Once again I feel like because this route announcement involves Chicago, it’s not getting nearly the attention it would had it been any other city. I mean, it hasn’t even cracked 50 replies yet, and it’s already banished to page two ... unreal. I’m not trying to come off as a Chicago fan boy, but I can’t help but wonder. I guess I’ll never understand.

I think it's because it's been discussed at length for about a year or so now. So not much more else to say other than "hey, cool, it's official," "hey, Chicago joins the 6 continents club!," and "why the F didn't they choose Newark?"

I guess my only add to the conversation is:

1) Isn't T5 pretty full from 2p to 6/7pm as it is already? Surprised they space space.

2) Did anyone find any change in frequency between Auckland and Houston?

TWA1985 wrote:

Once again I feel like because this route announcement involves Chicago, it’s not getting nearly the attention it would had it been any other city. I mean, it hasn’t even cracked 50 replies yet, and it’s already banished to page two ... unreal. I’m not trying to come off as a Chicago fan boy, but I can’t help but wonder. I guess I’ll never understand.

To be fair it's being discussed in 4 threads currently... So that's probably part of it. Also, as was mentioned, it's been discussed for years prior. But there are also just some people that have a hatred for Chicago for whatever reason. They love to dump on it any opportunity they can. There was a thread last week started by GlobalCabotage that indicated ORDAKL. And he/she was immediately bombarded. Funny those people are silent now.

stlgph wrote:

Isn't T5 pretty full from 2p to 6/7pm as it is already? Surprised they space space.

Many people keep saying this... but they're starting in Nov and there are a lot less int'l flights in Northern winter and there won't be an issue for launch. So perhaps they are hoping something changes by Summer 19? Don't think they can have the new T5 gates by then but maybe some workaround possible with the upcoming rebuild.

This is amazing! This news NZ up on my travel wish list!

I know people have talked about this for a long time but it seemed like a pipe dream...

Exciting route indeed, this allocates all 789 now doesn’t it? Any spare capacity for Sunmer flying this year?

AKL is becoming quiet a good size hub. Apart from EWR I can’t see anything else in North America being added, and even they I think that awaits a new fleet type.

Hopefully we see NZ add more South American routes now, build AU and Asia connections there.

I do hope the transfer experience at Auckland can keep up, its pleasant but starting to burst- long transit security lines and bussing Ops do diminish the hub appeal from AU, especially as more direct options are becoming available- AC YVR-MEL/BNE, QF SFO-MEL, LA SCL-MEL, UA IAH-SYD.

NZ need to also keep a close eye on their product to stay relevant, or risk being uncompetitive and overflown. A new J seat wouldn’t hurt, and when AKL finish their new terminal will help!

smi0006 wrote:

AKL is becoming quiet a good size hub. Apart from EWR I can’t see anything else in North America being added, and even they I think that awaits a new fleet type.

There are a few other options - seasonal DEN and LAS services spring to mind, and maybe at a push, SEA, if an AS partnership can be added.

When the new fleet type arrives, aside from EWR, we could maybe see YYZ. I also wouldn't rule out seasonal CHC expansion, like to LAX / SFO.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

AKL is becoming quiet a good size hub. Apart from EWR I can’t see anything else in North America being added, and even they I think that awaits a new fleet type.

There are a few other options - seasonal DEN and LAS services spring to mind, and maybe at a push, SEA, if an AS partnership can be added.

When the new fleet type arrives, aside from EWR, we could maybe see YYZ. I also wouldn't rule out seasonal CHC expansion, like to LAX / SFO.

Cheers,

C.

What does DEN give NZ that SFO, LAX, IAH and now ORD don't?

B752OS wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

AKL is becoming quiet a good size hub. Apart from EWR I can’t see anything else in North America being added, and even they I think that awaits a new fleet type.

There are a few other options - seasonal DEN and LAS services spring to mind, and maybe at a push, SEA, if an AS partnership can be added.

When the new fleet type arrives, aside from EWR, we could maybe see YYZ. I also wouldn't rule out seasonal CHC expansion, like to LAX / SFO.

Cheers,

C.

What does DEN give NZ that SFO, LAX, IAH and now ORD don't?

I get where you're coming from - it's not a hub of the same level as those cities. However, such a service would likely more be targeting seasonal skiing traffic from Australia and New Zealand to Colorado and/or seasonal vacation traffic from DEN to Australia and New Zealand (with NZ marketing to UA's DEN FFP base). It's by no means a done deal - only a possibility for the future.

Cheers,

C.

This route really highlights the outright stupidity of former CEO Rob Fyfe’s opposition to two sector flights.

Demand from east of the Rockies to NZ is notoriously weak. Cultural and family ties are non-existent. Business ties are even weaker.

Americans get less annual paid vacation time than any other advanced nation.

We know several things from NZ1/2 AKL-LAX-LHR.

1. Where possible, the two sectors are sold separately.
2. Seasonal fluctuations in demand in the US-UK and US-NZ markets are smoothed out by the ability to transport UK-NZ traffic.
3. One airframe can operate daily UK-US services.

It strikes me that Air NZ’s best bet would have been to operate AKL-ORD-UK daily, and to probably have three of those services terminate in Manchester and the rest at Glasgow or even Birmingham.

One extra airframe. But daily service between NZ/Australia and Chicago, and a different destination to smooth out year-round demand.

CHI787ORD wrote:

http://newsroom.united.com/2018-03-27-United-Airlines-and-Air-New-Zealand-Announce-New-Nonstop-Service-Between-Chicago-and-Auckland

Here is the United press release.

ORD just joined the five continent club!

How? New Zealand is not a continent.

vhtje wrote:

CHI787ORD wrote:

http://newsroom.united.com/2018-03-27-United-Airlines-and-Air-New-Zealand-Announce-New-Nonstop-Service-Between-Chicago-and-Auckland

Here is the United press release.

ORD just joined the five continent club!

How? New Zealand is not a continent.

Because New Zealand is part of a continent which currently has no direct flights to ORD... its already been discussed.

jde91 wrote:

Because New Zealand is part of a continent which currently has no direct flights to ORD... its already been discussed.

I hate to be pedantic, but New Zealand is not part of any continent. It is two large and approximately 600 small islands. It is true, that geologically speaking, it forms part of mostly sunken continent called Zealandia, but that is not relevant for the purposes of aviation.

I assume the "continent" people are referring to in this post is Oceania. But Oceania is a geographical region, not a continent. The only continent in Oceania is Australia, but even then, the claim that Australia is a continent is contentious, as some people insist it is an island.

The statement made by the original poster is misleading. For that statement to be true, the flight would need to be to Australia.

zkncj wrote:

CHI787ORD wrote:

http://newsroom.united.com/2018-03-27-United-Airlines-and-Air-New-Zealand-Announce-New-Nonstop-Service-Between-Chicago-and-Auckland

Here is the United press release.

ORD just joined the five continent club!

New Zealand isn't an continent - its an Pacific Island.

Not true, it actually looks like NZ sits on its own continent, Zelandia. This was announced last year.

SCIENTISTS have announced they believe an eighth continent exists.

Zealandia has all the characteristics needed to be considered a continent, a study found. So what do we know about the landmass?

What is Zealandia?

Zealandia is a landmass almost completely submerged by the Pacific Ocean, reports The Sun.

Its only point above sea level is New Zealand’s two main islands and New Caledonia — the proposed continent’s highest ‘mountain range’.

A further five million square kilometres — or 95 per cent of the landmass — are underwater.

Its western ridge is believed to lie several hundred miles off Australia’s east coast — although some scientists have suggested land bridges could once have connected the two masses.

Scientists studying Zealandia say it has several of the key characteristics of a continent, including a distinctive geology, and an elevation above the surrounding sea bed.

It is believed to have been a part of the Gondwana supercontinent but broke away about 100 million years ago.

Scientists have been gathering data to prove the case for Zealandia for more than 20 years.

Lead author of the study Nick Mortimer said: “What we hope is that Zealandia will appear on world maps, in schools, everywhere.

AKL-ORD is interesting to say the least. It overflies most of the US to a city where connections can't possibly be as convenient as IAH so it will rely heavily on O&D however I wouldn't think that Chicago would have enough O&D to New Zealand/Australia.
I would have thought that AKL-GRU would come before AKL-ORD, and certainly AKL-EWR would make more sense than AKL-ORD.

airbazar wrote:

AKL-ORD is interesting to say the least. It overflies most of the US to a city where connections can't possibly be as convenient as IAH so it will rely heavily on O&D however I wouldn't think that Chicago would have enough O&D to New Zealand/Australia.
I would have thought that AKL-GRU would come before AKL-ORD, and certainly AKL-EWR would make more sense than AKL-ORD.

ORD is closer to the east coast, and offers the most connections abroad and probably anywhere east of it outside of NY. IAH is a solid 2-3+ hour flight from east coast and Canada, while Chicago is 30min-2 hours, if I’m on the east coast and am flying down under, I’d far prefer a quick commuter flight essentially and on to a NZ flight from ORD than down to Texas and over. Essentially this splits the norther and southern east coast markets into two separate flights from UA hubs, think of all the cities you’re not over-flying and are closer to than if you land in Texas, major cities like Toronto, Minneapolis, Detroit, Montreal, Ottawa, Quebec, New York, Boston, DC, Phili, Pittsburg, I won’t keep going. Also don’t forget Chicago is consistently looked down upon, however it is a much more powerful global economic and finance center than São Paulo or Houston. So O&D and a few business contracts should be easy. I work in the architecture field and I know Lendlease is developing half of the city and much more on the east coast, they’re Australia based and I’m sure will be glad they can get top tier people between the two a lot faster, so hopefully NZ can capture corporate clients in the region. Don’t forget the amount of global corporations that are based out in Chicago that most cities don’t even come close to. I think ORD was the logical choice given their range right now. It’s a giant business market, third largest population in the US/Canada, main city of the Great Lakes megalopolis which is in the top population concentrations in the world with roughly 60 million people calling the area home. The list as to why airlines chose ORD continues. EWR is surely next, once they get the legs for it, and had they been available now I think it would have came before ORD, I could even see service to YYZ and ORD coexisting. GRU will probably be next with the current range, then I’d see EWR-YYZ-LHR as their next 3 ULH destinations.

I’m always left wondering how ORD manages to find and accommodate all these airline’s check-in counters in T5, especially since they use hard-wall logos and markings rather than just teleprompters. I know they have airlines sharing counter space, but still find it remarkable they fit all those foreign airlines in one check-in hall.

airbazar wrote:

AKL-ORD is interesting to say the least. It overflies most of the US to a city where connections can't possibly be as convenient as IAH so it will rely heavily on O&D however I wouldn't think that Chicago would have enough O&D to New Zealand/Australia.
I would have thought that AKL-GRU would come before AKL-ORD, and certainly AKL-EWR would make more sense than AKL-ORD.

I disagree. ORD has much, much better connections throughout the midwest than IAH. That midwest includes fairly large cities like MSP, DTW, etc. The midwest has a reputation as a dying wasteland of farms and rusting old factories but the truth is that it has a significantly higher population and higher GDP than the south / southeast, which is the only part of the country to which IAH has better connections.

Furthermore, I think this route will be successful long-term, even if/when AKL-EWR is started. NYC's 3 airports are increasingly O&D focused because they're capacity constrained to support true hub operations like ORD and ATL. It's surprising how much traveling even from the east coast is done via midwest and west coast hubs. For example, I used to live in Syracuse, and the only flights that I'd connect thru an east coast hub (usually NYC or IAD) were flights to europe and direct south (e.g. to florida). Literally everything else, including eastern midwest cities like cleveland -- to say nothing of the west coast or TPAC -- were easier and more convenient to access from ORD or DTW, even with some overflying.

So I think AKL-EWR will probably primarily serve the tri-state O&D market, while AKL-ORD will serve a reasonable O&D plus a significant connecting market. One that places like IAH or DEN just can't replicate right now.

Kiwirob wrote:

zkncj wrote:

CHI787ORD wrote:

http://newsroom.united.com/2018-03-27-United-Airlines-and-Air-New-Zealand-Announce-New-Nonstop-Service-Between-Chicago-and-Auckland

Here is the United press release.

ORD just joined the five continent club!

New Zealand isn't an continent - its an Pacific Island.

Not true, it actually looks like NZ sits on its own continent, Zelandia. This was announced last year.

SCIENTISTS have announced they believe an eighth continent exists.

Zealandia has all the characteristics needed to be considered a continent, a study found. So what do we know about the landmass?

What is Zealandia?

Zealandia is a landmass almost completely submerged by the Pacific Ocean, reports The Sun.

Its only point above sea level is New Zealand’s two main islands and New Caledonia — the proposed continent’s highest ‘mountain range’.

A further five million square kilometres — or 95 per cent of the landmass — are underwater.

Its western ridge is believed to lie several hundred miles off Australia’s east coast — although some scientists have suggested land bridges could once have connected the two masses.

Scientists studying Zealandia say it has several of the key characteristics of a continent, including a distinctive geology, and an elevation above the surrounding sea bed.

It is believed to have been a part of the Gondwana supercontinent but broke away about 100 million years ago.

Scientists have been gathering data to prove the case for Zealandia for more than 20 years.

Lead author of the study Nick Mortimer said: “What we hope is that Zealandia will appear on world maps, in schools, everywhere.

This reminds me of when I learned a couple years ago that there was such thing as the "Southern Ocean," having grown up with only the Atlantic, Pacific, Arctic and Indian Oceans.

In the end, it doesn't really matter (unless you have some geological reason for needing to know). If an airport wants an award for having service to all 375 continents, I'll print one on my printer. That and a few dollars will get someone a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

muralir wrote:

airbazar wrote:

AKL-ORD is interesting to say the least. It overflies most of the US to a city where connections can't possibly be as convenient as IAH so it will rely heavily on O&D however I wouldn't think that Chicago would have enough O&D to New Zealand/Australia.
I would have thought that AKL-GRU would come before AKL-ORD, and certainly AKL-EWR would make more sense than AKL-ORD.

I disagree. ORD has much, much better connections throughout the midwest than IAH. That midwest includes fairly large cities like MSP, DTW, etc. The midwest has a reputation as a dying wasteland of farms and rusting old factories but the truth is that it has a significantly higher population and higher GDP than the south / southeast, which is the only part of the country to which IAH has better connections.

Furthermore, I think this route will be successful long-term, even if/when AKL-EWR is started. NYC's 3 airports are increasingly O&D focused because they're capacity constrained to support true hub operations like ORD and ATL. It's surprising how much traveling even from the east coast is done via midwest and west coast hubs. For example, I used to live in Syracuse, and the only flights that I'd connect thru an east coast hub (usually NYC or IAD) were flights to europe and direct south (e.g. to florida). Literally everything else, including eastern midwest cities like cleveland -- to say nothing of the west coast or TPAC -- were easier and more convenient to access from ORD or DTW, even with some overflying.

So I think AKL-EWR will probably primarily serve the tri-state O&D market, while AKL-ORD will serve a reasonable O&D plus a significant connecting market. One that places like IAH or DEN just can't replicate right now.

While I don't disagree that the route will be successful, the midwest is in no way, shape, or form a stronger economic region than the south. The midwest has 25% of the nation's GDP and 26% of the people. The south has 30% of the nation's GDP and 34% of the people. I actually think the strength of the ORD flight will be better connectivity to secondary northeast airports like PVD, BDL, BUF, etc. that have either non-existent or very bad connections to IAH as opposed to the smaller markets in the midwest being a primary driver.

The ORD flight is going to be perhaps 60-90 minutes longer than the IAH flight as well, so if you're a passenger originating from, say, LGA your total flight time to AKL would be nearly the same assuming equal transfer times.

Still though, this seems like a good add. At this point, the vast majority of domestic UA cities will have the option of a one-stop ride to AKL available to them.

flyguy84 wrote:

Didn’t the SFO flight start out as year round and then cut back to seasonal? Now it’s going back year round albeit not daily.

Nah, started as a winter seasonal 787(first 788 later 789/788 mix) a few days per week, then came back as a 77W(don't remember if it was daily off the bat), still winter seasonal until the announcement in this thread.

vhtje wrote:

I hate to be pedantic, but New Zealand is not part of any continent. It is two large and approximately 600 small islands. It is true, that geologically speaking, it forms part of mostly sunken continent called Zealandia, but that is not relevant for the purposes of aviation.

I assume the "continent" people are referring to in this post is Oceania. But Oceania is a geographical region, not a continent. The only continent in Oceania is Australia, but even then, the claim that Australia is a continent is contentious, as some people insist it is an island.

It depends entirely on what book you read. I was brought being taught that Australia and New Zealand represented one continent - Australasia.

mariner

IAH already is already carrying the 1 stop Austrailian bound traffic. This is a very logical add by Air New Zealand, benefiting from United huge hub, the large population that easily connects 1 stop to NZ or now Oceania.

YoungDon wrote:

muralir wrote:

While I don't disagree that the route will be successful, the midwest is in no way, shape, or form a stronger economic region than the south. The midwest has 25% of the nation's GDP and 26% of the people. The south has 30% of the nation's GDP and 34% of the people. I actually think the strength of the ORD flight will be better connectivity to secondary northeast airports like PVD, BDL, BUF, etc. that have either non-existent or very bad connections to IAH as opposed to the smaller markets in the midwest being a primary driver.

The numbers you posted show the Midwest is better off per capita than the South. Not that is matters as GDP of entire regions are poor indicators as outside of major metros the South has the poorest parts of the country and that skews the numbers. I agree though with your assessment of where they can get connecting traffic. Having IAH and ORD is a win-win for Star Alliance.

Tailwinds13 wrote:

I’m always left wondering how ORD manages to find and accommodate all these airline’s check-in counters in T5, especially since they use hard-wall logos and markings rather than just teleprompters. I know they have airlines sharing counter space, but still find it remarkable they fit all those foreign airlines in one check-in hall.

NZ will most likely use UA's counters - as its only an 3x weekly service an they have an joint venture with UA.

AKL-YVR NZ
AKL-SFO NZ/UA
AKL-LAX NZ
AKL-IAH NZ
AKL-HNL NZ
AKL-ORD NZ
SYD-IAH UA
SYD-SFO UA
SYD-LAX UA
MEL-SFO UA


Between the two airlines they have now the largest route selection between the US and NZ/AU region.

Nouflyer wrote:

It strikes me that Air NZ’s best bet would have been to operate AKL-ORD-UK daily, and to probably have three of those services terminate in Manchester and the rest at Glasgow or even Birmingham.

As much as I'd like ANZ at MAN, I don't see what's in it to ANZ (unless it can obtain agreements with airlines to distribute passengers across Europe - in which case why not a *A hub like FRA/MUC).

Nouflyer wrote:

This route really highlights the outright stupidity of former CEO Rob Fyfe’s opposition to two sector flights.

Demand from east of the Rockies to NZ is notoriously weak. Cultural and family ties are non-existent. Business ties are even weaker.

Americans get less annual paid vacation time than any other advanced nation.

We know several things from NZ1/2 AKL-LAX-LHR.

1. Where possible, the two sectors are sold separately.
2. Seasonal fluctuations in demand in the US-UK and US-NZ markets are smoothed out by the ability to transport UK-NZ traffic.
3. One airframe can operate daily UK-US services.

It strikes me that Air NZ’s best bet would have been to operate AKL-ORD-UK daily, and to probably have three of those services terminate in Manchester and the rest at Glasgow or even Birmingham.

One extra airframe. But daily service between NZ/Australia and Chicago, and a different destination to smooth out year-round demand.

Not sure what you are on about?

* The announcment does not highlight this "stupidity" at all - let's see how the "one-sector" AKL-ORD performs, will we? And even if it won't perform, I doubt it would perfom better if it was extended to MAN...
* Rob Fyfe is history at NZ, so if it really were such a stupid decision, Luxon and team could easily reverse that. For some reason (!) they haven't done that yet...
* I am sure they have looked/are continuously looking into the viability of such a tag to MAN. Personally, I would love to see that, but whether it is viable is a different question. It is stated over and over again that NZ has built a good reputation among LA residents (mostly so-called "B-grade celebs"), who love flying NZ. They don't have that sort of reputaion/brand recognition in ORD at all yet.

Maybe NZ should offer BNE-PPT-ORD-MAN....

Cheers
micha

zkncj wrote:

Tailwinds13 wrote:

I’m always left wondering how ORD manages to find and accommodate all these airline’s check-in counters in T5, especially since they use hard-wall logos and markings rather than just teleprompters. I know they have airlines sharing counter space, but still find it remarkable they fit all those foreign airlines in one check-in hall.

NZ will most likely use UA's counters - as its only an 3x weekly service an they have an joint venture with UA.

AKL-YVR NZ
AKL-SFO NZ/UA
AKL-LAX NZ
AKL-IAH NZ
AKL-HNL NZ
AKL-ORD NZ
SYD-IAH UA
SYD-SFO UA
SYD-LAX UA
MEL-SFO UA


Between the two airlines they have now the largest route selection between the US and NZ/AU region.

No, they wont. UA doesn't have counters in the departure hall at T5 since they don't have any departing flights from T5.

NZ will share with an airline for the time being. Departures at T5 will eventually be converted into a check in hall with teleprompters and TV screens designating check in counters, rather than permanent counters that are there now, aligning it with most other global hubs.

Its an old school setup right now that will be missed by me when its gone. I love seeing all the different foreign check in counters at ORD, even when they are empty.

What if they were to add a leg to EWR? Be it from ORD, IAH, or LAX (like QF does to JFK). This would surely check a huge market on their list, and fill some more seats.

TSA125 wrote:

What if they were to add a leg to EWR? Be it from ORD, IAH, or LAX (like QF does to JFK). This would surely check a huge market on their list, and fill some more seats.

No time to do that without losing very important connectivity via the early evening departure bank and early morning arrival bank at AKL. Connections to and from Australia are vital for the new ORD service. And NZ has long operated by the mantra “no new two-sector flights”, repeated again quite recently.

Nouflyer wrote:

This route really highlights the outright stupidity of former CEO Rob Fyfe’s opposition to two sector flights.

I completely agree. It seemed like a mantra for the sake of having one.

Surely you evaluate every route on its own merits, regardless of whether it's one, two or ten sectors. Did they *really* analyse every potential two sector route and conclude they were all non viable? It's not as if two sector flights are inherently uneconomic; and AKL-LAX-LHR has demonstrated for decades.