NZ6
Posts: 1019
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Sat Jun 15, 2019 10:12 pm

NZ321 wrote:
What about an Air NZ A321N-LR order folks? Could it be a goer for HNL, DPS and PER? 10-12 lie flat seats at the front and the rest in the standard config. Lots of customers lining up.... and Pacific revenues and the like. Is it a goer?


My usual question, why?

NZ can fill a 787 and has filled a 772 previously on PER... they've grown to more than daily in periods and we've seen a seasonal CHC-PER to cater for the demand so why downgauge?

In HNL, we've seen reliable growth on the market over the past 10-20 years, besides that, NZ won't want to give an inch to HA by decreasing capacity.

As for DPS, why invest in an 'LR' into the fleet for a seasonal leisure route when again, the airline is getting reasonable loads and yield while also utilising aircraft during the quieter NS months when it would normally sit around.

To want an A321 on these routes you're almost suggesting there's too much capacity with the current equipment or that the routes require more frequency. While I'd agree with that thought on PER, both DPS and HNL are leisure routes and daily is sufficient.

I'm interested to see what comes of the Boeing NMA (797), I don't think it's going to offer enough range for it to be of much use to NZ but, it's a more suitable size and similar to that of the 763 but with what looks to be much lower range.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6803
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Sat Jun 15, 2019 11:54 pm

The Boeing NMA May have a bit more range than a A321LR? And a bit bigger but NZ aren’t going to get that surely for the same reason they wouldn’t get the A321LR. And it’s another type.
 
mrkerr7474
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:55 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Sun Jun 16, 2019 12:05 am

NZ6 wrote:
mrkerr7474 wrote:
Although a Qantas FF, if SQ did operate a direct service WLG-SIN I would look to switch airlines as it offers a direct long haul service and avoids another stop in Aussie enroute to Europe. Whether that came at an extra premium, I'm not too sure.


Out of interest, why do you Opt for the 3-hour narrowbody flight to SYD or MEL then connect to long haul vs a 1-hour narrowbody to AKL and take SQ from there?

If your QF status is important NZ or SQ will likely match it with a few firm bookings.

The only reason I ask is your comment suggests, you'll fly SQ or Star Alliance if it was convenient, so wouldn't you prefer to spend longer on a 'widebody' for comfort.


That's a fair question and something I've honestly never thought so much about. I've had QF membership for 19 years now, almost ever since moving to NZ as a kid it was something my parents signed our family up to as they seemed to offer the best prices back in the day for where we would travel constantly back to, the UK. So it was always an easier option using QF out of WLG even by having to go via SYD or MEL as they had the strong partnership at the time with BA to get us to EDI and more recently EK to GLA or EDI while avoiding LHR (not that I have an issue with LHR, I quite enjoy it) and so it made sense to just continue to build that up over the years.

More recently being a Gold FF with QF, it seems easier to obtain and retain this with QF than it does with the likes of NZ or SQ. One of my friends is NZ member and we were having a conversation not long ago about how difficult he finds it getting a higher status on NZ compared to how I get it via QF so it somewhat put me off as would have to fly more than I do to get what I have with QF on NZ.

Spending longer on a WB is always more fun than having longer NB sectors but I often use points as a way of upgrading to business class between WLG to SYD/MEL whether i'm then in economy from there or another class just to make that NB flight more comfortable / enjoyable.

The only thing with SQ or Star Alliance as I haven't always found convenient routes to get me to my main end destination which is EDI. Connection times have never been that great as SQ would get you to Germany and then normally theres long waits in Germany before heading to EDI with Lufthansa

Thanks for the query though, had to make me think!
 
mrkerr7474
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:55 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Sun Jun 16, 2019 12:13 am

tealnz wrote:
mrkerr7474 wrote:
Some1Somewhere wrote:
They'd have major runway length issues even if it did have the range, right?


Although I don't know the exacts, I came across this article albeit from March 2016 which if you scroll down to page 38, it gives an example of WLG-SIN in a A359 with a takeoff weight 141600kg, 100kg each PAX with 5% fuel for alt city, they could do a takeoff on the current runway if it is dry conditions only. Any other coniditons it would be a no-go

http://www.gw.govt.nz/assets/Resource-C ... Length.pdf

Whether this is different since the A350 testing I would assume so but unsure of that data.

Take a look at the thread on this issue from two years ago: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1351457. Based on the Airbus performance database Zeke said the A359 could comfortably do Singapore non-stop. Sounded persuasive to me. Someone else – can’t remember who – suggested the Astral analysis was a bit suspect. As far as I know we haven’t had any authoritative reporting on the wet runway testing last year.


Ah I must have missed that thread, thank you for the link to it tealnz.
 
Gangurru
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:30 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Sun Jun 16, 2019 1:32 am

NZ6 wrote:
Out of interest, why do you Opt for the 3-hour narrowbody flight to SYD or MEL then connect to long haul vs a 1-hour narrowbody to AKL and take SQ from there?.


Airports are the most stressful part of flying. As a former WLG travel agent, my experience in that market was that, for SQ, CHC was the preferred transfer point over AKL. It is a same terminal transfer and immigration etc is less congested.

Travellers were comfortable booking minimum connects in CHC, but they’d often ask for longer connection times in AKL for peace of mind.
 
Gangurru
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:30 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Sun Jun 16, 2019 1:37 am

Sad news from Masterton with a fatal mid air collision.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/113521 ... -masterton
 
NZ6
Posts: 1019
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Sun Jun 16, 2019 2:51 am

mrkerr7474 wrote:
That's a fair question and something I've honestly never thought so much about. I've had QF membership for 19 years now, almost ever since moving to NZ as a kid it was something my parents signed our family up to as they seemed to offer the best prices back in the day for where we would travel constantly back to, the UK. So it was always an easier option using QF out of WLG even by having to go via SYD or MEL as they had the strong partnership at the time with BA to get us to EDI and more recently EK to GLA or EDI while avoiding LHR (not that I have an issue with LHR, I quite enjoy it) and so it made sense to just continue to build that up over the years.

More recently being a Gold FF with QF, it seems easier to obtain and retain this with QF than it does with the likes of NZ or SQ. One of my friends is NZ member and we were having a conversation not long ago about how difficult he finds it getting a higher status on NZ compared to how I get it via QF so it somewhat put me off as would have to fly more than I do to get what I have with QF on NZ.

Spending longer on a WB is always more fun than having longer NB sectors but I often use points as a way of upgrading to business class between WLG to SYD/MEL whether i'm then in economy from there or another class just to make that NB flight more comfortable / enjoyable.

The only thing with SQ or Star Alliance as I haven't always found convenient routes to get me to my main end destination which is EDI. Connection times have never been that great as SQ would get you to Germany and then normally theres long waits in Germany before heading to EDI with Lufthansa

Thanks for the query though, had to make me think!


Sounds like QF is working for you and if that's the case then I say continue with them, you not doing any additional stops.

If you did ever consider switching to NZ, do work out how many points you'll earn as it can be harder depending on how you travel. Some of the anti-NZ'ers will tell you how bad the Airpoints program is but the levels are largely driven by customer loyalty as the airline is aiming to keep a certain portion of frequent travellers at each level. Don't take it as being set by the customers, but as the airline has experienced more passengers travelling more and reaching Silver, Gold and Elite levels, how they're accrued, how much are accrued and the targets required have all been looked at.

I think once upon a time, I think you almost got Silver by travelling to LON return, you certainly got enough points to fly return to Aussie anyway.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3172
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Sun Jun 16, 2019 3:23 am

NZ6 wrote:
Out of interest, why do you Opt for the 3-hour narrowbody flight to SYD or MEL then connect to long haul vs a 1-hour narrowbody to AKL and take SQ from there?


Ironically being AKL based I've switched allot of my flying over to Qantas over the past 12months mostly due to better earning opportunities and value for flights.

I really don't mind going via Australia on the way to Asia, QF offers some pretty good 1-1.5hour connections so it really doesn't add to much to the travel time and it almost better today an 3hr, then 8hr flight in Y. Rather than an 12-13hr flight overnight on NZ 787 or 77E Y class, if you lucky an get an A332/333 is an very nice journey.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1019
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Sun Jun 16, 2019 4:23 am

zkncj wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Out of interest, why do you Opt for the 3-hour narrowbody flight to SYD or MEL then connect to long haul vs a 1-hour narrowbody to AKL and take SQ from there?


Ironically being AKL based I've switched allot of my flying over to Qantas over the past 12months mostly due to better earning opportunities and value for flights.

I really don't mind going via Australia on the way to Asia, QF offers some pretty good 1-1.5hour connections so it really doesn't add to much to the travel time and it almost better today an 3hr, then 8hr flight in Y. Rather than an 12-13hr flight overnight on NZ 787 or 77E Y class, if you lucky an get an A332/333 is an very nice journey.


If your reward program is with QF, it makes a lot of sense to go via Australia, travel times will be an extra 2-3 hours to do so as you say....... and is that important? Well for some I'd imagine it's nothing, for others, it's potentially ideal as there are no 12-hour+ type legs and for some, it's a hassle and time lost.

A quick scan online from my phone.

AKL-LHR
QF: 28h 10m (SYD/SIN)
NZ: 25h 0m (LAX)

WLG-LHR
QF: 30h 25m (WLG/SYD/SIN)
NZ: 28h 0m (AKL/LAX)

Selecting some other carriers first option between AKL-LHR (may not be quickest) and I'm missing a bunch of carriers.
CX: 26h 25m
MH: 28h 55m
TG: 29h 05m
KE:42h 10m (I tried two dates, the return was 24h 40m).

It's interesting you mentioned Aussie avoids the long overnight flights, I would personally target that flight and have done with teenagers before, Ultimately, all of this is individual and it's subjective based on you perceive as value...

Let's also not forget, a lot of people aren't plane spotters and will go with what the agent talks them into, :scratchchin: :idea: sorry recommends to them, something their incentivised and directed to sell first.
 
jimmyah
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:53 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Sun Jun 16, 2019 4:47 am

NZ6 wrote:
Let's also not forget, a lot of people aren't plane spotters and will go with what the agent talks them into, :scratchchin: :idea: sorry recommends to them, something their incentivised and directed to sell first.


I went to a travel agent to help plan a trip to Australia, and asked for Air NZ outbound, with the cheapest fare on the return flight. Straight away they "recommend" VA on both legs "because it's better".
 
NZ6
Posts: 1019
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Sun Jun 16, 2019 5:21 am

jimmyah wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Let's also not forget, a lot of people aren't plane spotters and will go with what the agent talks them into, :scratchchin: :idea: sorry recommends to them, something their incentivised and directed to sell first.


I went to a travel agent to help plan a trip to Australia, and asked for Air NZ outbound, with the cheapest fare on the return flight. Straight away they "recommend" VA on both legs "because it's better".


Yes, because VA is so much better than QF or NZ. :rotfl: Point proven really.

I hope their advice extended to ensuring you had your own personal device so you can enjoy the 'full service' available with VA.
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1158
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Sun Jun 16, 2019 5:35 am

As loyal traveller with a long time NZ Gold status I find it very hard to maintain/reach status with NZ these days. Somewhat unexpected I just got silver with DL this year, and just flew AKL-ICN-FRA on KE. The nice thing about DL is that give they bonus earnings when you have status, even with silver already. And they do roll-over miles after the year. So, with just the AKL-ICN-FRA-ICN-AKL (in Y) I am close to getting silver again. I have a domestic flight with KE booked, as well as a leg on AZ and 4 European ones on AF, which should easily get me back to silver. No SkyTeam US options though (except with massive detour). And miles never expire, no matter if you have any movement in your account, or have status, etc...

I also have a QF card, but would avoid QF for flights to the US. To me, it is not even so much the +3hrs and layover, but the longer flight SYD/MEL to LAX/DFW/SFO. AA is an option though, and I guess I will try them at some stage. To Europe/Asia, QF certainly is a good option. And there are a few other OneWorld options (CX, MH, FJ...) ex AKL.

So, as someone who has always "defended" NZ on here, and has been extremely loyal, I see myself slowly using other options. Lounge access is not even that much of a big deal for me anymore (I am surprising myself here), and priority luggage often does not work anyway, etc. What is invaluable to me though is avoiding long queues at check-in when you can use premium counters.

Lastly, I still like NZ a lot, but the inflight experience has deteriorated as well. KE had 3-3-3 on the B772 and very generous 33-34" seat pitch on both 772 and 748 - something I'll happily give up service or IFE for. IFE was very limited on KE, and service, well, apart from the crews being very friendly, the food was average, and drinks were almost non-existent - no drinks AT ALL with the second (hot) meal! The included stopover hotel on the outbound (NZ6: There is no same-day connection, hence the 40+ hours in your example above) worked very well: They checked my luggage through, so I only had my carry-on, shuttle bus was there, and the use the Grand Hyatt, which was very nice (they even include breakfast). Great experience overall.

Bottom line is that it all depends on preferences, and also class of service. If I can fly J I am happy with pretty much any option, but in Y I get increasingly picky. And most of my flights are in Y :(
 
NZ6
Posts: 1019
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Sun Jun 16, 2019 8:13 am

zkeoj wrote:
As loyal traveller with a long time NZ Gold status I find it very hard to maintain/reach status with NZ these days. Somewhat unexpected I just got silver with DL this year, and just flew AKL-ICN-FRA on KE. The nice thing about DL is that give they bonus earnings when you have status, even with silver already. And they do roll-over miles after the year. So, with just the AKL-ICN-FRA-ICN-AKL (in Y) I am close to getting silver again. I have a domestic flight with KE booked, as well as a leg on AZ and 4 European ones on AF, which should easily get me back to silver. No SkyTeam US options though (except with massive detour). And miles never expire, no matter if you have any movement in your account, or have status, etc...

I also have a QF card, but would avoid QF for flights to the US. To me, it is not even so much the +3hrs and layover, but the longer flight SYD/MEL to LAX/DFW/SFO. AA is an option though, and I guess I will try them at some stage. To Europe/Asia, QF certainly is a good option. And there are a few other OneWorld options (CX, MH, FJ...) ex AKL.

So, as someone who has always "defended" NZ on here, and has been extremely loyal, I see myself slowly using other options. Lounge access is not even that much of a big deal for me anymore (I am surprising myself here), and priority luggage often does not work anyway, etc. What is invaluable to me though is avoiding long queues at check-in when you can use premium counters.

Lastly, I still like NZ a lot, but the inflight experience has deteriorated as well. KE had 3-3-3 on the B772 and very generous 33-34" seat pitch on both 772 and 748 - something I'll happily give up service or IFE for. IFE was very limited on KE, and service, well, apart from the crews being very friendly, the food was average, and drinks were almost non-existent - no drinks AT ALL with the second (hot) meal! The included stopover hotel on the outbound (NZ6: There is no same-day connection, hence the 40+ hours in your example above) worked very well: They checked my luggage through, so I only had my carry-on, shuttle bus was there, and the use the Grand Hyatt, which was very nice (they even include breakfast). Great experience overall.

Bottom line is that it all depends on preferences, and also class of service. If I can fly J I am happy with pretty much any option, but in Y I get increasingly picky. And most of my flights are in Y :(


I'll respond with just a few comments.

1. Silver and onwards is hard to earn on NZ - can you liken this to house prices, aka supply and demand...too many people travelling too often that's it's pushing 'some' out of that VIP zone.
2. QF on the N.A market isn't really competitive as it's 3hours backwards + layover before you get on a slightly longer flight and start heading towards your destination. Why do it?. This is why I'm wanting to see QF do more.
3. I let Koru drop this year, I flew back in April and quickly reminded myself one of the benefits of Koru gave me. My bags took significantly longer than usual, maybe a one-off, who knows. Priority bags don't always work but I also think it's quickly taken for granted over getting the cold sweats wondering if your bag is actually coming as the number of people waiting thins.
4. The number of airlines offering 3-3-3 on a 777 is getting smaller, a nice novelty buy does joe blogs know or care?
5. I can now see, as you say you need to overnight in ICN when using KE. Is it really worth it? Maybe it is to you personally, but how would it appeal to most even with the hotel on offer? For me, if I wasn't on a tight schedule, it might be nice, but more than once.. I don't know. Get me to where I'm going after that.
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1158
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:02 am

NZ6 wrote:
zkeoj wrote:
As loyal traveller with a long time NZ Gold status I find it very hard to maintain/reach status with NZ these days. Somewhat unexpected I just got silver with DL this year, and just flew AKL-ICN-FRA on KE. The nice thing about DL is that give they bonus earnings when you have status, even with silver already. And they do roll-over miles after the year. So, with just the AKL-ICN-FRA-ICN-AKL (in Y) I am close to getting silver again. I have a domestic flight with KE booked, as well as a leg on AZ and 4 European ones on AF, which should easily get me back to silver. No SkyTeam US options though (except with massive detour). And miles never expire, no matter if you have any movement in your account, or have status, etc...

I also have a QF card, but would avoid QF for flights to the US. To me, it is not even so much the +3hrs and layover, but the longer flight SYD/MEL to LAX/DFW/SFO. AA is an option though, and I guess I will try them at some stage. To Europe/Asia, QF certainly is a good option. And there are a few other OneWorld options (CX, MH, FJ...) ex AKL.

So, as someone who has always "defended" NZ on here, and has been extremely loyal, I see myself slowly using other options. Lounge access is not even that much of a big deal for me anymore (I am surprising myself here), and priority luggage often does not work anyway, etc. What is invaluable to me though is avoiding long queues at check-in when you can use premium counters.

Lastly, I still like NZ a lot, but the inflight experience has deteriorated as well. KE had 3-3-3 on the B772 and very generous 33-34" seat pitch on both 772 and 748 - something I'll happily give up service or IFE for. IFE was very limited on KE, and service, well, apart from the crews being very friendly, the food was average, and drinks were almost non-existent - no drinks AT ALL with the second (hot) meal! The included stopover hotel on the outbound (NZ6: There is no same-day connection, hence the 40+ hours in your example above) worked very well: They checked my luggage through, so I only had my carry-on, shuttle bus was there, and the use the Grand Hyatt, which was very nice (they even include breakfast). Great experience overall.

Bottom line is that it all depends on preferences, and also class of service. If I can fly J I am happy with pretty much any option, but in Y I get increasingly picky. And most of my flights are in Y :(


I'll respond with just a few comments.

1. Silver and onwards is hard to earn on NZ - can you liken this to house prices, aka supply and demand...too many people travelling too often that's it's pushing 'some' out of that VIP zone.
2. QF on the N.A market isn't really competitive as it's 3hours backwards + layover before you get on a slightly longer flight and start heading towards your destination. Why do it?. This is why I'm wanting to see QF do more.
3. I let Koru drop this year, I flew back in April and quickly reminded myself one of the benefits of Koru gave me. My bags took significantly longer than usual, maybe a one-off, who knows. Priority bags don't always work but I also think it's quickly taken for granted over getting the cold sweats wondering if your bag is actually coming as the number of people waiting thins.
4. The number of airlines offering 3-3-3 on a 777 is getting smaller, a nice novelty buy does joe blogs know or care?
5. I can now see, as you say you need to overnight in ICN when using KE. Is it really worth it? Maybe it is to you personally, but how would it appeal to most even with the hotel on offer? For me, if I wasn't on a tight schedule, it might be nice, but more than once.. I don't know. Get me to where I'm going after that.


1. You really think demand for NZ status is higher than for virtually any other airline, even in the same alliance? It is just the Airpoints Dollars system, compared to miles based programmes, not supply and demand.
2. Agreed. That's why I said to Asia/Europe they are an option, to the US not for me. In J I wouldn't mind even the 3 extra hours plus back tracking, but not in Y
3. I don't sweat over it, but my luggage rarely is on the belt before "general" luggage - especially in AKL. No problem for me, but don't advertise it as a status benefit when you rarely make it work...(nothing specifcially NZ - same goes for other airlines).
4. The number is getting (much) smaller, but there are still airlines that offer it. And as long as they do, I sure prefer those (or, even better, airlines that offer A340/330 or B767)... I am not speaking about Joe Blogs, I am speaking about myself. And I DO care and i DO notice...
5. If you are really time strapped it is not an option, but most of my trips to Europe I try to have a night or two at the intermediate point anyway, because I am flying coach, and if an airline arranges it well and pays for it, all the better. A matter of personal preferences, but in Y two roughly 12 hour legs are hell, and having a break and sleep in between works well. I also flew CI last year, and the 17 hours in TPE each way were not as good, because of the timings. KE arrives evening and departs morning, so easy layover. CI arrives 5am and leaves late evening, so you would need 2 nights booked, which is inconvenient and expensive.
 
jimmyah
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:53 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:15 am

NZ6 wrote:
jimmyah wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Let's also not forget, a lot of people aren't plane spotters and will go with what the agent talks them into, :scratchchin: :idea: sorry recommends to them, something their incentivised and directed to sell first.


I went to a travel agent to help plan a trip to Australia, and asked for Air NZ outbound, with the cheapest fare on the return flight. Straight away they "recommend" VA on both legs "because it's better".


Yes, because VA is so much better than QF or NZ. :rotfl: Point proven really.

I hope their advice extended to ensuring you had your own personal device so you can enjoy the 'full service' available with VA.


Not quite, but they did suggest that I don't both with travel insurance if departing from AKL, as apparently weather delays are rare there. Obviously not reading the news!
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8282
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:21 am

My luggage is almost always within the first round of bags to come out on the carousel, this applies across the airlines. (I had 5 different tags this trip and it applied to all) In fact, I arrived from ORD this morning on NZ27 and by the time I arrived there I was just in time to see it going out the 'exit door" of the carousel to go around again. Requalification on any airline is pretty difficult these days, but I know that Flying Blue AF/KL platinum/gold although requalification is high, it allows you to exceed the qualification one year. and anything you are over can be used to qualify for the next year requalification
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1019
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Sun Jun 16, 2019 10:04 pm

zkeoj wrote:
1. You really think demand for NZ status is higher than for virtually any other airline, even in the same alliance? It is just the Airpoints Dollars system, compared to miles based programmes, not supply and demand.


I have a feeling my comments here will be misconstrued, I'm not suggesting the levels are dynamic and set by the public but trends occur over a period of time. The New Zealand market and Air NZ can't be directly compared to 'any other airline' even 'in the same alliance'.

Yes, it's now harder to earn Elite status than it was 20 years ago, the required levels have increased over time and the earn rates may be lower. Yet, the number of active and 'engaged' members has increased and dramatically increased in the last 10 years. All while the size of each tier level has grown yet been managed so it doesn't balloon out of control.

I'll make up numbers here, Elite Status is reserved for your top 2% of travellers and it's a fine balance to base this on either spend or frequency.

In the 90's it was expensive to fly. A last minute booking to SYD and back would set you back close to $2K and that wasn't a shock. A trip to the UK was normally combined with any number of other requirements so the travel was 'justified' and domestic business travel wasn't as accessible by middle management or SME's as it is today.

Today, I've seen people fly to the UK for 2 days, a day trip to SYD/MEL is normal and I've seen some Elites fly 3-4 days out of 5. There are some who fly domestically daily on some weeks.

There are some Elites who earn their Elite status multiple times in a year. I know of one member who openly retained Elite, then moved his travel to QF and earned One World status and to be honest I can't blame him and I'd do the same.

This change in travel pattern has driven up what's required to be seen as that "top 2%".... the impacts are mostly felt but the everyday Kiwi traveller. My in-laws, for example, they're retired and will travel 3-4 times a year. They've got no hope in seeing Silver yet see themselves as Air NZ loyal and they are.

Fixing that isn't easy. You can't just have a business and leisure rates, firstly you can't police any miss use of it, secondly, how does that work when you mix and match leisure and business travel?

Do you have more tiers? That's a possible solution, but what benefits do you offer? lounges would be the first request no doubt, but make sure you don't cut the lunch of Koru Memberships or add to the already congested lounges. You're left with Bags, Seats and Product Upgrades. Is that of value and will it generate loyalty or revenue?

Could the airline reengineer 'Airpoints Part Pay' so it's seen more rewarding when you use APD from your previous flights to get a discount on this one? Or can you market the retail accruals and NZ flights to attack people into flying NZ by way of 'Savings' for future travel aka how the Bank encourages you to save? I guess this is tapping into what the airline has tried or is trying to do.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1019
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Sun Jun 16, 2019 10:10 pm

zkeoj wrote:
4. The number is getting (much) smaller, but there are still airlines that offer it. And as long as they do, I sure prefer those (or, even better, airlines that offer A340/330 or B767)... I am not speaking about Joe Blogs, I am speaking about myself. And I DO care and i DO notice...


Keeping this reply separate given my last one was so long, I'm not taking anything away from what you see as important to you. I just want to clarify...

The 3-3-3 layout on a 777 over a 3-4-3 is so important to you, you'd give up better IFE on CX, NZ, SQ or QF (different aircraft obviously) and make an overnight stop in ICN adding 12-13 hours to your travel time just for a few extra cm?

The room from that extra seat comes from 9 other seat widths but mostly the aisle width being narrowed so individually each person only looses a very small amount of space. Don't get me wrong either, I would rather a 3-3-3 but given that's harder and harder to get, I'd opt for convenience in schedule and entertainment over it.
 
mrkerr7474
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:55 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 1:14 am

NZ6 wrote:
mrkerr7474 wrote:
That's a fair question and something I've honestly never thought so much about. I've had QF membership for 19 years now, almost ever since moving to NZ as a kid it was something my parents signed our family up to as they seemed to offer the best prices back in the day for where we would travel constantly back to, the UK. So it was always an easier option using QF out of WLG even by having to go via SYD or MEL as they had the strong partnership at the time with BA to get us to EDI and more recently EK to GLA or EDI while avoiding LHR (not that I have an issue with LHR, I quite enjoy it) and so it made sense to just continue to build that up over the years.

More recently being a Gold FF with QF, it seems easier to obtain and retain this with QF than it does with the likes of NZ or SQ. One of my friends is NZ member and we were having a conversation not long ago about how difficult he finds it getting a higher status on NZ compared to how I get it via QF so it somewhat put me off as would have to fly more than I do to get what I have with QF on NZ.

Spending longer on a WB is always more fun than having longer NB sectors but I often use points as a way of upgrading to business class between WLG to SYD/MEL whether i'm then in economy from there or another class just to make that NB flight more comfortable / enjoyable.

The only thing with SQ or Star Alliance as I haven't always found convenient routes to get me to my main end destination which is EDI. Connection times have never been that great as SQ would get you to Germany and then normally theres long waits in Germany before heading to EDI with Lufthansa

Thanks for the query though, had to make me think!


Sounds like QF is working for you and if that's the case then I say continue with them, you not doing any additional stops.

If you did ever consider switching to NZ, do work out how many points you'll earn as it can be harder depending on how you travel. Some of the anti-NZ'ers will tell you how bad the Airpoints program is but the levels are largely driven by customer loyalty as the airline is aiming to keep a certain portion of frequent travellers at each level. Don't take it as being set by the customers, but as the airline has experienced more passengers travelling more and reaching Silver, Gold and Elite levels, how they're accrued, how much are accrued and the targets required have all been looked at.

I think once upon a time, I think you almost got Silver by travelling to LON return, you certainly got enough points to fly return to Aussie anyway.


I do find QF works well so will most likely continue to just use them for the forseeable future anyways, things can change. They work well heading to the UK and avoiding flying to the UK via the US is always a bonus to be honest.

Yeah I totally understand what you mean about NZ airpoints and levels being driven by customer loyalty which makes sense, that's what airlines are generally after anyways (one would hope).

I do head to the States once a year for a convention and doesn't matter which airline I chose, theres always difficulties and expensive tickets getting to the final destination so normally have to fly to LAX or SFO and then purchase separate tickets to get to SLC which makes things a pain but saves a lot of money normally.

As for layover times if you book it right via Australia whether heading to Asia or US for example, you can get it even out of WLG for 1-2 hour layover which is pretty good, just going onwards to Europe is a bit of a pain unless you connect with EK and I normally find them a bit hyped up and nothing special in a personal opinion. I think to minimise extra flights or straight long hauls I'd need to move to CHC or AKL area to make that work better, granted that's not an option mind you so WLG and whichever way I go it is for now
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1350
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 5:11 am

The dust has settled on the NZ 787-10 order, but there remain some big unanswered questions. New York, for example. The airline has said that it sees New York being serviced by the 787-9 with GE engines – but at this stage such aircraft are not on order. Meanwhile, “credible media reports” suggest a 6T lift in the 789’s and 787-10’s MTOW, which presumably is important for NZ, given they will be operating the 789 to the very limits of its range and the 787-10 is claimed now to be operable over all the carrier’s 77E routes, which would certainly not be the case without the MTOW bump.

Presumably the formal announcement of the 6T MTOW increase will be at the Paris Air Show this week. But without an order from NZ, it still doesn’t provide the carrier with an aircraft that is NY-capable. Could we see a couple of options being exercised for GE 789s in Code 3 config and the MTOW bump this week at the Show? Could NZ’s last current 789 order be re-spec’d with the MTOW bump, GE engines and Code 3 config?

If not, then NZ’s aspirations for NY would appear to be further in the future than many of us have assumed. Without the right aircraft in the fleet, NY isn’t getting onto the route map. Assuming that there’s a two-year approx lead time for a new order, a failure to order now might push back New York to 2022 or later. Which presumably means three years of little or no growth on the Americas, which is hard to imagine.

Then there’s the curious report in Flight Global that suggested that the NZ options were good for the 787-8, as well as the -9 and -10. Presumably including the -8 in the mix wasn’t an accident, but what possible use could the -8 have in the NZ fleet? Assuming the 6T MTOW bump is due to strengthening the wing-fuselage joint (I’ve seen that mentioned as the critical factor in the 787 MTOW) then it just seems possible that an -8 with the same mod could carry the same 250-odd pax as a Code 3 789 to NY but at lower trip cost (lower weight overall). Other than as an ULH “beast”, I can see no other role for an -8 in NZ service.

Or was the Flight Global report re the 787-8 a journalistic error?

Lots of speculation here, but there are still quite a few pieces missing in the NZ re-equipment and future route picture. Will Paris week give some clarity?
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1158
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 5:25 am

NZ6 wrote:
zkeoj wrote:
1. You really think demand for NZ status is higher than for virtually any other airline, even in the same alliance? It is just the Airpoints Dollars system, compared to miles based programmes, not supply and demand.


I have a feeling my comments here will be misconstrued, I'm not suggesting the levels are dynamic and set by the public but trends occur over a period of time. The New Zealand market and Air NZ can't be directly compared to 'any other airline' even 'in the same alliance'.

Yes, it's now harder to earn Elite status than it was 20 years ago, the required levels have increased over time and the earn rates may be lower. Yet, the number of active and 'engaged' members has increased and dramatically increased in the last 10 years. All while the size of each tier level has grown yet been managed so it doesn't balloon out of control.

I'll make up numbers here, Elite Status is reserved for your top 2% of travellers and it's a fine balance to base this on either spend or frequency.

In the 90's it was expensive to fly. A last minute booking to SYD and back would set you back close to $2K and that wasn't a shock. A trip to the UK was normally combined with any number of other requirements so the travel was 'justified' and domestic business travel wasn't as accessible by middle management or SME's as it is today.

Today, I've seen people fly to the UK for 2 days, a day trip to SYD/MEL is normal and I've seen some Elites fly 3-4 days out of 5. There are some who fly domestically daily on some weeks.

There are some Elites who earn their Elite status multiple times in a year. I know of one member who openly retained Elite, then moved his travel to QF and earned One World status and to be honest I can't blame him and I'd do the same.

This change in travel pattern has driven up what's required to be seen as that "top 2%".... the impacts are mostly felt but the everyday Kiwi traveller. My in-laws, for example, they're retired and will travel 3-4 times a year. They've got no hope in seeing Silver yet see themselves as Air NZ loyal and they are.

Fixing that isn't easy. You can't just have a business and leisure rates, firstly you can't police any miss use of it, secondly, how does that work when you mix and match leisure and business travel?

Do you have more tiers? That's a possible solution, but what benefits do you offer? lounges would be the first request no doubt, but make sure you don't cut the lunch of Koru Memberships or add to the already congested lounges. You're left with Bags, Seats and Product Upgrades. Is that of value and will it generate loyalty or revenue?

Could the airline reengineer 'Airpoints Part Pay' so it's seen more rewarding when you use APD from your previous flights to get a discount on this one? Or can you market the retail accruals and NZ flights to attack people into flying NZ by way of 'Savings' for future travel aka how the Bank encourages you to save? I guess this is tapping into what the airline has tried or is trying to do.


Totally agree, but you still didn't answer/get the question: What you describe is applicable to (almost) all airlines/alliances, yet NZ has the "hardest to earn" scheme. I am not even talking about Elite - that's way out of my realm - just plain old Gold...
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1350
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 5:27 am

Another small point which seems to have escaped comment so far: NZ has for the first time (in my recollection, at least) mentioned Toronto in the same breath as New York and Sao Paulo as potential new destinations. I doubt very much that will happen until New York is well-established, but maybe something for the mid-2020s with an aircraft configured the same as the New York aircraft?
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1158
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 5:29 am

NZ6 wrote:
zkeoj wrote:
4. The number is getting (much) smaller, but there are still airlines that offer it. And as long as they do, I sure prefer those (or, even better, airlines that offer A340/330 or B767)... I am not speaking about Joe Blogs, I am speaking about myself. And I DO care and i DO notice...


Keeping this reply separate given my last one was so long, I'm not taking anything away from what you see as important to you. I just want to clarify...

The 3-3-3 layout on a 777 over a 3-4-3 is so important to you, you'd give up better IFE on CX, NZ, SQ or QF (different aircraft obviously) and make an overnight stop in ICN adding 12-13 hours to your travel time just for a few extra cm?

The room from that extra seat comes from 9 other seat widths but mostly the aisle width being narrowed so individually each person only looses a very small amount of space. Don't get me wrong either, I would rather a 3-3-3 but given that's harder and harder to get, I'd opt for convenience in schedule and entertainment over it.


Why so aggressive? I mentioned two points, and the width is one of them. KE has more pitch, and that does make a huge difference. I also clearly said that in most cases I will stop for a night or two anyway, so the extra 12-13 hours are not "extra" for me, just - in this case - paid for. As far as I know, SQ still does have 3-3-3 as well, or have they changed that recently? So there you have an alternative "one-quick-stop" option to Europe.

Again, I am not opposed to NZ, and like flying them, but I noticed that it gets worse, and other have better options. Easy as that.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6803
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 6:12 am

DavidByrne wrote:
The dust has settled on the NZ 787-10 order, but there remain some big unanswered questions. New York, for example. The airline has said that it sees New York being serviced by the 787-9 with GE engines – but at this stage such aircraft are not on order. Meanwhile, “credible media reports” suggest a 6T lift in the 789’s and 787-10’s MTOW, which presumably is important for NZ, given they will be operating the 789 to the very limits of its range and the 787-10 is claimed now to be operable over all the carrier’s 77E routes, which would certainly not be the case without the MTOW bump.

Presumably the formal announcement of the 6T MTOW increase will be at the Paris Air Show this week. But without an order from NZ, it still doesn’t provide the carrier with an aircraft that is NY-capable. Could we see a couple of options being exercised for GE 789s in Code 3 config and the MTOW bump this week at the Show? Could NZ’s last current 789 order be re-spec’d with the MTOW bump, GE engines and Code 3 config?

If not, then NZ’s aspirations for NY would appear to be further in the future than many of us have assumed. Without the right aircraft in the fleet, NY isn’t getting onto the route map. Assuming that there’s a two-year approx lead time for a new order, a failure to order now might push back New York to 2022 or later. Which presumably means three years of little or no growth on the Americas, which is hard to imagine.

Then there’s the curious report in Flight Global that suggested that the NZ options were good for the 787-8, as well as the -9 and -10. Presumably including the -8 in the mix wasn’t an accident, but what possible use could the -8 have in the NZ fleet? Assuming the 6T MTOW bump is due to strengthening the wing-fuselage joint (I’ve seen that mentioned as the critical factor in the 787 MTOW) then it just seems possible that an -8 with the same mod could carry the same 250-odd pax as a Code 3 789 to NY but at lower trip cost (lower weight overall). Other than as an ULH “beast”, I can see no other role for an -8 in NZ service.

Or was the Flight Global report re the 787-8 a journalistic error?

Lots of speculation here, but there are still quite a few pieces missing in the NZ re-equipment and future route picture. Will Paris week give some clarity?


https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/press-r ... reamliners

Here is the press release again, it says the 78J can fly similar not all 772 missions. IAH and EZE seem to far for me, EZE given the lack of diversion points.

They won’t have 1 odd 789 with a different configuration, however I’m not sure how soon NYC was planned anyway, I always thought it was 2022 or so anyway?

The NZ press release mentions 789/78J, nothing about the 788.

I’d imagine we will see something about the MTOW increase announced at Paris.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6803
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 6:14 am

DavidByrne wrote:
Another small point which seems to have escaped comment so far: NZ has for the first time (in my recollection, at least) mentioned Toronto in the same breath as New York and Sao Paulo as potential new destinations. I doubt very much that will happen until New York is well-established, but maybe something for the mid-2020s with an aircraft configured the same as the New York aircraft?


Well YVR is the perfect A350 route according to some so given that was never happening I’d say adding YYZ at some point once YVR is daily year round makes sense. 2022/23 at least I reakon. Would need a code 3.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1350
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 6:32 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
Here is the press release again, it says the 78J can fly similar not all 772 missions. IAH and EZE seem to far for me, EZE given the lack of diversion points..

Agree - there's no prospect of the 78J flying Americas routes further than SFO/LAX in my view.

ZK-NBT wrote:
They won’t have 1 odd 789 with a different configuration, however I’m not sure how soon NYC was planned anyway, I always thought it was 2022 or so anyway?.

Appreciate that they'll need at least two Code 3 789s, but given there's one 789 currently on order, could that be the first in the new config? Or is it too late/too difficult? We prob won't know until after the Paris show and we know what the 6T MTOW bump means in practice. As for New York's start date - I thought NZ had been very tight-lipped on that, possibly for competitive reasons. So we don't know what their plans are.

ZK-NBT wrote:
The NZ press release mentions 789/78J, nothing about the 788..

Yes, appreciate that NZ itself has said nothing about the 788. But it was definitely stated in the Flight Global report, and I've since then seen it mentioned elsewhere as well. But NZ's failure to mention it makes me think it probably was a bit of journalistic excess (though Flight Global is a thoroughly reliable journal, which is why I'm a bit unsure). Or is NZ playing coy on that until possible Paris announcements by Boeing? Who knows - I don't.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6803
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 7:19 am

DavidByrne wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
Here is the press release again, it says the 78J can fly similar not all 772 missions. IAH and EZE seem to far for me, EZE given the lack of diversion points..

Agree - there's no prospect of the 78J flying Americas routes further than SFO/LAX in my view.

ZK-NBT wrote:
They won’t have 1 odd 789 with a different configuration, however I’m not sure how soon NYC was planned anyway, I always thought it was 2022 or so anyway?.

Appreciate that they'll need at least two Code 3 789s, but given there's one 789 currently on order, could that be the first in the new config? Or is it too late/too difficult? We prob won't know until after the Paris show and we know what the 6T MTOW bump means in practice. As for New York's start date - I thought NZ had been very tight-lipped on that, possibly for competitive reasons. So we don't know what their plans are.

ZK-NBT wrote:
The NZ press release mentions 789/78J, nothing about the 788..

Yes, appreciate that NZ itself has said nothing about the 788. But it was definitely stated in the Flight Global report, and I've since then seen it mentioned elsewhere as well. But NZ's failure to mention it makes me think it probably was a bit of journalistic excess (though Flight Global is a thoroughly reliable journal, which is why I'm a bit unsure). Or is NZ playing coy on that until possible Paris announcements by Boeing? Who knows - I don't.


LAX/SFO imo are the only US ports that need a larger frame anyway, the 77Ws spend 90% of their long haul flying there.

I’m quite sure they said somewhere NYC is likely in the 2022/23 timeframe, the new product rolls out in 2022. I’m guessing the 77Ws will be refitted since they should be around till the late 2020s by the looks of it.

As we said before the 788 would have to be some ULH beast for NZ to be interested imo, they haven’t ordered it however which leads me to think there is nothing in the pipeline re NZ buying it or the 788 becoming an ULH beast.
 
Megatop747-412
Posts: 301
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2000 1:59 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 7:53 am

[quote="zkeoj" SQ still does have 3-3-3 as well, or have they changed that recently? [/quote]

Just a quick reply to @zkeoj re SQ's 777 (77W), yes they are all still 3-3-3, having just "recently" completed the entire retrofit of their 77W fleet to 4 classes, but 3-3-3 is kept in Y. Their 773's may be around for a little longer (mainly due to the F class on them that the market calls for for routes to CGK), their 772/77E are on the way out and there is talk they will be out of SQ's fleet by end March 2020...
Last edited by Megatop747-412 on Mon Jun 17, 2019 7:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
Megatop747-412
Posts: 301
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2000 1:59 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 7:54 am

zkeoj wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
zkeoj wrote:
4. The number is getting (much) smaller, but there are still airlines that offer it. And as long as they do, I sure prefer those (or, even better, airlines that offer A340/330 or B767)... I am not speaking about Joe Blogs, I am speaking about myself. And I DO care and i DO notice...


Keeping this reply separate given my last one was so long, I'm not taking anything away from what you see as important to you. I just want to clarify...

The 3-3-3 layout on a 777 over a 3-4-3 is so important to you, you'd give up better IFE on CX, NZ, SQ or QF (different aircraft obviously) and make an overnight stop in ICN adding 12-13 hours to your travel time just for a few extra cm?

The room from that extra seat comes from 9 other seat widths but mostly the aisle width being narrowed so individually each person only looses a very small amount of space. Don't get me wrong either, I would rather a 3-3-3 but given that's harder and harder to get, I'd opt for convenience in schedule and entertainment over it.


Why so aggressive? I mentioned two points, and the width is one of them. KE has more pitch, and that does make a huge difference. I also clearly said that in most cases I will stop for a night or two anyway, so the extra 12-13 hours are not "extra" for me, just - in this case - paid for. As far as I know, SQ still does have 3-3-3 as well, or have they changed that recently? So there you have an alternative "one-quick-stop" option to Europe.

Again, I am not opposed to NZ, and like flying them, but I noticed that it gets worse, and other have better options. Easy as that.


Just a quick reply to @zkeoj re SQ's 777 (77W), yes they are all still 3-3-3, having just "recently" completed the entire retrofit of their 77W fleet to 4 classes, but 3-3-3 is kept in Y. Their 773's may be around for a little longer (mainly due to the F class on them that the market calls for for routes to CGK), their 772/77E are on the way out and there is talk they will be out of SQ's fleet by end March 2020...

p/s - Apologies for the duplicate post above - dunno what happenned... :P
 
User avatar
LamboAston
Posts: 610
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:46 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:00 am

Air Chathams said somewhere that they had 3-4 more ATR on order
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
 
User avatar
LamboAston
Posts: 610
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:46 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:18 am

Also, booked on OKT LAX-AKL in August
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
 
NTLDaz
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 7:56 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:33 am

zkeoj wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
zkeoj wrote:
4. The number is getting (much) smaller, but there are still airlines that offer it. And as long as they do, I sure prefer those (or, even better, airlines that offer A340/330 or B767)... I am not speaking about Joe Blogs, I am speaking about myself. And I DO care and i DO notice...


Keeping this reply separate given my last one was so long, I'm not taking anything away from what you see as important to you. I just want to clarify...

The 3-3-3 layout on a 777 over a 3-4-3 is so important to you, you'd give up better IFE on CX, NZ, SQ or QF (different aircraft obviously) and make an overnight stop in ICN adding 12-13 hours to your travel time just for a few extra cm?

The room from that extra seat comes from 9 other seat widths but mostly the aisle width being narrowed so individually each person only looses a very small amount of space. Don't get me wrong either, I would rather a 3-3-3 but given that's harder and harder to get, I'd opt for convenience in schedule and entertainment over it.


Why so aggressive? I mentioned two points, and the width is one of them. KE has more pitch, and that does make a huge difference. I also clearly said that in most cases I will stop for a night or two anyway, so the extra 12-13 hours are not "extra" for me, just - in this case - paid for. As far as I know, SQ still does have 3-3-3 as well, or have they changed that recently? So there you have an alternative "one-quick-stop" option to Europe.

Again, I am not opposed to NZ, and like flying them, but I noticed that it gets worse, and other have better options. Easy as that.


CX as well. Plus going to Europe ( if you take the right flight ) there are quite a few A380 options- EK, EY, QR, QF etc.

Personally I rate pitch the most important thing. I can live with a 10 abreast 777 or 9 abreast 787 if there is good pitch. Poor pitch combined with poor width kind of sucks.

Did CA SYD to FCO all the way in A330. Loved it. Service was OK but love the layout of a 330 - especially when travelling as a couple.
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1158
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:47 pm

Megatop747-412 wrote:
zkeoj wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

Keeping this reply separate given my last one was so long, I'm not taking anything away from what you see as important to you. I just want to clarify...

The 3-3-3 layout on a 777 over a 3-4-3 is so important to you, you'd give up better IFE on CX, NZ, SQ or QF (different aircraft obviously) and make an overnight stop in ICN adding 12-13 hours to your travel time just for a few extra cm?

The room from that extra seat comes from 9 other seat widths but mostly the aisle width being narrowed so individually each person only looses a very small amount of space. Don't get me wrong either, I would rather a 3-3-3 but given that's harder and harder to get, I'd opt for convenience in schedule and entertainment over it.


Why so aggressive? I mentioned two points, and the width is one of them. KE has more pitch, and that does make a huge difference. I also clearly said that in most cases I will stop for a night or two anyway, so the extra 12-13 hours are not "extra" for me, just - in this case - paid for. As far as I know, SQ still does have 3-3-3 as well, or have they changed that recently? So there you have an alternative "one-quick-stop" option to Europe.

Again, I am not opposed to NZ, and like flying them, but I noticed that it gets worse, and other have better options. Easy as that.


Just a quick reply to @zkeoj re SQ's 777 (77W), yes they are all still 3-3-3, having just "recently" completed the entire retrofit of their 77W fleet to 4 classes, but 3-3-3 is kept in Y. Their 773's may be around for a little longer (mainly due to the F class on them that the market calls for for routes to CGK), their 772/77E are on the way out and there is talk they will be out of SQ's fleet by end March 2020...

p/s - Apologies for the duplicate post above - dunno what happenned... :P


Haha, no worries - makes me feel special ;-)

And thanks for the confirmation. I wasn't sure if SeatGuru was up to date...
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1158
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:48 pm

NTLDaz wrote:
zkeoj wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

Keeping this reply separate given my last one was so long, I'm not taking anything away from what you see as important to you. I just want to clarify...

The 3-3-3 layout on a 777 over a 3-4-3 is so important to you, you'd give up better IFE on CX, NZ, SQ or QF (different aircraft obviously) and make an overnight stop in ICN adding 12-13 hours to your travel time just for a few extra cm?

The room from that extra seat comes from 9 other seat widths but mostly the aisle width being narrowed so individually each person only looses a very small amount of space. Don't get me wrong either, I would rather a 3-3-3 but given that's harder and harder to get, I'd opt for convenience in schedule and entertainment over it.


Why so aggressive? I mentioned two points, and the width is one of them. KE has more pitch, and that does make a huge difference. I also clearly said that in most cases I will stop for a night or two anyway, so the extra 12-13 hours are not "extra" for me, just - in this case - paid for. As far as I know, SQ still does have 3-3-3 as well, or have they changed that recently? So there you have an alternative "one-quick-stop" option to Europe.

Again, I am not opposed to NZ, and like flying them, but I noticed that it gets worse, and other have better options. Easy as that.


CX as well. Plus going to Europe ( if you take the right flight ) there are quite a few A380 options- EK, EY, QR, QF etc.

Personally I rate pitch the most important thing. I can live with a 10 abreast 777 or 9 abreast 787 if there is good pitch. Poor pitch combined with poor width kind of sucks.

Did CA SYD to FCO all the way in A330. Loved it. Service was OK but love the layout of a 330 - especially when travelling as a couple.


Totally agree, pitch is more important than 3-3-3, but KE has both, so that is a very good combination :-)
 
NZ6
Posts: 1019
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:00 pm

zkeoj wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
zkeoj wrote:
1. You really think demand for NZ status is higher than for virtually any other airline, even in the same alliance? It is just the Airpoints Dollars system, compared to miles based programmes, not supply and demand.


I have a feeling my comments here will be misconstrued, I'm not suggesting the levels are dynamic and set by the public but trends occur over a period of time. The New Zealand market and Air NZ can't be directly compared to 'any other airline' even 'in the same alliance'.

Yes, it's now harder to earn Elite status than it was 20 years ago, the required levels have increased over time and the earn rates may be lower. Yet, the number of active and 'engaged' members has increased and dramatically increased in the last 10 years. All while the size of each tier level has grown yet been managed so it doesn't balloon out of control.

I'll make up numbers here, Elite Status is reserved for your top 2% of travellers and it's a fine balance to base this on either spend or frequency.

In the 90's it was expensive to fly. A last minute booking to SYD and back would set you back close to $2K and that wasn't a shock. A trip to the UK was normally combined with any number of other requirements so the travel was 'justified' and domestic business travel wasn't as accessible by middle management or SME's as it is today.

Today, I've seen people fly to the UK for 2 days, a day trip to SYD/MEL is normal and I've seen some Elites fly 3-4 days out of 5. There are some who fly domestically daily on some weeks.

There are some Elites who earn their Elite status multiple times in a year. I know of one member who openly retained Elite, then moved his travel to QF and earned One World status and to be honest I can't blame him and I'd do the same.

This change in travel pattern has driven up what's required to be seen as that "top 2%".... the impacts are mostly felt but the everyday Kiwi traveller. My in-laws, for example, they're retired and will travel 3-4 times a year. They've got no hope in seeing Silver yet see themselves as Air NZ loyal and they are.

Fixing that isn't easy. You can't just have a business and leisure rates, firstly you can't police any miss use of it, secondly, how does that work when you mix and match leisure and business travel?

Do you have more tiers? That's a possible solution, but what benefits do you offer? lounges would be the first request no doubt, but make sure you don't cut the lunch of Koru Memberships or add to the already congested lounges. You're left with Bags, Seats and Product Upgrades. Is that of value and will it generate loyalty or revenue?

Could the airline reengineer 'Airpoints Part Pay' so it's seen more rewarding when you use APD from your previous flights to get a discount on this one? Or can you market the retail accruals and NZ flights to attack people into flying NZ by way of 'Savings' for future travel aka how the Bank encourages you to save? I guess this is tapping into what the airline has tried or is trying to do.


Totally agree, but you still didn't answer/get the question: What you describe is applicable to (almost) all airlines/alliances, yet NZ has the "hardest to earn" scheme. I am not even talking about Elite - that's way out of my realm - just plain old Gold...


I believe I have, where I've referenced Gold or Elite, overlay Silver to that and it's the same message. NZ could run scenarios based on actual passenger data and calculate the number of members eligible for each level under different scenarios. For example, how many Silver would there be if the required Status Points was 300 which happens to be the QF level.

Or alternatively, if you earned between 34 and 55 Status Points AKL-SYD for the Works instead of the 14-35 Points.

The fact remains, the various Tier levels are designed to offer the most frequent of customers various benefits, not just those customers who hit a particular level.

The number of people reaching Silver has increased, this was my message, but also those that reach Gold and Elite have increased.

What I also highlighted is what can happen when customers retain Elite very early on in the year. There are obviously a few things done to keep these customers on NZ or *Alliance behind the scenes.

If you want to dive into why NZ is different, perhaps look at what makes NZ unique... Geographically Isolated, no genuine business competition who offers a Domestic and Short Haul network. Many corporates still won't use JQ even if their Tasman flying is QF. In Australia VA and QF both compete in that corporate space.

There is no high-speed rail network as there is in parts of Asia and Europe.

The population of our home markets is relatively small likewise is the network and operating cash flow, therefore, from a commercial standpoint, how many, how big, how expensive can you afford or want your lounges and VIP benefits to extend.

It's not limited to that... that's just a starter...
 
NZ6
Posts: 1019
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:15 pm

zkeoj wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
zkeoj wrote:
4. The number is getting (much) smaller, but there are still airlines that offer it. And as long as they do, I sure prefer those (or, even better, airlines that offer A340/330 or B767)... I am not speaking about Joe Blogs, I am speaking about myself. And I DO care and i DO notice...


Keeping this reply separate given my last one was so long, I'm not taking anything away from what you see as important to you. I just want to clarify...

The 3-3-3 layout on a 777 over a 3-4-3 is so important to you, you'd give up better IFE on CX, NZ, SQ or QF (different aircraft obviously) and make an overnight stop in ICN adding 12-13 hours to your travel time just for a few extra cm?

The room from that extra seat comes from 9 other seat widths but mostly the aisle width being narrowed so individually each person only looses a very small amount of space. Don't get me wrong either, I would rather a 3-3-3 but given that's harder and harder to get, I'd opt for convenience in schedule and entertainment over it.


Why so aggressive? I mentioned two points, and the width is one of them. KE has more pitch, and that does make a huge difference. I also clearly said that in most cases I will stop for a night or two anyway, so the extra 12-13 hours are not "extra" for me, just - in this case - paid for. As far as I know, SQ still does have 3-3-3 as well, or have they changed that recently? So there you have an alternative "one-quick-stop" option to Europe.

Again, I am not opposed to NZ, and like flying them, but I noticed that it gets worse, and other have better options. Easy as that.


Sorry, I've read that again and can't get how you've taken this aggressively? nothing aggressive was intended in my comments.

It was purely a clarification post more than anything. As I mentioned in my first line, I'm not taking anything away from you which is important to you however, you implied you opted for KE and ICN primarily due to the 3-3-3 config and seat pitch. You say you've turned it into a stopover as well so don't see it as time lost.

I only clarified this as its appear to me personally as putting yourself out a lot for a bit of extra space and while you can make the most out of the schedule by making i a stopover, is this something you still want to do by design or is it something you've just accepted now, for example, if KE retimed their flight, would you still stopover or carry on?
 
NZ6
Posts: 1019
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:34 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
Here is the press release again, it says the 78J can fly similar not all 772 missions. IAH and EZE seem to far for me, EZE given the lack of diversion points..

Agree - there's no prospect of the 78J flying Americas routes further than SFO/LAX in my view.

ZK-NBT wrote:
They won’t have 1 odd 789 with a different configuration, however I’m not sure how soon NYC was planned anyway, I always thought it was 2022 or so anyway?.

Appreciate that they'll need at least two Code 3 789s, but given there's one 789 currently on order, could that be the first in the new config? Or is it too late/too difficult? We prob won't know until after the Paris show and we know what the 6T MTOW bump means in practice. As for New York's start date - I thought NZ had been very tight-lipped on that, possibly for competitive reasons. So we don't know what their plans are.

ZK-NBT wrote:
The NZ press release mentions 789/78J, nothing about the 788..

Yes, appreciate that NZ itself has said nothing about the 788. But it was definitely stated in the Flight Global report, and I've since then seen it mentioned elsewhere as well. But NZ's failure to mention it makes me think it probably was a bit of journalistic excess (though Flight Global is a thoroughly reliable journal, which is why I'm a bit unsure). Or is NZ playing coy on that until possible Paris announcements by Boeing? Who knows - I don't.


Okay... a few things here.

a) We know the 78J will have some improvements but the details of that are unknown.
b) NZ has said the 789 with GE engines will go to NYC but they haven't ordered them or converted them
c) There are options for 12 additional frames
d) The order is interchangeable between 789 and 78J
e) NZ has stated it's looking to build frequency into IAH, ORD, EZE and TPE.

Over the next 2-3 years, you'll see some more announcements around this, it's not about size anymore
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1350
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 10:11 pm

NZ6 wrote:
Okay... a few things here.

a) We know the 78J will have some improvements but the details of that are unknown.
b) NZ has said the 789 with GE engines will go to NYC but they haven't ordered them or converted them
c) There are options for 12 additional frames
d) The order is interchangeable between 789 and 78J
e) NZ has stated it's looking to build frequency into IAH, ORD, EZE and TPE.

Over the next 2-3 years, you'll see some more announcements around this, it's not about size anymore

Yes, that's what we indeed do know. Wondering though whether there has been any buzz at all within the airline about the -8, even though you say that it's not about size any more? Can it be confirmed that the Flight Global report about the 787-8 being included in the option mix was erroneous?

One can conclude that at least two of the options currently held will be converted to -9s so New York can be operated. Is there any possibility that the current outstanding order can or will be upgraded thus as well? Or is it too late/too hard? Given that when pressed NZ declined to comment on timing of a NY service, we don't know how urgent the need for an order really is.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8282
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 10:12 pm

Going back to the 4700nm A321XLR. I think it could be an interesting vehicle for both freeing up Widebodies for the long haul growth and boosting frequency on flights like PER/PPT/HNL as well as replacing short-haul widebodies on certain routes. The important thing is that it should allow for more connection opportunities across more staggered hubs.

Yes It would involve a business class with lie-flat, and using long-haul Premium economy seats which are going to lower the seat count (like AA, TP, JB has done) but think about it this way, AKL could have 3 a day to Perth, CHC-PER a daily, AKL-PPT and AKL/SYD-RAR-LAX increased as well as increasing SYD/BNE/MEL frequencies, HNL 2 a day ex AKL and maybe a daily split over WLG/CHC, DPS a daily. and potentially ex CHC. Add CGK/MNL reinstate TBU-LAX, APW-LAX.
Cargo volume is lost, but it also means that the benefits of a daily schedule increase availability on hold space more often and out of more ports. It also doesn't stop them from placing 787s on a route once they sell out, cargo volume or J class take a widebody off that isn't sell so well.

Say you go got 16 staggered lie-flats like JB/TP that should leave space for 152 Y in 2 class (with Space plus) or say 15 U 130Y.
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1019
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 10:44 pm

DavidByrne wrote:

Yes, that's what we indeed do know. Wondering though whether there has been any buzz at all within the airline about the -8, even though you say that it's not about size any more? Can it be confirmed that the Flight Global report about the 787-8 being included in the option mix was erroneous?

One can conclude that at least two of the options currently held will be converted to -9s so New York can be operated. Is there any possibility that the current outstanding order can or will be upgraded thus as well? Or is it too late/too hard? Given that when pressed NZ declined to comment on timing of a NY service, we don't know how urgent the need for an order really is.


Out of interest, how and where would you use the -8 and why would this be better than a -9

With NYC, we know it has to be a 789 and not 78J. So your options are...
1. Convert 78J orders into 789 order
2. Add additional 789's onto the 8 78J order by using options
3. Use older 789 frames and re-engine them.

The 'planned' exit of some 772's will likely be postponed pending the conversation of some 78Js into 789s and being deployed into NYC. Likely delayed until more 78J's or 789's come online from your options.

Two points of interest to me.
1. Arrival plan of 78J's in conjunction of the exit of the 772s
2. Delayed arrival of some 772 replacements, the deferral that was announced earlier this year.

NYC isn't going to be this 'must have' 'cash cow', it's a new route with risk and anything can happen between now and 2022, I think the airline is just trying to position itself where it can flex up in fleet if the outlook is strong and consolidate if things continue to tighten up and delay routes like NYC 2-3 years.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1350
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:09 pm

NZ6 wrote:
Out of interest, how and where would you use the -8 and why would this be better than a -9

The only conceivable use I can think of, and it's really a very long shot, is that it IF the -8 got the same MTOW bump as the -9 and -10 are rumoured to be getting, then it might be able to carry the same payload as the -9 on ULR routes, but at a lower trip cost. Other than that, no use at all to the airline. Totally speculative.

My instinct is that the Flight Global report is erroneous (though that's unusual for a "journal of record" like that). Any thoughts on the accuracy?
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1350
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:20 pm

aerorobnz wrote:
Going back to the 4700nm A321XLR. I think it could be an interesting vehicle for both freeing up Widebodies for the long haul growth and boosting frequency on flights like PER/PPT/HNL as well as replacing short-haul widebodies on certain routes. The important thing is that it should allow for more connection opportunities across more staggered hubs.

Yes It would involve a business class with lie-flat, and using long-haul Premium economy seats which are going to lower the seat count (like AA, TP, JB has done) but think about it this way, AKL could have 3 a day to Perth, CHC-PER a daily, AKL-PPT and AKL/SYD-RAR-LAX increased as well as increasing SYD/BNE/MEL frequencies, HNL 2 a day ex AKL and maybe a daily split over WLG/CHC, DPS a daily. and potentially ex CHC. Add CGK/MNL reinstate TBU-LAX, APW-LAX.
Cargo volume is lost, but it also means that the benefits of a daily schedule increase availability on hold space more often and out of more ports. It also doesn't stop them from placing 787s on a route once they sell out, cargo volume or J class take a widebody off that isn't sell so well.

Say you go got 16 staggered lie-flats like JB/TP that should leave space for 152 Y in 2 class (with Space plus) or say 15 U 130Y.

You're proposing a huge jump in capacity on the proposed 321XLR routes. For example, AKL-PER has about 3,000 seats a week in summer, 2,100 in winter; you'd get 4,200 seats a week at TP's 200-seat config.Likewise CHC-PER is summer only 600 seats/week; you'd get about 1,400 seats a week. Even at a lower density there would still be a big capacity hike. I think there is definitely potential for considering an XLR but not at those frequencies (much though I'd like to see it!). Passenger acceptance is another issue - will be interesting to see how carriers like TAP which have ordered it for transatlantic routes as far as ORD and IAH fare on this score. But yes to WLG/CHC-HNL, DPS, PPT, SYD-RAR services, but not sure about MNL in competition with a WB from PR. Doubt we'll see TBU or APW to LAX, though, as the "no new one-stoppers" rule remains and these were in any event guaranteed by the respective governments the last time they were operated, and the governments appear to have moved on to different strategies now. But RAR-LAX - that might be an interesting choice, and potentially twice weekly with a 321XLR.

But I suspect we are unlikely to see any of this, as NZ has stated pretty clearly in the past that it does not see NBs being used on PER services, at least.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 907
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:53 pm

The problem I see with the XLR out of WLG is the runway. It's my understanding the A320 and A321 are already MTOW limited when operating out of WLG. So any increased fuel storage is instantly useless. With a runway extension that could change things up. But that thing is back to step 1.
 
a7ala
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:15 am

DavidByrne wrote:
You're proposing a huge jump in capacity on the proposed 321XLR routes. For example, AKL-PER has about 3,000 seats a week in summer, 2,100 in winter; you'd get 4,200 seats a week at TP's 200-seat config.Likewise CHC-PER is summer only 600 seats/week; you'd get about 1,400 seats a week. Even at a lower density there would still be a big capacity hike. I think there is definitely potential for considering an XLR but not at those frequencies (much though I'd like to see it!). Passenger acceptance is another issue - will be interesting to see how carriers like TAP which have ordered it for transatlantic routes as far as ORD and IAH fare on this score. But yes to WLG/CHC-HNL, DPS, PPT, SYD-RAR services, but not sure about MNL in competition with a WB from PR. Doubt we'll see TBU or APW to LAX, though, as the "no new one-stoppers" rule remains and these were in any event guaranteed by the respective governments the last time they were operated, and the governments appear to have moved on to different strategies now. But RAR-LAX - that might be an interesting choice, and potentially twice weekly with a 321XLR.

But I suspect we are unlikely to see any of this, as NZ has stated pretty clearly in the past that it does not see NBs being used on PER services, at least.


What about WLG-RAR-LAX? Air NZ's operating AKL-RAR-LAX once a week and Cook Islands govt underwriting it, but up against the multiple non-stops AKL-USA im guessing it would get no thru traffic at all. I wonder if switching it to WLG and increasing to 3-4/week would be a better option? Would provide international and business all the way to/from WLG, a link on currently unserved WLG-RAR, and through traffic to support increase on RAR-LAX. Either with the 321XLR or with the existing widebody.
 
tealnz
Posts: 504
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:19 am

NZ6 wrote:
With NYC, we know it has to be a 789 and not 78J. So your options are...
1. Convert 78J orders into 789 order
2. Add additional 789's onto the 8 78J order by using options
3. Use older 789 frames and re-engine them.

Do we know that the GEnX has a real range advantage? The newer NZ 789s have the Trent 1000-TEN which was supposed to offer better fuel economy. I find it hard to see NZ replacing engines.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1019
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:01 am

aerorobnz wrote:
Going back to the 4700nm A321XLR. I think it could be an interesting vehicle for both freeing up Widebodies for the long haul growth and boosting frequency on flights like PER/PPT/HNL as well as replacing short-haul widebodies on certain routes. The important thing is that it should allow for more connection opportunities across more staggered hubs.

Yes It would involve a business class with lie-flat, and using long-haul Premium economy seats which are going to lower the seat count (like AA, TP, JB has done) but think about it this way, AKL could have 3 a day to Perth, CHC-PER a daily, AKL-PPT and AKL/SYD-RAR-LAX increased as well as increasing SYD/BNE/MEL frequencies, HNL 2 a day ex AKL and maybe a daily split over WLG/CHC, DPS a daily. and potentially ex CHC. Add CGK/MNL reinstate TBU-LAX, APW-LAX.
Cargo volume is lost, but it also means that the benefits of a daily schedule increase availability on hold space more often and out of more ports. It also doesn't stop them from placing 787s on a route once they sell out, cargo volume or J class take a widebody off that isn't sell so well.

Say you go got 16 staggered lie-flats like JB/TP that should leave space for 152 Y in 2 class (with Space plus) or say 15 U 130Y.


On this topic...

PER: Yes, an A321 could work nicely on this, but is there a requirement for 3x AKL on top of daily from CHC? How does the economics of say 14 per week using a 787 compare to 28x A321 services?
HNL: The XLR will be at the limits for this route and there is steady premium demand there, so the XLR would need to have PE and BP. I can't see the airline wanting two types of Business Class again. Once you've added your premium cabins, what's left for Y class and how does all this play out with CASM and what does it allow HA to do?
PPT: It can be done with A321NEO
DPS: This is actually a clever use of unused widebody aircraft. Aircraft that will be used in the NW peak but aren't needed for that extra capacity during the late NS.

The A321LR or XLR would be a nice aircraft for these routes, I don't dispute that.

Will the airline go for it, will the 787-8 be an option or as an outside possibility how does the Boeing NMA look?

Personally, I think it'll be predictably boring, using A321 and 787 combinations over the next decade and maximising on fleet simplicity.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1019
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:02 am

DavidByrne wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Out of interest, how and where would you use the -8 and why would this be better than a -9

The only conceivable use I can think of, and it's really a very long shot, is that it IF the -8 got the same MTOW bump as the -9 and -10 are rumoured to be getting, then it might be able to carry the same payload as the -9 on ULR routes, but at a lower trip cost. Other than that, no use at all to the airline. Totally speculative.

My instinct is that the Flight Global report is erroneous (though that's unusual for a "journal of record" like that). Any thoughts on the accuracy?


How are you getting that trip cost info? It's not a loaded question, I'm keen to see what you're using
 
NZ6
Posts: 1019
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:06 am

tealnz wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
With NYC, we know it has to be a 789 and not 78J. So your options are...
1. Convert 78J orders into 789 order
2. Add additional 789's onto the 8 78J order by using options
3. Use older 789 frames and re-engine them.

Do we know that the GEnX has a real range advantage? The newer NZ 789s have the Trent 1000-TEN which was supposed to offer better fuel economy. I find it hard to see NZ replacing engines.


As far as I know, it's suggesting they will be new and additional 789's as they need modifications from what they already have. In other words, it's not just the engine difference. I could be wrong, but that's what I understand.
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 907
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:46 am

I think this was mentioned a little while ago.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/113564 ... the-tarmac

Looks like the trial has worked out quite well for Air NZ. With them looking at possibly rolling it out elsewhere.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1019
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:07 am

NZ6 wrote:
aerorobnz wrote:
Going back to the 4700nm A321XLR. I think it could be an interesting vehicle for both freeing up Widebodies for the long haul growth and boosting frequency on flights like PER/PPT/HNL as well as replacing short-haul widebodies on certain routes. The important thing is that it should allow for more connection opportunities across more staggered hubs.

Yes It would involve a business class with lie-flat, and using long-haul Premium economy seats which are going to lower the seat count (like AA, TP, JB has done) but think about it this way, AKL could have 3 a day to Perth, CHC-PER a daily, AKL-PPT and AKL/SYD-RAR-LAX increased as well as increasing SYD/BNE/MEL frequencies, HNL 2 a day ex AKL and maybe a daily split over WLG/CHC, DPS a daily. and potentially ex CHC. Add CGK/MNL reinstate TBU-LAX, APW-LAX.
Cargo volume is lost, but it also means that the benefits of a daily schedule increase availability on hold space more often and out of more ports. It also doesn't stop them from placing 787s on a route once they sell out, cargo volume or J class take a widebody off that isn't sell so well.

Say you go got 16 staggered lie-flats like JB/TP that should leave space for 152 Y in 2 class (with Space plus) or say 15 U 130Y.


On this topic...

PER: Yes, an A321 could work nicely on this, but is there a requirement for 3x AKL on top of daily from CHC? How does the economics of say 14 per week using a 787 compare to 28x A321 services?
HNL: The XLR will be at the limits for this route and there is steady premium demand there, so the XLR would need to have PE and BP. I can't see the airline wanting two types of Business Class again. Once you've added your premium cabins, what's left for Y class and how does all this play out with CASM and what does it allow HA to do?
PPT: It can be done with A321NEO
DPS: This is actually a clever use of unused widebody aircraft. Aircraft that will be used in the NW peak but aren't needed for that extra capacity during the late NS.

The A321LR or XLR would be a nice aircraft for these routes, I don't dispute that.

Will the airline go for it, will the 787-8 be an option or as an outside possibility how does the Boeing NMA look?

Personally, I think it'll be predictably boring, using A321 and 787 combinations over the next decade and maximising on fleet simplicity.


I can see HNL is actually well within the XLR range.

I actually think it would be a great aircraft. I just don't think there's enough long-range use for it within NZ's fleet. PER, HNL, even DPS are options. But outside those where do you send it.

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