EK store new 777 and A380 parts for Boeing and Airbus respectively, on a sale or return basis. Free storage, but the quid pro quo, EK only pay when they use or sell parts, and share the margin when sold to third parties.
Yet another reason why the reported price of a new aircraft is for the most purposes, irrelevant.
Sounds like there might be a good buck in this racket. I'm going to store a couple of Trent 1000s in my garage and sit back & wait.
Just spat out a lot of coffee when reading that comment!
I'm wondering if he's hearing of a potential -10 order and somehow this has become the 772 replacement order where in fact it's, it's own order. Or someone who shared this info has. I've heard a few mutters over the last 12 months around an increase in frames for the 787 fleet at some point. A lot like the A320 family it could see two types, in this case, that being the -9 and -10.
NZ's been clear the A350 and 77X are the two on the table and both offer a greater range which enables routes NZ's had their eyes on for a while without compromising capacity or weight. I can't see NZ giving this up for a -10 order.
That would make much more sense the 787-10s replacing 77Es.
That said, this is marginally feasible, say they order 8-10 frames, deploy them all into Asia and release that the -9's which are used on PVG, SIN, NRT, TPE, DPS, KIX etc for North America flying.
I think this would have to happen. They will need to reconfigure all the Config 1 787-9s to Config 2 and have the 787-10s take up the 787-9 Config 1 flying. It would make no sense for the airline to have potentially three different aircraft types in a similar capacity range. 787-9 Config 1, 787-9 Config 2, 787-10 and A350-900/777-8 would all be too close to each other in terms of capacity.
......... and I feel fairly confident that this order wouldn't be too far different from most people's (at least amongst the few that care about such things). NZ lost a lot when they retired the 744 and 763 without replacing that pax experience.
I strongly agree with this, though since it is hard to quantify, most of the accountants will assume it to be non-existent.
I just flew into Bali this afternoon on MH from KUL A333. And friends arrived on EK this week direct from AKL. Said it was very light in economy - they had a whole row in the middle to sleep. Wonder really how EK can sustain this given aforementioned info re loads.
Have a similar story - from the past week too - extremely light loadings. Will be very interesting to see whether the DPS - AKL tag lasts.
I wonder if they could do 3x weekly via DPS, and 4x weekly via somewhere else, like BKK, given neither could likely support 7x weekly?.
Some competition through Singapore would be good.
I have no idea why an airline needs a 'flagship' aircraft whatever that actually is.... the airline needs the best equipment for their business model and their routes. Interestingly, numbers 1 and 3 on your list don't feature in QF's long-term plans while number 2 does but for how long I wonder....
Qantas wouldn't be undertaking expensive A380 refits next year if the aircraft didn't feature in their long term plans...
Lastly, you're talking about interior product whereas this is talking about aircraft performance and capability. The A350 if ordered may still see 10 abreast along with a similar seat pitch.
That would be such an Air New Zealand like thing to do.
Guaranteed that Grant Bradley would forget to mention this in the NZHerald puff piece when the airline takes delivery of the first one.
I'd also disagree with your thoughts on all decisions since the Electra being bad, I believe the 777 family was the best choice at the time. It's the 787 which has perhaps been the wrong move.
Read what he said again:
I've said previously that NZ haven't made a bad purchasing decision since the Electra, but I agree what you've proposed above might have turned out better for the present moment.
I'm simply pointing out that all of QF's long haul fleet are objectively better, and I doubt it's all by fluke.
Qantas has competition on nearly all their long haul routes. Qantas hence needs to compete in terms of product, to get bums on seats. Nearly all of Air New Zealand's long haul routes are monopolies or JV monopolies, so they don't need to compete in terms of product at all.
My preference is also on the A350 but hey let's not count our chickens folks. Boeing will be driving a hard bargain here. They are desperate to win more 77x orders. Especially with what is up with the ME carriers. Let's hope we see NZ make a sensible choice and it is one consistent with a decent hard product for travellers on long routes. IMHO the 789 has fallen short here. Agree that we could see some A35K in future to replace 77W.
That's my main concern here. I'm sure Boeing know that if they can't sell the 777X to Air New Zealand and Qantas, the program is in serious trouble and the 777-8X is probably dead on arrival. NZ & QF should be in theory the perfect 777X customers due to their very long average sector lengths.
Thanks for your updates on these things. Do you know which A320Internationals are going to be switched to the domestic fleet now that the 321neos have started to arrive? Or are they all just rotated through as needed?
I also think it's kind of weird that as a Star gold elite flier for years I only once remember filling in any kind of NZ survey form emailed to me. This is in stark contrast to other carriers that I fly that survey your customer experience far more proactively. Interesting point of difference to me.
NZ tried this a while back, I can't recall if they still use it. It was found to largely entice complaints vs reflecting overall customer feedback.
But other airlines don't experience this phenomenon? Weirdly the only time I've noticed Air New Zealand being proactive with seeking feedback was when flying on other Star Alliance carriers (not that I don't think that they should do this). I try to be proactive with MyVoice.