NZ6
Posts: 1061
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Thu Dec 27, 2018 7:48 am

aerokiwi wrote:

aerokiwi wrote:
On the 77X vs A350 selection - not too fussed myself, assuming the internal cabin carve-outs on the 77X go some way in alleviating the 10-abreast Y class issue

NZ6 wrote:
Is there an "issue" to resolve in the eyes of the airlines? Is this something they're demanding to be resolved or just an av-geek requirement?

There's an "issue" insomuch as I just won't fly a 10 abreast 777. From MEL to North America, NZ now has the worst Y class offering, and that's with a stopover. No wonder they have to advertise so much here - I think I'd rather take FJ, frankly.

And waiting until the mid 2020s for a new J product is a serious mistake, though wouldn't surprise me from a monopsonistic carrier like NZ. They've sown up the domestic market and frequent flyer base that will tolerate for the time being. But that's the kind of complacency that sees you relegated to a second tier carrier pretty quickly.


I raised the point of is the fixing the 10 abreast issue was an airline requirement? All I've got back is NZ's the worst Y cabin offering which is your subjective opinion of one carrier and doesn't reflect what airlines want Boeing to produce?

NZ's J cabin isn't world leading, nor are they trying to lead the market with it, remember NZ is a very small carrier on the global scale and this country isn't exactly bursting at the seems with Business/First class demand. Early to mid-2020s is when the next widebody aircraft will arrive and a new product will be installed then.

Both the 772 and 77W have been refreshed within the last 5-6 years and at the time new the investment in a new product wasn't approved by the board. Replacing it now given the cost over what it will return to the business is laughable. So while the style may be aging vs the top half a dozen carriers in the world, the actual product is reasonably new and is still a very comfortable cabin.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2048
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Thu Dec 27, 2018 8:18 am

NZ6 wrote:
So while the style may be aging vs the top half a dozen carriers in the world,


- without even thinking hard:
- LH, BA, KL, OS, AF, TK, TG, MH, SQ, QF, EK, UA, AA, DL, VA, EY, QR all have hard J products that unequivocally trump NZ's. That's 17, not half a dozen. If I thought about it I'm sure I could come up with half a dozen more.

nz6 wrote:
the actual product is reasonably new


2004 it was introduced. That's not new. Nor is it "reasonably" new. In airline decor terms, that's decidedly obsolete. And don't forget, NZ didn't pioneer the product.

nZ6 wrote:
and is still a very comfortable cabin.


Compared to the Y cabin on the same aircraft, yes. Compared to the J cabin on just about any other aircraft (QF738 excepted), no.
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:20 am

NZ6 wrote:
aerokiwi wrote:

aerokiwi wrote:
On the 77X vs A350 selection - not too fussed myself, assuming the internal cabin carve-outs on the 77X go some way in alleviating the 10-abreast Y class issue

NZ6 wrote:
Is there an "issue" to resolve in the eyes of the airlines? Is this something they're demanding to be resolved or just an av-geek requirement?

There's an "issue" insomuch as I just won't fly a 10 abreast 777. From MEL to North America, NZ now has the worst Y class offering, and that's with a stopover. No wonder they have to advertise so much here - I think I'd rather take FJ, frankly.

And waiting until the mid 2020s for a new J product is a serious mistake, though wouldn't surprise me from a monopsonistic carrier like NZ. They've sown up the domestic market and frequent flyer base that will tolerate for the time being. But that's the kind of complacency that sees you relegated to a second tier carrier pretty quickly.


I raised the point of is the fixing the 10 abreast issue was an airline requirement? All I've got back is NZ's the worst Y cabin offering which is your subjective opinion of one carrier and doesn't reflect what airlines want Boeing to produce?

NZ's J cabin isn't world leading, nor are they trying to lead the market with it, remember NZ is a very small carrier on the global scale and this country isn't exactly bursting at the seems with Business/First class demand. Early to mid-2020s is when the next widebody aircraft will arrive and a new product will be installed then.

Both the 772 and 77W have been refreshed within the last 5-6 years and at the time new the investment in a new product wasn't approved by the board. Replacing it now given the cost over what it will return to the business is laughable. So while the style may be aging vs the top half a dozen carriers in the world, the actual product is reasonably new and is still a very comfortable cabin.


I've given you the parameters of why I think it's an issue. Yep, subjective, so are most things on here. But using your own reasoning, clearly there is an issue otherwise Boeing wouldn't be carving out some extra inches from the cabin.

And thanks, I don't need a lesson in New Zealand's itsy bitsy local market. Though with all of NZ's advertising in Melbourne, they appear to need to both lure local traffic in and advertise the fact. Given their required stopover for North American traffic, they've only got price and product to compete on. And it would appear they're fighting on price - bummer.
 
User avatar
MillwallSean
Posts: 942
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Thu Dec 27, 2018 10:17 am

I dont get this. People are expecting NZ to have a leading business product?
-For whom?
NZ main customers arent executives. Its local kiwis, born (usually in the provinces - even though quite a few have moved to the big city, only one/Auckland/ in Aotearoa, for a decent corporate career) and who think the national carrier is the carrier of choice for everyone and everything.
How many of those pay extra to sit in the bet business product?
Very few. My assumption is that NZ entices 90% of their market segments no matter if their soft product is leading edge or not. Hence I think NZ is doing the right thing by not spending a fortune in consistently upgrading their soft-product. Nothing financial to gain from it.

This leads me to something else. Living in Auckland, being in the corporate scene, it feels like there are two distinct groups of frequent flyers.
One local, educated locally, working locally who have airpoints cards no matter what bank that offers it, and who can at best be characterised as brand-ambassadors for NZ. They are really shocked when we, the other group state that NZ is a pretty run of the mill airline with a below average frequent flyer program and an ok (but nothing special) service. Its bewilderment and confusion when they hear this. They dont get it, it goes against their 'truths'. Its NZ and in their worldview they are the benchmark of what a good airline should be. Its almost frustrating for them that we (second group) haven't understood and come with such misinformed statements. In what is almost a paradox, it feels like NZ is the airline of the provincial people and that Aucklanders in general are those who have abandoned NZ in the greatest numbers, despite it being the main hub. Auckland being a different beast to the rest of the country sees soon 40% of its inhabitants born overseas and sees very different customer preferences so this may not be a major surprise but its still a paradox.

In regards to NZ going to BKK. Well the corrupt commerce commission just cant (after approving collusion to both SIN and HKG) allow it to BKK as well. Then they might as well give NZ a few hundred millions are say we dont care, we are only here to support you and the consumer doesn't matter. We, the government own you and we will protect you as much as we can.


.
No One Likes Us - We Dont Care.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3198
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Thu Dec 27, 2018 6:10 pm

aerokiwi wrote:
..
And waiting until the mid 2020s for a new J product is a serious mistake, though wouldn't surprise me from a monopsonistic carrier like NZ. They've sown up the domestic market and frequent flyer base that will tolerate for the time being. But that's the kind of complacency that sees you relegated to a second tier carrier pretty quickly.


I wonder how much of that loyal frequent flyer base, over the last 12 months has started to become not loyal?

Overcrowded lounges, awful saftey videos, lowering food standards, wornout hard product etc NZ really doesn’t have much going from them, they are just luckily that sometime they are people’s only choice!

I’ve definitely become more open to bookings other airlines over the last 12momths. Sure LATAM doesn’t have the best rep, but AKL-SYD for $350 in J, is pretty good value.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6881
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Thu Dec 27, 2018 7:53 pm

NZ6 wrote:
Polo5959 wrote:
I think a JV or stronger alliance with TG could be on the cards for NZ. Maybe NZ operate 3x weekly with 789? Or maybe seasonal HKT. I could see EK switching DPS to BKK.

HKT was on the cards last year with TG, it went cold but I believe it has merit for seasonal service, does this open NZ and TG into alliance talks with NZ operating HKT and TG BKK?

SQ alliance covers this region nicely but is targeted the higher end of the market, that said I think the alliance might be a harder sell.

NZ has explored BKK over the last 10 year or so.

EK wanted BKK over DPS but are now saying they're committed to DPS. Time will tell.

Polo5959 wrote:
I think NZ may add a regional AUS destination, my pick is CBR.

Even though SQ couldn't make WLG-CBR work?

Polo5959 wrote:
If the AA/QF alliance is approved LAX - AKL should become year round.

I would love to QF to operate AKL-LAX and AA to do AKL-DFW/LAS/PHX/SFO


TG to HKT doesn’t make much sense but then neither do a lot of the decisions they make, they barely make BKK work, though they seem to be on the right track with a daily 789. I could see HKT for NZ seasonally though I’m not sure I’d see it in 2019 or any new routes until the 787 issues are fully resolved. NZ to BKK I can’t see and neither a JV with TG given as said SQ cover a lot of these areas.

I could see EK through BKK or KUL, surprised they didn’t do BKK, while D7 are leaving even though they are one stop I could see EK there.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Thu Dec 27, 2018 8:08 pm

aerokiwi wrote:
The nacelles - a real shame they aren't black too but is this because they need to be transferrable with spares from the rest of the fleet? Or is there an impact on performance too.

You pay a premium on engine maintenance contracts if you colour personalise nacelles.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1061
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Fri Dec 28, 2018 1:00 am

Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
So while the style may be aging vs the top half a dozen carriers in the world,


- without even thinking hard:
- LH, BA, KL, OS, AF, TK, TG, MH, SQ, QF, EK, UA, AA, DL, VA, EY, QR all have hard J products that unequivocally trump NZ's. That's 17, not half a dozen. If I thought about it I'm sure I could come up with half a dozen more.

nz6 wrote:
the actual product is reasonably new


2004 it was introduced. That's not new. Nor is it "reasonably" new. In airline decor terms, that's decidedly obsolete. And don't forget, NZ didn't pioneer the product.

nZ6 wrote:
and is still a very comfortable cabin.


Compared to the Y cabin on the same aircraft, yes. Compared to the J cabin on just about any other aircraft (QF738 excepted), no.


I would aggressively dispute some of the carriers listed and ultimately that's the key here. It's all subjective. While a few of you here may not like it and as I already said, the style is showing its age is there a detrimental effect to the business?

Introduced in 2004 and upgraded over the last 5 years so the actual product (not style) is reasonably new (depending on the tail in question).
 
NZ6
Posts: 1061
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Fri Dec 28, 2018 1:18 am

aerokiwi wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

NZ's J cabin isn't world leading, nor are they trying to lead the market with it, remember NZ is a very small carrier on the global scale and this country isn't exactly bursting at the seems with Business/First class demand. Early to mid-2020s is when the next widebody aircraft will arrive and a new product will be installed then.


And thanks, I don't need a lesson in New Zealand's itsy bitsy local market. Though with all of NZ's advertising in Melbourne, they appear to need to both lure local traffic in and advertise the fact. Given their required stopover for North American traffic, they've only got price and product to compete on. And it would appear they're fighting on price - bummer.


Well, I'm not sure why you'd want to invest so heavily in a hard product simply so it can be best in the market? - After all, other than other carriers having newer better options what's fundamentally wrong with the current product? what are customers saying? are forwards declining, is the trade struggling to sell the product because of this offering. All of this in our market and our market conditions, such an issue may be critical to SQ or EK, even CX or MH but NZ? This is ultimately dictates everything.

You have a widebody fleet of 29 aircraft, age ranging from to be delivered in 2019 and the oldest approaching 15 years.

In 2013-14 you sit down and write a business case to upgrade/change the 772 cabins. This impacts the pending delivery of the first of 14 789's as you don't have a contract for a different product and the airline is preparing for an aircraft in a particular configuration, this meaning you'll likely end up with mixed products within a fleet, early refurbs or holding on two product options for an extended time.

Remembering, the cost to upgrade was in the hundreds of millions, new cabins cost more again and brings in product inconsistencies, that is worse from the customer experience as you create uncertainty and disappointment.

2022-2024 when the 772's start leaving the fleet the oldest 789 will be approaching its 10th birthday and will somewhere around the 772 and 77W fleet renewal programme a business case will be made to refurb the 789's starting with the oldest. This means by mid/late 2020's the entire fleet will again have consistent products.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1061
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Fri Dec 28, 2018 2:00 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
TG to HKT doesn’t make much sense but then neither do a lot of the decisions they make, they barely make BKK work, though they seem to be on the right track with a daily 789. I could see HKT for NZ seasonally though I’m not sure I’d see it in 2019 or any new routes until the 787 issues are fully resolved. NZ to BKK I can’t see and neither a JV with TG given as said SQ cover a lot of these areas.


TG are most likely seeing the 'success' on long leisure routes from NZ in both DPS and SGN and see a lot of BKK traffic connecting to HKT, market analysis probably shows there is a heap of Kiwis using other carriers with one-stop into HKT so see merit in offering direct seasonal service.

Obviously it's been canned or delayed, still trying to work out why.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1061
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Fri Dec 28, 2018 2:04 am

zkncj wrote:
aerokiwi wrote:
..
And waiting until the mid 2020s for a new J product is a serious mistake, though wouldn't surprise me from a monopsonistic carrier like NZ. They've sown up the domestic market and frequent flyer base that will tolerate for the time being. But that's the kind of complacency that sees you relegated to a second tier carrier pretty quickly.


I wonder how much of that loyal frequent flyer base, over the last 12 months has started to become not loyal?

Overcrowded lounges, awful saftey videos, lowering food standards, wornout hard product etc NZ really doesn’t have much going from them, they are just luckily that sometime they are people’s only choice!

I’ve definitely become more open to bookings other airlines over the last 12momths. Sure LATAM doesn’t have the best rep, but AKL-SYD for $350 in J, is pretty good value.


Every year some come and go. NZ attack disgruntled QF members and will often status match them much like I'm sure QF does out members.

Overall membership base over 2 million and growing year on year. HVC numbers reflect this growth proportionally.

Auckland is a valid issue with regard to lounges, the rest is largely a.net myth and all but non existent in reality
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Fri Dec 28, 2018 2:57 am

NZ6 wrote:
aerokiwi wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

NZ's J cabin isn't world leading, nor are they trying to lead the market with it, remember NZ is a very small carrier on the global scale and this country isn't exactly bursting at the seems with Business/First class demand. Early to mid-2020s is when the next widebody aircraft will arrive and a new product will be installed then.


And thanks, I don't need a lesson in New Zealand's itsy bitsy local market. Though with all of NZ's advertising in Melbourne, they appear to need to both lure local traffic in and advertise the fact. Given their required stopover for North American traffic, they've only got price and product to compete on. And it would appear they're fighting on price - bummer.


Well, I'm not sure why you'd want to invest so heavily in a hard product simply so it can be best in the market? - After all, other than other carriers having newer better options what's fundamentally wrong with the current product? what are customers saying? are forwards declining, is the trade struggling to sell the product because of this offering. All of this in our market and our market conditions, such an issue may be critical to SQ or EK, even CX or MH but NZ? This is ultimately dictates everything.

You have a widebody fleet of 29 aircraft, age ranging from to be delivered in 2019 and the oldest approaching 15 years.

In 2013-14 you sit down and write a business case to upgrade/change the 772 cabins. This impacts the pending delivery of the first of 14 789's as you don't have a contract for a different product and the airline is preparing for an aircraft in a particular configuration, this meaning you'll likely end up with mixed products within a fleet, early refurbs or holding on two product options for an extended time.

Remembering, the cost to upgrade was in the hundreds of millions, new cabins cost more again and brings in product inconsistencies, that is worse from the customer experience as you create uncertainty and disappointment.

2022-2024 when the 772's start leaving the fleet the oldest 789 will be approaching its 10th birthday and will somewhere around the 772 and 77W fleet renewal programme a business case will be made to refurb the 789's starting with the oldest. This means by mid/late 2020's the entire fleet will again have consistent products.


So, yes. If you don't want to compete on price then product really is your only avenue, especially if you're already at a disadvantage with a stopover.

Otherwise it all sounds like poor planning and excuses to me. 20 years with essentially the same J product. Sure, go ahead. 20 years. Did that get pointed out in the business case? But NZ has breathing room with its market position. Lucky them.

So to quote our former contributor, I shrug. Sounds like there's no point discussing much here re NZ because apparently it all makes perfect sense, management makes the best decisions and there's nothing to see here. How dull.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1061
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Fri Dec 28, 2018 3:16 am

aerokiwi wrote:
So, yes. If you don't want to compete on price then product really is your only avenue, especially if you're already at a disadvantage with a stopover.

Otherwise it all sounds like poor planning and excuses to me. 20 years with essentially the same J product. Sure, go ahead. 20 years. Did that get pointed out in the business case? But NZ has breathing room with its market position. Lucky them.

So to quote our former contributor, I shrug. Sounds like there's no point discussing much here re NZ because apparently it all makes perfect sense, management makes the best decisions and there's nothing to see here. How dull.


What's the problem with 20 years and the same J product? That comment in isolation is odd, firstly it's not the same seat, it's the same style and is there an actual issue or just a few thoughts and opinions from some anti-NZ?

Do a couple of opinions here reflect that of those flying in NZ's current J product?

There are still airlines flying long-haul routes without true lie-flat beds and some still using traditional armchair with extended recline.

I don't dispute manufacturers have come a long way in the 14 years since NZ launched this product with the 744's but unless it's detrimental to those using the product is there an issue?

Another way of saying it is; NZ no longer has a leading J product and this is being portrayed negatively towards NZ however unless those using it feel this way it's a moot point.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1061
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Fri Dec 28, 2018 3:32 am

aerokiwi wrote:
So to quote our former contributor, I shrug. Sounds like there's no point discussing much here re NZ because apparently it all makes perfect sense, management makes the best decisions and there's nothing to see here. How dull.


Before we get upset and leave the conversation like the former contributor, I'm not saying any of that. In fact I've agreed the product is aging. I'm challenging if this is as bad as suggested given type of traveller using this cabin and the New Zealand market.

I would be keen to hear constructive ways of how this could have been overcome, please do factor in the 4-year+ rolling delay of the 789 which were first due for delivery in 2009 or thereabouts, 6 years after this product was first installed on the 744's.

In 2015 would you have installed an entirely new product on the 772 for the expected 8-year lifespan? given they've long been planned for replacement in 2022 leaving you newest aircraft the 789 with two different products or retrofitting the first 4-5 within the first 3 years even if there is no real business justification?

As I said, happy to hear ideas - but let's ensure whatever options are proposed justifies spending $X required.
Last edited by NZ6 on Fri Dec 28, 2018 3:39 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
NTLDaz
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 7:56 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Fri Dec 28, 2018 3:39 am

NZ6 wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
TG to HKT doesn’t make much sense but then neither do a lot of the decisions they make, they barely make BKK work, though they seem to be on the right track with a daily 789. I could see HKT for NZ seasonally though I’m not sure I’d see it in 2019 or any new routes until the 787 issues are fully resolved. NZ to BKK I can’t see and neither a JV with TG given as said SQ cover a lot of these areas.


TG are most likely seeing the 'success' on long leisure routes from NZ in both DPS and SGN and see a lot of BKK traffic connecting to HKT, market analysis probably shows there is a heap of Kiwis using other carriers with one-stop into HKT so see merit in offering direct seasonal service.

Obviously it's been canned or delayed, still trying to work out why.


Given TG don't fly to HKT from Australia I'd find it hard to imagine why they would from NZ. I'd hazard a guess that there are a lot more Australians travelling to HKT than New Zealanders.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1061
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Fri Dec 28, 2018 3:48 am

NTLDaz wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
TG to HKT doesn’t make much sense but then neither do a lot of the decisions they make, they barely make BKK work, though they seem to be on the right track with a daily 789. I could see HKT for NZ seasonally though I’m not sure I’d see it in 2019 or any new routes until the 787 issues are fully resolved. NZ to BKK I can’t see and neither a JV with TG given as said SQ cover a lot of these areas.


TG are most likely seeing the 'success' on long leisure routes from NZ in both DPS and SGN and see a lot of BKK traffic connecting to HKT, market analysis probably shows there is a heap of Kiwis using other carriers with one-stop into HKT so see merit in offering direct seasonal service.

Obviously it's been canned or delayed, still trying to work out why.


Given TG don't fly to HKT from Australia I'd find it hard to imagine why they would from NZ. I'd hazard a guess that there are a lot more Australians travelling to HKT than New Zealanders.


JQ go directly from Australia so the route has competition whereas NZ doesn't have that direct. There's a reason.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2048
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Fri Dec 28, 2018 5:24 am

How can we possibly know that NZ's decidedly below par (I'm sorry, I won't hear arguments to the contrary) J product hasn't hurt the business? How can the carrier know with any certainty that significant numbers of J pax haven't chosen other carriers precisely because of it? They can't.

All we can say, is that the business is doing well enough with it. Whether or not it would be doing even better with a better product we won't know until a better one is installed. But the point I'd like to make is if they remain with the current product much longer, by the time it becomes obvious that it's hurting the carrier, it will already be too late.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4286
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Fri Dec 28, 2018 5:28 am

Anyone know what happened to the runway at AKL? Got closed for urgent work 20+ flights holding/diverted.
59 types. 41 countries. 24 airlines.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1061
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Fri Dec 28, 2018 7:17 am

Gasman wrote:
How can we possibly know that NZ's decidedly below par (I'm sorry, I won't hear arguments to the contrary) J product hasn't hurt the business? How can the carrier know with any certainty that significant numbers of J pax haven't chosen other carriers precisely because of it? They can't.

All we can say, is that the business is doing well enough with it. Whether or not it would be doing even better with a better product we won't know until a better one is installed. But the point I'd like to make is if they remain with the current product much longer, by the time it becomes obvious that it's hurting the carrier, it will already be too late.



Two answers..

Supply and Demand in conjunction with yield management over a extended period.

Market research / analysis along with customer satisfaction scores.

I can elaborate if needed but although (and I state it again) the product is ageing customers are still prepared to pay good money for the overall product.
 
NTLDaz
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 7:56 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Fri Dec 28, 2018 7:53 am

Maybe there's no need for airlines to upgrade their product ?
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8301
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Fri Dec 28, 2018 10:20 am

NTLDaz wrote:
Maybe there's no need for airlines to upgrade their product?


To an extent this is true, an airline will never voluntarily change unless the market forces them to, or unless they have chosen to take a brand in a different direction. If a soft product, cuisine is superior and the hard product is not easily dateable with geriatric technology, and they revise the tech periodically to current standards then the basic structure being reclad to make sure it isn't worn out is all that is required. Many airlines love to show themselves on the cutting edge for some reason, but if you think about it, the most lavish hotels like Raffles, The Savoy, The most lavish department stores like Harrod's and the most luxurious/famous brands like Bentley, Ferrari and Porsche, and other established brands are actually very traditional, they don't update product to current whims and they generally use a slow evolution of product with incremental revisions They know, and more importantly their customers know what their brand and their product stands for so there is no need to change rapidly, in fact historically when they have been revolutionary there has been an emotive response against it because it bucks tradition. Humans by nature like clear and predictable patterns, familiarity and traditions.

I am in no way comparing NZ or their product to these 'timeless' brands, but there is certainly more to it than just having an 'up to date' product. I would argue those who always hang from the 'cutting edge' cliff face have a greater chance of slipping off into irrelevance and obscurity once the 'trends' pass more quickly than expected than those that have a more confident, conservative and established brand images. I would argue airlines like Qantas, Singapore Airlines, Ryanair, Southwest and Lufthansa/Swiss are good exponents of this and have fared better than the more tryhard trendsetters like EY, Virgin Group,(VS, VA, VX) Air Berlin, FlyBe that have changed product, livery and branding on a whim every few years. the latter companies constantly have to reinvent themselves just to stay relevant (and profitable)
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Fri Dec 28, 2018 10:29 am

NZ6 wrote:
Gasman wrote:
How can we possibly know that NZ's decidedly below par (I'm sorry, I won't hear arguments to the contrary) J product hasn't hurt the business? How can the carrier know with any certainty that significant numbers of J pax haven't chosen other carriers precisely because of it? They can't.

All we can say, is that the business is doing well enough with it. Whether or not it would be doing even better with a better product we won't know until a better one is installed. But the point I'd like to make is if they remain with the current product much longer, by the time it becomes obvious that it's hurting the carrier, it will already be too late.



Two answers..

Supply and Demand in conjunction with yield management over a extended period.

Market research / analysis along with customer satisfaction scores.

I can elaborate if needed but although (and I state it again) the product is ageing customers are still prepared to pay good money for the overall product.

In November's thread you indicated NZ wasn't seeking or encouraging feedback from customers with negative views on the airline. MR was instead focussed on testing new products and services.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1061
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Fri Dec 28, 2018 7:56 pm

smartplane wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Gasman wrote:
How can we possibly know that NZ's decidedly below par (I'm sorry, I won't hear arguments to the contrary) J product hasn't hurt the business? How can the carrier know with any certainty that significant numbers of J pax haven't chosen other carriers precisely because of it? They can't.

All we can say, is that the business is doing well enough with it. Whether or not it would be doing even better with a better product we won't know until a better one is installed. But the point I'd like to make is if they remain with the current product much longer, by the time it becomes obvious that it's hurting the carrier, it will already be too late.



Two answers..

Supply and Demand in conjunction with yield management over a extended period.

Market research / analysis along with customer satisfaction scores.

I can elaborate if needed but although (and I state it again) the product is ageing customers are still prepared to pay good money for the overall product.

In November's thread you indicated NZ wasn't seeking or encouraging feedback from customers with negative views on the airline. MR was instead focussed on testing new products and services.


That conversation was regarding approaching customers in mass seeking post-flight experience via survey. There are other methods used which by memory were touched on in that same conversation.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1061
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Fri Dec 28, 2018 8:21 pm

NZ6 wrote:
Gasman wrote:
How can we possibly know that NZ's decidedly below par (I'm sorry, I won't hear arguments to the contrary) J product hasn't hurt the business? How can the carrier know with any certainty that significant numbers of J pax haven't chosen other carriers precisely because of it? They can't.

All we can say, is that the business is doing well enough with it. Whether or not it would be doing even better with a better product we won't know until a better one is installed. But the point I'd like to make is if they remain with the current product much longer, by the time it becomes obvious that it's hurting the carrier, it will already be too late.



Two answers..

Supply and Demand in conjunction with yield management over a extended period.

Market research / analysis along with customer satisfaction scores.

I can elaborate if needed but although (and I state it again) the product is ageing customers are still prepared to pay good money for the overall product.


Now I have time, I'll elaborate further. When the current product was launched it ranked highly in the industry, truly lie flat over recline flat seats were rear in Business and were seen more in first class. NZ have the true lie flat while QF had Sky Beds by memory as an example.

As the years have gone by more and more products and airlines have installed true lie flat and this is now the norm. They've also designed new seats to overcome some of the downsides seen with NZ's current option (facing inwards) not ideal for couples etc.

However...

Over this same period, NZ will have the following data for starters...
- Number of seats over each market available on NZ
- Number of seats over each market available via competition including indirect
- Number of seats over each market sold in each class
- Average price
- Yield
- Booking curve
- The number used for upgrades/points

This using this information NZ can make calculated decisions on where they need to invest in their product. Are the seats harder to sell, are they selling for less which may mean the Business fares are being reduced overall or are they having to release more Z class fares?

How does this look across an entire operating year but also how does this look over the lifespan of the product?

Now overlap that with what customers are saying which is vastly more positive than negative. Factor in that your demand is still strong and yield hasn't tracked downward.

How would you convince the board to invest $500M+ in a new product given they'll ask if that investment is only for another 14 years?

How can you give them certainly such an investment (more than and years profit) will pay for itself within the next 5 years? will NZ see a $640M profit next year as a result?

The best you can do is highlight the risks associated with an aging product but there is little to support any immediate effect on the business at the moment.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1061
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Fri Dec 28, 2018 9:09 pm

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/air-new-zeal ... 87&ref=rss

Here it is, a code 3 for the 789... are we seeing more 787 smoke along with the 78J rumour.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6881
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Fri Dec 28, 2018 9:23 pm

NZ6 wrote:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/air-new-zealand/news/article.cfm?o_id=5&objectid=12176487&ref=rss

Here it is, a code 3 for the 789... are we seeing more 787 smoke along with the 78J rumour.



I’ve said that for a while a 789 with 33J 40W 185Y, this premium leisure thing has some ruling this out. I wonder if they would hang on to the code 1 789’s? By this time it would be getting close to a reconfig time wise.

I’d say some 77X to replace 77W although the 78J could have an ER tag with I believe a new landing gear required.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2048
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:20 pm

NZ6 wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Gasman wrote:
How can we possibly know that NZ's decidedly below par (I'm sorry, I won't hear arguments to the contrary) J product hasn't hurt the business? How can the carrier know with any certainty that significant numbers of J pax haven't chosen other carriers precisely because of it? They can't.

All we can say, is that the business is doing well enough with it. Whether or not it would be doing even better with a better product we won't know until a better one is installed. But the point I'd like to make is if they remain with the current product much longer, by the time it becomes obvious that it's hurting the carrier, it will already be too late.



Two answers..

Supply and Demand in conjunction with yield management over a extended period.

Market research / analysis along with customer satisfaction scores.

I can elaborate if needed but although (and I state it again) the product is ageing customers are still prepared to pay good money for the overall product.


Now I have time, I'll elaborate further. When the current product was launched it ranked highly in the industry, truly lie flat over recline flat seats were rear in Business and were seen more in first class. NZ have the true lie flat while QF had Sky Beds by memory as an example.

As the years have gone by more and more products and airlines have installed true lie flat and this is now the norm. They've also designed new seats to overcome some of the downsides seen with NZ's current option (facing inwards) not ideal for couples etc.

However...

Over this same period, NZ will have the following data for starters...
- Number of seats over each market available on NZ
- Number of seats over each market available via competition including indirect
- Number of seats over each market sold in each class
- Average price
- Yield
- Booking curve
- The number used for upgrades/points

This using this information NZ can make calculated decisions on where they need to invest in their product. Are the seats harder to sell, are they selling for less which may mean the Business fares are being reduced overall or are they having to release more Z class fares?

How does this look across an entire operating year but also how does this look over the lifespan of the product?

Now overlap that with what customers are saying which is vastly more positive than negative. Factor in that your demand is still strong and yield hasn't tracked downward.

How would you convince the board to invest $500M+ in a new product given they'll ask if that investment is only for another 14 years?

How can you give them certainly such an investment (more than and years profit) will pay for itself within the next 5 years? will NZ see a $640M profit next year as a result?

The best you can do is highlight the risks associated with an aging product but there is little to support any immediate effect on the business at the moment.


I don't disagree.

But

The point that yourself, and I suspect the NZ execs are missing is that all these metrics that are used to gauge customer satisfaction and its relationship to loyalty, ticket purchase and profit are loaded with assumptions, extrapolations and are crude.

Let's say there is no evidence that the current J product is hurting the airline. I'm then reminded of the saying "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - meaning, in this case, just because you haven't shown something is hurting the airline doesn't mean it isn't happening. And by the time it is obvious by the metrics you listed - when the junior exec bursts into the boardroom waving a piece of paper screaming "herringbone is KILLING us!!!" - it will already be too late. If NZ were to fix overnight all the things that caused me to leave 5 years ago, I still wouldn't be back. Not overnight anyway. Customer inertia works both ways.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1061
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sat Dec 29, 2018 1:05 am

Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
NZ6 wrote:


Two answers..

Supply and Demand in conjunction with yield management over a extended period.

Market research / analysis along with customer satisfaction scores.

I can elaborate if needed but although (and I state it again) the product is ageing customers are still prepared to pay good money for the overall product.


Now I have time, I'll elaborate further. When the current product was launched it ranked highly in the industry, truly lie flat over recline flat seats were rear in Business and were seen more in first class. NZ have the true lie flat while QF had Sky Beds by memory as an example.

As the years have gone by more and more products and airlines have installed true lie flat and this is now the norm. They've also designed new seats to overcome some of the downsides seen with NZ's current option (facing inwards) not ideal for couples etc.

However...

Over this same period, NZ will have the following data for starters...
- Number of seats over each market available on NZ
- Number of seats over each market available via competition including indirect
- Number of seats over each market sold in each class
- Average price
- Yield
- Booking curve
- The number used for upgrades/points

This using this information NZ can make calculated decisions on where they need to invest in their product. Are the seats harder to sell, are they selling for less which may mean the Business fares are being reduced overall or are they having to release more Z class fares?

How does this look across an entire operating year but also how does this look over the lifespan of the product?

Now overlap that with what customers are saying which is vastly more positive than negative. Factor in that your demand is still strong and yield hasn't tracked downward.

How would you convince the board to invest $500M+ in a new product given they'll ask if that investment is only for another 14 years?

How can you give them certainly such an investment (more than and years profit) will pay for itself within the next 5 years? will NZ see a $640M profit next year as a result?

The best you can do is highlight the risks associated with an aging product but there is little to support any immediate effect on the business at the moment.


I don't disagree.

But

The point that yourself, and I suspect the NZ execs are missing is that all these metrics that are used to gauge customer satisfaction and its relationship to loyalty, ticket purchase and profit are loaded with assumptions, extrapolations and are crude.

Let's say there is no evidence that the current J product is hurting the airline. I'm then reminded of the saying "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - meaning, in this case, just because you haven't shown something is hurting the airline doesn't mean it isn't happening. And by the time it is obvious by the metrics you listed - when the junior exec bursts into the boardroom waving a piece of paper screaming "herringbone is KILLING us!!!" - it will already be too late. If NZ were to fix overnight all the things that caused me to leave 5 years ago, I still wouldn't be back. Not overnight anyway. Customer inertia works both ways.


By that same logic, you're essentially suggesting they spend a huge volume of money and upgrade the seats because there are better options out there which could generate more passenger traffic and revenue. The same problem will occur in another 10 years after that when that new product starts to age.

Would you spend this money without evidence it will provide a return and pay for itself?

I'd love something different and I'm sure NZ would replace it if it wasn't so costly.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1376
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sat Dec 29, 2018 1:53 am

Gasman wrote:

I don't disagree.

But

The point that yourself, and I suspect the NZ execs are missing is that all these metrics that are used to gauge customer satisfaction and its relationship to loyalty, ticket purchase and profit are loaded with assumptions, extrapolations and are crude.

Let's say there is no evidence that the current J product is hurting the airline. I'm then reminded of the saying "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - meaning, in this case, just because you haven't shown something is hurting the airline doesn't mean it isn't happening. And by the time it is obvious by the metrics you listed - when the junior exec bursts into the boardroom waving a piece of paper screaming "herringbone is KILLING us!!!" - it will already be too late. If NZ were to fix overnight all the things that caused me to leave 5 years ago, I still wouldn't be back. Not overnight anyway. Customer inertia works both ways.

I've read most of the posts on this ever-cyclical issue, but the one thing that I'm missing is the criteria that you believe NZ should be using to justify the budget for an upgrade. I get where NZ6 is coming from, and the criteria that he believes the airline currently uses, but it's not clear to me where the fault in this approach lies, in your view (other than that it doesn't deliver the "correct" outcome). How should the airline be justifying your proposed upgrade to the bean-counters?
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
Gasman
Posts: 2048
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:00 am

NZ6 wrote:
By that same logic, you're essentially suggesting they spend a huge volume of money and upgrade the seats because there are better options out there which could generate more passenger traffic and revenue. The same problem will occur in another 10 years after that when that new product starts to age.

Would you spend this money without evidence it will provide a return and pay for itself?

I'd love something different and I'm sure NZ would replace it if it wasn't so costly.


Exactly, that is precisely what I'm suggesting. Technology, fashion, and customer expectation have moved the J game on. NZ only remain in it because of their extensive monopolies and customers locked into their loyalty scheme - not because they have a competitive product.

It would be easily possible to cherry pick data to support not upgrading the product at all, ever. I'm not suggesting NZ are doing this; but if you rely on data analysis at the expense of common sense to drive your decision making - you'll eventually make wrong decisions. And as I keep saying - in this case, once we know with all certainty that NZ have pushed this particular product too long, it will be too late. The J product was probably 25% of the reason I left NZ. And if I left, there must be many many more slightly disgruntled frequent fliers who haven't left - yet. But push them just a bit harder, for a bit longer, and they will.

In my opinion, introduction of the 789 would have been the ideal time to change the J product. By that time the existing one had been around for about 10 years and was due. It would not have mandated changing the J product on the 777 fleet as well at that precise moment; it could have been scheduled down the track. Nothing wrong with differing products between aircraft as long as they work on the aircraft/route they're on. QF currently have 3 entirely different J products.
 
tealnz
Posts: 552
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:01 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/air-new-zealand/news/article.cfm?o_id=5&objectid=12176487&ref=rss
Here it is, a code 3 for the 789... are we seeing more 787 smoke along with the 78J rumour.

I’ve said that for a while a 789 with 33J 40W 185Y, this premium leisure thing has some ruling this out. I wonder if they would hang on to the code 1 789’s? By this time it would be getting close to a reconfig time wise.
I’d say some 77X to replace 77W although the 78J could have an ER tag with I believe a new landing gear required.

Yeah I've been one of the sceptics, both because of the 789's technical limitations and because NZ's business model seemed to demand higher density configurations plus freight (ie higher payload but shorter range than eg the QF 789s). The Code 3 reference has me wondering whether their business model is changing. I still can't see how NZ could get the level of business traffic that the likes of SQ, QF and CX can generate. But maybe they're finding that at least on North American routes (plus Japan, maybe HK) they have established an image that (pace Gasman) will let them carry a higher share of high-yield traffic. We have previously seen evidence of it on the Tokyo route (where they found the Code 1 789 had far too little premium capacity to meet demand).

Still seems to me more likely they'll go for something with greater payload/range. At the last investor day NZ made a specific reference to the A35K as highly suitable for ORD – thus presumably also for NYC. And an aircraft with range for full pax to/from ORD and NYC will also have the capacity to do a full freight load from LAX.

Or maybe Luxton is just trying to keep both manufacturers hungry. Notwithstanding the views of the organ-grinders on this thread, both manufacturers would see this as a glamor order.

There's one little mystery: Luxton's comment (it's presumably from him) that
Boeing had been talking about getting more range from the plane.
Extending the range of the 789 and the 78J has been a favourite topic for the fans but as far as I'm aware this is the first time an airline executive has said Boeing are looking at it. Or have I missed something?
 
NTLDaz
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 7:56 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sat Dec 29, 2018 3:09 am

tealnz wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/air-new-zealand/news/article.cfm?o_id=5&objectid=12176487&ref=rss
Here it is, a code 3 for the 789... are we seeing more 787 smoke along with the 78J rumour.

I’ve said that for a while a 789 with 33J 40W 185Y, this premium leisure thing has some ruling this out. I wonder if they would hang on to the code 1 789’s? By this time it would be getting close to a reconfig time wise.
I’d say some 77X to replace 77W although the 78J could have an ER tag with I believe a new landing gear required.

Yeah I've been one of the sceptics, both because of the 789's technical limitations and because NZ's business model seemed to demand higher density configurations plus freight (ie higher payload but shorter range than eg the QF 789s). The Code 3 reference has me wondering whether their business model is changing. I still can't see how NZ could get the level of business traffic that the likes of SQ, QF and CX can generate. But maybe they're finding that at least on North American routes (plus Japan, maybe HK) they have established an image that (pace Gasman) will let them carry a higher share of high-yield traffic. We have previously seen evidence of it on the Tokyo route (where they found the Code 1 789 had far too little premium capacity to meet demand).

Still seems to me more likely they'll go for something with greater payload/range. At the last investor day NZ made a specific reference to the A35K as highly suitable for ORD – thus presumably also for NYC. And an aircraft with range for full pax to/from ORD and NYC will also have the capacity to do a full freight load from LAX.

Or maybe Luxton is just trying to keep both manufacturers hungry. Notwithstanding the views of the organ-grinders on this thread, both manufacturers would see this as a glamor order.

There's one little mystery: Luxton's comment (it's presumably from him) that
Boeing had been talking about getting more range from the plane.
Extending the range of the 789 and the 78J has been a favourite topic for the fans but as far as I'm aware this is the first time an airline executive has said Boeing are looking at it. Or have I missed something?


Not disagreeing with you -just wondering why you think NZ would be a glamour order.
 
tealnz
Posts: 552
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sat Dec 29, 2018 3:26 am

They tick quite a few boxes. Series of top airline awards over some years. Highly profitable. Track record of consistent growth including success with new routes. Strong management team. Marketing flair (the videos, the black paint - yeah I know, each to his own...). Innovative (the herringbones at the start, cuddle class, biofuels experiments, kiosks, digital). Young fleet (and lead customer for the 789). Set to become one of a limited number of carriers with multiple ULH routes. You wouldn't guess it from this thread but I'm sure whichever of Airbus and Boeing gets the 77E replacement order will be spotlighting it much more than the bare numbers might suggest.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6881
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sat Dec 29, 2018 5:00 am

tealnz wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/air-new-zealand/news/article.cfm?o_id=5&objectid=12176487&ref=rss
Here it is, a code 3 for the 789... are we seeing more 787 smoke along with the 78J rumour.

I’ve said that for a while a 789 with 33J 40W 185Y, this premium leisure thing has some ruling this out. I wonder if they would hang on to the code 1 789’s? By this time it would be getting close to a reconfig time wise.
I’d say some 77X to replace 77W although the 78J could have an ER tag with I believe a new landing gear required.

Yeah I've been one of the sceptics, both because of the 789's technical limitations and because NZ's business model seemed to demand higher density configurations plus freight (ie higher payload but shorter range than eg the QF 789s). The Code 3 reference has me wondering whether their business model is changing. I still can't see how NZ could get the level of business traffic that the likes of SQ, QF and CX can generate. But maybe they're finding that at least on North American routes (plus Japan, maybe HK) they have established an image that (pace Gasman) will let them carry a higher share of high-yield traffic. We have previously seen evidence of it on the Tokyo route (where they found the Code 1 789 had far too little premium capacity to meet demand).

Still seems to me more likely they'll go for something with greater payload/range. At the last investor day NZ made a specific reference to the A35K as highly suitable for ORD – thus presumably also for NYC. And an aircraft with range for full pax to/from ORD and NYC will also have the capacity to do a full freight load from LAX.

Or maybe Luxton is just trying to keep both manufacturers hungry. Notwithstanding the views of the organ-grinders on this thread, both manufacturers would see this as a glamor order.

There's one little mystery: Luxton's comment (it's presumably from him) that
Boeing had been talking about getting more range from the plane.
Extending the range of the 789 and the 78J has been a favourite topic for the fans but as far as I'm aware this is the first time an airline executive has said Boeing are looking at it. Or have I missed something?


This may say how happy NZ are with the 789 bar the RR issues which have nothing to do with the frame itself. They do seem incredibly efficient, that’s not to say that the A350 isn’t efficient.

Also the A35K is a lot of aircraft for those routes like NYC/GRU is they were also used to LAX/SFO with the same configuration, we would end up with a lot of premium seats to those new destinations as well as Y with 320-340 seats, that’s why I’d see the A359 which would I’d have thought have enough payload range for the ULH mission.

Where the 789 is already in the fleet and more right sized if they can get the capacity around 250-260 with extra premium seats over the code 2, my code 3 would be something like 33J 47W 170Y total 250.

NRT keeps ending up with the code 1 789’s again, the 772’s did do HND a bit with more premium seating, and 777’s will do NRT during RWC 2019 to add premium capacity.

It makes a potential 77W replacement interesting aswell should they go Boeing.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1061
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sat Dec 29, 2018 5:42 am

Ran into a retired engineer this afternoon, was always in the know when he was around.

He's under the understanding that, Boeing and NZ have been in talks and that the 77X is proposed to replace the 77W and the 787 'family' to replace the 772. He's also said, the A350 is the better aircraft over 778 on paper to replace the 772 however the 778 fleet may grow to a total of 8-10 frames and the extra 787's could still be around the number of 772's leaving the fleet.

This would overcome the expense of using two manufacturers and allow ULR routes with under 300 seats but still have a decent sized Y cabin.

Seems to be aligned with recent rumours and comments too.

Will be interesting to see what Airbus respond with.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4286
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sat Dec 29, 2018 6:00 am

NZ6 wrote:
Ran into a retired engineer this afternoon, was always in the know when he was around.

He's under the understanding that, Boeing and NZ have been in talks and that the 77X is proposed to replace the 77W and the 787 'family' to replace the 772. He's also said, the A350 is the better aircraft over 778 on paper to replace the 772 however the 778 fleet may grow to a total of 8-10 frames and the extra 787's could still be around the number of 772's leaving the fleet.

This would overcome the expense of using two manufacturers and allow ULR routes with under 300 seats but still have a decent sized Y cabin.

Seems to be aligned with recent rumours and comments too.

Will be interesting to see what Airbus respond with.

Either way it’s certainly an order that both manufacturers will be making sharp deals on to secure. Boeing has more to lose, while Airbus has more to gain from an order.
Remember NZ isn’t foreign to Airbus, it has a substantial (and growing) fleet of A320/321 aircraft. The 77E isn’t so much the worry, it’s more the size of the 77W replacement fleet that will dictate the order. By that I mean if it is only going to be the 7 frames as currently the case then more likely Boeing 779 + additional 789/10. If however it grows to 8+ (especially 10+) then that is big enough for a totally different fleet which would favour Airbus.
The total order for 77E/77W replacement will likely be 20+ frames so unless the 78J gets in there then the fleet size is sufficient for either manufacturer.
59 types. 41 countries. 24 airlines.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3198
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sat Dec 29, 2018 6:15 am

Has anyone heard how Auckland to Newcastle is going on VA?
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6881
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sat Dec 29, 2018 6:22 am

Zkpilot wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Ran into a retired engineer this afternoon, was always in the know when he was around.

He's under the understanding that, Boeing and NZ have been in talks and that the 77X is proposed to replace the 77W and the 787 'family' to replace the 772. He's also said, the A350 is the better aircraft over 778 on paper to replace the 772 however the 778 fleet may grow to a total of 8-10 frames and the extra 787's could still be around the number of 772's leaving the fleet.

This would overcome the expense of using two manufacturers and allow ULR routes with under 300 seats but still have a decent sized Y cabin.

Seems to be aligned with recent rumours and comments too.

Will be interesting to see what Airbus respond with.

Either way it’s certainly an order that both manufacturers will be making sharp deals on to secure. Boeing has more to lose, while Airbus has more to gain from an order.
Remember NZ isn’t foreign to Airbus, it has a substantial (and growing) fleet of A320/321 aircraft. The 77E isn’t so much the worry, it’s more the size of the 77W replacement fleet that will dictate the order. By that I mean if it is only going to be the 7 frames as currently the case then more likely Boeing 779 + additional 789/10. If however it grows to 8+ (especially 10+) then that is big enough for a totally different fleet which would favour Airbus.
The total order for 77E/77W replacement will likely be 20+ frames so unless the 78J gets in there then the fleet size is sufficient for either manufacturer.


I still think myself if they order 78J’s, then they won’t go A350 at all, seems to me 78J/359 are to similar for Asia and it to me makes sense with a code 3 789 for ULH.

I could see an order for 6 78J to start from 2020 since no long haul frames are on order bar 1 789 in late 2019, and 4-6 789 code 3 to replace 772 from 2022.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8301
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sat Dec 29, 2018 8:46 am

zkncj wrote:
Has anyone heard how Auckland to Newcastle is going on VA?

Most of the flights I have seen have been light with between 30 and 60 passengers, I did see them climb to around 100-120 for a couple of flights just before Christmas. Make what you will from that.
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
Qantas16
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 3:51 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sat Dec 29, 2018 11:14 am

Issues with the A321Neo's? Both NZ705 (AKL-SYD) and NZ708 (SYD-AKL) took strange routings today, looks like keeping close to NLK and therefore to ETOPS 90minutes?

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ANZ708

The QF and JQ flight's at similar times took the direct route...
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4286
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sat Dec 29, 2018 12:08 pm

ZK-NBT wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Ran into a retired engineer this afternoon, was always in the know when he was around.

He's under the understanding that, Boeing and NZ have been in talks and that the 77X is proposed to replace the 77W and the 787 'family' to replace the 772. He's also said, the A350 is the better aircraft over 778 on paper to replace the 772 however the 778 fleet may grow to a total of 8-10 frames and the extra 787's could still be around the number of 772's leaving the fleet.

This would overcome the expense of using two manufacturers and allow ULR routes with under 300 seats but still have a decent sized Y cabin.

Seems to be aligned with recent rumours and comments too.

Will be interesting to see what Airbus respond with.

Either way it’s certainly an order that both manufacturers will be making sharp deals on to secure. Boeing has more to lose, while Airbus has more to gain from an order.
Remember NZ isn’t foreign to Airbus, it has a substantial (and growing) fleet of A320/321 aircraft. The 77E isn’t so much the worry, it’s more the size of the 77W replacement fleet that will dictate the order. By that I mean if it is only going to be the 7 frames as currently the case then more likely Boeing 779 + additional 789/10. If however it grows to 8+ (especially 10+) then that is big enough for a totally different fleet which would favour Airbus.
The total order for 77E/77W replacement will likely be 20+ frames so unless the 78J gets in there then the fleet size is sufficient for either manufacturer.


I still think myself if they order 78J’s, then they won’t go A350 at all, seems to me 78J/359 are to similar for Asia and it to me makes sense with a code 3 789 for ULH.

I could see an order for 6 78J to start from 2020 since no long haul frames are on order bar 1 789 in late 2019, and 4-6 789 code 3 to replace 772 from 2022.

Yes it would be unlikely they would order both the 78J and A350. As I said above if they did go for the 78J then the 779 (maybe 778) would be a forgone conclusion.
Only alternative there would be is if Boeing on the 78J upgraded the undercarriage, found ways to lighten the aircraft, added fuel capacity and MTOW, while improving fuel consumption (while updating the 789 with these too to make an ER version). Getting another 1000nm out of a 789 is a big ask though especially without compromising payload.

I still think that the 779 is too big for NZs needs, the 778 isn’t going to have a low enough CASM, the 789/78J doesn’t have enough range.
On top of this for ULH flights neither offer an overly pleasant customer experience in economy being 10 or 9 across respectively. The A350 however offers more cabin space per passenger, is very efficient, offers the desired range and payload, while also offering freight options.
A fleet of 789 and A359/K offers a broad range of capacity with all being effective at the majority of routes.
59 types. 41 countries. 24 airlines.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2048
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:03 pm

Zkpilot wrote:

I still think that the 779 is too big for NZs needs,


Do you though?? Remember this is an airline that up until very recently was filling three 744s a day to North America. I completely agree the 779 wouldn't be suitable for all of NZ's long haul needs; but it's the aircraft that makes most sense to me as a direct 77W replacement.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sat Dec 29, 2018 8:14 pm

tealnz wrote:
Extending the range of the 789 and the 78J has been a favourite topic for the fans but as far as I'm aware this is the first time an airline executive has said Boeing are looking at it. Or have I missed something?

There is a battle within Boeing - expand the capabilities of the 787 v persevere with the 777X. Until the outcome is determined, there will be no meaningful capability improvements for the 787.

At least one battle has already been lost by the 787 team (step capability improvements to the 8 and 9 excluded from the 10). The Board knew customers would demand these on the 10 too. Board sign off of the HA deal was to placate.

If Boeing was taking the 777X decision today, there would be no 777X. The 787 would be offered with 4-5 fuselage lengths, 2 undercarriages, 2 wing options, each with at least 2 weight options, and customers could pick and choose the combinations.

Instead, Boeing must protect 777X conditional orders, virtually every one written at launch prices, from THE most demanding customers, with extra special protection for the 778.

The billion dollar question, is for how long, can now highly profitable per unit 787 family sales, be impaired to protect the X? Boeing would appreciate Airbus terminating the A380, which has the effect of capping X unit prices. Expect X and 748 prices to rise USD30-40m a copy if the A380 was gone, subject to A350 changes to capabilities and model offerings.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1061
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sat Dec 29, 2018 8:20 pm

ZK-NBT wrote:
I still think myself if they order 78J’s, then they won’t go A350 at all, seems to me 78J/359 are to similar for Asia and it to me makes sense with a code 3 789 for ULH.

I could see an order for 6 78J to start from 2020 since no long haul frames are on order bar 1 789 in late 2019, and 4-6 789 code 3 to replace 772 from 2022.


I agree, they simply don't need both, I believe it's becoming fundamentally clear NZ are looking at pulling off a long haul fleet with just two types and have some config changes within a type. Airbus could deliver this but given NZ already has 14 frames of one type it's very easy to fall on that side of the fence.

The A350 offered range but had a higher capacity than the 787 but much lower than the 778 which was too big for some new planned routes at needed this range over current equipment. A code 3 789 will achieve this same result with range but still have close to 200Y pax and a high premium configuration. That's almost ideal for the likes of NYC however not so ideal for South America yet.

778 Routes: LAX/SFO/LHR/HKG/IAH
789 Routes: YVR/ORD/NYC/EZE/KIX/PVG/DPS/TPE/ABC/DEF
Routes which could see both either over time or with seasonal changes being: TYO, SIN, HNL & PER.

As always, NAN, RAR, SYD, BNE, MEL, ADL, APW and TBU will see widebody flights during the week as well.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1061
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sat Dec 29, 2018 8:21 pm

aerorobnz wrote:
zkncj wrote:
Has anyone heard how Auckland to Newcastle is going on VA?

Most of the flights I have seen have been light with between 30 and 60 passengers, I did see them climb to around 100-120 for a couple of flights just before Christmas. Make what you will from that.


Oh dear... is the issue VA or NTL?
 
NZ6
Posts: 1061
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sat Dec 29, 2018 8:45 pm

Gasman wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:

I still think that the 779 is too big for NZs needs,


Do you though?? Remember this is an airline that up until very recently was filling three 744s a day to North America. I completely agree the 779 wouldn't be suitable for all of NZ's long haul needs; but it's the aircraft that makes most sense to me as a direct 77W replacement.


Recently? Not so long before that, it was only 2 and into LAX only.

I recall SFO being launched, then YVR after the 772's entered the fleet around 2004, more recently we've seen IAH and now ORD. I'm not sure if you're 3x 744's were NZ2 and NZ6 along with NZ8 or if you're talking about NZ2, NZ4 and NZ6 post QF leaving the market.

I thought it was pretty obvious that LAX was going to remain 2x 777 and the North American growth was about accessing new points in the states IAH/ORD/NYC while maintaining SFO/YVR and stabilising them with year-round more efficient aircraft in YVR and working with an alliance member in SFO. When you consider this, how does the 779 help this plan?

It's clear the airline is moving away from flying the mass between AKL and LAX, if this was still the case, the 778 or 779 would be perfect in 2030 as the 77W is still a good aircraft for that.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2048
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sat Dec 29, 2018 10:25 pm

NZ6 wrote:
It's clear the airline is moving away from flying the mass between AKL and LAX, if this was still the case, the 778 or 779 would be perfect in 2030 as the 77W is still a good aircraft for that.

Is it though? If all IAH and ORD were doing was cannibalising traffic off LAX, there would be absolutely no point in those routes. While I'm sure this happening to an extent; isn't the real issue and driver behind all these new routes the fact that north American traffic is a) growing and b) a cash cow?

And proportional to the other destinations, LAX will always be LAX and it will (probably) always be the stopover for LHR. Genuine question - is the LAX/LHR combo enough to warrant a 779 purchase on its own?
 
NZ6
Posts: 1061
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sat Dec 29, 2018 10:53 pm

Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
It's clear the airline is moving away from flying the mass between AKL and LAX, if this was still the case, the 778 or 779 would be perfect in 2030 as the 77W is still a good aircraft for that.

Is it though? If all IAH and ORD were doing was cannibalising traffic off LAX, there would be absolutely no point in those routes. While I'm sure this happening to an extent; isn't the real issue and driver behind all these new routes the fact that north American traffic is a) growing and b) a cash cow?

And proportional to the other destinations, LAX will always be LAX and it will (probably) always be the stopover for LHR. Genuine question - is the LAX/LHR combo enough to warrant a 779 purchase on its own?


While on pure seat numbers comparing a 2x 77W over 2x 744's there will be fewer seats (74 in total) there's also now competition and TN/FJ/HA pushing the lower end of the market hard with their mid pacific stop or transits.

The 3rd flight via LAX was, in all honesty too much capacity which is why it was eventually used elsewhere.

Of course, some of those travelling ex Eastern ports will now use ORD/IAH over LAX, therefore, freeing up LAX capacity and this isn't a bad thing, what NZ's trying to achieve is a greater overall capacity to and from North America.

The way they plan to achieve this is, as I've said before making AKL more accessible to the America public and that means flying deeper into the East Coast.

LAX has maintained its capacity for now and you may see NZ6 drop from daily to 4-5 times a week in periods in future years but NZ will operate more direct routings into the USA and have more overall capacity to/from that market.

If NZ wanted to fly the mass between NZ and US and given it's a growing cash cow, wouldn't you see 3-4x daily 77W between AKL-LAX creating a significant crew hub and potential engineering base in LAX? whereas as I'm highlighting LAX has lost it's 'fat' while the remainder of the US is growing.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2048
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sat Dec 29, 2018 11:25 pm

NZ6 wrote:
If NZ wanted to fly the mass between NZ and US and given it's a growing cash cow, wouldn't you see 3-4x daily 77W between AKL-LAX creating a significant crew hub and potential engineering base in LAX? whereas as I'm highlighting LAX has lost it's 'fat' while the remainder of the US is growing.


Has fat been trimmed from NZ's infrastructure at LAX? I wasn't aware.

Still, much as I hate the 777 - and in particular the 77W - there can be no doubt that it has been a great aircraft for NZ (although as I've said previously, if they'd known fuel prices would plummet after 2010 I doubt they'd have retired the 744s quite so quickly). There can also be little doubt that the 77W is the right aircraft for AKL-LAX-LHR and this is a key legacy route for the airline.This route makes an argument - although I concede, not a rock solid one - for the 779.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1061
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sat Dec 29, 2018 11:43 pm

Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
If NZ wanted to fly the mass between NZ and US and given it's a growing cash cow, wouldn't you see 3-4x daily 77W between AKL-LAX creating a significant crew hub and potential engineering base in LAX? whereas as I'm highlighting LAX has lost it's 'fat' while the remainder of the US is growing.


Has fat been trimmed from NZ's infrastructure at LAX? I wasn't aware.

Still, much as I hate the 777 - and in particular the 77W - there can be no doubt that it has been a great aircraft for NZ (although as I've said previously, if they'd known fuel prices would plummet after 2010 I doubt they'd have retired the 744s quite so quickly). There can also be little doubt that the 77W is the right aircraft for AKL-LAX-LHR and this is a key legacy route for the airline.This route makes an argument - although I concede, not a rock solid one - for the 779.


by fat, I mean capacity fat.

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