Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11160
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Thu Feb 28, 2019 7:31 pm

Welcome to New Zealand Aviation Thread March 2019. Please continue to add your comments below

Link to last thread

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1414445&p=21135267#p21135267
Forum Moderator
 
NZ6
Posts: 1613
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Thu Feb 28, 2019 8:37 pm

Zkpilot wrote:
NZ is looking for more P2P with smaller aircraft. It’ll be either the 778 or A35K (with a small chance of code3 789).


You say the Code 3 789 is a small chance, I'd say it's more than that. Let's not forget it's replacing the 772 which is almost too big for many routes now, especially if the market is going to flatten over the coming decade. The 77W will manage LAX/SFO/LHR. As for HKG, TYO they are looking for frequency over capacity these days.

Here are some simple metrics on all the contenders. NZ is looking for some extended range at or close to 300 seats.

I'd almost rule out the 778 to replace the 772 as it's just too big, that's a 77W replacement frame. So if they opt for Boeing, you may see that replace the 77W and either 789 or 78J replace the 772s depending if Boeing can offer more range by 2022 on the 78J.

As for Airbus, they offer the A359 with fantastic range compared to the 772 but without the extra capacity of the 778. Leaves the 77W being replaced by the A35K and two manufacturers in NZ's long haul fleet which isn't a perceived issue it's made out to be.

My guess is
787 & 778
A359 & A35K

772
Range: 13.080
Length: 63.73
2 Class: 313

777-8
Range: 16,090
Length: 69.8m
2 Class: 365

A35K
Range: 15,600
Length: 73.8m
2 Class: 387

A359
Range 15,000
Length: 66.8
2 Class: 320

78J
Range:11,910
Length: 68.28
2 Class: 330

789
Range:14,140
Length: 62.81
2 Class: 290+
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1675
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Thu Feb 28, 2019 10:59 pm

I find it hard to judge the suitability of various aircraft when looking at the range figures supplied by the manufacturers. Clearly they're the "optimistic" range, but I'm never sure whether they take into account reserves etc. And of course you're never entirely sure how much payload has been factored into those figures.

Notwithstanding, I look at the distances that are required to be flown on the NZ network, and the ranges quoted by NZ6, and note that AKL-ORD is 13,170 km, against the "posted" 789 range of 14,140 km, around 1,000 km less. Then I look at the distance on AKL-LAX at 10,467 km, around 1,500 km less than the "posted" range. The conclusion I draw is that, all things being equal (which they probably aren't, but for the purposes of a back-of-the-envelope argument, let's assume they are) then the 78J in a 330-pax config may not be too far away from being a capable aircraft on the longest leg that a 77W is currently used, AKL-LAX.

In other words, Boeing may not need to improve the performance of the 78J by that much in order to make it a realistic 77W replacement. If that was the case, I could well see a combination of "Code 2" and "Code 3" 789s replace the 772 fleet and provide for routes like AKL-EWR and AKL-GRU, and (eventually) the 78J take over from the 77W (with admittedly a 10% capacity drop, but in the context of the developing point-to-point model that may be neither here nor there). Or even a fleet solely based on the 789 in various configurations - given that LAX-LHR is a stand-alone market, effectively, the higher capacity of the 78J may not be needed long-term, and a single fleet type may just be possible, with all the economies that arise from that.

Yes, of course, there are many, many variables which need to be taken into account in the final fleet replacement decision. But based on what I see, I don't think an all-787 fleet is by any means out of the question, or even an all-789 fleet.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
ZKNCI
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:38 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Thu Feb 28, 2019 11:03 pm

Auckland Seaplanes DHC-2 Beaver ZK-WKA has flipped on landing in the Auckland Harbour. Pilot escaped ok, but the Beaver has sunk. This was the amphibian (-AMA is straight floats). Oddly, it looks like the wheels were down.
https://i.stuff.co.nz/auckland/110956138/emergency-services-respond-to-reports-of-sea-plane-crashing-off-auckland-wharf
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7535
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Thu Feb 28, 2019 11:12 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
I find it hard to judge the suitability of various aircraft when looking at the range figures supplied by the manufacturers. Clearly they're the "optimistic" range, but I'm never sure whether they take into account reserves etc. And of course you're never entirely sure how much payload has been factored into those figures.

Notwithstanding, I look at the distances that are required to be flown on the NZ network, and the ranges quoted by NZ6, and note that AKL-ORD is 13,170 km, against the "posted" 789 range of 14,140 km, around 1,000 km less. Then I look at the distance on AKL-LAX at 10,467 km, around 1,500 km less than the "posted" range. The conclusion I draw is that, all things being equal (which they probably aren't, but for the purposes of a back-of-the-envelope argument, let's assume they are) then the 78J in a 330-pax config may not be too far away from being a capable aircraft on the longest leg that a 77W is currently used, AKL-LAX.

In other words, Boeing may not need to improve the performance of the 78J by that much in order to make it a realistic 77W replacement. If that was the case, I could well see a combination of "Code 2" and "Code 3" 789s replace the 772 fleet and provide for routes like AKL-EWR and AKL-GRU, and (eventually) the 78J take over from the 77W (with admittedly a 10% capacity drop, but in the context of the developing point-to-point model that may be neither here nor there). Or even a fleet solely based on the 789 in various configurations - given that LAX-LHR is a stand-alone market, effectively, the higher capacity of the 78J may not be needed long-term, and a single fleet type may just be possible, with all the economies that arise from that.

Yes, of course, there are many, many variables which need to be taken into account in the final fleet replacement decision. But based on what I see, I don't think an all-787 fleet is by any means out of the question, or even an all-789 fleet.


I agree, there are variables, but a 78J with a similar premium seat count to the 77W we might see a 320 seater or so?
 
NZ6
Posts: 1613
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Thu Feb 28, 2019 11:55 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
I find it hard to judge the suitability of various aircraft when looking at the range figures supplied by the manufacturers. Clearly they're the "optimistic" range, but I'm never sure whether they take into account reserves etc. And of course you're never entirely sure how much payload has been factored into those figures.

Notwithstanding, I look at the distances that are required to be flown on the NZ network, and the ranges quoted by NZ6, and note that AKL-ORD is 13,170 km, against the "posted" 789 range of 14,140 km, around 1,000 km less. Then I look at the distance on AKL-LAX at 10,467 km, around 1,500 km less than the "posted" range. The conclusion I draw is that, all things being equal (which they probably aren't, but for the purposes of a back-of-the-envelope argument, let's assume they are) then the 78J in a 330-pax config may not be too far away from being a capable aircraft on the longest leg that a 77W is currently used, AKL-LAX.

In other words, Boeing may not need to improve the performance of the 78J by that much in order to make it a realistic 77W replacement. If that was the case, I could well see a combination of "Code 2" and "Code 3" 789s replace the 772 fleet and provide for routes like AKL-EWR and AKL-GRU, and (eventually) the 78J take over from the 77W (with admittedly a 10% capacity drop, but in the context of the developing point-to-point model that may be neither here nor there). Or even a fleet solely based on the 789 in various configurations - given that LAX-LHR is a stand-alone market, effectively, the higher capacity of the 78J may not be needed long-term, and a single fleet type may just be possible, with all the economies that arise from that.

Yes, of course, there are many, many variables which need to be taken into account in the final fleet replacement decision. But based on what I see, I don't think an all-787 fleet is by any means out of the question, or even an all-789 fleet.


I should have highlighted these "simple metrics" were just very high-level view using easy to find public information, where it's flown (winds, altitude) what type of product (product weight) and the mix of product (C/U/Y) and cargo weight &/or volume, engine type all play a part.

When you look at the 772 longhaul, you see it on the following routes YVR, HKG, EZE, LAX, SFO, IAH with AKL-IAH being the longest at just under 12,000 and based on this if the 78J was configured correctly it could be doable.

The only commonly known route that's on the watch list beyond this distance is NYC. If you looked into China, you'll struggle to get above 11,000 and South America can push past 12,000 but becomes a very thin route quickly and where a code 3 comes into its own.

If it goes 787, is the 772 fleet the fleet to open new routes such as NYC and if so how does this happen or does that immediately suggest a 789 order?

Scenarios could be
8x 78J used on currently routes
8X mix a 78J and 789

And/Or will options be used for a for a Code 3 789?

I guess, what I'm asking is does the extra range Luxon has talked about need to come immediately with the 772 replacement or could be added during or after with either a mixed order or with options.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1675
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:29 am

NZ6 wrote:
Scenarios could be
8x 78J used on currently routes
8X mix a 78J and 789

I will be surprised if the order isn't 10 or more aircraft. The reason being that (assuming the current network remains intact and frequencies likewise, more or less) a strict one-for-one replacement of the 77Es will leave no room for growth. If the airline is to follow through on its long-signalled intentions to move into NYC and GRU, then there will need to be at least a couple of aircraft allocated to run those routes (and even then at only 3-4 x weekly).
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
tealnz
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:40 am

Trans-Pacific capability from a 78J seems to be a recurrent a.net fantasy. Why can't we take at face value what the airline says? That the 78J would be a fine aircraft for Asian routes but not more – that in terms of range it is comparable to the old 767-300. Brochure range doesn't work when you're flying westbound with full pax and a serious cargo load.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1613
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:57 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
I agree, there are variables, but a 78J with a similar premium seat count to the 77W we might see a 320 seater or so?


I think you're right...

The 78X would like similar to the United version....
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Unite ... 787-10.php

This also highlights how big the 778 is, it's another 6 meters longer than the 772. Can't see how they'll need that extra capacity when the 787 has been so amazing for the airline.

Even the A359 is longer than the current 772.

It'll come down to aircraft range on the following....

1. Can the 78J fly +12,000km
2. Can NZ made a Code 3 789 work to NYC etc
3. Does NZ want to fly the 789 on +11,000 routes, YVR/IAH/ORD/NYC for example

If the answers to those are no then A359 is the answer.

I'm putting a line through the 77X program right now.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8353
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Fri Mar 01, 2019 3:20 am

All I know is that when the code 1 789 has had to go to IAH it has had a severe payload compromise compared to 1) 78N 2) 772/77W. That to me indicates that the 787 is not the aircraft NZ wants on a ULH - I think you will eventually see.the code 2 787s on existing Asian flights (as they recently started did for SIN/HKG) having been replaced by the next generation order on IAH/ORD etc. Hypothetical ranges are basically how much fuel loaded divided by average hourly fuel burn with full passenger load x average ground speed. They do not account for prevailing headwinds or any other operational restrictions. Unless NZ orders non-RR 787s they are in for a world of EDTO 140min related pain until such time it may be rectified in the future.

To me, the 787 may be a part of a larger Boeing order, but not the sole replacement. I want the A350 for selfish passenger reasons, but you know that Boeing won't roll over and give the order to Airbus. I have stated it a number of times, but to me, this order is dependent on who releases the slots at the right time, not necessarily operational capability or even price. You could argue that possibly the EK transfer of 380s to A350s has done a favour to Boeing getting an order from NZ because it may restrict airbus slots.

I would have the following as my fleet from early next decade
ATR72-600s (for the regionals)
A220-100s (for the larger provincial hubs like NPE/TRG/NSN/PMR)
A220-300s (Trunk NZ and light regionals like MCY/NOU/HBA and WLG/CHC/ZQN T-T)
A321-NEOs (inc the XLR options) (AKL markets served by 320s and any ADHOC capacity, PER frequency and longer markets ex CHC/WLG)
A330-900NEO (SYD/BNE/MEL/NAN/RAR/APW peaks and PPT/SYD-RAR-LAX)
A350-900 (Long-haul to long-haul only EZE/NRT/PVG/KIX/HNL/GRU/LIM/YVR/ORD/EWR)
A350-1000 (LAX/LHR/IAH/SIN/HKG/SFO)
787-9 (long thin routes/new markets/ADHOC seasonal capacity)

Low-cost arm
A320NEO (season holiday markets and ex HLZ/PMR/TRG)
787-9 (DPS/HNL/APW/HKT/MNL/SGN/CMB)

You may be confused by the 787 in the NZ fleet, but it is still a good new market aircraft, and can easily be absorbed into the Low-Cost arm or phased out as required. The A350s would be interchangeable based on seasonal demand I am not a big fan of multiple configs for the same aircraft.
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.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1613
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Fri Mar 01, 2019 3:42 am

tealnz wrote:
Trans-Pacific capability from a 78J seems to be a recurrent a.net fantasy. Why can't we take at face value what the airline says? That the 78J would be a fine aircraft for Asian routes but not more – that in terms of range it is comparable to the old 767-300. Brochure range doesn't work when you're flying westbound with full pax and a serious cargo load.


And your opinion that it can't is based on what knowledge or is this also just my rumour and speculation that it can't as well.....

Luxon has talked about the 787 in recent times and also made mention of extra range in the same breath. Is in relation to a possible code 3, the 789 frame itself or via 78J enhancements to date and before 2022-2025ish

Range is a massively complex formula as I'm we all agree but it is not that of the 767 not forgetting the 787 the holds more passengers and cargo, so what could it do with a 'lighter' load

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/787/#/technical-specs
https://www.boeing.com/commercial/767/#/technical-specs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_7677

AKL-LAX: 10,467 km (GCMAPPER) 787-10 Range: 11,910 km (Boeing Website) if they can get another 500+km out of it.. is it so off the mark and Asia only?

So yes, it can fly it. Can it do it with the config NZ wants? That's up to the SLT
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 972
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Fri Mar 01, 2019 4:36 am

ZKNCI wrote:
Auckland Seaplanes DHC-2 Beaver ZK-WKA has flipped on landing in the Auckland Harbour. Pilot escaped ok, but the Beaver has sunk. This was the amphibian (-AMA is straight floats). Oddly, it looks like the wheels were down.
https://i.stuff.co.nz/auckland/110956138/emergency-services-respond-to-reports-of-sea-plane-crashing-off-auckland-wharf


The gear down also caught my attention... could landing on water with gear down cause the floats to dig in more than usual and flip it? Main gear hit, dig in causing front to pitch down sharply, front of floats dig in hard and flip we go...
77West - AW109S - BE90 - JS31 - B1900 - Q300 - ATR72 - DC9-30 - MD80 - B733 - A320 - B738 - A300-B4 - B773 - B77W
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1675
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Fri Mar 01, 2019 4:41 am

tealnz wrote:
Trans-Pacific capability from a 78J seems to be a recurrent a.net fantasy. Why can't we take at face value what the airline says? That the 78J would be a fine aircraft for Asian routes but not more – that in terms of range it is comparable to the old 767-300. Brochure range doesn't work when you're flying westbound with full pax and a serious cargo load.

Two comments: First, we're not talking about the current 78J, but the possibility that extra range may be squeezed out of it in future, perhaps by the time that the 77W needs replacement. Second, we're not talking about brochure range either, but 1,500 km less than brochure range. I remember when anyone suggesting that the A330 would ever have transpacific range would have been laughed at - but QF used it successfully on AKL-LAX many years ago and now with the NEO it's "normal" to fly those sorts of distances. All I'm saying is "never say never": if the 78J range does grow incrementally over the next few years, it has to be an option for a 77W replacement.

And I'm not a 787 fanboy in case anyone wonders - I'd personally love to see an A350 order. But I'm trying to put myself in the headspace of an airline already flying 787s, and the most attractive fleet from my point of view would then be an all-789 WB fleet, in three different configs - ie 789s replacing both the 77E and 77W in time.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7535
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Fri Mar 01, 2019 8:56 am

Hmm interesting I must say I do enjoy the discussion around fleet choice and usage.

I’ll throw my eggs in 1 basket and say I’ll be surprised if the whole long haul fleet isn’t 787s. A mix most likely of 2 configurations on a larger 789 fleet and then a more premium 78J for the routes it will imo be able to fly in a few years to LAX/SFO.

Do they need the 78J for Asia when as said by NZ6 it is moving to frequency more, where more premium capacity is needed does the code 2 789 have the right capacity? I could see a small number of 78Js now that have more premium seats similar to the code 2 789s and they get moved around routes like HKG/SIN/NRT/HNL for a start maybe as few as 4 frames but I’m still thinking 6 plus 4 more 789s.

I think a code 3 789 with 33J 47W 170Y for ULH plus IAH/ORD/YVR and something almost inbetween the current configurations say 24J 28W 233Y then some 78Js with something like 27J 33W 260Y initially.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4530
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Fri Mar 01, 2019 9:33 am

I still think that the 77E and 77W replacement is going to be the A350 (provides slots are available and the right price).
The A359 is an almost perfect 1:1 replacement of the 77E while being more capable and nicer for passengers. The A35K is more capable still (can carry more further) but does cost more so that would have to be weighed up. Both are capable of doing AKL-EWR so no need to worry about ULR versions etc.
I do like that it diversifies the fleet to 2 manufacturers. In wide body aircraft you only need 12 aircraft for it to be a viable fleet.

I do like the 777 and Boeing but just feel that it is too heavy in comparison. NZ doesn’t need the 779 capacity nor the 778 range so if they got the 778 it would be a heavy aircraft with a higher CASM most likely.

As others have said I just don’t see the 787 (in any format) being suitable enough for NZ (unless they built a 789ER/LR version then maybe - it would need 1000nm greater range with the same amount of payload).
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
User avatar
LaunchDetected
Posts: 320
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Fri Mar 01, 2019 9:53 am

aerorobnz wrote:
I would have the following as my fleet from early next decade
ATR72-600s (for the regionals)
A220-100s (for the larger provincial hubs like NPE/TRG/NSN/PMR)
A220-300s (Trunk NZ and light regionals like MCY/NOU/HBA and WLG/CHC/ZQN T-T)
A321-NEOs (inc the XLR options) (AKL markets served by 320s and any ADHOC capacity, PER frequency and longer markets ex CHC/WLG)
A330-900NEO (SYD/BNE/MEL/NAN/RAR/APW peaks and PPT/SYD-RAR-LAX)
A350-900 (Long-haul to long-haul only EZE/NRT/PVG/KIX/HNL/GRU/LIM/YVR/ORD/EWR)
A350-1000 (LAX/LHR/IAH/SIN/HKG/SFO)
787-9 (long thin routes/new markets/ADHOC seasonal capacity)

Low-cost arm
A320NEO (season holiday markets and ex HLZ/PMR/TRG)
787-9 (DPS/HNL/APW/HKT/MNL/SGN/CMB)

You may be confused by the 787 in the NZ fleet, but it is still a good new market aircraft, and can easily be absorbed into the Low-Cost arm or phased out as required. The A350s would be interchangeable based on seasonal demand I am not a big fan of multiple configs for the same aircraft.


That's some high fleet-complexity. I can't see the point of using both A330-900neo and 787-9. Same thing with the A220-300 / A320neo.
Caravelle lover
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4381
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Fri Mar 01, 2019 9:55 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
Do they need the 78J for Asia when as said by NZ6 it is moving to frequency more ...

HND, PVG and HKG each have their own slot-related pressures, potentially affecting that so-called frequency strategy in the medium-term.

Cheers,

C.
 
Deepinsider
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:36 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Fri Mar 01, 2019 10:30 am

When AirNZ were mulling over the choice of 772 vs 343
the then '7E7' suddenly appeared out of left field. (and
may or may not have clinched the deal for Boeing)

Does anyone see the '797' popping up as part of this round?
 
Deepinsider
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:36 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Fri Mar 01, 2019 11:33 am

Deepinsider wrote:
When AirNZ were mulling over the choice of 772 vs 343
the then '7E7' suddenly appeared out of left field. (and
may or may not have clinched the deal for Boeing)

Does anyone see the '797' popping up as part of this round?

I meant this in the context of a 'deal sweetener' not as a plane to
replace the 772. It would however seem to be quite a concept for
within the Oceania region.
Last edited by Deepinsider on Fri Mar 01, 2019 11:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8353
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Fri Mar 01, 2019 11:34 am

LaunchDetected wrote:

That's some high fleet-complexity. I can't see the point of using both A330-900neo and 787-9. Same thing with the A220-300 / A320neo.


Yeah, personally I would be happy to dump the 787s completely from the NZ mainline fleet. All the rest are exactly what LH/LX/DL has. as far as fleet complexity.
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.
 
tealnz
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Fri Mar 01, 2019 12:53 pm

NZ6 wrote:
tealnz wrote:
And your opinion that it can't is based on what knowledge or is this also just my rumour and speculation that it can't as well..... Luxon has talked about the 787 in recent times and also made mention of extra range in the same breath. Is in relation to a possible code 3, the 789 frame itself or via 78J enhancements to date and before 2022-2025ish

I base it primarily on explicit comments from NZ management in the context of the 77E replacement. They should know – they were going through a detailed RFI last year and they have immense experience with the 789. If you want to argue from 78J brochure range you have to posit that NZ are prepared to make deep change in their business model (high leisure and high cargo) – for which there's no evidence I'm aware of. Beyond that you're stuck with the fact that no airline has the 78J in scheduled operations over the sort of ranges that would be required for NZ's North American routes. It may be a fine aircraft but it's simply not configured for this sort of payload/range mix.

DavidByrne wrote:
Two comments: First, we're not talking about the current 78J, but the possibility that extra range may be squeezed out of it in future, perhaps by the time that the 77W needs replacement. Second, we're not talking about brochure range either, but 1,500 km less than brochure range. I remember when anyone suggesting that the A330 would ever have transpacific range would have been laughed at - but QF used it successfully on AKL-LAX many years ago and now with the NEO it's "normal" to fly those sorts of distances. All I'm saying is "never say never": if the 78J range does grow incrementally over the next few years, it has to be an option for a 77W replacement.

That's a different question. Sure, we'll eventually see a re-engined 787. But we're not seeing any evidence that Boeing are ready to offer it – primarily, I assume, because neither GE nor RR has a new engine anywhere near ready to offer for current contracts (NZ say they will make an announcement by June). A 5% improvement in fuel burn make a 78Jneo competitive as a trans-Pacific aircraft for NZ? Bit irrelevant, I think: by the time it's offered we'll see the 77E replacement in service. The larger question is whether the 77X will be selling well - or whether Boeing will be forced to re-engineer the 787 (higher MTOW, extended wing as well as new engine) to compete with an A350neo. But that's years away.
 
DavidJ08
Posts: 169
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:18 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:14 pm

NTLDaz wrote:
IMO VA didn't pose any threat to NZ. However, new chums Qantas may. An expansion of non stop flights out of MEL and BNE may dilute connections in AKL for NZ.

VA was also doing its own SYD/MEL/BNE-LAX flights, and had been partnered with DL on trans-Pacific since 2011.

I honestly don't think the story is one of "NZ chooses QF over VA for partnership", I think the partnership with QF is only to replace the Aus domestic network access lost as part of divorcing VA.

Here's an article trying to elaborate on the background behind the divorce: https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinio ... rom-virgin - boardroom politics, cultural differences, commerce commission implications from EK pulling out and NZ-VA occupying larger market share (keeping in mind that NZ-QF is only for domestic connections, not on the actual trans-Tasman flights.)

I think the NZ-VA alliance ended for a variety of reasons, and to say that the move was a big mistake for the specific reason of trans-Pacific Velocity member connections (which, in my opinion, was not the main focus of the deal - it was collateral damage when the deal ended, and according to the Stuff article, one that Air NZ did lots of Aus-targeted marketing to mitigate) would not be an accurate assessment of the bigger picture IMHO.
 
DavidJ08
Posts: 169
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:18 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Fri Mar 01, 2019 8:51 pm

ZK-OJA flying CHC-TSV as NZ6001 as we speak https://www.flightradar24.com/ANZ6001/1fa9f119 - its previous flight was on 1st Feb.

I see OJN hasn't flown since 3rd Feb either.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3910
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Fri Mar 01, 2019 10:09 pm

Deepinsider wrote:
When AirNZ were mulling over the choice of 772 vs 343
the then '7E7' suddenly appeared out of left field. (and
may or may not have clinched the deal for Boeing)

Does anyone see the '797' popping up as part of this round?


Wasn’t it an choice between the 77E and the 345 not the 343?

Looks like NZ made an very wise choice with the 77E, it would be unlikely if they had gone with the 345 that it would still be around, yet alone wouldn’t of been an short-haul work horse.

The 77E have become an very good investment, by now the cost of them would be fully recovered. Even though they now aren’t the most economical on Long-Haul, they are still prefectly fine for short-haul with an decent cargo load.

I would expect the 77E’s all to reach there 20th Brithday with NZ.
 
PA515
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Fri Mar 01, 2019 11:55 pm

DavidJ08 wrote:
ZK-OJA flying CHC-TSV as NZ6001 as we speak https://www.flightradar24.com/ANZ6001/1fa9f119 - its previous flight was on 1st Feb.

I see OJN hasn't flown since 3rd Feb either.


ZK-OJN was supposed to be handed over to Canada Jetlines about 16 Mar 2019. I expected it to go to TSV as a new paint job takes 12-14 days. Could be getting repainted elsewhere.

ZK-OKM is AKL-SIN today as NZ6014 2130/0255 for Wifi (and maintenance?).

And ZK-NHA departs CNS later today as NZ6094 for AKL or CHC. Skyliner Aviation said AKL and MRC Aviation said CHC.

PA515
 
zkncj
Posts: 3910
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sat Mar 02, 2019 12:06 am

What are the 3x A320CEO's that have moved to Domestic? or has that not happend yet?
 
PA515
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sat Mar 02, 2019 12:11 am

zkncj wrote:
What are the 3x A320CEO's that have moved to Domestic? or has that not happend yet?


Sort of not happened yet. Most days one of the regional fleet is doing domestic flights, but not a specific aircraft. A few times recently it's been an A321NEO.

PA515
 
DavidJ08
Posts: 169
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:18 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sat Mar 02, 2019 2:55 am

zkncj wrote:
What are the 3x A320CEO's that have moved to Domestic? or has that not happend yet?

Trawling through FR24 records here, it seems that the Regional A320s take turns at doing domestic duties at the moment, most of them have done domestic days here and there.
 
nomorerjs
Posts: 892
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 10:24 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sat Mar 02, 2019 3:04 am

Any update on ORDs performance?

Based on this forum; it’s an atrocious money losing route and only there because UA and the city of Chicago “pressured” the CEO of NZ (who used to work in Chicago) fly this route.

We all know ATL, AUS, BNA, BOS, CLT, DFW, DTW, MIA, PHL, PHX, RDU, & SEA are much better options.

Yes, this is sarcastic, but this forum believes AA should fly from AUS, CLT, and RDU to Africa and India over DFW and MIA.
 
JQ321
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:40 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sat Mar 02, 2019 3:07 am

aerorobnz wrote:
LaunchDetected wrote:

That's some high fleet-complexity. I can't see the point of using both A330-900neo and 787-9. Same thing with the A220-300 / A320neo.


Yeah, personally I would be happy to dump the 787s completely from the NZ mainline fleet. All the rest are exactly what LH/LX/DL has. as far as fleet complexity.

It would be smarter as to not introduce a new fleet type to not purchase the A330-900NEO.
But I Guess you really like Airbus don't you?
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7535
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sat Mar 02, 2019 3:47 am

zkncj wrote:
Deepinsider wrote:
When AirNZ were mulling over the choice of 772 vs 343
the then '7E7' suddenly appeared out of left field. (and
may or may not have clinched the deal for Boeing)

Does anyone see the '797' popping up as part of this round?


Wasn’t it an choice between the 77E and the 345 not the 343?

Looks like NZ made an very wise choice with the 77E, it would be unlikely if they had gone with the 345 that it would still be around, yet alone wouldn’t of been an short-haul work horse.

The 77E have become an very good investment, by now the cost of them would be fully recovered. Even though they now aren’t the most economical on Long-Haul, they are still prefectly fine for short-haul with an decent cargo load.

I would expect the 77E’s all to reach there 20th Brithday with NZ.


I thought it was the 777 or the A346? They almost could have skipped the 772 and gone for the 77W which would have then replaced the 744 fleet, at some point the 3 RR 744s were offered to CX I believe but were to old in some cases maybe? What would have happened to the other 5 744s then I don’t no? Early retirement?

The 772 has done a great job and allowed routes like PVG/YVR/IAH/EZE all of which have used other types At times as well now it’s onto the NG 787 .

The market imo will depend how long they each last. 4 owned 4 leased so the owned ones might not have any buyers and could stay around on short haul for longer while the leases ones could also be renewed fairly cheaply Id imagine but maintanence costs would also be higher. Personally I’d have my doubts that any will reach 20 years with NZ given the current plan to replace them from 2022/24, the oldest is not 13.5 years yet the youngest is 12.

As to the 797 comment above I’m not sure what it would offer over the A321? Probably could reach PER/DPS/HNL but the reality is it adds another type when bar those 3 which 789s can be filled on it doesn’t offer much imo.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1613
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sat Mar 02, 2019 5:12 am

tealnz wrote:
I base it primarily on explicit comments from NZ management in the context of the 77E replacement. They should know – they were going through a detailed RFI last year and they have immense experience with the 789. If you want to argue from 78J brochure range you have to posit that NZ are prepared to make deep change in their business model (high leisure and high cargo) – for which there's no evidence I'm aware of. Beyond that you're stuck with the fact that no airline has the 78J in scheduled operations over the sort of ranges that would be required for NZ's North American routes. It may be a fine aircraft but it's simply not configured for this sort of payload/range mix


planemanofnz wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
Do they need the 78J for Asia when as said by NZ6 it is moving to frequency more ...

HND, PVG and HKG each have their own slot-related pressures, potentially affecting that so-called frequency strategy in the medium-term.

Cheers,

C.


But NZ has talked about extra range from the 787.. could NZ be doing a deal for a 78J with more range?

NZ has made lots of comments including reviewing its long haul fleet and network strategy... So whatever is ordered isn't a guaranteed switch out, does a 78J go into HKG, SIN and/or could it do AKL-LAX if configured with a higher density premium cabin?

Frequency works nicely with alliances, especially if alliance help with slot availability.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1613
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sat Mar 02, 2019 5:15 am

Zkpilot wrote:
I still think that the 77E and 77W replacement is going to be the A350 (provides slots are available and the right price).
The A359 is an almost perfect 1:1 replacement of the 77E while being more capable and nicer for passengers. The A35K is more capable still (can carry more further) but does cost more so that would have to be weighed up. Both are capable of doing AKL-EWR so no need to worry about ULR versions etc.
I do like that it diversifies the fleet to 2 manufacturers. In wide body aircraft you only need 12 aircraft for it to be a viable fleet.

I do like the 777 and Boeing but just feel that it is too heavy in comparison. NZ doesn’t need the 779 capacity nor the 778 range so if they got the 778 it would be a heavy aircraft with a higher CASM most likely.

As others have said I just don’t see the 787 (in any format) being suitable enough for NZ (unless they built a 789ER/LR version then maybe - it would need 1000nm greater range with the same amount of payload).


I would have put money on this in November. From what I read between the lines, Boeing has come in with a 787 proposal that's given NZ something to seriously consider. It's all then gone to ground.

So is it going to be a mix of.....
789/78J
A359/A35K

How that split looks is to be determined I imagine there'll be lots of options....

As I said, 778 & 779 are just way too big. They're all but off the table.

Fingers crossed for Airbus.
 
pbm
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:38 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sat Mar 02, 2019 6:05 am

nomorerjs wrote:
Any update on ORDs performance?

Based on this forum; it’s an atrocious money losing route and only there because UA and the city of Chicago “pressured” the CEO of NZ (who used to work in Chicago) fly this route.

We all know ATL, AUS, BNA, BOS, CLT, DFW, DTW, MIA, PHL, PHX, RDU, & SEA are much better options.

Yes, this is sarcastic, but this forum believes AA should fly from AUS, CLT, and RDU to Africa and India over DFW and MIA.


Ahead of plan

http://nzx-prod-s7fsd7f98s.s3-website-a ... 295930.pdf
 
torin
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:53 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sat Mar 02, 2019 6:27 am

 
NZ6
Posts: 1613
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sat Mar 02, 2019 7:20 am

pbm wrote:
nomorerjs wrote:
Any update on ORDs performance?

Based on this forum; it’s an atrocious money losing route and only there because UA and the city of Chicago “pressured” the CEO of NZ (who used to work in Chicago) fly this route.

We all know ATL, AUS, BNA, BOS, CLT, DFW, DTW, MIA, PHL, PHX, RDU, & SEA are much better options.

Yes, this is sarcastic, but this forum believes AA should fly from AUS, CLT, and RDU to Africa and India over DFW and MIA.


Ahead of plan

http://nzx-prod-s7fsd7f98s.s3-website-a ... 295930.pdf


I wasn't sure if this person was serious or not. Loads are light but it's year 1 and "expectations" aren't all that high but are better than forecasted for.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8353
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sat Mar 02, 2019 7:40 am

JQ321 wrote:
But I Guess you really like Airbus don't you?


Actually, I have always been a Boeing person, it's just that Airbus (and Bombardier) has better offerings right now. I am quite prepared to accept that the 787 can happily occupy the space I have made for the A330-900 ( if RR can get their 'a into g'). There are many carriers that happily cope with both 787 and A350 in their fleets. After 15 months of nonstop problems, chronic delays and reschedulings because of the 787 I would think that NZ's patience may well be waning somewhat. (especially as the aircraft was so late with the original 787 issues). I would rather any option than more 787s right now. I think it might be better to do what SQ did with 343/345m who retired them earlier with 777s and gained a better fleet
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.
 
JQ321
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:40 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sat Mar 02, 2019 8:04 am

aerorobnz wrote:
JQ321 wrote:
But I Guess you really like Airbus don't you?


Actually, I have always been a Boeing person, it's just that Airbus (and Bombardier) has better offerings right now. I am quite prepared to accept that the 787 can happily occupy the space I have made for the A330-900 ( if RR can get their 'a into g'). There are many carriers that happily cope with both 787 and A350 in their fleets. After 15 months of nonstop problems, chronic delays and reschedulings because of the 787 I would think that NZ's patience may well be waning somewhat. (especially as the aircraft was so late with the original 787 issues). I would rather any option than more 787s right now. I think it might be better to do what SQ did with 343/345m who retired them earlier with 777s and gained a better fleet

"After 15 months of nonstop problems, chronic delays and reschedulings because of the 787"
You mean RR. The only engine manufacturer for the A330NEO.
Air NZ needs to go with GE on all future builds and switch older aircraft if possible.(rant over the bad quality pom's engines over)
And Yes I Do agree for Air NZ the A350 is a good fit however the 787 is better than A330 in this case as it enables to them to do longer and thinner routes and is just a heavy as the A330 for trans-tasman.
* Note in the future to get deals out of both manufacturers they will need to operate a few of them already so it is very unlikely they'll go for an all airbus fleet.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7535
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sat Mar 02, 2019 8:20 am

torin wrote:


I think you mean A320 ZK-NHA.

NZ6 wrote:
pbm wrote:
nomorerjs wrote:
Any update on ORDs performance?

Based on this forum; it’s an atrocious money losing route and only there because UA and the city of Chicago “pressured” the CEO of NZ (who used to work in Chicago) fly this route.

We all know ATL, AUS, BNA, BOS, CLT, DFW, DTW, MIA, PHL, PHX, RDU, & SEA are much better options.

Yes, this is sarcastic, but this forum believes AA should fly from AUS, CLT, and RDU to Africa and India over DFW and MIA.


Ahead of plan

http://nzx-prod-s7fsd7f98s.s3-website-a ... 295930.pdf


I wasn't sure if this person was serious or not. Loads are light but it's year 1 and "expectations" aren't all that high but are better than forecasted for.



Loads are light, interesting. Anything to do with the performance of the aircraft? Some here have said they block 20 seats westbound, any actual evidence of this? Great that it’s doing better than forecast though.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8353
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sat Mar 02, 2019 9:04 am

Also, I heard today from someone who had been advised in their professional capacity that a third carrier after D7/HX will announce they are withdrawing from the New Zealand market publically very shortly. I'm not sure whom, they weren't allowed to say. Another casualty of a market marred by poor yields and high operational complexity and cost caused by our isolation. I feel it will probably be a Chinese carrier (HU possibly?).. The other airlines that were mentioned in passing were AA, QR, GS, I would not be surprised if there were more too. We had a laugh that it might be VA (becoming TT)
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.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4381
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sat Mar 02, 2019 10:09 am

aerorobnz wrote:
Also, I heard today from someone who had been advised in their professional capacity that a third carrier after D7/HX will announce they are withdrawing from the New Zealand market publically very shortly. I'm not sure whom, they weren't allowed to say. Another casualty of a market marred by poor yields and high operational complexity and cost caused by our isolation. I feel it will probably be a Chinese carrier (HU possibly?).. The other airlines that were mentioned in passing were AA, QR, GS, I would not be surprised if there were more too. We had a laugh that it might be VA (becoming TT)

I wouldn't be surprised to see CI go. They only recently dropped CHC, plus:
- Tag flights increasingly seem to be a thing of the past
- NZ's recent AKL - TPE launch could be hurting them

Cheers,

C.
 
Qantas16
Posts: 768
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 3:51 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sat Mar 02, 2019 12:12 pm

planemanofnz wrote:
aerorobnz wrote:
Also, I heard today from someone who had been advised in their professional capacity that a third carrier after D7/HX will announce they are withdrawing from the New Zealand market publically very shortly. I'm not sure whom, they weren't allowed to say. Another casualty of a market marred by poor yields and high operational complexity and cost caused by our isolation. I feel it will probably be a Chinese carrier (HU possibly?).. The other airlines that were mentioned in passing were AA, QR, GS, I would not be surprised if there were more too. We had a laugh that it might be VA (becoming TT)

I wouldn't be surprised to see CI go. They only recently dropped CHC, plus:
- Tag flights increasingly seem to be a thing of the past
- NZ's recent AKL - TPE launch could be hurting them

Cheers,

C.


CI loads on BNE-AKL seem to fluctuate quite dramatically from completely full to very light but my understanding is they do quite well on freight and the aircraft would have to sit in BNE all day anyway if they want to make the LGW connection work. I'd be surprised if they dropped AKL.
 
tealnz
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sat Mar 02, 2019 3:43 pm

NZ6 wrote:
But NZ has talked about extra range from the 787.. could NZ be doing a deal for a 78J with more range?

Yes Luxon's comment is still a puzzle.

There's lots of chat on a.net about increasing MTOW and range on the 787 but we've never seen any hint that Boeing are having a serious conversation about it with airlines. There are reasons for that: the current airframe was maxed out when they developed the 789 and to get a serious increase in payload/range for the 789/78J would require serious engineering (gear, wing...) and serious investment. The accountants won't be keen to put further investment in the aircraft while there's still $25 billion in deferred production cost to pay off. And the board won't want to see sales prospects for the 77X undercut by a more capable 78J.

Perhaps the more natural route to a more capable 787 would be a re-engined version. Ostrower has been reporting that RR and Airbus are working to put the Ultrafan on the A350 in the mid-2020s. It's hard to imagine Boeing aren't looking at the same possibility for the 789/78J. A 5% cut in fuel consumption would make things interesting.

But that doesn't fit with Luxon's comment in the context of the 77E replacement. The airline says they will take a decision this F/Y ie by June. There's no new engine on offer right now. Given development lead times it's hard to see a neo 787 being available until second half of the 2020s.

Where does that leave us? The only specific engineering option we know of is the extended 63m wing originally planned for the 789. But from memory that would lift empty weight by around 2t. That might work for NZ if the fuel savings on longer routes are more than 2t. But it would still leave the 789 well short of the payload/range available from a 280t A359. And it would be surprising if it was enough to turn a 254t 78J into a serious trans-Pacific option.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7535
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sat Mar 02, 2019 7:53 pm

aerorobnz wrote:
Also, I heard today from someone who had been advised in their professional capacity that a third carrier after D7/HX will announce they are withdrawing from the New Zealand market publically very shortly. I'm not sure whom, they weren't allowed to say. Another casualty of a market marred by poor yields and high operational complexity and cost caused by our isolation. I feel it will probably be a Chinese carrier (HU possibly?).. The other airlines that were mentioned in passing were AA, QR, GS, I would not be surprised if there were more too. We had a laugh that it might be VA (becoming TT)


Aren’t the secondary Chinese carriers subsidised? Looking at it though one of the secondary ones would seem most likely to go?

AA have hinted that if their QF JV is approved they would look at more seasonal flying to Australia and I’d expect AKL to survive atleast seasonally if not go year round with a JV.

Qantas16 wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
aerorobnz wrote:
Also, I heard today from someone who had been advised in their professional capacity that a third carrier after D7/HX will announce they are withdrawing from the New Zealand market publically very shortly. I'm not sure whom, they weren't allowed to say. Another casualty of a market marred by poor yields and high operational complexity and cost caused by our isolation. I feel it will probably be a Chinese carrier (HU possibly?).. The other airlines that were mentioned in passing were AA, QR, GS, I would not be surprised if there were more too. We had a laugh that it might be VA (becoming TT)

I wouldn't be surprised to see CI go. They only recently dropped CHC, plus:
- Tag flights increasingly seem to be a thing of the past
- NZ's recent AKL - TPE launch could be hurting them

Cheers,

C.


CI loads on BNE-AKL seem to fluctuate quite dramatically from completely full to very light but my understanding is they do quite well on freight and the aircraft would have to sit in BNE all day anyway if they want to make the LGW connection work. I'd be surprised if they dropped AKL.


I don’t imagine it would be CI either, maybe try compete with NZ with a 3-4 weekly non stop TPE-AKL? They did the seasonal upgauge to a 77W this year after having 8-10 weekly A330s for a couple of years from SYD/BNE and 744s seasonal from BNE before that.


tealnz wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
But NZ has talked about extra range from the 787.. could NZ be doing a deal for a 78J with more range?

Yes Luxon's comment is still a puzzle.

There's lots of chat on a.net about increasing MTOW and range on the 787 but we've never seen any hint that Boeing are having a serious conversation about it with airlines. There are reasons for that: the current airframe was maxed out when they developed the 789 and to get a serious increase in payload/range for the 789/78J would require serious engineering (gear, wing...) and serious investment. The accountants won't be keen to put further investment in the aircraft while there's still $25 billion in deferred production cost to pay off. And the board won't want to see sales prospects for the 77X undercut by a more capable 78J.

Perhaps the more natural route to a more capable 787 would be a re-engined version. Ostrower has been reporting that RR and Airbus are working to put the Ultrafan on the A350 in the mid-2020s. It's hard to imagine Boeing aren't looking at the same possibility for the 789/78J. A 5% cut in fuel consumption would make things interesting.

But that doesn't fit with Luxon's comment in the context of the 77E replacement. The airline says they will take a decision this F/Y ie by June. There's no new engine on offer right now. Given development lead times it's hard to see a neo 787 being available until second half of the 2020s.

Where does that leave us? The only specific engineering option we know of is the extended 63m wing originally planned for the 789. But from memory that would lift empty weight by around 2t. That might work for NZ if the fuel savings on longer routes are more than 2t. But it would still leave the 789 well short of the payload/range available from a 280t A359. And it would be surprising if it was enough to turn a 254t 78J into a serious trans-Pacific option.


Maybe some 78Js now and some more capable ones in the mid 2020s as a 77W replacement? Who knows but something seems to be going on since the A350 was such a shoe in and the decision seems to be delayed slightly maybe.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1613
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:07 am

tealnz wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
But NZ has talked about extra range from the 787.. could NZ be doing a deal for a 78J with more range?

Yes Luxon's comment is still a puzzle.

There's lots of chat on a.net about increasing MTOW and range on the 787 but we've never seen any hint that Boeing are having a serious conversation about it with airlines. There are reasons for that: the current airframe was maxed out when they developed the 789 and to get a serious increase in payload/range for the 789/78J would require serious engineering (gear, wing...) and serious investment. The accountants won't be keen to put further investment in the aircraft while there's still $25 billion in deferred production cost to pay off. And the board won't want to see sales prospects for the 77X undercut by a more capable 78J.

Perhaps the more natural route to a more capable 787 would be a re-engined version. Ostrower has been reporting that RR and Airbus are working to put the Ultrafan on the A350 in the mid-2020s. It's hard to imagine Boeing aren't looking at the same possibility for the 789/78J. A 5% cut in fuel consumption would make things interesting.

But that doesn't fit with Luxon's comment in the context of the 77E replacement. The airline says they will take a decision this F/Y ie by June. There's no new engine on offer right now. Given development lead times it's hard to see a neo 787 being available until second half of the 2020s.

Where does that leave us? The only specific engineering option we know of is the extended 63m wing originally planned for the 789. But from memory that would lift empty weight by around 2t. That might work for NZ if the fuel savings on longer routes are more than 2t. But it would still leave the 789 well short of the payload/range available from a 280t A359. And it would be surprising if it was enough to turn a 254t 78J into a serious trans-Pacific option.


I guess the point is, the 789 and 78J are contenders for the 772 and 77W replacements (it has been quoted the 77W is being considered as part of any new purchase decision for the 772) That has been quoted and so has the talk of extra range.

Boeing may not be able to deliver that, but for Luxon to make the comment, both parties have clearly had more than optimistic conversations but as you say, the brochure range is too dynamic for any of us to confirm if routes are viable with an unknown load. So... has NZ done modelling with assurances of extra MTOW or range that's come from routine improvements and a few proposed changes along with Boeing assurance..

They may be staying with the 789 into deep N.A and using 78J into SIN/HKG/LAX only with high premium config.

Can you confirm new undercarriage/ wing or a 'serious investment' is required for what NZ need? This serious investment may be something Boeing actually want anyway to plug the massive gap between 78J and 778 for 12,000km+ routes...
 
Deepinsider
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:36 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sun Mar 03, 2019 10:06 am

Boeing may actually want to plug the massive gap between
78J and 778 for 12,000km+ routes....
You bet! because sitting right there in that gap is the A350.
 
Jetstar315
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 5:54 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sun Mar 03, 2019 11:50 am

Ok - here's a curve-ball! If QF are really considering the A350-1000 with ULR capability (i.e. extra fuel tanks) could NZ extend their relationship with our Aussie cousins and select the same aircraft?? It may well have benefits for both carriers by combining an order for scale of discounts that may be offered for a combined larger order than QF alone might make!! Just saying....
 
getluv
Posts: 594
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:11 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sun Mar 03, 2019 12:25 pm

Jetstar315 wrote:
Ok - here's a curve-ball! If QF are really considering the A350-1000 with ULR capability (i.e. extra fuel tanks) could NZ extend their relationship with our Aussie cousins and select the same aircraft?? It may well have benefits for both carriers by combining an order for scale of discounts that may be offered for a combined larger order than QF alone might make!! Just saying....


The chance would be zero. They would have to apply to their respective competition agencies to be allowed to even negotiate a joint order. VA are already angry with what's happening at the moment and they'd be making more of a fuss if this was ever entertained. Also, QF being the bigger of the two they would be able to get a lower rate compared to NZ and that might not be a benefit they would like to share.
I'm that bad type.
 
PA515
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sun Mar 03, 2019 3:17 pm

In the Air NZ 2019 Interim Results analyst call transcript Chris Luxon says they expect to have only one 789 out of service by 01 Apr 2019 and none out of service by 01 Sep 2019.

Page 10
Christopher Luxon: Maybe I can give you some confidence around that Andy, around the Rolls Royce situation. Through this half that we're reporting on - we had up to five aircraft on the ground. Currently, we have two aircraft on the ground. From 1 April, we expect that to be one. By 1 September we expect to be fully resolved.


https://p-airnz.com/cms/assets/PDFs/air ... script.pdf

However, nothing about the 789's EDTO status.

PA515
 
NZ6
Posts: 1613
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:49 pm

Deepinsider wrote:
Boeing may actually want to plug the massive gap between
78J and 778 for 12,000km+ routes....
You bet! because sitting right there in that gap is the A350.


Which is why Airbus has been seen by many as the logical replacement and I've been told previously it was the most suitable and preferred option.

Clearly, Boeing knows this, or NZ has said what have you got that is comparable to or better than option A and Boeing has come to the table with something involving the 787.

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