tealnz
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:39 am

Lots of excitement up thread over 789 Code 3 and 789 IGW scenarios. But I'm not sure either of these hangs together:

- First the IGW scenario. smartplane tells us the Boeing board has rejected proposals to engineer a higher-weight 789 and 78J. If that's correct it's hard to see them changing their mind any time soon: if they're prioritising protection of the 77X market they're going to be locked in that position for a few years yet - they'll want to lock in some serious new 77X orders at post-launch prices. So there will be no offer anytime soon.

- Even if Boeing is actually moving toward launching a 789IGW it's hard to see how that can be a solution for the 77E replacement. For reasons discussed in other threads any serious improvement in MTOW and range for the 789/78J is going to need major engineering and therefore major lead-time. There have been no whispers from other airlines about a 789 IGW offering. No way it's going to be available for an April 2019 decision by NZ. And no way Boeing could deliver it in the timeframe NZ has been talking about.

- Could that mean that Luxon is focusing instead on the 789 Code 3 as an interim option? With ~245 seats? True, QF are doing well with high-premium 789s. But we'd have to convince ourselves NZ can also somehow now make a go of it with a high-premium business model (rather than a premium leisure model). I have my doubts - where's the corporate traffic? But maybe we're now the Switzerland of the South Seas. Maybe the board has been reading Gasman...

- Problem then - if you buy eight or nine 789s to replace the 77Es - is that you then struggle to justify a big enough 77X fleet when you eventually replace the eight 77Ws. A combined fleet of 17 77E/77W is efficient. But 8-10 x 77X? Sounds marginal. Or do you make some heroic assumptions about future long-haul trunk route growth?

- Then there's still the basic question about the 77X: It's really heavy compared to the competition and it's expensive (because it offers a lot more capability). On the ranges NZ is looking at the 778 will struggle to compete on CASM (maybe less so for Qantas). And the 779 looks high risk on capital and trip costs at a time when airlines seem to be down-gauging and shifting to point-to-point route strategies. It offers too much capability. The challenge is to make the 77X numbers work when the A350 offers all the capability NZ needs at lower weight and lower costs. Or are Boeing prepared to offer launch prices to NZ to avoid losing the sale?
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4296
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sun Dec 30, 2018 2:42 am

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.

The 744 had a relatively low seat count in NZ configuration. As for 3x per day it only just got there with SFO and with QF leaving AKL-LAX.
Remember that now NZ also has IAH, YVR, ORD. adding in EWR and possibly another destination (thinking SEA or DEN). That means we could have 6x daily shortly, and potentially 8x daily. If it was all 789 that would still be around 2300 seats per day ex-AKL vs around 1050 previously with the 744s. With a combination of 789+779 you would be looking at around 2700 seats daily. Replacing the 779 with A350 means about 200 less total seats. So yes NZ doesn’t “need” the 779 (while the 778 likely isn’t good enough CASM).
59 types. 41 countries. 24 airlines.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1116
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:47 am

Zkpilot wrote:
So yes NZ doesn’t “need” the 779 (while the 778 likely isn’t good enough CASM).


The second time you've mentioned this, and although you may argue the 779 is more efficient than the 778 in regards CASM this is dependent firstly on how it's used but also and most importantly only if you can fill the 779 with revenue paying passengers.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1116
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:09 am

tealnz wrote:
Lots of excitement up thread over 789 Code 3 and 789 IGW scenarios. But I'm not sure either of these hangs together:

- First the IGW scenario. smartplane tells us the Boeing board has rejected proposals to engineer a higher-weight 789 and 78J. If that's correct it's hard to see them changing their mind any time soon: if they're prioritising protection of the 77X market they're going to be locked in that position for a few years yet - they'll want to lock in some serious new 77X orders at post-launch prices. So there will be no offer anytime soon.

- Even if Boeing is actually moving toward launching a 789IGW it's hard to see how that can be a solution for the 77E replacement. For reasons discussed in other threads any serious improvement in MTOW and range for the 789/78J is going to need major engineering and therefore major lead-time. There have been no whispers from other airlines about a 789 IGW offering. No way it's going to be available for an April 2019 decision by NZ. And no way Boeing could deliver it in the timeframe NZ has been talking about.
IGW?
- Could that mean that Luxon is focusing instead on the 789 Code 3 as an interim option? With ~245 seats? True, QF are doing well with high-premium 789s. But we'd have to convince ourselves NZ can also somehow now make a go of it with a high-premium business model (rather than a premium leisure model). I have my doubts - where's the corporate traffic? But maybe we're now the Switzerland of the South Seas. Maybe the board has been reading Gasman...

- Problem then - if you buy eight or nine 789s to replace the 77Es - is that you then struggle to justify a big enough 77X fleet when you eventually replace the eight 77Ws. A combined fleet of 17 77E/77W is efficient. But 8-10 x 77X? Sounds marginal. Or do you make some heroic assumptions about future long-haul trunk route growth?

- Then there's still the basic question about the 77X: It's really heavy compared to the competition and it's expensive (because it offers a lot more capability). On the ranges NZ is looking at the 778 will struggle to compete on CASM (maybe less so for Qantas). And the 779 looks high risk on capital and trip costs at a time when airlines seem to be down-gauging and shifting to point-to-point route strategies. It offers too much capability. The challenge is to make the 77X numbers work when the A350 offers all the capability NZ needs at lower weight and lower costs. Or are Boeing prepared to offer launch prices to NZ to avoid losing the sale?


Maybe it's me but has this whole thing been over thought?

What is 789IGW?

Regarding the extra range, within any development program, the aircraft improves over time. We may not be talking about an ER version or an extra 1000nm. It may only be 2-3 hundred nm which may not be used for the extra range but for extra weight in the order of an extra row of seats for example.

The simplest way to compare new Boeing aircraft with NZ has had in the current or past.

The 778 is the 77W (350 seats)
The 779 is the 744 (380 seats)
The 789 is between the 763 and 772 (230-312 seats)

So NZ needs to scale up to the 778 (equivalent of replacing them with the 77W) or scale down to the 787 but suffice capacity in either the business or economy cabin.
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 939
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:29 am

People keep talking about the 778 but much like the 772LR vs 3ER I don't foresee the 8 being a very popular model outside EK et al. If you are considering the 8 you may as well go 9 and be done with it. Unless they want to do AKL-NYC direct or something like that...
77West - AW109S - BE90 - JS31 - B1900 - Q300 - ATR72 - DC9-30 - MD80 - B733 - A320 - B738 - A300-B4 - B773 - B77W
 
NTLDaz
Posts: 349
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 7:56 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:45 am

77west wrote:
People keep talking about the 778 but much like the 772LR vs 3ER I don't foresee the 8 being a very popular model outside EK et al. If you are considering the 8 you may as well go 9 and be done with it. Unless they want to do AKL-NYC direct or something like that...


It's the NYC or something like that which, IMO gives the 8 a chance. It's what Qantas may need as well.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1116
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:49 am

77west wrote:
People keep talking about the 778 but much like the 772LR vs 3ER I don't foresee the 8 being a very popular model outside EK et al. If you are considering the 8 you may as well go 9 and be done with it. Unless they want to do AKL-NYC direct or something like that...


The 779 replacing the 77W is a real contender, but for the 772 it's simply far too big of an aeroplane.

NZ will be looking closely at both to see what's needed and how each can perform on LAX/SFO/HKG etc based on the config they have in mind.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1116
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:50 am

NTLDaz wrote:
77west wrote:
People keep talking about the 778 but much like the 772LR vs 3ER I don't foresee the 8 being a very popular model outside EK et al. If you are considering the 8 you may as well go 9 and be done with it. Unless they want to do AKL-NYC direct or something like that...


It's the NYC or something like that which, IMO gives the 8 a chance. It's what Qantas may need as well.


I think Luxon is hinting at code 3 789 for NYC which may also enable a daily service over more capacity and 4-5 times a week.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6935
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:48 am

NZ6 wrote:
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.


NZ ran 19 weekly 744’s AKL-LAX NW 03/04 after UA dropped AKL, 2 years or so before that NZ were 9-11 weekly depends on season and daily SYD-LAX non stop before 9/11. The highest frequency was 04/05 when they started SFO 3 weekly and added CHC-LAX non stop 3 weekly plus AKL-LAX 14 weekly so 20 weekly 744’s NZ-North America. Plus QF who were still running a daily 744 AKL-LAX.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8303
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:52 am

NZ6 wrote:

Oh dear... is the issue VA or NTL?


I'm going to say NTL, the rest of VA's T-T flights have been pretty good over this peak. I would suggest that capacity in general to Australia for all carriers is still more than demand right now since the NZ/VA split and QF ramping up 332 ops. Even at peak travel days the week leading up to the 25th, there were still plenty of available seats for a number of airlines.
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.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6935
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sun Dec 30, 2018 7:00 am

tealnz wrote:
Lots of excitement up thread over 789 Code 3 and 789 IGW scenarios. But I'm not sure either of these hangs together:

- First the IGW scenario. smartplane tells us the Boeing board has rejected proposals to engineer a higher-weight 789 and 78J. If that's correct it's hard to see them changing their mind any time soon: if they're prioritising protection of the 77X market they're going to be locked in that position for a few years yet - they'll want to lock in some serious new 77X orders at post-launch prices. So there will be no offer anytime soon.

- Even if Boeing is actually moving toward launching a 789IGW it's hard to see how that can be a solution for the 77E replacement. For reasons discussed in other threads any serious improvement in MTOW and range for the 789/78J is going to need major engineering and therefore major lead-time. There have been no whispers from other airlines about a 789 IGW offering. No way it's going to be available for an April 2019 decision by NZ. And no way Boeing could deliver it in the timeframe NZ has been talking about.

- Could that mean that Luxon is focusing instead on the 789 Code 3 as an interim option? With ~245 seats? True, QF are doing well with high-premium 789s. But we'd have to convince ourselves NZ can also somehow now make a go of it with a high-premium business model (rather than a premium leisure model). I have my doubts - where's the corporate traffic? But maybe we're now the Switzerland of the South Seas. Maybe the board has been reading Gasman...

- Problem then - if you buy eight or nine 789s to replace the 77Es - is that you then struggle to justify a big enough 77X fleet when you eventually replace the eight 77Ws. A combined fleet of 17 77E/77W is efficient. But 8-10 x 77X? Sounds marginal. Or do you make some heroic assumptions about future long-haul trunk route growth?

- Then there's still the basic question about the 77X: It's really heavy compared to the competition and it's expensive (because it offers a lot more capability). On the ranges NZ is looking at the 778 will struggle to compete on CASM (maybe less so for Qantas). And the 779 looks high risk on capital and trip costs at a time when airlines seem to be down-gauging and shifting to point-to-point route strategies. It offers too much capability. The challenge is to make the 77X numbers work when the A350 offers all the capability NZ needs at lower weight and lower costs. Or are Boeing prepared to offer launch prices to NZ to avoid losing the sale?


Maybe 789 code 3 as an interim at 250-260 seats with the ability to go 778 down the line at 310-320 seats? The A359 would seat 290-310 there about a in a configuration similar to the current 772’s maybe it’s considered to much? The lower capacity allows higher frequency.

The 778 is said I believe to be 15% more efficient than the 77W and is slightly smaller while not as efficient as the A350, the 35K would seem to big for NYC/GRU to start out. And the 359 May also be seen as to big to start out on some of the proposed ULH routes.

The 779 maybe big and heavy but it’s efficient, how much more so than the 77W? 20%? The 35K is probably slightly more efficient again.

If they go Boeing they will likely say it made sense given the 789 fleet. While the A350 would have to be a great deal and big cost advantages.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4296
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:44 am

NZ6 wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
So yes NZ doesn’t “need” the 779 (while the 778 likely isn’t good enough CASM).


The second time you've mentioned this, and although you may argue the 779 is more efficient than the 778 in regards CASM this is dependent firstly on how it's used but also and most importantly only if you can fill the 779 with revenue paying passengers.

My point is that the 778 isn’t going to be as efficient or have the lower CASM of the A359/A35K. The 779 might get there with CASM due to the larger capacity but as you point out that only happens if it has a decent load factor. It will also likely cost more upfront due to its larger size.
Another consideration is that it will have a higher OEW (meaning on shorter flights it will not be as efficient). Higher landing fees too.

At this point the only positives for the 77X (so far as NZ is concerned are commonality, possibly freight capacity and possibly price if Boeing does a sharp deal). On the other hand the A350 has several advantages for NZs operation.
59 types. 41 countries. 24 airlines.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3235
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sun Dec 30, 2018 10:33 am

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.


Sounds like we probably wont see if returning for the 2019/2020 session then. Probably would have been better off with E190's if VA still operated them, Good on VA for at-least trying some out of the box Tasman routes. Could be interesting to see an trail of somewhere like CFS over the summer period.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1116
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sun Dec 30, 2018 7:46 pm

Zkpilot wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
So yes NZ doesn’t “need” the 779 (while the 778 likely isn’t good enough CASM).


The second time you've mentioned this, and although you may argue the 779 is more efficient than the 778 in regards CASM this is dependent firstly on how it's used but also and most importantly only if you can fill the 779 with revenue paying passengers.

My point is that the 778 isn’t going to be as efficient or have the lower CASM of the A359/A35K. The 779 might get there with CASM due to the larger capacity but as you point out that only happens if it has a decent load factor. It will also likely cost more upfront due to its larger size.
Another consideration is that it will have a higher OEW (meaning on shorter flights it will not be as efficient). Higher landing fees too.

At this point the only positives for the 77X (so far as NZ is concerned are commonality, possibly freight capacity and possibly price if Boeing does a sharp deal). On the other hand the A350 has several advantages for NZs operation.


If you're comparing to Airbus that's fine and I'd 100% agree there.

I was reading it as the 779 is better than the 778 when compared against each other, which may very well be the case if you can fill both frequently. Not something NZ will be able to do outside of LAX.

NZ may still go for the 779 but it's going to prove a challenge to fill and will create a huge gap between the 789 and 779
 
Gasman
Posts: 2049
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sun Dec 30, 2018 7:47 pm

zkncj wrote:
Good on VA for at-least trying some out of the box Tasman routes.


Why, just out of interest? What greater good is there to the passenger, shareholder or aviation enthusiast in trying out routes that quickly fail? Or should we say "shame on them" for not doing their research properly?

No, we shouldn't because they probably *did* do their research properly. The point being as I made earlier in relation to customer satisfaction with NZ J; is that using data to predict human thought or behavior is inherently flawed and loaded with assumptions. Doubtless the VA team when evaluating NTL were presented with a variety of graphs looking at population spread, business turnover, travel habits.... all of which may be *associated* with a certain outcome but are not causal. And no one stopped to say "hang on. NTL is just plain dumb".
 
NZ6
Posts: 1116
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:03 pm

zkncj wrote:
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.


Sounds like we probably wont see if returning for the 2019/2020 session then. Probably would have been better off with E190's if VA still operated them, Good on VA for at-least trying some out of the box Tasman routes. Could be interesting to see an trail of somewhere like CFS over the summer period.


Is this the end of the 'regional' Australian routes? Or we still hold hope for CBR which failed from WLG and HBA?

Realistically the only cities left on the map are HBA, CBR. Outside of those two, there is really only Proserpine (Whitsundays), Darwin and Alice Springs which all rate about 1 out of 10 with me

Of course, VA could look at MCY, PER, CNS and take on NZ.

VA has gone quiet on the push that they're full service (well it seems that way to me) and I wonder what the market perception of them is in NZ?

Also, I wonder if NTL was inbound or outbound market? i.e getting Kiwis to NTL or Aussies to NZ from NTL? if it was the later, I wonder if AKL was the best route?
 
Gasman
Posts: 2049
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:16 pm

NZ6 wrote:
I wonder what the market perception of them is in NZ?


They have something of a loyal following. I know a couple of their frequent fliers who laud their good value for money and "no nonsense" (as opposed to no frills) hard and soft product.

Outside this group though, I suspect to the non aviation enthusiast they're largely invisible. Or at best, a bland offshoot of Branson's empire that doesn't really know what it wants to be in the New Zealand market.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1116
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:23 pm

ZK-NBT wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Gasman wrote:

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.


NZ ran 19 weekly 744’s AKL-LAX NW 03/04 after UA dropped AKL, 2 years or so before that NZ were 9-11 weekly depends on season and daily SYD-LAX non stop before 9/11. The highest frequency was 04/05 when they started SFO 3 weekly and added CHC-LAX non stop 3 weekly plus AKL-LAX 14 weekly so 20 weekly 744’s NZ-North America. Plus QF who were still running a daily 744 AKL-LAX.


If you look at a snapshot of time it looks good, but look over the course of 5-10 years, dropped SYDLAX in lieu for an additional AKLLAX in NZ3/4, but that didn't last long. Attempted CHCLAX but pulled that due to low demand.

SFO proved a positive alternative route to the nightmare and deterrent in LAX.

20 weekly 744 services between NZ-US @379 seats each is 7,580 weekly seats each direction.

Today:
14x 77W between AKLLAX @ 342 = 4,788
7x 77W between AKLSFO @ 342 = 2,394
4x 772 between AKLIAH @ 312 = 1,248
3x 77W between AKLIAH @ 342 = 1,026
3x 789 between AKLORD @ 275 = 825

Total seats 10,281

We know ORD will go daily when it can and NYC is high on the wishlist, that would double the capacity since the early 2000's.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1116
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:27 pm

Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
I wonder what the market perception of them is in NZ?


They have something of a loyal following. I know a couple of their frequent fliers who laud their good value for money and "no nonsense" (as opposed to no frills) hard and soft product.

Outside this group though, I suspect to the non aviation enthusiast they're largely invisible. Or at best, a bland offshoot of Branson's empire that doesn't really know what it wants to be in the New Zealand market.


Under the alliance, NZ analysis showed VA was seen as the low cost, no frills, cheap, partner that customers didn't want to fly. I guess I'm asking, has this changed with everything they've done?

Would the average joe who walks into a travel agent be aware of VA and what they offer?
 
NTLDaz
Posts: 349
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 7:56 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:32 pm

NZ6 wrote:
zkncj wrote:
aerorobnz wrote:
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.


Sounds like we probably wont see if returning for the 2019/2020 session then. Probably would have been better off with E190's if VA still operated them, Good on VA for at-least trying some out of the box Tasman routes. Could be interesting to see an trail of somewhere like CFS over the summer period.


Is this the end of the 'regional' Australian routes? Or we still hold hope for CBR which failed from WLG and HBA?

Realistically the only cities left on the map are HBA, CBR. Outside of those two, there is really only Proserpine (Whitsundays), Darwin and Alice Springs which all rate about 1 out of 10 with me

Of course, VA could look at MCY, PER, CNS and take on NZ.

VA has gone quiet on the push that they're full service (well it seems that way to me) and I wonder what the market perception of them is in NZ?

Also, I wonder if NTL was inbound or outbound market? i.e getting Kiwis to NTL or Aussies to NZ from NTL? if it was the later, I wonder if AKL was the best route?


As a Novocastrian I'm disheartened by these figures. Nobody can say neither VA nor NTL went soft on the marketing of this route.

To me this is a route that would have been better for NZ due to the connection possibilities.

A 2 weekly flight to Bali or Singapore may be something to try in the future.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3183
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:33 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.


Part of the reason for the 744 was Australia/New Zealand 4 engine ETOPS regulations, not that the 744's were filled every flight. Now that the ETOPS have been relaxed QF & NZ are right sizing the routes.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2049
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:46 pm

NZ6 wrote:
Under the alliance, NZ analysis showed VA was seen as the low cost, no frills, cheap, partner that customers didn't want to fly. I guess I'm asking, has this changed with everything they've done?

Would the average joe who walks into a travel agent be aware of VA and what they offer?


I wouldn't have thought so, but then it takes *years* to establish a brand presence and for VA it's been a matter of months in relation to "everything they've done".

That's an aspect of marketing and branding we don't discuss - its role in attracting the *next* generation of loyal frequent fliers. I became "loyal" to NZ two decades before I could afford to spend serious coin on them, based on primarily on 1970's marketing.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1116
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:13 pm

Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Under the alliance, NZ analysis showed VA was seen as the low cost, no frills, cheap, partner that customers didn't want to fly. I guess I'm asking, has this changed with everything they've done?

Would the average joe who walks into a travel agent be aware of VA and what they offer?


I wouldn't have thought so, but then it takes *years* to establish a brand presence and for VA it's been a matter of months in relation to "everything they've done".

That's an aspect of marketing and branding we don't discuss - its role in attracting the *next* generation of loyal frequent fliers. I became "loyal" to NZ two decades before I could afford to spend serious coin on them, based on primarily on 1970's marketing.


So the half-hearted approached and becoming 'full service' is now biting them in the ass.

I knew they needed to put more effort into the relaunch and I raised this back in October. Two months on and sadly it's BAU and they're going back under the rock. By mid-2019 I suspect we'll only see a handful of services between the major centres.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2049
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:47 pm

NZ6 wrote:
So the half-hearted approached and becoming 'full service' is now biting them in the ass.

I knew they needed to put more effort into the relaunch and I raised this back in October. Two months on and sadly it's BAU and they're going back under the rock. By mid-2019 I suspect we'll only see a handful of services between the major centres.


Probably the half-hearted approach more than the full service model (which I support) per se.

Advertising in New Zealand isn't that expensive and the Virgin group has deep pockets. If they truly wanted to establish here, it should have been VA everything - billboards, newspapers, TV, Youtube, radio and deals too good to pass up for months on end if not years. Instead yes, after a bit of flurry for a couple of months it's back to business as usual.

Shame. The trans-Tasman market needs at least three completely independent players.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1116
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sun Dec 30, 2018 10:42 pm

Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
So the half-hearted approached and becoming 'full service' is now biting them in the ass.

I knew they needed to put more effort into the relaunch and I raised this back in October. Two months on and sadly it's BAU and they're going back under the rock. By mid-2019 I suspect we'll only see a handful of services between the major centres.


Probably the half-hearted approach more than the full service model (which I support) per se.

Advertising in New Zealand isn't that expensive and the Virgin group has deep pockets. If they truly wanted to establish here, it should have been VA everything - billboards, newspapers, TV, Youtube, radio and deals too good to pass up for months on end if not years. Instead yes, after a bit of flurry for a couple of months it's back to business as usual.

Shame. The trans-Tasman market needs at least three completely independent players.


Better still incentivise the trade with a big ft healthy commission payments or juicy paybacks for reaching targets. Even if only for the first 12 months.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6935
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sun Dec 30, 2018 11:19 pm

rbavfan wrote:
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.


Part of the reason for the 744 was Australia/New Zealand 4 engine ETOPS regulations, not that the 744's were filled every flight. Now that the ETOPS have been relaxed QF & NZ are right sizing the routes.


The other part of the reason is that the 744 was the only game in town in terms of range when it first came out.

As to right sizing I’d say it’s more fragmenting opening new routes with smaller more right sized efficient aircraft.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2049
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Sun Dec 30, 2018 11:39 pm

ZK-NBT wrote:
rbavfan wrote:
Gasman wrote:

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.


Part of the reason for the 744 was Australia/New Zealand 4 engine ETOPS regulations, not that the 744's were filled every flight. Now that the ETOPS have been relaxed QF & NZ are right sizing the routes.


The other part of the reason is that the 744 was the only game in town in terms of range when it first came out.

As to right sizing I’d say it’s more fragmenting opening new routes with smaller more right sized efficient aircraft.


All true, but that doesn't mean that there aren't still some advantages to large aircraft flying reduced frequency to legacy routes.

Alan Joyce has recently said he can fly 2 789s long haul for less than he can fly one A380. If that's true, it's only because he's comparing late C20 technology with C21 technology - not because there's something inherently inefficient about large aircraft.

I believe the current trend to flying long thin routes with small to medium sized aircraft is just that - a trend. At the end of the last century it looked like larger, not smaller aircraft would be needed to meet the growing demand for air travel - which is why Airbus built the A380. Then 9/11 happened, followed by a global financial crisis, SARS and an oil shock all of which made airlines and manufacturers far more risk averse than they otherwise would have been. Suddenly, there was security in niche routes and small aircraft, disseminating the eggs into as many baskets as possible.

This is a trend that EK have bucked and when the next VLA is built, the market will reset itself to something in between the situation circa 2001 and now. If there existed an A380 sized aircraft with CASM 30% less than the 789 or 779, it would suddenly look very attractive to legacy airlines that half only half embraced they A380s they have bought. And when airports such as LAX, IAH and ORD start saying "no more movements" the carriers are going to want to bring in as many pax per movement as they can. It's simple mathematics.

Do I have a point? That's right, yes. My money is now on the 779.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 8779
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - December 2018

Mon Dec 31, 2018 9:17 am

Please continue to add your comments in New Zealand Aviation Thread January 2019

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1411753
Forum Moderator

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