• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 14
 
Gasman
Posts: 2051
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sun Jun 03, 2018 2:15 am

SelandiaBaru wrote:
I can't really see the Commerce Commission being pleased with this and I think there are some pretty massive implications.

I agree - although the massive implications of which you speak will be more for VA than they will for NZ or QF. They (and ironically, to a lesser extent JQ) are the clear losers in this deal the upshot of which will be a reduction in competition. And that's on the TT market which has very recently lost competition in the form of EK.

But again with no small irony, I consider the Commerce Commission to be one of the more corrupt institutions in the country. It has a charter but that is open to interpretation, as is the implementation of that charter. The result of which is to make the CC vulnerable itself to political and commercial influence. NZ receiving a perpetual free pass for its alliance/codeshare knee-jerk response whenever competition looms is but one example.
 
User avatar
SelandiaBaru
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 2:39 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sun Jun 03, 2018 3:13 am

Gasman wrote:
But again with no small irony, I consider the Commerce Commission to be one of the more corrupt institutions in the country. It has a charter but that is open to interpretation, as is the implementation of that charter. The result of which is to make the CC vulnerable itself to political and commercial influence. NZ receiving a perpetual free pass for its alliance/codeshare knee-jerk response whenever competition looms is but one example.


That is part of my concern. I don't think monopolies/duopolies are good for any organisation long-term, not to speak of the consumer effects. I also feel that there are wider implications beyond the effects on VA and JQ for the broader industrial landscape. I guess it just doesn't sit right for me.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2051
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sun Jun 03, 2018 3:46 am

Anytime there's a situation where Joyce and Luxon are smiling and shaking hands, the Commerce Commission should deploy a SWAT team without stopping to ask why.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12062575
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4315
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sun Jun 03, 2018 5:16 am

ernestxwb wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
zkojq wrote:

I said Eva Air 77Ws last month, but some of the folks here (who are usually better informed than I am) suggested that was not the case.


But it's not point-to-point is it. It really bothers me how all the "Dreamliner" hype (because it was Boeing's marketing team who is driving it) has made people think that hub-to-point routes are point-to-point routes. SIN-WLG or HKG-WLG would be would be hub-to-point.

Yes and no. Yes that they are hubs, but no because they don’t have an alternative point airport nearby. CHC-PER would not normally be considered point-hub yet PER is a city bigger than AKL and does serve as a hub. Likewise SIN is a hub but there isn’t exactly an alternative an hours drive away.

Actually JHB serves as an airport for SIN too, many Indonesians fly LCCs to JHB instead of SIN e.g. AirAsia's SUB-JHB

Different country.
59 types. 41 countries. 24 airlines.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4296
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sun Jun 03, 2018 5:48 am

SelandiaBaru wrote:
I don't think monopolies/duopolies are good for any organisation long-term, not to speak of the consumer effects.

There are pros and cons - we should note that without the JV's, we (likely) wouldn't have got the CHC - HKG flight on CX, or the 3rd daily AKL - SIN flight on SQ / NZ.

Separately, it's interesting to note HX's continued success at AKL, in spite of the CX - NZ JV. They've just announced they're pulling out of Australia, but will keep AKL!

Cheers,

C.
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 3878
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sun Jun 03, 2018 5:52 am

Mr AirNZ wrote:
zkojq wrote:
zkncj wrote:
Have heard the 77W might be a CX bird.


I said Eva Air 77Ws last month, but some of the folks here (who are usually better informed than I am) suggested that was not the case.

This is where I'm a pedantic prick. You said "two 77Ws" ;)

Ah, yes I did. :)

DavidByrne wrote:
Yes true, sort of, but there’s another angle as well. SIN -WLG and HKG-WLG would be hub-to-point for SQ and CX respectively, but would be point-to-point in the unlikely event that NZ took up those routes.

Good point (pardon the pun).

Gasman wrote:
In my opinion Boeing's most recent offings - the 777 and 787 have been clear steps backwards in terms of pax comfort (although the 77X will be slightly better). Whereas Airbus on the other hand have brought the game forwards. The A320 beats the 737, and the A332, 388 and 350 are all very comfortable places to spend a bunch of hours.


Yes, Airbus has brought the game forwards quite noticeably. Every A350 flight I've had has been very pleasurable. I won't criticise the 787 too harshly in terms of comfort (have had great long haul flights in it and not so great ones also), but I will say that Air New Zealand's choice of seat leaves a lot to be desired. The difference between Air New Zealand's seats on the 787 and Qantas's seats on the same aircraft is night and day; Air New Zealand's seat backs are much, much harder and I find that this makes them quite hard to get comfortable in. I hope they don't put these seats in any future A350/777X aircraft that they might order.

Gasman wrote:
Actually I think the current livery is the least attractive of any for the last 50 years, and that includes on the 359. How did we go from pacific wave to this? I shake my head in amazement.

:checkmark: Agreed. Only two aircraft left in the Pacific Wave livery, I believe (ZK-OKG and ZK-OKH, I think?).

SelandiaBaru wrote:
That is part of my concern. I don't think monopolies/duopolies are good for any organisation long-term, not to speak of the consumer effects. I also feel that there are wider implications beyond the effects on VA and JQ for the broader industrial landscape. I guess it just doesn't sit right for me.

My concerns are more long-term, strategic ones. Long term at least, helping the Qantas Group is likely to come back to bite them. IMO Air New Zealand has every interest in ensuring QF and VA are bitter competitors. Kicking VA when they're down is more likely to hasten their demise. This is great for the Qantas Group, but IMO a stronger QF Group is not great at all for Air New Zealand.
First to fly the 787-9
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1427
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sun Jun 03, 2018 8:18 am

Gasman wrote:
SelandiaBaru wrote:
I can't really see the Commerce Commission being pleased with this and I think there are some pretty massive implications.

I agree - although the massive implications of which you speak will be more for VA than they will for NZ or QF. They (and ironically, to a lesser extent JQ) are the clear losers in this deal the upshot of which will be a reduction in competition. And that's on the TT market which has very recently lost competition in the form of EK.

But again with no small irony, I consider the Commerce Commission to be one of the more corrupt institutions in the country. It has a charter but that is open to interpretation, as is the implementation of that charter. The result of which is to make the CC vulnerable itself to political and commercial influence. NZ receiving a perpetual free pass for its alliance/codeshare knee-jerk response whenever competition looms is but one example.

Then only point I'd think the Commerce Commission should examine is whether there has been any kind of side-deal whereby NZ agreed not to introduce AKL-CBR or AKL-HBA (for example) as part of the price for the QF codeshare. Otherwise, it seems to me that there is no change in the status of competition in either the Australian or NZ domestic markets. From a competition point of view I think it makes little difference whether NZ partners VA or QF. And as far as QF is concerned, being able to access the NZ domestic market improves their position vis-a-vis the current Transtasman market leader, NZ, so that's hardly anti-competitive. VA didn't ever code-share domestically in NZ anyway, so no change for them. Have I missed something here?
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1171
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sun Jun 03, 2018 8:45 am

Hi All
just did AKL-SIN-FRA-GOT, and caught up with all your posts (gee, you have been busy the past two-three days ;-) ).

Here a few points regarding some of the previous points (and other observations):

* Airbus versus Boeing aircraft and passenger comfort: The AKL-SIN flight was on a SQ 77W (9V-SWK), and I noticed how incredibly noisy it was. I never even noticed it on NZ's (or any other, incl SQ's) 77Ws before. It was even more pronounced when you took off your noise cancelling head sets (again, which I never felt before). In contrast, LH's A380 was extremely quiet (as always).
* I scored upgrades on both legs. It was my first time on SQ's PE, and it was underwhelming. Nothing wrong at all, but nothing to write home about either. I think NZ's and LH's PE are significantly better. While I don't care about such minor things, SQ's "amenity kit" was a joke. LH's seats feel more comfy, and I am always happy to pay for the upgrade with them (dosn't matter if it is the A380, A340-600, B744 or B748 - all are good in PE).
* Airport shopping: I needed to buy a new shirt at Changi (spilled chocolate sauce on mine - oops ;-) ), and guess what: No "general" brand to be seen. All just quite expensive high-end shops as well. Some were slightly cheaper, but I would have loved to have a Zara or H&M shop there. Before you crucify me, there might be one there, but I walked all the way from from T3 to T2 (rather than taking the train), so passed by quite a large number of shops. But that seems to be a general thing: I never understand how those high-end shops at airports make money - you rarely see anybody in there, and most of those who do go in just browse out of boredom/to kill time, rather than buy. But obviously they make enough, else they wouldn't be there. I am with the argument that AKL gets the kiwiana theme right (like OZ's airports as well, where you can buy anything Australian, from stuffed koalas to Aboriginal art). That is the point of difference, and that is what tourists tend to buy (at I least I would think so).
* I am impressed at how well security now works at AKL. The past few months I had only one time where there was a bit of a line. And that could have been eliminated as well, since 3 or 4 stations weren't even open. It is much less of a hassle. Equally, I never had to wait at the self-processing immigration gates either since they changed. These two points have significantly raised my airport experience at AKL. On the other hand, MAF is still the worst part for me (although the new "non-screening" lane is an improvement), closely followed by the indeed way too small gate areas.
* B777X vs A350: I will have my first A350 experience on my way back, and then decide, but based on the fact alone that the B777X will be 10 abreast already makes me favour the A350.
* B787 experience: I like the B787, but NZ's is too cramped. I am not talking about the 9 abreast, but the seat pitch. It really feels very tight in Y. Did MNL-YVR-MNL on JL recently, and if felt much better. I do like the window dimming options. Even if totally dimmed, you can still see out. And with the current trend that all window shades are to be drawn for 95% of the flight (even during day flights), I prefer a "darker" view to no view.
* Koru lounge: In the evening it can indeed be extremely crowded, and a bit of a circus. We had times where the two of us couldn't even get any 2 seats together. When I flew out a few days ago on SQ's noon service, the lounge was deserted. Great experience, good food and good drinks. Bottom line: They have to balance the viability across the hours it is open, and at peak times it really is too crowded and noisy. The suggested 2nd lounge at/close to gates 17/18 would take some pressure of the main lounge, and would be welcome by many i guess.
* Bus operations: I read these comments with great interest (especially from aerorob). I am flying pretty regularly (this year pretty much one longhaul per month out of AKL, plus TT flights), and in all my years flying into and out of AKL I had only one single bus transfer (after a NRT-AKL flight). I must be extremely lucky, since I don't have specific routes, which could explain it (i.e. do Asia flights get more bus ops than US flights, or something like that). I also fly a variety of carriers, but the bulk is indeed with NZ - maybe they get preferential treatment as the home carrier?

"Just some thoughts" became quite a long post - sorry! ;-)

P.S.: Thanks to all of you who make an effort to keeping this thread a bit more balanced and also throwing in some of the positive sides of aviation. I admit that I got quite frustrated recently, but it seems we are back to "normal", and that's why I enjoy this thread so much. Keep it coming, and thanks for all your contributions - even though won't post much, I truly enjoy reading your posts:-)
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4296
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sun Jun 03, 2018 9:02 am

DavidByrne wrote:
VA didn't ever code-share domestically in NZ anyway, so no change for them.

Actually, they do code-share on NZ's domestic flights - for example, VA7874 (TRG - AKL) and VA7682 (CHC - AKL).

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4296
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sun Jun 03, 2018 9:06 am

DavidByrne wrote:
Then only point I'd think the Commerce Commission should examine is whether there has been any kind of side-deal whereby NZ agreed not to introduce AKL-CBR or AKL-HBA (for example) as part of the price for the QF codeshare.

That would be extremely hard to prove - e.g. NZ and QF aren't that dumb to have sent an email regarding this sort of topic, which could be used as evidence.

Cheers,

C.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1427
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sun Jun 03, 2018 10:05 am

planemanofnz wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
VA didn't ever code-share domestically in NZ anyway, so no change for them.

Actually, they do code-share on NZ's domestic flights - for example, VA7874 (TRG - AKL) and VA7682 (CHC - AKL)..

Did not realise that. How many other sectors? I've never seen a VA code on a domestic ops departure board - or have I just not been looking hard enough?
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1427
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sun Jun 03, 2018 10:25 am

planemanofnz wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
Then only point I'd think the Commerce Commission should examine is whether there has been any kind of side-deal whereby NZ agreed not to introduce AKL-CBR or AKL-HBA (for example) as part of the price for the QF codeshare.

That would be extremely hard to prove - e.g. NZ and QF aren't that dumb to have sent an email regarding this sort of topic, which could be used as evidence.

Agree. However, QF will be fully aware that CBR and HBA are the two destinations not served by NZ which are of most interest to New Zealanders, and and would surely prefer NZ not to fly direct. Though I've no evidence, it has to be possible that a deal has been done - if I was in QF's position, I'd be thinking to protect myself in just such a way. It is not unheard of for ComCom to actually require a new route to be flown as a trade-off for an arrangement - think HKG-CHC, for example - or the requirement for VA/NZ to combined fly 14 services a week on WLG-BNE as part of the price for the VA/NZ deal. Failing ComCOm intervention, AKL-CBR and AKL-HBA flights are now, I believe, a very long shot, and that now this codeshare is in place we can wave goodbye to them for the foreseeable future. I hope I'm wrong!
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
a7ala
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sun Jun 03, 2018 10:33 am

tealnz wrote:
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
a7ala wrote:
On other news today, Airbus bring the A350-900 to WLG for wet-runway testing next week.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/104 ... s-aircraft


Oooooooo. Very neat. Here's hoping they discover they can make it to SIN. Very unlikely, but I can hope. :p

Fascinating. That's a big unanswered question. We had a thread last year https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1351457 that tried to get some answers. The analysis in the Astral report (the basis for the runway extension proposal) http://www.connectwellington.co.nz/stat ... rt%201.pdf claimed that the 359 had a big issue with landing distance at Wellington on the existing runway.
The discussion quickly veered off course :roll: But there was a post from Zeke, drawing on the Airbus performance database, arguing that the 359 could land at MLW (the Astral report suggested landing distance was the big issue for the 359) and could carry full pax as far as Beijing. No-one challenged him on it but no-one seemed to have any answers on Astra's claim about landing performance problems for the 359.
The other curiosity in all of this is that SQ now has heaps of experience operating a 77E out of Wellington. Outbound it has obviously been operating only at weights needed for the short hop to Canberra. But we have never seen a good answer on why the 77E can comfortably land at Wellington while a 359 (according to the Astra report) cannot.


The astral report appears to show that even the a330 variants are payload restricted on landing wet runway (as well as the a350's). There may even be issues with the a321neos although they haven't included any numbers in the report. So while airbus has brought the a350 down I would imagine the data they would collect would be useful for all their aircraft types for both wet landing and wet take off.

My understanding is their are a couple of issues at play with the a350 1. The a350 has less wheels than similar boeing aircraft which means less brakes and worse braking performance. 2. Airbus are much more conservative when it comes to giving a performance credit for grooved runways ie they have to assess them individually rather than a blanket groove credit for all runways.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4296
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sun Jun 03, 2018 10:36 am

DavidByrne wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
VA didn't ever code-share domestically in NZ anyway, so no change for them.

Actually, they do code-share on NZ's domestic flights - for example, VA7874 (TRG - AKL) and VA7682 (CHC - AKL)..

I've never seen a VA code on a domestic ops departure board - or have I just not been looking hard enough?

You just need to go to the AKL website (flight information section) to see that VA code-shares on many NZ domestic flights.

See: https://www.aucklandairport.co.nz/flights.

Other carriers who do so (as per the AKL website above) include the likes of NH, SQ and TG, as well as (strangely), VS.

CA and TK also codeshare domestically (but do not show up on AKL's website, for some reason). I assume UA does too.

See:
- https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... 0codeshare.
- https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... 0codeshare.

Cheers,

C.
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10059
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sun Jun 03, 2018 10:37 am

DavidByrne wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
VA didn't ever code-share domestically in NZ anyway, so no change for them.

Actually, they do code-share on NZ's domestic flights - for example, VA7874 (TRG - AKL) and VA7682 (CHC - AKL)..

Did not realise that. How many other sectors? I've never seen a VA code on a domestic ops departure board - or have I just not been looking hard enough?

Every domestic route here has the VA code
Head Forum Moderator
[email protected]
Flown: 1900D,S340,Q300,AT72-5/6,DC3,CR2/7,E145,E70/75/90,A319/20/21,A332/3,A359,A380,F100,B717,B733/4/8/9,B742/4,B752/3,B763,B772/3, B789
With: NZ,SJ,QF,JQ,EK,VA,AA,UA,DL,FL,AC,FJ,SQ,TG,PR
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4296
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sun Jun 03, 2018 10:43 am

DavidByrne wrote:
It is not unheard of for ComCom to actually require a new route to be flown as a trade-off for an arrangement - think HKG-CHC, for example ...

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK, HKG - CHC was not mandated by the NZCC, in exchange for the CX - NZ JV renewal - it was merely a pre-emptive move by the airlines, to support the case for the renewal (particularly in light of HX launching HKG - AKL).

The NZCC has mandated that capacity on existing routes be maintained and/or increased - for example, with EK and QF on the Tasman. However, I'm unaware of the NZCC actually forcing an airline to open a particular route, which didn't previously exist beforehand?

Cheers,

C.
Last edited by planemanofnz on Sun Jun 03, 2018 10:53 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4296
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sun Jun 03, 2018 10:52 am

a7ala wrote:
There may even be issues with the a321neos although they haven't included any numbers in the report.

The 321NEO is an interesting one - technically, it has the range to open up mid-long haul routes, such as WLG - DPS.

While NZ doesn't want to fly its 789 out of WLG, a seasonal holiday route, like WLG - DPS, may work like WLG - NAN?

Further, WLG - HNL is only just out of the range of the 321NEO (7,485 km v 7,400 km), and HA has this aircraft. :stirthepot:

It's very unlikely that HA would open WLG, but if AKL continues to go well for them, perhaps they would consider this?

Image

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4296
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sun Jun 03, 2018 11:04 am

DavidByrne wrote:
QF will be fully aware that CBR and HBA are the two destinations not served by NZ which are of most interest to New Zealanders, and and would surely prefer NZ not to fly direct.

I agree that QF won't want NZ at CBR or HBA, but I just question the ability of QF to actually stop NZ from launching destinations. For example, NZ considered and/or launched SQ codeshare destinations like MNL and SGN after it tied up with SQ. Similarly, SQ launched an NZ codeshare destination - WLG - in the same period. Neither carrier was likely happy about the moves of the other, but didn't cancel the JV, because they recognised that the JV's benefit extends to more than just a few destinations. The same applies in the NZ - QF codesharing scenario, whereby QF stands to gain at not just CBR and HBA, but other places like DRW and TSV too. It also, strategically, stands to make VA a comparatively weaker competitor, which is more important than any dispute over NZ launching CBR.

DavidByrne wrote:
AKL-CBR and AKL-HBA flights are now, I believe, a very long shot, and that now this codeshare is in place we can wave goodbye to them for the foreseeable future. I hope I'm wrong!

I agree - and also hope that we're wrong!

Cheers,

C.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1427
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sun Jun 03, 2018 11:19 am

planemanofnz wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
It is not unheard of for ComCom to actually require a new route to be flown as a trade-off for an arrangement - think HKG-CHC, for example ...

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK, HKG - CHC was not mandated by the NZCC, in exchange for the CX - NZ JV renewal - it was merely a pre-emptive move by the airlines, to support the case for the renewal (particularly in light of HX launching HKG - AKL).

The NZCC has mandated that capacity on existing routes be maintained and/or increased - for example, with EK and QF on the Tasman. However, I'm unaware of the NZCC actually forcing an airline to open a particular route, which didn't previously exist beforehand?

Makes sense - it does seem pretty extreme for ComCom to make such a requirement on its own initiative.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
cchan
Posts: 971
Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 8:54 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sun Jun 03, 2018 11:24 am

IMHO, NZ’s 77E fleet will be replaced by a mixture of existing 77W and additional 789. Whether NZ chooses 777X or A350 will largely depend on which is the most suitable replacement for their 77W. I would expect NZ to take up some 789 options and order a small number of 777X/A350 to free up a few 77W to take over from the 77E when they retire.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1427
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sun Jun 03, 2018 11:30 am

planemanofnz wrote:
I agree that QF won't want NZ at CBR or HBA, but I just question the ability of QF to actually stop NZ from launching destinations.

Probably nothing legally or even contractually given, as you say, that they'd be foolish to commit it to paper. But each codeshare deal is sui generis, and the factors in play with NZ/SQ will have been quite different from the factors NZ discussed with QF. While QF may not be able to stop NZ opening new routes, the co-operation needed to make a codeshare deal work depends on goodwill and having a reliable partner. If one party to a deal loses confidence in the other for whatever reason, then that may have consequences that could outweigh forgoing a new route.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4296
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sun Jun 03, 2018 11:35 am

DavidByrne wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
I agree that QF won't want NZ at CBR or HBA, but I just question the ability of QF to actually stop NZ from launching destinations.

Probably nothing legally or even contractually given, as you say, that they'd be foolish to commit it to paper. But each codeshare deal is sui generis, and the factors in play with NZ/SQ will have been quite different from the factors NZ discussed with QF. While QF may not be able to stop NZ opening new routes, the co-operation needed to make a codeshare deal work depends on goodwill and having a reliable partner. If one party to a deal loses confidence in the other for whatever reason, then that may have consequences that could outweigh forgoing a new route.

Valid point - I definitely agree that not wanting to get QF off-side will be one factor at play in NZ's analysis from here on out, as to AKL - CBR.

Which begs the question - is there any other airline which might be willing to launch AKL - CBR instead? A Chinese or ME3 carrier, as a tag?

Cheers,

C.
 
getluv
Posts: 515
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:11 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sun Jun 03, 2018 1:34 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
VA didn't ever code-share domestically in NZ anyway, so no change for them.

Actually, they do code-share on NZ's domestic flights - for example, VA7874 (TRG - AKL) and VA7682 (CHC - AKL)..

Did not realise that. How many other sectors? I've never seen a VA code on a domestic ops departure board - or have I just not been looking hard enough?


Like someone said, VA codeshares on every NZ domestic route. Snapshot below from AKL's website.
Image
I'm that bad type.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1427
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sun Jun 03, 2018 1:44 pm

getluv wrote:
Like someone said, VA codeshares on every NZ domestic route.

Thanks all for the clarification. I obviously haven't paid attention at AKL domestic.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1427
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sun Jun 03, 2018 1:46 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
getluv wrote:
Like someone said, VA codeshares on every NZ domestic route.

Thanks all for the clarification. I obviously haven't paid attention at AKL domestic.

Has there been any specific mention of the fate of the domestic VA codeshare? Was it formally part of the JV, or was it a separate arrangement?
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1427
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sun Jun 03, 2018 1:47 pm

getluv wrote:
Like someone said, VA codeshares on every NZ domestic route.

Thanks all for the clarification. I obviously haven't paid attention at AKL domestic.

Has there been any specific mention of the fate of the domestic VA codeshare? Was it formally part of the JV, or was it a separate arrangement?
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10059
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sun Jun 03, 2018 1:52 pm

Fiji Airways to become a OneWorld Connect partner

https://www.oneworld.com/news-informati ... _count%3D7
Head Forum Moderator
[email protected]
Flown: 1900D,S340,Q300,AT72-5/6,DC3,CR2/7,E145,E70/75/90,A319/20/21,A332/3,A359,A380,F100,B717,B733/4/8/9,B742/4,B752/3,B763,B772/3, B789
With: NZ,SJ,QF,JQ,EK,VA,AA,UA,DL,FL,AC,FJ,SQ,TG,PR
 
tealnz
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sun Jun 03, 2018 4:21 pm

Another piece of news: Eric Schulz from Airbus has mentioned possible NZ interest in an even longer range version of the A350 that they are developing as a candidate for the QF ULH requirement: "Air New Zealand Ltd. could also consider a longer-range version of the A350, Airbus’s Schulz said" (Bloomberg).

Any clues as to the background? As far as I know the current A359 can comfortably handle any of the ULH routes Luxon has mentioned, including New York. No hint NZ are thinking about London non-stop? It's hard to imagine it working.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2051
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sun Jun 03, 2018 10:28 pm

tealnz wrote:
As far as I know the current A359 can comfortably handle any of the ULH routes Luxon has mentioned, including New York. No hint NZ are thinking about London non-stop? It's hard to imagine it working.

As we saw with the 77L, "can handle" doesn't equate to "economically viable". The trade-off between fuel tanker and passenger carrier is a complex one.

I agree AKL-LHR won't happen, for many reasons.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4296
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Mon Jun 04, 2018 12:18 am

DavidByrne wrote:
Has there been any specific mention of the fate of the domestic VA codeshare? Was it formally part of the JV, or was it a separate arrangement?

AFAIK, they're separate - one is merely a form of interline, whereas the other is actual revenue-sharing and money changing hands, which clearly requires a different set of regulatory approvals. That being said, the code-share is to follow the revenue-share in being dropped. One media site says: "The codeshares just happen to start the same day the existing and long-standing codeshares between Air New Zealand and Virgin Australia end."

See: https://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com ... rtnership/.

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4296
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Mon Jun 04, 2018 12:26 am

tealnz wrote:
possible NZ interest in an even longer range version of the A350 ...

To me, that sounds like a marketing spin, with no proven NZ interest?

Separately, I found this comment in the Herald this morning interesting:

"Air New Zealand's chief executive Christopher Luxon is also in Sydney for IATA and said his airline would send out a request for information to plane makers later this year for them to pitch their aircraft."

This must mean that the actual 359 v 777-X decision is some way off?

See: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12064132.

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4296
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Mon Jun 04, 2018 12:29 am

Luxon again singled out GIG and GRU this week as being possible with NZ's new planes. In light of this, can someone tell me why the 772 can't already do AKL - GRU? It's virtually the same distance as AKL - IAH, and follows virtually the same ETOPS path as AKL - EZE, both of which are or have been flown by the 772. Am I missing something?

See: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12064132.

Cheers,

C
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1427
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Mon Jun 04, 2018 12:38 am

planemanofnz wrote:
Luxon again singled out GIG and GRU this week as being possible with NZ's new planes. In light of this, can someone tell me why the 772 can't already do AKL - GRU? It's virtually the same distance as AKL - IAH, and follows virtually the same ETOPS path as AKL - EZE, both of which are or have been flown by the 772. Am I missing something?

I don't know if GRU's altitude at 2,500 ft is sufficiently significant to make a 77E need more than 12,100 ft runway (at sometimes relatively high temperatures) with a viable payload for what must be a 15-hour plus flight. But GIG is at sea level, so I don't imagine that there's an impediment there.

Not so long ago, I noted that QF were talking about Brazil and specifically mentioned GIG as a possibility (without mentioning GRU). I wondered then whether GRU's altitude made it impossible from SYD, but that GIG at the lower altitude was feasible.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
Kashmon
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 8:08 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Mon Jun 04, 2018 12:46 am

Gasman wrote:
SelandiaBaru wrote:
I can't really see the Commerce Commission being pleased with this and I think there are some pretty massive implications.

I agree - although the massive implications of which you speak will be more for VA than they will for NZ or QF. They (and ironically, to a lesser extent JQ) are the clear losers in this deal the upshot of which will be a reduction in competition. And that's on the TT market which has very recently lost competition in the form of EK.

But again with no small irony, I consider the Commerce Commission to be one of the more corrupt institutions in the country. It has a charter but that is open to interpretation, as is the implementation of that charter. The result of which is to make the CC vulnerable itself to political and commercial influence. NZ receiving a perpetual free pass for its alliance/codeshare knee-jerk response whenever competition looms is but one example.


considering the commerce commission allows the 2 supermarket firms in NZ to price fix items like Milk ( gentleman's agreement)

they won't care about this partnership.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1427
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Mon Jun 04, 2018 12:55 am

Further to the previous post about GRU/GIG, I note that NZ has stated that it would not consider other South American ports until EZE was up to daily. This coming summer, EZE peaks at 6x weekly, and it's not unreasonable to think that it may be daily in summer 2019/20. The possibility of services to GRU/GIG in perhaps summer 2020/21 or soon thereafter would pretty much coincide with the timeframe in which an A350 could be delivered.

I've not flown the A350 yet but note that it is 9-abreast at 46 cm seat width, compared with the 777X at 10-abreast at 45.7 cm seat width. Seems to me that there's only 3mm difference per seat, yet there is a strong groundswell that says that the A350 is vastly more comfortable than the 777. Surely, all things being equal, the wider cabin of the 777 would lead to a greater sense of spaciousness than the A350, and psychologically that's quite important. Can someone who has flown both explain why the A350 is so highly favoured for comfort by its supporters?
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1427
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Mon Jun 04, 2018 12:59 am

Kashmon wrote:
considering the commerce commission allows the 2 supermarket firms in NZ to price fix items like Milk ( gentleman's agreement) they won't care about this partnership.

Still waiting for someone to tell me which aspect of the proposed codeshare is actually anti-competitive. I just can't see it myself - we tend to assume that any arrangement between airlines is to the detriment of the consumer, but I'm struggling to figure how that might be the case here.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
zkncj
Posts: 3259
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:02 am

planemanofnz wrote:
Luxon again singled out GIG and GRU this week as being possible with NZ's new planes. In light of this, can someone tell me why the 772 can't already do AKL - GRU? It's virtually the same distance as AKL - IAH, and follows virtually the same ETOPS path as AKL - EZE, both of which are or have been flown by the 772. Am I missing something?

See: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12064132.

Cheers,

C


Only 4x 77E we're converted to ETDO 330minutes - and with the 789 fleet now lost that certification for the time being the current 4x 77Es are going to be pretty well tied up with flying flights that need the 330. I would expect the 789 to take an while to regain its status for long over water journeys with the FAA.

I would expect going forward the 77E will be treated as the new 763 on short-haul, which has already been seen recent months. They are now getting old, they have an higher operating cost compared to the 77W and 789, which is better off-set on shorter routes we're they can also pick up large cargo loads.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1151
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:34 am

zkeoj wrote:
Hi All
just did AKL-SIN-FRA-GOT, and caught up with all your posts (gee, you have been busy the past two-three days ;-) ).

Here a few points regarding some of the previous points (and other observations):

* Airport shopping: I needed to buy a new shirt at Changi (spilled chocolate sauce on mine - oops ;-) ), and guess what: No "general" brand to be seen. All just quite expensive high-end shops as well. Some were slightly cheaper, but I would have loved to have a Zara or H&M shop there. Before you crucify me, there might be one there, but I walked all the way from from T3 to T2 (rather than taking the train), so passed by quite a large number of shops. But that seems to be a general thing: I never understand how those high-end shops at airports make money - you rarely see anybody in there, and most of those who do go in just browse out of boredom/to kill time, rather than buy. But obviously they make enough, else they wouldn't be there. I am with the argument that AKL gets the kiwiana theme right (like OZ's airports as well, where you can buy anything Australian, from stuffed koalas to Aboriginal art). That is the point of difference, and that is what tourists tend to buy (at I least I would think so).
* I am impressed at how well security now works at AKL. The past few months I had only one time where there was a bit of a line. And that could have been eliminated as well, since 3 or 4 stations weren't even open. It is much less of a hassle. Equally, I never had to wait at the self-processing immigration gates either since they changed. These two points have significantly raised my airport experience at AKL. On the other hand, MAF is still the worst part for me (although the new "non-screening" lane is an improvement), closely followed by the indeed way too small gate areas.
* Koru lounge: In the evening it can indeed be extremely crowded, and a bit of a circus. We had times where the two of us couldn't even get any 2 seats together. When I flew out a few days ago on SQ's noon service, the lounge was deserted. Great experience, good food and good drinks. Bottom line: They have to balance the viability across the hours it is open, and at peak times it really is too crowded and noisy. The suggested 2nd lounge at/close to gates 17/18 would take some pressure of the main lounge, and would be welcome by many i guess.


P.S.: Thanks to all of you who make an effort to keeping this thread a bit more balanced and also throwing in some of the positive sides of aviation. I admit that I got quite frustrated recently, but it seems we are back to "normal", and that's why I enjoy this thread so much. Keep it coming, and thanks for all your contributions - even though won't post much, I truly enjoy reading your posts:-)


Really good post.

Couple of thoughts and personal opinions on a few points raised.

1. High end shops, some of the retailers pay for the space at major airports to simply get the international exposure vs actually trying to make money or turn a profit.
2. NZ's lounge at AKL. In my opinion yes it's far too busy in the evening and somewhat in the morning. I'm not a massive fan at the idea of a lounge at gates 17/18 given the number of flights going out of that end of the terminal currently, when Pier B has more gates, perhaps but NZ will want it's operations centralized in the terminal so won't need lounges spread out. What I would like to see though is a peak time lounge for Elite Priority 1 members and Elite members only, a little bit like the old first class lounge making it more exclusive. Only allow 1-2 guests only and direct children otherwise use the main lounge. Also close the lounge off peak to save operating costs as there's nothing wrong with the lounge when it's not packed.
3. Security at AKL is actually very impressive, quick and hassle free, the process at slower airports with long queues tends to stress me out but at AKL it's so hassle and stress free. Not sure if it's related or not but there have been a number of breaches in the last few months though.
Last edited by NZ6 on Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:50 am, edited 3 times in total.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3259
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:35 am

https://www.ausbt.com.au/hong-kong-airlines-axes-gold-coast-cairns-flights?utm_source=grid

Hong Kong Airlines are ditching CNS/OOL from October 2018, whats the chances AKL will be next? AKL has already have its frequency downgraded.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1151
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:46 am

planemanofnz wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
QF will be fully aware that CBR and HBA are the two destinations not served by NZ which are of most interest to New Zealanders, and and would surely prefer NZ not to fly direct.

I agree that QF won't want NZ at CBR or HBA, but I just question the ability of QF to actually stop NZ from launching destinations. For example, NZ considered and/or launched SQ codeshare destinations like MNL and SGN after it tied up with SQ. Similarly, SQ launched an NZ codeshare destination - WLG - in the same period. Neither carrier was likely happy about the moves of the other, but didn't cancel the JV, because they recognised that the JV's benefit extends to more than just a few destinations. The same applies in the NZ - QF codesharing scenario, whereby QF stands to gain at not just CBR and HBA, but other places like DRW and TSV too. It also, strategically, stands to make VA a comparatively weaker competitor, which is more important than any dispute over NZ launching CBR.

DavidByrne wrote:
AKL-CBR and AKL-HBA flights are now, I believe, a very long shot, and that now this codeshare is in place we can wave goodbye to them for the foreseeable future. I hope I'm wrong!

I agree - and also hope that we're wrong!

Cheers,

C.


HBA and CBR are just cities not served, i'm not sure we can confidently call them of 'most interest'

Would more people visit MCY or TSV vs HBA and CBR? There's also NTL on the list.

You could argue MCY and TSV are already served via BNE and CNS and MCY has a very small service from AKL but is HBA and CBR of more interest than the development of those routes?

If you argue HBA and CBR rely more on connections whereas the others don't, would NZ or QF ever actually have an interest in flying there direct from NZ or is it better served for the customer if there is an alliance in place for the connection but both carriers are independent on the Tasman?
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4296
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:10 am

NZ6 wrote:
HBA and CBR are just cities not served, i'm not sure we can confidently call them of 'most interest'

That's a fair point. When population and geography come into it:

- CBR is an outlier. Aside from NTL (which is arguably served through SYD), it is the biggest city in Australia without services to New Zealand, and is just far enough away from SYD and MEL to not be served through those ports.

- HBA is arguably the next biggest, behind CBR - although MCY, WOL and AVV (Geelong) are bigger, they are arguably served already through BNE, SYD and MEL. HBA is on an island, and pretty much requires a flight to get to.

However, these don't account for tourism - may change things?

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4296
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:24 am

zkncj wrote:
Hong Kong Airlines are ditching CNS/OOL from October 2018, whats the chances AKL will be next? AKL has already have its frequency downgraded.

It's possible, but I think we'd get downgraded to a 3x weekly service first. The thing that AKL has that CNS and OOL doesn't, is both in-bound and out-bound traffic - we are both a tourism destination, as CNS and OOL are, but we also have a catchment area of ~2 - 2.5 million people, with large price-conscious Hong Kong and Chinese expat populations, for HX to tap into.

I also note that:

- HX now code-shares on its AKL flight with EY and 9W - the 9W code in particular, may help HX to gain some Indian transfer passengers (a market not really on the same scale at CNS or OOL).

- VA has the potential to cover BNE - HKG (in addition to SYD - HKG and MEL - HKG) down the track, whereas HX doesn't - those are the important markets. In contrast, VA won't fly AKL - HKG.

They have been somewhat active in marketing, for example, through having a stand at the Flight Centre Expo. They also have improved their frequency offering, through code-sharing with FJ through NAN, and VA through Australia. However, I do think that they could be doing more. In particular, their New Zealand website has irrelevant 'deals', like offers on HKG - OOL!

Cheers,

C.
 
NPL8800
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 5:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:36 am

zkncj wrote:
https://www.ausbt.com.au/hong-kong-airlines-axes-gold-coast-cairns-flights?utm_source=grid

Hong Kong Airlines are ditching CNS/OOL from October 2018, whats the chances AKL will be next? AKL has already have its frequency downgraded.


That frequency down gauge to AKL is for only 2 months, May 1st-28th June. Hardly a reason to cause alarm bells, especially considering the numerous other Asian carriers that all conduct seasonal reductions over the weaker Northern Summer period. KE, MU, CZ, CA, CX etc

On another note which I don't recall seeing mentioned HU is altering it's AKL- SZX aircraft from an A333 to a 788 from June 12th and then the 789 from October 30th.

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... 20auckland
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4296
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:37 am

NPL8800 wrote:
As for the Kiwiana vs the likes of Zara/H&M/generic high street brand, perhaps think of it from another angle, aside from the Pacific Islands, I can almost guarantee that every single international destination served from AKL has those retailers, they aren't unique, people can buy their goods at home, possibly for cheaper as well, that now includes NZers too. Kiwiana on the other hand, and im not just talking the trinkets and teatowels, im more referring to the NZ art, sculpture, honey products and more that the likes of Artport, Mountain Jade and Beecology specialise in and sell for hundreds if not thousands of dollars, these are unique and special products which is why people buy it, these products are a lasting memory of NZ for many.

True - a chunk of the people making purchases in the duty free area will be tourists, to whom the 'Kiwiana' products will appeal. However, your argument that people buy high street brands "at home" (or elsewhere) could equally be applied to the 'Kiwiana' products - I highly doubt that most tourists leave it until the last minute to buy their honey and jade. Some do, and some will ' top up' their 'Kiwiana' purchases at the airport, but equally, the same can be said for people buying high street brands?

It's interesting that WLG and CHC have such brands (think 3 Wise Men and Trenery), as well as HKG, LHR, and many others. They don't dominate the offering, but they are offered because it's important to have variety. A businessman might be on a very last-minute trip, and wants to buy a business shirt at the airport for an important meeting, if he's delayed. Or, a tourist might want to buy a more comfortable t-shirt or jacket for the plane? Or, people in general just want their products at duty-free pricings?

I'm not saying get rid of the 'Kiwiana' shops - I'm just saying, try to have a bit more variety in the overall offering, in line with most major airports around the world.

Cheers,

C.
Last edited by planemanofnz on Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:43 am, edited 3 times in total.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4296
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:41 am

NPL8800 wrote:
On another note which I don't recall seeing mentioned HU is altering it's AKL- SZX aircraft from an A333 to a 788 from June 12th and then the 789 from October 30th.

Interesting - a capacity downgrade, for sure. Hopefully this makes the route more sustainable in light of higher oil prices, with the 787's lower operating cost.

Their flights are very competitive - a round-trip AKL - SZX ticket is currently going for just NZD 612 on their website. Though, AFAIK, this flight is subsidised.

Cheers,

C.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1427
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:46 am

NZ6 wrote:
HBA and CBR are just cities not served, i'm not sure we can confidently call them of 'most interest'

Would more people visit MCY or TSV vs HBA and CBR? There's also NTL on the list.

You could argue MCY and TSV are already served via BNE and CNS and MCY has a very small service from AKL but is HBA and CBR of more interest than the development of those routes?

Fair point - the "of most interest" tag was a subjective judgement by myself, but I'd be surprised if NTL or TSV was of more interest to NZ than CBR or HBA. Aside from NTL, TSV, CBR and HBA - and in the much-less-probable basket DRW and AVV - I can't realistically see any other ports being a strong candidate for a Transtasman service any time soon. My point is that I doubt that any of these will see nonstop service in the forseeable future with the new codeshare with QF in place, as I'm almost certain that there will have been a discussion about NZ's plans and some kind of "understanding" emerge. What would be in it for QF if NZ's strategy was to chip away at the foundations of the codeshare arrangement by providing nonstop services on its own metal? Having said that, I hope I'm wrong, as I'm a regular traveller to HBA and wistfully recall the weekly nonstop AKL-HBA 767 run by QF way, way back . . . for just a very short while.

NZ6 wrote:
If you argue HBA and CBR rely more on connections whereas the others don't, would NZ or QF ever actually have an interest in flying there direct from NZ or is it better served for the customer if there is an alliance in place for the connection but both carriers are independent on the Tasman?

This passenger would definitely be better served by a 3x weekly nonstop AKL-HBA than a daily AKL-SYD/MEL-HBA transfer with baggage clearance and recheck-in en route - and at SYD even a bus trip across the airport for added pleasure (not). I suspect that NZ is more concerned about what's good for NZ's bottom line (which I don't quibble with), and in particular will have weighed the potential of being first mover in the HBA/CBR-Americas (without an en route terminal transfer and inbound double baggage handling) market against the value of the QF codeshare. So far, nonstop services have not met whatever criteria are set for opening new routes, but I live in hope!
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1427
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:59 am

DavidByrne wrote:
Aside from NTL, TSV, CBR and HBA - and in the much-less-probable basket DRW and AVV - I can't realistically see any other ports being a strong candidate for a Transtasman service any time soon.

Oops - I missed out the prospect of VN on AKL-PHE . . . Not that I actually believe it will happen . . .
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
zkncj
Posts: 3259
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:05 am

planemanofnz wrote:

Their flights are very competitive - a round-trip AKL - SZX ticket is currently going for just NZD 612 on their website. Though, AFAIK, this flight is subsidised.



Surely any return trip between New Zealand and Asia for less than NZD$1000/return would be loss making?

On an $500NZD oneway fare there isn't much room to make an profit, with increasing fuel prices and ever increaseing costs to use AKL.
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4988
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:41 am

NZ6 Reply 138 wrote:
1. High end shops, some of the retailers pay for the space at major airports to simply get the international exposure vs actually trying to make money or turn a profit.

In Oz [and I don't know if its changed since privatisation] but the airport retailers paid a relatively low rent compared to the local CBD [so the overhead wasn't so high] but also paid a percentage of TURNOVER, which was generally a bonanza for the owner. Could be part of the equation.

Gemuser
 
User avatar
SelandiaBaru
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 2:39 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Mon Jun 04, 2018 4:01 am

DavidByrne wrote:
Kashmon wrote:
considering the commerce commission allows the 2 supermarket firms in NZ to price fix items like Milk ( gentleman's agreement) they won't care about this partnership.

Still waiting for someone to tell me which aspect of the proposed codeshare is actually anti-competitive. I just can't see it myself - we tend to assume that any arrangement between airlines is to the detriment of the consumer, but I'm struggling to figure how that might be the case here.


So Qantas Group have Jetstar operating in NZ with A320 and Q300, these flights often have QF code-shares. Given the Q300 operation is marginal and operates where NZ does I can't see how QF code-sharing on NZ metal will help the viability of the Jetstar Q300.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 14

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