So at this point, any major international airline which doesn't serve JFK has a huge hole in their route map. When can we see Air New Zealand starting nonstop service to JFK from Auckland?

First off, The sheer amount of distance between these two points is truly immense and I am not even sure there is a commercial aircraft that could do it non stop with passengers.

The second problem is if the demand is really there (I do not believe there is). New Zealand is a tiny country that already has a huge amount of connection points into the US with a gigantic partner on the American side of the market (United). I would think they would just connect the small amount of NZ-NYC passengers on existing ANZ flights over to United flights to EWR.

AKL-JFK is 700 miles shorter than SIN-EWR.

SierraPacific wrote:

First off, The sheer amount of distance between these two points is truly immense and I am not even sure there is a commercial aircraft that could do it non stop with passengers.

The second problem is if the demand is really there (I do not believe there is). New Zealand is a tiny country that already has a huge amount of connection points into the US with a gigantic partner on the American side of the market (United). I would think they would just connect the small amount of NZ-NYC passengers on existing ANZ flights over to United flights to EWR.

JFK-AKL would be the 4th longest flight in the world if it was launched today, so yes, there are aircraft capable of flying this route. Forget 4th longest, it wouldn't even be the longest flight from Auckland (AKL-DOH is longer).

I'm pretty sure ANZ has at least mentioned this is a possibility, but you're other points all hold true and probably keep it from becoming a reality.

A bit of An odd question given the distance as above. Could you say the same for LHR/LAX/HKG etc? That an airline not serving those ports has a huge hole, really depends at times on O&D or partner hubs or just sheer distance.

Anyway NZ will fly to NYC very likely EWR given its a UA hub in the 2020s, could be a premium heavy 789, by NZ standards atleast, or if they order the A350 or 778, they are about to order a 772 replacement and some of these will be used for ULH like NYC/GRU. Not huge markets sure from NZ but potential and Australian traffic connecting.

caliboy93 wrote:

So at this point, any major international airline which doesn't serve JFK has a huge hole in their route map. When can we see Air New Zealand starting nonstop service to JFK from Auckland?

Define 'major'? AC and UA are pretty major I'd say but has a huge hole without JFK? Why is this thread specific to JFK? Could we broaden it a bit more to include LGA and EWR?

NZ wouldn't start JFK anyway, they'd go for EWR if they were to go to NYC.

SierraPacific wrote:

First off, The sheer amount of distance between these two points is truly immense and I am not even sure there is a commercial aircraft that could do it non stop with passengers.

The second problem is if the demand is really there (I do not believe there is). New Zealand is a tiny country that already has a huge amount of connection points into the US with a gigantic partner on the American side of the market (United). I would think they would just connect the small amount of NZ-NYC passengers on existing ANZ flights over to United flights to EWR.

Demand in 2018 between NYC and AKL was 31,000 passengers round trip averaging US$1200 one way with YQ included. Hence it isnt that big a p2p market segment to warrant a ULH nonstop flight. Its best first to operate the new ORD route for 3 years to see how it financially performs before experimenting further eastwards.

Fuling wrote:

NZ wouldn't start JFK anyway, they'd go for EWR if they were to go to NYC.

Why? EWR isn't an obvious place to hub to AKL. NZ could just as well take the O&D at JFK. Lufthansa, Turkish, Air China, ANA, Asiana, Austrian, Egyptair, Avianca... all operate from JFK, as do other *A carriers.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Fuling wrote:

NZ wouldn't start JFK anyway, they'd go for EWR if they were to go to NYC.

Why? EWR isn't an obvious place to hub to AKL. NZ could just as well take the O&D at JFK. Lufthansa, Turkish, Air China, ANA, Asiana, Austrian, Egyptair, Avianca... all operate from JFK, as do other *A carriers.

NZ generally fly to partner or star hubs, they would need all the traffic they can get, EWR makes sense to maximise that feed. Most of those carriers you mentioned have far larger O&D, while some serve both JFK and EWR.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Fuling wrote:

NZ wouldn't start JFK anyway, they'd go for EWR if they were to go to NYC.

Why? EWR isn't an obvious place to hub to AKL. NZ could just as well take the O&D at JFK. Lufthansa, Turkish, Air China, ANA, Asiana, Austrian, Egyptair, Avianca... all operate from JFK, as do other *A carriers.

As stated, NYC-AKL is already small enough. Plus UA and NZ have a JV which would mean EWR is the best chance (realistically, operationally, and profitability wise) at success.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Fuling wrote:

NZ wouldn't start JFK anyway, they'd go for EWR if they were to go to NYC.

Why? EWR isn't an obvious place to hub to AKL. NZ could just as well take the O&D at JFK. Lufthansa, Turkish, Air China, ANA, Asiana, Austrian, Egyptair, Avianca... all operate from JFK, as do other *A carriers.

Avianca, Lufthansa, Air China, Austrian, Swiss all fly to EWR as well. Turkish is returning this summer, also we here at EWR have the direct to SIN and most UA flights often are seen on monitors as New York/Newark. Additionally, the connectivity to Manhattan is far easier from EWR than JFK. If NZ were to go to NYC I believe we will be seeing them land west of the Hudson.

dmstorm22 wrote:

SierraPacific wrote:

First off, The sheer amount of distance between these two points is truly immense and I am not even sure there is a commercial aircraft that could do it non stop with passengers.

The second problem is if the demand is really there (I do not believe there is). New Zealand is a tiny country that already has a huge amount of connection points into the US with a gigantic partner on the American side of the market (United). I would think they would just connect the small amount of NZ-NYC passengers on existing ANZ flights over to United flights to EWR.

JFK-AKL would be the 4th longest flight in the world if it was launched today, so yes, there are aircraft capable of flying this route. Forget 4th longest, it wouldn't even be the longest flight from Auckland (AKL-DOH is longer).

I'm pretty sure ANZ has at least mentioned this is a possibility, but you're other points all hold true and probably keep it from becoming a reality.

I have been corrected. I had always thought that Auckland-NYC is much farther than what it is and it is really crazy how far Doha is from Auckland.

Like most people are saying it is to do with the demand along with fuel costs. I f the demand is not high enough it means there profit will not be enough to cover the fuel for the flight.

If NZ were to ever start a NYC flight, which they've stated they want to, it would operate to EWR, not JFK. The US-NZ market isn't small, but it's also not big, and a significant portion of it is seasonal and leisure heavy. They would need the feed and cargo transfer available to them at EWR through the code share and partnership with UA to make the flight work.

behramjee wrote:

SierraPacific wrote:

First off, The sheer amount of distance between these two points is truly immense and I am not even sure there is a commercial aircraft that could do it non stop with passengers.

The second problem is if the demand is really there (I do not believe there is). New Zealand is a tiny country that already has a huge amount of connection points into the US with a gigantic partner on the American side of the market (United). I would think they would just connect the small amount of NZ-NYC passengers on existing ANZ flights over to United flights to EWR.

Demand in 2018 between NYC and AKL was 31,000 passengers round trip averaging US$1200 one way with YQ included. Hence it isnt that big a p2p market segment to warrant a ULH nonstop flight. Its best first to operate the new ORD route for 3 years to see how it financially performs before experimenting further eastwards.

What does YQ mean?

Delta757MD88 wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Fuling wrote:

NZ wouldn't start JFK anyway, they'd go for EWR if they were to go to NYC.

Why? EWR isn't an obvious place to hub to AKL. NZ could just as well take the O&D at JFK. Lufthansa, Turkish, Air China, ANA, Asiana, Austrian, Egyptair, Avianca... all operate from JFK, as do other *A carriers.

Avianca, Lufthansa, Air China, Austrian, Swiss all fly to EWR as well. Turkish is returning this summer, also we here at EWR have the direct to SIN and most UA flights often are seen on monitors as New York/Newark. Additionally, the connectivity to Manhattan is far easier from EWR than JFK. If NZ were to go to NYC I believe we will be seeing them land west of the Hudson.

What connectivity?

Dont post opinion as fact.

Especially when the rail connections to JFK are cheaper, faster and more frequent. Fact.

And please dont forget when Singapore consolidated to one NYC airport, it was the 380
to JFK. Not their partner’s airport west of the Hudson.

NZ and UA have a JV, meaning it most definitely will be from EWR and not JFK. There’s about the same amount of O&D from both EWR and JFK, but EWR can offer connections beyond that. IIRC, EWR is also closer to Manhattan and Newark has a large wealthy population, meaning more business travelers/business seats sold, thus more profits.

maximairways wrote:

AKL-JFK is 700 miles shorter than SIN-EWR.

Difference is that EWR-SIN is a polar route while JFK-AKL will be fighting the jetstream the entire way. The air distance for JFK-AKL is significantly longer than EWR-SIN.

behramjee wrote:

SierraPacific wrote:

First off, The sheer amount of distance between these two points is truly immense and I am not even sure there is a commercial aircraft that could do it non stop with passengers.

The second problem is if the demand is really there (I do not believe there is). New Zealand is a tiny country that already has a huge amount of connection points into the US with a gigantic partner on the American side of the market (United). I would think they would just connect the small amount of NZ-NYC passengers on existing ANZ flights over to United flights to EWR.

Demand in 2018 between NYC and AKL was 31,000 passengers round trip averaging US$1200 one way with YQ included. Hence it isnt that big a p2p market segment to warrant a ULH nonstop flight. Its best first to operate the new ORD route for 3 years to see how it financially performs before experimenting further eastwards.

Do you have the PDEW for their IAH and ORD flights?

I agree that they should allow their ORD flight to mature before looking to start EWR/JFK. 31k passengers/yr is not enough to sustain a nonstop on O&D alone and EWR isn’t the best hub for connections as almost all but the New England markets would require a back track. Moreover, I can’t think of many destinations people from NZ would be traveling to in any appreciable amount that can only be reached from EWR.

To the OP, while NYC might look like a hole in the network given its stature as a top tier world city, there appears to be little value add in adding it as a nonstop. Of those 31k pax/yr, how many are headed to NYC for business vs leisure? Without reliable premium cabin demand, I don’t see it working.

77H

behramjee wrote:

SierraPacific wrote:

First off, The sheer amount of distance between these two points is truly immense and I am not even sure there is a commercial aircraft that could do it non stop with passengers.

The second problem is if the demand is really there (I do not believe there is). New Zealand is a tiny country that already has a huge amount of connection points into the US with a gigantic partner on the American side of the market (United). I would think they would just connect the small amount of NZ-NYC passengers on existing ANZ flights over to United flights to EWR.

Demand in 2018 between NYC and AKL was 31,000 passengers round trip averaging US$1200 one way with YQ included. Hence it isnt that big a p2p market segment to warrant a ULH nonstop flight. Its best first to operate the new ORD route for 3 years to see how it financially performs before experimenting further eastwards.

31000 pax round trip...... that will at most make 2 weekly even considering connection from Europe and the rest of Eastern US. Good luck with that, you are not Hainan Airlines.

B1168 wrote:

behramjee wrote:

SierraPacific wrote:

First off, The sheer amount of distance between these two points is truly immense and I am not even sure there is a commercial aircraft that could do it non stop with passengers.

The second problem is if the demand is really there (I do not believe there is). New Zealand is a tiny country that already has a huge amount of connection points into the US with a gigantic partner on the American side of the market (United). I would think they would just connect the small amount of NZ-NYC passengers on existing ANZ flights over to United flights to EWR.

Demand in 2018 between NYC and AKL was 31,000 passengers round trip averaging US$1200 one way with YQ included. Hence it isnt that big a p2p market segment to warrant a ULH nonstop flight. Its best first to operate the new ORD route for 3 years to see how it financially performs before experimenting further eastwards.

31000 pax round trip...... that will at most make 2 weekly even considering connection from Europe and the rest of Eastern US. Good luck with that, you are not Hainan Airlines.

Right thanks for that, they will take some traffic from other US ports aswell and right size them as they offer more p2p, don’t forget Australia again not a huge market but NZ get up to 40% on some US routes that is Australian.

United857 wrote:

maximairways wrote:

AKL-JFK is 700 miles shorter than SIN-EWR.

Difference is that EWR-SIN is a polar route while JFK-AKL will be fighting the jetstream the entire way. The air distance for JFK-AKL is significantly longer than EWR-SIN.

I "think" I recall reading a while back when QF launched SYD-DFW that overfly rights of Mexico are very expensive. Would this then cause AKL-EWR/JFK to divert further north, prohibiting the length of the flight?

MIflyer12 wrote:

Fuling wrote:

NZ wouldn't start JFK anyway, they'd go for EWR if they were to go to NYC.

Why? EWR isn't an obvious place to hub to AKL. NZ could just as well take the O&D at JFK. Lufthansa, Turkish, Air China, ANA, Asiana, Austrian, Egyptair, Avianca... all operate from JFK, as do other *A carriers.

UA feed, plain and simple

Considering the distance of AKL-NYC, I would expect NYC would need to focus on origin traffic on the US side. What would be the point of launching such a long thin route to be carrying EWR transit traffic- something that can already be accomplished via IAH/ORD.

ZK-NBT wrote:

B1168 wrote:

behramjee wrote:

Demand in 2018 between NYC and AKL was 31,000 passengers round trip averaging US$1200 one way with YQ included. Hence it isnt that big a p2p market segment to warrant a ULH nonstop flight. Its best first to operate the new ORD route for 3 years to see how it financially performs before experimenting further eastwards.

31000 pax round trip...... that will at most make 2 weekly even considering connection from Europe and the rest of Eastern US. Good luck with that, you are not Hainan Airlines.

Right thanks for that, they will take some traffic from other US ports aswell and right size them as they offer more p2p, don’t forget Australia again not a huge market but NZ get up to 40% on some US routes that is Australian.

NZ fares from Australia to the US tend to be very cheap so not a huge ampoint of margin. My gut says it'll need a lot of Premium demand to really work. Does NYC-AKL have that ? I really don't know.

jfklganyc wrote:

Delta757MD88 wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Why? EWR isn't an obvious place to hub to AKL. NZ could just as well take the O&D at JFK. Lufthansa, Turkish, Air China, ANA, Asiana, Austrian, Egyptair, Avianca... all operate from JFK, as do other *A carriers.

Avianca, Lufthansa, Air China, Austrian, Swiss all fly to EWR as well. Turkish is returning this summer, also we here at EWR have the direct to SIN and most UA flights often are seen on monitors as New York/Newark. Additionally, the connectivity to Manhattan is far easier from EWR than JFK. If NZ were to go to NYC I believe we will be seeing them land west of the Hudson.

What connectivity?

Dont post opinion as fact.

Especially when the rail connections to JFK are cheaper, faster and more frequent. Fact.

And please dont forget when Singapore consolidated to one NYC airport, it was the 380
to JFK. Not their partner’s airport west of the Hudson.

EWR may have not been chosen at that point due to the fact that It can handle an A380....however when Singapore relaunched nonstop flights, guess what airport they chose...EWR not JFK.

Fuling wrote:

caliboy93 wrote:

So at this point, any major international airline which doesn't serve JFK has a huge hole in their route map. When can we see Air New Zealand starting nonstop service to JFK from Auckland?

Define 'major'? AC and UA are pretty major I'd say but has a huge hole without JFK? Why is this thread specific to JFK? Could we broaden it a bit more to include LGA and EWR?

NZ wouldn't start JFK anyway, they'd go for EWR if they were to go to NYC.

Also SAS serves EWR but not JFK

NTLDaz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

B1168 wrote:

31000 pax round trip...... that will at most make 2 weekly even considering connection from Europe and the rest of Eastern US. Good luck with that, you are not Hainan Airlines.

Right thanks for that, they will take some traffic from other US ports aswell and right size them as they offer more p2p, don’t forget Australia again not a huge market but NZ get up to 40% on some US routes that is Australian.

NZ fares from Australia to the US tend to be very cheap so not a huge ampoint of margin. My gut says it'll need a lot of Premium demand to really work. Does NYC-AKL have that ? I really don't know.

It probably shows how much of a mark up there is in ticket prices. They will likely use a more premium configured aircraft for this, if a 789 it will likely seat around 250 with additional premium seating, again likely not a huge market but NZ are good at what they do and I’m sure they will make it work when the route starts, or well before actually.

Also right sizing other markets like IAH and even LAX/SFO/ORD to push more traffic to the NYC service that is going that Far East.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Why?

The same reason SQ flies from EWR, not JFK on their nonstop to SIN.

sargester wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Fuling wrote:

NZ wouldn't start JFK anyway, they'd go for EWR if they were to go to NYC.

Why? EWR isn't an obvious place to hub to AKL. NZ could just as well take the O&D at JFK. Lufthansa, Turkish, Air China, ANA, Asiana, Austrian, Egyptair, Avianca... all operate from JFK, as do other *A carriers.

UA feed, plain and simple

If you have to rely on UA feed at EWR, why launching such an expensive route to operate nonstop from AKL? Also, the ”quality” of the feed is debatable. EWR is north and east in the US and AKL falls south and west of EWR, so little connections would not involve backtracking (and that to connect to a way too long flight)

I feel connections from the US to AKL are just better handled elsewhere to help a EWR-AKL nonstop flight. So the flight would have to stand on its own.

It could be an option to perhaps fend of Qantas when they launch SYD-JFK with the Project Sunrise aircraft.
Flying via AKL does sound attractive when the other options are via the USA or VYR.
When looking at NZ routes to USA you need to look at the potential feed that can come from Australia.

The point of NZ flying to NYC is… SYD/MEL/BNE/ADL/PER/CNS-AKL-NYC as well as all of New Zealand.

NZ has great Australian connections at AKL where transiting is very easy.

Motorhussy wrote:

The point of NZ flying to NYC is… SYD/MEL/BNE/ADL/PER/CNS-AKL-NYC as well as all of New Zealand.

NZ has great Australian connections at AKL where transiting is very easy.

There are a lot of other places to connect to get to Australia

No one wants to sit on a long flight like that to connect.

This flight needs sustain itself on O and D

jfklganyc wrote:

Motorhussy wrote:

The point of NZ flying to NYC is… SYD/MEL/BNE/ADL/PER/CNS-AKL-NYC as well as all of New Zealand.

NZ has great Australian connections at AKL where transiting is very easy.

There are a lot of other places to connect to get to Australia

No one wants to sit on a long flight like that to connect.

This flight needs sustain itself on O and D

Like where? Do You want to tell NZ that? No way they will launch it on O&D alone, even much busier routes they will look to serve partner hubs and maximise connections.

jfklganyc wrote:

Motorhussy wrote:

The point of NZ flying to NYC is… SYD/MEL/BNE/ADL/PER/CNS-AKL-NYC as well as all of New Zealand.

NZ has great Australian connections at AKL where transiting is very easy.

There are a lot of other places to connect to get to Australia

No one wants to sit on a long flight like that to connect.

This flight needs sustain itself on O and D

So then would NZ and QF need to launch non-stop services from all ports in Australia and New Zealand just so people don't have to connect?

maverick4002 wrote:

behramjee wrote:

SierraPacific wrote:

First off, The sheer amount of distance between these two points is truly immense and I am not even sure there is a commercial aircraft that could do it non stop with passengers.

The second problem is if the demand is really there (I do not believe there is). New Zealand is a tiny country that already has a huge amount of connection points into the US with a gigantic partner on the American side of the market (United). I would think they would just connect the small amount of NZ-NYC passengers on existing ANZ flights over to United flights to EWR.

Demand in 2018 between NYC and AKL was 31,000 passengers round trip averaging US$1200 one way with YQ included. Hence it isnt that big a p2p market segment to warrant a ULH nonstop flight. Its best first to operate the new ORD route for 3 years to see how it financially performs before experimenting further eastwards.

What does YQ mean?

Fuel surcharge

EK006 wrote:

jfklganyc wrote:

Delta757MD88 wrote:

Avianca, Lufthansa, Air China, Austrian, Swiss all fly to EWR as well. Turkish is returning this summer, also we here at EWR have the direct to SIN and most UA flights often are seen on monitors as New York/Newark. Additionally, the connectivity to Manhattan is far easier from EWR than JFK. If NZ were to go to NYC I believe we will be seeing them land west of the Hudson.

What connectivity?

Dont post opinion as fact.

Especially when the rail connections to JFK are cheaper, faster and more frequent. Fact.

And please dont forget when Singapore consolidated to one NYC airport, it was the 380
to JFK. Not their partner’s airport west of the Hudson.

EWR may have not been chosen at that point due to the fact that It can handle an A380....however when Singapore relaunched nonstop flights, guess what airport they chose...EWR not JFK.

Ah, NO. Wrong info. SQ flies A350 EWR-SIN as EWR still can't handle A380 and A380 ops via FRA and goes to JFK.

This topic has been discussed at length in the NZ aviation thread. The answer is simple. NZ don't have access to the right equipment at the moment (SQ A350 is low density config and high yield passengers). That more than wipes out the difference quoted above in air miles given the jetstream / headwinds, west-bound. Remember, NZ is not a high premium traffic market even though they do have a good premium product. Overall, pax capacity is on the high side compared to SQ.

NZ have plenty of UA feed now they are moving to daily IAH and aiming to up ORD and these routes will be firmly established before a foray into EWR/JFK for sure. GRU is also on the drawing board. What will tip the balance? Performance upgrades and ongoing enhancements to the 787 and A350 or a 777x order. We wait and see. May have a hint of what is to come in NZ's upcoming order for 772 replacement. Due in next month. Rumored to be leaning towards 787 but we wait and see what emerges.

NZ321 wrote:

EK006 wrote:

jfklganyc wrote:

What connectivity?

Dont post opinion as fact.

Especially when the rail connections to JFK are cheaper, faster and more frequent. Fact.

And please dont forget when Singapore consolidated to one NYC airport, it was the 380
to JFK. Not their partner’s airport west of the Hudson.

EWR may have not been chosen at that point due to the fact that It can handle an A380....however when Singapore relaunched nonstop flights, guess what airport they chose...EWR not JFK.

Ah, NO. Wrong info. SQ flies A350 EWR-SIN as EWR still can't handle A380 and A380 ops via FRA and goes to JFK.

Oops that was supposed to be can't handle the A380. My bad.

behramjee wrote:

SierraPacific wrote:

First off, The sheer amount of distance between these two points is truly immense and I am not even sure there is a commercial aircraft that could do it non stop with passengers.

The second problem is if the demand is really there (I do not believe there is). New Zealand is a tiny country that already has a huge amount of connection points into the US with a gigantic partner on the American side of the market (United). I would think they would just connect the small amount of NZ-NYC passengers on existing ANZ flights over to United flights to EWR.

Demand in 2018 between NYC and AKL was 31,000 passengers round trip averaging US$1200 one way with YQ included. Hence it isnt that big a p2p market segment to warrant a ULH nonstop flight. Its best first to operate the new ORD route for 3 years to see how it financially performs before experimenting further eastwards.

May I ask for the source of the information? Is it a private database?

jfklganyc wrote:

Motorhussy wrote:

The point of NZ flying to NYC is… SYD/MEL/BNE/ADL/PER/CNS-AKL-NYC as well as all of New Zealand.

NZ has great Australian connections at AKL where transiting is very easy.

There are a lot of other places to connect to get to Australia

No one wants to sit on a long flight like that to connect.

This flight needs sustain itself on O and D

You may want to advise SQ and EK, clearly this is what they’ve neglected to learn.

What is this UA feed you guys keep talking about? Where does EWR make sense to connect to AKL from besides small north east markets with barely any pax who’d go there anyway?

Kno wrote:

What is this UA feed you guys keep talking about? Where does EWR make sense to connect to AKL from besides small north east markets with barely any pax who’d go there anyway?

I agree EWR doesn't have the connection opportunities anything like ORD,IAH,LAX or SFO. However, given UA is their partner it makes perfect sense to go there over JFK.

"May I ask for the source of the information? Is it a private database?"
Either MIDT or PAXIS... Airline revenue management software. Stuff a lot of uber sensitive posters don't have access to and thus form incorrect assumptions on their city's route performance.

NZ321 wrote:

May have a hint of what is to come in NZ's upcoming order for 772 replacement. Due in next month. Rumored to be leaning towards 787 but we wait and see what emerges.

I'd like to know why you think the 787 is going to be the replacement. It seems more likely to me that the A350 makes more sense for NZ given the fact that the A350 can replace their 772s and 773s, whereas the 787-9 is a touch smaller than the 772s and has slightly less range capability than the A350s (holding premium seating percentages constant at least).

Also, depending on the LOPA, an A350-900 would probably have an easier time from AKL to EWR than a 787-9 would. Either NZ would need to stock a 787-9 with a QF-esque low-density layout (and do NZ have enough premium demand to do this?) or they'll have to use an A350-900 or A350-1000 (the latter of which almost certainly would be too big).

The trend towards route fragmentation and longer haul flights suggests to me that NZ's most likely fleet replacement would be the A350, with five or six of the -1000s to replace the eight 773ERs, and ten to twelve of the -900s to replace the nine 772ERs. That will keep their capacity roughly constant but allow them to serve more destinations and where necessary upgauge their frequencies. They could also market themselves as having superior onboard cabin comfort in Econ and Premium Econ relative to QF, which is important for NZ's offering of a better option to Australians flying TPAC.

Not enough of a true business case to not have United fly passengers to Chicago to connect with Air New Zealand at ORD. It works for Singapore Airlines because New York and Singapore are huge financial centers, and that's also why New York to Shanghai can support 3 (soon to be 4) daily flights and why New York to Hong Kong can support 5 daily nonstops. Even though SYD to JFK would be longer, again, one has the business center issue to support that flight (Sydney is the financial center of Australasia).

NTLDaz wrote:

Kno wrote:

What is this UA feed you guys keep talking about? Where does EWR make sense to connect to AKL from besides small north east markets with barely any pax who’d go there anyway?

I agree EWR doesn't have the connection opportunities anything like ORD,IAH,LAX or SFO. However, given UA is their partner it makes perfect sense to go there over JFK.

Sure EWR doesn’t have the same connections as most other places in the US given it is so Far East, there is also Europe connections, not that to many are likely to connect there for EWR, the reality is though being a UA hub NZ will very likely serve EWR over JFK.

StudiodeKadent wrote:

NZ321 wrote:

May have a hint of what is to come in NZ's upcoming order for 772 replacement. Due in next month. Rumored to be leaning towards 787 but we wait and see what emerges.

I'd like to know why you think the 787 is going to be the replacement. It seems more likely to me that the A350 makes more sense for NZ given the fact that the A350 can replace their 772s and 773s, whereas the 787-9 is a touch smaller than the 772s and has slightly less range capability than the A350s (holding premium seating percentages constant at least).

Also, depending on the LOPA, an A350-900 would probably have an easier time from AKL to EWR than a 787-9 would. Either NZ would need to stock a 787-9 with a QF-esque low-density layout (and do NZ have enough premium demand to do this?) or they'll have to use an A350-900 or A350-1000 (the latter of which almost certainly would be too big).

The trend towards route fragmentation and longer haul flights suggests to me that NZ's most likely fleet replacement would be the A350, with five or six of the -1000s to replace the eight 773ERs, and ten to twelve of the -900s to replace the nine 772ERs. That will keep their capacity roughly constant but allow them to serve more destinations and where necessary upgauge their frequencies. They could also market themselves as having superior onboard cabin comfort in Econ and Premium Econ relative to QF, which is important for NZ's offering of a better option to Australians flying TPAC.

This is widely covered in the NZ threads which I’m aware not everyone reads.

I’m backing the 787 aswell as a 772 replacement, NZ have a small fleet and the 787 is very capable, doesn’t carry as much as the A350, there isn’t that many routes that need larger aircraft for NZ but market fragmentation as you say means more P2P and smaller aircraft. A premium heavy 789 seems most likely reading between the lines given the 13 already in the fleet, probably some 78Js for Asia aswell.

B1168 wrote:

behramjee wrote:

SierraPacific wrote:

First off, The sheer amount of distance between these two points is truly immense and I am not even sure there is a commercial aircraft that could do it non stop with passengers.

The second problem is if the demand is really there (I do not believe there is). New Zealand is a tiny country that already has a huge amount of connection points into the US with a gigantic partner on the American side of the market (United). I would think they would just connect the small amount of NZ-NYC passengers on existing ANZ flights over to United flights to EWR.

Demand in 2018 between NYC and AKL was 31,000 passengers round trip averaging US$1200 one way with YQ included. Hence it isnt that big a p2p market segment to warrant a ULH nonstop flight. Its best first to operate the new ORD route for 3 years to see how it financially performs before experimenting further eastwards.

31000 pax round trip...... that will at most make 2 weekly even considering connection from Europe and the rest of Eastern US. Good luck with that, you are not Hainan Airlines.

31000 passenger a year is something like 86PDEW. I doubt most Hainan airlines flights have that much demand before they started flying those routes.

I still don't understand the need for JFK-AKL non-stop. It would be great for NYC residents, but probably no one else in the Northeast US. From anywhere more than about a 3 hour drive from EWR you would have to take a regional flight and connect at EWR. Most of the leisure market (which I presume is most of the demand) will be traveling in the Northern winter. Connecting at EWR is not a great experience any time, less reliable in the winter. Those connecting passengers could instead connect at IAH which is more likely to have good weather. I personally don't care if I take a 2-3 hour regional flight followed by 12 hour long haul or 1 hour regional followed by a 13 hour long haul. I suspect some in economy might prefer the first option. Guess my point is that if you are connecting, and most passengers are, it makes little difference where you connect except for LAX if you are doing UA to NZ on the westbound flight. Returning to the US eastbound is less of an issue because you would always be going through US customs and wind up outside the secure area.

On a completely different topic now that US-bound passengers go through extra security at AKL it would be nice to have US preclearance at AKL. Arrival and connection in the US would be so much easier! Even NZ to UA at LAX gets easier. Complicated if you don't know the tunnel secrets, but easier. I'd settle for a halfway measure, NZ joining TSA precheck.

StudiodeKadent wrote:

NZ321 wrote:

May have a hint of what is to come in NZ's upcoming order for 772 replacement. Due in next month. Rumored to be leaning towards 787 but we wait and see what emerges.

I'd like to know why you think the 787 is going to be the replacement. It seems more likely to me that the A350 makes more sense for NZ given the fact that the A350 can replace their 772s and 773s, whereas the 787-9 is a touch smaller than the 772s and has slightly less range capability than the A350s (holding premium seating percentages constant at least).

Also, depending on the LOPA, an A350-900 would probably have an easier time from AKL to EWR than a 787-9 would. Either NZ would need to stock a 787-9 with a QF-esque low-density layout (and do NZ have enough premium demand to do this?) or they'll have to use an A350-900 or A350-1000 (the latter of which almost certainly would be too big).

The trend towards route fragmentation and longer haul flights suggests to me that NZ's most likely fleet replacement would be the A350, with five or six of the -1000s to replace the eight 773ERs, and ten to twelve of the -900s to replace the nine 772ERs. That will keep their capacity roughly constant but allow them to serve more destinations and where necessary upgauge their frequencies. They could also market themselves as having superior onboard cabin comfort in Econ and Premium Econ relative to QF, which is important for NZ's offering of a better option to Australians flying TPAC.

I personally think the A350 makes more sense as a replacement for 77W and 772 for the reasons you outline above and more, and I'd prefer it if NZ orders the A350. However, the rumour among staff at the airline however, is that the pending order is likely to be for more 787s. I hope this rumour is wrong.