User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8310
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sun Apr 14, 2019 2:11 pm

FJ has one cabin crew on the flight and all the rest are Miami Air crew, so I have been told.
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.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4316
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:26 pm

VirginFlyer wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
I'd be surprised if the fleet wasn't several planes larger than 30. Given there are 28 in the fleet right now, with a 29th to come later this year, and they seem to be fairly well utilised, there is little room for expansion if the fleet is limited to just 30 in 10 years from now. I'd suggest that the WB fleet may be closer to 40 aircraft ten years from now. For example:

Adding EWR in (say) 2022, they will be looking to expand frequencies to at least daily by 2029 - two frames
Adding GRU around the same time, ditto - two frames
Another US destination - two frames
Another Asian destination - one frame

There's seven frames, for a total of 36, right there. Throw in a bit of frequency growth on established routes and you're getting very close to 40 frames.

But it’s really 25 maybe 26 as there are the extra leased 777s right now covering for the 787s. The 787s that are fine aren’t all being fully utilised right now either. So say it’s 26 then 4 more more frames over a decade is reasonable if not a conservative estimate. It would still require the extra hangar. If the fleet grows faster then no difference - still need the hangar.

My figure of 28 above didn’t include the three leased frames. With them it is 31. So 28 is the actual figure (might even be more, is it down to 2 787 out of action yet?)

V/F

Ok that makes more sense then. In that case growing from 28/29 now to 35+ in a decade should be likely and 40 is possible.
59 types. 41 countries. 24 airlines.
 
Megatop747-412
Posts: 303
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2000 1:59 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Mon Apr 15, 2019 4:11 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
VirginFlyer wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
But it’s really 25 maybe 26 as there are the extra leased 777s right now covering for the 787s. The 787s that are fine aren’t all being fully utilised right now either. So say it’s 26 then 4 more more frames over a decade is reasonable if not a conservative estimate. It would still require the extra hangar. If the fleet grows faster then no difference - still need the hangar.

My figure of 28 above didn’t include the three leased frames. With them it is 31. So 28 is the actual figure (might even be more, is it down to 2 787 out of action yet?)

V/F


31 is the correct figure counting all 789s and the 3 leases 777s. I’m pretty sure it is down to 2 grounded 789s with all expected back in service by September last I heard, although there are some new issues so maybe the leases frames will stay longer? I’m not sure yet how NZ are affected by these latest issues.


Re the 2 grounded 789s - NZF and NZJ, any ideas/updates as to what is happening with them? Any ideas when would their receive their engines again, or do they have other issues that needs looked at that are keeping them grounded? I've noted that Planespotters is listing them as "Stored" so does that mean they would be out for the forseeable future?
 
PA515
Posts: 1542
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Mon Apr 15, 2019 4:31 am

Megatop747-412 wrote:
Re the 2 grounded 789s - NZF and NZJ, any ideas/updates as to what is happening with them? Any ideas when would their receive their engines again, or do they have other issues that needs looked at that are keeping them grounded? I've noted that Planespotters is listing them as "Stored" so does that mean they would be out for the forseeable future?


Chris Luxon on page 10 of the 28 Feb 2019 Air NZ 2019 Interim Results Analyst Call Transcript.

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.


Neither ZK-NZF or ZK-NZJ have flown this year, so RR are already two weeks late with the next pair of engines.

PA515
 
PA515
Posts: 1542
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Mon Apr 15, 2019 4:47 am

Air NZ A321-271NX ZK-NNG (msn 8908) D-AV?? was spotted on 13 Apr 2019 painted, but still in the paint hangar.

PA515
 
Megatop747-412
Posts: 303
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2000 1:59 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Mon Apr 15, 2019 7:51 am

PA515 wrote:
Megatop747-412 wrote:
Re the 2 grounded 789s - NZF and NZJ, any ideas/updates as to what is happening with them? Any ideas when would their receive their engines again, or do they have other issues that needs looked at that are keeping them grounded? I've noted that Planespotters is listing them as "Stored" so does that mean they would be out for the forseeable future?


Chris Luxon on page 10 of the 28 Feb 2019 Air NZ 2019 Interim Results Analyst Call Transcript.

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.


Neither ZK-NZF or ZK-NZJ have flown this year, so RR are already two weeks late with the next pair of engines.

PA515


Thanks for that @PA515. :)
 
NZ321
Posts: 1078
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:45 am

It would be interesting to do a similar study on NZ's narrow body jet fleet. I think this has grown significantly since the days of the 733s.
Plane mad!
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8310
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:16 am

NZE was damaged by a catering truck and will be out for 3 weeks, I believe the NZE engines will be stripped for NZJ to return to service, while they await engine replacements.
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6970
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:49 am

NZ321 wrote:
It would be interesting to do a similar study on NZ's narrow body jet fleet. I think this has grown significantly since the days of the 733s.



NZ at its peak had 16 733s in the early 2010s. Along with 13 International A320s. There are now over 30 A320/321s in the fleet of which 17 are dedicated domestic aircraft ZK-OXA-OXM, ZK-OJQ-OJS and ZK-OAB. There are 3 older International aircraft rotating between domestic and International giving 20 domestic aircraft. The original 13 OJx series aircraft are being retired between now and 2022 with 3 having left the fleet so far. There are right now 4 A321NEO and 3 A320NEO on International routes along with the remaining.

Capacity has increased significantly from the 133 seat 733 to the 171 seat domestic and 168 International A320 to the 214 seat A321NEO. There are 7 A321NEO aircraft on order to join the fleet replacing the 3 International and ZK-OJQ-OJS and OAB in the early 2020s.

I would think they will mainly grow capacity by upguaging to A321s where they can domestically and widebodies Internationally as there is plenty of frequency on some routes already.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6970
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:51 am

aerorobnz wrote:
NZE was damaged by a catering truck and will be out for 3 weeks, I believe the NZE engines will be stripped for NZJ to return to service, while they await engine replacements.


Oh dear, hopefully Those engines won’t be to far away, will they potentially leave NZE on the ground and use NZF once engines do arrive? Since NZF has had such an extended rest period.
 
User avatar
LamboAston
Posts: 618
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:46 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:21 am

Zkpilot wrote:
VirginFlyer wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

Don’t thay have a hanger that could fit a 747? Wouldn’t that also fit a 777 or 787.

Yes. “A” being the operative word. In terms of peaks and troughs Air New Zealand’s widebody fleet has been:

  • High: 25 (5 742s, 7 744s, 4 762s, 9 763s) between the delivery of ZK-NBV on 31 October 1998 and the departure of ZK-NZV on 5 April 1999;
  • Low: 21 (8 744s, 4 762s, 9 763s) between the departure of ZK-NZX on 23 May 2000 and the delivery of ZK-NCO on 31 August 2000;
  • High: 22 (8 744s, 4 762s, 10 763s) between the delivery of ZK-NCO on 31 August 2000, and the departure of ZK-NCE on 14 August 2002;
  • Low: 17 (8 744s, 9 763s) between the departure of ZK-NBA on 14 March 2005 and the delivery of ZK-OKA on 27 October 2005.

Today it stands at 28, plus three more on lease to cover the 787 RR issues (8+2 772s, 7+1 773s, 13 789s)

V/F
Nice summary there VF.
NZs widebody fleet is expected to grow to around 30 within a decade. At the same time it’s narrowbody fleet has been growing and will continue to grow. A lot of mx for these is done in CHC but with AKL being the hub there is a need for more hangar space there.


Separate topic, I’ve heard rumours that NZ plan to keep the EVA 77W permanently (which would probably be through a leasing company). If they did I imagine the only thing to change would be the economy seats (going to 10 across and skycouch) as the premiumY and business product are good. The IFE would also get software changed over to match the rest of the fleet. If this happened I would imagine it could be around for about 7-10 years.

I heard instead it was OKJ that was being reconfigured and kept, anyone know why it had a month out of service recently? Not enough demand?
AS350, B733/4/7/8, B744/8, B762/3, B77E/L/W, B789, A319, A320, A321, A332, A346, A380, AT73/5/6, Q300, Q400, CR2/7, E190, S340, B1900C/D, E110 (E for epic)
NZ, EK, QF, SQ, UA, US, CO, FZ, FR, U2, BA, VA, VS, MH, EI, EY, LH, EN, NM, TG, GZ
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6970
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Tue Apr 16, 2019 9:08 am

LamboAston wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
VirginFlyer wrote:
Yes. “A” being the operative word. In terms of peaks and troughs Air New Zealand’s widebody fleet has been:

  • High: 25 (5 742s, 7 744s, 4 762s, 9 763s) between the delivery of ZK-NBV on 31 October 1998 and the departure of ZK-NZV on 5 April 1999;
  • Low: 21 (8 744s, 4 762s, 9 763s) between the departure of ZK-NZX on 23 May 2000 and the delivery of ZK-NCO on 31 August 2000;
  • High: 22 (8 744s, 4 762s, 10 763s) between the delivery of ZK-NCO on 31 August 2000, and the departure of ZK-NCE on 14 August 2002;
  • Low: 17 (8 744s, 9 763s) between the departure of ZK-NBA on 14 March 2005 and the delivery of ZK-OKA on 27 October 2005.

Today it stands at 28, plus three more on lease to cover the 787 RR issues (8+2 772s, 7+1 773s, 13 789s)

V/F
Nice summary there VF.
NZs widebody fleet is expected to grow to around 30 within a decade. At the same time it’s narrowbody fleet has been growing and will continue to grow. A lot of mx for these is done in CHC but with AKL being the hub there is a need for more hangar space there.


Separate topic, I’ve heard rumours that NZ plan to keep the EVA 77W permanently (which would probably be through a leasing company). If they did I imagine the only thing to change would be the economy seats (going to 10 across and skycouch) as the premiumY and business product are good. The IFE would also get software changed over to match the rest of the fleet. If this happened I would imagine it could be around for about 7-10 years.

I heard instead it was OKJ that was being reconfigured and kept, anyone know why it had a month out of service recently? Not enough demand?


Those SQ machines haven’t been very reliable, 1 was AOG for atleast a week a while back. Peak season is over so there are times when the additional capacity isn’t needed. Nothing to do with demand per se, other than usual lower demand for that time of year.

It would surprise me to add a 772 to the fleet, the BR aircraft is much younger and the 77W fleet will be around longer than the 772. Maybe price if there is any truth to it?
 
zkncj
Posts: 3261
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Tue Apr 16, 2019 10:10 am

Could understand taking on the 2x 77E in the short-term if the price was right (e.g. they are probably otherwise scrap metal). You could probably happy getting 3-4 years out of them if they have an cabin refit, and could be tied to short-haul etc.
 
NZ1
Head Moderator
Posts: 1794
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 1:32 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:40 am

Megatop747-412 wrote:
Re the 2 grounded 789s - NZF and NZJ, any ideas/updates as to what is happening with them? Any ideas when would their receive their engines again, or do they have other issues that needs looked at that are keeping them grounded? I've noted that Planespotters is listing them as "Stored" so does that mean they would be out for the forseeable future?


NZJ will be returning to the skies over the next few days. NZE will be keeping NZF company, with NZF likely on the ground until August at this stage.
--
NZ1
Head Forum Moderator
 
NZ1
Head Moderator
Posts: 1794
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 1:32 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:42 am

aerorobnz wrote:
NZE was damaged by a catering truck and will be out for 3 weeks, I believe the NZE engines will be stripped for NZJ to return to service, while they await engine replacements.


Latest estimate suggests it could be at least 5 weeks. It’s a complex repair.
--
NZ1
Head Forum Moderator
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6970
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Wed Apr 17, 2019 12:16 am

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... -nov-2019/

ICN schedule which was previously announced, I thought it would run 1-2 hrs earlier a little more in line with their other Asian ports, maybe an aircraft availability trying? I Don’t think ICN is slot controlled?
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10059
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Wed Apr 17, 2019 12:44 am

VAs new WLG lounge has opened. Located above gate 46 with views over the northern runway and tarmac. Catering is by the Rydges Hotel
Head Forum Moderator
[email protected]
Flown: 1900D,S340,Q300,AT72-5/6,DC3,CR2/7,E145,E70/75/90,A319/20/21,A332/3,A359,A380,F100,B717,B733/4/8/9,B742/4,B752/3,B763,B772/3, B789
With: NZ,SJ,QF,JQ,EK,VA,AA,UA,DL,FL,AC,FJ,SQ,TG,PR
 
NZ6
Posts: 1158
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:46 am

https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/112 ... res-changi

I'm critical of AIAL's progress and personally, I believe with all their spending over the last 20 years, not enough has gone towards the airline passenger experience and specifically forward-thinking developments. Instead, to me, they've focused more on developing their suite of commercial and retail income investments in the surrounding the airport land.

For example, the domestic terminal will forever be situated on the southern end of the complex, as we know this is where the longest runway will remain (23L). Therefore, will be used for all long haul departures, will domestic 'share' 23L or will domestic flights taxi against the tide of International flights and taxi over to what will become 23R.

Of course, AIAL may use 23L for all departures and 23R for all arrivals however I would have thought the logical thing to do is place the domestic and regional terminals towards the northern end of the complex allowing maximum use of the shorter runway for these operations. Protecting taxiway congestion and keeping 23L free for all long haul growth departures moving forward beyond 2040+.

If AIAL had completed 23R in 2007, a new Domestic/Regional/Short-Haul terminal could be built now or be underway. Of course, as the investment 12 years ago wasn't justified, so the money wasn't spent.

To defend AIAL in this article though, you can thank our government for making AIAL a publicly listed business who's obligation now is to return a profit. They do this well and can anyone blame for being successful in what their investors expect from them.

The Singapore government who owns Changi, invest heavily in the airport as it's critical to the countries economy and has been designed to be this way as SIN is a Hub whereas AKL is an end of line airport or a minor transit stop to some lower end of the market customers.

If AIAL was geographically located North or North West of Auckland, there could be a chance of some midpoint airfield between AKL and HLZ which could offer competition but AKL is located central enough to AKL to be convenient yet southern enough to deter anything north of HLZ.

While I enjoy a good moan and about AIAL and wished for something better, at the end of the day, we made AIAL a publicly listed company who's number one responsibility is to be a profitable business, having a world-class customer experience involving concepts like Singapore's Jewel are a long way down the list.
 
Megatop747-412
Posts: 303
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2000 1:59 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Wed Apr 17, 2019 8:05 am

NZ1 wrote:
Megatop747-412 wrote:
Re the 2 grounded 789s - NZF and NZJ, any ideas/updates as to what is happening with them? Any ideas when would their receive their engines again, or do they have other issues that needs looked at that are keeping them grounded? I've noted that Planespotters is listing them as "Stored" so does that mean they would be out for the forseeable future?


NZJ will be returning to the skies over the next few days. NZE will be keeping NZF company, with NZF likely on the ground until August at this stage.


Thanks for the insights @NZ1, looking forward to seeing NZJ back in action again soon.
 
CHCalfonzo
Posts: 118
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:56 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Wed Apr 17, 2019 8:20 am

CX changes for NW19, AKL goes double daily A350-1000 and CHC has an extended season starting 15 NOV and is increased to 4 flights per week.

Starting 30 NOV:
CX199 HKG1520 – 0725+1AKL 351 D
CX113 HKG2125 – 1330+1AKL 351 D

CX188 AKL0855 – 1510HKG 351 D
CX198 AKL1500 – 2115HKG 351 D

CX129 HKG1450 – CHC0715 359 5
CX123 HKG2045 – CHC1310 359 347

CX124 CHC0835 – HKG1510 359 6
CX126 CHC1430 – HKG2110 359 145
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4316
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Wed Apr 17, 2019 12:51 pm

NZ6 wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/112095274/auckland-airport-so-far-behind-singapores-changi

I'm critical of AIAL's progress and personally, I believe with all their spending over the last 20 years, not enough has gone towards the airline passenger experience and specifically forward-thinking developments. Instead, to me, they've focused more on developing their suite of commercial and retail income investments in the surrounding the airport land.

For example, the domestic terminal will forever be situated on the southern end of the complex, as we know this is where the longest runway will remain (23L). Therefore, will be used for all long haul departures, will domestic 'share' 23L or will domestic flights taxi against the tide of International flights and taxi over to what will become 23R.

Of course, AIAL may use 23L for all departures and 23R for all arrivals however I would have thought the logical thing to do is place the domestic and regional terminals towards the northern end of the complex allowing maximum use of the shorter runway for these operations. Protecting taxiway congestion and keeping 23L free for all long haul growth departures moving forward beyond 2040+.

If AIAL had completed 23R in 2007, a new Domestic/Regional/Short-Haul terminal could be built now or be underway. Of course, as the investment 12 years ago wasn't justified, so the money wasn't spent.

To defend AIAL in this article though, you can thank our government for making AIAL a publicly listed business who's obligation now is to return a profit. They do this well and can anyone blame for being successful in what their investors expect from them.

The Singapore government who owns Changi, invest heavily in the airport as it's critical to the countries economy and has been designed to be this way as SIN is a Hub whereas AKL is an end of line airport or a minor transit stop to some lower end of the market customers.

If AIAL was geographically located North or North West of Auckland, there could be a chance of some midpoint airfield between AKL and HLZ which could offer competition but AKL is located central enough to AKL to be convenient yet southern enough to deter anything north of HLZ.

While I enjoy a good moan and about AIAL and wished for something better, at the end of the day, we made AIAL a publicly listed company who's number one responsibility is to be a profitable business, having a world-class customer experience involving concepts like Singapore's Jewel are a long way down the list.


They changed plans for the new runway a couple of years ago. It will now be longer than originally planned and capable of being used for all but the biggest planes operating at MTOW (eg A380/77L etc operating to Middle East etc which will use the existing runway for departures). It makes more sense to have the domestic flights on the Southern runway as almost all domestic flights are to the South while almost all international flights arrive from the North. You might have some Aus flights operate from the Southern runway too.

But otherwise I agree that AIAL has been very slack and should have been investing back in the GFC when construction costs were a lot lower and interest rates were also low. They are about a decade behind where they should be - the 2nd runway should be almost complete with the new domestic terminal up and running by now.
59 types. 41 countries. 24 airlines.
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5258
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:58 pm

Zkpilot wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/112095274/auckland-airport-so-far-behind-singapores-changi

I'm critical of AIAL's progress and personally, I believe with all their spending over the last 20 years, not enough has gone towards the airline passenger experience and specifically forward-thinking developments. Instead, to me, they've focused more on developing their suite of commercial and retail income investments in the surrounding the airport land.

For example, the domestic terminal will forever be situated on the southern end of the complex, as we know this is where the longest runway will remain (23L). Therefore, will be used for all long haul departures, will domestic 'share' 23L or will domestic flights taxi against the tide of International flights and taxi over to what will become 23R.

Of course, AIAL may use 23L for all departures and 23R for all arrivals however I would have thought the logical thing to do is place the domestic and regional terminals towards the northern end of the complex allowing maximum use of the shorter runway for these operations. Protecting taxiway congestion and keeping 23L free for all long haul growth departures moving forward beyond 2040+.

If AIAL had completed 23R in 2007, a new Domestic/Regional/Short-Haul terminal could be built now or be underway. Of course, as the investment 12 years ago wasn't justified, so the money wasn't spent.

To defend AIAL in this article though, you can thank our government for making AIAL a publicly listed business who's obligation now is to return a profit. They do this well and can anyone blame for being successful in what their investors expect from them.

The Singapore government who owns Changi, invest heavily in the airport as it's critical to the countries economy and has been designed to be this way as SIN is a Hub whereas AKL is an end of line airport or a minor transit stop to some lower end of the market customers.

If AIAL was geographically located North or North West of Auckland, there could be a chance of some midpoint airfield between AKL and HLZ which could offer competition but AKL is located central enough to AKL to be convenient yet southern enough to deter anything north of HLZ.

While I enjoy a good moan and about AIAL and wished for something better, at the end of the day, we made AIAL a publicly listed company who's number one responsibility is to be a profitable business, having a world-class customer experience involving concepts like Singapore's Jewel are a long way down the list.


They changed plans for the new runway a couple of years ago. It will now be longer than originally planned and capable of being used for all but the biggest planes operating at MTOW (eg A380/77L etc operating to Middle East etc which will use the existing runway for departures). It makes more sense to have the domestic flights on the Southern runway as almost all domestic flights are to the South while almost all international flights arrive from the North. You might have some Aus flights operate from the Southern runway too.

But otherwise I agree that AIAL has been very slack and should have been investing back in the GFC when construction costs were a lot lower and interest rates were also low. They are about a decade behind where they should be - the 2nd runway should be almost complete with the new domestic terminal up and running by now.

They’re a bit more than a decade behind - back in 1992 they were planning to have the second runway and integrated terminal up and running by 2010. Instead it looks like it will be at least double that time. And still the poor domestic terminal, temporary facility of the 1960s built in anticipation of becoming a cargo shed in the 1980s or 90s when an integrated domestic and international terminal opened, soldiers on.

V/F
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh
 
NZ6
Posts: 1158
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:38 pm

Zkpilot wrote:
They changed plans for the new runway a couple of years ago. It will now be longer than originally planned and capable of being used for all but the biggest planes operating at MTOW (eg A380/77L etc operating to Middle East etc which will use the existing runway for departures). It makes more sense to have the domestic flights on the Southern runway as almost all domestic flights are to the South while almost all international flights arrive from the North. You might have some Aus flights operate from the Southern runway too.

But otherwise I agree that AIAL has been very slack and should have been investing back in the GFC when construction costs were a lot lower and interest rates were also low. They are about a decade behind where they should be - the 2nd runway should be almost complete with the new domestic terminal up and running by now.


Am I right in assuming they've applied for 23R to be longer but this is yet to be approved?

I'm no Pilot but my understanding is a longer runway requires less throttle and therefore burns less fuel to get to rotae... will you still see a large number on long haul flights request 23L for departure?

Having the domestic network pass across 23L to land on 23R is bizarre especially when you've got a queue of traffic coming into 23L. Obviously, this can be managed but will result in longer arrival paths... the same would apply for departures. Therefore I think you'll see a lot of domestic operate off 23L and short-haul out of 23R and the long haul stuff 23L by choice, but how long before domestic gets squeezed out,

I mean, as a business or if I was an investor, I'd be happy with AIAL's performance but as a flyer, a customer or as an enthusiast the things that matter to me haven't been given a big enough piece of the spending pie...

- International Departures being in a constant state of development over 20 years but almost all on retail space
- Lack of International Gates and overuse of stairs justified by "international standards" but not compared to major hub airports (SIN, HKG, LAX, SFO, LHR, CDG, FRA.....)
- No new Domestic / Short Haul Terminal which is now over capacity and limiting the growth ex AKL
- No public transport outside a single bus every 20 mins
- 20th-century check-in system with a single row of at the rear of the hall which limits the number of kiosks/desks and only changed for the major carriers who lease desk space off AIAL... vs SYD, SIN, HKG, LAX-B style
- No covered secure connection between Domestic & International even though AKL is the gateway for NZ.

My main point yesterday however was
- SIN isn't AKL, it's not even the same type of airport serving an even remotely similar purpose, one is a major Intl - Intl hub fighting against the global trend of connecting more cities bypassing the need to stop at places like SIN where the other is an end of line airport, arrive and get out.
- One is owned by the government who understands the role it plays in the economy and invests accordingly. The other is a publicly listed company whose priority is being profitable
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4316
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Wed Apr 17, 2019 8:43 pm

NZ6 wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
They changed plans for the new runway a couple of years ago. It will now be longer than originally planned and capable of being used for all but the biggest planes operating at MTOW (eg A380/77L etc operating to Middle East etc which will use the existing runway for departures). It makes more sense to have the domestic flights on the Southern runway as almost all domestic flights are to the South while almost all international flights arrive from the North. You might have some Aus flights operate from the Southern runway too.

But otherwise I agree that AIAL has been very slack and should have been investing back in the GFC when construction costs were a lot lower and interest rates were also low. They are about a decade behind where they should be - the 2nd runway should be almost complete with the new domestic terminal up and running by now.


Am I right in assuming they've applied for 23R to be longer but this is yet to be approved?

I'm no Pilot but my understanding is a longer runway requires less throttle and therefore burns less fuel to get to rotae... will you still see a large number on long haul flights request 23L for departure?

Having the domestic network pass across 23L to land on 23R is bizarre especially when you've got a queue of traffic coming into 23L. Obviously, this can be managed but will result in longer arrival paths... the same would apply for departures. Therefore I think you'll see a lot of domestic operate off 23L and short-haul out of 23R and the long haul stuff 23L by choice, but how long before domestic gets squeezed out,

I mean, as a business or if I was an investor, I'd be happy with AIAL's performance but as a flyer, a customer or as an enthusiast the things that matter to me haven't been given a big enough piece of the spending pie...

- International Departures being in a constant state of development over 20 years but almost all on retail space
- Lack of International Gates and overuse of stairs justified by "international standards" but not compared to major hub airports (SIN, HKG, LAX, SFO, LHR, CDG, FRA.....)
- No new Domestic / Short Haul Terminal which is now over capacity and limiting the growth ex AKL
- No public transport outside a single bus every 20 mins
- 20th-century check-in system with a single row of at the rear of the hall which limits the number of kiosks/desks and only changed for the major carriers who lease desk space off AIAL... vs SYD, SIN, HKG, LAX-B style
- No covered secure connection between Domestic & International even though AKL is the gateway for NZ.

My main point yesterday however was
- SIN isn't AKL, it's not even the same type of airport serving an even remotely similar purpose, one is a major Intl - Intl hub fighting against the global trend of connecting more cities bypassing the need to stop at places like SIN where the other is an end of line airport, arrive and get out.
- One is owned by the government who understands the role it plays in the economy and invests accordingly. The other is a publicly listed company whose priority is being profitable

They applied for a longer runway this time and I’m pretty sure they got it approved or were confident of it being approved. With AKL being at sea level and typically not hot and usually with a decent amount of headwind almost all flights will be fine on the new runway. This is especially true with new aircraft that can get airborne a lot quicker (A350, 787) because they are lighter and have powerful engines as well as good lift. As I said ideally you want domestic on the Southern runway and international on the northern.
59 types. 41 countries. 24 airlines.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1435
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Wed Apr 17, 2019 9:10 pm

NZ6 wrote:
- No public transport outside a single bus every 20 mins

It may be a while since you’ve used public transport to the airport. Skybus has been operating every 10 minutes since the RWC in 2015 (less frequent in the evenings and every 30 min in the small hours). AT also provides service to Manukau every 15 min and to Onehunga every 15 min during daytime (less frequent in the evenings). And Skybus also operates to Albany Station every 30 mins.

And in future, of course, AT has a firm plan to link Botany to the airport via Puhinui and Manukau within a couple of years, and is also investigating a direct link connecting New Lynn to the airport (not sure for which year this is proposed). And then there’s light rail . . .

It’s not fantastic service yet, but it’s like chalk and cheese compared with just a few years ago. True that in the past there was just a single PT route every 20 min, but those days are long gone. Thankfully.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6970
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:01 pm

AKL domestic is a zoo or maze after using it yesterday for the first time in sometime. No flow to it at all. CHC on the other hand, really nice and modern.

International at AKL isn’t to bad other than being a constant construction site.
 
jimmyah
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:53 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:25 pm

ZK-NBT wrote:
AKL domestic is a zoo or maze after using it yesterday for the first time in sometime. No flow to it at all. CHC on the other hand, really nice and modern.

International at AKL isn’t to bad other than being a constant construction site.


I have never been to an airport anywhere in the world that is not under construction...
 
nz2
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:38 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Thu Apr 18, 2019 12:07 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
AKL domestic is a zoo or maze after using it yesterday for the first time in sometime. No flow to it at all. CHC on the other hand, really nice and modern.

International at AKL isn’t to bad other than being a constant construction site.


On Tuesday morning the security line was stretched back almost to the NZ check-in kiosks, I had to ask if it was the security line it was so far away from the entry point. The line did move ok and took 20, maybe 22 minutes
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6970
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Thu Apr 18, 2019 1:22 am

jimmyah wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
AKL domestic is a zoo or maze after using it yesterday for the first time in sometime. No flow to it at all. CHC on the other hand, really nice and modern.

International at AKL isn’t to bad other than being a constant construction site.


I have never been to an airport anywhere in the world that is not under construction...


I’m talking about the same space time after time, there is a distinct lack of vision, this goes for AUckland as a city aswell, there seems to be no let’s build a new pier where there might be a seperate security screening area or anything but let’s expand the existing one 2 years after we last did it. Time wise I don’t think AKL International is particularly bad, arrivals is pretty good and departures isn’t to bad.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1158
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Thu Apr 18, 2019 1:29 am

Zkpilot wrote:
They applied for a longer runway this time and I’m pretty sure they got it approved or were confident of it being approved. With AKL being at sea level and typically not hot and usually with a decent amount of headwind almost all flights will be fine on the new runway. This is especially true with new aircraft that can get airborne a lot quicker (A350, 787) because they are lighter and have powerful engines as well as good lift. As I said ideally you want domestic on the Southern runway and international on the northern.


I'm not saying aircraft can't operate out of the new 23R runway, I'm questioning if airlines will want to depart off this runway when there's a 12,000ft runway available for use on 23L.

If, there's been so much clarity around Domestic/Regional flights operating from 23L longterm, why hasn't AIAL commenced works (even preparation works) earlier on this new terminal? AKLD was at capacity around 2005(ish) and is now operating over capacity. So we're talking about 10-15 years behind where they should be.

DavidByrne wrote:
It may be a while since you’ve used public transport to the airport. Skybus has been operating every 10 minutes since the RWC in 2015 (less frequent in the evenings and every 30 min in the small hours). AT also provides service to Manukau every 15 min and to Onehunga every 15 min during daytime (less frequent in the evenings). And Skybus also operates to Albany Station every 30 mins.


No, never used it. I don't live in the CBD and it's not connected to public transport so can't use my HOP card. The 10-minute frequency is much better than understood it to be. However, running diesel buses every 10 minutes on a 50-minute one-way trip (excluding Albany service) questions the sustainability and 'greenness' of such a service.

If Auckland is to be the world class airport it's meant to be, where is the rail connection! It's not even on the table. There is 'light rail' but you'll find if AKL is to become an airport serving 40 million passengers and with Mangere being the second largest employment area outside the CBD this light rail is soon going to be at capacity.
 
NYKiwi
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:41 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Thu Apr 18, 2019 2:27 am

Has anyone flown on the ORD service? Curious as im flying back to AKL from NYC and usually go via IAH but wanted to try this one.

Had read somewhere they block 20 seats curious if true as i fly economy and like the odd spare seat on a long se tor but dunno if they rmplty seats speread around or just up by the skycouch rows...

Any insight appreciated
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1435
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Thu Apr 18, 2019 2:45 am

nz2 wrote:
On Tuesday morning the security line was stretched back almost to the NZ check-in kiosks, I had to ask if it was the security line it was so far away from the entry point. The line did move ok and took 20, maybe 22 minutes

Yes, I experienced the same on Mon morning around 7am. Is this the ‘new normal’?
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1435
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Thu Apr 18, 2019 3:08 am

NZ6 wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
It may be a while since you’ve used public transport to the airport. Skybus has been operating every 10 minutes since the RWC in 2015 (less frequent in the evenings and every 30 min in the small hours). AT also provides service to Manukau every 15 min and to Onehunga every 15 min during daytime (less frequent in the evenings). And Skybus also operates to Albany Station every 30 mins.


No, never used it. I don't live in the CBD and it's not connected to public transport so can't use my HOP card. The 10-minute frequency is much better than understood it to be. However, running diesel buses every 10 minutes on a 50-minute one-way trip (excluding Albany service) questions the sustainability and 'greenness' of such a service.

If Auckland is to be the world class airport it's meant to be, where is the rail connection! It's not even on the table. There is 'light rail' but you'll find if AKL is to become an airport serving 40 million passengers and with Mangere being the second largest employment area outside the CBD this light rail is soon going to be at capacity.


FWIW you CAN use your HOP card on the Skybus - I do so regularly. But you still pay Skybus prices, not AT prices.

Re LR - don’t want to reopen the old LR vs HR debate (yet) again, but I think you’d be surprised how much capacity it will offer. I very much doubt that it will be at capacity at the proposed 10 min frequency any time soon. We’re talking about a vehicle with a capacity of several hundred where there’s currently a bus seating 40-ish, every 10 min. And if it’s not enough you can run them every 5 min and problem solved. Which you couldn’t do with HR by the way - too much competing traffic already on the tracks.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
NZ6
Posts: 1158
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Thu Apr 18, 2019 4:12 am

DavidByrne wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
It may be a while since you’ve used public transport to the airport. Skybus has been operating every 10 minutes since the RWC in 2015 (less frequent in the evenings and every 30 min in the small hours). AT also provides service to Manukau every 15 min and to Onehunga every 15 min during daytime (less frequent in the evenings). And Skybus also operates to Albany Station every 30 mins.


No, never used it. I don't live in the CBD and it's not connected to public transport so can't use my HOP card. The 10-minute frequency is much better than understood it to be. However, running diesel buses every 10 minutes on a 50-minute one-way trip (excluding Albany service) questions the sustainability and 'greenness' of such a service.

If Auckland is to be the world class airport it's meant to be, where is the rail connection! It's not even on the table. There is 'light rail' but you'll find if AKL is to become an airport serving 40 million passengers and with Mangere being the second largest employment area outside the CBD this light rail is soon going to be at capacity.


FWIW you CAN use your HOP card on the Skybus - I do so regularly. But you still pay Skybus prices, not AT prices.

Re LR - don’t want to reopen the old LR vs HR debate (yet) again, but I think you’d be surprised how much capacity it will offer. I very much doubt that it will be at capacity at the proposed 10 min frequency any time soon. We’re talking about a vehicle with a capacity of several hundred where there’s currently a bus seating 40-ish, every 10 min. And if it’s not enough you can run them every 5 min and problem solved. Which you couldn’t do with HR by the way - too much competing traffic already on the tracks.


I've learnt two things about Sky-Bus today. Cheers!

Linking it back to my point yesterday, it's more about the lack of infrastructure investment for me as a passenger over how often the SkyBus goes or how I can pay for it. I'm not intending to open the LR v HR debate but let's not also dictate what can be discussed, I'd just like to see some long term corridors worked on / protected as the supposedly develop towards a 40m+ airport.

Back to yesterday's post, I was actually somewhat defending AIAL over the Opinion piece in the Herald, AIAL is a company who's out to return a healthy profit. We gave up the right to complain when the government relinquished ownership back in the '90s (I think), it's always been as clear as the sun is bright that AIAL would always be the sole international airport for AKL, so to complain about them having a monopoly is ridiculous as we knew they would when it was sold off.
 
nz2
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:38 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Thu Apr 18, 2019 4:53 am

NZ6 wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
NZ6 wrote:


Back to yesterday's post, I was actually somewhat defending AIAL over the Opinion piece in the Herald, AIAL is a company who's out to return a healthy profit. We gave up the right to complain when the government relinquished ownership back in the '90s (I think), it's always been as clear as the sun is bright that AIAL would always be the sole international airport for AKL, so to complain about them having a monopoly is ridiculous as we knew they would when it was sold off.


Agree, while I think AIAL can do things differently and in most cases better, I like my share dividends!

Personally I think the new security operation has a lot of wasted space and the express lane could be better routed to minimize queuing for HVC. Like most here, the trek through the Duty Free shops is just annoying, wish there was the "secret" passage like in SYD via the tax refund corridor that cuts most of the DF stores out. :smile:
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1435
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Thu Apr 18, 2019 5:39 am

NZ6 wrote:
I'd just like to see some long term corridors worked on / protected as the supposedly develop towards a 40m+ airport.

I think you'll find that there are already moves toward protecting corridors both to the north and east of the airport for public transport. I just checked the AT long-term plan and the new service to Puhinui (with a very efficient interchange between bus and rail planned) and onward to Manukau should be operational in 2021, with an all-day 10-minute frequency, even in the evenings. The extension to Botany comes later. The proposed New Lynn to Airport service should also be up and running in 2021, with 15 min frequency peak and 30 min offpeak. The main obstacle is getting the $$$ to actually build the necessary infrastructure within these corridors. NZTA is currently trying to scale back AT's plans for the interchange between bus and train at Puhinui to make it less convenient for users - as per normal. It's now crystal-clear that the biggest obstacle to the development of ANY public transport to the airport is actually the government agency (NZTA) which is supposed to be facilitating it. It's NZTA which is also delaying progress on light rail to the airport as well - despite having signed off on a joint AT/NZTA business case previously, they are now reviewing it one more time. The mindset at NZTA is chaotic and very "roads, roads and more roads" focused. Despite government policy stating precisely the opposite. Alas.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
NZ6
Posts: 1158
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Thu Apr 18, 2019 5:44 am

Zkpilot wrote:
They applied for a longer runway this time and I’m pretty sure they got it approved or were confident of it being approved.


https://corporate.aucklandairport.co.nz ... ond-runway

"In December 2018, following a public submission and hearings process, Auckland Council recommended that the NoRs be confirmed subject to conditions. After careful consideration the Airport has decided to accept the majority of what was recommended."
 
NZ6
Posts: 1158
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Thu Apr 18, 2019 5:52 am

DavidByrne wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
I'd just like to see some long term corridors worked on / protected as the supposedly develop towards a 40m+ airport.

I think you'll find that there are already moves toward protecting corridors both to the north and east of the airport for public transport. I just checked the AT long-term plan and the new service to Puhinui (with a very efficient interchange between bus and rail planned) and onward to Manukau should be operational in 2021, with an all-day 10-minute frequency, even in the evenings. The extension to Botany comes later. The proposed New Lynn to Airport service should also be up and running in 2021, with 15 min frequency peak and 30 min offpeak. The main obstacle is getting the $$$ to actually build the necessary infrastructure within these corridors. NZTA is currently trying to scale back AT's plans for the interchange between bus and train at Puhinui to make it less convenient for users - as per normal. It's now crystal-clear that the biggest obstacle to the development of ANY public transport to the airport is actually the government agency (NZTA) which is supposed to be facilitating it. It's NZTA which is also delaying progress on light rail to the airport as well - despite having signed off on a joint AT/NZTA business case previously, they are now reviewing it one more time. The mindset at NZTA is chaotic and very "roads, roads and more roads" focused. Despite government policy stating precisely the opposite. Alas.


You're talking largely about AT infrastructure and as I've said a few times, my comments have been around how and what AIAL has invested in over the last 20 years, as an example, they've built extensive retail and commercial areas but the airport still lacks a dedicated bus corridor from State Highway 20 and Puhinui or Mangere entrance, there's no public busway either meaning the Sky Bus and local buses are using the congested roads, there's no airport provided transfer between Dom and International terminals off the main roadway and the same can be said for longterm park and car rentals.
 
User avatar
LamboAston
Posts: 618
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:46 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Thu Apr 18, 2019 6:05 am

ZK-OJA has left the country as F-WTDG
AS350, B733/4/7/8, B744/8, B762/3, B77E/L/W, B789, A319, A320, A321, A332, A346, A380, AT73/5/6, Q300, Q400, CR2/7, E190, S340, B1900C/D, E110 (E for epic)
NZ, EK, QF, SQ, UA, US, CO, FZ, FR, U2, BA, VA, VS, MH, EI, EY, LH, EN, NM, TG, GZ
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6970
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:24 pm

CHCalfonzo wrote:
CX changes for NW19, AKL goes double daily A350-1000 and CHC has an extended season starting 15 NOV and is increased to 4 flights per week.

Starting 30 NOV:
CX199 HKG1520 – 0725+1AKL 351 D
CX113 HKG2125 – 1330+1AKL 351 D

CX188 AKL0855 – 1510HKG 351 D
CX198 AKL1500 – 2115HKG 351 D

CX129 HKG1450 – CHC0715 359 5
CX123 HKG2045 – CHC1310 359 347

CX124 CHC0835 – HKG1510 359 6
CX126 CHC1430 – HKG2110 359 145


I do wonder weather the CX199/188 might become something like

HKG 0800 AKL 0005
AKL 0135 HKG 0750

Try and pick up some European connections inbound and also replace the overnight NZ service ex AKL which becomes a daylight service.

Also I’ve said this before, will We see a third daily year round with NZ operating 2 flights in NS,

AKL 2300 HKG 0605
HKG 0800 AKL 2250

Maybe less than daily for the second flight initially.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4316
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:17 pm

nz2 wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:


Agree, while I think AIAL can do things differently and in most cases better, I like my share dividends!

Personally I think the new security operation has a lot of wasted space and the express lane could be better routed to minimize queuing for HVC. Like most here, the trek through the Duty Free shops is just annoying, wish there was the "secret" passage like in SYD via the tax refund corridor that cuts most of the DF stores out. :smile:

There kinda is now. After the main duty free stores if you take an immediate left turn you can go down a corridor to the koru lounge and dining area. Then there’s another one past a couple of shops that comes out in the dining area with a shorter walk to the escalators. Both save about 2 minutes walking around the maze.
59 types. 41 countries. 24 airlines.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4316
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:22 pm

NZ6 wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
They applied for a longer runway this time and I’m pretty sure they got it approved or were confident of it being approved.


https://corporate.aucklandairport.co.nz ... ond-runway

"In December 2018, following a public submission and hearings process, Auckland Council recommended that the NoRs be confirmed subject to conditions. After careful consideration the Airport has decided to accept the majority of what was recommended."

Yes. So now they will have a nearly 3000m runway which can handle all aircraft types and will be suitable for MTOW for most of them meaning for almost anything less than MTOW - reduced thrust takeoffs. It’ll really only be ULH flights that might chose to use the longer runway.

“We also need to extend the length from 2,150 metres to 2,983 metres to support planes such as A380, B777 and B787.”
59 types. 41 countries. 24 airlines.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1158
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:11 am

Zkpilot wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
They applied for a longer runway this time and I’m pretty sure they got it approved or were confident of it being approved.


https://corporate.aucklandairport.co.nz ... ond-runway

"In December 2018, following a public submission and hearings process, Auckland Council recommended that the NoRs be confirmed subject to conditions. After careful consideration the Airport has decided to accept the majority of what was recommended."

Yes. So now they will have a nearly 3000m runway which can handle all aircraft types and will be suitable for MTOW for most of them meaning for almost anything less than MTOW - reduced thrust takeoffs. It’ll really only be ULH flights that might chose to use the longer runway.

“We also need to extend the length from 2,150 metres to 2,983 metres to support planes such as A380, B777 and B787.”


reduced thrust take offs.... something that burns less fuel....

So an NZ 772 AKLLAX...what would they prefer 23L or 23R at 2030 in summer
 
nz2
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:38 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:41 am

Zkpilot wrote:
nz2 wrote:
NZ6 wrote:


Agree, while I think AIAL can do things differently and in most cases better, I like my share dividends!

Personally I think the new security operation has a lot of wasted space and the express lane could be better routed to minimize queuing for HVC. Like most here, the trek through the Duty Free shops is just annoying, wish there was the "secret" passage like in SYD via the tax refund corridor that cuts most of the DF stores out. :smile:

There kinda is now. After the main duty free stores if you take an immediate left turn you can go down a corridor to the koru lounge and dining area. Then there’s another one past a couple of shops that comes out in the dining area with a shorter walk to the escalators. Both save about 2 minutes walking around the maze.


What - there are more duty free stores past the left turn to the Koru lounge!! I have never been that way so I have been spared..... :o
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4316
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Fri Apr 19, 2019 1:01 pm

NZ6 wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

https://corporate.aucklandairport.co.nz ... ond-runway

"In December 2018, following a public submission and hearings process, Auckland Council recommended that the NoRs be confirmed subject to conditions. After careful consideration the Airport has decided to accept the majority of what was recommended."

Yes. So now they will have a nearly 3000m runway which can handle all aircraft types and will be suitable for MTOW for most of them meaning for almost anything less than MTOW - reduced thrust takeoffs. It’ll really only be ULH flights that might chose to use the longer runway.

“We also need to extend the length from 2,150 metres to 2,983 metres to support planes such as A380, B777 and B787.”


reduced thrust take offs.... something that burns less fuel....

So an NZ 772 AKLLAX...what would they prefer 23L or 23R at 2030 in summer

If NZ still has 772s in 2030 I’d be very surprised. Hell, even the 77Ws will probably be gone by then. That leaves 787s and either A350/77X (all of which will do just fine off the shorter runway for LAX/SFO/EZE/YVR/NRT/HKG/SIN/ICN/TPE/HNL etc and with reduced thrust). For IAH/ORD/EWR however they would likely use the longer runway. So out of the 20 odd widebody international flights that NZ does you’re talking about 3 flights using the longer runway. Add in EK, QR and you have 5 maybe 6 flights a day needing the big runway specifically. Finally if there is a need I’m sure AIAL won’t struggle to add on another 400m (perhaps 100m west and 300m East) to have another full length runway.
59 types. 41 countries. 24 airlines.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1158
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:56 pm

Zkpilot wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
Yes. So now they will have a nearly 3000m runway which can handle all aircraft types and will be suitable for MTOW for most of them meaning for almost anything less than MTOW - reduced thrust takeoffs. It’ll really only be ULH flights that might chose to use the longer runway.

“We also need to extend the length from 2,150 metres to 2,983 metres to support planes such as A380, B777 and B787.”


reduced thrust take offs.... something that burns less fuel....

So an NZ 772 AKLLAX...what would they prefer 23L or 23R at 2030 in summer

If NZ still has 772s in 2030 I’d be very surprised. Hell, even the 77Ws will probably be gone by then. That leaves 787s and either A350/77X (all of which will do just fine off the shorter runway for LAX/SFO/EZE/YVR/NRT/HKG/SIN/ICN/TPE/HNL etc and with reduced thrust). For IAH/ORD/EWR however they would likely use the longer runway. So out of the 20 odd widebody international flights that NZ does you’re talking about 3 flights using the longer runway. Add in EK, QR and you have 5 maybe 6 flights a day needing the big runway specifically. Finally if there is a need I’m sure AIAL won’t struggle to add on another 400m (perhaps 100m west and 300m East) to have another full length runway.


762, 763, 742,744, 732,733 all stayed well beyond their initial anticipated exit dates, we've already seen that some 722's will remain beyond 2024... will it be 6 years.. who knows.

Add to this, I'm still looking at my 1991 Air Expo brochure which has the second runway by the turn of the century....Two decades beyond that, I still can't find it. Will it be completed and operational within Three? It'll be a close call if they start soon.

The extra length was required for airport contingency planning and the expected growth in widebody aircraft... A bloody good decision.

My original point remains (and it's not about if the majority of widebody can use 23R, I've never disputed that). It is about airports forward planning.

Domestic/Regional was set to move to the new northern side of the complex and use the new shorter runway, this was as recent (or historic) as 2002 when the last runway design was last approved, maybe a few years earlier as the application and design were being made, so maybe the late 90's

More recently they've applied for a longer runway and are committing to leaving Domestic/Regional/Short Haul Ops using the southern end...

The reason I've seen so far is, that these flights head south so logically use this runway while international head north.

Are Airways planning and changing the departure paths used? Almost all International flights I've taken departing from 23L bank left and loop back over itself, why can't this still occur with 23R traffic traveling westbound an extra mile or two before left banking and heading south?

Here's an example; https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/nz6#202c0e0a

More to the point, if it's been known for some time, Domestic would likely operate from the South, where has the terminal investment been that we've seen at International?

If it's not been clear, why not? The second runway has been a concept since the late 1980s. These are long term plans and since what I call the rebirth of aviation in NZ back in 2002 (NORRIS/Express days) it's been clear to all, the AKL Domestic terminal is not suitable short term let alone long term, we've seen them get creative with car parking building, did you know that building is modular and can be moved and reassembled? designed for a move to the northern complex, they've had how many cracks at the forecourt layout and the introduction to A320's with JQ and NZ have only added a few more hundred and sometimes thousands of passengers into the terminal at peak. The A321 and 787 which want to be used more are currently hamstrung by the infrastructure available.

Are you aware, due to the lack of gates an ATRs have had to go onto International gates! Did you know during Xmas, School Holidays the baggage belt and baggage storage areas get so full they can not physically take more bags so airlines are left to restrict check-in times so you can't check-in too early...

Last time I heard, there was double-digit security breaches this calendar year with Avsec.

my point being.... where has the planning and investment been?
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8310
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:30 am

ZK-OKI is effectively out of service and should be out to VCV before the end of the month, OKJ is basically just a ground spare with sporadic schedules as well. OKT is shortly to go into a C check, but it appears it may not be around too much longer now either.
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.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4316
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sat Apr 20, 2019 6:53 am

NZ6 wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

reduced thrust take offs.... something that burns less fuel....

So an NZ 772 AKLLAX...what would they prefer 23L or 23R at 2030 in summer

If NZ still has 772s in 2030 I’d be very surprised. Hell, even the 77Ws will probably be gone by then. That leaves 787s and either A350/77X (all of which will do just fine off the shorter runway for LAX/SFO/EZE/YVR/NRT/HKG/SIN/ICN/TPE/HNL etc and with reduced thrust). For IAH/ORD/EWR however they would likely use the longer runway. So out of the 20 odd widebody international flights that NZ does you’re talking about 3 flights using the longer runway. Add in EK, QR and you have 5 maybe 6 flights a day needing the big runway specifically. Finally if there is a need I’m sure AIAL won’t struggle to add on another 400m (perhaps 100m west and 300m East) to have another full length runway.


762, 763, 742,744, 732,733 all stayed well beyond their initial anticipated exit dates, we've already seen that some 722's will remain beyond 2024... will it be 6 years.. who knows.

Add to this, I'm still looking at my 1991 Air Expo brochure which has the second runway by the turn of the century....Two decades beyond that, I still can't find it. Will it be completed and operational within Three? It'll be a close call if they start soon.

The extra length was required for airport contingency planning and the expected growth in widebody aircraft... A bloody good decision.

My original point remains (and it's not about if the majority of widebody can use 23R, I've never disputed that). It is about airports forward planning.

Domestic/Regional was set to move to the new northern side of the complex and use the new shorter runway, this was as recent (or historic) as 2002 when the last runway design was last approved, maybe a few years earlier as the application and design were being made, so maybe the late 90's

More recently they've applied for a longer runway and are committing to leaving Domestic/Regional/Short Haul Ops using the southern end...

The reason I've seen so far is, that these flights head south so logically use this runway while international head north.

Are Airways planning and changing the departure paths used? Almost all International flights I've taken departing from 23L bank left and loop back over itself, why can't this still occur with 23R traffic traveling westbound an extra mile or two before left banking and heading south?

Here's an example; https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/nz6#202c0e0a

More to the point, if it's been known for some time, Domestic would likely operate from the South, where has the terminal investment been that we've seen at International?

If it's not been clear, why not? The second runway has been a concept since the late 1980s. These are long term plans and since what I call the rebirth of aviation in NZ back in 2002 (NORRIS/Express days) it's been clear to all, the AKL Domestic terminal is not suitable short term let alone long term, we've seen them get creative with car parking building, did you know that building is modular and can be moved and reassembled? designed for a move to the northern complex, they've had how many cracks at the forecourt layout and the introduction to A320's with JQ and NZ have only added a few more hundred and sometimes thousands of passengers into the terminal at peak. The A321 and 787 which want to be used more are currently hamstrung by the infrastructure available.

Are you aware, due to the lack of gates an ATRs have had to go onto International gates! Did you know during Xmas, School Holidays the baggage belt and baggage storage areas get so full they can not physically take more bags so airlines are left to restrict check-in times so you can't check-in too early...

Last time I heard, there was double-digit security breaches this calendar year with Avsec.

my point being.... where has the planning and investment been?

I’m not disagreeing with you at all regarding AIAL lack of investment and planning. They’re slack. What I’m saying is that Domestic should use the Southern runway and international should use the northern where possible. Hopefully eventually they go full length on that runway. It should have been built a long time ago and yes the domestic terminal should have also been replaced. Where I think you are running aground is between the previous plan to build a new domestic terminal to the north with short runway and the replacement plan to build it between the existing terminals and to use the Southern runway.
59 types. 41 countries. 24 airlines.
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2649
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sat Apr 20, 2019 7:04 am

NZ6 wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

reduced thrust take offs.... something that burns less fuel....

So an NZ 772 AKLLAX...what would they prefer 23L or 23R at 2030 in summer

If NZ still has 772s in 2030 I’d be very surprised. Hell, even the 77Ws will probably be gone by then. That leaves 787s and either A350/77X (all of which will do just fine off the shorter runway for LAX/SFO/EZE/YVR/NRT/HKG/SIN/ICN/TPE/HNL etc and with reduced thrust). For IAH/ORD/EWR however they would likely use the longer runway. So out of the 20 odd widebody international flights that NZ does you’re talking about 3 flights using the longer runway. Add in EK, QR and you have 5 maybe 6 flights a day needing the big runway specifically. Finally if there is a need I’m sure AIAL won’t struggle to add on another 400m (perhaps 100m west and 300m East) to have another full length runway.


762, 763, 742,744, 732,733 all stayed well beyond their initial anticipated exit dates, we've already seen that some 722's will remain beyond 2024... will it be 6 years.. who knows.

Add to this, I'm still looking at my 1991 Air Expo brochure which has the second runway by the turn of the century....Two decades beyond that, I still can't find it. Will it be completed and operational within Three? It'll be a close call if they start soon.

The extra length was required for airport contingency planning and the expected growth in widebody aircraft... A bloody good decision.

My original point remains (and it's not about if the majority of widebody can use 23R, I've never disputed that). It is about airports forward planning.

Domestic/Regional was set to move to the new northern side of the complex and use the new shorter runway, this was as recent (or historic) as 2002 when the last runway design was last approved, maybe a few years earlier as the application and design were being made, so maybe the late 90's

More recently they've applied for a longer runway and are committing to leaving Domestic/Regional/Short Haul Ops using the southern end...

The reason I've seen so far is, that these flights head south so logically use this runway while international head north.

Are Airways planning and changing the departure paths used? Almost all International flights I've taken departing from 23L bank left and loop back over itself, why can't this still occur with 23R traffic traveling westbound an extra mile or two before left banking and heading south?

Here's an example; https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/nz6#202c0e0a

More to the point, if it's been known for some time, Domestic would likely operate from the South, where has the terminal investment been that we've seen at International?

If it's not been clear, why not? The second runway has been a concept since the late 1980s. These are long term plans and since what I call the rebirth of aviation in NZ back in 2002 (NORRIS/Express days) it's been clear to all, the AKL Domestic terminal is not suitable short term let alone long term, we've seen them get creative with car parking building, did you know that building is modular and can be moved and reassembled? designed for a move to the northern complex, they've had how many cracks at the forecourt layout and the introduction to A320's with JQ and NZ have only added a few more hundred and sometimes thousands of passengers into the terminal at peak. The A321 and 787 which want to be used more are currently hamstrung by the infrastructure available.

Are you aware, due to the lack of gates an ATRs have had to go onto International gates! Did you know during Xmas, School Holidays the baggage belt and baggage storage areas get so full they can not physically take more bags so airlines are left to restrict check-in times so you can't check-in too early...

Last time I heard, there was double-digit security breaches this calendar year with Avsec.

my point being.... where has the planning and investment been?


Piecemeal capex to just barely cope with growth while satisfying short-term financial targets and shareholders. Then wheel out the CEO every now and again - anyone remember the "single architectural vision" from a year or so back? No? That's what they're counting on - and whamo you've got yourself an investment strategy.

Some other points:

1. What would have happened had the Canadian pension fund been allowed to purchase it before all the nationalistic dribble from the politicians? While, yes, they're private too, pension funds have long term horizons and have a lot of skill in forecasting and planning, which apparently AIAL severely lacks.

2. AIAL are always congratulated for their business acumen, usually just before reports of unanticipated passenger growth is brushed aside as a "she'll be right, oh well it happens and is unforeseeable" kind of thing. AIAL management are remarkably bad at predicting growth in their core industry if that's the case.

3. Which brings us to the piecemeal capex. Auckland Airport is under a constant state of renovation. Landside services have actually declined from the days I worked there, when one objective was to turn the airport into a destination in its own right, with plenty of shopping, eating and aviation related activities for non-travellers. Landside at international has reduced to small, loud, unpleasant foodcourt. I'd say the international terminal peaked around 2000-2002 in terms of amenity.

4. Meanwhile capex keeps getting pushed out so that we're now at a point where construction costs have skyrocketed, interest rates are likely to rise increasing cost of borrowing and airlines are in a more hostile relationship with AIAL. End result, whatever capex plans the airport has will be scaled back.

I see the same at Melbourne too, the result of very short termism and piecemeal investment, yet ironically hugely disruptive as construction just gets drawn out forever as each little new shop gets tacked on. A shame, but a very Kiwi/Aussie approach to critical infrastructure.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4316
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sat Apr 20, 2019 8:27 am

aerokiwi wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
If NZ still has 772s in 2030 I’d be very surprised. Hell, even the 77Ws will probably be gone by then. That leaves 787s and either A350/77X (all of which will do just fine off the shorter runway for LAX/SFO/EZE/YVR/NRT/HKG/SIN/ICN/TPE/HNL etc and with reduced thrust). For IAH/ORD/EWR however they would likely use the longer runway. So out of the 20 odd widebody international flights that NZ does you’re talking about 3 flights using the longer runway. Add in EK, QR and you have 5 maybe 6 flights a day needing the big runway specifically. Finally if there is a need I’m sure AIAL won’t struggle to add on another 400m (perhaps 100m west and 300m East) to have another full length runway.


762, 763, 742,744, 732,733 all stayed well beyond their initial anticipated exit dates, we've already seen that some 722's will remain beyond 2024... will it be 6 years.. who knows.

Add to this, I'm still looking at my 1991 Air Expo brochure which has the second runway by the turn of the century....Two decades beyond that, I still can't find it. Will it be completed and operational within Three? It'll be a close call if they start soon.

The extra length was required for airport contingency planning and the expected growth in widebody aircraft... A bloody good decision.

My original point remains (and it's not about if the majority of widebody can use 23R, I've never disputed that). It is about airports forward planning.

Domestic/Regional was set to move to the new northern side of the complex and use the new shorter runway, this was as recent (or historic) as 2002 when the last runway design was last approved, maybe a few years earlier as the application and design were being made, so maybe the late 90's

More recently they've applied for a longer runway and are committing to leaving Domestic/Regional/Short Haul Ops using the southern end...

The reason I've seen so far is, that these flights head south so logically use this runway while international head north.

Are Airways planning and changing the departure paths used? Almost all International flights I've taken departing from 23L bank left and loop back over itself, why can't this still occur with 23R traffic traveling westbound an extra mile or two before left banking and heading south?

Here's an example; https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/nz6#202c0e0a

More to the point, if it's been known for some time, Domestic would likely operate from the South, where has the terminal investment been that we've seen at International?

If it's not been clear, why not? The second runway has been a concept since the late 1980s. These are long term plans and since what I call the rebirth of aviation in NZ back in 2002 (NORRIS/Express days) it's been clear to all, the AKL Domestic terminal is not suitable short term let alone long term, we've seen them get creative with car parking building, did you know that building is modular and can be moved and reassembled? designed for a move to the northern complex, they've had how many cracks at the forecourt layout and the introduction to A320's with JQ and NZ have only added a few more hundred and sometimes thousands of passengers into the terminal at peak. The A321 and 787 which want to be used more are currently hamstrung by the infrastructure available.

Are you aware, due to the lack of gates an ATRs have had to go onto International gates! Did you know during Xmas, School Holidays the baggage belt and baggage storage areas get so full they can not physically take more bags so airlines are left to restrict check-in times so you can't check-in too early...

Last time I heard, there was double-digit security breaches this calendar year with Avsec.

my point being.... where has the planning and investment been?


Piecemeal capex to just barely cope with growth while satisfying short-term financial targets and shareholders. Then wheel out the CEO every now and again - anyone remember the "single architectural vision" from a year or so back? No? That's what they're counting on - and whamo you've got yourself an investment strategy.

Some other points:

1. What would have happened had the Canadian pension fund been allowed to purchase it before all the nationalistic dribble from the politicians? While, yes, they're private too, pension funds have long term horizons and have a lot of skill in forecasting and planning, which apparently AIAL severely lacks.

2. AIAL are always congratulated for their business acumen, usually just before reports of unanticipated passenger growth is brushed aside as a "she'll be right, oh well it happens and is unforeseeable" kind of thing. AIAL management are remarkably bad at predicting growth in their core industry if that's the case.

3. Which brings us to the piecemeal capex. Auckland Airport is under a constant state of renovation. Landside services have actually declined from the days I worked there, when one objective was to turn the airport into a destination in its own right, with plenty of shopping, eating and aviation related activities for non-travellers. Landside at international has reduced to small, loud, unpleasant foodcourt. I'd say the international terminal peaked around 2000-2002 in terms of amenity.

4. Meanwhile capex keeps getting pushed out so that we're now at a point where construction costs have skyrocketed, interest rates are likely to rise increasing cost of borrowing and airlines are in a more hostile relationship with AIAL. End result, whatever capex plans the airport has will be scaled back.

I see the same at Melbourne too, the result of very short termism and piecemeal investment, yet ironically hugely disruptive as construction just gets drawn out forever as each little new shop gets tacked on. A shame, but a very Kiwi/Aussie approach to critical infrastructure.

Yeah good points. Be nice if the NZ super fund bought a 25% stake!
59 types. 41 countries. 24 airlines.

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