Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 12
 
a7ala
Posts: 390
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon May 21, 2018 12:19 am

DavidByrne wrote:

Arguably, NZ is already doing this - providing one-stop services to other parts of the region via its AKL hub. It's just that the hub in question is still in NZ.


And from a visitor inbound and resident outbound point of view its better to have a foreign carrier serving WLG/CHC from their local hub which will most likely offer significantly larger number of 1-stop options than is offered by AKL (NZ and partners) or SYD (QF and partners). Think of all the connecting options a CX WLG-HKG service would provide compared with an NZ WLG-AKL or QF WLG-SYD. A 1-stop connection with Europe for starters....
 
NZ6
Posts: 1941
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon May 21, 2018 12:36 am

mariner wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
Absolutely this is NZ's strength, and in an era where two-sector services are seen as undesirable, this is clearly going to remain NZ's focus - for which I would applaud them: why wouldn't you play to your strengths?


Is it the best thing for the country, though?



Depends which way you look at it. It's a clone of the PPQ debate a few months ago.

A national airline who
a) Serves the entire country and offers a range of routes from around it at the expense (or risk of) of strong financial performance and therefore subject to government fudning (bail outs)

OR
b) An airline run as any other business would, looking to have a successful business model that achieves the best financial performance possible and therefore growth (aka new routes, flash planes, nice lounges etc etc).

Unfortunately for the case of New Zealand as a country having national airline (Air NZ or otherwise) given our population, global isolation, national geographical spread and city sizes you can't have both.

And to that point, no CEO of Air NZ or competitor has been able achieve this so good luck trying to tell me I'm wrong ;)
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon May 21, 2018 12:47 am

DavidByrne wrote:
Unless NZ has a public service obligation to require them to service WLG or CHC with long-haul flights, "fairness" or the "best thing for the country" doesn't apply - it's a fully commercial operation. Shades of the earlier discussion on NZ withdrawing from PPQ . . . The real opportunity lies with other carriers serving WLG or CHC through their own hubs, and offering nonstop services there, with one-stop services to other parts of their region.

Arguably, NZ is already doing this - providing one-stop services to other parts of the region via its AKL hub. It's just that the hub in question is still in NZ.


I'd be more than happy if the small fry - Air Chathams and Sounds Air or someone new - were encouraged to become bigger fry, to give some competition to Air NZ. Everything I know about this business I learned in the US, where competition is king. That doesn't mean I embrace all the US experience, but some of it, the majority of it perhaps, yes.

mariner
 
NZ6
Posts: 1941
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon May 21, 2018 1:23 am

mariner wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
Unless NZ has a public service obligation to require them to service WLG or CHC with long-haul flights, "fairness" or the "best thing for the country" doesn't apply - it's a fully commercial operation. Shades of the earlier discussion on NZ withdrawing from PPQ . . . The real opportunity lies with other carriers serving WLG or CHC through their own hubs, and offering nonstop services there, with one-stop services to other parts of their region.

Arguably, NZ is already doing this - providing one-stop services to other parts of the region via its AKL hub. It's just that the hub in question is still in NZ.


I'd be more than happy if the small fry - Air Chathams and Sounds Air or someone new - were encouraged to become bigger fry, to give some competition to Air NZ. Everything I know about this business I learned in the US, where competition is king. That doesn't mean I embrace all the US experience, but some of it, the majority of it perhaps, yes.

mariner


Currently in service
- Jet Star

Come and gone..
- Ansett
- Qantas
- Pac Blue
- Origin Pacific
- Kiwi Regional (kind of)

Grow too quick and these guys may suffer the same fate
- Air Chathams
- Sounds Air
- Sun Air
- Air2There
- Great Barrier Airlines
-Flymysky

If the Aussie guys struggle I think a smaller Kiwi owned business will get eaten alive if the tried it out. I much prefer them to fly under the radar as I don't want to see them go.

I do agree that competition is essential and I think we've got it in JetStar now they've started some regional flying.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon May 21, 2018 1:37 am

NZ6 wrote:
Grow too quick and these guys may suffer the same fate
- Air Chathams
- Sounds Air


They may indeed suffer the same fate.

It's not so very long ago that big and mighty Air New Zealand was on the bones of its arse after it's Australian adventure and had to be rescued by the government. That's the way the cookie crumbles in this business.

Within the past twenty years every US major has been in Chapter 11, and come tp think of it, Air NZ's second Australian adventure, not so long ago, didn't fare so well, it's just that they didn't put the company at stake.

mariner
 
Gasman
Posts: 2204
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon May 21, 2018 2:02 am

NZ321 wrote:
Love to have seen an MD11 in NZ livery but was never gonna happen after their experience with the DC10. Love to see a mock-up of the MD11 in the 1990s NZ livery. Would have been an interesting sight.

"Experience with the DC-10"? The DC-10 served NZ very well. It was purchased after considerable forward planning which actually always included a transition to the 742. Sure; one of their pilots flew one of them into the ground with catastrophic consequences; but contrary to popular belief this had nothing to do with the move to the 742 which had been planned many years earlier.

The MD-11, on the other hand would have been disastrous for NZ. It woefully underdelivered in terms of performance targets and never had the legs to fly LAX-AKL; which would have exposed NZ to intense competition from the likes of QF and UA.
 
a7ala
Posts: 390
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon May 21, 2018 2:47 am

a7ala wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:

Arguably, NZ is already doing this - providing one-stop services to other parts of the region via its AKL hub. It's just that the hub in question is still in NZ.


And from a visitor inbound and resident outbound point of view its better to have a foreign carrier serving WLG/CHC from their local hub which will most likely offer significantly larger number of 1-stop options than is offered by AKL (NZ and partners) or SYD (QF and partners). Think of all the connecting options a CX WLG-HKG service would provide compared with an NZ WLG-AKL or QF WLG-SYD. A 1-stop connection with Europe for starters....


Further to above there is no denying that reducing the number of stops between two cities signficantly increases travel - and being within 1-stop of a destination is far better than 2-stops. In terms of the growing Asia market potential for WLG being connected to a major hub like HKG or SIN non-stop provides far more opportunities for residents and visitors alike. WLG being a spoke off AKL or SYD does not provide the same options as being a spoke off major world hubs . Particularly given WLG will never be volume driven on a single market but does have little amounts of traffic to a wide range of destinations.

AKL-Asia 18 Destinations
AKL-Europe 0 Destinations

SYD-Asia 33 Destinations
SYD-Europe 0 Destinations

HKG-Asia 106 Destinations
HKG-Europe 21 Destinations
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1910
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon May 21, 2018 4:18 am

Gasman wrote:
The MD-11, on the other hand would have been disastrous for NZ. It woefully underdelivered in terms of performance targets and never had the legs to fly LAX-AKL; which would have exposed NZ to intense competition from the likes of QF and UA.

Mind you, the 742 barely had the legs for LAX-AKL - they operated via an intermediate stop until a few services started nonstop shortly before the transition to the 744. That's not to say that the MD-11 would have been better, though!
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon May 21, 2018 4:34 am

I'm not a fan of the argument that WLG should not get a runway extension because, currently, no long-haul airlines have been petitioning for this. Could you imagine if airports around the world waited to start building infrastructure, until there were commitments and/or expressions of interest for its use? That's what AKL looks like, and it's a total mess. All investment requires an element of risk - IMO, if the investor is not willing to burden a risk, then he/she should not be entitled to reap the benefits, should the investment succeed.

Aside from the very obvious safety-related benefits of the runway extension, IMO, it's extremely naive to suggest that if the extension is secured, it's highly unlikely that at least a few long-haul carriers would make use of it in the 2020's or 2030's. Look at AKL - 15 years ago, would you have imagined that we would have flights to DOH, IAH, ORD, CTU, CKG, SZX and/or XIY? Or at CHC - would you have imagined that it would have flights to CAN, TPE, DXB and/or HKG? Markets change - it's about showing some foresight and vision! :smile:

We should note that:

1. WLG, though not big, has potential - SQ flies there (yes, with a subsidy), and it has more demand to China than the likes of CBR.
2. Earlier in May, SQ said that "the airline has recorded double digit growth on the number of passengers travelling to SIN from WLG."
3. Many airlines are already at 2x daily AKL / 1x daily CHC services, like CZ and EK - these carriers could be enticed to use WLG.
4. Regulatory bodies (or the threat of them) can be a tool to facilitate use of secondary airports, as occurred with CX / NZ at CHC.
5. Non-stop flights stimulate demand that wasn't previously there - e.g. when NZ launched AKL - IAH, Texan tourist arrivals doubled.
6. The economics of long-haul flights to WLG will only get better, with new technology coming online, like more fuel-efficient aircraft.

Notably, on point 3. above, IMO, the following airlines and routes to WLG are just some of the very possible contenders, in 10 years:

EK (on DXB - Australia - WLG):
EK has said its relationship with QF may die down, as QF by-passes DXB with the likes of PER / SYD / MEL - LHR / CDG / FRA. As such, restraint on a BNE / SYD / MEL / SIN - WLG service would be reduced, allowing EK to better tap European - WLG demand, and challenge SQ's European - Australasian positioning.

CZ (on CAN - WLG):
As the dominant player in Chinese traffic to Australasia, and already being strong at AKL and CHC (with multiple daily seasonal frequencies), as well as with the right-sized 788, CZ could take advantage of WLG having the second highest un-met non-stop demand to China from Oceania, and tap European traffic too.

SQ (on SIN - WLG):
SQ is already reporting strong growth ex-WLG to SIN (at a double-digit rate), which naturally, in 10 years, could lead to enough support for non-stop SIN - WLG flights. This would be in line with SQ's strategy of dominating the Australasian end of its Kangaroo route offering, with the likes of CBR, CHC, CNS and DRW too.

Image

I don't feel strongly one way or the other about who should fund the extension, or even whether the extension should and will go ahead, but I think that we need to make better arguments than simply saying that WLG is currently "too small" or that "no long-haul airlines have shown an interest," and that therefore, the runway extension debate should end. Those don't really add anything to the debate - they don't take note of what's happened in the past in New Zealand, and what the growth trajectory and trends suggest for the future.

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon May 21, 2018 4:49 am

NZ has attempted to address its Wi-Fi launch botch-up on pricing, by slashing the price from NZD 40 to NZD 30, per sector. IMO, it should never have been NZD 40! :shock:

The reduced price brings it more into line with other airlines on long-haul routes. Cathay Pacific and United Airlines charge just under $30 for flights of around 12 hours.

See: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12055703.

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon May 21, 2018 4:51 am

AKL has outlined how 27 new food and beverage outlets will open in the next 18 months, including Better Burger, Mexico, Orleans Chicken and Waffles, and Al Brown’s Best Ugly Bagels.

Does anyone have an idea of where these outlets will be placed within the international terminal? Is there potential for any food outlets to be launched down at the gates 16 / 17 / 18 area?

See: https://blueswandaily.com/auckland-airp ... elopments/.

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon May 21, 2018 4:54 am

3C's first ever international air service (AKL - NLK) operated on 18 May - it was a charter flight.

Image

3C has partnered with a travel agency in Pukekohe to start offering irregular AKL - NLK flights.

See: http://3rdlevelnz.blogspot.co.nz/2018/0 ... owing.html.

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon May 21, 2018 4:57 am

The latest on 3C launching AKL - PPQ is that "gaining the necessary approvals for that to happen was taking longer than was anticipated."

Nevertheless, 3C is still committed to a "positive outcome" at PPQ. Does anyone know what sort of approvals are holding up the process?

See: https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national ... rom-demise.

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon May 21, 2018 5:00 am

OL is attempting to boost its performance by offering cargo services to AKL now - the carrier has appointed Menzies Aviation as its cargo agent in New Zealand.

See: https://blueswandaily.com/samoa-airways ... nd-sydney/.

I wish OL the very best of luck, but I can't see this saving them, to be honest. In particular, NZ has the advantage of wide-bodies being able to lift greater cargo.

Cheers,

C.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8435
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon May 21, 2018 6:59 am

planemanofnz wrote:
NZ has attempted to address its Wi-Fi launch botch-up on pricing, by slashing the price from NZD 40 to NZD 30, per sector. IMO, it should never have been NZD 40! :shock:

The reduced price brings it more into line with other airlines on long-haul routes. Cathay Pacific and United Airlines charge just under $30 for flights of around 12 hours.

See: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12055703.

Cheers,

C.


Instead of pricing it low so that almost everyone onboard prepays it with their ticket, they will end up with just a few paying the full $30 and making less per flight.
It should never be even $20 a flight unless it is a reusable pass, and they should certainly have cheaper options inflight for 1,2,5 hours use and long-term subscriptions. Many only need for a few hours on each flight. Now also bear in mind that I have had some 30 individual flights with the last month. If that cost me 30 bucks a go I would not pay. $900 dollars on the internet no way no how, but $80-100 a month for full access, or say $50 for 2h a flight then yeah I probably would. It also rewards people who fly regularly on NZ. Remember when hotels first went from like $15USD a day internet to some chains offering free wifi or very cheap wifi?? Did it not become a reason to stay at a chain that offered it over a chain that doesn't?
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon May 21, 2018 7:10 am

aerorobnz wrote:
... they should certainly have cheaper options inflight for 1,2,5 hours use and long-term subscriptions. Many only need for a few hours on each flight.

I agree - or, there should at least be different pricing for short-haul services - why should someone on an AKL - SYD flight pay the same as someone on an AKL - ORD flight?

Cheers,

C.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 8011
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon May 21, 2018 7:50 am

DavidByrne wrote:
Deepinsider wrote:
I'm sure I would remember TG flying CHC-AKL. I don't though. Are you sure, what aircraft type, when?

I knew someone would call me on this, but afraid I can't provide details. I do recall it was a DC10, though, well before the MD-11 era. I just checked Wikipedia to see if that can provide details, but though it does mention CHC as a TG terminated destination, it doesn't give dates. I know that it didn't last long.

Interestingly, back in the mid-90s NZ also flew BKK-CHC (via BNE). This was part of the BNE Asian hub strategy which served a whole raft of Asian ports. Obviously unsuccessfully.


Wikipedia does give a NOV 1988 start it would have ended by the end of 1990. As said earlier it was a BKK-CHC-AKL-BKK toting I believe on a DC10 once weekly I think it was.

I wasn’t aware NZ served the BNE hub from CHC with a same plane service I take it? From BNE. They served GMP, TPE, BKK-DMK, where else? KIX I think? NAN was also a hub with flights to NRT, KIX, NGO, probably others plus the Pacific and HNL, LAX-FRA.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1941
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon May 21, 2018 8:02 am

planemanofnz wrote:
I'm not a fan of the argument that WLG should not get a runway extension because, currently, no long-haul airlines have been petitioning for this. Could you imagine if airports around the world waited to start building infrastructure, until there were commitments and/or expressions of interest for its use? That's what AKL looks like, and it's a total mess. All investment requires an element of risk - IMO, if the investor is not willing to burden a risk, then he/she should not be entitled to reap the benefits, should the investment succeed.

Aside from the very obvious safety-related benefits of the runway extension, IMO, it's extremely naive to suggest that if the extension is secured, it's highly unlikely that at least a few long-haul carriers would make use of it in the 2020's or 2030's. Look at AKL - 15 years ago, would you have imagined that we would have flights to DOH, IAH, ORD, CTU, CKG, SZX and/or XIY? Or at CHC - would you have imagined that it would have flights to CAN, TPE, DXB and/or HKG? Markets change - it's about showing some foresight and vision! :smile:

We should note that:

1. WLG, though not big, has potential - SQ flies there (yes, with a subsidy), and it has more demand to China than the likes of CBR.
2. Earlier in May, SQ said that "the airline has recorded double digit growth on the number of passengers travelling to SIN from WLG."
3. Many airlines are already at 2x daily AKL / 1x daily CHC services, like CZ and EK - these carriers could be enticed to use WLG.
4. Regulatory bodies (or the threat of them) can be a tool to facilitate use of secondary airports, as occurred with CX / NZ at CHC.
5. Non-stop flights stimulate demand that wasn't previously there - e.g. when NZ launched AKL - IAH, Texan tourist arrivals doubled.
6. The economics of long-haul flights to WLG will only get better, with new technology coming online, like more fuel-efficient aircraft.

Cheers,

C.


AKL is building and expanding based on historic and foretasted growth, their in relatively safe position where the majority of demand both passenger and cargo will focus on AKL. The expansion is required based on projected demand whereas WLG's runway extension is based on a desire (if I can call it that) to attract long haul flights.

Significant investments are made based on detailed analysis from multiple groups. There have been no independent claims that this is 'required' for WLG, it's simply wanted or desired. The airport will know how many passengers are travelling ex WLG to ABC or XZY. They should then be working with the airlines to bring them in. Again, WLG hasn't been clear on who or what they want to target, we are all assuming it'll have to be an Asian carrier.

I don't disapprove of WLG working towards an extension as part of their 2030 master plan and it's good to future proof the airfield. My argument has solely been around the requirement for long haul travel ex WLG.

If it's required only for long haul and that's expected beyond 2030 , why spend the $500m now? Get the consent, sure, construction to commence 2035 though and invest you $500m elsewhere for the next 20 years.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8435
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon May 21, 2018 8:18 am

Thai has operated so many types over the years,(through SYD/BNE and direct) that I cannot remember for the life of me which of those went to CHC. DC10-30s, MD11, 742,743,744,772,773,77W,345(sub),346,789s
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 8011
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon May 21, 2018 8:38 am

aerorobnz wrote:
Thai has operated so many types over the years,(through SYD/BNE and direct) that I cannot remember for the life of me which of those went to CHC. DC10-30s, MD11, 742,743,744,772,773,77W,345(sub),346,789s


Yep indeed, though pretty much 99.99% sure CHC was a DC10, only other possible type at that time was 742/743 which came to AKL early 1990’s I think after the DC10 and before the MD11. The 743’s came back in the early 2000’s aswell alternating with the 744 via SYD.
 
Deepinsider
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:36 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon May 21, 2018 8:39 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
Deepinsider wrote:
I'm sure I would remember TG flying CHC-AKL. I don't though. Are you sure, what aircraft type, when?

I knew someone would call me on this, but afraid I can't provide details. I do recall it was a DC10, though, well before the MD-11 era. I just checked Wikipedia to see if that can provide details, but though it does mention CHC as a TG terminated destination, it doesn't give dates. I know that it didn't last long.

Interestingly, back in the mid-90s NZ also flew BKK-CHC (via BNE). This was part of the BNE Asian hub strategy which served a whole raft of Asian ports. Obviously unsuccessfully.


Wikipedia does give a NOV 1988 start it would have ended by the end of 1990. As said earlier it was a BKK-CHC-AKL-BKK toting I believe on a DC10 once weekly I think it was.

I wasn’t aware NZ served the BNE hub from CHC with a same plane service I take it? From BNE. They served GMP, TPE, BKK-DMK, where else? KIX I think? NAN was also a hub with flights to NRT, KIX, NGO, probably others plus the Pacific and HNL, LAX-FRA.

Southbound, the GMP, TPE, BKK-DMK flights, all 767 arrived BNE together and then all departed to AKL, WLG and CHC. The pax/cargo swapping planes at BNE according to
their desired destination. Worked a treat. Not sure what the timings were Northbound though. Route cancellations due to the 'Asian Crisis' ruined all that. (And NAN too)
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon May 21, 2018 9:41 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
From BNE. They served GMP, TPE, BKK-DMK, where else? KIX I think?

In the past, they have definitely served BNE from the following Asian cities:

- BKK (from 1992)
- HKG (unclear on dates, but definitely at least in the 1970's, per timetable)
- KIX (from 1994)
- SEL (from 1993)
- TPE (from 1992)

See:
- https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/assets/ ... y-2014.pdf.
- https://airline-memorabilia.blogspot.co ... %20Zealand.

I also think that they might have served FUK from BNE - see the map below:

Image

I can't enlarge this. Does anyone know for sure whether BNE - FUK existed?

Cheers,

C.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1910
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon May 21, 2018 11:30 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
Interestingly, back in the mid-90s NZ also flew BKK-CHC (via BNE). This was part of the BNE Asian hub strategy which served a whole raft of Asian ports. Obviously unsuccessfully.


Wikipedia does give a NOV 1988 start it would have ended by the end of 1990. As said earlier it was a BKK-CHC-AKL-BKK toting I believe on a DC10 once weekly I think it was.

I wasn’t aware NZ served the BNE hub from CHC with a same plane service I take it? From BNE. They served GMP, TPE, BKK-DMK, where else? KIX I think? NAN was also a hub with flights to NRT, KIX, NGO, probably others plus the Pacific and HNL, LAX-FRA.

Yes, it was definitely a DC10 onTG's DMK-CHC-AKL-DMK.

Yes, in Jan 1996 at least, CHC had same-plane, same flight number services by NZ weekly on both DMK-BNE-CHC and TPE-BNE-CHC (with 767s). The flights in the other direction, however, required a change of plane. There were no Asian through flights to or from WLG, and all the other Asian flights served AKL.

However, NAN wasn't so much a hub as a transit point. There was at one point a weekly DC8 service, however, on CHC-WLG-NAN which did connect with the DC10 flight onward to HNL and LAX. NAN also had transit flights to NRT and NGO, but I'm less sure about KIX - I'm pretty sure these were all via BNE, CHC or nonstop to AKL. Not that I'm critical of that - the current strategy does make good sense. NZ has recognised that it will never compete well with Asian carriers out of CHC, and has bowed to the inevitable. Unless there is a strong point-to-point market develop, I doubt we'll see NZ run Asian services from CHC again.

In another post, reference was made to a flight to BNE from HKG. This waaay predated the BNE hub strategy, and went right back to the very start of DC8 operations by NZ to HKG. Outbound, the flight ran AKL-SYD-HKG. Inbound, it ran HKG-BNE-SYD-AKL. Presumably it was a range issue for the DC8 at the time, not sure.

More miscellany from the "I can't remember what I did yesterday but I can remember aviation stuff re CHC from decades ago" department:
* In 1996 CHC got the MD11 from KE, which ran twice weekly GMP-AKL-CHC and v/v.
* In 1991 NZ ran CHC-AKL-SIN and CHC-AKL-DPS-SIN, each weekly, plus KUL-SIN-AKL-CHC weekly
* And back in the mid-80s NZ had a weekly CHC-NAN-HNL-LAX 747 operation
* And until relatively recently three NZ flights a week ran NRT-CHC-AKL
* In the mid-80s CHC had a connection to and from LHR by BA via PER and then on to AKL, and flights PER-CHC-AKL by NZ
* And, of course, the more recent CHC-LAX 3x weekly 744

You can see how NZ's strategy re CHC has evolved with a now total focus on AKL and a requirement that passengers hub through AKL.

Something I'm NOT sure on is NZ services to CTS and FUK, which I sometimes see reference to. What was the routing there? I have no personal memory of them, but was living abroad for a good few years, so lots of things may have gone right past me.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8435
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon May 21, 2018 11:57 am

I was thinking about the PPQ regulatory issues, and I wonder if it isn't related to that CAA/Airways issue they had in WHK with the 580s which was something to do with aircraft size/weight/runway length. I don't remember the specifics, but I'm sure they said that there was something the CAA was enforcing and it applied to more than one aerodrome. It might also apply to PPQ
 
Deepinsider
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:36 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon May 21, 2018 12:08 pm

NZ did numerous charters to CTS, but no scheduled service.
re FUK, the pattern, probably only once a week, was AKL-NGO-FUK-CHC.
(A one way rotation , pax returning to FUK went via NGO)
The 767 had weight restrictions out of FUK to the South, so there were
sometimes stops for more fuel enroute, usually BNE, but may have included
GUM or SYD. So there were flights FUK-BNE which I think someone
mentioned above, but tech stops only, not a service.
Last edited by Deepinsider on Mon May 21, 2018 12:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3676
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon May 21, 2018 12:10 pm

NZ6 wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
I'm not a fan of the argument that WLG should not get a runway extension because, currently, no long-haul airlines have been petitioning for this. Could you imagine if airports around the world waited to start building infrastructure, until there were commitments and/or expressions of interest for its use? That's what AKL looks like, and it's a total mess. All investment requires an element of risk - IMO, if the investor is not willing to burden a risk, then he/she should not be entitled to reap the benefits, should the investment succeed.

Aside from the very obvious safety-related benefits of the runway extension, IMO, it's extremely naive to suggest that if the extension is secured, it's highly unlikely that at least a few long-haul carriers would make use of it in the 2020's or 2030's. Look at AKL - 15 years ago, would you have imagined that we would have flights to DOH, IAH, ORD, CTU, CKG, SZX and/or XIY? Or at CHC - would you have imagined that it would have flights to CAN, TPE, DXB and/or HKG? Markets change - it's about showing some foresight and vision! :smile:

We should note that:

1. WLG, though not big, has potential - SQ flies there (yes, with a subsidy), and it has more demand to China than the likes of CBR.
2. Earlier in May, SQ said that "the airline has recorded double digit growth on the number of passengers travelling to SIN from WLG."
3. Many airlines are already at 2x daily AKL / 1x daily CHC services, like CZ and EK - these carriers could be enticed to use WLG.
4. Regulatory bodies (or the threat of them) can be a tool to facilitate use of secondary airports, as occurred with CX / NZ at CHC.
5. Non-stop flights stimulate demand that wasn't previously there - e.g. when NZ launched AKL - IAH, Texan tourist arrivals doubled.
6. The economics of long-haul flights to WLG will only get better, with new technology coming online, like more fuel-efficient aircraft.

Cheers,

C.


AKL is building and expanding based on historic and foretasted growth, their in relatively safe position where the majority of demand both passenger and cargo will focus on AKL. The expansion is required based on projected demand whereas WLG's runway extension is based on a desire (if I can call it that) to attract long haul flights.

Significant investments are made based on detailed analysis from multiple groups. There have been no independent claims that this is 'required' for WLG, it's simply wanted or desired. The airport will know how many passengers are travelling ex WLG to ABC or XZY. They should then be working with the airlines to bring them in. Again, WLG hasn't been clear on who or what they want to target, we are all assuming it'll have to be an Asian carrier.

I don't disapprove of WLG working towards an extension as part of their 2030 master plan and it's good to future proof the airfield. My argument has solely been around the requirement for long haul travel ex WLG.

If it's required only for long haul and that's expected beyond 2030 , why spend the $500m now? Get the consent, sure, construction to commence 2035 though and invest you $500m elsewhere for the next 20 years.


Please stop making these generalised claims around WLG. I’m no fan of Infratil but they do do their homework. If you’re going to purport to make informed comment about WLG, pls do some background checks as you’re currently spreading misinformation.

I’m too tired and it’s too late to unpick it, and to an extent I can’t be bothered but I’ll Start calling you out on these from now.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1910
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon May 21, 2018 9:35 pm

Deepinsider wrote:
NZ did numerous charters to CTS, but no scheduled service.
re FUK, the pattern, probably only once a week, was AKL-NGO-FUK-CHC.
(A one way rotation , pax returning to FUK went via NGO)
The 767 had weight restrictions out of FUK to the South, so there were
sometimes stops for more fuel enroute, usually BNE, but may have included
GUM or SYD. So there were flights FUK-BNE which I think someone
mentioned above, but tech stops only, not a service.

Thanks for that.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1910
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon May 21, 2018 9:48 pm

I picked up my Sunday newspaper the other day and noted that one of the big travel firms was selling NZ fares to the USA, Canada and South America at what purported to be good discounts. What was most interesting to me was the list of US destinations offered:

Los Angeles
San Francisco
Houston
Chicago
Las Vegas
New York

All the above are either current NZ destinations or will soon be, apart from New York and Las Vegas. The airline's been very open about its plans to serve New York, but I'd heard nothing about its intentions with regard to Las Vegas since prior to the Houston announcement, when it was stated that they were actively considering IAH, DEN and LAS for their next destination.

Of course, nothing too much should be read into the fact that LAS is given equal billing with other current US destinations, but it was interesting for me in that it signalled that LAS is still very much alive as a destination for NZers (and Australians?), and that either the airline or the travel industry regards it as sufficiently important to promote it in the company of these other destinations.

I've long thought that a 3x weekly LAS service might be a starter, and that it would offer a significant point of difference for NZ in the Australian market. Perhaps we can expect to see AKL-LAS services in the next couple of years - possibly even before New York? NZ needs to add about 3x weekly flights to the US just to meet current growth rates (which were at around 10% a little while back), so the capacity increase is not in itself an obstacle. Though perhaps the first focus will be on boosting ORD to closer to daily, I guess. The downside is that LAS would be predominantly point-to-point traffic, but iot seems it's not out of the frame on the strength of that promotion.
 
User avatar
SelandiaBaru
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 2:39 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon May 21, 2018 10:06 pm

aerorobnz wrote:
I was thinking about the PPQ regulatory issues, and I wonder if it isn't related to that CAA/Airways issue they had in WHK with the 580s which was something to do with aircraft size/weight/runway length. I don't remember the specifics, but I'm sure they said that there was something the CAA was enforcing and it applied to more than one aerodrome. It might also apply to PPQ


It's down to second segment takeoff performance. The Dash 8 performs better than the Saab 340 in this respect but was in the end having to further restrict takeoff weight due to the trees that were intruding into the obstacle limitation surface.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2204
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon May 21, 2018 10:10 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
I picked up my Sunday newspaper the other day and noted that one of the big travel firms was selling NZ fares to the USA, Canada and South America at what purported to be good discounts. What was most interesting to me was the list of US destinations offered:

Los Angeles
San Francisco
Houston
Chicago
Las Vegas
New York

All the above are either current NZ destinations or will soon be, apart from New York and Las Vegas. The airline's been very open about its plans to serve New York, but I'd heard nothing about its intentions with regard to Las Vegas since prior to the Houston announcement, when it was stated that they were actively considering IAH, DEN and LAS for their next destination.

Of course, nothing too much should be read into the fact that LAS is given equal billing with other current US destinations, but it was interesting for me in that it signalled that LAS is still very much alive as a destination for NZers (and Australians?), and that either the airline or the travel industry regards it as sufficiently important to promote it in the company of these other destinations.

I've long thought that a 3x weekly LAS service might be a starter, and that it would offer a significant point of difference for NZ in the Australian market. Perhaps we can expect to see AKL-LAS services in the next couple of years - possibly even before New York? NZ needs to add about 3x weekly flights to the US just to meet current growth rates (which were at around 10% a little while back), so the capacity increase is not in itself an obstacle. Though perhaps the first focus will be on boosting ORD to closer to daily, I guess. The downside is that LAS would be predominantly point-to-point traffic, but iot seems it's not out of the frame on the strength of that promotion.

LAS always made sense to me, more so than did/does ORD. It's a fantastic destination in its own right and the onward connections to the rest of USA and Europe aren't bad either.
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon May 21, 2018 10:16 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
Planesmart wrote:
[re WLG runway extensions]: If the commercial shareholder isn't prepared to fund it's share (because it doesn't see the required rate of return), the airport's two largest customers are strongly against as existing domestic & international travellers will have to pay a runway extension tax for ever, and even proponents have struggled with a real business case, that leaves it to local and central government, so local residents will pay twice.

If the 66% commercial shareholder isn't prepared to pay its share, then the extension is not happening, period.

You would like to think so............. But hasn't the local council proposed to top-up the shortfall with assistance from the regional council, some of which they hope may be recovered from Central Government and other sources?
 
Gasman
Posts: 2204
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Mon May 21, 2018 11:13 pm

Planesmart wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
Planesmart wrote:
[re WLG runway extensions]: If the commercial shareholder isn't prepared to fund it's share (because it doesn't see the required rate of return), the airport's two largest customers are strongly against as existing domestic & international travellers will have to pay a runway extension tax for ever, and even proponents have struggled with a real business case, that leaves it to local and central government, so local residents will pay twice.

If the 66% commercial shareholder isn't prepared to pay its share, then the extension is not happening, period.

You would like to think so............. But hasn't the local council proposed to top-up the shortfall with assistance from the regional council, some of which they hope may be recovered from Central Government and other sources?

My own optimism about an extension at WLG ever happening nosedived once I conceded to myself that there really is no safety argument for it. There's never been a runway excursion, nor even a near miss in recent years and modern jet aircraft have no problem clearing Newlands in the event of one engine out.

And the above posts demonstrate, if nothing else, that the commercial argument for it is optimistic at best.

But humouring ourselves for a moment - if it were to happen, we can be sure of only three things in terms of the funding structure:

- it will be complex
- it will involve central government.
- some groups (eg. the fare paying customer) will end up paying more than once.
 
getluv
Posts: 598
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:11 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Tue May 22, 2018 2:07 am

DavidByrne wrote:
I picked up my Sunday newspaper the other day and noted that one of the big travel firms was selling NZ fares to the USA, Canada and South America at what purported to be good discounts. What was most interesting to me was the list of US destinations offered:

Los Angeles
San Francisco
Houston
Chicago
Las Vegas
New York

All the above are either current NZ destinations or will soon be, apart from New York and Las Vegas. The airline's been very open about its plans to serve New York, but I'd heard nothing about its intentions with regard to Las Vegas since prior to the Houston announcement, when it was stated that they were actively considering IAH, DEN and LAS for their next destination.

Of course, nothing too much should be read into the fact that LAS is given equal billing with other current US destinations, but it was interesting for me in that it signalled that LAS is still very much alive as a destination for NZers (and Australians?), and that either the airline or the travel industry regards it as sufficiently important to promote it in the company of these other destinations.

.


I wouldn't read too much into it. QF have featured SAN, BOS, MIA and MSY in their sales recently.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1910
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Tue May 22, 2018 3:43 am

getluv wrote:
I wouldn't read too much into it. QF have featured SAN, BOS, MIA and MSY in their sales recently.

No, of course it doesn't suggest any kind of commitment to anything. But it does suggest that from the point of view of the airline and the travel industry that LAS is a serious destination worthy of promotion alongside the current confirmed and formally foreshadowed NZ destinations. And given they have previously identified it as a candidate for future service, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that it will get served one day, perhaps sooner rather than later (you can interpret "soon" and "late" any way you want)!
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8435
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Tue May 22, 2018 3:57 am

If I am honest, I am not convinced the US will be the next destination after ORD. They need to diversify, spread the risk of new routes out to different regions IMO. It would be prudent to launch somewhere in Asia or Latin America. In other words, ORD might struggle if they started yet another US alternative. US flights at AKL also require more ground time, specialist gates, additional security costs and check-in time restriction et al, with the 787 problems plaguing them I can't see they would have enough metal even after the last 787s arrive, nor gates to operate so many US-bound departures beyond ORD. On the other hand, there is terminal and aircraft capacity still for the other routes because they don't have to operate within the LPD restrictions.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 8011
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Tue May 22, 2018 4:00 am

DavidByrne wrote:
Deepinsider wrote:
NZ did numerous charters to CTS, but no scheduled service.
re FUK, the pattern, probably only once a week, was AKL-NGO-FUK-CHC.
(A one way rotation , pax returning to FUK went via NGO)
The 767 had weight restrictions out of FUK to the South, so there were
sometimes stops for more fuel enroute, usually BNE, but may have included
GUM or SYD. So there were flights FUK-BNE which I think someone
mentioned above, but tech stops only, not a service.

Thanks for that.



Pretty sure FUK was 2 weekly AKL-FUK-CHC-AKL 1 weekly with the other doing FUK-AKL non stop? Before it was dropped I remember seeing AKL-NGO-FUK-AKL. FUK was served 1995/98.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4613
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Tue May 22, 2018 4:17 am

aerorobnz wrote:
If I am honest, I am not convinced the US will be the next destination after ORD. They need to diversify, spread the risk of new routes out to different regions IMO. It would be prudent to launch somewhere in Asia or Latin America. In other words, ORD might struggle if they started yet another US alternative. US flights at AKL also require more ground time, specialist gates, additional security costs and check-in time restriction et al, with the 787 problems plaguing them I can't see they would have enough metal even after the last 787s arrive, nor gates to operate so many US-bound departures beyond ORD. On the other hand, there is terminal and aircraft capacity still for the other routes because they don't have to operate within the LPD restrictions.

NY will happen but not until they have the right aircraft so it’s at least 2 years away.
I’d love to see a 3 pronged Sth America approach - EZE, LIM, GRU/BUE. Would need to increase certain Asia routes frequency to connect with these flights of course.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Tue May 22, 2018 5:09 am

Gasman wrote:
... the above posts demonstrate, if nothing else, that the commercial argument for it is optimistic at best.

I totally disagree, particularly as you haven't specifically rebutted any of the arguments made above at all.

Nevertheless, commerciality is a narrow vision with which to look at this, in light of a number of factors too:

1. Subsidies - for example, how many of AKL's new Chinese routes have been partly subsidised, like flights to CKG (GS) / CTU (3U) / XIY (GS) / TSN (GS) / SZX (HU)?
2. Regulation - for example, would CX have launched CHC - HKG, had it not been for the risk of the NZCC winding up its JV with NZ, in light of HX's AKL - HKG launch?
3. Practicality - for example, CHC doesn't warrant a 388 for EK, but gets one anyway due to the lack of alternative aircraft to Australia that could fly on to New Zealand.
4. Prestige - for example, how many of QR's new flights (such as LGK or PEN) are truly 'commercial' - are some launched due to the blockade? Or wanting to beat EK?

WLG has more demand from China than CBR, yet CBR is in talks with the likes of CZ and HX about flights.

Even if the business case and/or demand isn't there yet, ask yourself, is it likely to be there in 10 - 15 years?

You yourself have said the process will be "complex" - hence the need to show foresight and prepare ASAP!

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Tue May 22, 2018 5:14 am

aerorobnz wrote:
If I am honest, I am not convinced the US will be the next destination after ORD. They need to diversify, spread the risk of new routes out to different regions IMO.

I'm not even sure that it's about diversifying the spread of regions served - IMO, they won't want to launch a ULH service with the current trend for oil prices.

I mean, at what point does the business case for AKL - ORD (or even the likes of AKL - DOH / DXB for that matter) erode, due to unsustainable fuel costs?

In the current environment, cities closer to AKL might be a safer bet, if they're cheaper to run. Prior to PR's AKL launch, MNL would've been in this category.

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Tue May 22, 2018 5:17 am

Zkpilot wrote:
NY will happen but not until they have the right aircraft so it’s at least 2 years away.

If oil keeps going the way it is, I see NYC being pushed back for quite a while, tbh.

Zkpilot wrote:
I’d love to see a 3 pronged Sth America approach - EZE, LIM, GRU/BUE.

GRU - yes. LIM - no. LIM doesn't work for the Asian connections, geographically.

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Tue May 22, 2018 5:27 am

With Australia now planning to build Antarctica's first paved runway, is there a possibility that New Zealand will follow suit at the Ross Dependency?

CHC is the gateway to Antarctica for the United States' Antarctica program, but will better access through HBA to this new runway put that at risk?

See: https://blueswandaily.com/australia-to- ... ed-runway/.

Cheers,

C.
 
zkncj
Posts: 4277
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Tue May 22, 2018 5:35 am

planemanofnz wrote:
With Australia now planning to build Antarctica's first paved runway, is there a possibility that New Zealand will follow suit at the Ross Dependency?

CHC is the gateway to Antarctica for the United States' Antarctica program, but will better access through HBA to this new runway put that at risk?

See: https://blueswandaily.com/australia-to- ... ed-runway/.

Cheers,

C.


Maybe once National gets back in, don't really see Labour wanting to spend money on an project like that (it would upset there green friends).
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8435
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Tue May 22, 2018 6:17 am

planemanofnz wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
NY will happen but not until they have the right aircraft so it’s at least 2 years away.

If oil keeps going the way it is, I see NYC being pushed back for quite a while, tbh.

Zkpilot wrote:
I’d love to see a 3 pronged Sth America approach - EZE, LIM, GRU/BUE.

GRU - yes. LIM - no. LIM doesn't work for the Asian connections, geographically.

Cheers,

C.

The most visited country by tourists in South America is Peru. Granted the US/Canada is a sizeable chunk of that, but most of the tourist traffic moves through LIM at some point, and it is a fellow TPPA member so business links will be building over time. In terms of cargo, LIM is number 5 after BOG/GRU/MEX/SCL. Brazil is a bigger VFR market, but I agree with zkpilot, there needs to be a three-pronged approach, same as the USA. The ports each offer something a little different, and so collectively they grow the South American market.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Tue May 22, 2018 6:43 am

zkncj wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
With Australia now planning to build Antarctica's first paved runway, is there a possibility that New Zealand will follow suit at the Ross Dependency?.


Maybe once National gets back in, don't really see Labour wanting to spend money on an project like that (it would upset there green friends).

Don't forget Winston Peters (New Zealand First) - he's talked about bizarre ideas like FTA's with North Korea and Russia. If he argues that jobs are at risk through a failure of New Zealand to match Australia in infrastructure, then Labour might sign it off with some additional Antarctica-related climate change funding to appease the Greens.

Cheers,

C.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2204
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Tue May 22, 2018 7:01 am

planemanofnz wrote:
Gasman wrote:
... the above posts demonstrate, if nothing else, that the commercial argument for it is optimistic at best.

I totally disagree, particularly as you haven't specifically rebutted any of the arguments made above at all.

Huh? So you'd surmise from all the discussions we've had this week, that the commercial argument for long haul ops out of WLG is strong?

The arguments have been made many times already and I'm not going to repeat them, so lets look at it from another angle. Try and find another airport somewhere else in the world that serves a catchment population of half a million with long haul (>5 hour) ops where there are already two long haul airports less than an hour's flight away.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Tue May 22, 2018 7:31 am

Gasman wrote:
Huh? So you'd surmise from all the discussions we've had this week, that the commercial argument for long haul ops out of WLG is strong?

I never said "strong" - but I reject the assertion that the case is merely one of optimism, particularly as you've added nothing to the debate to suggest otherwise.

All I've really seen you say is that the demand isn't currently there - you haven't addressed future demand arguments, or non-commercial arguments from above.

Gasman wrote:
Try and find another airport somewhere else in the world that serves a catchment population of half a million with long haul (>5 hour) ops where there are already two long haul airports less than an hour's flight away.

What about SNN in Ireland, which not only has DUB up the road, American flights from BFS and ORK to compete with too, plus LON a one-hour flight away.

[Insert lengthy rebuttal about how SNN is only served by seasonal long-haul flights, or that they're mainly narrow-bodies, all different to WLG's case etc ... :roll:]

Cheers,

C.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2204
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Tue May 22, 2018 8:12 am

planemanofnz wrote:
Gasman wrote:
Huh? So you'd surmise from all the discussions we've had this week, that the commercial argument for long haul ops out of WLG is strong?

I never said "strong" - but I reject the assertion that the case is merely one of optimism, particularly as you've added nothing to the debate to suggest otherwise.

All I've really seen you say is that the demand isn't currently there - you haven't addressed future demand arguments, or non-commercial arguments from above.


So I say "optimistic at best" and you concede "not strong". Let's let the semantics rest where they may.

planemanofnz wrote:
Gasman wrote:
Try and find another airport somewhere else in the world that serves a catchment population of half a million with long haul (>5 hour) ops where there are already two long haul airports less than an hour's flight away.

What about SNN in Ireland, which not only has DUB up the road, American flights from BFS and ORK to compete with too, plus LON a one-hour flight away.

[Insert lengthy rebuttal about how SNN is only served by seasonal long-haul flights, or that they're mainly narrow-bodies, all different to WLG's case etc ... :roll:]

No need; you've already saved me the bother. And I'm sure even a government with the fiscal competence of Ireland's would admit it wouldn't have been worth building a half billion dollar runway extension to accommodate that motley collection of flights.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Tue May 22, 2018 8:31 am

Gasman wrote:
So I say "optimistic at best" and you concede "not strong".

I didn't say "strong." I also didn't say "not strong." There is a mid-point, which is based on specific arguments - not mere optimism.

It'd be more valuable to address specific arguments raised, rather than using one-liners and putting words in people's mouths. :)

Gasman wrote:
I'm sure even a government with the fiscal competence of Ireland's would admit it wouldn't have been worth building a half billion dollar runway extension to accommodate that motley collection of flights.

What if SNN was Ireland's capital city? What about if SNN had Ireland's highest GDP per capita? It works both ways, Gasman.

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Tue May 22, 2018 10:23 am

Despite OL having launched its services last year, it's now possibly going to get reduced landing charges at APW under a reward scheme for new airlines/routes.

NZ will not get any such reduction - "Asked whether the airport gave the same incentive for Fiji Airways, Air New Zealand and Virgin Australia, Magele said no."

See: http://www.sobserver.ws/en/22_05_2018/l ... idered.htm.

Could NZ argue that it should get some reward for bringing wide-bodies to APW and/or increasing frequencies? Does anyone know how NZ's going at APW?

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2018

Tue May 22, 2018 10:26 am

TIU's new terminal has been completed and opened - Christopher Luxon visited TIU to look at the changes.

It'll be interesting to see if NZ goes the distance at TIU - it has to be one of the more marginal destinations?

See:
- https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/n ... ru-airport.
- http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK1805/S ... w-look.htm.

Image

Cheers,

C.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 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