• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 12
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 6453
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon Apr 30, 2018 11:13 am

Welcome to New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018, please continue to add your comments below

Link to the April edition

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1390355
Forum Moderator
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 3917
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon Apr 30, 2018 11:34 am

There has been a call for New Zealand to assist Tokelau in attaining air connectivity.

See: https://www.radionz.co.nz/international ... s-academic.

What does everyone think? A sea-plane service from APW, which is within range? Or, maybe some sort of helicopter service? I can't see an air-strip being built, but would be happy to be proven wrong. Jacinda Ardern's father is to be the administrator of Tokelau - that, in tandem with Winston Peters' comments about a 'reboot' in New Zealand - Pacific Islands relations, may work to boost the chances of some sort of development in this area in the next three years. Interesting times.

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 3917
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon Apr 30, 2018 11:41 am

After doubling in size just a few months ago through purchasing Oceania Aviation, Salus Aviation (based in AKL) has decided to dual-list on the ASX and NZX - hopefully this will lead to further growth opportunities for the business in the coming years.

See: https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/04/30/1 ... the-radar#.

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 3917
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon Apr 30, 2018 11:43 am

A trans-Tasman airline lobby group will meet with the government on Wednesday, to discuss their issues with pricing at AKL. It'll be interesting to see to what extent political pressure may push AKL to stop divident pay-outs, in favour of reinvestments - there's always the threat of greater regulation?

See: http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/busine ... -airports/.

Cheers,

C.
 
Deepinsider
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:36 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:05 pm

With the rescheduling and aircraft changes AirNZ seem to be coping pretty well with the really
unlucky hand they were dealt! Well done to their employees. (please don't think too much about
corporate policies, there are a lot of really good people trying hard, just as much as other airlines
staff do too)

It's said there are now more than 30 787's AOG https://leehamnews.com/2018/04/27/32-bo ... ill-climb/
some of these will be ex factory awaiting new engines.(Which might also impact on AirNZ)

Further, the A320NEO family deliveries are coming unstuck, with even more so-called gliders languishing at Toulouse and Hamburg,
as they suffer from PW geared fan delivery delays.
Let's hope the new AirNZ A320/1 deliveries are not affected, just when they might have been in time to partially rescue current problems.
Anyone know about the current confirmed delivery timings?

(my next 787 flight isn't until July to NRT. Of course we'll cope with any changes, but interesting to watch and wait, although we are lucky that
that trip is just leisure)
 
NZ321
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:56 pm

In the next month I am on NH from KL to the US and back, again in June. Will be interesting to see if there are any "replacements" on 789 transpacific routes.
Plane mad!
 
NZ6
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Tue May 01, 2018 12:21 am

I meant to bring this up over the weekend. I caught up with some friends who were away during the school holidays, they don't travel all that often and made mention of AIAL's new departure area post security.

They were stunned by changes being made so soon after that retail / dining area was last completed. They believe AIAL is wasting money and has not been working towards a real true 'master plan' they further added given it's size etc and the proposed growth of AIAL over the next 20 years it's still substandard.

It made me think, the last upgrade was needed but was it a waste of money to an extend given it's been done again and will be done again in the near future? it's almost in a state of constant development...

We've seen a 'plan' for the airfield, gates, runways, hotel, retail precincts etc but is there any master plan / designs for the terminal itself?

I think about SIN, terminal 3 is modern sleek and open, it's clearly more modern than 1 and 2 however there's nothing wrong with Terminal 1 and 2 for their age, the massive difference is the terminal has the space and size required, that is Auckland's downfall. It's never been developed in a way which gives itself space for more development.

They also flew with children on a NZ 77W. They were horrified with the seating capacity of the departure lounge given the size of the plane. Hard to argue with that point either.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 3917
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Tue May 01, 2018 8:55 am

With it now being more than a month since the Obama visit, is it naive to ask what NZ actually got out of its sponsorship of the event? AFAIK, Obama didn't tweet about New Zealand to his 100 million or so followers, wasn't included in the NZ ORD launch, and wasn't part of the new NZ safety video - missed opportunities for NZ?

Cheers,

C.
 
NZ321
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Tue May 01, 2018 11:57 am

AKL has not really improved in terms of the overall travel experience for quite a while and their latest improvements are taking an age to complete and don't really benefit the traveller IMHO in terms of the travel essentials. But then why would it - the airport touts itself as one of the best in the Asia Pacific region. What's to improve on that? The space in the departure area is indeed on the tight side and the opportunity for a terminal study and master plan seems not to have been taken but rather incremental improvements as you have pointed out above. While I think this is short sighted and New Zealand and Auckland are the worse off for it I have given up on thinking there will be anything different, even though I'd love it to be so. And I don't want this to be the beginning of another beat up on AKL airport.... because it's not just the airport company that is at fault here. It's our whole approach to infrastructure development that needs debate.
Plane mad!
 
Gasman
Posts: 1863
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Tue May 01, 2018 6:10 pm

planemanofnz wrote:
With it now being more than a month since the Obama visit, is it naive to ask what NZ actually got out of its sponsorship of the event? AFAIK, Obama didn't tweet about New Zealand to his 100 million or so followers, wasn't included in the NZ ORD launch, and wasn't part of the new NZ safety video - missed opportunities for NZ?

Cheers,

C.

I think you know the answer to your own question, which involves words like "sweet" "jack" and "sh!t". There was clearly some cock up in relation to ORD (which was announced a matter of days *after* the visit) which kind of rendered the entire trip redundant.

Obama was likely told at the last minute to remove ORD themes and references from his dinner speech, which is probably the reason that particular souffle had no puff.

We should probably be glad he didn't tweet about New Zealand to his hundred trillion followers; because the comments may not have been entirely glowing.
 
Gasman
Posts: 1863
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Tue May 01, 2018 6:22 pm

NZ321 wrote:
AKL has not really improved in terms of the overall travel experience for quite a while and their latest improvements are taking an age to complete and don't really benefit the traveller IMHO in terms of the travel essentials. But then why would it - the airport touts itself as one of the best in the Asia Pacific region. What's to improve on that? The space in the departure area is indeed on the tight side and the opportunity for a terminal study and master plan seems not to have been taken but rather incremental improvements as you have pointed out above. While I think this is short sighted and New Zealand and Auckland are the worse off for it I have given up on thinking there will be anything different, even though I'd love it to be so. And I don't want this to be the beginning of another beat up on AKL airport.... because it's not just the airport company that is at fault here. It's our whole approach to infrastructure development that needs debate.

AKL is a shining example of why it's a dumb idea to privatise essential public infrastructure where there is no competition - with the hopeful assumption that something called "market forces" will provide "regulation".

Nothing could be further from the truth. All that is achieved is a sharemarket cash cow (supposedly) with the creation of an airport a side product of generating dividends and not the other way round. If the performance of the airport was answerable to travelers and voters, I think we'd have a better product.

On the other hand, as the voters are delivering us light rail, maybe not.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Tue May 01, 2018 7:02 pm

planemanofnz wrote:
With it now being more than a month since the Obama visit, is it naive to ask what NZ actually got out of its sponsorship of the event? AFAIK, Obama didn't tweet about New Zealand to his 100 million or so followers, wasn't included in the NZ ORD launch, and wasn't part of the new NZ safety video - missed opportunities for NZ?.


Wasn't it only in a.netter's minds that Obama was going to say anything about Chicago at all?

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
zkncj
Posts: 2977
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Tue May 01, 2018 8:19 pm

AKL really needs to give up on the current International and Domestic terminals and flatten them! With all the money they have wasted over the past 10 years on constantly re developing areas that we're only done a couple of years ago, they could have had an decent fund towards an new Terminal.

Personally I think they should start with what is the current Long Term carpark at the International Terminal, with building an new Terminal from scratch in that space. Once the new runway is ready it would be around halfway between each of the two runways.
 
Gasman
Posts: 1863
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Tue May 01, 2018 8:26 pm

mariner wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
With it now being more than a month since the Obama visit, is it naive to ask what NZ actually got out of its sponsorship of the event? AFAIK, Obama didn't tweet about New Zealand to his 100 million or so followers, wasn't included in the NZ ORD launch, and wasn't part of the new NZ safety video - missed opportunities for NZ?.


Wasn't it only in a.netter's minds that Obama was going to say anything about Chicago at all?

mariner

No, it was mooted in mainstream media sources as well
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 11513
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Tue May 01, 2018 8:39 pm

zkncj wrote:
AKL really needs to give up on the current International and Domestic terminals and flatten them! With all the money they have wasted over the past 10 years on constantly re developing areas that we're only done a couple of years ago, they could have had an decent fund towards an new Terminal.

Personally I think they should start with what is the current Long Term carpark at the International Terminal, with building an new Terminal from scratch in that space. Once the new runway is ready it would be around halfway between each of the two runways.


I’ve been saying this for about as long as I’ve been a member here. I also think it should be nationalised. NZ needs a company like AVINOR in Norway to own and operate our airports.

I’d use OSL as the template for a new AKL done right.
 
a7ala
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Tue May 01, 2018 8:51 pm

Being reported that OL looking to launch WLG and BNE flights by the end of the year subject to approvals. Also being reported OL loosing a lot of money at the moment.... :roll:
 
zkncj
Posts: 2977
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Tue May 01, 2018 11:48 pm

a7ala wrote:
Being reported that OL looking to launch WLG and BNE flights by the end of the year subject to approvals. Also being reported OL loosing a lot of money at the moment.... :roll:


If they are still operating by the end of the year I'd be shocked, unless they band NZ from flying to APW (which would likely result in New Zealand restricting OL's rights).
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 3917
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Wed May 02, 2018 1:09 am

I see that CX is recruiting for its maintenance team based in AKL - excuse my ignorance, but do many airlines have their own engineering teams here?

See: https://www.seek.co.nz/job/36118131?typ ... b3-2673800.

Cheers,

C.
 
zkncj
Posts: 2977
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Wed May 02, 2018 1:24 am

planemanofnz wrote:
I see that CX is recruiting for its maintenance team based in AKL (Auckland - New Zealand) - excuse my ignorance, but do many airlines have their own engineering teams here?

See: https://www.seek.co.nz/job/36118131?typ ... b3-2673800.

Cheers,

C.


Funny enough CX does NZ ground mx in SYD,BNE,MEL maybe NZ could contract out to CX in AKL for the 77W? to cut costs on current labour costs.
 
Mr AirNZ
Posts: 910
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2002 10:24 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Wed May 02, 2018 3:13 am

zkncj wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
I see that CX is recruiting for its maintenance team based in AKL (Auckland - New Zealand) (Auckland - New Zealand) - excuse my ignorance, but do many airlines have their own engineering teams here?

See: https://www.seek.co.nz/job/36118131?typ ... b3-2673800.

Cheers,

C.


Funny enough CX does NZ ground mx in SYD (Sydney - Australia),BNE (Brisbane - Eagle Farm - Australia),MEL (Melbourne - Tullamarine Australia) maybe NZ could contract out to CX in AKL (Auckland - New Zealand) for the 77W? to cut costs on current labour costs.

That is incorrect. Air New Zealand maintains it's own engineering presence in SYD and BNE. In MEL, Etihad is used for line maintenance under a reciprocal arrangement.
http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/0 ... -services/
 
NZ6
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Wed May 02, 2018 6:24 am

planemanofnz wrote:
With it now being more than a month since the Obama visit, is it naive to ask what NZ actually got out of its sponsorship of the event? AFAIK, Obama didn't tweet about New Zealand to his 100 million or so followers, wasn't included in the NZ ORD launch, and wasn't part of the new NZ safety video - missed opportunities for NZ?

Cheers,

C.


Or maybe rumor excitement got the better of everyone and this was nothing more than sponsorship in return having naming rights and a seats at his event.

If this was Spark, Holden, Progressive would we think differently.

Anyway just another thing Air NZ probably did wrong, I be Obama is fifthly without his in flight magazine and lack of cheap slippers, lip balm and eye shades from his amenity kit.
 
NZ6
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Wed May 02, 2018 7:21 am

Gasman wrote:
mariner wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
With it now being more than a month since the Obama visit, is it naive to ask what NZ actually got out of its sponsorship of the event? AFAIK, Obama didn't tweet about New Zealand to his 100 million or so followers, wasn't included in the NZ ORD launch, and wasn't part of the new NZ safety video - missed opportunities for NZ?.


Wasn't it only in a.netter's minds that Obama was going to say anything about Chicago at all?

mariner

No, it was mooted in mainstream media sources as well


No it was mooted NZ would announce ORD which they did (and was no real secrete). People assumed there was going to be a big bang with Obama at the time.
 
axio
Posts: 230
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:44 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Wed May 02, 2018 7:46 am

NZ6 wrote:
They also flew with children on a NZ 77W. They were horrified with the seating capacity of the departure lounge given the size of the plane. Hard to argue with that point either.


To be fair, I don't think I've been to any airport where departure lounges have enough seating capacity for wide-bodies, including SIN. Seems like its generally dictated by the wing-span of the aircraft. Fortunately you usually don't spend much time there, especially if it's an 'open' airport like TBIT at LAX - but I appreciate for AKL, SIN (due to security checks at gates), SFO (as examples I've been to in the past few years) the gate lounge is more enclosed and can get to feel very full.
Time for a new viewing deck at AKL!
 
NZ6
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Wed May 02, 2018 8:34 am

axio wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
They also flew with children on a NZ 77W. They were horrified with the seating capacity of the departure lounge given the size of the plane. Hard to argue with that point either.


To be fair, I don't think I've been to any airport where departure lounges have enough seating capacity for wide-bodies, including SIN. Seems like its generally dictated by the wing-span of the aircraft. Fortunately you usually don't spend much time there, especially if it's an 'open' airport like TBIT at LAX (Los Angeles - International) - but I appreciate for AKL (Auckland - New Zealand), SIN (due to security checks at gates), SFO (as examples I've been to in the past few years) the gate lounge is more enclosed and can get to feel very full.


I'd agree with that, sounds like they were Gate 2, seating for 50 though. A bit worse than most.
 
Gasman
Posts: 1863
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Wed May 02, 2018 9:02 am

NZ6 wrote:
axio wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
They also flew with children on a NZ 77W. They were horrified with the seating capacity of the departure lounge given the size of the plane. Hard to argue with that point either.


To be fair, I don't think I've been to any airport where departure lounges have enough seating capacity for wide-bodies, including SIN. Seems like its generally dictated by the wing-span of the aircraft. Fortunately you usually don't spend much time there, especially if it's an 'open' airport like TBIT at LAX (Los Angeles - International) (Los Angeles - International) - but I appreciate for AKL (Auckland - New Zealand) (Auckland - New Zealand), SIN (due to security checks at gates), SFO (as examples I've been to in the past few years) the gate lounge is more enclosed and can get to feel very full.


I'd agree with that, sounds like they were Gate 2, seating for 50 though. A bit worse than most.

It's far from only an AKL problem, but part of the issue is the lack of accuracy surrounding flight departure information. Board postings such as "go to gate" and "final call" bear very little correlation with when the flight will *actually* commence boarding. And more often than not significant delays are not identified either. It's very hard not to waste inordinate amounts of time at the departure gate and therefore causing unnecessary congestion.
 
Unclekoru
Posts: 279
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Wed May 02, 2018 9:29 am

Gasman wrote:
NZ321 wrote:
AKL (Auckland - New Zealand) has not really improved in terms of the overall travel experience for quite a while and their latest improvements are taking an age to complete and don't really benefit the traveller IMHO in terms of the travel essentials. But then why would it - the airport touts itself as one of the best in the Asia Pacific region. What's to improve on that? The space in the departure area is indeed on the tight side and the opportunity for a terminal study and master plan seems not to have been taken but rather incremental improvements as you have pointed out above. While I think this is short sighted and New Zealand and Auckland are the worse off for it I have given up on thinking there will be anything different, even though I'd love it to be so. And I don't want this to be the beginning of another beat up on AKL (Auckland - New Zealand) airport.... because it's not just the airport company that is at fault here. It's our whole approach to infrastructure development that needs debate.

AKL (Auckland - New Zealand) is a shining example of why it's a dumb idea to privatise essential public infrastructure where there is no competition - with the hopeful assumption that something called "market forces" will provide "regulation".

Nothing could be further from the truth. All that is achieved is a sharemarket cash cow (supposedly) with the creation of an airport a side product of generating dividends and not the other way round. If the performance of the airport was answerable to travelers and voters, I think we'd have a better product.

On the other hand, as the voters are delivering us light rail, maybe not.


While never being a fan of transiting in AKL (unless going to the Pacific Islands or the US) due to the dog leg required from Nelson and resulting loss of productivity/time, I did at least enjoy my time at the airport when I needed to pass through. Changes of late have put an end to that. It's become a place that is best to avoid. CHC and WLG are both far better airport experiences. I'm looking forward to the respective hotel developments being completed at both airports as well, they will improved the transit experience on the late Tasman arrivals, something that AKL currently has the upper hand with (Airport Novotel).
It sounds like english, but I can't understand a word you're saying
 
Gasman
Posts: 1863
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Wed May 02, 2018 9:47 am

Unclekoru wrote:
While never being a fan of transiting in AKL (Auckland - New Zealand) (unless going to the Pacific Islands or the US) due to the dog leg required from Nelson and resulting loss of productivity/time, I did at least enjoy my time at the airport when I needed to pass through. Changes of late have put an end to that. It's become a place that is best to avoid. CHC and WLG are both far better airport experiences.

To be fair though, we should compare apples with apples - and neither CHC nor WLG deal with the passenger numbers nor the requirement for international - domestic transfers nor the sheer demands of international passenger traffic that AKL does.

I'm trying to think of a fair comparison. MEL perhaps. An international experience that is usually every bit as painful as traveling through AKL - but far easier domestic connections. Apart from that I'm struggling to think of a valid "sister" airport for AKL. Any ideas?
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1201
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Wed May 02, 2018 1:05 pm

Gasman wrote:
MEL perhaps. An international experience that is usually every bit as painful as travelling through AKL (Auckland - New Zealand) - but far easier domestic connections.

I'm reminded of a recent international-domestic connection at MEL. Having flown VA AKL-MEL, and having already checked in for MEL-HBA on-line, we had to endure an extraordinary queue for a VA domestic "bag drop". It would have taken thirty minutes - such a contrast with a JQ international bag drop on the same trip, also at MEL, which was very smooth, very efficient, and involved no queuing at all. I'm picking that the transfer experience has as much to do with the carrier as the airport itself.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
NZ6
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Thu May 03, 2018 1:15 am

Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
axio wrote:

To be fair, I don't think I've been to any airport where departure lounges have enough seating capacity for wide-bodies, including SIN. Seems like its generally dictated by the wing-span of the aircraft. Fortunately you usually don't spend much time there, especially if it's an 'open' airport like TBIT at LAX (Los Angeles - International) (Los Angeles - International) - but I appreciate for AKL (Auckland - New Zealand) (Auckland - New Zealand), SIN (due to security checks at gates), SFO (as examples I've been to in the past few years) the gate lounge is more enclosed and can get to feel very full.


I'd agree with that, sounds like they were Gate 2, seating for 50 though. A bit worse than most.

It's far from only an AKL problem, but part of the issue is the lack of accuracy surrounding flight departure information. Board postings such as "go to gate" and "final call" bear very little correlation with when the flight will *actually* commence boarding. And more often than not significant delays are not identified either. It's very hard not to waste inordinate amounts of time at the departure gate and therefore causing unnecessary congestion.


Let's be careful not to suggest that because the problem exists elsewhere that it becomes acceptable.

AKL's design is that you're on the 3rd floor retail percent and drop down into the lounge/boarding area. There is a lack of seating in the retail space other than around the BK/Bar area and potentially for good reason, you're supposedly walking through this area to your gate. So you either stand/shop/browse etc or go to your tiny gate area once you've climbed those stairs past the Heineken bar,

Comparing it to say SYD, all the gates are open and it's on the same level as retail so you can sit in an unused gate area while you wait and still visibly see the progress of your flight, SIN, well the space is huge, gates are a bit small for the likes of the 77W's etc you can opt to only enter the gate area once boarding is actually underway and their so much space prior to that.

Given AKL is largely end of line there's not an endless supply of carriers lining up. You're think the transit experience would be a higher priority.

It's still a very good airport.

I wonder if their's any coloration between airports with world class departure area with ample seating/comfort and improved OTP vs airports which don't offer this and leave passengers to find comfort elsewhere in the terminal.

Then again, is this a airport concern - i'd imagine they would prefer you up in the bar or retail area anyway.
 
Gasman
Posts: 1863
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Thu May 03, 2018 2:07 am

NZ6 wrote:
Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

I'd agree with that, sounds like they were Gate 2, seating for 50 though. A bit worse than most.

It's far from only an AKL problem, but part of the issue is the lack of accuracy surrounding flight departure information. Board postings such as "go to gate" and "final call" bear very little correlation with when the flight will *actually* commence boarding. And more often than not significant delays are not identified either. It's very hard not to waste inordinate amounts of time at the departure gate and therefore causing unnecessary congestion.


Let's be careful not to suggest that because the problem exists elsewhere that it becomes acceptable.

AKL's design is that you're on the 3rd floor retail percent and drop down into the lounge/boarding area. There is a lack of seating in the retail space other than around the BK/Bar area and potentially for good reason, you're supposedly walking through this area to your gate. So you either stand/shop/browse etc or go to your tiny gate area once you've climbed those stairs past the Heineken bar,

Comparing it to say SYD, all the gates are open and it's on the same level as retail so you can sit in an unused gate area while you wait and still visibly see the progress of your flight, SIN, well the space is huge, gates are a bit small for the likes of the 77W's etc you can opt to only enter the gate area once boarding is actually underway and their so much space prior to that.

Given AKL is largely end of line there's not an endless supply of carriers lining up. You're think the transit experience would be a higher priority.

It's still a very good airport.

I wonder if their's any coloration between airports with world class departure area with ample seating/comfort and improved OTP vs airports which don't offer this and leave passengers to find comfort elsewhere in the terminal.

Then again, is this a airport concern - i'd imagine they would prefer you up in the bar or retail area anyway.

Great post.

Surely it all comes down to competition. If SIN starts to get a bit rough around the edges, then passengers will start to migrate to BKK. SFO has to be better than average for a US airport to draw transit traffic away from LAX. And so on and so on.

And the horrifying reality this reveals is that AKL can afford to get many, many times worse before carriers start voting with their feet and flying out of HLZ.
 
NZ6
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Thu May 03, 2018 11:03 pm

Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Gasman wrote:
It's far from only an AKL problem, but part of the issue is the lack of accuracy surrounding flight departure information. Board postings such as "go to gate" and "final call" bear very little correlation with when the flight will *actually* commence boarding. And more often than not significant delays are not identified either. It's very hard not to waste inordinate amounts of time at the departure gate and therefore causing unnecessary congestion.


Let's be careful not to suggest that because the problem exists elsewhere that it becomes acceptable.

AKL's design is that you're on the 3rd floor retail percent and drop down into the lounge/boarding area. There is a lack of seating in the retail space other than around the BK/Bar area and potentially for good reason, you're supposedly walking through this area to your gate. So you either stand/shop/browse etc or go to your tiny gate area once you've climbed those stairs past the Heineken bar,

Comparing it to say SYD, all the gates are open and it's on the same level as retail so you can sit in an unused gate area while you wait and still visibly see the progress of your flight, SIN, well the space is huge, gates are a bit small for the likes of the 77W's etc you can opt to only enter the gate area once boarding is actually underway and their so much space prior to that.

Given AKL is largely end of line there's not an endless supply of carriers lining up. You're think the transit experience would be a higher priority.

It's still a very good airport.

I wonder if their's any coloration between airports with world class departure area with ample seating/comfort and improved OTP vs airports which don't offer this and leave passengers to find comfort elsewhere in the terminal.

Then again, is this a airport concern - i'd imagine they would prefer you up in the bar or retail area anyway.

Great post.

Surely it all comes down to competition. If SIN starts to get a bit rough around the edges, then passengers will start to migrate to BKK. SFO has to be better than average for a US airport to draw transit traffic away from LAX. And so on and so on.

And the horrifying reality this reveals is that AKL can afford to get many, many times worse before carriers start voting with their feet and flying out of HLZ.


SIN and SQ is a really good example of government, airport and airline all working together to achieve something special.

Without SQ offering a perceived premium and affordable product via a enjoyable transit process neither would be as successful. I think we would have all heard someone travelling via SIN on SQ and happy with the airport experience, likewise we've probably all heard or experienced LAX in Terminal 2 days.

SIN operates as a hub for SQ long haul and does so successfully, they also have short haul (Silk) to SQ long haul. I liken silk to NZ's A320 in that it's not as premium as the long haul operations.

AKL doesn't have long haul to long haul except potentially South America <> China or USA <> Perth so they need to focus on getting that short haul to long haul piece right especially seeing as the short haul product isn't as strong on narrow body.

The A320 product is suitable for Tasman operations, NZ is addressing the product part with wide-bodies being used which can connect to long haul Ops. It would just be nice to see the transit experience improved.
 
zkncj
Posts: 2977
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Fri May 04, 2018 1:44 am

AKL really needs to convert gates 1-6 into a320/737s services only - they might even been able to put another gate on each side if they did this!

These gates we're designed for the likes of the DC8 and 707 - not an fully loaded 787/777.
 
NZ6
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Fri May 04, 2018 6:18 am

zkncj wrote:
AKL really needs to convert gates 1-6 into a320/737s services only - they might even been able to put another gate on each side if they did this!

These gates we're designed for the likes of the DC8 and 707 - not an fully loaded 787/777.


Well it would have been good to see pier B built with gates on either side, that one they'd have room today to either rebuild pier A into something similar to B or use it for primarily short haul operations.

But, the Kiwi way is to tack something on the end suitable for yesterday's need because it's all we can justify spending.
 
zkncj
Posts: 2977
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Fri May 04, 2018 7:01 am

Has anyone heard which of HiFly's 340s will be turning? Really hope it isn't 9H-FOX again...
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6232
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Fri May 04, 2018 8:56 pm

zkncj wrote:
AKL really needs to convert gates 1-6 into a320/737s services only - they might even been able to put another gate on each side if they did this!

These gates we're designed for the likes of the DC8 and 707 - not an fully loaded 787/777.


I’m not sure we will ever see pier A rebuilt or anything. The problem is with changing those gates to single isle aircraft use only is that Pier B has swing gates 15L/R etc, by all means you can use them for wide bodies and they obviously do but you would actually lose gates, 8 narrowbodies say gates 1-6 with 2 extra gates added as you say, as opposed to current gates 1-4 are narrowbody only 767’s can use 4, with 4 widebodies on on 15-18.

Gates 16-18 are now used for the US departures. When is the next expansion planned for Pier B? 2030? Given the reduced EK A380 ops. Bus ops are normal but I feel for an airport AKL’s size there are to many.

I’ve never had a great problem with AKL, sure it’s busy at times and I do agree it’s a constant construction site however with the tacky add ons. Domestic inside and out does need more space however, traffic is terrible around there.

When does construction start on the new domestic pier? So it’s going where L81/84 are? Or slightly closer to current domestic where L71/73 are?
 
NZ6
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Fri May 04, 2018 9:38 pm

Worth a read

https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2018 ... l-puhinui/

I still don't believe we should shine away from heavy rail because it's difficult. I also don't think it needs to add extra trains to the southern line. Why can't the Eastern services which terminate in Manakau, exit and loop to the airport after stopping at Manakau before terminating then heading back towards the city?

The 3rd and 4th rail lines may be needed in future anyway plus once the port as left Auckland's waterfront freight from the CBD won't be as demanding, if WIRI to Avondale line is built, freight heading north would also bypass the inner city.

I actually though the 3rd main line was in the recent transport plan budget anyway.

I wish we looked long term for inferstructure requirements in this country, by long I mean 20,30 and 50 years... not just 2,5 and 10 that we typically do.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6232
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Fri May 04, 2018 10:07 pm

NZ6 wrote:
Worth a read

https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2018 ... l-puhinui/

I still don't believe we should shine away from heavy rail because it's difficult. I also don't think it needs to add extra trains to the southern line. Why can't the Eastern services which terminate in Manakau, exit and loop to the airport after stopping at Manakau before terminating then heading back towards the city?

The 3rd and 4th rail lines may be needed in future anyway plus once the port as left Auckland's waterfront freight from the CBD won't be as demanding, if WIRI to Avondale line is built, freight heading north would also bypass the inner city.

I actually though the 3rd main line was in the recent transport plan budget anyway.

I wish we looked long term for inferstructure requirements in this country, by long I mean 20,30 and 50 years... not just 2,5 and 10 that we typically do.



How is heavy rail difficult? It’s already there and the only rail we have currently.

I can’t see the point of adding a whole new type of rail for the airport it’s not that far from Onehunga, Wiri, Puninui, Manukau.

I agree with the planning ahead 20,30, 50 years but the population won’t be 2,000,000 by 2050... it will be closer to 3,000,000. Logic at its best.
 
zkncj
Posts: 2977
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Fri May 04, 2018 10:17 pm

ZK-NBT wrote:

Gates 16-18 are now used for the US departures. When is the next expansion planned for Pier B? 2030? Given the reduced EK A380 ops. Bus ops are normal but I feel for an airport AKL’s size there are to many.


Hopefully much earlier than 2030 - if they don't want to do an massive expansion at once, then at least surely they could do it as 2 gates/year?

I really don't see anything happening with domestic until 2040, every time in the past AIAL has said they will build an replacement it has always got delayed they prefer putting capital into carparks and floor space for duty.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4131
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Fri May 04, 2018 10:36 pm

As I posted about months ago ZK-NZE had more extensive damage than most were led to believe. I said it would be out of service for probably half a year (which will be early next month btw) and was rubbished for the suggestion.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12044375
This incident was almost as bad as QF32! Luckily the crew did an excellent job.
57 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1201
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Fri May 04, 2018 11:11 pm

NZ6 wrote:
I still don't believe we should shine away from heavy rail because it's difficult.

We discuss "airport" rail services as if there were no financial or network strategy consequences to the decisions eventually taken. In this case, "difficult" translates to expensive, and the B/C ratios for the heavy rail options were in the range of 0.3 if I recall correctly. If that was an air route, it would get the chop quick smart! Leaving aside the fact that it's a terrible option from a network perspective.
.
NZ6 wrote:
Why can't the Eastern services which terminate in Manakau, exit and loop to the airport after stopping at Manakau before terminating then heading back towards the city?

I think most people would be very unhappy with an indirect service (estimate a minimum 6 minutes for a Puhinui-Manukau return added to each airport trip) given that so many lambast light rail for being a couple of minutes slower than heavy rail.

NZ6 wrote:
The 3rd and 4th rail lines may be needed in future anyway plus once the port as left Auckland's waterfront freight from the CBD won't be as demanding, if WIRI to Avondale line is built, freight heading north would also bypass the inner city.

Lots of "ifs" here - yes, there is a chance that the port will move. One day. However, the Avondale to Southdown (not Wiri) heavy rail line is a paper project that has not received ANY serious consideration (other than on blog sites), and not even a hint of a sniff of funding and has many serious technical difficulties (not least the alignment) which will make it an extremely expensive project. Never say never, but this is a long-long-term project at best. The best chance of it happening is if Auckland's port traffic gets moved to Whangarei. However, airport rapid transit needs to be addressed without delay.

NZ6 wrote:
I actually though the 3rd main line was in the recent transport plan budget anyway.

Yes, it is covered in the newly-released ATAP document. It will be needed just to cope with anticipated passenger and freight growth on the existing network, especially post-CRL.

NZ6 wrote:
I wish we looked long term for inferstructure requirements in this country, by long I mean 20,30 and 50 years... not just 2,5 and 10 that we typically do.

I can assure you that the current proposals for rapid transit (heavy rail, light rail and busway) developments, including the airport, are a 30-year strategy.

We've got to stop looking at the airport in isolation from the rest of the rapid transit network. Auckland is in the process of developing a proper network of seven or eight intersecting rapid transit lines covering the entire region. Naturally there are 1001 opinions as to which modes and which routes take priority. One of the first priorities (already committed to and with at least part of it in service before the LR reaches the airport) is to link the Airport with Puhinui, Manukau, Botany, Pakuranga and Panmure (and eventually Ellerslie) by bus rapid transit. But connecting the airport to Puhinui by heavy rail just doesn't cut it in network terms and on so many other levels.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
NZ6
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Fri May 04, 2018 11:48 pm

ZK-NBT wrote:
zkncj wrote:
AKL really needs to convert gates 1-6 into a320/737s services only - they might even been able to put another gate on each side if they did this!

These gates we're designed for the likes of the DC8 and 707 - not an fully loaded 787/777.


I’m not sure we will ever see pier A rebuilt or anything. The problem is with changing those gates to single isle aircraft use only is that Pier B has swing gates 15L/R etc, by all means you can use them for wide bodies and they obviously do but you would actually lose gates, 8 narrowbodies say gates 1-6 with 2 extra gates added as you say, as opposed to current gates 1-4 are narrowbody only 767’s can use 4, with 4 widebodies on on 15-18.

Gates 16-18 are now used for the US departures. When is the next expansion planned for Pier B? 2030? Given the reduced EK A380 ops. Bus ops are normal but I feel for an airport AKL’s size there are to many.

I’ve never had a great problem with AKL, sure it’s busy at times and I do agree it’s a constant construction site however with the tacky add ons. Domestic inside and out does need more space however, traffic is terrible around there.

When does construction start on the new domestic pier? So it’s going where L81/84 are? Or slightly closer to current domestic where L71/73 are?


Approval for the second runway is pending (for it's new size). If that's rejected surely they'll want the Domestic Pier / Terminal towards the north as this will be the aircraft who primarily use it. If it's approved then all long haul Ops except ultra heavy will be able to use both therefore you can justify the Domestic terminal being at the southern end and primarily using this runway, it may also improve airfield performance as these aircraft will typically turn south while the majority of international will head north or continue west and clear the boundary when leaving from the new northern runway.

So all going well and if the runway is approved...

Build the new domestic pier but short term make it dual use for short haul A320 service including domestic. Use the old domestic terminal for regional, open more gates on Pier B and you now have capacity to rework Pier A.

Once Pier A is to standard, Pier B is complete, you should have enough international gates so you can complete the Domestic Pier by making it domestic only and complete the regional gates.

What to do with Pier A? well going by the master plan most of the western gates on Pier A go anyway, look at the image below, the current Pier B is the middle horizontal pier, you can just make out the current gate 10 at the right hand side of the lower horizontal pier, gates 2, 4 and 6 look to still exists, so I say bulldoze it and start again making it like Pier B.

Just build the Domestic Pier and Pier B as per the image below to give yourself space to do it.

When you do it, just make sure you do not use the departure level for both arriving and departing passengers, even if they are separated. This is where space is compromised and you loose things like seating, likewise you do not need vast amounts of shops on their pier itself, a few convenience stores, news agents is sufficient. All good airports have you exit the air-bridge on a dedicated level (except for airports like SIN who have vast amounts of space).

Image
 
NZ6
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Sat May 05, 2018 12:14 am

DavidByrne wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
I still don't believe we should shine away from heavy rail because it's difficult.

We discuss "airport" rail services as if there were no financial or network strategy consequences to the decisions eventually taken. In this case, "difficult" translates to expensive, and the B/C ratios for the heavy rail options were in the range of 0.3 if I recall correctly. If that was an air route, it would get the chop quick smart! Leaving aside the fact that it's a terrible option from a network perspective.
.
NZ6 wrote:
Why can't the Eastern services which terminate in Manakau, exit and loop to the airport after stopping at Manakau before terminating then heading back towards the city?

I think most people would be very unhappy with an indirect service (estimate a minimum 6 minutes for a Puhinui-Manukau return added to each airport trip) given that so many lambast light rail for being a couple of minutes slower than heavy rail.

NZ6 wrote:
The 3rd and 4th rail lines may be needed in future anyway plus once the port as left Auckland's waterfront freight from the CBD won't be as demanding, if WIRI to Avondale line is built, freight heading north would also bypass the inner city.

Lots of "ifs" here - yes, there is a chance that the port will move. One day. However, the Avondale to Southdown (not Wiri) heavy rail line is a paper project that has not received ANY serious consideration (other than on blog sites), and not even a hint of a sniff of funding and has many serious technical difficulties (not least the alignment) which will make it an extremely expensive project. Never say never, but this is a long-long-term project at best. The best chance of it happening is if Auckland's port traffic gets moved to Whangarei. However, airport rapid transit needs to be addressed without delay.

NZ6 wrote:
I actually though the 3rd main line was in the recent transport plan budget anyway.

Yes, it is covered in the newly-released ATAP document. It will be needed just to cope with anticipated passenger and freight growth on the existing network, especially post-CRL.

NZ6 wrote:
I wish we looked long term for inferstructure requirements in this country, by long I mean 20,30 and 50 years... not just 2,5 and 10 that we typically do.

I can assure you that the current proposals for rapid transit (heavy rail, light rail and busway) developments, including the airport, are a 30-year strategy.

We've got to stop looking at the airport in isolation from the rest of the rapid transit network. Auckland is in the process of developing a proper network of seven or eight intersecting rapid transit lines covering the entire region. Naturally there are 1001 opinions as to which modes and which routes take priority. One of the first priorities (already committed to and with at least part of it in service before the LR reaches the airport) is to link the Airport with Puhinui, Manukau, Botany, Pakuranga and Panmure (and eventually Ellerslie) by bus rapid transit. But connecting the airport to Puhinui by heavy rail just doesn't cut it in network terms and on so many other levels.


I don't disagree with any of this however I will raise a couple of points

- It's only an extra stop if you see it that way, I would actually say the Eastern line is Britomart to Airport via Manakau. It's not the only rail line in the world to double back on itself, the current western line in Auckland does at New Market.
- 30 year master plan is how / where they spend money with a clear vision. This doesn't mean we'll be sorted in 30 years or that it's going to meet demand, it's essentially a budget crossed over with a wish list.
- If we don't invest now, it's only going to become more expensive in years to come.
- The green movement won't slow down so I see a rising demand for eco friendly travel in years to come. (fyi I'm not a green at all)
- You're right that we can't look at the airport in isolation however we do need to appreciate 20M passengers came through there every day and that's expected to double in the next 20 years, that's a 1/3 of the number of cars which use the 8 lane harbor bridge today, or 2/3's in 20 years.
- Is Auckland really going to settle for only the existing rail lines given the success we've had since we started rebuilding the network in 2000

Image
 
zkncj
Posts: 2977
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Sat May 05, 2018 12:30 am

One of the biggest problems with AIAL's master plans is 99.9% of what they say in them doesn't happen, then 10 years late they just re-hash them again at great expense and say the same things over again.

If AKL is going to really go anywhere AIAL needs to be kicked out of the mgmt game and replaced with govt appointed managers.

Or Plan B let an another private airport operate place an bin to lease and operate NZWP for the next 50 years, it would give AIAL the kick they need.
 
Gasman
Posts: 1863
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Sat May 05, 2018 12:58 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
How is heavy rail difficult? It’s already there and the only rail we have currently.

It isn't. Or at least, it's no more difficult than any major infrastructure project. Let's be honest - the ONLY reason why light rail is even on the table here is because it's it's cheaper than heavy rail (in the short term at least, and also if cost:benefit calculations are correct). Otherwise, as a concept it's just plain daft. Too slow, too long distance and it relies on using transport corridors that are already well past capacity. Where are the light rail options to SYD, LHR, AMS, ZRH? Non-existent, that's where. Not to mention that MEL, located in a city with an excellent light rail network is to receive......... heavy rail. It could be that our planners are much more shrewd than their counterparts in Melbourne, Sydney, London and Zurich; or Auckland really is unique. But I doubt it.

Every one of us here knows precisely how this will play out. The planning stage, announced for three years will take eight. In the meantime the demographic of Auckland will change considerably and whatever argument there was once for light rail will have all but vanished; but there'll be too much investment and political credibility at stake to make a U turn.

In the meantime, the public will be placated by the need to "get this right" and promotional material featuring trams shuttling down Dominion road with cars and pedestrians (none of whom will be carrying a plastic bag) all peacefully co-existing in a picture of 21st century urban bliss. Construction will be contracted to a second world outfit (from Paraguay perhaps) desperate to establish credibility on the world stage.

Work, once underway will be beset with technical issues and budget blowouts. The construction company will blame the Council and vice versa. Eventually the thing will become operational, but due to "unforseeable issues interfacing with road traffic and the new urban environment" the journey will take 90 mins.

Then someone will publish a paper detailing why what we really needed was heavy rail, and the fact we could have had it for less money than already spent.
 
NZ6
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Sat May 05, 2018 1:22 am

zkncj wrote:
One of the biggest problems with AIAL's master plans is 99.9% of what they say in them doesn't happen, then 10 years late they just re-hash them again at great expense and say the same things over again.


You've hit the nail on the head. I wish I could find my guide to Air Expo '92 which had a master plan for 2010 in it. Had the second runway by the millennium by memory :rotfl: and can we all remember the master plan model near the viewing deck, Wish I could find a photo of it.

Yeah it's almost 2020 and none of it's done.
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4775
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Sat May 05, 2018 1:32 am

Gasman wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
How is heavy rail difficult? It’s already there and the only rail we have currently.

It isn't. Or at least, it's no more difficult than any major infrastructure project. Let's be honest - the ONLY reason why light rail is even on the table here is because it's it's cheaper than heavy rail (in the short term at least, and also if cost:benefit calculations are correct). Otherwise, as a concept it's just plain daft. Too slow, too long distance and it relies on using transport corridors that are already well past capacity. Where are the light rail options to SYD, LHR, AMS, ZRH? Non-existent, that's where. Not to mention that MEL, located in a city with an excellent light rail network is to receive......... heavy rail. It could be that our planners are much more shrewd than their counterparts in Melbourne, Sydney, London and Zurich; or Auckland really is unique. But I doubt it.
Then someone will publish a paper detailing why what we really needed was heavy rail, and the fact we could have had it for less money than already spent.

Gasman one minor correction, Zurich does in fact have a light rail connection to the airport, Route 10 Zurich Hauptbahnhof [Main Station] to Kloten [where the airport actually is], the airport stop is directly across the road from the main entrance of the terminal. Much more convenient if you are staying on the east side of town or around the Polytechnic, rather than negotiate the frenatic maze the Hauptbahnhof is in peak hour and trying to sort out the trains which go to the airport, in German! It takes about 30 minutes from the Central stop to the airport which is just about a wash with the heavy rail. But it is definitely a supplement to the heavy rail link [see below].

One comment about heavy rail to ZRH, it's not your normal airport rail link, it is in fact a major intercity station with just about all north south trains through Zurich passing through it.Last year I had to go to southern Germany, by far the cheapest fare from SYD was to ZRH, went across a pedestrian bridge, down two sets of escalators right on to the platforms, got the hourly train to Romanshorn, walked out on to the pier and got the ferry to Friedrichshafen [this was all with luggage,too]. Was faster as well as cheaper than using MUC or Stuttgart.

Gemuser
 
zkncj
Posts: 2977
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Sat May 05, 2018 1:35 am

NZ6 wrote:
Yeah it's almost 2020 and none of it's done.


And somehow Domestic is still operating from an Cargo Sheed since 1965 (which was meant to have been temporary). Don't see why we don't have an new domestic terminal already, it probably could have cost the airport company less than it did to develop the shopping centre up the road.

Building an new Domestic terminal between the current International and Domestic Terminal seems like an pretty basic and straight forward task, that has been done by plenty of other airports around the word. The fact that the apron is already there for it would have reduced an large amount of the cost. An simple T shape terminal would have done the job, with an regional pier over to the side we're JQ currently is.
 
Unclekoru
Posts: 279
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Sat May 05, 2018 6:18 am

Gasman wrote:
Unclekoru wrote:
While never being a fan of transiting in AKL (Auckland - New Zealand) (unless going to the Pacific Islands or the US) due to the dog leg required from Nelson and resulting loss of productivity/time, I did at least enjoy my time at the airport when I needed to pass through. Changes of late have put an end to that. It's become a place that is best to avoid. CHC and WLG are both far better airport experiences.

To be fair though, we should compare apples with apples - and neither CHC nor WLG deal with the passenger numbers nor the requirement for international - domestic transfers nor the sheer demands of international passenger traffic that AKL does.

I'm trying to think of a fair comparison. MEL perhaps. An international experience that is usually every bit as painful as traveling through AKL - but far easier domestic connections. Apart from that I'm struggling to think of a valid "sister" airport for AKL. Any ideas?


Brisbane is a good comparison (22 million vs AKL's 18 million) and probably the closest Aus airport to AKL. MEL is considerably busier with ~35 million PA . I'm not sure how other users feel but from my own experience, BNE is a much smoother and calmer experience even though it's a split terminal operation, and TBH, I wouldn't have guessed that it was that much busier than AKL.
It sounds like english, but I can't understand a word you're saying
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 11513
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Sat May 05, 2018 6:27 am

NZ6 wrote:

But, the Kiwi way is to tack something on the end suitable for yesterday's need because it's all we can justify spending.


Which is exactly what Auckland Transport, Auckland Council and the govt are doing with this stupid tram to the airport instead of heavy rail plan.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4131
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Sat May 05, 2018 7:25 am

NZ6 wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
zkncj wrote:
AKL really needs to convert gates 1-6 into a320/737s services only - they might even been able to put another gate on each side if they did this!

These gates we're designed for the likes of the DC8 and 707 - not an fully loaded 787/777.


I’m not sure we will ever see pier A rebuilt or anything. The problem is with changing those gates to single isle aircraft use only is that Pier B has swing gates 15L/R etc, by all means you can use them for wide bodies and they obviously do but you would actually lose gates, 8 narrowbodies say gates 1-6 with 2 extra gates added as you say, as opposed to current gates 1-4 are narrowbody only 767’s can use 4, with 4 widebodies on on 15-18.

Gates 16-18 are now used for the US departures. When is the next expansion planned for Pier B? 2030? Given the reduced EK A380 ops. Bus ops are normal but I feel for an airport AKL’s size there are to many.

I’ve never had a great problem with AKL, sure it’s busy at times and I do agree it’s a constant construction site however with the tacky add ons. Domestic inside and out does need more space however, traffic is terrible around there.

When does construction start on the new domestic pier? So it’s going where L81/84 are? Or slightly closer to current domestic where L71/73 are?


Approval for the second runway is pending (for it's new size). If that's rejected surely they'll want the Domestic Pier / Terminal towards the north as this will be the aircraft who primarily use it. If it's approved then all long haul Ops except ultra heavy will be able to use both therefore you can justify the Domestic terminal being at the southern end and primarily using this runway, it may also improve airfield performance as these aircraft will typically turn south while the majority of international will head north or continue west and clear the boundary when leaving from the new northern runway.

So all going well and if the runway is approved...

Build the new domestic pier but short term make it dual use for short haul A320 service including domestic. Use the old domestic terminal for regional, open more gates on Pier B and you now have capacity to rework Pier A.

Once Pier A is to standard, Pier B is complete, you should have enough international gates so you can complete the Domestic Pier by making it domestic only and complete the regional gates.

What to do with Pier A? well going by the master plan most of the western gates on Pier A go anyway, look at the image below, the current Pier B is the middle horizontal pier, you can just make out the current gate 10 at the right hand side of the lower horizontal pier, gates 2, 4 and 6 look to still exists, so I say bulldoze it and start again making it like Pier B.

Just build the Domestic Pier and Pier B as per the image below to give yourself space to do it.

When you do it, just make sure you do not use the departure level for both arriving and departing passengers, even if they are separated. This is where space is compromised and you loose things like seating, likewise you do not need vast amounts of shops on their pier itself, a few convenience stores, news agents is sufficient. All good airports have you exit the air-bridge on a dedicated level (except for airports like SIN who have vast amounts of space).

Image

Lets hope they build some proper travelators along all these piers rather than the joke ones they have now. The walk to gate 18 is nasty with a bag.
57 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 12

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