mariner wrote:

So short of using CMB as the gateway, which I think is the most sensible way, it's a puzzlement.

I have no idea why you think that CMB is "the most sensible way" here:

- NZ needs a Star Alliance hub for feed to and from India, which is AI's DEL hub - CMB is only a oneworld hub (UL)
- The only Star Alliance feed to India through CMB is from AI's DEL and MAA flights - AI does not even fly BOM - CMB
- AI offers connections through DEL to many Middle Eastern ports, which would be better than two-stop EY code-sharing
- As one of the largest cities in the world, DEL offers a level of O&D traffic unrivalled by CMB (as anna.aero's analysis showed)

Ultimately, saying that India should be served via CMB is like saying that China should be served via MNL - it makes no sense.

A CMB hub would offer nothing that the SIN hub does not already offer - in fact, it offers less (an inferior transit experience).

mariner wrote:

from Singapore they can get to just about anywhere on the subcontinent

mariner wrote:

I'm not sure how NZ could replicate this

While the SQ Group serves the major cities, to say that it can take you to "just about anywhere on the subcontinent" is not true at all.

AI serves a number of Indian cities through DEL, which SQ and MI have no presence in at all (as demonstrated by the map below):

mariner wrote:

As I understand it, they would be limited to one gateway - BOM?

From what I understand:

- BOM is the only port that New Zealand carriers can land at (see: https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/air-nz-co ... s-b-173904)
- The 2016 ASA re-negotiation only related to code-sharing (see: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11631764)

That being said, AI can operate AKL - DEL. In March, AI's Australia Manager said that AI might consider AKL in the future.

See: https://www.indianweekender.co.nz/Pages ... e-the-wait.

As India's commercial capital, BOM would be like PVG - a route largely focused on O&D, without the need for connections.

AI and NZ could work their way into a JV, with NZ operating AKL - BOM, and AI operating AKL - DEL (like the CA JV in China).

mariner wrote:

Nothing wrong with a backtrack, but if pax can get there without one - through SIN - why would they not?

There are multiple reasons, including overall journey time (as per transit times), as well as the competitiveness of frequencies.

Cheers,

C.

mariner wrote:

zkojq wrote:

I think they've struck the right balance at the moment. I actually quite like how the refer to AKL as TM.

I don't like it at all - I think it's tokenism.

Very few people that I know, even Måori, say they are going to Tåmaki Makaurau for the week-end and it has to be confusing to some overseas visitors who are booked to Auckland.

What puzzles me is - why?

I think Måori is a very interesting language, I take lessons in it, but presently the name of the city is Auckland and I dislike all this Grey Lynn PC that would have it be something else.

mariner

It’s Auckland and as long as I live I’ll never call it anything also, ditto for Mt Cook and Mt Egmont.

What’s interesting is there are more Maori speakers amoungst the Maori community in Australia (approx 22%) that Maori speakers in NZ.

Aviation is note immune from Black Friday's sales within New Zealand, it seems - NZ is heavily advertising its promotional pricing.

See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11947249.

However, NZ's 'promotional' fares are not great - e.g. PVG (NZD 821 rtn) is still almost double CZ's promotional fare (NZD 459 rtn).

Likewise, AKL - LAX and AKL - SFO are NZD 999 rtn, which is still higher than FJ's pricing (NZD 879 rtn), as well as QF's pricing (NZD 949 rtn).

Although NZ offers a non-stop flight to these destinations, each of these competitor fares are available for a lot longer than NZ's fares.

Cheers,

C.

If you live in the UK, NZ were advertising LHR-AKL return flights for £399 on Black Friday only.

The catches are that they are only available for selected dates in May-June next year, and only 50 seats in total available. Still, that is almost half the cost of the cheapest return fare I've ever had.

I presume these would be on NZ1/2, rather than partly on a codeshare via some other route...

qantas747 wrote:

Whats the current special with SQ and 40kg baggage? Is that to all destinations in Asia and Europe?

http://www.singaporeair.com/en_UK/nz/pl ... i-baggage/

46kg for Colombo, Dhaka, and Indian routes.

planemanofnz wrote:

I have no idea why you think that CMB is "the most sensible way" here:

You'll just have to accept that I do..

planemanofnz wrote:

- NZ needs a Star Alliance hub for feed to and from India, which is AI's DEL hub - CMB is only a oneworld hub (UL)

EZE is a One World hub and NZ seems to be doing just fine.

If DEL were available that would change everything, but it is my understanding that DEL isn't in the bilateral and even you seem to agree.

planemanofnz wrote:

- BOM is the only port that New Zealand carriers can land at.

Since I was discussing a potential NZ service to India, I was dealling with that reality.

If DEL were available to NZ, I might think differently.

Have a nice day.

mariner

Excellent

I've been out of the loop for a week or two, and coming here this morning and reading the last page or so's posts has totally brightened my day. In no particular order:

1. Te Reo. If we accept that the purpose of a language is communication; to artificially promote a language that virtually no-one speaks exclusively and very people nationwide (let alone worldwide) speak at all makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Now; I can accept there are those to whom that the language has some deeper significance; but as i'm not one of them I have zero interest in seeing it artificially promoted. But as a QF flier, I would take great delight in knowing NZ passengers have to suffer jokesy safety videos in both English and Maori.

2. India - forget it. And if there is a non stop market between NZ and India; expect AI to fill the void first.

3. NZ's figures - yes, 100 miliion off the balance sheet is bad whichever way you spin it - and spin it they will/have.

AirNZ's 11th B787-9 ZK-NZM arrived in AKL last night at 21:14 NZDT after a non stop delivery flight from Charleston, South Carolina, during which it travelled 8,601 miles in 15 hours 59 minutes.
Numbers 12 and 13 due late in 2018.

Jetstar315 wrote:

AirNZ's 11th B787-9 ZK-NZM arrived in AKL last night at 21:14 NZDT after a non stop delivery flight from Charleston, South Carolina, during which it travelled 8,601 miles in 15 hours 59 minutes.
Numbers 12 and 13 due late in 2018.

Would the a/c depart with full tanks in such a situation? Or calculated burn plus reserves?

On the topic of 'Black Friday' special fares, CZ has a stunning offer to Shanghai from just NZD 413 return.

See: http://www.csair.com/cn/czadscale/2017/ ... ri20171124.

This is amazing, at only slightly over half that of NZ's 'Black Friday' special fare to PVG, of NZD 821 return.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

D7 has been talking about a drive to increase aircraft utilisation.

See: https://centreforaviation.com/news/aira ... ion-742747.

I wonder if more Australia - New Zealand tag flights would help?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

JETGO in Australia is taking delivery of Embraer ERJ 145LR aircraft soon.

See: https://blueswandaily.com/jetgo-austral ... -nov-2017/.

The ERJ 145LR has a range of ~2,870 km, which allows for flights to New Zealand.

I wonder if there is scope for NZ to seek JETGO's collaboration in developing either:

- NZ's AKL hub, through flights to regional Australia (like CBR, NTL and HBA)
- Secondary New Zealand routes (like SYD - DUD / HLZ / IVC / ROT / TRG)

With a seat capacity of just 50, the ERJ 145LR is the right size for these markets.

mariner wrote:

EZE is a One World hub and NZ seems to be doing just fine.

Mariner, EZE is totally different to CMB:

- EZE is a major destination in and of itself, with a metro population of ~15 million (compared to CMB's ~5 million). Further, Argentina's nominal GDP per capita (~13,000 USD pa) is 300 - 400% higher than Sri Lanka's (~4,000 USD pa). Together, this shows that CMB is a lot riskier than EZE.

- With EZE, it is AKL that is the hub, with more than 40% of passengers on AKL - EZE sourced from Australian ports who are going to and from EZE itself. Aside from the occasional Fijian Indian transfer passenger, AKL would not share the same hub status in any Indian (or Sri Lankan) route.

- There is significantly less competition to South America, meaning that NZ had more scope to serve the continent via whatever port it wanted. With India, that luxury is lacking - if NZ serves the market through an uncompetitive hub like CMB, NZ will have no advantage over MH, SQ and others.

By the way, EZE is a SkyTeam hub, through AR (not a oneworld hub).

mariner wrote:

If DEL were available to NZ, I might think differently.

Gasman wrote:

India - forget it. And if there is a non stop market between NZ and India; expect AI to fill the void first.

If we think outside of the box for a moment, is one way to get around this for AI and NZ to launch a revenue-sharing JV, with AI operating a 3x weekly AKL - DEL service, and NZ operating a 3x weekly AKL - BOM service? That way, NZ could still get a slice of the DEL pie. AFAIK, the 2016 ASA re-negotiation only extended to code-sharing and not revenue-sharing, but this proposal might be more tenable to the Indian regulators than full-blown access to DEL by NZ. It would also allow NZ to better take advantage of the fact that, according to Tourism New Zealand, almost half (47%) of all people in India considering visiting New Zealand are based in BOM. The split strategy worked in Mainland China (with PEK and PVG, in an alliance with CA), but only after several years - NZ might not be willing to replicate suffering PVG-level losses in the Indian market, for the sake of a first-mover advantage there.

See: http://www.tourismnewzealand.com/media/ ... apshot.pdf.

Gasman wrote:

I've been out of the loop for a week or two, and coming here this morning and reading the last page or so's posts has totally brightened my day.

Great - I am glad to hear.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

Mariner, EZE is totally different to CMB:

You say, I disagree. Sri Lanka, generally, is a wonderful tourist destination. exotic yet familiar, because of the colonial heritage, I suppose. And fabulous food. And, like India, cricket.

But no matter, your persistent negatives don't change anything - NZ is still stuck with BOM as its gateway to India.

So I shrug.

mariner

mariner wrote:

Sri Lanka, generally, is a wonderful tourist destination. exotic yet familiar, because of the colonial heritage, I suppose. And fabulous food. And, like India, cricket.

If only routes were developed on where had the most 'exotic' beaches, the most 'fabulous' foods, or even shared cricket ties - perhaps NZ would then fly to the Caribbean.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

mariner wrote:

Sri Lanka, generally, is a wonderful tourist destination. exotic yet familiar, because of the colonial heritage, I suppose. And fabulous food. And, like India, cricket.

If only routes were developed on where had the most 'exotic' beaches, the most 'fabulous' foods, or even shared cricket ties - perhaps NZ would then fly to the Caribbean.

If only. That'd be fun, it's called tourism. Trouble is, I don't think any of the Caribbean islands could support such a service - Jamaica, perhaps but that has other problems. And although I didn't mention "exotic beaches", yes, they are.

mariner

planemanofnz wrote:

If we think outside of the box for a moment, is one way to get around this for AI and NZ to launch a revenue-sharing JV, with AI operating a 3x weekly AKL - DEL service, and NZ operating a 3x weekly AKL - BOM service? That way, NZ could still get a slice of the DEL pie. AFAIK, the 2016 ASA re-negotiation only extended to code-sharing and not revenue-sharing, but this proposal might be more tenable to the Indian regulators than full-blown access to DEL by NZ. It would also allow NZ to better take advantage of the fact that, according to Tourism New Zealand, almost half (47%) of all people in India considering visiting New Zealand are based in BOM. The split strategy worked in Mainland China (with PEK and PVG, in an alliance with CA), but only after several years - NZ might not be willing to replicate suffering PVG-level losses in the Indian market, for the sake of a first-mover advantage there.

Whatever happened to the proposed AI/NZ codeshare agreement? I guess AI management at the moment are pre-occupied with the imminent privatisation. No one wants to move ahead with any future uncertainty. Perhaps we will have a more clear picture when AI gets sold first. Depending on who the buyer is, AI's place in *A can also no longer be guaranteed. Maybe at that time, AI would not be the best candidate anymore. Or maybe it would be easier to partner with Vistara which is part owned by SQ. So unless NZ wanted to go at it alone (which I doubt given NZ often launch a service with a local partner) , it might not be the best time to launch India.

mariner wrote:

I don't think any of the Caribbean islands could support such a service - Jamaica, perhaps

mariner wrote:

That'd be fun, it's called tourism.

"Jamaica, perhaps" - you cannot be serious, Mariner? A whopping 404 New Zealanders visited Jamaica in 2016.

New Zealand's MFAT notes that Jamaica has a high rate of violent crime, including armed robbery, kidnapping and murder.

It is a tiny island, further away from New Zealand than even DEL (~8,000 mi), with a GDP per capita of under USD 5,000.

See:
- https://www.safetravel.govt.nz/jamaica.
- http://www.jtbonline.org/report-and-statistics/.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

"Jamaica, perhaps" - you cannot be serious, Mariner? A whopping 404 New Zealanders visited Jamaica in 2016

Of course, I'm not being serious, but I found it hard to swallow your comments about the "Caribbean islands" so I thought I;d have some fun .

planemanofnz wrote:

If only routes were developed on where had the most 'exotic' beaches, the most 'fabulous' foods, or even shared cricket ties - perhaps NZ would then fly to the Caribbean. .

And there is absolutely no need, I promise you, to point out the violence in Jamaica to me - I'm queer, gay if you must, I wouldn't go near the place.

mariner

planemanofnz wrote:

JETGO in Australia is taking delivery of Embraer ERJ 145LR aircraft soon.

See: https://blueswandaily.com/jetgo-austral ... -nov-2017/.

The ERJ 145LR has a range of ~2,870 km, which allows for flights to New Zealand.

I wonder if there is scope for NZ to seek JETGO's collaboration in developing either:

- NZ's AKL hub, through flights to regional Australia (like CBR, NTL and HBA)
- Secondary New Zealand routes (like SYD - DUD / HLZ / IVC / ROT / TRG)

With a seat capacity of just 50, the ERJ 145LR is the right size for these markets.

Non-starter.
That range you quote is empty, so unlikely to be profitable The range with max payload (50 pax/no bags) the aircraft would barely make most of those routes in nil wind conditions.
It's also require ETOPS/EDTO certification, which the EMB-135/145 family doesn't have.
Even if the aircraft did have the range, I highly doubt that the operating economics would allow for a competitive price for tickets.

mariner wrote:

I'm queer, gay if you must, I wouldn't go near the place.

I am not sure what being gay has to do with it - but, in case you are unaware, homosexuality is still a crime in Sri Lanka too. Human Rights Watch even notes that the LGBT community there faces widespread abuse. Of course, this is a relic of Sri Lanka's "colonial heritage" (which you cite as helping to make the island a "wonderful tourist destination").

I would urge you to read the analysis done on UL's new MEL service:

- The local Melbourne-Colombo market is obviously not big enough ... the issue of long layover times on most Melbourne-India city pairs puts SriLankan at a competitive disadvantage compared to other airlines offering one-stop products in the Melbourne-India market.

- While local Australia-SriLanka traffic is growing the market is not nearly large enough to support a daily service ... without a competitive Melbourne-Mumbai product SriLankan would have struggled to attract the volume of Australia-India traffic it is targeting.

Under your proposal, NZ would suffer from many of these factors too, particularly as AI does not provide a BOM - CMB link. NZ could not rely on a UL tie-up, as UL has just signed a tie-up with QF, which extends to the New Zealand market. In addition, O&D traffic is low, with 9,500 New Zealanders visiting Sri Lanka in 2016 (compared to 83,000 Australians).

See:
- https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/08/15/a ... and-sexual.
- https://centreforaviation.com/insights/ ... wth-370955.
- https://blueswandaily.com/srilankan-air ... low-fares/.
- http://www.sltda.lk/sites/default/files ... t-2016.pdf.

Cheers,

C.

It’s been said here various times that NZ are happy to serve India via SQ, onestop to several destinations, I personally agree and I don’t think to much has changed. SQ imo gives them the best coverage.

AI looked at AKL several years ago before they started SYD/MEL, I think it was talked about as a potential tag which hasn’t happened. AI would be imo the ones to do AKL probably non stop DEL-AKL a few times a week on a 788 If it can do it.

It’s long haul low yielding which could be an issue.

planemanofnz wrote:

I am not sure what being gay has to do with it - but, in case you are unaware, homosexuality is still a crime in Sri Lanka too. Human Rights Watch even notes that the LGBT community there faces widespread abuse. Of course, this is a relic of Sri Lanka's "colonial heritage" (which you cite as helping to make the island a "wonderful tourist destination").

Again, why would you assume I don't know about the situation in Sri Lanka? I've been there several times and never had a problem. Same with India. Same with the Middle East. But Jamaica can be a problem - and not just for the gay thing although that's a huge part of it. There is an informal boycott in effect.

As to CMB, issues are there to be solved

planemanofnz wrote:

-I would urge you to read the analysis done on UL's new MEL service:

The local Melbourne-Colombo market is obviously not big enough ... the issue of long layover times on most Melbourne-India city pairs puts SriLankan at a competitive disadvantage compared to other airlines offering one-stop products in the Melbourne-India market.

While local Australia-SriLanka traffic is growing the market is not nearly large enough to support a daily service ... without a competitive Melbourne-Mumbai product SriLankan would have struggled to attract the volume of Australia-India traffic it is targeting.

Of (1) I would say change the timing and (2) why go daily?

planemanofnz wrote:

Under your proposal, NZ would suffer from many of these factors too, particularly as AI does not provide a BOM - CMB link. NZ could not rely on a UL tie-up, as UL has just signed a tie-up with QF, which extends to the New Zealand market. In addition, O&D traffic is low, with 9,500 New Zealanders visiting Sri Lanka in 2016 (compared to 83,000 Australians).

AI might not fly BOM-CMB, but Jet Airways does and Sri Lankan flies CMB-BOM. Can't get a code share with AI? There are other airlines in India. If - that's IF - NZ ever did it, then the present numbers of Kiwis going to Sri Lanka are meaningless, because - hopefully - there would be other Kiwis going on to India and/or Europe. And something I discovered when studying low cost airlines in the US is that a non-stop service can do wonders for the numbers of pax using it. Not always - but often enough.

But I haven't given "a proposal" yet and I doubt I ever will. I've simply suggested something I'd like to see. I've no idea why that offends you so much.

mariner

It's a shame the world's geography isn't growing; because that might give us something new to debate rather than rehashing the same old chestnuts ad infinitum. The last time India was discussed (not all that long ago) we concluded that BOM is a dead end; India is a low yield market a very long way away; the market to India is currently well served by SQ and there are some unique factors pertaining to operating into India that NZ would find difficult to adjust to. What's changed? Nothing, as far as I can see. Maybe there should be a gambling facility on these forums to really make it interesting. In which case I would put $$ on there being no new long haul routes commenced by NZ in the next two years. And ORD - never.

My predictions for NZ?

- LAX - growing
- SFO/IAH/EZE - stable, with IAH becoming daily year round sometime over the next five years
- SYD/MEL - growing. The rest of Australia stable.
- LHR - stable for now. But it'd be a brave person betting that that destination will still exist 20 years from today.
- Pacific Islands/Indonesia/China - continuing seasonal on again/off again.
- CBR/ORD/DEL/BOM/JFK/EWR/MAN/YYZ - none are going to happen anytime soon, if ever.
- AUH - the one possibility I would put money on NZ expanding into in the 5-10 year timeframe.

mariner wrote:

Can't get a code share with AI? There are other airlines in India.

No - there are very limited options at CMB:

- Only UL and 9W fly CMB - BOM (the most important route), and both UL and 9W already have core tie-ups with QF - they are therefore not options for NZ.
- Other than UL and 9W, there is only really SG, which serves CMB - IXM / MAA - as SG is an Indian low-cost carrier, I doubt that NZ would partner with it.

Gasman wrote:

BOM is a dead end

By the way, AI's network at BOM is definitely not bad - I cannot confirm frequencies, but the following routes are served, which is much better than UL at CMB:



AI and IX also serve some Middle Eastern destinations from BOM, like AUH, DOH, DXB, RUH and SJH - more relevant if a New Zealand - GCC FTA develops.

mariner wrote:

there would be other Kiwis going on to ... Europe

Why on earth would any New Zealander transit through CMB to Europe, when they can go through DOH, DXB, HKG, ICN or SIN, with a far superior offering?

The only year-round European services from CMB are, AFAIK, on TK to IST and UL to LHR - there is no point at all in bringing European connections into this.

mariner wrote:

But I haven't given "a proposal" yet and I doubt I ever will. I've simply suggested something I'd like to see.

You said that using CMB is "the most sensible way," and then argued extensively so - it is reasonable to say that you are proposing an NZ link to CMB.

Gasman wrote:

What's changed?

Indian visitor arrivals here growing by double digits, and India's economy continuing to be one of the fastest growing - the market is always changing.

Gasman wrote:

AUH - the one possibility I would put money on NZ expanding into in the 5-10 year timeframe.

If QF cannot make DXB work, there is no way that an NZ service to AUH would be different - all NZ needs to do is expand its EY code-sharing alliance.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

[
Indian visitor arrivals here growing by double digits, and India's economy continuing to be one of the fastest growing - the market is always changing.

So you think all that's holding up direct NZ to India services is a critical mass of pax waiting to be reached? I disagree.

planemanofnz wrote:

If QF cannot make DXB work, there is no way that an NZ service to AUH would be different - all NZ needs to do is expand its EY code-sharing alliance.

The very important difference being EY don't serve New Zealand. If NZ could start codeshare services to AUH using their own metal it would simultaneously cannibalise traffic off EK and benefit EY through NZ pax onward flying to Europe.

ZK-NBT wrote:

DobboDobbo wrote:

Have to say, the SQ European flights (departing mid-morning European time) don't connect well coming back from AKL, CHC, WEL.

The connection into NZ's SIN-AKL is pretty good, but SQ (I think they are in a JV with ANZ on these routes?) could probably pick up more market share EU-NZ with some relatively minor adjustments.

Yep JV between NZ/SQ on NZ-SIN. SQ used to leave AKL 2 hrs later arriving SIN 2100 for shorter European connections, they arrive 1900 now which gives a few Asian/Indian connections as well. On the return SQ’s European flights connect well as you say to the NZ service, I would have thought maybe it would be better for SQ to take that flight giving SQ the whole way Europe-AKL, and as I said NZ have a morning departure ex AKL late enough to pick up domestic connections but not to late so it’s close to the SQ flight, NZ at 1000 could then maybe see SQ push their flight back ex AKL from 1330 to 1530 for those shorter Europe connections again. Weather SQ then push the SIN-AKL back or not remains to be seen, I say that because they often like to use the same aircraft for a few days. Maybe in future something like

SQxxx AKL 0115 SIN 0640
NZ282 AKL 1000 SIN 1530
SQ286 AKL 1500 SIN 2030

SQxxx SIN 0840 AKL 2340
SQ285 SIN 2215 AKL 1300
NZ281 SIN 0130 AKL 1630

Means NZ don’t have an odd long haul arrival, they can use the same frame which helps but if it breaks it causes delays with no spare on the ground often at that time although they probably have a late SYD/MEL arrival aircraft they could use. The only thing missing is an early evening SIN departure and earlier AKL arrival say

SIN 1800 AKL 0900

Thanks ZK-NBT

Taking your (I think?) hypothetical SQ286 (AKL 1500 SIN 2030) is have thought a slightly later departure would work better for EU connections?

I don't know how key EU-NZ is the the SQ business model, but something departing AKL around 1700-1730 (i.e. arriving at SIN at around 2230-2300) be better for EU connections?

Replacing the B77W/A380 with two A359 might just make a lot of sense when they have sufficient numbers...

Gasman wrote:

So you think all that's holding up direct NZ to India services is a critical mass of pax waiting to be reached? I disagree.

Gasman, the Indian market is clearly changing:

- Quantity: More Indian visitor arrivals to New Zealand meaning that there are more potential customers for NZ
- Quality: Continued Indian economic growth meaning that there is more potential yield out of those customers

NZ was being held up in India by two key factors:

- Regulatory: The ASA re-negotiation did not, AFAIK, give rights to DEL, or to code-share beyond a few airports
- Resources: NZ has had closer and more lucrative opportunities elsewhere until now, such as EZE, IAH and SIN

Separately, AI was being held up by its own financial difficulties, as well as the need to establish SYD and MEL.

Many of these problems on India will be resolved:

- Jacinda Ardern has reportedly shown a will to "expedite" an Indian FTA, which IMHO, would coincide with greater air rights
- NZ's 777-200ERs are being freed up by using newly-delivered 787-900s to North America - NZ has more planes ordered too
- AI is likely to get needed investment from the likes of 6E soon, and its finances have been helped by its American expansion

To say "BOM is a dead end," ignores these (IMHO).

Gasman wrote:

The very important difference being EY don't serve New Zealand. If NZ could start codeshare services to AUH using their own metal it would simultaneously cannibalise traffic off EK and benefit EY through NZ pax onward flying to Europe.

The gaps in NZ's long-haul network now fall within:

- 1st tier: ICN and NYC (EWR / JFK) - quantity, quality and regulations are good, but fleet resourcing is an issue
- 2nd tier: CGK and India (BOM / DEL) - demand and growth are there, but are in an earlier stage of development

AUH does not feature within either of these tiers:

- An NZ AUH feeder service would cannibalise NZ's existing SIN feeder service into SQ's sufficient Europe network
- An AUH stop en-route to Europe offers two more skewed flights, as opposed to SIN (which is far more equidistant)
- The SIN hub offers direct connections to both WLG and CHC too - something that AUH is highly unlikely to ever do
- EY at AUH is less competitive than EK at DXB or QR at DOH - NZ could not compete (on destinations or product)
- It would be more expensive to fly to AUH than to ICN, CGK or DEL, as the distance to AUH is significantly greater
- The potential yield to AUH would be low, with minimal O&D traffic, and both EK and QR offering much lower prices

If AKL - AUH is ever to happen, it will be on EY.

Cheers,

C.

DobboDobbo wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

DobboDobbo wrote:

Have to say, the SQ European flights (departing mid-morning European time) don't connect well coming back from AKL, CHC, WEL.

The connection into NZ's SIN-AKL is pretty good, but SQ (I think they are in a JV with ANZ on these routes?) could probably pick up more market share EU-NZ with some relatively minor adjustments.

Yep JV between NZ/SQ on NZ-SIN. SQ used to leave AKL 2 hrs later arriving SIN 2100 for shorter European connections, they arrive 1900 now which gives a few Asian/Indian connections as well. On the return SQ’s European flights connect well as you say to the NZ service, I would have thought maybe it would be better for SQ to take that flight giving SQ the whole way Europe-AKL, and as I said NZ have a morning departure ex AKL late enough to pick up domestic connections but not to late so it’s close to the SQ flight, NZ at 1000 could then maybe see SQ push their flight back ex AKL from 1330 to 1530 for those shorter Europe connections again. Weather SQ then push the SIN-AKL back or not remains to be seen, I say that because they often like to use the same aircraft for a few days. Maybe in future something like

SQxxx AKL 0115 SIN 0640
NZ282 AKL 1000 SIN 1530
SQ286 AKL 1500 SIN 2030

SQxxx SIN 0840 AKL 2340
SQ285 SIN 2215 AKL 1300
NZ281 SIN 0130 AKL 1630

Means NZ don’t have an odd long haul arrival, they can use the same frame which helps but if it breaks it causes delays with no spare on the ground often at that time although they probably have a late SYD/MEL arrival aircraft they could use. The only thing missing is an early evening SIN departure and earlier AKL arrival say

SIN 1800 AKL 0900

Thanks ZK-NBT

Taking your (I think?) hypothetical SQ286 (AKL 1500 SIN 2030) is have thought a slightly later departure would work better for EU connections?

I don't know how key EU-NZ is the the SQ business model, but something departing AKL around 1700-1730 (i.e. arriving at SIN at around 2230-2300) be better for EU connections?

Replacing the B77W/A380 with two A359 might just make a lot of sense when they have sufficient numbers...

If NZ/SQ had 3 daily AKL-SIN then that might be possible, as you say on something like an A359.

As for NZ to AUH, I think somewhere in India is a lot more likely, I’d give AUH a 0% chance on NZ, a 17hr flight which as Planemanofnz said would offer nothing that SQ/NZ via SIN can’t offer, sure more European ports but it would be EY operating the whole way.

DobboDobbo wrote:

Replacing the B77W/A380 with two A359 might just make a lot of sense

ZK-NBT wrote:

If NZ/SQ had 3 daily AKL-SIN then that might be possible, as you say on something like an A359.

The A350-900 would be more fuel-efficient, and the lack of a First Class would make it more appropriate to the New Zealand market.

ZK-NBT wrote:

I’d give AUH a 0% chance on NZ, a 17hr flight which as Planemanofnz said would offer nothing that SQ/NZ via SIN can’t offer

Exactly - AUH offers some smaller European ports that SIN cannot (like DUB and GVA), but is that enough for NZ to pursue AUH? No.

Cheers,

C.

Gasman wrote:

My predictions for NZ?

- LHR - stable for now. But it'd be a brave person betting that that destination will still exist 20 years from today.
- JFK/EWR - none are going to happen anytime soon, if ever.
- AUH - the one possibility I would put money on NZ expanding into in the 5-10 year timeframe.

Why would you doubt Air New Zealand continuing to service pretty much the two highest-value destinations in the world? LHR and JFK/EWR are incredibly important airports, and from what I know the LAX-LHR leg is very high-yield for NZ.

In addition, if NZ decide to get A350s to replace the 777s (and I think this is the likely choice), the A350-900 could feasibly serve JFK or EWR (perhaps the ULH model would be required but that's allegedly a relatively simple change).

I'd certainly expect NZ to serve New York before Abu Dhabi... Etihad will have 777-8s eventually and thus should be able to serve AKL with their own metal and NZ could codeshare with them.

StudiodeKadent wrote:

Gasman wrote:

My predictions for NZ?

- LHR - stable for now. But it'd be a brave person betting that that destination will still exist 20 years from today.
- JFK/EWR - none are going to happen anytime soon, if ever.
- AUH - the one possibility I would put money on NZ expanding into in the 5-10 year timeframe.

Why would you doubt Air New Zealand continuing to service pretty much the two highest-value destinations in the world? LHR and JFK/EWR are incredibly important airports, and from what I know the LAX-LHR leg is very high-yield for NZ.

In addition, if NZ decide to get A350s to replace the 777s (and I think this is the likely choice), the A350-900 could feasibly serve JFK or EWR (perhaps the ULH model would be required but that's allegedly a relatively simple change).

I'd certainly expect NZ to serve New York before Abu Dhabi... Etihad will have 777-8s eventually and thus should be able to serve AKL with their own metal and NZ could codeshare with them.

I think LHR will be safe for now and I agree I believe yields are good, going forward with partnerships and competition plus resources I do wonder if they will drop it at some point though.

Agree they will serve NYC within 5-7 years.

StudiodeKadent wrote:

LHR and JFK/EWR are incredibly important airports, and from what I know the LAX-LHR leg is very high-yield for NZ.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Agree they will serve NYC within 5-7 years.

New York is the financial capital of the world, as well as a Star Alliance hub - it is in the same league as HKG, LHR and SIN (not AUH).

StudiodeKadent wrote:

I'd certainly expect NZ to serve New York before Abu Dhabi

StudiodeKadent wrote:

Etihad will have 777-8s eventually and thus should be able to serve AKL with their own metal and NZ could codeshare with them.

EY will get over its financial issues at some point and start expanding again - once that happens, I fully expect AKL to be on its radar.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

No - there are very limited options at CMB:

My starting point is that it would be difficult to replicate the Singapore service to India, which has captured so much of the Kiwi Indian market. CMB seems to me to have that possibility, but it only became an issue when you dumped on the idea. You disagree? Fine, you disagree, but I don't see the point of your long, map-filled responses. It's just an idea.

There may be limited options at CMB, but - for my money - they're better options than BOM as the gateway, unless you're in love with back-tracking - which you may be, of course. And if this article is correct, and IndioGo takes over all of Air India's international operations, all bets are off.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/in ... 759558.cms

"IndiGo may induct wide-bodied planes to fly overseas as Air India sale in slow lane IndiGo, which has shown interest in buying Air India's international operations, is actively considering alternate plans to induct at least 50 wide-bodied planes for starting overseas flights"

Good luck, Qantas.

planemanofnz wrote:

Why on earth would any New Zealander transit through CMB to Europe, when they can go through DOH, DXB, HKG, ICN or SIN, with a far superior offering?

Because its a terrific place to have a stop-over - LOL

I have to assume you're one of the "fly straight through" crowd, but I'm certainly not. I've only ever flown straight through when my work demanded it and my bosses were paying for it. Last year I flew to Paris but spent a week Hanoi on the way because I'd never been there, and I fell in love with it.

I've never seen the point of paying all that money just to get somewhere while flying over some of the most interesting places on the planet. I'm also quite old, and I really don't like this bland, homogenous world of airline travel you seem determined to create.

mariner

planemanofnz wrote:

New York is the financial capital of the world, as well as a Star Alliance hub - it is in the same league as HKG, LHR and SIN (not AUH).

This is one example of many - excuse me for picking it - of over-simplistic thinking on this forum. There are many many factors between waking up one morning and realising "New York is the financial capital of the world" and NZ starting a service there. More than just the acquisition of an aircraft capable of flying the route. Some of these factors we can guess at; but probably most of them we have no clue about whatsoever.

We also seem to be prone to ignoring the role of history. New York has been the financial capital for decades, not overnight. And NZ have had the capability to fly there (albeit with a stop) for decades also, and hasn't. So you need to ask "why now" - and I need a better reason than "we have an aircraft that can fly it non stop".

Similarly for CBR. Do any of us *really* know why a 737/A320 can't shuttle back & forth from AKL once a day? No. But QF and NZ do; and they've known for a long time.

BOM has been on the radar in this forum because of the "burgeoning middle class with money in India" since around 2004. But it hasn't happened or even been committed to over a 13 year period. Either the middle class isn't burgeoning quite enough yet; or there are other factors at play.... and as I said above I need a bigger answer than "787". Similarly for ORD. That one predates even BOM. When people get excited about ORD I don't know weather to laugh or cry. It's almost as though NZ hype routes they have no intention of ever committing to. Was IAH mooted for decades before it happened? No.

I don't predict the demise of LHR as someone said; what I said was you'd be brave to bet on its existence in 20 years. LAX-LHR while currently viable for NZ isn't growing; there are many other (arguably better) ways of getting to Europe than with NZ via LAX and New Zealand's ties with Britain are not getting stronger with time. Watch this space.

While NZ doesn't like to compete anywhere (except on the Tasman) it does have a shared interest with EY to reduce the market share of EK. Providing a feeder service to Europe with NZ metal to AUH would be a means of achieving this. You can also backtrack to India from AUH; the flights are only 150 mins or so. As a long term concept, I like it - although of course, like everything else here it's pure speculation.

mariner wrote:

I don't see the point of your long, map-filled responses.

Gasman wrote:

This is one example of many - excuse me for picking it - of over-simplistic thinking on this forum.

Critiqued for my replies being too "long," and critiqued for my replies being "over-simplistic" - I cannot win.

mariner wrote:

It's just an idea.

mariner wrote:

I really don't like this bland, homogenous world of airline travel you seem determined to create.

This is a public forum, mariner - if you are not prepared to have your ideas critiqued, then do not post them.

After all, you are more than happy to critique the views of others, with terms like "bland" and "homogeneous."

mariner wrote:

There may be limited options at CMB, but - for my money - they're better options than BOM.

This is why the "long, map-filled response" was necessary here - because you continually fail to articulate why BOM is inferior to CMB on the connections front, other than a vague criticism of back-tracking. Your posts have largely ignored a) the high number of flights offered out of BOM, b) the low number of flights offered out of CMB, and c) the notion that back-tracking can still be quicker, if frequencies and connection times are competitive (which they would be, at BOM, relative to CMB).

mariner wrote:

Because its a terrific place to have a stop-over - LOL

An NZ CMB flight will not permit stop-overs, as aside from IST, CMB only offers a year-round UL flight to LHR.

Cheers,

C.

Gasman wrote:

I need a bigger answer than "787".

Which you got, at post 225 (in a reasonable amount of detail), but have largely chosen to ignore in your reply.

Gasman wrote:

We also seem to be prone to ignoring the role of history.

What was viable in 1967, 1977, 1987, 1997 or 2007 to NZ has little bearing on what is viable to NZ today.

Over the course of "history," NZ has established, ceased and then re-established DPS, KIX, SIN and YVR.

It is undeniable that markets are consistently changing, and therefore consistently need to be re-evaluated.

Gasman wrote:

This is one example of many - excuse me for picking it - of over-simplistic thinking on this forum.

It is more than reasonable to say that being the "financial capital of the world" has connotations of quantity (high demand) and quality (high yield), without needing to go into the finer details - the business case for NYC (to / from New Zealand) has always been there, but technology has largely, until now, prevented any airline from exploiting that business case sufficiently (a one-stop flight is a totally different business proposition, which is not what we are talking about).

However, if you want greater details, some (but by no means all) of the changes include:

- Arrivals from the United States to New Zealand increased 20% in the year to August 2017, to 320,000, and are forecast to increase to 440,000 by 2023
- The competitive landscape has changed, with more carriers at AKL (AA and HA), and more carriers in Australia (AC's MEL - YVR and UA's SYD - IAH)
- Technology (the A350 and the 787), combined with lower oil costs have dramatically changed the operating economics of ultra long-haul airline services

I already raised these with you in the October 2017 thread (e.g. post 273), and did not get a reply.

Gasman wrote:

While NZ doesn't like to compete anywhere (except on the Tasman) it does have a shared interest with EY to reduce the market share of EK. Providing a feeder service to Europe with NZ metal to AUH would be a means of achieving this. You can also backtrack to India from AUH; the flights are only 150 mins or so. As a long term concept, I like it.

Now this is a proper example - excuse me for picking it - of over-simplistic thinking on route development.

In contrast, have you given any consideration to my detailed analysis as to why an AUH route would not work?

- An NZ AUH feeder service would cannibalise NZ's existing SIN feeder service into SQ's sufficient Europe network
- An AUH stop en-route to Europe offers two more skewed flights, as opposed to SIN (which is far more equidistant)
- The SIN hub offers direct connections to both WLG and CHC too - something that AUH is highly unlikely to ever do
- EY at AUH is less competitive than EK at DXB or QR at DOH - NZ could not compete (on destinations or product)
- It would be more expensive to fly to AUH than to ICN, CGK or DEL, as the distance to AUH is significantly greater
- The potential yield to AUH would be low, with minimal O&D traffic, and both EK and QR offering much lower prices

In any event, I question the premise of your statement above - IMHO, it lacks an understanding of NZ's strategy:

- With EK out of the trans-Tasman market now, I really question NZ's will to limit EK's market share here any further
- NZ can and is competing with EK and QR, through its SQ alliance (SQ is a stronger competitor on product than EY)

Cheers,

C.

Let's try looking at it another way. If all these hypothetical routes are so viable and your reasoning so valid, why are NZ not flying them (or at least committing to them) right now?

planemanofnz wrote:

Critiqued for my replies being too "long," and critiqued for my replies being "over-simplistic" - I cannot win

I told you when we first crossed swords that clearly you and I see it all very differently. It's probably easier to ignore me.

planemanofnz wrote:

This is a public forum, mariner - if you are not prepared to have your ideas critiqued, then do not post them.

You love to tell me what I already know. Of course it's a public (if moderated) forum and anyone can critique anyone - we can also critique the critiques. You've previously said you admired Koruman, and that's how it worked with him.

planemanofnz wrote:

An NZ CMB flight will not permit stop-overs, as aside from IST, CMB only offers a year-round UL flight to LHR.

I'm not suggesting NZ fly beyond. People can either continue on to the UK with Sri Lankan or, on a slightly more complex ticket, go on to India, spend some time there and then fly to Europe with someone else.

The adventurous young Kiwi would get two bites of the cherry.

mariner

We are arguing over things that cannot possibly be established as correct or not - which is why we're still arguing. Maybe we should agree to disagree, put the great circle mapper away for now and limit discussion to existing or announced routes.

Gasman wrote:

Let's try looking at it another way. If all these hypothetical routes are so viable and your reasoning so valid, why are NZ not flying them (or at least committing to them) right now?

I am not going to repeat the reasons why, yet again, as they are already well articulated in a number of posts throughout this thread - feel free to re-read these posts, as well as the various media analyses on these topics.

mariner wrote:

You love to tell me what I already know. Of course it's a public (if moderated) forum and anyone can critique anyone.

Yet, you seem not to know this, as you say "I don't see the point of your ... responses" (post 231) and "It's probably easier to ignore me" (post 236) - I am left with the impression that you are not open to receiving criticism.

Gasman wrote:

Maybe we should agree to disagree, put the great circle mapper away for now and limit discussion to existing or announced routes.

No. I already tried to do that, like in post 26 on this thread (the new 1x weekly XIY - AKL route on GS, which is set to commence next month). Nobody here was interested in that at all - it received a grand total of zero replies.

Cheers,

C.

D7 will "slash" capacity to OOL next year by 36% - as AKL is a tag from OOL, I assume that AKL will also be affected by this.

See: https://centreforaviation.com/insights/ ... sia-386234.

That being said, could more New Zealand tags help boost D7's deficient Australian flights, as New Zealand has no OD or TR?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

SU is code-sharing on CZ's AKL - CAN flight (along with CZ's SYD - CAN and MEL - CAN flights).

See: https://blueswandaily.com/aeroflot-and- ... agreement/.

It is interesting that SU picked AKL ahead of BNE and PER - is AKL really that important for SU?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On the back of HU's upcoming SYD - HAK flight, Chinese tourism representatives have come to AKL to promote Hainan.

In New Zealand, many visitors attending the promoting activity showed keen interest in ... ocean tours in Hainan

See: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017- ... 777174.htm.

It will be interesting to see if this promotional activity leads to HU considering an AKL - HAK / SYX flight in the near future.

Cheers,

C.

I have said it before, but with plenty of imaginative routes being proposed, it might need stating again. NZ's next wave of expansion is probably just going to be about making existing markets grow with existing ordered fleets and improving their connections to the NZ route network by slot negotiation, not necessarily about starting new long-haul routes. NZ still has not ordered new a new L/H fleet, which means that we are probably some 5 years from seeing these planes delivered. They are the new market expanders.
One such example of the kind of tweak I mean.
NZ28, NZ30 or 24 gaining a 77W over LAX, 2 78N a day to LAX + NZ2 LAX/LHR
Further US markets will probably wait until the new fleet is delivered so they will have to have an engine for growth in the meantime.

planemanofnz wrote:

Gasman wrote:

I am left with the impression that you are not open to receiving criticism.

Of course, you're free to have whatever impression you want. I'll just say that in my business, for most of my working life, I laid myself open, by choice, to intense public criticism.

mariner

planemanofnz wrote:

D7 will "slash" capacity to OOL next year by 36% - as AKL is a tag from OOL, I assume that AKL will also be affected by this.

See: https://centreforaviation.com/insights/ ... sia-386234.

That being said, could more New Zealand tags help boost D7's deficient Australian flights, as New Zealand has no OD or TR?

A couple of days an week D7 has an additional KUL-OOL-KUL service, would expect this to be going while the daily KUL-OOL-AKL-OOL-KUL service will remain the same.

aerorobnz wrote:

I have said it before, but with plenty of imaginative routes being proposed, it might need stating again. NZ's next wave of expansion is probably just going to be about making existing markets grow with existing ordered fleets and improving their connections to the NZ route network by slot negotiation, not necessarily about starting new long-haul routes. NZ still has not ordered new a new L/H fleet, which means that we are probably some 5 years from seeing these planes delivered. They are the new market expanders.
One such example of the kind of tweak I mean.
NZ28, NZ30 or 24 gaining a 77W over LAX, 2 78N a day to LAX + NZ2 LAX/LHR
Further US markets will probably wait until the new fleet is delivered so they will have to have an engine for growth in the meantime.

Agree, though I think we will see ORD assuming the current fleet can do it, other than that I think possibly another seasonal route or 2 most likely to Asia somewhere.

You will have some load stats probably or otoh, IAH I thought would go 77W rather than 789, probably get it to daily year round first before up gauging, EZE is doing well it seems but I’d say more likely daily year round first, the 77W has a lot of premium seats, YVR is increasing quite a bit and will be daily for 4-5 months next year instead of 6 weeks, with 2 additional flights in JAN, the 77W gives a lot of premium capacity where as the 789, either version allows daily year round IMO with additional peak flights or an AC operated seasonal codeshare.

I think it’s about working to get the slots in Asia that connect better to EZE as well, increasing HKG and PVG possibly retiming SIN. Moving the existing fleet around as you say to best suit current markets. I’ve always thought SIN and PER could use more premium capacity so a 772 instead of 789’s.

The freed up 772’s are going to HND for 1 frame 3 weekly with a 4th for a few weeks plus a couple extra YVR in JAN, other than that mostly short haul or covering the rest of the fleet. Nothing in heavy maintenance over DEC-FEB.

Obviously NZ don’t see the need to serve ICN or CGK at this time otherwise they would.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Obviously NZ don’t see the need to serve ICN or CGK at this time otherwise they would.

This ^^

aerorobnz wrote:

I have said it before, but with plenty of imaginative routes being proposed, it might need stating again. NZ's next wave of expansion is probably just going to be about making existing markets grow with existing ordered fleets and improving their connections to the NZ route network by slot negotiation, not necessarily about starting new long-haul routes. NZ still has not ordered new a new L/H fleet, which means that we are probably some 5 years from seeing these planes delivered.

I'm sure I said precisely this in the Oct thread. Airline expansion is about far more than just new destinations.

planemanofnz wrote:

mariner wrote:

I'll just say that in my business, for most of my working life, I laid myself open, by choice, to intense public criticism.

Okay, but I am only interested in aviation ideas and your conduct here - not current or prior employment, litigation success, places of residence or sexuality for that matter.

Planemanofnz does have a point. And it might be better to respond in a different way than saying "I shrug".

Gasman wrote:

And it might be better to respond in a different way than saying "I shrug".

Why?

I'm not here to change minds nor am I here to make friends and I'm used to being unpopular. A lot of Aussies hated my defence of Alan Joyce at the time of the grounding - LOL - and afterwards. I'm here to express my views of civil aviation, which views may be somewhat eccentric. As happens with most people, my upbringing and my experiences play into that, and I understand that I had a somewhat eccentric upbringing (not in NZ) and that I have had some unusual experiences which colour my views.

I try. I present my point of view, sometimes as forcibly as I know how, but if people don't want to know I can't do anything other than shrug.

mariner

mariner wrote:

Gasman wrote:

And it might be better to respond in a different way than saying "I shrug".

Why?

I'm not here to change minds nor am I here to make friends. I'm here to express my views of civil aviation, which views may be somewhat eccentric. As happens with most people, my upbringing and my experiences play into that, and I understand that I had a somewhat eccentric upbringing (not in NZ) and that I have had some unusual experiences which colour my views.

I try. I present my point of view, sometimes as forcibly as I know how, but if people don't want to know I can't do anything other than shrug.

mariner

Are you seriously asking why?

Sure, if collegiality here isn't important to you; respond in whatever tone you please. On the other hand I myself believe that the quality of discussion and debate here is directly proportional to the level of respect extended towards each other. Saying "I shrug" in response to valid points or whenever you're cornered is in my opinion anything but conducive to an environment of productive and informative discussion and debate.

And as planemanofnz said, the only person here who cares about your experiences, eccentric upbringing, and definitely your unusual experiences is yourself. Attempts to extend them wider relevance except where directly related to aviation is irrelevant at best, narcissistic at worst.

planemanofnz wrote:

No. I already tried to do that, like in post 26 on this thread (the new 1x weekly XIY - AKL route on GS, which is set to commence next month). Nobody here was interested in that at all - it received a grand total of zero replies.

That is simply not true, I replied to your queries regarding GS and the one weekly to Xian, go and look on page 4 of this thread and see for yourself. You ripped all my views and perceptions to shreds cause they didn't match your own, particularly regarding population and then only a few posts ago on page 5 I see that you are using population as a means to justify an argument you are making regarding NZ serving EZE......

Gasman wrote:

Are you seriously asking why?

Well - yes, because obviously it has a different meaning to you than it does to me. It's just a shrug.

But - if I have offended anyone with the use of it, you for example, then I apologise unreservedly - but with amazement.

mariner

planemanofnz wrote:

My point is that if we follow Gasman's suggestion of limiting discussion to "existing or announced routes" only, then the quantity of discussion on this thread risks being dramatically reduced.

................. which is entirely my aim. I suspect the quality of remaining said discussions would improve as well.