
Posts: 2102
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Mon Oct 16, 2017 11:18 pm

VirginFlyer wrote:
777ER wrote:
Be a far better service/offering then NZs Seat to Suit and give NZ a run for their money

Gasman wrote:
Yep, and "seats to suit" needs to be consigned to the recycle bin.

What's wrong with seats to suit? I've always found it quite useful - if I don't want meals, movies, or bags, I'm happy to pay a bit less.

V/F

Let me immediately say this is a philosophical answer rather than a practical one - I no longer fly NZ regularly, and I acknowledge there are some who do who quite like seats to suit. But I myself didn't, for the following reasons - more or less in order:

- It removed J class - which I did use (and still do on QF/EK)
- Works deluxe felt overpriced for what it was - especially since they removed lounge access, which really ought to have remained.
- It added a layer of complexity and confusion for people flying from Europe or the US to Australia on a Y+ or J ticket - some people were unpleasantly surprised at what they received on the last leg of their trip
- It provides choice where there probably doesn't really need to be any. I've never lain awake at night full of rage over the fact I didn't use the IFE that was included in my ticket price for example. The whole thing seemed to be a sort of "buck each way" approach between being a full service carrier and a LCC, and ended up being a success at neither.
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5267
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Mon Oct 16, 2017 11:27 pm

Gasman wrote:
VirginFlyer wrote:
777ER wrote:
Be a far better service/offering then NZs Seat to Suit and give NZ a run for their money

Gasman wrote:
Yep, and "seats to suit" needs to be consigned to the recycle bin.

What's wrong with seats to suit? I've always found it quite useful - if I don't want meals, movies, or bags, I'm happy to pay a bit less.

V/F

Let me immediately say this is a philosophical answer rather than a practical one - I no longer fly NZ regularly, and I acknowledge there are some who do who quite like seats to suit. But I myself didn't, for the following reasons - more or less in order:

- It removed J class - which I did use (and still do on QF/EK)
- Works deluxe felt overpriced for what it was - especially since they removed lounge access, which really ought to have remained.
- It added a layer of complexity and confusion for people flying from Europe or the US to Australia on a Y+ or J ticket - some people were unpleasantly surprised at what they received on the last leg of their trip
- It provides choice where there probably doesn't really need to be any. I've never lain awake at night full of rage over the fact I didn't use the IFE that was included in my ticket price for example. The whole thing seemed to be a sort of "buck each way" approach between being a full service carrier and a LCC, and ended up being a success at neither.

Those are all fair points. I wonder if what is called for then is a tweak to the offering. Considering some of your points:

  • I know of some people who would have travelled in business class too but couldn't because the aircraft was an A320. Perhaps the introduction of the neo would be an opportunity to bring back a business classs cabin? NZ are currently exploring a new long haul business class, so it's introduction could be tied in with that.
  • Lounges, especially Auckland, are quite full as it is, so I can understand the lack of access for Works Deluxe. Perhaps reintroducing business class would resolve the lounge access issue?
  • If there are issues with long-haul connections, perhaps the way the tickets link up needs to be looked at - perhaps make all connectons automatically Works unless the passenger chooses otherwise?

V/F
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5267
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Mon Oct 16, 2017 11:39 pm

With the sale of a majority stake in the C Series programme to Airbus, and Air New Zealand's ongoing investment in maintenance of Pratt & Whitney engines, I wonder what the chances are now of an Air New Zealand C Series order?

V/F
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

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