• 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5264
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Fri Oct 27, 2017 9:53 am

Another couple of interest points, one again from Air Chathams, the other from Qantas:

Convair CV580 ZK-CIF operated on the Auckland-Whanganui route for part of today in place of the Saab 340.

Qantas's speacial paint 737-800 VH-XZJ "Mendooworrji" was in Auckland on a rotation from Sydney as QF141/144.

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
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7042
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Fri Oct 27, 2017 7:00 pm

VirginFlyer wrote:
Another couple of interest points, one again from Air Chathams, the other from Qantas:

Convair CV580 ZK-CIF operated on the Auckland-Whanganui route for part of today in place of the Saab 340.

Qantas's speacial paint 737-800 VH-XZJ "Mendooworrji" was in Auckland on a rotation from Sydney as QF141/144.

V/F



VH-XZJ is a fairly regular visitor, atleast it was before QF put A330’s on the Tasman, I’m haven’t paid as much attention of late.
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5264
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Fri Oct 27, 2017 8:19 pm

ZK-NBT wrote:
VirginFlyer wrote:
Another couple of interest points, one again from Air Chathams, the other from Qantas:

Convair CV580 ZK-CIF operated on the Auckland-Whanganui route for part of today in place of the Saab 340.

Qantas's speacial paint 737-800 VH-XZJ "Mendooworrji" was in Auckland on a rotation from Sydney as QF141/144.

V/F



VH-XZJ is a fairly regular visitor, atleast it was before QF put A330’s on the Tasman, I’m haven’t paid as much attention of late.

Oh right - I guess I just haven't seen it before in that case.

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

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Fri Oct 27, 2017 11:12 pm

CI is not looking at a non-stop TPE - AKL service:

"Chung confirmed China Airlines would boost its Taipei-Brisbane-Auckland service from five times a week currently to daily by the start of December with the A350-900, replacing A330-300 equipment on the route.

Asked about the prospects of bringing in more feed for the London flight by offering a nonstop flight to Auckland, compared with the one-stop options via Australia being offered now, Chung said New Zealand was challenging from an aircraft utilisation perspective.

“It’s not easy to handle even a daily fight to Auckland,” Chung said."


See: http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/1 ... roo-route/.

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4304
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 28, 2017 1:59 am

Hi all,

Apologies if this was posted earlier - here are the load factors in the Australia - New Zealand corridor (for the 2016 calendar year):

- Air New Zealand (81.1% inbound, 79.0% outbound)
- AirAsia X (68.1% inbound, 77.0% outbound)
- China Airlines (75.0% inbound, 79.7% outbound)
- Emirates (73.9% inbound, 74.9% outbound)
- Jetstar (80.4% inbound, 78.6% outbound)
- Philippine Airlines (50.5% inbound, 65.0% outbound)
- Qantas (81.1% inbound, 81.9% outbound)
- Singapore Airlines (57.4% inbound, 63.8% outbound)
- Virgin Australia (76.0% inbound, 77.1% outbound)

There were no figures provided for LAN Airlines / Latam Airlines.

See: https://bitre.gov.au/publications/ongoi ... CY2016.pdf.

A couple of points jump out at me, from reviewing these figures:

- Emirates' and Qantas' load factors were quite respectable (notably, the non-stop AKL - DXB flight operated for most of 2016)
- Philippine Airlines' load factors were quite low - it will be interesting to see how they manage to fill an A340, without CNS traffic

Cheers,

C.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7042
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 28, 2017 2:17 am

planemanofnz wrote:
CI is not looking at a non-stop TPE - AKL service:

"Chung confirmed China Airlines would boost its Taipei-Brisbane-Auckland service from five times a week currently to daily by the start of December with the A350-900, replacing A330-300 equipment on the route.

Asked about the prospects of bringing in more feed for the London flight by offering a nonstop flight to Auckland, compared with the one-stop options via Australia being offered now, Chung said New Zealand was challenging from an aircraft utilisation perspective.

“It’s not easy to handle even a daily fight to Auckland,” Chung said."


See: http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/1 ... roo-route/.

Cheers,

C.


He’s talking from an aircraft utilisation perspective. With BNE-AKL it means they can offer overnight flights ex BNE in both directions while utilising he aircraft to AKL during the day.

Agreed some respectable figures on the Tasman routes bar PR.
 
NPL8800
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 5:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:34 am

I seem to recall reading somewhere that there is a slight issue with the BITRE data for the through flight services from NZ to onward destinations (Asia in general) in that the figures only show the local traffic and not the traffic that only transits in Oz onto the final destination which in turn makes the flights look less full than they actually are. This has been raised often with the SQ Capital Express service and I imagine is the same for the others that do it as well (CI, D7 and PR)

I see no issue with PR going to an A340 nonstop, in fact it's going to greatly enhance the appeal and competitiveness of the service. Non stops are known to greatly increase traffic to new destinations once launched and marketed appropriately, one only has to look at the success of the non stops to DPS and SGN which has seen a spike in travel to both Indonesia and Vietnam and an increased awareness of the 2.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 28, 2017 7:33 pm

Sounds Air has extended Blenheim Kaikoura - again - now until 31st December:

Image

I'd be quite surprised if it ends at the end of the year just as summer's coming in, so I guess there'll be another extension. Image

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8316
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 28, 2017 10:54 pm

I wouldn't worry about PR too much, that load factor reflects trans-Tasman, not those flying AKL-MNL. Same for CI and AKL-TPE and EK AKL-DXB.
Also relevant to the discussion is that is the average over the year remember. Load factors over the summer and school holidays being much much higher than that for all airlines, which means for the rest of the year they are much lower than that,

If we think in terms of fuel loads.
12.0-15.0 tonnes 737/A320.
20-25 tonnes 787
23-30 tonnes 777
50-55 tonnes A380.
Low load factors are critical to A380 operation on such short routes compared to the other airlines with smaller aircraft because of revenue gained vs the much higher overheads EK cannot subsidise the longer low periods with the shorter busy periods. Short routes like T-T routes don't generate enough profit in the high season to sustain that. EK have obviously decided they will go one more high season and offset those losses.
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.
 
USAOZ
Posts: 443
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2017 4:34 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 29, 2017 12:24 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
CI is not looking at a non-stop TPE - AKL service:

"Chung confirmed China Airlines would boost its Taipei-Brisbane-Auckland service from five times a week currently to daily by the start of December with the A350-900, replacing A330-300 equipment on the route.

Asked about the prospects of bringing in more feed for the London flight by offering a nonstop flight to Auckland, compared with the one-stop options via Australia being offered now, Chung said New Zealand was challenging from an aircraft utilisation perspective.

“It’s not easy to handle even a daily fight to Auckland,” Chung said."


See: http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/1 ... roo-route/.

Cheers,

C.
feel EK pulling out of OZ/AKL will save the CI flights BNE/AKL from financial disaster.

He’s talking from an aircraft utilisation perspective. With BNE-AKL it means they can offer overnight flights ex BNE in both directions while utilising he aircraft to AKL during the day.

Agreed some respectable figures on the Tasman routes bar PR.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4304
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 29, 2017 12:48 am

aerorobnz wrote:
I wouldn't worry about PR too much, that load factor reflects trans-Tasman, not those flying AKL-MNL.

I am also slightly confused regarding the distribution and significance of transits in the figures above.

There are different figures for CNS - AKL / MNL - see page 25 in the document that I linked above.

CNS - AKL averages at a 57.75% load factor, while CNS - MNL averages at a 61.80% load factor.

The document notes that:

"Figures shown in Table 3 may include total traffic into and out of Australia for airlines that fly through Australia"

"For example, passengers carried by Qantas Airways from New Zealand via Australia to the UK will be included in Table 3"


Therefore, the CNS - MNL figures include AKL - MNL transit traffic, which do not look flash at all.

NPL8800 wrote:
I see no issue with PR going to an A340 nonstop, in fact it's going to greatly enhance the appeal and competitiveness of the service. Non stops are known to greatly increase traffic to new destinations once launched and marketed appropriately.

:checkmark:

I am sure that PR will improve its appeal (and therefore, its performance) with the new, non-stop service.

USAOZ wrote:
I feel EK pulling out of OZ/AKL will save the CI flights BNE/AKL from financial disaster.

I know that load factors do not tell the whole story, but notably, last year, CI's New Zealand flights operated at a ~77 - 78% load factor.

The economics of the service will be enhanced by the lower operating costs offered by the A350-900 (as opposed to the A330-300).

CI might also be able to attract more New Zealand traffic by way of new connections to LGW, as well as with a daily frequency offering.

Cheers,

C.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7042
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 29, 2017 1:07 am

Re CI they flew 10 weekly to AKL last year, 5 each through SYD/BNE. This will be the first time that BNE has been daily.

Today marks the start of the NW schedules, there will be a few upgauges CZ77W SQ 388 for the whole season as usual with plenty more to come around DEC with frequency increases most of which happen every year.

UA return on 31/10 with 77W equipment.
 
USAOZ
Posts: 443
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2017 4:34 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 29, 2017 1:16 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
Re CI they flew 10 weekly to AKL last year, 5 each through SYD/BNE. This will be the first time that BNE has been daily.

Today marks the start of the NW schedules, there will be a few upgauges CZ77W SQ 388 for the whole season as usual with plenty more to come around DEC with frequency increases most of which happen every year.

UA return on 31/10 with 77W equipment.
CI regularly dumps seats BNE/AKL/BNE for AUD$300/adult or less. Govt taxes/charges alone are around AUD$180. so on these fares they nett somewhere in the order of AUD$80-$100 for a return seat BNE/AKL/BNE with meals/drinks.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4304
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 29, 2017 1:20 am

USAOZ wrote:
[CI regularly dumps seats BNE/AKL/BNE for AUD$300/adult or less. Govt taxes/charges alone are around AUD$180. so on these fares they nett somewhere in the order of AUD$80-$100 for a return seat BNE/AKL/BNE with meals/drinks.

Obviously, CI does not charge that amount for every seat on its AKL - BNE service - that is a promotional figure, that would be subject to certain dates.

CI also avails of cargo traffic (given the advantage of a wide-body), premium traffic (given the lack of Business Class on all flights, like NZ's) and transit traffic.

If AKL is such a "financial disaster" for CI, as you say, CI would have made AKL seasonal, like CHC and/or dropped the BNE tag, when it dropped the SYD tag.

Cheers,

C.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8316
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 29, 2017 1:30 am

An A320 on AKL-CNS is payload restricted so can't operate with 100% load anyway, especially if they want hold revenue too., A lower load factor is ok if they can top up the remaining payload with freight they couldn't have uplifted if they had a fuller load.
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.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3305
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 29, 2017 2:28 am

USAOZ wrote:
CI regularly dumps seats BNE/AKL/BNE for AUD$300/adult or less. Govt taxes/charges alone are around AUD$180. so on these fares they nett somewhere in the order of AUD$80-$100 for a return seat BNE/AKL/BNE with meals/drinks.


Regularly sell AKL-MEL,SYD,OOL,BNE for $300-350return although ex Food and Bags. So its not un-normal to see pricing this low on the Tasman constantly.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4304
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 29, 2017 3:32 am

Hi all,

Apologies if this has already been discussed.

AIR NEW ZEALAND ANNOUNCES WELLINGTON INTERNATIONAL KORU LOUNGE REFURBISHMENT

"Air New Zealand has announced their Wellington International Koru lounge will be closed for a refurbishment from 30th October 2017. The lounge is due to open again on the 29th November 2017.

Customers flying on Air New Zealand and Singapore Airlines services during the refurbishment will be able to use the existing Air New Zealand domestic lounges prior to their international flights. As these lounges are prior to security and immigration customers will need to ensure they leave adequate time to walk to the gate and clear immigration and security."


See: https://traveltalk.nz/news-opinion/air- ... rbishment/.

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4304
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 29, 2017 3:35 am

Nelson Airport developing infrastructure and connections

New routes and more visitors are some of the goals put forward for Nelson Airport as record profits and new infrastructure emerges.

As well as record passenger numbers, highlights of the report included revenue of $9.1 million and a net profit after tax of $3.1 million.

Construction works are now under way on the two-year, $32 million project to build a new terminal and car parking set up, after contracts were let in May 2017.

Nelson Airport was also working closely with other national airports including destinations not yet on Nelson's direct service network."


See: https://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/974 ... onnections.

Cheers,

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

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:28 am

zkncj wrote:
USAOZ wrote:
CI regularly dumps seats BNE/AKL/BNE for AUD$300/adult or less. Govt taxes/charges alone are around AUD$180. so on these fares they nett somewhere in the order of AUD$80-$100 for a return seat BNE/AKL/BNE with meals/drinks.


Regularly sell AKL-MEL,SYD,OOL,BNE for $300-350return although ex Food and Bags. So its not un-normal to see pricing this low on the Tasman constantly.

which is why you wonder why more airlines don't stop flying Tasman, but as mentioned EK pulling approx 550,000 seats each way a year will probably mean some of cheapest fares will disappear (QF is replacing some of lost EK seats, but think it's only in the order of 20% or so, as QF being such a high cost airline can't sell seats at CI or Air Asia prices)
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4304
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:32 am

USAOZ wrote:
which is why you wonder why more airlines don't stop flying Tasman, but as mentioned EK pulling approx 550,000 seats each way a year will probably mean some of cheapest fares will disappear (QF is replacing some of lost EK seats, but think it's only in the order of 20% or so, as QF being such a high cost airline can't sell seats at CI or Air Asia prices)

You answered your own query - most airlines are not abandoning the Tasman, because those fare levels you cite are only the "cheapest" fares on offer - they are promotional, and are subject to various terms and conditions, like only being available for a set number of seats, per flight.

There are various other revenue streams here, including (but not limited to) cargo revenue and revenue from premium classes.

Cheers,

C.
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5264
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:40 am

planemanofnz wrote:
Hi all,

Apologies if this has already been discussed.

AIR NEW ZEALAND ANNOUNCES WELLINGTON INTERNATIONAL KORU LOUNGE REFURBISHMENT

"Air New Zealand has announced their Wellington International Koru lounge will be closed for a refurbishment from 30th October 2017. The lounge is due to open again on the 29th November 2017.

Customers flying on Air New Zealand and Singapore Airlines services during the refurbishment will be able to use the existing Air New Zealand domestic lounges prior to their international flights. As these lounges are prior to security and immigration customers will need to ensure they leave adequate time to walk to the gate and clear immigration and security."


See: https://traveltalk.nz/news-opinion/air- ... rbishment/.

Cheers,

C.

Oh rats, I'm flying internationally out of Wellington next Sunday. Oh well, an excuse to try out the regional lounge, and poke around the international rock terminal I guess!

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

Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:38 am

I suppose there is little hope for a closer working relationship between NZ and BR or OZ including cooperation on a direct service to TPE or ICN. I suppose that NZ's arrangement with CX is one of the main reasons. Thoughts?
Plane mad!
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7042
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:45 am

NZ321 wrote:
I suppose there is little hope for a closer working relationship between NZ and BR or OZ including cooperation on a direct service to TPE or ICN. I suppose that NZ's arrangement with CX is one of the main reasons. Thoughts?


Personally I can’t see NZ serving either TPE or ICN, BR may return I believe which NZ could codeshare with, OZ I’m not so sure although they did schedule CHC charters last year but didn’t go ahead, not sure they will return to AKl anytime, it’s a fairly seasonal route although one I believe tourism NZ or someone are targeting to get more seats.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4304
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 29, 2017 7:30 am

NZ321 wrote:
I suppose there is little hope for a closer working relationship between NZ and BR or OZ including cooperation on a direct service to TPE or ICN. I suppose that NZ's arrangement with CX is one of the main reasons. Thoughts?

Cathay Pacific
Correct me if I am wrong, but AFAIK, the CX - NZ alliance is restricted to the Hong Kong - New Zealand corridor.

CX's website notes that the "Strategic Agreement covers Air New Zealand and Cathay Pacific flights between Hong Kong and Auckland as well as Cathay Pacific flights between Hong Kong and Christchurch," while NZ's website notes that "the alliance with Cathay Pacific only applies to flights between Auckland and Hong Kong, it does not incorporate flights beyond Hong Kong."

See:
- https://www.cathaypacific.com/cx/en_HK/ ... ships.html.
- https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/allianc ... ay-pacific.

If you try to book a flight to ICN or TPE on NZ's website, it will offer to connect you through HKG on a CX service, but the connecting HKG - ICN / TPE services do not carry an NZ code. NZ's website also offers connections to these destinations on the likes of JL and OZ, albeit without NZ coding - though, I have not seen any BR connections offered on NZ's website.

EVA Air
BR only serves BNE in Australasia, and so AKL would have to compete with MEL and SYD in attracting any new BR service to the region. In 2013, BR noted that its Australian strategy was to "focus on having Brisbane daily before adding Sydney or Melbourne." That was almost 5 years ago, and AFAIK, BR's BNE service is still not daily. In 2015, CAPA (who do not quote a source) noted that "EVA also plans to look at using the A350 or 787 to expand in Australia. EVA currently only operates two weekly flights to Australia, an A330-200 service to Brisbane, but sees potential opportunities to expand in Australia if mainland China lifts current restrictions which prevent Chinese travellers from making a transit stop in Taipei." Then, last year, Australia and Taiwan concluded an "open skies" agreement, and it was noted that BR "expressed hope of providing more flights to Australia."

I cannot find any comments from BR as to the viability of New Zealand expansion.

See:
- https://centreforaviation.com/insights/ ... now-248842.
- https://www.ausbt.com.au/eva-air-no-pla ... -codeshare.
- http://focustaiwan.tw/news/aeco/201612150007.aspx.

Asiana Airlines
As for OZ, like BR, it only serves one destination in the region - SYD - and so AKL would have to compete with BNE and MEL (and maybe PER) in attracting any new OZ Australasian service. Its ICN - SYD service appears to be successful, given that it has seasonally upgraded it to an A380. However, as CAPA notes, "the airline has long lacked the capital to grow in an expanding Asian aviation market." Indeed, the company "has been mired in the state of capital impairment ... from 2008." Furthermore, OZ is only just starting to have its new long-haul aircraft delivered (~20 A350s). In contrast, NZ has the balance sheet, as well as an existing fleet of efficient 787s, to facilitate the establishment of AKL - ICN. CAPA actually recommends that "Asiana needs to find stronger partnerships evolving to joint ventures" - therefore, an NZ - OZ JV, using NZ metal, might be appropriate here.

I see ICN as being of more interest to NZ, than TPE (given the bigger market there).

See:
- https://centreforaviation.com/insights/ ... row-342367.
- http://english.hankyung.com/business/20 ... nes-crawls.

Cheers,

C.
 
Qantas16
Posts: 711
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 3:51 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 29, 2017 7:50 am

planemanofnz wrote:
EVA Air
BR only serves BNE in Australasia, and so AKL would have to compete with MEL and SYD in attracting any new BR service to the region. In 2013, BR noted that its Australian strategy was to "focus on having Brisbane daily before adding Sydney or Melbourne." That was almost 5 years ago, and AFAIK, BR's BNE service is still not daily. In 2015, CAPA (who do not quote a source) noted that "EVA also plans to look at using the A350 or 787 to expand in Australia. EVA currently only operates two weekly flights to Australia, an A330-200 service to Brisbane, but sees potential opportunities to expand in Australia if mainland China lifts current restrictions which prevent Chinese travellers from making a transit stop in Taipei." Then, last year, Australia and Taiwan concluded an "open skies" agreement, and it was noted that BR "expressed hope of providing more flights to Australia."

I cannot find any comments from BR as to the viability of New Zealand expansion.


BR has one of the more unusual histories in Australia. For quite a while they have only served BNE 2x weekly until last year when they bumped it up to 5x weekly... it's now 4x weekly. They also don't have any aircraft for expansion arriving for a little while (787-10s) so maybe once that happens we will see BNE increased to daily and then the prospect of a AKL service. Could also see them mimic CI and operate a BNE-AKL tag.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7042
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 29, 2017 8:24 am

BR ran BNE-AKL for a few years in the 1990’s with 763’s. Then on and off non stops some years seasonal and coding with NZ who ran the NS flights while BR ran NW. Last served 4 weekly A332’s In 2008.

They also served SYD and I think MEL briefly via SYD in the 1990’s early 2000’s.
 
USAOZ
Posts: 443
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2017 4:34 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 29, 2017 8:36 am

Qantas16 wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
EVA Air
BR only serves BNE in Australasia, and so AKL would have to compete with MEL and SYD in attracting any new BR service to the region. In 2013, BR noted that its Australian strategy was to "focus on having Brisbane daily before adding Sydney or Melbourne." That was almost 5 years ago, and AFAIK, BR's BNE service is still not daily. In 2015, CAPA (who do not quote a source) noted that "EVA also plans to look at using the A350 or 787 to expand in Australia. EVA currently only operates two weekly flights to Australia, an A330-200 service to Brisbane, but sees potential opportunities to expand in Australia if mainland China lifts current restrictions which prevent Chinese travellers from making a transit stop in Taipei." Then, last year, Australia and Taiwan concluded an "open skies" agreement, and it was noted that BR "expressed hope of providing more flights to Australia."

I cannot find any comments from BR as to the viability of New Zealand expansion.


BR has one of the more unusual histories in Australia. For quite a while they have only served BNE 2x weekly until last year when they bumped it up to 5x weekly... it's now 4x weekly. They also don't have any aircraft for expansion arriving for a little while (787-10s) so maybe once that happens we will see BNE increased to daily and then the prospect of a AKL service. Could also see them mimic CI and operate a BNE-AKL tag.
EK pulled out of AKL/BNE cos couldn't make any money so why would BR do it ? AKL/TPE more likely once they have aircraft. That would give BR more feed to Europe.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3305
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:12 am

USAOZ wrote:
zkncj wrote:
USAOZ wrote:
CI regularly dumps seats BNE/AKL/BNE for AUD$300/adult or less. Govt taxes/charges alone are around AUD$180. so on these fares they nett somewhere in the order of AUD$80-$100 for a return seat BNE/AKL/BNE with meals/drinks.


which is why you wonder why more airlines don't stop flying Tasman, but as mentioned EK pulling approx 550,000 seats each way a year will probably mean some of cheapest fares will disappear (QF is replacing some of lost EK seats, but think it's only in the order of 20% or so, as QF being such a high cost airline can't sell seats at CI or Air Asia prices)


Qantas is adding an Daily AKL-BNE 332 service, and an double daily AKL-MEL A332 service.

NZ has also increased its Tasman seats over the last 12 months with the exit of the 763 these flights are now operated by 787/777s which is around extra 100 seats per flight, plus all the extra 787/777 services NZ has added.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4304
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:57 am

SINGAPORE AIRLINES LAUNCHES BOOK THE COOK FROM AUCKLAND

"Book the Cook will be available on all flights departing Auckland from 30 October 2017, with selections able to be made from 13 October 2017.

Auckland is the first New Zealand destination to introduce Book the Cook and joins Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth as Book the Cook destinations within Singapore Airlines South West Pacific Region.
"

See: https://www.indianweekender.co.nz/Pages ... M-AUCKLAND.

Previously, "Book the Cook" was only available on SIN - AKL - now it will be available on AKL - SIN, too.

SQ and LSG Sky Chefs recently held a tasting seminar at AKL, to introduce the new culinary offerings:

Image

Several New Zealand-specific dishes and ingredients are on offer, including 'Wakanui' beef:

Image

Another dish on offer is New Zealand 'King Salmon,' served with a white wine cream sauce:

Image

It is nice to see SQ upgrading its product offering at AKL - it seems to be committed to the market here.

Cheers,

C.
 
Nouflyer
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 9:38 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 29, 2017 11:14 am

planemanofnz wrote:
Hi all,

Apologies if this was posted earlier - here are the load factors in the Australia - New Zealand corridor (for the 2016 calendar year):

- Air New Zealand (81.1% inbound, 79.0% outbound)
.

And so we have the ultimate repudiation of the all-economy A320 model.

You will recall that the original, absurd argument was that "often only 1 or 2 Business seats are sold" on the A320 fleet, although the airline was quick to add that this did not apply on SYD, MEL and BNE services.

So they went from a configuration of 8J 144Y to one of 168Y.

Now, we know that Tasman Business fare levels are 4x lead-in Economy fares, so selling 1 Business fare equated to an extra 4 Economy sales, and selling 2 of them equated to 8 Economy sales.

So for the switch to all-economy to improve revenue, the airline would have to sell at least 149 Economy seats under the new configuration where previously they would have sold 1 Business ticket, or 153 Economy seats where previously they would have sold 2 Business seats. It's even worse on the Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne routes where previously they averaged 6 Business sales, because they would need to sell 169 Economy seats to generate the previous revenue.....on a 168 seater plane.

But 81.1% loads (which include Airpoints redemptions) on inbound flights actually equates to 136 seats filled.

And 79.0% loads on outbound flights equates to 133 seats filled.

In other words, between 8 and 11 Economy seats would have been vacant under the old 8J 144Y configuration. And all the airline has done is flushed down the toilet several business class sales, and instead started to install and fly around an extra 24 unsold Economy class seats on every flight.

Even Virgin weren't daft enough to keep their 737s all economy.

Yet Air NZ took out a small Business cabin, gave away a significant amount of revenue, and now just carries an extra 4 rows of unsold seats on every flight.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4304
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 29, 2017 11:18 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
BR ran BNE-AKL for a few years in the 1990’s with 763’s. Then on and off non stops some years seasonal and coding with NZ who ran the NS flights while BR ran NW. Last served 4 weekly A332’s In 2008.

BR ran 767s, MD11s and A330s to New Zealand - not just to AKL, but to CHC too.

I loved seeing their old liveries at AKL - the green and orange mix was so distinctive:

Image

Image

In addition, NZ also flew to TPE several years ago (including, via the likes of BNE):

Image

Image

USAOZ wrote:
EK pulled out of AKL/BNE cos couldn't make any money so why would BR do it ? AKL/TPE more likely once they have aircraft. That would give BR more feed to Europe.

I question how much money EK loses on AKL - BNE, if at all - IMHO, EK exiting the Tasman was also attributable to alliance rumblings, on the part of QF.

Nevertheless, BR's A330s would be more appropriate than EK's A380s. BR could also codeshare with NZ, availing of its unrivaled domestic connections.

However, I do agree with you that it is more likely that Star Alliance (be it BR or NZ) will launch non-stop flights, rather than a one-stop service via Australia.

Cheers,

C.
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5264
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 29, 2017 11:48 am

Nouflyer wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
Hi all,

Apologies if this was posted earlier - here are the load factors in the Australia - New Zealand corridor (for the 2016 calendar year):

- Air New Zealand (81.1% inbound, 79.0% outbound)
.

And so we have the ultimate repudiation of the all-economy A320 model.

You will recall that the original, absurd argument was that "often only 1 or 2 Business seats are sold" on the A320 fleet, although the airline was quick to add that this did not apply on SYD, MEL and BNE services.

So they went from a configuration of 8J 144Y to one of 168Y.

Now, we know that Tasman Business fare levels are 4x lead-in Economy fares, so selling 1 Business fare equated to an extra 4 Economy sales, and selling 2 of them equated to 8 Economy sales.

So for the switch to all-economy to improve revenue, the airline would have to sell at least 149 Economy seats under the new configuration where previously they would have sold 1 Business ticket, or 153 Economy seats where previously they would have sold 2 Business seats. It's even worse on the Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne routes where previously they averaged 6 Business sales, because they would need to sell 169 Economy seats to generate the previous revenue.....on a 168 seater plane.

But 81.1% loads (which include Airpoints redemptions) on inbound flights actually equates to 136 seats filled.

And 79.0% loads on outbound flights equates to 133 seats filled.

In other words, between 8 and 11 Economy seats would have been vacant under the old 8J 144Y configuration. And all the airline has done is flushed down the toilet several business class sales, and instead started to install and fly around an extra 24 unsold Economy class seats on every flight.

Even Virgin weren't daft enough to keep their 737s all economy.

Yet Air NZ took out a small Business cabin, gave away a significant amount of revenue, and now just carries an extra 4 rows of unsold seats on every flight.

:redflag:
It is possible you are correct, however:
  • to make that assertion you would need to break down those load factors by A320 vs 767/777/787 to know whether the A320s are being regularly flown around with that number of empty economy seats.
  • even if that load factor applies to the A320 services, it is an average - to look at the revenue potential lost you would need to look at individual flights. To use some artificial numbers, if over the course of 100 flights, 50 of them had 168 seats filled (100% load factor) and 50 of them had 102 seats filled (60% load factor), you would have sold 1200 more economy class seats than you would otherwise have been able to with a 144Y configuration (assuming no spillover between the full flights and the rather empty flights, which is an artificial assumption for this artificial example). For arguments sake let's say they would have sold 2 business class seats on the lighter load factor flights, and 4 on the heavier load factor ones, that is 2x50 + 4x50 = 300 seats, or if we use your 4:1 revenue ration, the same revenue they would have lost by not being able to sell the extra economy seats on half the flights. If the business class numbers are 1 indeed 1-2 per flight as claimed, and we drop the numbers to 1 on the lighter load factor flights and 2 on the heavier load factor flights, then we will sell 150 business class seats across our 100 flights, for the loss of 1200 economy seats; in other words the business class would only bring in half the revenue of the lost economy seats. Like I said it is an artificial example, but it serves to illustrate a point that you can't just draw a conclusion from a single average load factor; you need to dig deeper into the numbers for a route.
  • In addition to the revenue potential of business class seats vs economy class ones, you would need to look at costs associated with offering business class as opposed to just economy. They may not be huge, but they will be non-zero. Thus even if going all-economy brings in the only the same revenue as having a business class cabin, it would be better for the bottom line.

All that said, I think NZ should look again at a business class offering on the A320/321 in conjunction with the pending update to the Business Premier product - they of course will be able to look at the numbers flight by flight and work out if it stacks up. I just don't think the high level load factor numbers for 2016 are the definitive proof you assert they are.

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

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 29, 2017 12:01 pm

Nouflyer wrote:

You are the old 'Koruman,' right? I just want to say that I am a huge fan - I used to love reading all of your proposals for HNL and PPT mega-hubs, as well as your experiences using NZ out of OOL. This forum has never really been the same without you - I hope that you have been keeping well.

VirginFlyer wrote:
I think NZ should look again at a business class offering on the A320/321

I agree - particularly if NZ wants to expand its presence within the Australia - North America corridor. Some A320 flights on NZ are close to ~5 hours (like, AKL - ADL), and I am sure that many premium passengers connecting to long-haul services through AKL are very disappointed with "Works Deluxe."

Cheers,

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

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 29, 2017 12:42 pm

Nouflyer wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
Hi all,

Apologies if this was posted earlier - here are the load factors in the Australia - New Zealand corridor (for the 2016 calendar year):

- Air New Zealand (81.1% inbound, 79.0% outbound)
.

And so we have the ultimate repudiation of the all-economy A320 model.

You will recall that the original, absurd argument was that "often only 1 or 2 Business seats are sold" on the A320 fleet, although the airline was quick to add that this did not apply on SYD, MEL and BNE services.

So they went from a configuration of 8J 144Y to one of 168Y.

Now, we know that Tasman Business fare levels are 4x lead-in Economy fares, so selling 1 Business fare equated to an extra 4 Economy sales, and selling 2 of them equated to 8 Economy sales.

So for the switch to all-economy to improve revenue, the airline would have to sell at least 149 Economy seats under the new configuration where previously they would have sold 1 Business ticket, or 153 Economy seats where previously they would have sold 2 Business seats. It's even worse on the Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne routes where previously they averaged 6 Business sales, because they would need to sell 169 Economy seats to generate the previous revenue.....on a 168 seater plane.

But 81.1% loads (which include Airpoints redemptions) on inbound flights actually equates to 136 seats filled.

And 79.0% loads on outbound flights equates to 133 seats filled.

In other words, between 8 and 11 Economy seats would have been vacant under the old 8J 144Y configuration. And all the airline has done is flushed down the toilet several business class sales, and instead started to install and fly around an extra 24 unsold Economy class seats on every flight.

Even Virgin weren't daft enough to keep their 737s all economy.

Yet Air NZ took out a small Business cabin, gave away a significant amount of revenue, and now just carries an extra 4 rows of unsold seats on every flight.


I agree with your sentiments re business and economy. I'll add, that not only did they flush the business seats down the toilet they made fewer options for frequent fliers and premium customers wishing to fly business at a time of the day when I wide body doesn't operate :( And so if you're a QF flyer you have more options to choose from. I'm all for business in the A321 but I doubt it will happen.
Plane mad!
 
USAOZ
Posts: 443
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2017 4:34 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 29, 2017 8:40 pm

financially CI or BR should operate a BNE/USA mainland direct via somewhere like APW with a splash & dash in peak season only, when fares are very high.

They could do TPE/BNE/APW/SFO/TPE using either an A330 or B777.

Only thing is it might upset their alliance partners.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8316
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:11 pm

We're talking about load factors between Austalia-NZ and perhaps we forget that that includes every combo between. I would not suggest the seats to suit model is flawed based on the data I see here because NZ's load factors are not AKL specific (QF/EK/CI/JQ/VA too), so naturally, they would be higher than that ex AKL If you are publishing by port then you will likely see any of the carriers that serve more of the markets AKL/WLG/CHC/ZQN/DUD with a lower load factor than those that serve AKL alone. Of course, most of us would know that an airline that hubs all their long haul and the majority of short-haul services through a port that supports 74% of international arrivals are going to have higher load factors than they do through a non-hubbing port which is just local demand driven.

You can see that clearly, in the SQ WLG-CBR-SIN with such low load factors as that is the only transtasman SQ flight, it doesn't rely on anything except very localised demand.

I am certainly not convinced about the loss of business class on some A320 operated routes until such times as I can see AKL specific BITRE info, and even then it wouldn't be fleet specific. so it still won't reflect the economic reality. I think you might have C class back again if the A320s didn't have to serve the rest of the country any longer, but really if you look, NZ has grown the market to support widebody transtasman ops where there is sufficient demand, and where there isn't they don't bother.
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.
 
Qantas16
Posts: 711
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 3:51 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 29, 2017 11:18 pm

USAOZ wrote:
financially CI or BR should operate a BNE/USA mainland direct via somewhere like APW with a splash & dash in peak season only, when fares are very high.

They could do TPE/BNE/APW/SFO/TPE using either an A330 or B777.

Only thing is it might upset their alliance partners.


Are you serious?!?! That sounds like the easiest way to lose a good couple of million dollars I've ever heard. They have ~0% brand image in APW and would really be scraping the bottom in fares ex-BNE for a BNE-APW-SFO service. Not withstanding crewing issues for such a flight (i.e. you'd likely have crews laying over in BNE, APW and SFO)... even if they were to launch BNE-USA direct, I fail to see why they should. They have zero connections on either end and I doubt QF/VA or any US carrier will provide them much feed. Also, neither CI nor BR have surplus aircraft that they are struggling to find uses for... they aren't EK. There are enough potential routes ex-TPE they can explore before needing to look at ludicrous routes like BNE-APW-SFO.

Also I'm unsure why there is this idea that APW and other Pacific Islands are an untapped gold mine. Samoa has a population of ~200,000 people and a GDP of approximately US$1billion Not only is a lot of the travel demand ex-APW directed to NZ and Australia, they are already well served (whether they believe it or not) with multiple daily services to AKL on wide bodies.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4304
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:55 am

'Unsafe' crowds and long queues at Auckland Airport 'disastrous'

"Kiwi travellers are describing two-hour long queues through Customs and chaotic crowds at Auckland Airport as the worst they've ever seen.

Joanna Gray was flying into New Zealand from Brisbane around 5pm last night and found herself in a scene "like what you'd see in another country".

The international arrivals area was flooded with thousands of people flying in on Sunday night flights, with just two Customs officers in the area doing little to control the mayhem.

Auckland Airport spokeswoman Lisa Mulitalo said while Sunday nights were always very busy, last night's backlog had been due to a series of flight delays."


See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=11938153.

Image

Cheers,

C.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8316
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Mon Oct 30, 2017 2:17 am

That article annoyed me. She said she was marshalled through but she said it looked like 2h worth... I mean wtf? How does she know?? what makes her the expert?? Those queues suck, no doubt, and Sunday is definitely going to be the worst day for the high season schedule but they basically took her estimate as fact. I highly doubt it would have taken that long. Also the Airport company spokesperson made no reference of being the first day of the new summer schedule or on how long the delays actually were, which is actually totally relevant to the storyline.

That time is also when the Chinese flights come CZ/MU/CA etc so the screening changes too. Of course, they can't be seen to be discriminating one ethnicity so all passengers are screened in the same queue and same standards be they NZers, Residents or not because those flights are high risk on all border threats. Money Laundering and travelling with 10000+, Smuggling endangered species parts and fruit/veges and of course drugs like MDMA too. Anyone who has ever worked around the airport knows that this "change" happens at the same times every day.
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.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4304
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Mon Oct 30, 2017 2:20 am

NZ's CHC - HKK service might get a boost, if a bid to take the TranzAlpine tourist train to HKK is successful.

See: https://www.odt.co.nz/regions/west-coas ... e-hokitika.

Cheers,

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

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Mon Oct 30, 2017 2:49 am

Qantas16 wrote:
USAOZ wrote:
financially CI or BR should operate a BNE/USA mainland direct via somewhere like APW with a splash & dash in peak season only, when fares are very high.

They could do TPE/BNE/APW/SFO/TPE using either an A330 or B777.

Only thing is it might upset their alliance partners.


Are you serious?!?! That sounds like the easiest way to lose a good couple of million dollars I've ever heard. They have ~0% brand image in APW and would really be scraping the bottom in fares ex-BNE for a BNE-APW-SFO service. Not withstanding crewing issues for such a flight (i.e. you'd likely have crews laying over in BNE, APW and SFO)... even if they were to launch BNE-USA direct, I fail to see why they should. They have zero connections on either end and I doubt QF/VA or any US carrier will provide them much feed. Also, neither CI nor BR have surplus aircraft that they are struggling to find uses for... they aren't EK. There are enough potential routes ex-TPE they can explore before needing to look at ludicrous routes like BNE-APW-SFO.

Also I'm unsure why there is this idea that APW and other Pacific Islands are an untapped gold mine. Samoa has a population of ~200,000 people and a GDP of approximately US$1billion Not only is a lot of the travel demand ex-APW directed to NZ and Australia, they are already well served (whether they believe it or not) with multiple daily services to AKL on wide bodies.
APW is like a tech stop, as they couldn't fly OZ/USA nonstop as wouldn't get the traffic rights unless I guess it was a charter or scheduled charter. Samoa or some other place would surely let them use their traffic rights.

Crews layover now in BNE & SFO & LAX. Seasonally - December & January have highest yields of the year. Apparently CI has just parked some aircraft.

Idea is not mine, but heard from an operator with offices in Australia & USA who wants seats & contacted us, when they heard we were looking at charter flights. We didn't come up with anything realistically priced, but there idea is better if they can find a scheduled operator to do it & then buy all or most of the seats.
 
Qantas16
Posts: 711
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 3:51 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Mon Oct 30, 2017 3:06 am

USAOZ wrote:
APW is like a tech stop, as they couldn't fly OZ/USA nonstop as wouldn't get the traffic rights unless I guess it was a charter or scheduled charter. Samoa or some other place would surely let them use their traffic rights.

Crews layover now in BNE & SFO & LAX. Seasonally - December & January have highest yields of the year. Apparently CI has just parked some aircraft.

Idea is not mine, but heard from an operator with offices in Australia & USA who wants seats


If they desperately wanted to fly the route, then they should ask for it but any stops along the way would kill the route before it began. Not that I think BR or CI would be successful in operating BNE-LAX/SFO direct anyway...

Yes crews layover there because the flights are long between those ports but. TPE-BNE-APW-SFO-TPE would be at least 5 days for one crew and would depend on the route being daily, otherwise you'll have crew in APW for days waiting for the next flight.

There are so many airlines that are more likely to start Aus-USA flights than BR/CI - in no particular order; NZ, EK, TG, SQ, CX, GA, EY, QR, JQ, AC. None of those are likely but are more likely than CI/BR IMHO.
 
USAOZ
Posts: 443
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2017 4:34 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Mon Oct 30, 2017 3:57 am

Qantas16 wrote:
USAOZ wrote:
APW is like a tech stop, as they couldn't fly OZ/USA nonstop as wouldn't get the traffic rights unless I guess it was a charter or scheduled charter. Samoa or some other place would surely let them use their traffic rights.

Crews layover now in BNE & SFO & LAX. Seasonally - December & January have highest yields of the year. Apparently CI has just parked some aircraft.

Idea is not mine, but heard from an operator with offices in Australia & USA who wants seats


If they desperately wanted to fly the route, then they should ask for it but any stops along the way would kill the route before it began. Not that I think BR or CI would be successful in operating BNE-LAX/SFO direct anyway...

Yes crews layover there because the flights are long between those ports but. TPE-BNE-APW-SFO-TPE would be at least 5 days for one crew and would depend on the route being daily, otherwise you'll have crew in APW for days waiting for the next flight.

There are so many airlines that are more likely to start Aus-USA flights than BR/CI - in no particular order; NZ, EK, TG, SQ, CX, GA, EY, QR, JQ, AC. None of those are likely but are more likely than CI/BR IMHO.
if APW was purely for refueling &/or traffic rights reasons & on the ground for minimal time, then BNE/APW/SFO would surely take around same time as a MEL/LAX flight. A B777 might not even need to take on fuel. An A330 would I think.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4304
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:36 am

PR plans to replace its A340-300s with A330-300s at AKL, once the former aircraft type retires from its fleet:

"Auckland is currently served via Cairns with four weekly A320ceo flights. Auckland will initially be served nonstop three times per week using A340-300s. PAL expects to eventually transition Manila-Auckland to A330-300s as it is planning to phase out its A340 fleet over the next couple of years."

See: https://blueswandaily.com/philippine-ai ... in-1q2018/.

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4304
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:47 am

Virgin passengers in limbo as Samoa blocks flights

"Virgin Australia is scrambling to accommodate thousands of passengers after the Samoan government blocked it from operating flights between the Pacific island and New Zealand.

Virgin Australia had planned to fly its own services from Australia and New Zealand to the Samoan capital Apia from November 13, but on Monday said that permission for Auckland to Apia flights had not been granted.

About 6000 passengers booked on the five weekly return Auckland - Apia services will be affected. Virgin said it would fly those passengers to Samoa via Australia or to other destinations, or give them refunds.

Virgin's twice weekly return services from Sydney to Apia and weekly return service from Brisbane will go ahead as planned from November 13.

Virgin management is understood to view the decision as a move to protect Samoa's fledgling national carrier, and is in breach of Australia and Samoa's bilateral air services agreement."


See: https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/busine ... zazkl.html.

Cheers,

C.
 
Qantas16
Posts: 711
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 3:51 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:21 am

USAOZ wrote:
Qantas16 wrote:
USAOZ wrote:
APW is like a tech stop, as they couldn't fly OZ/USA nonstop as wouldn't get the traffic rights unless I guess it was a charter or scheduled charter. Samoa or some other place would surely let them use their traffic rights.

Crews layover now in BNE & SFO & LAX. Seasonally - December & January have highest yields of the year. Apparently CI has just parked some aircraft.

Idea is not mine, but heard from an operator with offices in Australia & USA who wants seats


If they desperately wanted to fly the route, then they should ask for it but any stops along the way would kill the route before it began. Not that I think BR or CI would be successful in operating BNE-LAX/SFO direct anyway...

Yes crews layover there because the flights are long between those ports but. TPE-BNE-APW-SFO-TPE would be at least 5 days for one crew and would depend on the route being daily, otherwise you'll have crew in APW for days waiting for the next flight.

There are so many airlines that are more likely to start Aus-USA flights than BR/CI - in no particular order; NZ, EK, TG, SQ, CX, GA, EY, QR, JQ, AC. None of those are likely but are more likely than CI/BR IMHO.
if APW was purely for refueling &/or traffic rights reasons & on the ground for minimal time, then BNE/APW/SFO would surely take around same time as a MEL/LAX flight. A B777 might not even need to take on fuel. An A330 would I think.


Sure but I'm still confused as to why you think the route would be a success, even without the stop. If this route was such a goldmine, QF/VA would be significantly increasing frequency or UA/AA/DL would be flying it. Whilst I think there is room for growth BNE-USA, it won't come from a Taiwanese carrier
 
USAOZ
Posts: 443
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2017 4:34 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:27 pm

Qantas16 wrote:
USAOZ wrote:
Qantas16 wrote:

If they desperately wanted to fly the route, then they should ask for it but any stops along the way would kill the route before it began. Not that I think BR or CI would be successful in operating BNE-LAX/SFO direct anyway...

Yes crews layover there because the flights are long between those ports but. TPE-BNE-APW-SFO-TPE would be at least 5 days for one crew and would depend on the route being daily, otherwise you'll have crew in APW for days waiting for the next flight.

There are so many airlines that are more likely to start Aus-USA flights than BR/CI - in no particular order; NZ, EK, TG, SQ, CX, GA, EY, QR, JQ, AC. None of those are likely but are more likely than CI/BR IMHO.
if APW was purely for refueling &/or traffic rights reasons & on the ground for minimal time, then BNE/APW/SFO would surely take around same time as a MEL/LAX flight. A B777 might not even need to take on fuel. An A330 would I think.


Sure but I'm still confused as to why you think the route would be a success, even without the stop. If this route was such a goldmine, QF/VA would be significantly increasing frequency or UA/AA/DL would be flying it. Whilst I think there is room for growth BNE-USA, it won't come from a Taiwanese carrier


VA fleet of B777's is going flat out in DEC-JAN already. They have put on extra flight LAX/BNE at 12noon some days of week. They are doing BNE, SYD & MEL/LAX with only 5 aircraft.

FJ put on an extra NAN/SFO/NAN one day a week in peak season.

QF are so much more expensive than every other carrier, they would only put on extra flights if they could get their super high yields & if they had the aircraft, which I don't think they do.

UA/AA/DL ? UA airline of last resort ex Australia & U.S. carriers are not popular with Australians & generally they yield much less than VA & QF who do only nonstops BNE/mainland USA. Have a look at fares say BNE/LAX 20DEC, BACK 10JAN or BNE/LAX 3JAN, BACK 18JAN.

A few Australian tour operators have talked about charter flights, but hard part is always filling from U.S. end especially as the yanks have less holidays, cf. Australian school holidays which run from mid Nov to early Feb.

Doesn't matter which airline does it. A charter or a seasonal flight only has to be slightly cheaper than VA/QF & that can't be that hard & doesn't have to be nonstop. A direct flight with a quick stop en route would work.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4304
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Tue Oct 31, 2017 2:40 am

Hi all,

Some very interesting insights from NZ on the sidelines of the CAPA-ACTE New Zealand Aviation and Corporate Travel Summit.

NZ's Chief Revenue Officer, Cam Wallace, noted the following:

- NZ was “looking at Norwegian’s model” and is preparing a competitive response, should a LHLC carrier came to New Zealand.

- NZ is looking at capacity options on the three markets, Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne, which were previously over supplied.

- It is not sustainable for NZ to do beyond point to point travel - NZ's new aircraft will allow NZ to continue to focus on single flight routes.

- Regarding future growth in South America, at the moment, NZ's focus is frequency into Argentina, and not on route development.

See: https://blueswandaily.com/air-new-zeala ... evolution/.

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4304
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:07 am

Israel, New Zealand Ink Aviation Services Deal

"Officials for Israel and New Zealand signed an agreement on aviation services Tuesday in Jerusalem ahead of a meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and New Zealand Governor-General Patsy Reddy.

The agreement is intended to set air links between the two nations, and includes operation of direct routes between Israel and New Zealand, in addition to the right to fly in each other’s airspace, and stopover landing rights."


See: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breakin ... 017/10/31/.

Cheers,

C.
  • 1
  • 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