Airlinepilot129 wrote:

NZ321 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Not sure what they gain from DEN that the combo of LAX+IAH can't grant... other than performance issues on the westbound. :-/

DEN will gain them seamless access to the Rockies for winter and summer sports. Many prime spots do not have direct flights from LAX, SFO or IAH. But whether this in itself justifies the service I'm not sure. Perhaps 3 x weekly?

LAX, SFO, and IAH all have multiple flights across the Rockies?

Well, what they actually have (relevant to this nonsense proposal) is lucrative demand to New Zealand....

Airlinepilot129 wrote:

United also regularly touts being the best choice for a Skiers vacation because they serve the most cities in Colorado and the surrounding area to include Gunnison, Steamboat Springs, Vail, Aspen, and Montrose from non-DEN hubs.

Yeah, but in the absence of numbers to the contrary: I'm gonna go out on not-much-of a limb and say that the number of such people who'd fund a 14hr+ restricted flight, sufficiently to bypass established major gateways.... is "trivial" at best.

Heck, they don't even attract/support service to several of the largest Euro hubs.

Airlinepilot129 wrote:

NZ321 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Not sure what they gain from DEN that the combo of LAX+IAH can't grant... other than performance issues on the westbound. :-/

DEN will gain them seamless access to the Rockies for winter and summer sports. Many prime spots do not have direct flights from LAX, SFO or IAH. But whether this in itself justifies the service I'm not sure. Perhaps 3 x weekly?

LAX, SFO, and IAH all have multiple flights across the Rockies? United also regularly touts being the best choice for a Skiers vacation because they serve the most cities in Colorado and the surrounding area to include Gunnison, Steamboat Springs, Vail, Aspen, and Montrose from non-DEN hubs.

Why would someone fly from New Zealand to Colorado / Denver to ski? The have rather decent skiing around Queenstown. Just because the seasons are opposite doesn't change anything. Many alpine skiers actually train in New Zealand during the northern summer.

AAvgeek744 wrote:

Airlinepilot129 wrote:

NZ321 wrote:

DEN will gain them seamless access to the Rockies for winter and summer sports. Many prime spots do not have direct flights from LAX, SFO or IAH. But whether this in itself justifies the service I'm not sure. Perhaps 3 x weekly?

LAX, SFO, and IAH all have multiple flights across the Rockies? United also regularly touts being the best choice for a Skiers vacation because they serve the most cities in Colorado and the surrounding area to include Gunnison, Steamboat Springs, Vail, Aspen, and Montrose from non-DEN hubs.

Why would someone fly from New Zealand to Colorado / Denver to ski? The have rather decent skiing around Queenstown. Just because the seasons are opposite doesn't change anything. Many alpine skiers actually train in New Zealand during the northern summer.

I think you have answered your own question. If, as a New Zealander, I want to go skiing in January, Queenstown (or Canterbury, or Ruapehu) aren't a goer; I'm going to have to head to the Northern Hemisphere. Colorado's ski resorts have a reputation here for good value prices for quality skiing. Likewise if, as an American, I want to go skiing in July, I'm going to have to head to the Southern Hemisphere. Of course the real question is whether there is sufficient demand for a year round service, or even a seasonal one, as opposed to offering connections through LAX/SFO. I wouldn't be holding my breath.

V/F

VirginFlyer wrote:

AAvgeek744 wrote:

Airlinepilot129 wrote:

LAX, SFO, and IAH all have multiple flights across the Rockies? United also regularly touts being the best choice for a Skiers vacation because they serve the most cities in Colorado and the surrounding area to include Gunnison, Steamboat Springs, Vail, Aspen, and Montrose from non-DEN hubs.

Why would someone fly from New Zealand to Colorado / Denver to ski? The have rather decent skiing around Queenstown. Just because the seasons are opposite doesn't change anything. Many alpine skiers actually train in New Zealand during the northern summer.

I think you have answered your own question. If, as a New Zealander, I want to go skiing in January, Queenstown (or Canterbury, or Ruapehu) aren't a goer; I'm going to have to head to the Northern Hemisphere. Colorado's ski resorts have a reputation here for good value prices for quality skiing. Likewise if, as an American, I want to go skiing in July, I'm going to have to head to the Southern Hemisphere. Of course the real question is whether there is sufficient demand for a year round service, or even a seasonal one, as opposed to offering connections through LAX/SFO. I wouldn't be holding my breath.

V/F

Actually I was referring to professional skiers, I should have been more clear. As a skier myself, aside from one visit to ZQN a few years ago, I along with most skiers I know ski during my hemisphere's winter season. I'm sure some avid skiers will make the trek, but IMO, New Zealand is a much better southern summer destination. I do agree, I can't see demand for them to serve DEN. Cheers.

AAvgeek744 wrote:

Airlinepilot129 wrote:

NZ321 wrote:

DEN will gain them seamless access to the Rockies for winter and summer sports. Many prime spots do not have direct flights from LAX, SFO or IAH. But whether this in itself justifies the service I'm not sure. Perhaps 3 x weekly?

LAX, SFO, and IAH all have multiple flights across the Rockies? United also regularly touts being the best choice for a Skiers vacation because they serve the most cities in Colorado and the surrounding area to include Gunnison, Steamboat Springs, Vail, Aspen, and Montrose from non-DEN hubs.

Why would someone fly from New Zealand to Colorado / Denver to ski? The have rather decent skiing around Queenstown. Just because the seasons are opposite doesn't change anything. Many alpine skiers actually train in New Zealand during the northern summer.

QF flies SYD - YVR in the NW largely for ski traffic. This is despite Australia having a multitude of ski resorts and NZ just being a few hours flight away.

It's not just NA either - there are now lot's of Australian's skiing in Japan as well. Skiing in Australia is ridiculously expensive for a variety of reasons

It's the above that makes me think a seasonal DEN service to not be completely bonkers. Any AKL - DEN service would tap into Australian connections.

Not saying it will happen though.

AAvgeek744 wrote:

Why would someone fly from New Zealand to Colorado / Denver to ski? The have rather decent skiing around Queenstown..

December/January are main summer holiday periods in New Zealand. By law every worker in New Zealand gets atlesst 4 weeks paid leave per year. So going to North America isn’t too out there.

Christmas/New Years is an great time go on holiday e.g you get 2x paid leave days for Christmas and another 2x paid leave days for New Years.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Starting this route for ski traffic is beyond idiotic. There would have to be more to it then that.

Nope.

A lot of ski traffic is very high yield especially from Australia .Many hnw individuals don't csre what it costs to get to Colorado from PER, ADL, MEL, SYD, OOL, BNE& CNS with only one stop ie. at AKL with no terminsl change & avoid Lax they'd love it

Sorry, but I just can't see the demand. ORD would make a lot more sense.

USAOZ wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Starting this route for ski traffic is beyond idiotic. There would have to be more to it then that.

Nope.

A lot of ski traffic is very high yield especially from Australia .Many hnw individuals don't csre what it costs to get to Colorado from PER, ADL, MEL, SYD, OOL, BNE& CNS with only one stop ie. at AKL with no terminsl change & avoid Lax they'd love it

Agreed. I've been on the lift twice this year with vacationing kiwi's. I wouldn't have guessed it was a big thing, but they said they come yearly.

NTLDaz wrote:

QF flies SYD - YVR in the NW largely for ski traffic. This is despite Australia having a multitude of ski resorts and NZ just being a few hours flight away.

It's not just NA either - there are now lot's of Australian's skiing in Japan as well. Skiing in Australia is ridiculously expensive for a variety of reasons

It's the above that makes me think a seasonal DEN service to not be completely bonkers. Any AKL - DEN service would tap into Australian connections.

Not saying it will happen though.

Skiing in British Columbia isn't cheap either. A 1 day lift ticket in BC for an adult, depending on the ski hill:

Whistler - 156$
Kicking Horse - 105$
Fernie Alpine - 105$
Revelstoke - 100$
Big White - 95$

Source: https://www.onthesnow.com/british-colum ... ckets.html

Very comparable to Australia.

https://www.onthesnow.com/australia/lift-tickets.html

caverunner17 wrote:

USAOZ wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Starting this route for ski traffic is beyond idiotic. There would have to be more to it then that.

Nope.

A lot of ski traffic is very high yield especially from Australia .Many hnw individuals don't csre what it costs to get to Colorado from PER, ADL, MEL, SYD, OOL, BNE& CNS with only one stop ie. at AKL with no terminsl change & avoid Lax they'd love it

Agreed. I've been on the lift twice this year with vacationing kiwi's. I wouldn't have guessed it was a big thing, but they said they come yearly.

Still, your looking at a handful of flights in Dec-Jan only. If this comes to be, it will be charter type operations, more or less. 12 to 15 flights a season. Nothing more.

Colorado isn't cheap skiing either.

https://www.onthesnow.com/colorado/lift-tickets.html

Aussies will pay for quality experiences.

I think there is also a chance that the service could be underwritten by one/several of the big US resorts for a short trial season (ie no more than 20 flights, not a lot of risk at all) to see if they can increase their share of Aussie ski spend by improving access and riding on the publicity that a new link to DEN would create.

OA940 wrote:

Sorry, but I just can't see the demand. ORD would make a lot more sense.

It could simply be an smoke screen from NZ before they launch ORD, they have in the past started there own rumours around new routes to attract attention and the best deals from the airport companies / local authorities.

With AA entering the AKL-LAX market sessional (during the peak session) NZ is out to protect its turf, even that means launching routes that don't seem that make sense. If AA leaves the market, don't be supprized if NZ leaves some of these new talked routes.

Without any sources, this rumor doesn’t have any substance. However, Denver wouldn’t be a total surprise for NZ. Comparing DEN and YVR - Colorado and Denver both have a larger population than BC and Vancouver respectively. Colorado’s GDP (~$300B USD) is significantly higher than BC (~$200B USD) and overall ski traffic is also larger in Colorado than BC. That being said, Vancouver is more important to Canada as its largest western city than Denver is to the US.

zkncj wrote:

OA940 wrote:

Sorry, but I just can't see the demand. ORD would make a lot more sense.

It could simply be an smoke screen from NZ before they launch ORD, they have in the past started there own rumours around new routes to attract attention and the best deals from the airport companies / local authorities.

With AA entering the AKL-LAX market sessional (during the peak session) NZ is out to protect its turf, even that means launching routes that don't seem that make sense. If AA leaves the market, don't be supprized if NZ leaves some of these new talked routes.

Gimme a break - they haven’t even announced a new route yet and we’re already talking about them dropping it. And I’d have thought that AA leaving AKL-LAX would hardly lead to NZ decreasing capacity but would be seen as an opportunity to consolidate and maintain capacity if not increase it. And to my knowledge the only suggestions that AA might leave the route came from A-net - and these suggestions started almost as soon as the route was announced! So we’re heaping speculation upon speculation here. Though that’s par for the course for A-net!

dia77 wrote:

Denver wouldn’t be a total surprise for NZ.

Absolutely not - it was publicly announced that it was in the frame a few years back just before IAH was chosen. As were ORD and LAS.

dia77 wrote:

Without any sources, this rumor doesn’t have any substance. However, Denver wouldn’t be a total surprise for NZ. Comparing DEN and YVR - Colorado and Denver both have a larger population than BC and Vancouver respectively. Colorado’s GDP (~$300B USD) is significantly higher than BC (~$200B USD) and overall ski traffic is also larger in Colorado than BC. That being said, Vancouver is more important to Canada as its largest western city than Denver is to the US.

YVR also gives NZ a direct ink to the domestic AC route map and allows passengers traveling from NZ to Canada to bypass the additional immigration process when transiting the US.

USAOZ wrote:

Just heard rumour that nz will fly akl den nonstop from end of year codeshsring with ua but no idea of frequency

Out of curiosity, does anyone know the group of people the hope to serve on this route? From experience, most Coloradans looking to go international would fly United and connect at LAX or SFO. Plus, with DEN being a United hub it made for an abundance of options.

usmcav8tor wrote:

USAOZ wrote:

Just heard rumour that nz will fly akl den nonstop from end of year codeshsring with ua but no idea of frequency

Out of curiosity, does anyone know the group of people the hope to serve on this route?

Your question presumes the “rumor” has teeth. If it doesn’t, as many on here think so, they don’t hope to serve anyone on the route.

Thenoflyzone wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

QF flies SYD - YVR in the NW largely for ski traffic. This is despite Australia having a multitude of ski resorts and NZ just being a few hours flight away.

It's not just NA either - there are now lot's of Australian's skiing in Japan as well. Skiing in Australia is ridiculously expensive for a variety of reasons

It's the above that makes me think a seasonal DEN service to not be completely bonkers. Any AKL - DEN service would tap into Australian connections.

Not saying it will happen though.

Skiing in British Columbia isn't cheap either. A 1 day lift ticket in BC for an adult, depending on the ski hill:

Whistler - 156$
Kicking Horse - 105$
Fernie Alpine - 105$
Revelstoke - 100$
Big White - 95$

Source: https://www.onthesnow.com/british-colum ... ckets.html

Very comparable to Australia.

https://www.onthesnow.com/australia/lift-tickets.html

caverunner17 wrote:

USAOZ wrote:

Nope.

A lot of ski traffic is very high yield especially from Australia .Many hnw individuals don't csre what it costs to get to Colorado from PER, ADL, MEL, SYD, OOL, BNE& CNS with only one stop ie. at AKL with no terminsl change & avoid Lax they'd love it

Agreed. I've been on the lift twice this year with vacationing kiwi's. I wouldn't have guessed it was a big thing, but they said they come yearly.

Still, your looking at a handful of flights in Dec-Jan only. If this comes to be, it will be charter type operations, more or less. 12 to 15 flights a season. Nothing more.

this qantas started syd yvr few years back with 3 x 744s a week for around 6 weeks i think it was.

Thenoflyzone wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

QF flies SYD - YVR in the NW largely for ski traffic. This is despite Australia having a multitude of ski resorts and NZ just being a few hours flight away.

It's not just NA either - there are now lot's of Australian's skiing in Japan as well. Skiing in Australia is ridiculously expensive for a variety of reasons

It's the above that makes me think a seasonal DEN service to not be completely bonkers. Any AKL - DEN service would tap into Australian connections.

Not saying it will happen though.

Skiing in British Columbia isn't cheap either. A 1 day lift ticket in BC for an adult, depending on the ski hill:

Whistler - 156$
Kicking Horse - 105$
Fernie Alpine - 105$
Revelstoke - 100$
Big White - 95$

Source: https://www.onthesnow.com/british-colum ... ckets.html

Very comparable to Australia.

https://www.onthesnow.com/australia/lift-tickets.html

caverunner17 wrote:

USAOZ wrote:

Nope.

A lot of ski traffic is very high yield especially from Australia .Many hnw individuals don't csre what it costs to get to Colorado from PER, ADL, MEL, SYD, OOL, BNE& CNS with only one stop ie. at AKL with no terminsl change & avoid Lax they'd love it

Agreed. I've been on the lift twice this year with vacationing kiwi's. I wouldn't have guessed it was a big thing, but they said they come yearly.

Still, your looking at a handful of flights in Dec-Jan only. If this comes to be, it will be charter type operations, more or less. 12 to 15 flights a season. Nothing more.

Quoting day ticket prices is just silly as woukd suggest less than 1% of skiers & even less snowboarders buy day tickets. Most either buy season passes or heavily discounted package lift tickets, eg in Colorado lift tickets at major resorts range in price from around $150 to $190 u.s a day but buy a package with inexpensive accommodation & get up to 95% off lift tickets. Ie. From only $18/day based on around 14 days for 1 adult & up to 4 kids.

Btw

Most australians & kiwis ski 2-3 weeks on average.

That's not each but total & accommodation isn't loaded either. On snow - studio with kitchen thst can sleep up to 6 people or more from $159 u.s./night for most of January .again not each. Of course there's more expensive accom.

Major price war in Colorado is to continue next season as vail & aspen try to buy up other resorts

usmcav8tor wrote:

USAOZ wrote:

Just heard rumour that nz will fly akl den nonstop from end of year codeshsring with ua but no idea of frequency

Out of curiosity, does anyone know the group of people the hope to serve on this route? From experience, most Coloradans looking to go international would fly United and connect at LAX or SFO. Plus, with DEN being a United hub it made for an abundance of options.

Why would anyone from usa at denver or east of, going to nzl or oz want to go via lax or sfo when they coukd go nonstop den akl with good international connections at akl where they might have to walk up to 200 metres only to their next aircraft. No changing terminals.

Only reason would be price or some silly frequent flyer point reason. Most ff programmes seem to be dying now

USAOZ wrote:

usmcav8tor wrote:

USAOZ wrote:

Just heard rumour that nz will fly akl den nonstop from end of year codeshsring with ua but no idea of frequency

Out of curiosity, does anyone know the group of people the hope to serve on this route? From experience, most Coloradans looking to go international would fly United and connect at LAX or SFO. Plus, with DEN being a United hub it made for an abundance of options.

Why would anyone from usa at denver or east of, going to nzl or oz want to go via lax or sfo when they coukd go nonstop den akl with good international connections at akl where they might have to walk up to 200 metres only to their next aircraft. No changing terminals.

Only reason would be price or some silly frequent flyer point reason. Most ff programmes seem to be dying now

Why would anyone want to connect when they could fly nonstop on any route? If that’s your explanation for the demand for the flight, it’s sort of circular reasoning. You could say the same for Denver to Ulaan Bator.

zkncj wrote:

OA940 wrote:

Sorry, but I just can't see the demand. ORD would make a lot more sense.

It could simply be an smoke screen from NZ before they launch ORD, they have in the past started there own rumours around new routes to attract attention and the best deals from the airport companies / local authorities.

With AA entering the AKL-LAX market sessional (during the peak session) NZ is out to protect its turf, even that means launching routes that don't seem that make sense. If AA leaves the market, don't be supprized if NZ leaves some of these new talked routes.

Smoke screen is appropriate for Denver!

USAOZ wrote:

Why would anyone from usa at denver or east of, going to nzl or oz want to go via lax or sfo when they coukd go nonstop den akl with good international connections at akl where they might have to walk up to 200 metres only to their next aircraft. No changing terminals.

Sorry, but why then would anyone in MEL or SYD or BNE not take the non-stop to YVR and ski there, rather than connect via AKL to go to Colorado?
So why then would anyone from NZ or MEL or SYD go to the US or Canada to ski, if they could drive their own car all the way to the local ski resort, park 200 metres from the ski lift?

You can keep on picking arguments and reasons as they suit you, but it doesn't mean they make sense, especially if they contradict your own reasoning from 5 mins ago.

Whatever any of us think about the merits or otherwise of skiers going to Colorado or Canada from Aus/NZ is irrelevant to what we do know:

1 NZ has previously indicated strong interest in DEN as a destination;
2 NZ has recently indicfated that it is interested in a new USA port;
3 Local media in NZ suggests ORD will be announced soon while rumour elsewhere suggests DEN will be favoured.

If NZ announces DEN or ORD - or neither, full time or seasonally, it will have done its homework and I can guarantee they will have more solid info on the potential market than any A/netter! Ultimately what posters on this thread think about the chances of success is not worth very much at all in this context. So chill . . . !

Thenoflyzone wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Forget the payload, the 777 more importantly is tire speed limited at DEN. Thats why UA never could launch NRT with the 777 and its short attempt at seasonal DEN-LHR was also restricted.

The payload hit is directly related to max tire speed on departure.

USAOZ wrote:

Who said 777 ? What about 787 ?

Slghtly better performance out of DEN, but still a heavy payload hit. Assuming ISA conditions (which for DEN is about +3 C), the 789 will leave 40,000 lb of payload at DEN, as opposed to 60 to 65,000 lb for the 77E.

Obviously on warmer days, the payload hit will be greater.

planemanofnz previously posted that if the temp at DEN is +15C, the 77E will leave close to 80,000 lb of payload at DEN.

USAOZ wrote:

Makes perfect sense to.me say 2 or 3 times a week in dec-jan. Just like qf did syd yvr.

YVR-Australia is a far larger market than DEN-NZ.

YVR-NZ is also much larger than DEN-NZ, which is why Air New Zealand operates the former, and not the latter.

Oz/colorado is huge & hubbing at akl int means no time consuming terminal changes

DavidByrne wrote:

Whatever any of us think about the merits or otherwise of skiers going to Colorado or Canada from Aus/NZ is irrelevant to what we do know:

1 NZ has previously indicated strong interest in DEN as a destination;
2 NZ has recently indicfated that it is interested in a new USA port;
3 Local media in NZ suggests ORD will be announced soon while rumour elsewhere suggests DEN will be favoured.

If NZ announces DEN or ORD - or neither, full time or seasonally, it will have done its homework and I can guarantee they will have more solid info on the potential market than any A/netter! Ultimately what posters on this thread think about the chances of success is not worth very much at all in this context. So chill . . . !

here, here + biggest complaint about getting to Colorado from OZ/NZ is transiting thru LAX.

Changing terminals at LAX is painful, if not going tbit to terminal 4. Go out into LA, get to other terminal & go thru security again.

Minimum connecting times often need to be longer depending on how slow immigration is.

Had over 3 hours the other day connecting int to dom at LAX & almost missed dom connection.

At AKL, you might have to walk a few hundred metres or only 20 to your connecting gate. That's all. No security BS, no changing terminals.

thinking about it, isn't AKL/DEN about the same distance as BNE/YVR ? & much shorter than SYD/YVR & MEL/YVR ?

AC seem to manage those 3 sectors nonstop without much hassle.

USAOZ wrote:

thinking about it, isn't AKL/DEN about the same distance as BNE/YVR ? & much shorter than SYD/YVR & MEL/YVR ?

AC seem to manage those 3 sectors nonstop without much hassle.

Are you aware about how elevation influences flights? Not to mention YVR is a rich source of J traffic. DEN isnt.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

USAOZ wrote:

thinking about it, isn't AKL/DEN about the same distance as BNE/YVR ? & much shorter than SYD/YVR & MEL/YVR ?

AC seem to manage those 3 sectors nonstop without much hassle.

Are you aware about how elevation influences flights? Not to mention YVR is a rich source of J traffic. DEN isnt.

Sure so the flight is weight restricted westbound, that's not unusual.

Also plenty of J traffic heading to Colorado from OZ & NZ & DEN is also rich source of J traffic.

Expect an announcement at the end of March regarding a new US route.

Hint, it’s not DEN or LAS.

Expect an announcement at the end of March regarding a new US route.

Hint, it’s not DEN or LAS.

ORD....got to be!

drerx7 wrote:

ORD....got to be!

I wonder how this could affect IAH though.

AVENSAB727 wrote:

drerx7 wrote:

ORD....got to be!

I wonder how this could affect IAH though.

still think DEN will get 2-3 services a week in DEC & JAN at least

AVENSAB727 wrote:

drerx7 wrote:

ORD....got to be!

I wonder how this could affect IAH though.

The US/CAN - NZ/AU market is growing significantly each year (I can’t remember the figure but basically some thinktank thought the market was able to grow at 1 new destination or extra frequencies each year). The East Coast and North are quite untapped so far as trips downunder are concerned and likewise not as many Kiwis and Aussies head up there partly because of the hassle getting there. ORD changes that. It will take some of the traffic from IAH but with increasing demand IAH should be able to replace that easily. I’d love to see DEN but with current aircraft and with ORD in the pipeline it probably isn’t feasible except as a seasonal route Dec-Feb for the Ski market. CO is probably in the top 5 states as a destination for Kiwis (at least over the Northern Winter).