Welcome to New Zealand Aviation Thread February 2019, please continue to add your comment s below.

Link to last thread

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1411753&p=21054819#p21054819

I'm also very happy to see the rap video gone. IMHO it was the worst such video NZ ever did. Made me nostalgic for Ricco.

aklrno wrote:

I'm also very happy to see the rap video gone. IMHO it was the worst such video NZ ever did. Made me nostalgic for Ricco.

+1

I (almost) always liked and defended the quirky safety videos, but this one had absolutely zero appeal to me. In fact, as others have stated, I had to look away and tune out every time it came on... RIP, rap video

Mario Trunz has updated his A320 family Production List.

https://aibfamily.flights/production-list/A320

Air NZ A321-271NX
msn 8629 D-AVYL / ZK-NND
msn 8799 D-AVZF / ZK-NNE
msn 8839 D-AVYR / ZK-NNF

Air NZ A320-271N
msn 8715 D-AUBR / ZK-NHA
msn 8803 D-AUBU / ZK-NHB
msn 8833 F-WWDE / ZK-NHC

PA515

zkeoj wrote:

aklrno wrote:

I'm also very happy to see the rap video gone. IMHO it was the worst such video NZ ever did. Made me nostalgic for Ricco.

+1

I (almost) always liked and defended the quirky safety videos, but this one had absolutely zero appeal to me. In fact, as others have stated, I had to look away and tune out every time it came on... RIP, rap video

Time is well and truly up for crazy safety videos.

While this has been going on, It's now realised
that one of the big threats to pax safety, is the
trend now for pax to take with them their personal
effects in an unexpected evacuation. In my view
this is a major safety threat.. and a brilliant out of
the ordinary airline like AirNZ has a chance now
to reinvent the whole presentation.
SIMPLE SAFETY STUFF,
that does not bore us all to death like the current box
ticking ICAO standard.
This is my challenge to Mr Luxon's marketing types!
Otherwise people will continue to ignore this stuff,
with just the same arrogance that they have texting
while driving.

Deepinsider wrote:

zkeoj wrote:

aklrno wrote:

I'm also very happy to see the rap video gone. IMHO it was the worst such video NZ ever did. Made me nostalgic for Ricco.

+1

I (almost) always liked and defended the quirky safety videos, but this one had absolutely zero appeal to me. In fact, as others have stated, I had to look away and tune out every time it came on... RIP, rap video

Time is well and truly up for crazy safety videos.

While this has been going on, It's now realised
that one of the big threats to pax safety, is the
trend now for pax to take with them their personal
effects in an unexpected evacuation. In my view
this is a major safety threat.. and a brilliant out of
the ordinary airline like AirNZ has a chance now
to reinvent the whole presentation.
SIMPLE SAFETY STUFF,
that does not bore us all to death like the current box
ticking ICAO standard.
This is my challenge to Mr Luxon's marketing types!
Otherwise people will continue to ignore this stuff,
with just the same arrogance that they have texting
while driving.

Good points Deepinsider. Yes, the handful of major evacuation events we've seen over the last ten years or so have identified personal effects as a major problem and it concerns me also. I've often wondered how I'd react in an evacuation situation when encountering some dipstick trying to bring his carry-on.

Yet in the safety presentations, and not just NZ's "leave your personal effects" is only ever presented as a hurried afterthought.

Another thing that concerns me is footwear. I read somewhere that most injuries in a survivable accident are sustained to the feet & legs due to extracting oneself over wreckage. Open shoes and jandles are plain dumb.

But yes, the expiry date for quirky videos was sometime last decade in my opinion.

Deepinsider wrote:

Time is well and truly up for crazy safety videos.

While this has been going on, It's now realised
that one of the big threats to pax safety, is the
trend now for pax to take with them their personal
effects in an unexpected evacuation. In my view
this is a major safety threat.. and a brilliant out of
the ordinary airline like AirNZ has a chance now
to reinvent the whole presentation.
SIMPLE SAFETY STUFF,
that does not bore us all to death like the current box
ticking ICAO standard.
This is my challenge to Mr Luxon's marketing types!
Otherwise people will continue to ignore this stuff,
with just the same arrogance that they have texting
while driving.

Isn't there conclusive evidence that people don't pay attention regardless so not really a safety risk as such.

How many emergency exit passengers know how to open that door, people can without looking for or being prompted locate their life jacket or actually count the rows to the nearest exit for example.

While I agree and always have, this video is s**t I'm still a fan of the storyline type safety video.

I think the over cheesy funny ones have gone too far, I think it's time to tap into our natural beauty and make them 'kiwi', maybe a kiwi summer beach video and in winter perhaps southern alps skiing or grassroots rugby one. They've done something similar with bear grills and DOC but perhaps work alongside Tourism NZ.

Not too serious but also not a failed attempt at comedy or well over the top Richard Simmons style crap, that's been good but has seen its day.

Just don't go back to computer graphics either.

I like the UA one, with the destinations around their network and using their staff.

I think entertaining safety videos are a great idea. Most people just ignore the boring ones. If you can make it interesting enough that people actually watch it, then you can use that attention to make the important points like leaving your things behind. NZ has had a lot of videos people enjoyed watching. The rap video made avert my eyes and try to cover up the sound. The opposite of what a good safety video should do.

The next video should be entertaining, popular, and emphasize those points that are often overlooked by passengers.

aklrno wrote:

I think entertaining safety videos are a great idea. Most people just ignore the boring ones. If you can make it interesting enough that people actually watch it, then you can use that attention to make the important points like leaving your things behind. NZ has had a lot of videos people enjoyed watching. The rap video made avert my eyes and try to cover up the sound. The opposite of what a good safety video should do.

The next video should be entertaining, popular, and emphasize those points that are often overlooked by passengers.

Disagree. Up until a year or so ago, QF used to have great "boring" style ones. I liked the pilot figure opening with "today, you're flying on a Qantas A330", or whatever. Sure, some of the screechy NZ ones may have engaged a few people with double digit IQ, but is there any hard evidence they're more effective at conveying actual the safety message to this group than the so called "boring" ones? No.

And why do people need to be "entertained" prior to take off anyway??

Gasman wrote:

aklrno wrote:

I think entertaining safety videos are a great idea. Most people just ignore the boring ones. If you can make it interesting enough that people actually watch it, then you can use that attention to make the important points like leaving your things behind. NZ has had a lot of videos people enjoyed watching. The rap video made avert my eyes and try to cover up the sound. The opposite of what a good safety video should do.

The next video should be entertaining, popular, and emphasize those points that are often overlooked by passengers.

Disagree. Up until a year or so ago, QF used to have great "boring" style ones. I liked the pilot figure opening with "today, you're flying on a Qantas A330", or whatever. Sure, some of the screechy NZ ones may have engaged a few people with double digit IQ, but is there any hard evidence they're more effective at conveying actual the safety message to this group than the so called "boring" ones? No.

And why do people need to be "entertained" prior to take off anyway??

Wrong.

Lord of the Rings Safety Video: 20m views, Richard Simmons 3.1M
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... fety+video

Qantas 2017 Safety video: 451K views, 2018 is 275K
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... fety+video

NZ safety video campaign isn't about being entertained before taken off, it's a global marketing strategy. Based on the Youtube views I'd say a very successful one. Remember this doesn't include other streaming such as Facebook etc.

The last one was an epic fail, others have been mixed and others bloody successful. BUT.... this is essentially global marketing on a shoestring. Who'd have thought, your safety video would be covered by CNN or something consumers searched for vs being placed as paid commercials in front of them!

NZ6 wrote:

Gasman wrote:

aklrno wrote:

I think entertaining safety videos are a great idea. Most people just ignore the boring ones. If you can make it interesting enough that people actually watch it, then you can use that attention to make the important points like leaving your things behind. NZ has had a lot of videos people enjoyed watching. The rap video made avert my eyes and try to cover up the sound. The opposite of what a good safety video should do.

The next video should be entertaining, popular, and emphasize those points that are often overlooked by passengers.

Disagree. Up until a year or so ago, QF used to have great "boring" style ones. I liked the pilot figure opening with "today, you're flying on a Qantas A330", or whatever. Sure, some of the screechy NZ ones may have engaged a few people with double digit IQ, but is there any hard evidence they're more effective at conveying actual the safety message to this group than the so called "boring" ones? No.

And why do people need to be "entertained" prior to take off anyway??

Wrong.

Lord of the Rings Safety Video: 20m views, Richard Simmons 3.1M
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... fety+video

Qantas 2017 Safety video: 451K views, 2018 is 275K
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... fety+video

NZ safety video campaign isn't about being entertained before taken off, it's a global marketing strategy. Based on the Youtube views I'd say a very successful one. Remember this doesn't include other streaming such as Facebook etc.

The last one was an epic fail, others have been mixed and others bloody successful. BUT.... this is essentially global marketing on a shoestring. Who'd have thought, your safety video would be covered by CNN or something consumers searched for vs being placed as paid commercials in front of them!

Not sure what you're suggesting is "wrong" - I completely understand that these videos are ultimately nothing but internet clickbait. "Successful" in terms of clicks, sure; but how many of these translate into actual tickets sold and is it worth alienating the passengers in the process?

Check this out. There's some gold on this website.

https://www.ngataonga.org.nz/set/item/111

Putting aside the fact the fact the ad is dated and the somewhat cheesy Jaws-esque fin through the clouds bit - I reckon it's a pretty classy production. It also shows that sometime between the 1970's and now, NZ marketing in their wisdom decided that advertising would be far more effective if only it was more imbecilic.

Situation still ok mid 1990's.

https://www.ngataonga.org.nz/set/item/204

Wondering if WEL can get service from Asia again. I remember SQ used to extend SIA-CBR to WEL. Can that be reinstated, or should we get somebody in the Pearl River Delta?

B1168 wrote:

Wondering if WEL can get service from Asia again. I remember SQ used to extend SIA-CBR to WEL. Can that be reinstated, or should we get somebody in the Pearl River Delta?

SQ is still at WLG - they just changed the CBR stop to a MEL one. That change improved loadings.

Anything else will be dependent on a runway extension, which we'll find out more on later this year.

Cheers,

C.

Gasman wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Gasman wrote:

- some of the screechy NZ ones may have engaged a few people with double digit IQ,
- but is there any hard evidence they're more effective at conveying actual the safety message to this group than the so called "boring" ones? No.
- And why do people need to be "entertained" prior to take off anyway??

Wrong

Not sure what you're suggesting is "wrong" - I completely understand that these videos are ultimately nothing but internet clickbait. "Successful" in terms of clicks, sure; but how many of these translate into actual tickets sold and is it worth alienating the passengers in the process?

I'm just getting at the whole purpose and effectiveness of the videos in line with the comments you made which I've shortened and quoted above.

-engaged a few people with double-digit IQ... The youtube views suggest they've been pretty popular
- It's not about relaying or the effectiveness of a safety message, I'm not even sure if there's been any research to see if they're more or less effective in relaying the message. That's not the intent behind making them
- Again, being entertained has nothing to do with why they were made.

My wrong comment was merely in reply to those comments.

Gasman wrote:

Situation still ok mid 1990's.

https://www.ngataonga.org.nz/set/item/204

Absolutely loved this marketing era.

NZ6 wrote:

Gasman wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Wrong

Not sure what you're suggesting is "wrong" - I completely understand that these videos are ultimately nothing but internet clickbait. "Successful" in terms of clicks, sure; but how many of these translate into actual tickets sold and is it worth alienating the passengers in the process?

I'm just getting at the whole purpose and effectiveness of the videos in line with the comments you made which I've shortened and quoted above.

-engaged a few people with double-digit IQ... The youtube views suggest they've been pretty popular

which to me, suggests we are both correct.

nz6 wrote:

- It's not about relaying or the effectiveness of a safety message, I'm not even sure if there's been any research to see if they're more or less effective in relaying the message. That's not the intent behind making them

That's nonsense. Safety videos are what they ARE. Unless you're suggesting a) that NZ believes the safety message is a complete waste of time, but they have to pay lip service to an ICAO requirement, so might as well use it for marketing and b) this is okay and we should condone it.

NZ6 wrote:

- Again, being entertained has nothing to do with why they were made.

So according to you they are neither for conveying a safety message effectively, nor the purpose of on-board entertainment. Therefore you are seriously suggesting these videos were made with the sole purpose of internet marketing, simultaneously chucking in a safety message as an afterthought so they can also be used on the aircraft to tick the ICAO box, yes?

The problem is NZ is an confused ex-full service airline who is trying to be an LCC and streaming for attention in the process.

If anything its working for them - as they convinced people that you should expect food or drink on the Tasman.

Gasman wrote:

nz6 wrote:

- It's not about relaying or the effectiveness of a safety message, I'm not even sure if there's been any research to see if they're more or less effective in relaying the message. That's not the intent behind making them

That's nonsense. Safety videos are what they ARE. Unless you're suggesting a) that NZ believes the safety message is a complete waste of time, but they have to pay lip service to an ICAO requirement, so might as well use it for marketing and b) this is okay and we should condone it.

Come on Gasman, surely you can see past this obviously here. If the primary focus was to relay a safety message and safety message only, why would there be so many videos made over the years and why would they so heavily promote them via the social channels?

If it was only about safety, then you'd likely still see the clinical ones likes this; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-6xl70aqso or the videos would be cycled much much longer.

If you or anyone else interprets this as the airline not taking safety seriously then that would be their call. I think we all know safety in aviation is number one!

Gasman wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

- Again, being entertained has nothing to do with why they were made.

So according to you they are neither for conveying a safety message effectively, nor the purpose of on-board entertainment. Therefore you are seriously suggesting these videos were made with the sole purpose of internet marketing, simultaneously chucking in a safety message as an afterthought so they can also be used on the aircraft to tick the ICAO box, yes?

Looking at the international arm of the airline, you have individual gate to gate IFE, why do you need further entertainment for 2-3 minutes? If the airline wasn't interested in using these for marketing purposes why are they released and promoted the way they are in the timeline they are?

These videos are nothing other than marketing. If you or anyone else see that as the airline not taking safety seriously then that's your view on it and no one can change that. Ultimately though, there are legal requirements which the airline needs to fulfil. They (and others) have discovered a clever way of making safety videos unique and interesting so that they serve two purposes, one to provide the key safety messages pre-flight and two, attract consumers to the videos which in turn also helps build global brand awareness for a minimal cost.

zkncj wrote:

The problem is NZ is an confused ex-full service airline who is trying to be an LCC and screaming for attention in the process.

It certainly seems that way.

But why?? Why go out of your way to draw attention to the fact you're dumbing everything down?? Particularly when you've not exactly embraced the "LC" arm of being a LCC.

Gasman wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

- It's not about relaying or the effectiveness of a safety message,

NZ6 wrote:

These videos are nothing other than marketing

NZ6 wrote:

I think we all know safety in aviation is number one!

I am starting to wonder if you're seeing this scenario as an OR scenario and not an AND scenario.

By this I mean, the airline can delivery it's key safety messages (requirement) AND use this for marketing purposes. Don't take the comment "nothing other than marketing" literally, it's made on the basis that if it wasn't heavily designed for marketing, they wouldn't push it virally as much as they do.

It doesn't have to be safety messages OR marketing tool.

There is nothing to suggest this is detrimental to safety, as I said earlier I don't know if any research has even been done on it, but for starters.. surely more people voluntarily watching it can only be a good things vs looking out the window, reading a book talking to your neighbour only when flying?

NZ6 wrote:

Gasman wrote:

Situation still ok mid 1990's.

https://www.ngataonga.org.nz/set/item/204

Absolutely loved this marketing era.

Agree with you both Gasman & NZ6, these were good days for NZ’s brand and profile. Another period of marketing brilliance was the early 90’s around the time of this piece of work:

https://youtu.be/7LRn7ahoJEA

concordianSYD wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Gasman wrote:

Situation still ok mid 1990's.

https://www.ngataonga.org.nz/set/item/204

Absolutely loved this marketing era.

Agree with you both Gasman & NZ6, these were good days for NZ’s brand and profile. Another period of marketing brilliance was the early 90’s around the time of this piece of work:

https://youtu.be/7LRn7ahoJEA

Indeed, I'd forgotten that one.

And we go from those, to Ricco and variably lame hybrid marketing-safety videos.

Something happened in NZ in the early to mid 2000's. Was it all Fyfe who did this? Perhaps. But whatever it was (and remains), this is something more than changing with the times.

Apart from.the last video, all the others have been refreshing. I do like the antartica one and the Gris one....like someone said earlier maybe something like these with some kiwiana would be good.

Secondly had asked before but didnt get a response, why does the ORD flight fly west over LA or SF then south...i would have thought it would go straight like IAH....dunno if this routing is longer or what the reason is just curious

planemanofnz wrote:

B1168 wrote:

Wondering if WEL can get service from Asia again. I remember SQ used to extend SIA-CBR to WEL. Can that be reinstated, or should we get somebody in the Pearl River Delta?

SQ is still at WLG - they just changed the CBR stop to a MEL one. That change improved loadings.

Anything else will be dependent on a runway extension, which we'll find out more on later this year.

Cheers,

C.

Yes significant improvements over last few months. From BITRE released a couple of days ago for WLG-MEL LF:

- Jul=80%
- Aug=74%
- Sep=78%
- Oct=87%
- Nov=87%

And I'm hearing Dec/Jan has been even stronger.

a7ala wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

B1168 wrote:

Wondering if WEL can get service from Asia again. I remember SQ used to extend SIA-CBR to WEL. Can that be reinstated, or should we get somebody in the Pearl River Delta?

SQ is still at WLG - they just changed the CBR stop to a MEL one. That change improved loadings.

Anything else will be dependent on a runway extension, which we'll find out more on later this year.

Cheers,

C.

Yes significant improvements over last few months. From BITRE released a couple of days ago for WLG-MEL LF:

- Jul=80%
- Aug=74%
- Sep=78%
- Oct=87%
- Nov=87%

And I'm hearing Dec/Jan has been even stronger.

I am still thinking, if anywhere in the Pearl River Delta can seasonally extend their current AU flights to WLG. If load factors are above 80% in Nothern summer and winter season, it might work out.

B1168 wrote:

a7ala wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

SQ is still at WLG - they just changed the CBR stop to a MEL one. That change improved loadings.

Anything else will be dependent on a runway extension, which we'll find out more on later this year.

Cheers,

C.

Yes significant improvements over last few months. From BITRE released a couple of days ago for WLG-MEL LF:

- Jul=80%
- Aug=74%
- Sep=78%
- Oct=87%
- Nov=87%

And I'm hearing Dec/Jan has been even stronger.

I am still thinking, if anywhere in the Pearl River Delta can seasonally extend their current AU flights to WLG. If load factors are above 80% in Nothern summer and winter season, it might work out.

Doubtful that would happen - Chinese passport holders need a visa to transit through Australia to New Zealand.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

B1168 wrote:

a7ala wrote:

Yes significant improvements over last few months. From BITRE released a couple of days ago for WLG-MEL LF:

- Jul=80%
- Aug=74%
- Sep=78%
- Oct=87%
- Nov=87%

And I'm hearing Dec/Jan has been even stronger.

I am still thinking, if anywhere in the Pearl River Delta can seasonally extend their current AU flights to WLG. If load factors are above 80% in Nothern summer and winter season, it might work out.

Doubtful that would happen - Chinese passport holders need a visa to transit through Australia to New Zealand.

Cheers,

C.

It would probably require a triangle service to work for the existing runway using something like a B787. Such as a CAN-WLG-AKL/CHC-CAN. This would avoid the Australian transit visa issues and give the airline full coverage of New Zealand with their own product (as SQ now has).

Gasman wrote:

Situation still ok mid 1990's.

https://www.ngataonga.org.nz/set/item/204

That one is beautiful - the slow version of Pokarekare Ana works really well. I'm sure a 2019 updated version would look great and be popular.

a7ala wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

B1168 wrote:

Wondering if WEL can get service from Asia again. I remember SQ used to extend SIA-CBR to WEL. Can that be reinstated, or should we get somebody in the Pearl River Delta?

SQ is still at WLG - they just changed the CBR stop to a MEL one. That change improved loadings.

Anything else will be dependent on a runway extension, which we'll find out more on later this year.

Cheers,

C.

Yes significant improvements over last few months. From BITRE released a couple of days ago for WLG-MEL LF:

- Jul=80%
- Aug=74%
- Sep=78%
- Oct=87%
- Nov=87%

And I'm hearing Dec/Jan has been even stronger.

A few questions... thoughts, those are stats showing an improvement WLGMEL, does it show us anything WLGSIN or WLGSIN->Beyond?

Is this either...

a) Demonstrating WLG's need for long haul travel - something I highly doubt

or

b) nothing other than Tasman flying which could be

- Consumers choosing the perceived comfort of SQ into a main centre over CBR
- Consumers using the novelty of SQ
- Consumers using the option of a widebody
- Excess capacity or subsidies driving low prices
- Show WLG is underserved by other carriers?

NZ6 wrote:

a7ala wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

SQ is still at WLG - they just changed the CBR stop to a MEL one. That change improved loadings.

Anything else will be dependent on a runway extension, which we'll find out more on later this year.

Cheers,

C.

Yes significant improvements over last few months. From BITRE released a couple of days ago for WLG-MEL LF:

- Jul=80%
- Aug=74%
- Sep=78%
- Oct=87%
- Nov=87%

And I'm hearing Dec/Jan has been even stronger.

A few questions... thoughts, those are stats showing an improvement WLGMEL, does it show us anything WLGSIN or WLGSIN->Beyond?

Is this either...

a) Demonstrating WLG's need for long haul travel - something I highly doubt

or

b) nothing other than Tasman flying which could be

- Consumers choosing the perceived comfort of SQ into a main centre over CBR
- Consumers using the novelty of SQ
- Consumers using the option of a widebody
- Excess capacity or subsidies driving low prices
- Show WLG is underserved by other carriers?

b), and all of the subpoints you mention are probably relevant.

I too am highly sceptical about WLG's need and ability to sustain long haul travel. As a Wellingtonian in spirit (if not geographically) this disappointments me, but: -

- small actual catchment, and potential catchment not much bigger
- Two international gateways each less than an hour's flight away
- Tourism potential extremely limited.

Do the math.

NYKiwi wrote:

Apart from.the last video, all the others have been refreshing. I do like the antartica one and the Gris one....like someone said earlier maybe something like these with some kiwiana would be good.

Secondly had asked before but didnt get a response, why does the ORD flight fly west over LA or SF then south...i would have thought it would go straight like IAH....dunno if this routing is longer or what the reason is just curious

Jetstream. Look at NZ26 today. Left a few minutes late and flew over SoCal and arrived into ORD almost 1 hour early. Same reason on reverses and why UA from ORD to HNL & OGG often go over SFO heading west, to avoid the winds.

I’ve heard this route is doing quite well and going to 4x weekly next northern winter. Wonder if QF will jump into ORD in the next year or two.

[quote="Gasman" I too am highly sceptical about WLG's need and ability to sustain long haul travel. As a Wellingtonian in spirit (if not geographically) this disappointments me, but: -

- small actual catchment, and potential catchment not much bigger
- Two international gateways each less than an hour's flight away
- Tourism potential extremely limited.

Do the math.[/quote]
NOT wanting to get caught in this ongoing feud but I have to ask,Gasman why do you say Wellington has "Tourism potential extremely limited". ?
Wellington is my favourite city in NZ, there is a lot to do and the surrounding area even more. The Rimutakas, Kapiti Coast & the Waiparapa are all superb tourist areas.

Gemuser

Gasman wrote:

[
I too am highly sceptical about WLG's need and ability to sustain long haul travel. As a Wellingtonian in spirit (if not geographically) this disappointments me, but: -

- small actual catchment, and potential catchment not much bigger
- Two international gateways each less than an hour's flight away
- Tourism potential extremely limited.

Do the math.

I recall the discussions around long haul services have been happening for more than 10 years, and the runway extension for at least 5. Interestingly over that time the WLG long haul market has been growing at least 5% and probably closer to 10%pa. In the time everyone has been arguing about the viability of long haul service the market size has probably doubled anyway. Arguably it shows that WLG still gets access to long haul markets via the 1-stop AKL/SYD, however there is no denying that as those connecting markets continue to grow the viability becomes stronger and WLG will become an attractive untapped market standing out in the overcapacity airports we are seeing through the rest of Australia/New Zealand.

The maths say its a question of when... not if ..

Gemuser wrote:

[quote="Gasman" I too am highly sceptical about WLG's need and ability to sustain long haul travel. As a Wellingtonian in spirit (if not geographically) this disappointments me, but: -

- small actual catchment, and potential catchment not much bigger
- Two international gateways each less than an hour's flight away
- Tourism potential extremely limited.

Do the math.

NOT wanting to get caught in this ongoing feud but I have to ask,Gasman why do you say Wellington has "Tourism potential extremely limited". ?
Wellington is my favourite city in NZ, there is a lot to do and the surrounding area even more. The Rimutakas, Kapiti Coast & the Waiparapa are all superb tourist areas.

Gemuser[/quote]

And actually while its in the middle of the country its at the end of both islands. With the train now linking WLG to CHC again you will start to see more South Island tours starting in WLG plus the AKL<>WLG which gets a fair amount of business.

nomorerjs wrote:

NYKiwi wrote:

Apart from.the last video, all the others have been refreshing. I do like the antartica one and the Gris one....like someone said earlier maybe something like these with some kiwiana would be good.

Secondly had asked before but didnt get a response, why does the ORD flight fly west over LA or SF then south...i would have thought it would go straight like IAH....dunno if this routing is longer or what the reason is just curious

Jetstream. Look at NZ26 today. Left a few minutes late and flew over SoCal and arrived into ORD almost 1 hour early. Same reason on reverses and why UA from ORD to HNL & OGG often go over SFO heading west, to avoid the winds.

I’ve heard this route is doing quite well and going to 4x weekly next northern winter. Wonder if QF will jump into ORD in the next year or two.

The 787 is simply a game changer isn't it!

Gemuser wrote:

Gasman wrote:

I too am highly sceptical about WLG's need and ability to sustain long haul travel. As a Wellingtonian in spirit (if not geographically) this disappointments me, but: -

- small actual catchment, and potential catchment not much bigger
- Two international gateways each less than an hour's flight away
- Tourism potential extremely limited.

Do the math.

NOT wanting to get caught in this ongoing feud but I have to ask,Gasman why do you say Wellington has "Tourism potential extremely limited". ?
Wellington is my favourite city in NZ, there is a lot to do and the surrounding area even more. The Rimutakas, Kapiti Coast & the Waiparapa are all superb tourist areas.

Gemuser

Is this an 'ongoing feud'? I see it as a conversation with differing views. That's not wrong, is it?

I'll chip in any way and suggest the following; if you're looking at the Asian market, is the Kapiti Coast, Waiparapa or the Rimutakas destinations that appeal to this market? - it's fair to say, not really.

If you're looking at Asian connecting traffic, it's now the European market and many tourists visit with the intention to see the whole of NZ. They enter in via AKL, travel south via road or air and either exit from CHC or fly back to AKL. There is no benefit from landing midway as it means backtracking and very few would fly all that way just to visit those regions or as Gasman said, to visit the limited tourism in the wider WLG region.

Of course, there is local traffic, but again very limited supply and multiple options via AKL which draws in the price-focused customer.

a7ala wrote:

Wellington is my favourite city in NZ, there is a lot to do and the surrounding area even more. The Rimutakas, Kapiti Coast & the Waiparapa are all superb tourist areas.

Don't get me wrong. I loved living in Wellington for the 8 years that I did, and for a long time it was my favourite city in NZ also. But I would have to assert that calling Wellington and its surrounds "superb tourist areas" by any conventional measure is a bit of a stretch.

This wouldn't be a problem if Wellington had the weight of population, or if AKL or CHC weren't the presence they are. But as I indicated above, it's basically zero out of three.

If you're running an offshore airline, where do you operate to? The largest city which is also the major long haul gateway or a 2nd tier airport? Surely you'd put all your efforts into the main centre.

If you're NZ, surely you would want to HUB into your main centre (AKL) and drive long haul demand on these routes up improving yield and frequency. Although they get criticized for it, it's better for the airline to have a full plane daily over 2-3 routes running light 2-3 times a week.

Picking a random scenario... If VN opened NZ, would they choose AKL, WLG or CHC... it's like expecting NZ to pick Penang over KL if they commenced Malaysia.

NZ6 wrote:

Picking a random scenario... If VN opened NZ, would they choose AKL, WLG or CHC... it's like expecting NZ to pick Penang over KL if they commenced Malaysia.

According to Google, Penang has a population of 1.7 million. So NZ flying in there as opposed to KUL wouldn't be *altogether* dumb. A better analogy would be NZ entering the Japanese market to Nagasaki NGS instead of Narita or Osaka.

NZ6 wrote:

If you're running an offshore airline, where do you operate to? The largest city which is also the major long haul gateway or a 2nd tier airport? Surely you'd put all your efforts into the main centre.

If you're NZ, surely you would want to HUB into your main centre (AKL) and drive long haul demand on these routes up improving yield and frequency. Although they get criticized for it, it's better for the airline to have a full plane daily over 2-3 routes running light 2-3 times a week.

Picking a random scenario... If VN opened NZ, would they choose AKL, WLG or CHC... it's like expecting NZ to pick Penang over KL if they commenced Malaysia.

I can see your point for a new airline to NZ, ie VN
But for SQ the proposition is vastly different. SQ already have multiple daily flights into AKL, already serve CHC and have a broad agreement with the national carrier, NZ. So for SQ, a flight to Wellington further entrenches their proposition to serve more of the local catchment directly, via their hub to other markets. I'd suggest the demand exists for this service

Gasman wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Picking a random scenario... If VN opened NZ, would they choose AKL, WLG or CHC... it's like expecting NZ to pick Penang over KL if they commenced Malaysia.

According to Google, Penang has a population of 1.7 million. So NZ flying in there as opposed to KUL wouldn't be *altogether* dumb. A better analogy would be NZ entering the Japanese market to Nagasaki NGS instead of Narita or Osaka.

Really??

Does the Wellington Council subsidy end now that SQ isn't going via Canberra? I suspect not. And suspect NZ6's assessment is probably spot on. Australia's BITRE passenger data is difficult to interpret for through-pax.

Just on NZ marketing, it did some great stuff in the 90s and early 00s. The birds-inflight-koru formation to pokarekare ana, the world's warmest welcome and that one about bringing people together at challenging times where they leapt into the air and flew across the country (te.g. to your partner or elderly parent)... I hate to admit it but some of these were heartstrings stuff. I get the more fun stuff for grab a seat promotions and I can understand the efforts to position the airline as a relaxed, happy go lucky, "Kiwi" whatever, but I think most of that shtick is limiting and forgettable, whereas the older stuff was closer to a deeper, Singapore girl-esque impact.

Meanwhile, a substantial profit downgrade from NZ. Still robust but I'm wondering what's changed to impact them to a near 20 per cent downgrade so late in the finacial year. The 787 issues? Fuel prices? Numbers have been strong on the Tasman so possibly not that and probably too soon for a material impact from the changed VA and QF relationships.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12198445

I think Wellington suffers from geography - serving WLG is difficult to justify for foreign carriers, compared to AKL (main population centre) and CHC (gateway to South Island tourism and the Southern Alps that draw tourists), both of which have airports with no runway length issues; and as previously noted, tourists by and large either come into AKL to do the whole country or straight into CHC for the South Island only, with WLG awkwardly positioned to capture either streams.

With the present runway limiting the aircraft that can be used and the sector length that can be flown outbound, a foreign carrier would have to serve it via either Australia or AKL/CHC - and that removes the competitive edge for attracting the local catchment area as it would then be a one-stop to get to their hub, not too different to using a NZ/QF/VA trans-Tasman or NZ/JQ domestic connection (which many carriers do - you'll be surprised just how many airlines offer flights to WLG without their own metal ever visiting WLG.)

As a newly-minted Wellingtonian I do hope the SQ flight via MEL is retained after the subsidy expires - if anyone is in a position to make it work, it would be SQ, but I also wouldn't be too surprised if it disappears after the subsidy runs out (unless it was required as part of the SQ-NZ JV?)

Have to agree that Wlg isn't a deztination in it's own right. Being involved in the tourisim sector the vast majority of tourists use Wlg as a stoppolin off point before or after making theCook Strait crossing. We do see hi end tourists but again they use Wlg as a transit point. Many of them flying in or out to both Syd and Mel.

Changing to Mel from Cbr has been a win win for SQ. On some flights you cannot secure a seat and their pricing makes business class an attractive proposition. For Trans Tasman the 'aging' 772's are adequate however newer equipment would be a major marketing win. The other significant issue is lack of a daily service.

GW54 wrote:

For Trans Tasman the 'aging' 772's are adequate however newer equipment would be a major marketing win. The other significant issue is lack of a daily service.

How many people do you think even know the various different products SQ have??

NZ6 wrote:

A few questions... thoughts, those are stats showing an improvement WLGMEL, does it show us anything WLGSIN or WLGSIN->Beyond?
Is this either...
a) Demonstrating WLG's need for long haul travel - something I highly doubt
or
b) nothing other than Tasman flying

Remember the time when EK, MH, TG and others all flew one-stop to AKL via Australia? A significant chunk of those services to start off with were O&D Tasman passengers. With time, the carriers built up their profile, and economic opportunities increased, such that the tags were no longer needed and non-stops became viable. I view SQ to WLG as similar. For the first few years, O&D MEL passengers - and the subsidy - will sustain SQ here, as it builds up its profile. As the years go on, the viability of a non-stop SIN flight will increase (pending the runway extension, or better technology).

I also feel that the performance of the current one-stop service does not capture the true potential demand of a non-stop service. Obviously the current SQ service via MEL is not much more competitive than other one-stop services via AKL or SYD. However, if a non-stop flight was offered, that would be able to capture more of the NZ and QF one-stop traffic to SIN, and two-stop traffic to India and Europe, than the current one-stop SQ flight to SIN via MEL does. WLG would also become more competitive as a transit stop to/from regional New Zealand - DUD, NSN, TRG etc - giving a boost.

Just a few thoughts.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

A few questions... thoughts, those are stats showing an improvement WLGMEL, does it show us anything WLGSIN or WLGSIN->Beyond?
Is this either...
a) Demonstrating WLG's need for long haul travel - something I highly doubt
or
b) nothing other than Tasman flying

Remember the time when EK, MH, TG and others all flew one-stop to AKL via Australia? A significant chunk of those services to start off with were O&D Tasman passengers. With time, the carriers built up their profile, and economic opportunities increased, such that the tags were no longer needed and non-stops became viable. I view SQ to WLG as similar. For the first few years, O&D MEL passengers - and the subsidy - will sustain SQ here, as it builds up its profile. As the years go on, the viability of a non-stop SIN flight will increase (pending the runway extension, or better technology).

I also feel that the performance of the current one-stop service does not capture the true potential demand of a non-stop service. Obviously the current SQ service via MEL is not much more competitive than other one-stop services via AKL or SYD. However, if a non-stop flight was offered, that would be able to capture more of the NZ and QF one-stop traffic to SIN, and two-stop traffic to India and Europe, than the current one-stop SQ flight to SIN via MEL does. WLG would also become more competitive as a transit stop to/from regional New Zealand - DUD, NSN, TRG etc - giving a boost.

Just a few thoughts.

Cheers,

C.

But WHY? Why would any airline take the risk??

The ONLY reason would be if you calculated that the introduction of a new long haul service would generate NEW passengers. And I keep coming back to the fact there is not the inbound market, not the population in central New Zealand...... and they're already well served by AKL and CHC anyway.

Look, I get it. When I lived in Wellington I dreamed of a WLG-NAN-LAX 762 service. I'm still waiting.