Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
NZ6
Posts: 1615
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sun Mar 03, 2019 8:00 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....


NZ don't need the -1000ULR. They can replace the 772 with the -900 nicely, depending on final config something like 30C, 40U and 230Y over 14-15,000km.

If they order the -1000 to replace the 77W it won't need the ULR range.

I'm not sure if you mean QF orders additional -1000ULR's and then leases to NZ by doing so ordering more and obtaining a better deal from Airbus?

Firstly I don't think NZ would want to lease planes from such a close 'competitor' over what could be a 20 year period, especially for their core international routes. Surely NZ would just use another leasing agency to obtain attractive deals but also, any order would be for a minimum of 8 frames (replace 772) with options to replace the 7x 77W and maybe growth (Although growth could come from additional 789's too) - so an order of 15+ frames should see a decent price and I'm not sure Qantas would firstly be too interested given they've already got a lot of orders on the table with Airbus and would they want to upset Airbus all that much if they see it has cutting some of their lunch by bypassing Airbus doing an order directly with NZ?
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4530
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:12 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....

While it will be a fantastic aircraft, NZ doesn’t need ULR versions of either the A359 or A35K as both can do NY from AKL no problem. AKL of course is about 2 hours flying time closer to ORD and NY than SYD is. NZ would only need ULR if it was looking at LHR direct (which would still be a push for ULR unless configured in a premium only configuration - which NZ would most likely not be interested in doing). Unlikely that either Airbus or Boeing would accept a joint request either.
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
tealnz
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:06 am

Just to underline what the 787 is up against if it's back in the mix for the 77E replacement, some new numbers from the 787 vs 359 range thread on tech/ops:

Eyad89 wrote:
xwb565 wrote:
Some new figures for consideration from a 280t a359 with the latest performance improvements- 11.5hr trip, 71t fuel burn, 60t payload and 272 tow.

So that was flying at its MZFW? Since it still had 8 tons before it hit MTOW, it would be able to fly for 13hr carrying 60t of payload. Not bad.

If the numbers are right that implies a 280t A359 could do LAX-AKL with 60t payload. Or close to 50t for IAH-AKL.

We don't know what sort of tweak Boeing might be able to come up with to get the 789 into the competition. But it's hard to see it coming anywhere near this performance at least until a re-engined version is available in the latter mid-2020s.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Mon Mar 04, 2019 2:31 am

tealnz wrote:
If the numbers are right that implies a 280t A359 could do LAX-AKL with 60t payload. Or close to 50t for IAH-AKL.


That's astonishing if true.

The key word is "if". Even in 2019, you never really know until the airframe is up there flying; and I suspect every airline is waiting for everyone else to be the guinea pig. Remember the 77W (a pleasant surprise) and the MD-11 (not so much).
 
tealnz
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Mon Mar 04, 2019 4:04 am

I don't have a payload/range chart for the 280t variant but I recall Zeke pointing out that in CX service the 359 (I assume the 275t version) at extended ranges could carry more payload than the CX 77Ws. So it sounds plausible.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1615
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Mon Mar 04, 2019 9:11 pm

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.


I've been putting some thought into this as I initially agreed with you last year, then Luxon's comments have made me start to think this is somehow doable...

This is the latest range chart I could find (a quick google) Pg .38
https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... ps/787.pdf

787-10 OEW only just under 300,000lbs, add 300 passengers and bags lets call it 75,000Lbs. You're now left with 375,000 OEW+Payload.

AKL-LAX is just under 5,700nm (haven't catered for Weather, diversions etc) and with 380,000lbs OEW+Payload the range limit is 6,000NM so you can fly there with 300 passengers but.... there's no cargo on board.

Can Boeing provide enough improvements to get Cargo onboard in the next 4 years without major work... I highly doubt it

Of course, NZ could still get the 78J for Asia to release existing 789's onto N.A to replace the 772's.

I just hope we see the A350. It will offer more flexibility.
 
PA515
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Tue Mar 05, 2019 4:04 pm

VH-OQG as QF8 DFW-SYD is tracking 273 degrees towards AKL at 40,000 ft. Never seen it this far south.

https://www.flightradar24.com/QFA8/1fb26c3c

PA515
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4530
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:48 pm

PA515 wrote:
VH-OQG as QF8 DFW-SYD is tracking 273 degrees towards AKL at 40,000 ft. Never seen it this far south.

https://www.flightradar24.com/QFA8/1fb26c3c

PA515

Usually happens a few times a year to avoid winds/weather.
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
JQ321
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:40 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:58 pm

NZ6 wrote:
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.


I've been putting some thought into this as I initially agreed with you last year, then Luxon's comments have made me start to think this is somehow doable...

This is the latest range chart I could find (a quick google) Pg .38
https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... ps/787.pdf

787-10 OEW only just under 300,000lbs, add 300 passengers and bags lets call it 75,000Lbs. You're now left with 375,000 OEW+Payload.

AKL-LAX is just under 5,700nm (haven't catered for Weather, diversions etc) and with 380,000lbs OEW+Payload the range limit is 6,000NM so you can fly there with 300 passengers but.... there's no cargo on board.

Can Boeing provide enough improvements to get Cargo onboard in the next 4 years without major work... I highly doubt it

Of course, NZ could still get the 78J for Asia to release existing 789's onto N.A to replace the 772's.

I just hope we see the A350. It will offer more flexibility.

It looks like Boeing should launch the 777-7X seems to get the best of both worlds.
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1231
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:24 am

here might be the answer to the 787 being back in the running with NZ? Granted, it is the -9, and not the -10, but might give the needed payload reange...

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1417135
 
NZ6
Posts: 1615
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Wed Mar 06, 2019 7:39 am

zkeoj wrote:
here might be the answer to the 787 being back in the running with NZ? Granted, it is the -9, and not the -10, but might give the needed payload reange...

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1417135


This will be what Luxon was talking about...

So I'm now 85% NZ will announce an order for 787's....

The question really is how will they slice the order up? How many -9 and how many if any -10?

For the -9 how many Code 1,2 and will we see 3?

I'm thinking (very quickly).....

6x 789 Code 2
2x 789 Code 3 (NYC/GIG)

With options for X...

Some 772's may remain to allow NYC to commence with new equipment before NZ acquires too many frames if the market changes or NYC fails.

Options to be taken 2-3x 789 Code 3 (new routes) and incremental numbers for -10 (SIN/HKG/TYO/Tasman) replacing the kept 772's...

I'm also starting to see the 77W will downsize into a Code 2 789 and if extra AKL-LAX is needed NZ3/4 will return with a 789 but NZ's plan is to carry this capacity direct ex ORD/NYC/IAH/ZZZ up to daily.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7535
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Wed Mar 06, 2019 7:59 am

NZ6 wrote:
zkeoj wrote:
here might be the answer to the 787 being back in the running with NZ? Granted, it is the -9, and not the -10, but might give the needed payload reange...

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1417135


This will be what Luxon was talking about...

So I'm now 85% NZ will announce an order for 787's....

The question really is how will they slice the order up? How many -9 and how many if any -10?

For the -9 how many Code 1,2 and will we see 3?

I'm thinking (very quickly).....

6x 789 Code 2
2x 789 Code 3 (NYC/GIG)

With options for X...

Some 772's may remain to allow NYC to commence with new equipment before NZ acquires too many frames if the market changes or NYC fails.

Options to be taken 2-3x 789 Code 3 (new routes) and incremental numbers for -10 (SIN/HKG/TYO/Tasman) replacing the kept 772's...

I'm also starting to see the 77W will downsize into a Code 2 789 and if extra AKL-LAX is needed NZ3/4 will return with a 789 but NZ's plan is to carry this capacity direct ex ORD/NYC/IAH/ZZZ up to daily.


Will they keep any code 1 once they announce a new cabin from around 2022? Convert code 1 to code 2 new configuration code 2 however and then some code 3 that can also do ORD/IAH etc.

As for the 77W that remains to be seen as to how good the 78J becomes imo, but should the 789 go to LAX maybe we would see UA do a seasonal LAX-AKL to cover any capacity short fall?

As I say I’ve put all my eggs in the 787 basket, happy to be proven wrong, but always thought Boeing would make the 789 work for them and maybe the 78J aswell, not a particularly popular opinion with some here, there is bias on my part towards Boeing but I just don’t see NZ adding a new type with such emphasis on efficiency and cost, of the 787 works that’s what they will get. A lot of the A350 talk is because it’s almost exactly the same size 772/359, 77W/35K and can carry more than the 789/78J, fragmentation is the key to me here, going a little smaller and adding seasonal capacity yourself or via JV’s.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4381
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Wed Mar 06, 2019 9:07 am

NZ6 wrote:
2x 789 Code 3 (NYC/GIG)

They'll go to GRU first - not GIG.

Cheers,

C.
 
tealnz
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Wed Mar 06, 2019 12:32 pm

I think it’s premature to write the 787 press release. A 1% increase in MTOW isn’t really going to change the 787 vs 359 capability equation. And the logic is back to front. Luxon is a market man. He’s very focused on North America (monopoly/semi-monopoly high yield routes) and opening up growth opportunities (NYC after IAH and ORD). North American market development under this management team has all been in the direction of routes requiring more payload/range, not less. A 787 selection would go backwards.

The simplest explanation of the news on a 787 MTOW increase is that it’s a play to put more pressure on Airbus pricing on the 359. Technically the 787 still looks marginal. Can’t see it happening unless the NZ board see so many dark clouds on the economic horizon that they’re in a capacity pause mindset. Management comments at their last results day don’t sound that downbeat.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1615
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 3:00 am

tealnz wrote:
I think it’s premature to write the 787 press release. A 1% increase in MTOW isn’t really going to change the 787 vs 359 capability equation. And the logic is back to front. Luxon is a market man. He’s very focused on North America (monopoly/semi-monopoly high yield routes) and opening up growth opportunities (NYC after IAH and ORD). North American market development under this management team has all been in the direction of routes requiring more payload/range, not less. A 787 selection would go backwards.

The simplest explanation of the news on a 787 MTOW increase is that it’s a play to put more pressure on Airbus pricing on the 359. Technically the 787 still looks marginal. Can’t see it happening unless the NZ board see so many dark clouds on the economic horizon that they’re in a capacity pause mindset. Management comments at their last results day don’t sound that downbeat.


First things first, I'll bite... a monopoly/semi-monopoly high yield routes. Last month we debated QF on AKL-LAX and apparently, it's not the cash cow some claim as QF couldn't make it would or had better use for their equipment. So either, QF has better monopoly/semi-monopoly routes or it's not as lucrative as we sometimes want to claim it is. Secondly, AA, UA, AC, NZ, HA all operate (or soon to) directly from NZ into North American, QF, VA, FJ, TN all offer competitive one-stop pricing and we'll also include HA in there. I've also asked for DL to come from ATL into AKL. Soe there is competition.

Secondly, regarding writing the 787 press release, I acknowledge it's just a figure of speech but so is, where there's smoke there's fire.

What have we heard from or about Airbus? Luxon has quoted it when referring to looking at all options, the A350 visited NZ.. but WLG, so more about WLG than Air NZ perhaps.

Boeing, Luxon was clear from the outside, they're not looking for the best 772 replacement but replacing the 772 with an aircraft that best fits the fleet strategy going forward in line with the type of missions they expect to deploy it on. More recently, there's been strong industry rumour for a 787 order since Nov/Dec last year, Luxon is quoted as looking into a Code 3 and 'extra range' suggesting detailed discussions are occuring, now there's the talk of extra MTOW.

I certainly think you can write a draft.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7535
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 7:04 am

tealnz wrote:
I think it’s premature to write the 787 press release. A 1% increase in MTOW isn’t really going to change the 787 vs 359 capability equation. And the logic is back to front. Luxon is a market man. He’s very focused on North America (monopoly/semi-monopoly high yield routes) and opening up growth opportunities (NYC after IAH and ORD). North American market development under this management team has all been in the direction of routes requiring more payload/range, not less. A 787 selection would go backwards.

The simplest explanation of the news on a 787 MTOW increase is that it’s a play to put more pressure on Airbus pricing on the 359. Technically the 787 still looks marginal. Can’t see it happening unless the NZ board see so many dark clouds on the economic horizon that they’re in a capacity pause mindset. Management comments at their last results day don’t sound that downbeat.


Which US routes have actually had more payload/range added? LAX/SFO/YVR haven’t really changed, in the case of YVR, I’ve included it the 77E is to big for much of the year and at some point the route will change to a 789, SFO/LAX were 744s and have been replaced by slightly smaller much more fuel efficient and cargo capable 77Ws, cargo can be dispersed as more destinations are added. IAH/EZE have changed 772/789 back to 772/77W due to RR issues mainly certainly in the case of EZE which IAH has been getting a mix 77W/772, indicates it’s doing well by that. ORD can’t be reached by anything other than a 789 code 2 which would switch to a code 3 allowing more frequency and payload. NYC would be the same imo.

The A350 while very capable would only literally be required on those small number of ULH routes, yes it could do LAX/SFO, however popular I am I certainly think the 78J will be able to do LAX/SFO by the time NZ need a 77W replacement.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4530
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:35 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
tealnz wrote:
I think it’s premature to write the 787 press release. A 1% increase in MTOW isn’t really going to change the 787 vs 359 capability equation. And the logic is back to front. Luxon is a market man. He’s very focused on North America (monopoly/semi-monopoly high yield routes) and opening up growth opportunities (NYC after IAH and ORD). North American market development under this management team has all been in the direction of routes requiring more payload/range, not less. A 787 selection would go backwards.

The simplest explanation of the news on a 787 MTOW increase is that it’s a play to put more pressure on Airbus pricing on the 359. Technically the 787 still looks marginal. Can’t see it happening unless the NZ board see so many dark clouds on the economic horizon that they’re in a capacity pause mindset. Management comments at their last results day don’t sound that downbeat.


Which US routes have actually had more payload/range added? LAX/SFO/YVR haven’t really changed, in the case of YVR, I’ve included it the 77E is to big for much of the year and at some point the route will change to a 789, SFO/LAX were 744s and have been replaced by slightly smaller much more fuel efficient and cargo capable 77Ws, cargo can be dispersed as more destinations are added. IAH/EZE have changed 772/789 back to 772/77W due to RR issues mainly certainly in the case of EZE which IAH has been getting a mix 77W/772, indicates it’s doing well by that. ORD can’t be reached by anything other than a 789 code 2 which would switch to a code 3 allowing more frequency and payload. NYC would be the same imo.

The A350 while very capable would only literally be required on those small number of ULH routes, yes it could do LAX/SFO, however popular I am I certainly think the 78J will be able to do LAX/SFO by the time NZ need a 77W replacement.

While it is true that only ORD/EWR/IAH need the additional payload capability of the A350, that doesn’t mean it isn’t viable for other routes (certainly YVR can use it). At this point I’m talking about replacing the 77Es. Moving forward to replacing the 77W, unless Boeing can get an extra 500nm range while carrying an extra 3000kg of payload I just don’t see the 78J for North America. Even LAX would be payload restricted (when NZ makes a huge amount of its revenues from freight). Also NZ has ONE slot into London (LHR) so when you consider its a profitable flight why would you want to downsize it from a 77W to a 78J?
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
Deepinsider
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:36 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 11:41 am

This 787 vs. others talk is really good, but surely,
(and not a big deal) RR is gone and GEnx must be
the choice for a 787 order. (140 vs. 330 ETOPS)
The popular choice here, A350, would therefore be
an even bigger win for RR.
(Question....should I buy or sell RR shares?)
Tricky, isn't it.
 
tealnz
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 9:19 pm

ZK-NBT wrote:
Which US routes have actually had more payload/range added? LAX/SFO/YVR haven’t really changed, in the case of YVR, I’ve included it the 77E is to big for much of the year and at some point the route will change to a 789, SFO/LAX were 744s and have been replaced by slightly smaller much more fuel efficient and cargo capable 77Ws, cargo can be dispersed as more destinations are added. IAH/EZE have changed 772/789 back to 772/77W due to RR issues mainly certainly in the case of EZE which IAH has been getting a mix 77W/772, indicates it’s doing well by that. ORD can’t be reached by anything other than a 789 code 2 which would switch to a code 3 allowing more frequency and payload. NYC would be the same imo.

The A350 while very capable would only literally be required on those small number of ULH routes, yes it could do LAX/SFO, however popular I am I certainly think the 78J will be able to do LAX/SFO by the time NZ need a 77W replacement.

Obviously IAH and ORD require more range than LAX or SFO. NYC will require even more. Earlier on it was clear that the 789 wasn’t in contention for the 77E replacement because it was seen as lacking capability for North American routes. That may be changing - some combination of performance of the 1000-TEN engines, introduction of the Code 2s, experience in-service on the longer routes, lift in yields on monopoly routes and a readiness to accept lighter cargo capacity on some routes. The fact that the new North American routes require more capability than LAX isn’t up for debate. The 77E replacement still looks like it’s the 359’s to lose but the contest has certainly got more interesting.
 
a7ala
Posts: 359
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 11:14 pm

JQ shifting WLG-DUD 3/week to WLG-ZQN - which will operate 6/week

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/111124 ... in-flights
 
zkncj
Posts: 3910
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:59 am

a7ala wrote:
JQ shifting WLG-DUD 3/week to WLG-ZQN - which will operate 6/week

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/111124 ... in-flights


Probably an route that would of been more ideal for JQLink to operate, hopefully they will get some of QFLinks older Q400s at somestage.
 
User avatar
eta unknown
Posts: 2875
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 5:03 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Fri Mar 08, 2019 2:12 am

NZ6 wrote:
First things first, I'll bite... a monopoly/semi-monopoly high yield routes. Last month we debated QF on AKL-LAX and apparently, it's not the cash cow some claim as QF couldn't make it would or had better use for their equipment. So either, QF has better monopoly/semi-monopoly routes or it's not as lucrative as we sometimes want to claim it is. Secondly, AA, UA, AC, NZ, HA all operate (or soon to) directly from NZ into North American, QF, VA, FJ, TN all offer competitive one-stop pricing and we'll also include HA in there. I've also asked for DL to come from ATL into AKL. Soe there is competition.


Err... no that wasn't my interpretation of the QF debate AKL-LAX was not worthwhile FOR THEM. AKL-LAX for NZ is a completely different matter- I'm sure NZ has considerable corporate contracts for the business class cabin that definitely make the route profitable for NZ.
 
fkfnz
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 1:51 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Fri Mar 08, 2019 2:23 am

a7ala wrote:
JQ shifting WLG-DUD 3/week to WLG-ZQN - which will operate 6/week

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/111124 ... in-flights


Frequency was never enough. At 3x/wk JQ might as well have not bothered, and looks like the public agrees.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1615
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Fri Mar 08, 2019 2:44 am

eta unknown wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
First things first, I'll bite... a monopoly/semi-monopoly high yield routes. Last month we debated QF on AKL-LAX and apparently, it's not the cash cow some claim as QF couldn't make it would or had better use for their equipment. So either, QF has better monopoly/semi-monopoly routes or it's not as lucrative as we sometimes want to claim it is. Secondly, AA, UA, AC, NZ, HA all operate (or soon to) directly from NZ into North American, QF, VA, FJ, TN all offer competitive one-stop pricing and we'll also include HA in there. I've also asked for DL to come from ATL into AKL. Soe there is competition.


Err... no that wasn't my interpretation of the QF debate AKL-LAX was not worthwhile FOR THEM. AKL-LAX for NZ is a completely different matter- I'm sure NZ has considerable corporate contracts for the business class cabin that definitely make the route profitable for NZ.


That's cool, it was mine, many also stated QF had better use for the 744 and then A330 and I believe someone actually agreed with me in the thread by memory... irrelevant to be honest and either way, QF also have corporate contracts in the NZ market. They had a domestic network with a red tail at the time, they flew the exact same route as NZ and feed onto it from WLG/CHC the two largest domestic feeders to N.A services by a mile.

All that aside, this market is INBOUND more than outbound and many visit NZ and Australia so QF actually has an advantage in that regard.

It can't be a monopoly/semi-monopoly high yield routes for one carrier and such a fail for another.
 
PA515
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:12 pm

Air NZ ATR 72-500 ZK-MCU (msn 632) may have been withdrawn as nothing showing on FR24 after NZ5714 IVC-CHC on 04 Mar 2019.

Air NZ A320-232 ZK-OJO (msn 2663) may also have been withdrawn as nothing showing on FR24 after NZ888 SYD-CHC on 08 Mar 2019.

Ex Air NZ 767-319ER ZK-NCI (L/N 558) N830WE, in storage at ASP since 24 Jun 2017, flew ASP-HNL on 08 Mar 2019. The next sector will be probably be HNL-ILN today. A post on the 'Amazon Fleet Discussion - 2019' thread says it is due in TLV from ILN on 13 Mar 2019 for freighter conversion.

PA515
 
Gasman
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sat Mar 09, 2019 1:53 am

NZ6 wrote:
It can't be a monopoly/semi-monopoly high yield routes for one carrier and such a fail for another.


Exactly. And yet - somehow - it was. Of the explanations so far:

1. It's a great route for NZ, but not so much for QF. Makes no sense. When looking at a route like MEL/SYD/BNE - AKL- LAX, NZ and QF are almost interchangeable.

2. QF were better able to deploy their aircraft elsewhere. Possible, but this then implies that the cream of NZ's network ranks amongst the dregs of QF's, as above. Still makes no sense.

3. It's actually not as lucrative a route as we think, even for NZ. The evidence all suggests otherwise. When NZ had New Zealand to North America to themselves, fares were up to 50% GREATER than an equivalent fare class to Europe. And load factors were consistently above 90%. So if this route wasn't a major revenue stream for NZ, it's hard to imagine what route in the world would be. Now that there's competition on the route fares have dropped - but not that much. The market is sustaining the carriers and hasn't yet pushed them to bring the knives out.

4. QF at the time of withdrawal from AKL-LAX were in greater operational and financial trouble than anyone now realises. In the absence of a better argument, this is what makes most sense to me.
 
DougS
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:23 am

Deepinsider wrote:
This 787 vs. others talk is really good, but surely,
(and not a big deal) RR is gone and GEnx must be
the choice for a 787 order. (140 vs. 330 ETOPS)
The popular choice here, A350, would therefore be
an even bigger win for RR.
(Question....should I buy or sell RR shares?)
Tricky, isn't it.


You are on the money here to a degree. The restriction to 140 EDTO for some of the RR T1000 TEN is but temporary. IF they go with 789/10 I would be extremely surprised to see RR engines on them. Were the 350 to come with a GE option it would probably be a sure thing.
 
tealnz
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sat Mar 09, 2019 2:46 pm

Yet NZ management have been remarkably restrained in their public comments. You would almost think that RR have done a good job of keeping them informed, coughing up for the costs of replacement aircraft etc and prioritising parts/engines. And it looks as if experience with the -TEN has been good, possibly a contributing factor in the shift to using the 789s on some North American routes. Does anyone have solid inside info that relations with RR are so bad that NZ management would factor that into future aircraft purchase decisions?
 
PA515
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:01 pm

PA515 wrote:
Air NZ A320-232 ZK-OJO (msn 2663) may also have been withdrawn as nothing showing on FR24 after NZ888 SYD-CHC on 08 Mar 2019.

ZK-OJO back in action tomorrow afternoon.

tealnz wrote:
Yet NZ management have been remarkably restrained in their public comments. You would almost think that RR have done a good job of keeping them informed, coughing up for the costs of replacement aircraft etc and prioritising parts/engines. And it looks as if experience with the -TEN has been good, possibly a contributing factor in the shift to using the 789s on some North American routes. Does anyone have solid inside info that relations with RR are so bad that NZ management would factor that into future aircraft purchase decisions?


There was some comment in the foreign financial press that RR was not providing much in the way of cash compensation, but discounts on engine lease contracts going forward. Whether that would apply to new contracts was not mentioned, but there could be a financial incentive to have more RR engines. I don't recall any of the investment analysts during the various presentations asking how the RR compensation is reflected in the Air NZ accounts.

PA515
 
NZ6
Posts: 1615
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:48 pm

tealnz wrote:
Yet NZ management have been remarkably restrained in their public comments. You would almost think that RR have done a good job of keeping them informed, coughing up for the costs of replacement aircraft etc and prioritising parts/engines. And it looks as if experience with the -TEN has been good, possibly a contributing factor in the shift to using the 789s on some North American routes. Does anyone have solid inside info that relations with RR are so bad that NZ management would factor that into future aircraft purchase decisions?


I recall around 2010 ish there were calls for NZ to ditch Boeing due to the ongoing delays in the 787 production. Amazing how quickly all can be forgotten when things pan out for the better eventually.
 
tealnz
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sat Mar 09, 2019 8:04 pm

Up until the Trent 1000 NZ had a reasonably good experience with RR engines, right? They would have had some additional engagement with RR via the V2500 overhaul business in Christchurch. The -TENs seem fine. The Trent-XWB seems fine. And the private messaging from RR will be "never again" on rushing an engine into service before it's properly tested and ready (see: http://tinyurl.com/yy9toll8)
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1675
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sat Mar 09, 2019 8:56 pm

My recollection a few months back (sorry, can't provide a reference) is that NZ declared itself very happy with its relationship with RR over the 789 engine issue.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
NZ6
Posts: 1615
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sun Mar 10, 2019 12:38 am

DavidByrne wrote:
My recollection a few months back (sorry, can't provide a reference) is that NZ declared itself very happy with its relationship with RR over the 789 engine issue.


This is not directed at you DavidByrne but the general perception that NZ should somehow have the pip with RR and be avoiding them at all costs moving forward.

Firstly, NZ and RR have a strong history, while NZ will be disappointed, financially impaired by these issues (and rightly so) NZ isn't exactly going to cut all ties with the one of, if not the top engine manufacturer in the world.

Secondly, there are something like 1,400 787's ordered... 800 or so delivered NZ has 13 of these... how much weight can little old NZ throw around on the global scale.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1675
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sun Mar 10, 2019 1:28 am

NZ6 wrote:
This is not directed at you DavidByrne but the general perception that NZ should somehow have the pip with RR and be avoiding them at all costs moving forward.

Yes, absolutely agree that an airline does not ditch a supplier when they have hundreds of millions of dollars invested in that company's products (and will continue to have for perhaps 15 more years) unless the commercial consequences of staying put outweigh the consequences of waving goodbye. And there's no suggestion NZ is anywhere near that situation.
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

Sun Mar 10, 2019 1:32 am

DavidByrne wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
This is not directed at you DavidByrne but the general perception that NZ should somehow have the pip with RR and be avoiding them at all costs moving forward.

Yes, absolutely agree that an airline does not ditch a supplier when they have hundreds of millions of dollars invested in that company's products (and will continue to have for perhaps 15 more years) unless the commercial consequences of staying put outweigh the consequences of waving goodbye. And there's no suggestion NZ is anywhere near that situation.



However should NZ go with 787s going forward would they take the ‘risk’ potentially of an all RR powered 787 fleet?

I happen to think they will be all 787 it’s just what powers them. And what the mix of 789/78J is.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1615
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sun Mar 10, 2019 2:02 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
This is not directed at you DavidByrne but the general perception that NZ should somehow have the pip with RR and be avoiding them at all costs moving forward.

Yes, absolutely agree that an airline does not ditch a supplier when they have hundreds of millions of dollars invested in that company's products (and will continue to have for perhaps 15 more years) unless the commercial consequences of staying put outweigh the consequences of waving goodbye. And there's no suggestion NZ is anywhere near that situation.



However should NZ go with 787s going forward would they take the ‘risk’ potentially of an all RR powered 787 fleet?

I happen to think they will be all 787 it’s just what powers them. And what the mix of 789/78J is.


Buying 8 widebody aircraft with list prices of just under $300M USD each isn't an overnight decision as we can clearly see.

A comprehensive business proposal will need to be signed off at board level which will include a huge array of associated risks including the NZ market, the world economy, but also geopolitical risks and fuel prices as well as an array of risks with the actual frame itself.

Will the 787 engine issue raise it's ugly head again, who knows... it could come up with the A350 in 18 months time. It's not the first and won't be the last aircraft to be grounded, let's not forget QF grounded the A380 a number of years back.

In my mind, it's one topic which is never raised here. We talk about fleet simplification being so vital, but if NZ goes for a single type it exposes them to any future grounding with no long haul equipment being airworthy. How high or low is that risk and is it worthwhile.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1675
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sun Mar 10, 2019 3:14 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
However should NZ go with 787s going forward would they take the ‘risk’ potentially of an all RR powered 787 fleet?

It's almost as if people believe that, having had some problems with their engines, RR is somehow vulnerable to other (unspecified) problems arising in future leading to further groundings. There's no more ground for thinking that than there is for thinking that GE engines are likely in the future to cause groundings. And there's no more risk in an all-GE-powered fleet than there is in an all-RR fleet, once the current problems have been resolved. NZ (or any other airline) will not order any engine, GE or RR, unless it is convinced that they will do the job that's required of them without significant problems arising.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
Gasman
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sun Mar 10, 2019 4:41 am

DavidByrne wrote:
It's almost as if people believe that, having had some problems with their engines, RR is somehow vulnerable to other (unspecified) problems arising in future leading to further groundings. There's no more ground for thinking that than there is for thinking that GE engines are likely in the future to cause groundings.


Well - without a proper analysis we just don't know. The Trent 1000 issues, QF32, AF66......... these are all significant, sentinel events involving the RR product. Do they "mean" anything? On their own, no. But *could* these issues be indicative of a wider systemic failure of RR engineering? Yes.

NZ6 wrote:
This is not directed at you DavidByrne but the general perception that NZ should somehow have the pip with RR and be avoiding them at all costs moving forward.


A perception which is understandable, given that the details of the compensation arrangement with RR have not been public (or indeed been alluded to at all). It's obvious that behind the scenes RR must have been very, very good to NZ in terms of compensation for NZ to be even considering maintaining this business relationship going forward.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1615
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sun Mar 10, 2019 4:51 am

Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
This is not directed at you DavidByrne but the general perception that NZ should somehow have the pip with RR and be avoiding them at all costs moving forward.


A perception which is understandable, given that the details of the compensation arrangement with RR have not been public (or indeed been alluded to at all). It's obvious that behind the scenes RR must have been very, very good to NZ in terms of compensation for NZ to be even considering maintaining this business relationship going forward.


How much 'power' do you think NZ has over RR in this situation, given NZ's relative size. RR would more likely say give us the engines back, we'll refund you and say Goodbye before the emptied their pockets with compensation.

RR can't exactly play hardball either given how competitive the engine industry is.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sun Mar 10, 2019 4:59 am

NZ6 wrote:
How much 'power' do you think NZ has over RR in this situation, given NZ's relative size. RR would more likely say give us the engines back, we'll refund you and say Goodbye before the emptied their pockets with compensation.

RR can't exactly play hardball either given how competitive the engine industry is.


How much "power" do NZ have?. Plenty. Nothing is more powerful than a disgruntled customer that knows how to play to the media, and NZ know nothing if not that. But that aside, RR are still subject to operate within the bounds of civil law. They have sold NZ a product which is unequivocably not fit for purpose as sold. Any attempt by RR to be in anything less than "full PR/compensation mode" would see future orders disappear to GE in droves.
 
User avatar
SXI899
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:02 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sun Mar 10, 2019 7:15 am

PA515 wrote:
Air NZ ATR 72-500 ZK-MCU (msn 632) may have been withdrawn as nothing showing on FR24 after NZ5714 IVC-CHC on 04 Mar 2019.

Just in maintenance I believe. I haven’t heard anything yet about it leaving the fleet.
We deliver......
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7535
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sun Mar 10, 2019 7:27 am

DavidByrne wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
However should NZ go with 787s going forward would they take the ‘risk’ potentially of an all RR powered 787 fleet?

It's almost as if people believe that, having had some problems with their engines, RR is somehow vulnerable to other (unspecified) problems arising in future leading to further groundings. There's no more ground for thinking that than there is for thinking that GE engines are likely in the future to cause groundings. And there's no more risk in an all-GE-powered fleet than there is in an all-RR fleet, once the current problems have been resolved. NZ (or any other airline) will not order any engine, GE or RR, unless it is convinced that they will do the job that's required of them without significant problems arising.


All I am saying is that while I believe the fleet will be all 787, will they stick with RR? Or go GE on future orders? They don’t seem to have had any problems with the newer Ten engines.
 
tealnz
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sun Mar 10, 2019 7:00 pm

NZ6 wrote:
First things first, I'll bite... a monopoly/semi-monopoly high yield routes. Last month we debated QF on AKL-LAX and apparently, it's not the cash cow some claim as QF couldn't make it would or had better use for their equipment. So either, QF has better monopoly/semi-monopoly routes or it's not as lucrative as we sometimes want to claim it is. Secondly, AA, UA, AC, NZ, HA all operate (or soon to) directly from NZ into North American, QF, VA, FJ, TN all offer competitive one-stop pricing and we'll also include HA in there. I've also asked for DL to come from ATL into AKL. So there is competition.

It's clear that both QF and NZ have been shifting their focus to routes (existing and new) where competition is limited or non-existent and where they can achieve higher yields. That has meant staying clear of the Oceania/Asia/Gulf/Europe bloodbath and shifting effort to non-stop point to point. That's the whole logic of PER-LHR and the Project Sunrise initiative. For their part NZ have re-invested in Japan, launched IAH, EZE, TPE and ORD and plan to launch NYC and GRU once the 77E replacements come on board. One-stop services to North America offer only limited competition - it's clear that the business traffic, and higher yields, are in the non-stop services. This has been central to NZ's profit record under Luxon.

What this means for the 77E replacement is that NZ (like QF with Sunrise) will want to have a fleet that can comfortably and reliably do the much more demanding ULH routes that they are launching or planning. Like it or not the numbers suggest the 789, even with a 1% MTOW increase, is going to be marginal on these routes, particularly if NZ sticks with a business model more biased towards leisure traffic than business traffic, plus heavy cargo traffic westbound as well as eastbound. That might change when a 787neo arrives – but that's too far out for the immediate 77E replacement.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1615
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sun Mar 10, 2019 7:42 pm

Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
How much 'power' do you think NZ has over RR in this situation, given NZ's relative size. RR would more likely say give us the engines back, we'll refund you and say Goodbye before the emptied their pockets with compensation.

RR can't exactly play hardball either given how competitive the engine industry is.


How much "power" do NZ have?. Plenty. Nothing is more powerful than a disgruntled customer that knows how to play to the media, and NZ know nothing if not that. But that aside, RR are still subject to operate within the bounds of civil law. They have sold NZ a product which is unequivocably not fit for purpose as sold. Any attempt by RR to be in anything less than "full PR/compensation mode" would see future orders disappear to GE in droves.


I won't debate this too much as both sides are nothing more than opinion. However, in my view, it seems you've lost sight of how small and insignificant NZ is on a global scale.

NZ's an incredibly small customer, and while no one wants a disgruntled customer NZ's view of RR would create nothing more than a small ripple in a very large ocean of the world media, even if filtered to aviation news.

Going back to the original topic, I think some are expecting free engines, more 787's at assembly 'cost' only...

I'm trying to suggest a reality check in a more polite way. NZ needs RR more than RR needs NZ, but given its a RR issue, they'll work through it tactfully.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1615
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Sun Mar 10, 2019 8:04 pm

tealnz wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
First things first, I'll bite... a monopoly/semi-monopoly high yield routes. Last month we debated QF on AKL-LAX and apparently, it's not the cash cow some claim as QF couldn't make it would or had better use for their equipment. So either, QF has better monopoly/semi-monopoly routes or it's not as lucrative as we sometimes want to claim it is. Secondly, AA, UA, AC, NZ, HA all operate (or soon to) directly from NZ into North American, QF, VA, FJ, TN all offer competitive one-stop pricing and we'll also include HA in there. I've also asked for DL to come from ATL into AKL. So there is competition.

It's clear that both QF and NZ have been shifting their focus to routes (existing and new) where competition is limited or non-existent and where they can achieve higher yields. That has meant staying clear of the Oceania/Asia/Gulf/Europe bloodbath and shifting effort to non-stop point to point. That's the whole logic of PER-LHR and the Project Sunrise initiative. For their part NZ have re-invested in Japan, launched IAH, EZE, TPE and ORD and plan to launch NYC and GRU once the 77E replacements come on board. One-stop services to North America offer only limited competition - it's clear that the business traffic, and higher yields, are in the non-stop services. This has been central to NZ's profit record under Luxon.

What this means for the 77E replacement is that NZ (like QF with Sunrise) will want to have a fleet that can comfortably and reliably do the much more demanding ULH routes that they are launching or planning. Like it or not the numbers suggest the 789, even with a 1% MTOW increase, is going to be marginal on these routes, particularly if NZ sticks with a business model more biased towards leisure traffic than business traffic, plus heavy cargo traffic westbound as well as eastbound. That might change when a 787neo arrives – but that's too far out for the immediate 77E replacement.


I'm lost as to how your reply relates to what you've quoted me on.

QF left AKL-LAX in the early 2000's before this shift happened. While NZ plans to grow the USA market via more direct routings the point raised was North America is a monopoly/semi-monopoly high yield routes. So, reverse that order, it's high yield as quoted. If so, why is it a monopoly route and why would QF deploy aircraft elsewhere and not take a slice of the revenue? even if it's not aligned with a project (Sunrise) which hasn't even started yet, so some 20 years later?

One thing that I believe is completely lost here is just how much the New Zealand International Aviation sector is made up of inbound passengers. Growing North America is about making NZ more accessible to the millions living mid/east coast USA.

Going back to N.A, a quick look on Expedia AKL-WAS for September this year, I got prices $2,300-$2,900 on the following carriers UA, NZ, DL, VA, AA, FJ, QF, CX, EK, QR Take off the last two and the pricing was within $300. While I admit there are some alliances here all of those carriers were operating their own metal for the Pacific crossing. There's also the likes of KE, HA who can also be an option depending on the final destination.

We've seen pricing to L.A drop to around $999 return before which is pretty good. The only other way to force more airfares in at this price is to have more competition direct, DL and QF are the only two options left unless we want to see VA as a realistic option.

Given they're not here i'd suggest it's not the cash cow it's made out to be.
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1231
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:18 am

NZ6 wrote:
tealnz wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
First things first, I'll bite... a monopoly/semi-monopoly high yield routes. Last month we debated QF on AKL-LAX and apparently, it's not the cash cow some claim as QF couldn't make it would or had better use for their equipment. So either, QF has better monopoly/semi-monopoly routes or it's not as lucrative as we sometimes want to claim it is. Secondly, AA, UA, AC, NZ, HA all operate (or soon to) directly from NZ into North American, QF, VA, FJ, TN all offer competitive one-stop pricing and we'll also include HA in there. I've also asked for DL to come from ATL into AKL. So there is competition.

It's clear that both QF and NZ have been shifting their focus to routes (existing and new) where competition is limited or non-existent and where they can achieve higher yields. That has meant staying clear of the Oceania/Asia/Gulf/Europe bloodbath and shifting effort to non-stop point to point. That's the whole logic of PER-LHR and the Project Sunrise initiative. For their part NZ have re-invested in Japan, launched IAH, EZE, TPE and ORD and plan to launch NYC and GRU once the 77E replacements come on board. One-stop services to North America offer only limited competition - it's clear that the business traffic, and higher yields, are in the non-stop services. This has been central to NZ's profit record under Luxon.

What this means for the 77E replacement is that NZ (like QF with Sunrise) will want to have a fleet that can comfortably and reliably do the much more demanding ULH routes that they are launching or planning. Like it or not the numbers suggest the 789, even with a 1% MTOW increase, is going to be marginal on these routes, particularly if NZ sticks with a business model more biased towards leisure traffic than business traffic, plus heavy cargo traffic westbound as well as eastbound. That might change when a 787neo arrives – but that's too far out for the immediate 77E replacement.


I'm lost as to how your reply relates to what you've quoted me on.

QF left AKL-LAX in the early 2000's before this shift happened. While NZ plans to grow the USA market via more direct routings the point raised was North America is a monopoly/semi-monopoly high yield routes. So, reverse that order, it's high yield as quoted. If so, why is it a monopoly route and why would QF deploy aircraft elsewhere and not take a slice of the revenue? even if it's not aligned with a project (Sunrise) which hasn't even started yet, so some 20 years later?

One thing that I believe is completely lost here is just how much the New Zealand International Aviation sector is made up of inbound passengers. Growing North America is about making NZ more accessible to the millions living mid/east coast USA.

Going back to N.A, a quick look on Expedia AKL-WAS for September this year, I got prices $2,300-$2,900 on the following carriers UA, NZ, DL, VA, AA, FJ, QF, CX, EK, QR Take off the last two and the pricing was within $300. While I admit there are some alliances here all of those carriers were operating their own metal for the Pacific crossing. There's also the likes of KE, HA who can also be an option depending on the final destination.

We've seen pricing to L.A drop to around $999 return before which is pretty good. The only other way to force more airfares in at this price is to have more competition direct, DL and QF are the only two options left unless we want to see VA as a realistic option.

Given they're not here i'd suggest it's not the cash cow it's made out to be.


Actually, QF finished the AKL-LAX flights in 2012, not the early 2000s....: https://onemileatatime.com/qantas-cuts- ... ay-6-2012/
 
NZ6
Posts: 1615
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:59 am

zkeoj wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
tealnz wrote:
It's clear that both QF and NZ have been shifting their focus to routes (existing and new) where competition is limited or non-existent and where they can achieve higher yields. That has meant staying clear of the Oceania/Asia/Gulf/Europe bloodbath and shifting effort to non-stop point to point. That's the whole logic of PER-LHR and the Project Sunrise initiative. For their part NZ have re-invested in Japan, launched IAH, EZE, TPE and ORD and plan to launch NYC and GRU once the 77E replacements come on board. One-stop services to North America offer only limited competition - it's clear that the business traffic, and higher yields, are in the non-stop services. This has been central to NZ's profit record under Luxon.

What this means for the 77E replacement is that NZ (like QF with Sunrise) will want to have a fleet that can comfortably and reliably do the much more demanding ULH routes that they are launching or planning. Like it or not the numbers suggest the 789, even with a 1% MTOW increase, is going to be marginal on these routes, particularly if NZ sticks with a business model more biased towards leisure traffic than business traffic, plus heavy cargo traffic westbound as well as eastbound. That might change when a 787neo arrives – but that's too far out for the immediate 77E replacement.


I'm lost as to how your reply relates to what you've quoted me on.

QF left AKL-LAX in the early 2000's before this shift happened. While NZ plans to grow the USA market via more direct routings the point raised was North America is a monopoly/semi-monopoly high yield routes. So, reverse that order, it's high yield as quoted. If so, why is it a monopoly route and why would QF deploy aircraft elsewhere and not take a slice of the revenue? even if it's not aligned with a project (Sunrise) which hasn't even started yet, so some 20 years later?

One thing that I believe is completely lost here is just how much the New Zealand International Aviation sector is made up of inbound passengers. Growing North America is about making NZ more accessible to the millions living mid/east coast USA.

Going back to N.A, a quick look on Expedia AKL-WAS for September this year, I got prices $2,300-$2,900 on the following carriers UA, NZ, DL, VA, AA, FJ, QF, CX, EK, QR Take off the last two and the pricing was within $300. While I admit there are some alliances here all of those carriers were operating their own metal for the Pacific crossing. There's also the likes of KE, HA who can also be an option depending on the final destination.

We've seen pricing to L.A drop to around $999 return before which is pretty good. The only other way to force more airfares in at this price is to have more competition direct, DL and QF are the only two options left unless we want to see VA as a realistic option.

Given they're not here i'd suggest it's not the cash cow it's made out to be.


Actually, QF finished the AKL-LAX flights in 2012, not the early 2000s....: https://onemileatatime.com/qantas-cuts- ... ay-6-2012/


Doesn't that change everything? :shakehead:
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3673
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:11 am

Would NZ’s rather good relationship with SQ extend as far as sharing real world operational data with regard to the A350-900?
come visit the south pacific
 
NZ1
Head Moderator
Posts: 1802
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 1:32 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:12 am

PA515 wrote:
Air NZ ATR 72-500 ZK-MCU (msn 632) may have been withdrawn as nothing showing on FR24 after NZ5714 IVC-CHC on 04 Mar 2019


MCU is in CHC undergoing planned maintenance.
--
NZ1
Head Forum Moderator
 
smartplane
Posts: 1560
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2019

Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:24 am

PA515 wrote:
tealnz wrote:
Yet NZ management have been remarkably restrained in their public comments. You would almost think that RR have done a good job of keeping them informed, coughing up for the costs of replacement aircraft etc and prioritising parts/engines. And it looks as if experience with the -TEN has been good, possibly a contributing factor in the shift to using the 789s on some North American routes. Does anyone have solid inside info that relations with RR are so bad that NZ management would factor that into future aircraft purchase decisions?


There was some comment in the foreign financial press that RR was not providing much in the way of cash compensation, but discounts on engine lease contracts going forward. Whether that would apply to new contracts was not mentioned, but there could be a financial incentive to have more RR engines. I don't recall any of the investment analysts during the various presentations asking how the RR compensation is reflected in the Air NZ accounts.

The commercial aviation industry doesn't do compensation. They do credits, in this case on new engine orders, engine upgrades, maintenance, training, parts, temporary leased aircraft and finance.

RR has done a great job on customer information, with a confidentiality agreement linked to the magnitude of credits.

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