Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
PA515
Posts: 1608
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 22, 2018 11:54 am

Gasman wrote:
Well ORD surely isn't happening until the current engine issues are history?


AKL-ORD We Fr Su can go ahead as planned. ZK-NZN and ZK-NZQ with Trent 1000 TEN engines are due in September.

PA515
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4355
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:45 pm

Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Given the DC10 grounding (McDonnell Douglas is now part of the bigger Boeing legacy), the massive delay of the 787 and now this... I really hope NZ seriously looks at the A350, not just because it's a great aircraft but it seems Boeing is not capable of delivering new technology.

Airbus led the way with fly by wire with the A320, got the A380 off the ground much closer to original schedule than the 787 and the A350 program was very well run compared to other new airline programs. Do we have any confidence on the 777-8 at the moment.

Okay not so black and white as that but I'm starting to wonder how much weight all of the 787 issues will have on the Air NZ Exco Team and Board.

You'd have to imagine it's at least a factor - albeit not a big one. This current issue of course has everything to do with RR and nothing to do with Boeing.


I disagree. It's on Boeing too. Airbus halted A321neoPW deliveries a couple of months ago so that new engines (with the fix) could be diverted to aircraft which had been grounded due to the seal problem and "unground" them. Boeing keeps building and delivering RR powered 787s, rather than diverting their engines to help out customers in need. Air New Zealand is based in a middle-of-nowhere country and because of this operates a higher %age of ETOPS flights than every other mid/large airline in the world. A couple of years ago Air New Zealand operated more than half of of all Airbus A320 ETOPS flights globally. Air New Zealand is in a unique situation and is far more affected by this airworthiness directive than any other 787 operator; Boeing needs to get off their arses and start prioritising Air New Zealand's operational integrity rather than trying to maximise their own cashflow.


Gasman wrote:
I've come to support Airbus aircraft because as a passenger they have provided a significantly better experience for some time now. The A330 and A380 are a pleasure to travel in in any class. The same can't be said of the 777 and 787.

True. I hope that A350s replace 777-200s.

planemanofnz wrote:
Also, is it possible that we could see Hi Fly's new 388 here, given that they will take delivery of it in the next month or two? I can dream

I guess these some of these kind of situations could lend itself to a HiFly A380 quite well. EG on Perth, two 789 flights could be combined into an A380 flight (CHC tag won't work though), freeing up two 789s. Though I would imagine that Perth is one route where the 789 isn't payload restricted thanks to the AD?

Motorhussy wrote:
Well, seeing as NZ have to make some fuel stops across some of the 789 fleet, why don’t they use them on routes that can benefit from them? Even in the short term. Why not reintroduce AKL-APW-LAX and AKL-TBU-LAX?

Because 789s aren't flying to LAX?
First to fly the 787-9
 
NZ321
Posts: 1223
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 22, 2018 1:06 pm

planemanofnz wrote:
Will this affect NZ's ability to continue operating the 789 domestically, on AKL-CHC-AKL through October? Less slack in the fleet now?

Also, is it possible that we could see Hi Fly's new 388 here, given that they will take delivery of it in the next month or two? I can dream.

The carrier plans to use the aircraft for its core business activity—wet-leasing capacity to other airlines ... delivery of its first Airbus A380 in May or June

See: http://atwonline.com/leasing/hi-fly-acq ... 0-mid-year.

It could be effective on the high-demand routes like AKL - SYD / MEL, and also has the range to do ORD, whereas the 343 does not.

Cheers,

C.


Planeman, you are dreaming indeed :)
Plane mad!
 
NZ321
Posts: 1223
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 22, 2018 1:14 pm

Have to say though, that of the top 5 outstanding and positively memorable flights I've had in the last decade, 2 of those have been on A380s (TG and SQ) and of the others, 1 was a 77W (NZ), 1 a 789 (NH) and 1 an A340 (LX).
Plane mad!
 
DavidJ08
Posts: 169
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:18 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 22, 2018 1:47 pm

planemanofnz wrote:
Will this affect NZ's ability to continue operating the 789 domestically, on AKL-CHC-AKL through October? Less slack in the fleet now?

Also, is it possible that we could see Hi Fly's new 388 here, given that they will take delivery of it in the next month or two? I can dream.

FR24 shows NZ594 operated by 320 for one day, 772 for three days, and 77W later today (Monday). Beyond the next couple of days I would say all bets are off. It really depends on whether the IAH flight continues to operate as scheduled (past the next couple of weeks of disuptions) - if it departs AKL at 1600 then yes, the IAH airframe will do the AKL-CHC-AKL rotation, because it won't have time to go to Aus and back.

I personally can't see the A380 coming to NZ's service because it'll be far too much plane for what NZ does, with 1.5-2x the capacity of NZ aircraft.

zkojq wrote:
I guess these some of these kind of situations could lend itself to a HiFly A380 quite well. EG on Perth, two 789 flights could be combined into an A380 flight (CHC tag won't work though), freeing up two 789s. Though I would imagine that Perth is one route where the 789 isn't payload restricted thanks to the AD?

Perth goes back to once daily from the 30th - and the CHC-PER direct service will be done for the season.

Motorhussy wrote:
Well, seeing as NZ have to make some fuel stops across some of the 789 fleet, why don’t they use them on routes that can benefit from them? Even in the short term. Why not reintroduce AKL-APW-LAX and AKL-TBU-LAX?

Fuel stops (with the same pax & baggage landing and taking off) are easy enough to arrange, but an actual one-stop flight is much harder - not the physical act of landing and taking off, but the regulatory and commercial side of things for starting a new one-stop route with fifth freedom passenger carriage (APW-LAX and TBU-LAX) etc etc. I think the engines will be all fixed before the regulatory paperwork and commercial preparation can be completed to market those flights.

I think the issue at hand is more about getting all the pre-booked passengers and baggage to where they were booked to go, rather than exploring new route options.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2202
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 22, 2018 7:14 pm

zkojq wrote:
I disagree. It's on Boeing too. Airbus halted A321neoPW deliveries a couple of months ago so that new engines (with the fix) could be diverted to aircraft which had been grounded due to the seal problem and "unground" them. Boeing keeps building and delivering RR powered 787s, rather than diverting their engines to help out customers in need. Air New Zealand is based in a middle-of-nowhere country and because of this operates a higher %age of ETOPS flights than every other mid/large airline in the world. A couple of years ago Air New Zealand operated more than half of of all Airbus A320 ETOPS flights globally. Air New Zealand is in a unique situation and is far more affected by this airworthiness directive than any other 787 operator; Boeing needs to get off their arses and start prioritising Air New Zealand's operational integrity rather than trying to maximise their own cashflow.


Good point.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7516
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 22, 2018 7:59 pm

Motorhussy wrote:
Well, seeing as NZ have to make some fuel stops across some of the 789 fleet, why don’t they use them on routes that can benefit from them? Even in the short term. Why not reintroduce AKL-APW-LAX and AKL-TBU-LAX?


The 77W fleet is unaffected, all you would be doing is having the US flights stop so the Asia services didn’t need to if it was as simple as just swapping aircraft like that not to mention the premium cabin size.

NZ6/5 has been retimed however to for the next few days to squeeze some extra rotations out of the 77W fleet.
AKL 1550 LAX 0900
LAX 1050 AKL 1835
 
DougS
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 22, 2018 8:18 pm

Boeing is now doing what Airbus did and prioritizing grounded aircraft over new deliveries. So as a flow on don’t be surprised to see our next 787 delivery delayed due lack of engines.

https://leehamnews.com/2018/04/21/boein ... slow-down/
 
DDR
Posts: 1732
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:09 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 22, 2018 8:27 pm

DougS wrote:
Boeing is now doing what Airbus did and prioritizing grounded aircraft over new deliveries. So as a flow on don’t be surprised to see our next 787 delivery delayed due lack of engines.

https://leehamnews.com/2018/04/21/boein ... slow-down/


That is the smart thing to do. Why keep pushing bad ones out to the market when you already have some grounded? Too bad such a great aircraft is having more problems.
 
N212R
Posts: 331
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 5:18 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 22, 2018 8:35 pm

Gasman wrote:
Fare paying passengers are not going to be accepting of fuel stops that even in the slickest of hands will add 90 mins to an already long trip. If this situation carries on for more than a week it's a PR disaster for the company which not even a new safety video or internet survey will fix (they're bound to try those things first though).


New Zealanders are nothing if not practical people. They may not like it but they'll gladly accept the trade-off if the only alternative is degraded safety.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:56 pm

Hi Fly to help again - according to Grant Bradley:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=12037430

"Portuguese charter operator Hi Fly is heading back to this country to help cover for Air New Zealand, which faces more disruption because of problems affecting Roll-Royce engines on some of its Dreamliners.

The charter firm provided cover for Air New Zealand for almost four months over the summer on Auckland-Perth and Auckland-Sydney routes, and Air New Zealand said it would return as disruption from engine issues could stretch for months."


Still calling the 787's "Dreamliners" - if he not aware of the irony?

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
Gasman
Posts: 2202
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 22, 2018 10:30 pm

N212R wrote:
Gasman wrote:
Fare paying passengers are not going to be accepting of fuel stops that even in the slickest of hands will add 90 mins to an already long trip. If this situation carries on for more than a week it's a PR disaster for the company which not even a new safety video or internet survey will fix (they're bound to try those things first though).


New Zealanders are nothing if not practical people. They may not like it but they'll gladly accept the trade-off if the only alternative is degraded safety.

No rational person on this planet would propose ignoring the safety directive as an alternative. The question is, are NZ and RR doing enough? You can't tell me there aren't better options out there than HiFly, for example. What about mobilising some 772s from the desert?

I really hope NZ get properly compensated. Who can possibly quantify the damage in terms of lost customer loyalty down the track? How many people *right now* are deciding to book on other carriers because of this?
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1673
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 22, 2018 11:19 pm

Gasman wrote:
The question is, are NZ and RR doing enough? You can't tell me there aren't better options out there than HiFly, for example. What about mobilising some 772s from the desert?

I don't think that planes stored in the desert are kept in "ready to fly" condition at all. From previous discussions I believe that it's not at all straightforward to get them airborne and in passenger service.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7516
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 22, 2018 11:28 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
Gasman wrote:
The question is, are NZ and RR doing enough? You can't tell me there aren't better options out there than HiFly, for example. What about mobilising some 772s from the desert?

I don't think that planes stored in the desert are kept in "ready to fly" condition at all. From previous discussions I believe that it's not at all straightforward to get them airborne and in passenger service.


Agree I’d think a lot of them if they are in long term storage would of had their interiors stripped and many probably near heavy maintenance, some of which would end up being scrapped.

It seems any talk of second hand 777 capacity talked about late last year has gone quiet, I think it was you David who said it seemed to be an A.net rumour. Otherwise I’ve no idea where it came from.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2202
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 23, 2018 12:01 am

DavidByrne wrote:
Gasman wrote:
The question is, are NZ and RR doing enough? You can't tell me there aren't better options out there than HiFly, for example. What about mobilising some 772s from the desert?

I don't think that planes stored in the desert are kept in "ready to fly" condition at all. From previous discussions I believe that it's not at all straightforward to get them airborne and in passenger service.

Some most definitely are. There are several different "levels" of desert storage. I'm not necessarily advocating this as a preferred option; I'm just pointing out there are others apart from fuel stops plus HiFly ....and I hope RR haven't pushed the cheapest band aid fix onto NZ
 
DeltaB717
Posts: 1718
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:49 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 23, 2018 12:29 am

Gasman wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
Gasman wrote:
The question is, are NZ and RR doing enough? You can't tell me there aren't better options out there than HiFly, for example. What about mobilising some 772s from the desert?

I don't think that planes stored in the desert are kept in "ready to fly" condition at all. From previous discussions I believe that it's not at all straightforward to get them airborne and in passenger service.

Some most definitely are. There are several different "levels" of desert storage. I'm not necessarily advocating this as a preferred option; I'm just pointing out there are others apart from fuel stops plus HiFly ....and I hope RR haven't pushed the cheapest band aid fix onto NZ


I'm curious to know why you think HiFly is such a poor option? Wet leasing to cover maintenance etc is exactly what HiFly is there to do.

Even aircraft that are desert-stored in a 'ready to fly' state have complications in terms of being able to come back into service, particularly if they didn't belong to the airline that's considering taking them on - for example: subtle differences in equipment, etc, can have implications for registration in the airline's home country; leases need to be negotiated with the owner(s) of the aircraft; the aircraft need to be crewed; the airline needs to source galley carts and other such things to fit each aircraft (many of which items may not match what the airline has in service on its own aircraft; and the list goes on. For NZ, I imagine it is far simpler and more (cost-)effective to bring HiFly back in to cover this situation than to source 1-2 B777s for which they are unlikely to have sufficient crew trained and available, which mightn't match their own fleet, and so on and so on.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2202
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 23, 2018 12:43 am

DeltaB717 wrote:
I'm curious to know why you think HiFly is such a poor option?

20 year old aircraft that are pretty tatty inside with a hard product significantly different from NZ's? I don't know about "such a poor........" but yes, I do suspect NZ and RR could have done better. I know NZ frequent fliers who having flown HiFly once are literally refusing to do so again.

Not to mention no NZ branding, classes not matching what initially was paid for etc. etc.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the 789s with fuel stops plus HiFly A340s is the best package RR and NZ could have come up with for NZ's customers. But I doubt it. Those HiFly A340s are reminiscent of the panelbeater's loaner. And fuel stops between here and Japan in 2018? If the average NZ customer does have tolerance for this; it'll be only once.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1603
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 23, 2018 1:22 am

Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Given the DC10 grounding (McDonnell Douglas is now part of the bigger Boeing legacy), the massive delay of the 787 and now this... I really hope NZ seriously looks at the A350, not just because it's a great aircraft but it seems Boeing is not capable of delivering new technology.

Airbus led the way with fly by wire with the A320, got the A380 off the ground much closer to original schedule than the 787 and the A350 program was very well run compared to other new airline programs. Do we have any confidence on the 777-8 at the moment.

Okay not so black and white as that but I'm starting to wonder how much weight all of the 787 issues will have on the Air NZ Exco Team and Board.

You'd have to imagine it's at least a factor - albeit not a big one. This current issue of course has everything to do with RR and nothing to do with Boeing.

I've come to support Airbus aircraft because as a passenger they have provided a significantly better experience for some time now. The A330 and A380 are a pleasure to travel in in any class. The same can't be said of the 777 and 787.


I'd actually say it's bigger than we think, not just out of spite but as the entire long haul fleet needs to be from a single manufacture, My understanding is you'll see an order next year. All these current issues will consume Boeing's attention for some time and as the analysis and negations are underway how much will the 777-X progress. So will NZ take chance on a 'new' type which isn't in service over a proven new type.

Yip the 777 family has very successful and it's not a true new type but also very different in the same sentence.

A350 will be about 5 years old and well established in 2022. Airbus is proving to become very reliable. I guess firstly is the A350 suitable to replace 772 and 77W and what options would there be for a 789 replacement even if 5-10 years beyond 2022?

Motorhussy wrote:
Well, seeing as NZ have to make some fuel stops across some of the 789 fleet, why don’t they use them on routes that can benefit from them? Even in the short term. Why not reintroduce AKL-APW-LAX and AKL-TBU-LAX?


Simply because you're changing a 45min stay on board and refuel to a full 90 min de-board, clean, boarding process plus no lead time on sales so all for small pockets of passengers. So you've already pissed 250+ PAX off by having to stop enroute, to extend the refuel stop for PAX is like saying - too bad we're stopping anyway so we're also going to extend the stop and try make money out of it for our own benefit.

If this issue was to last until the end of the calendar year, how do we all feel? does this change anything for you now?
 
Gasman
Posts: 2202
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 23, 2018 1:35 am

This ^ is the crux of the issue. When NZ's pax begin to perceive that NZ could - and should - have done better, they'll walk. Where that point is will vary from individual to individual.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 23, 2018 1:46 am

DeltaB717 wrote:
Wet leasing to cover maintenance etc is exactly what HiFly is there to do.


They are ready and they are available. This means they're leading what is a very small pack.

As for those Kiwis, fair weather friends, who say "Air NZ could've done better" - they should try.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7516
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 23, 2018 2:04 am

Well the 787 has been around since 2011 and has nearly 7 years, should be well established by now barring those initial teething issues on the 788.

The A380 was late and had its issues both airbus problems and RR issues. The A350 has been reasonably smooth, I think a few smaller RR issues?

The A320NEO had engine issues not an Airbus fault.

It will be interesting to see as you say how the 777X progresses. No recent orders but still 2 years from ETS and the main 77W replacement cycle probably won’t start until 2023/24 period, even then many 77W’s will only be 8-10 years old.

Are you saying NZ6 that you feel the long haul fleet needs to come from 1 manufacturer? If pilots can eventually cross between 787/777 would be a cost saving, the A359/35K is probably similar though, to me it’s weather they are to big mainly the 359 on leisure routes if they replaced the 787 fleet by 2030? The 778 would do ULH as would some of the 359 potential fleet. The 778 is a lot of plane and they don’t imo need the 779.

Interesting times still, I don’t think this current situation will change a future order to much. The A350 is good but is it good enough to change the whole fleet when NZ could take 8-10 778’s for NYC/LAX and 787’s for the rest maybe a few 78J’s for the leisure routes?
 
NZ6
Posts: 1603
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 23, 2018 3:05 am

Gasman wrote:
This ^ is the crux of the issue. When NZ's pax begin to perceive that NZ could - and should - have done better, they'll walk. Where that point is will vary from individual to individual.


Consumer confidence is high in both NZ and AU thankfully. I'd imagine those who are effected or aware of ongoing disruptions will also be aware it's a RR global issue.

The Jones' from Oamaru who are going to SIN for their 10 year trip may not be aware of the scale, a GE who is on multiple disruipted sectors on the other hand will be.

QF grounded their A380's, JL grounded their 788's these things happen, its typically has a short term impact to your bottom line. The test here will be how NZ manages it, especially for HVC's who are disrupted multiple times.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1673
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 23, 2018 3:43 am

Gasman wrote:
And fuel stops between here and Japan in 2018? If the average NZ customer does have tolerance for this; it'll be only once.

You're quite right. Any NZ passenger who doesn't like a fuel stop en route to Tokyo will switch to . . . ummm, which other carrier flies nonstop to Japan, again?

Seriously, Gasman, lighten up! (no pun intended)
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
NZ6
Posts: 1603
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 23, 2018 4:01 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
Well the 787 has been around since 2011 and has nearly 7 years, should be well established by now barring those initial teething issues on the 788.

The A380 was late and had its issues both airbus problems and RR issues. The A350 has been reasonably smooth, I think a few smaller RR issues?

The A320NEO had engine issues not an Airbus fault.

It will be interesting to see as you say how the 777X progresses. No recent orders but still 2 years from ETS and the main 77W replacement cycle probably won’t start until 2023/24 period, even then many 77W’s will only be 8-10 years old.

Are you saying NZ6 that you feel the long haul fleet needs to come from 1 manufacturer? If pilots can eventually cross between 787/777 would be a cost saving, the A359/35K is probably similar though, to me it’s weather they are to big mainly the 359 on leisure routes if they replaced the 787 fleet by 2030? The 778 would do ULH as would some of the 359 potential fleet. The 778 is a lot of plane and they don’t imo need the 779.

Interesting times still, I don’t think this current situation will change a future order to much. The A350 is good but is it good enough to change the whole fleet when NZ could take 8-10 778’s for NYC/LAX and 787’s for the rest maybe a few 78J’s for the leisure routes?


The economics of a common fleet type are a huge factor, I often read the comment about Pilots being common rated which is a big plus but it goes way deeper than that. Right down to IFE, Seats, catering, cargo, engineering GHA' contracts operational performance (switching aircraft around), line maintenance, route management the list goes on but at the start it can aid negation as you'll be looking at more frames which obviously helps with the purchase price.

There's a lot of annoyance around the business right now.

I've been told worst case, this issue may still be around next calendar year for both RR and Boeing. It's a matter of if NZ will still have this issue next year. That's how serious it may be.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7516
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 23, 2018 4:43 am

I think that a lot of the reasons you mention are why I could see a fleet of 8-10 778’s, maybe some 78J’s for leisure routes DPS/SGN/ HNL/PER/NRT/KIX/PPT etc though those can’t really fly any longer routes due range limits, then all 789’s to 1 configuration covering most routes with 778’s ULH plus LAX. I think there are a few routes like YVR where more capacity could be used than the 772 but that’s mainly for a few weeks in DEC/JAN.

So what are the chances they go all A350 long term?

NZ probably don’t have much of a need for a MOM size aircraft imo due to the relatively small scale of their fleet and route network. Just use the widebodies with maybe A321’s and odd widebody on domestic in future.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7516
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 23, 2018 4:52 am

I do agree that the RR issue will be around for a while and if new engines are going on in service frames it’s gonna mean delays in new deliveries. NZ could be affected still in 12 months.

I wonder if on JV routes we could see come NW some routes operated by JV partners entirely? SIN/HKG anyway maybe ANA on some of the TYO flights atleast. Not sure CA can do AKL-PVG? And I’m not sure NZ would give UA all SFO flying.?
 
Deepinsider
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:36 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 23, 2018 9:24 am

This time where do we think AirNZ might send the A340's ?

Now, the ETOPS/EDTO related weight limit is causing fuel
stops, even on routes that fit 140min.

An A340 doing the SIN return, releasing that 787 for PER let's
say. (both non-stop)

The Quality of the product of course is a factor. In my opinion the
High value GE customers are more likely to have a pragmatic
understanding of the situation than some of the writers here feel.
 
DougS
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 23, 2018 9:44 am

Sounds like a more permanent (though still temporary) solution to hi-fly should be announced in the next few days. This stuff just does not happen overnight. Red tape/ bureaucracy significant in aviation, often justifiably.
 
Deepinsider
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:36 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 23, 2018 9:53 am

The A340 has a really good range, and sending them to
EZE or the West Coast, could release valuable 777's for
replacements on the fuel stop routes which might (or not)
be deemed product sensitive.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2202
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 23, 2018 10:29 am

DavidByrne wrote:
Gasman wrote:
And fuel stops between here and Japan in 2018? If the average NZ customer does have tolerance for this; it'll be only once.

You're quite right. Any NZ passenger who doesn't like a fuel stop en route to Tokyo will switch to . . . ummm, which other carrier flies nonstop to Japan, again?

Seriously, Gasman, lighten up! (no pun intended)

This really intrigues me. So the argument goes that because no other carrier flies AKL-Tokyo direct, NZ have nothing to worry about from this in terms of customer loyalty?

I can't help thinking that if the airline in question was QR, SQ, or even QF none of the relevant countrymen would be saying "lighten up".
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4381
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 23, 2018 11:19 am

DavidByrne wrote:
Any NZ passenger who doesn't like a fuel stop en route to Tokyo will switch to . . . ummm, which other carrier flies nonstop to Japan, again?

It reeks of arrogance to suggest that NZ can afford to rely on its lack of competition to get it through on some of these routes - Japan is primarily an in-bound leisure market for NZ, so it's actually competing with carriers like QF to Australia or the EU3 to Europe. Word of mouth spreads rapidly among tour operators, particularly when the overall experience for one is less than stellar, and those tour operators will be only too happy to drop New Zealand for destinations not subject to fuel stops or vastly outdated in-flight products, if it makes it easier for them to sell their packages.

Deepinsider wrote:
This time where do we think AirNZ might send the A340's?

Purely IMO, but I assume we'd see them at SYD, PER, PVG, KIX, HNL, SGN or DPS before places like SIN, HKG, NRT, LAX, YVR, IAH or SFO.

Cheers,

C.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3892
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 23, 2018 11:25 am

Deepinsider wrote:
This time where do we think AirNZ might send the A340's ?

Now, the ETOPS/EDTO related weight limit is causing fuel
stops, even on routes that fit 140min.

An A340 doing the SIN return, releasing that 787 for PER let's
say. (both non-stop)

The Quality of the product of course is a factor. In my opinion the
High value GE customers are more likely to have a pragmatic
understanding of the situation than some of the writers here feel.


If they could get HiFly’s first A388 which is ex-SQ (SQ hard product) AKL to SIN could work, doing an daily return rotation.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4381
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 23, 2018 11:35 am

zkncj wrote:
If they could get HiFly’s first A388 which is ex-SQ (SQ hard product) AKL to SIN could work, doing an daily return rotation.

That might be too much capacity for SIN though - the 388 would need to be used on high-demand routes, with multiple daily NZ metal frequencies. Could they do something like combine 2x daily SYD / MEL 787 / 777 frequencies into 1x daily 388 one?

Cheers,

C.
 
nascarnut
Posts: 308
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:43 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 23, 2018 9:46 pm

Hi-Fly A340 will probably operate AKL-HNL service short term
Air NZ may also dry lease 777-200 for longer term coverage. That way NZ flight and cabin crew can operate. May not have same inflight entertainment but at least service will be comparable
 
NZ6
Posts: 1603
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 23, 2018 9:56 pm

Okay calm down everyone. You're not going to see a A388 here. It's multiple 789 frames, they're not going to double or triple the capacity on single sectors especially long haul to substitute them.

Short term; passengers are committed, fuel stops are being put in day by day at the moment so impacted customers won't know until last minute meaning it's more difficult to then switch (not NZ's motive here).

Long term; forward bookings can become effected if things like delays, fuel stops, a/c changes, cancellations etc drag on hence we should all be waiting on what the airline will do until this is resolved permanently.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1603
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 23, 2018 10:02 pm

This gives you an appreciation of how wide spread this issue is;

https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/travel- ... 3MGlii7RwS
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 1038
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 23, 2018 10:53 pm

So WIAL had a chat with the local golf club over the land needed to expand the airport.

tl:dr;
The golfers aren't happy.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/103274 ... hree-years

The bit I found interesting was the comment on plane sizes getting larger.

The first was that most airlines were opting for larger planes which legally required larger parking spaces.

"If you go back to 2009 the average number of seats on planes going to Auckland and across the Tasman was about 130, and if you look at the aircraft that we have up there at the moment that's more than 170," he said.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2202
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 23, 2018 11:13 pm

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
So WIAL had a chat with the local golf club over the land needed to expand the airport.

tl:dr;
The golfers aren't happy.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/103274 ... hree-years

The bit I found interesting was the comment on plane sizes getting larger.

The first was that most airlines were opting for larger planes which legally required larger parking spaces.

"If you go back to 2009 the average number of seats on planes going to Auckland and across the Tasman was about 130, and if you look at the aircraft that we have up there at the moment that's more than 170," he said.

That golf course has done well to hold out for so long. I remember in 1975 driving past it in the back of an old Morris Oxford, listening to my father discuss with a colleague the angst it was causing the airport.

But surely its days are now seriously numbered.

However they're an interesting bunch, golfers. They display a level of entitlement and confidence that is somewhat incongruous with being a greying, overweight, Viagra guzzling sexagenarian dancing around the edges of alcohol rehab. They won't go down without a fight.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 23, 2018 11:17 pm

NZ6 wrote:
Okay calm down everyone. You're not going to see a A388 here. It's multiple 789 frames, they're not going to double or triple the capacity on single sectors especially long haul to substitute them.


Probably not, but it would be very interesting.

At some point in their lives airlines have to get over what Richard Aboulafia (Boeing's greatest supporter) once called "the drug like rush of the 787".

Image

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
nz2
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:38 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Wed Apr 25, 2018 1:12 am

The wife and I are off to Honolulu next Wednesday for a long weekend, the flight was changed from 787 to 777, now it appears to be back to 787, the flight is not listed as a type change so that seems to confirm it will be a 787. Given the restrictions being 140 minutes or 2hr 10, a high level assumption is Fiji is about 3 hours into the 8.5 hr flight, meaning the 787 will be outside the 140 min circle - probably? Does this mean as another posted here, the dreaded Hi Fly 340 could be subbed in to Hawaii? I am GE and we are currently in PE on a confirmed upgrade, I am guessing if it is indeed Hi Fly would that mean we "should" be allocated the Biz class seats?

Anyone with first had feedback on them at all....thanks
 
Gasman
Posts: 2202
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Wed Apr 25, 2018 1:30 am

nz2 wrote:
The wife and I are off to Honolulu next Wednesday for a long weekend, the flight was changed from 787 to 777, now it appears to be back to 787, the flight is not listed as a type change so that seems to confirm it will be a 787. Given the restrictions being 140 minutes or 2hr 10, a high level assumption is Fiji is about 3 hours into the 8.5 hr flight, meaning the 787 will be outside the 140 min circle - probably? Does this mean as another posted here, the dreaded Hi Fly 340 could be subbed in to Hawaii? I am GE and we are currently in PE on a confirmed upgrade, I am guessing if it is indeed Hi Fly would that mean we "should" be allocated the Biz class seats?

Anyone with first had feedback on them at all....thanks

I know of one identical situation except the leg in question was PER-AKL. The upgrade simply disappeared and the leg was flown in Y.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8347
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Wed Apr 25, 2018 1:42 am

HiFly is not going to HNL within the next week. It will likely be a 78N, however
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1230
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Wed Apr 25, 2018 2:23 am

nz2 wrote:
The wife and I are off to Honolulu next Wednesday for a long weekend, the flight was changed from 787 to 777, now it appears to be back to 787, the flight is not listed as a type change so that seems to confirm it will be a 787. Given the restrictions being 140 minutes or 2hr 10, a high level assumption is Fiji is about 3 hours into the 8.5 hr flight, meaning the 787 will be outside the 140 min circle - probably? Does this mean as another posted here, the dreaded Hi Fly 340 could be subbed in to Hawaii? I am GE and we are currently in PE on a confirmed upgrade, I am guessing if it is indeed Hi Fly would that mean we "should" be allocated the Biz class seats?

Anyone with first had feedback on them at all....thanks


I did HiFly in PE AKL-SYD, and PE was allocated the buusines class seats (that was also shown in the seat configuration coparison table on the NZ website), and J passengers got the F seats.

But it seems to be moot now - see aerorob's comment above ;-)

By the way, I liked the J seats as PE - certainly better than standard PE on NZ (or other airlines) - possibly the best value of teh sub-in A340s :-)
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1230
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Wed Apr 25, 2018 2:30 am

Interestingly, the 787 issue affects a lot of other flight schedules as well. I am booked for AKL-SYD-AKL next Saturday (out on 772 and back on 320), and while neither flight is on a 789, both flight times have changed quite a bit. I agree that NZ is doing an amazing job in trying to adjust schedules and serve customers as best as they can in this situation (as an aviation enthusiast I wouldn't mind a fuel stop. In fact, I am booked to Japan in December, but most likely a fuel stop in Guam won't be necessary then - would be a nice new dot on the map for me).
The only thing that disappointed me was that they didn't email me about the change. I went in my profile online for seat reservations for a new booking, and saw a note there that I should call NZ to verify changes (they didn't show any changes - all flights were blanked out). Had I not checked online, when would they have notified me, if ever? I would have been late to the airport, since my flight is now 2 hours earlier...
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2788
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Wed Apr 25, 2018 2:38 am

Gasman wrote:
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
So WIAL had a chat with the local golf club over the land needed to expand the airport.

tl:dr;
The golfers aren't happy.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/103274 ... hree-years

The bit I found interesting was the comment on plane sizes getting larger.

The first was that most airlines were opting for larger planes which legally required larger parking spaces.

"If you go back to 2009 the average number of seats on planes going to Auckland and across the Tasman was about 130, and if you look at the aircraft that we have up there at the moment that's more than 170," he said.

That golf course has done well to hold out for so long. I remember in 1975 driving past it in the back of an old Morris Oxford, listening to my father discuss with a colleague the angst it was causing the airport.

But surely its days are now seriously numbered.

However they're an interesting bunch, golfers. They display a level of entitlement and confidence that is somewhat incongruous with being a greying, overweight, Viagra guzzling sexagenarian dancing around the edges of alcohol rehab. They won't go down without a fight.


Ha! That's a pretty apt description of golfers in my experience. Though I'd throw in the 25-40 year old crowd that are definitely young fogeys. Then again, having worked with airport management in the past (AKL) it wouldn't surprise me if WIAL just wanted to expand their carparking. In which case, on ya fogeys!

It is interesting re aircraft size into Wellington, largely the reflection of the shift from 733s to 320s. I don't think this required any change to aprons or taxiways, did it?

Regarding the RR 787 issues, it seems pretty harsh to blame NZ for any of this. As a passenger, I'd understand and a 2-3 hour diversion to stopover to comply with the 140 minute directive is neither here nor there. Different aircraft types are just part of travelling so the HiFly thing is another meh-factor. Didn't the airline have a problem with hushkit 732s back in the 90s that grounded that fleet? That I would blame on management cheaping out and not going for 733s earlier (if I'm right about the hushkit issue).

And its impact on the 340 seat order? Well, RR is exclusive on the 350. I'd say that corporate relations (NZ and RR) is strained right now. The GE one would appear pretty solid. NZ's also got PW-powered NEOs en route. Another nightmare in the making? Man don't ya miss the days of those trusty ol 767s?
Last edited by aerokiwi on Wed Apr 25, 2018 2:56 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
nz2
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:38 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Wed Apr 25, 2018 2:44 am

aerorobnz wrote:
HiFly is not going to HNL within the next week. It will likely be a 78N, however


Cheers, thanks for that!

I take it the 78N is the v2 model?
 
NZ6
Posts: 1603
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Wed Apr 25, 2018 4:04 am

nz2 wrote:
aerorobnz wrote:
HiFly is not going to HNL within the next week. It will likely be a 78N, however


Cheers, thanks for that!

I take it the 78N is the v2 model?


Sure is, otherwise called Code 2
 
Kiwigondi
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 10:25 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Wed Apr 25, 2018 4:28 am

They should look at the EY 77L's then when RR are in top of the engine issues open EWR
 
Deepinsider
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:36 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Wed Apr 25, 2018 4:54 am

nz2 wrote:
The wife and I are off to Honolulu next Wednesday for a long weekend, the flight was changed from 787 to 777, now it appears to be back to 787, the flight is not listed as a type change so that seems to confirm it will be a 787. Given the restrictions being 140 minutes or 2hr 10, a high level assumption is Fiji is about 3 hours into the 8.5 hr flight, meaning the 787 will be outside the 140 min circle - probably? Does this mean as another posted here, the dreaded Hi Fly 340 could be subbed in to Hawaii? I am GE and we are currently in PE on a confirmed upgrade, I am guessing if it is indeed Hi Fly would that mean we "should" be allocated the Biz class seats?

Anyone with first had feedback on them at all....thanks


When the 767 was on the HNL route the EDTO was 138 min .(Alt APW)
The AD affecting the 789 spells out a req'd diversion speed/thrust profile,
not sure, but I imagine still quicker than the 76'
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Wed Apr 25, 2018 5:28 am

planemanofnz wrote:
Also, is it possible that we could see Hi Fly's new 388 here, given that they will take delivery of it in the next month or two? I can dream.

It could be effective on the high-demand routes like AKL - SYD / MEL, and also has the range to do ORD, whereas the 343 does not.

Cheers,

C.

HiFly can activate any stored Airbus owned or notionally owned aircraft, but I think an A380 for NZ is extremely remote.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos