DavidByrne
Posts: 1351
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:50 am

NZ6 wrote:
How are you getting that trip cost info? It's not a loaded question, I'm keen to see what you're using

It’s strictly back-of-the-envelope stuff based on half-confirmed information, but the logic goes something like this. The current quoted ranges of both variants are in the same ballpark, though the -9 is 26T heavier than the -8 at MTOW. The mod anticipated for the -9 and -10 is rumoured to give a 6T increase (I’ve heard it may relate to the wing-fuselage join, but that’s speculative). In NZ’s New York scenario it’s been suggested that they may also need to lose about 25 seats (say 2.5T), so that allows for an extra 8.5T of fuel to be carried on a 250-seat “Code 3” 787-9.

The 787-8 is also a 250-seat aircraft, but at a density that is more akin to a “Code 1” 787-9. If a wing join mod can be made to the -8 as with the -9 then it may be possible to add an extra 8-9T of fuel to increase the -8’s range to serve NY, but without the need to do so in a specially-low-density version, given the “regular” MTOW of the -8 is 26T lighter than the -9. As I understand it, the landing gear on the -8 and -9 are similar (the -10 is different), so that may not be a limiting factor, though available fuel capacity might be. Any which way, a “Code 1” equivalent 787-8 may still be able to serve NY with the same pax load as a “Code 3” 787-9 but with an overall lower-weight aircraft. And the lower weight will presumably lower the trip costs – giving it a potential cost per seat-mile advantage over the -8 at ultra-long ranges – but at ultra-long ranges only.

I’m no tech expert, so I’m sure that the techies will have great fun hacking my logic to bits. And it’s also based on a number of unconfirmed assumptions. But if the -8 is still in NZ’s sights (and I personally doubt it, but it’s an intriguing possibility) then I can’t think where else it might have an advantage over the -9 than on ULH routes.
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

Tue Jun 18, 2019 5:13 am

NZ6 wrote:
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? .


The frequencies I mentioned are purely speculative to illustrate that effectively you could have a morning. an afternoon and an evening flight all connecting different markets if demand allows, working on 16/15/152 or thereabouts. Obviously the ins and outs of what specific frequency/config is definitely open for debate, Yes I expect you are right regarding 3 a day AKL and 1 ex CHC, but I would certainly expect 2 a day to be sustainable in addition to CHC, one for the morning hub (ex L/H US and EZE) and a "domestic connection" flight for the afternoon. Let's use Code 2 787 27/33/215 config as a comparison. With 2 a day A321s you are only looking at 32/30/304 seats ex AKL, which is well within the capacity increases NZ has done in the past to expand a market. I think CHC has shown that it can sustain the capacity per week that it currently has with a 787-9 twice a week with 15/21/302, of course, if you divide that capacity up into A321 loads you are looking at roughly 4 a week which is probably about right as well and allows for the fact that an airline that has better frequency automatically attracts more passengers because it appears on more search options. With regard to DPS/HNL, I think it would most likely be a nice boost to have A321s CHC-HNL or a morning departure for AKL, or even just to fill out to a daily schedule with a mix of 787s and A321s.

As far as some of the other narrowbody concerns stated by DavidByrne I think as long as all the identical features the passengers are used to remain such as free wifi. IFE, skycouch, existing PE (say on a 3-2 config) and a fully lie-flat Business bed in line with the new business product coming I think passengers/markets would rather go with frequency, as they have done for years with 3-6 domestic ATRs over 1-2 a day 733.A320s. With specific regard to MNL and CGK, I actually believe that PR will be ordering these aeroplanes too, and may well send them to AKL longterm with more frequency. To me, it's a low-cost expansion aircraft to test markets or increase capacity without going overboard. I think if used right it could really force AKL airport to rethink their rate of expansion if they felt that CHC might be gaining capacity at their expense.

There's another side I would like to explore and that is what if a carrier like SB or TN was to order them. [email protected] should allow for SIN/NRT/ICN/KIX/HKG/HNL and [email protected] should allow for IAH, LIM, EZE, SFO, SEA, YVR as well as SYD, MEL, ADL, BNE. That could significantly grow market access and the ability to uplift transit passengers as well. Even if we stick with NZ for a second, what if it opened up the ability for NZ to base/rotate a fleet/crew in say RAR (or anywhere else that wants NZ to manage their airline for example) in order to offset the "no one-stop' mentality. This would be in the UA/GUM mould.

Thanks to all for indulging a bit of blue sky thinking.
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4266
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Tue Jun 18, 2019 7:29 am

Speaking of 321NEO's and XLR's, I know it's a long shot, but wouldn't it be interesting if NZ did more at WLG with the 321NEO's, like seasonal WLG - DPS / PER / RAR flights? Would the former two require 321XLR's, given WLG's runway?

Cheers,

C.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4272
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Tue Jun 18, 2019 8:59 am

For NYC it is possible that NZ could start off with existing 789 just reconfigured to a lower density config (code 3) earlier and simply block off some seats as needed. When routes first start up they are usually lighter loads for the first year anyway so that would give them a year or so breathing space before getting the new aircraft. By that logic we could see EWR start up in 2021 with the new aircraft arriving 2022 or so.
59 types. 41 countries. 24 airlines.
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5199
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:15 pm

a7ala wrote:
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.

An intriguing suggestion; one that goes against the grain of funnelling services through Auckland (and a lesser extent Christchurch), but which would connect the Cook Islands with New Zealand’s captital, and also connect Wellington with the movie-making capital of the world without requiring an international-domestic transfer. A decently timed connection could even allow through routing to London on NZ1/2. Could this then also be a tool for Air New Zealand to head off the development of a longer runway by demonstrating it is able to provide decent connections to Wellington with the existing infrastructure? At 1764NM great circle distance, WLG-RAR is a bit longer than WLG-MEL (1402NM); it would be interesting to see whether the 787 or A321 is more viable on this sort of route.

V/F
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh
 
concordianSYD
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 5:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Tue Jun 18, 2019 8:48 pm

Over the last few years I’ve wondered if BKK will ever show up again on NZ’s radar, especially in the expansion mode we’ve seen of late. IIRC it flew to the now-superseded Don Mueang airport in the early-to-late 90’s. Bangkok is one of the world’s most visited cities, if not THE most visited city. Is it due to low O&D between New Zealand & Bangkok/Thailand, or too strong a competitor in TG, or TG’s unwillingness to JV, or proximity to SIN combined with NZ’s strong alliance with SQ, or some other reason? And while on the subject, how ‘close’ are the two *A carriers NZ and TG?
Concord is simply my home, sadly not a reference to a plane I’ve flown.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1020
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Wed Jun 19, 2019 12:03 am

DavidByrne wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
How are you getting that trip cost info? It's not a loaded question, I'm keen to see what you're using

It’s strictly back-of-the-envelope stuff based on half-confirmed information, but the logic goes something like this. The current quoted ranges of both variants are in the same ballpark, though the -9 is 26T heavier than the -8 at MTOW. The mod anticipated for the -9 and -10 is rumoured to give a 6T increase (I’ve heard it may relate to the wing-fuselage join, but that’s speculative). In NZ’s New York scenario it’s been suggested that they may also need to lose about 25 seats (say 2.5T), so that allows for an extra 8.5T of fuel to be carried on a 250-seat “Code 3” 787-9.

The 787-8 is also a 250-seat aircraft, but at a density that is more akin to a “Code 1” 787-9. If a wing join mod can be made to the -8 as with the -9 then it may be possible to add an extra 8-9T of fuel to increase the -8’s range to serve NY, but without the need to do so in a specially-low-density version, given the “regular” MTOW of the -8 is 26T lighter than the -9. As I understand it, the landing gear on the -8 and -9 are similar (the -10 is different), so that may not be a limiting factor, though available fuel capacity might be. Any which way, a “Code 1” equivalent 787-8 may still be able to serve NY with the same pax load as a “Code 3” 787-9 but with an overall lower-weight aircraft. And the lower weight will presumably lower the trip costs – giving it a potential cost per seat-mile advantage over the -8 at ultra-long ranges – but at ultra-long ranges only.

I’m no tech expert, so I’m sure that the techies will have great fun hacking my logic to bits. And it’s also based on a number of unconfirmed assumptions. But if the -8 is still in NZ’s sights (and I personally doubt it, but it’s an intriguing possibility) then I can’t think where else it might have an advantage over the -9 than on ULH routes.


Narr loosely speaking you're correct. I was just wondering if you were using a resource of some sort.

Page 36/37 of this document (https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... ps/787.pdf)

787-8:
OEW: 119,950Kg + Say 220 passengers at 100kg each leads you to around OEW+Payload weight of around 142,000Kgs, AKL-ORD is 7,111nm on gcmap, so Break Release weight is approximately 218,000Kgs, therefore fuel weight is somewhere around 76,000kg.

787-9:
OEW: 128,850Kg + the same 220 passengers at 100kg each leads you to around OEW+Payload weight of around 150,850, on the same AKL-ORD route Break Release weight is now approximately 230,000Kgs, therefore fuel weight is somewhere around 79,150kg.

Working fuel per passenger over the same route as fuel is cost, you're looking at 346Kg on the -8 and 360kg on the -8

Like you, this is done loosely of high-level charts and WIKI weights so people who follow the technical aspects in more detail will be able to pick it apart or contribute in more detail if needed.

The -9 at 220pax (if that's what they operated with) may have 300 physical seats leaving 80 empty (completely made up numbers just expanding on above example) but those empty seats, the IFE in them etc still get added into the OEW.

I've not factored any cargo in.

Modelling all these other factors in is where it begins to become complex or least opens a multitude of scenarios up. Put another 30 pax onto my above scenario and the -9 starts to become the better aircraft.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1351
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Wed Jun 19, 2019 12:30 am

NZ6 wrote:
Modelling all these other factors in is where it begins to become complex or least opens a multitude of scenarios up. Put another 30 pax onto my above scenario and the -9 starts to become the better aircraft.

Thanks for that. Having read the Project Sunrise thread elsewhere, though, I'm not going to start a long critique/comparison of the two types! Still wondering whether the reports about the -8 potentially being in the mix have any validity, though.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
WLG787
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 7:46 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Wed Jun 19, 2019 6:31 am

 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3572
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Wed Jun 19, 2019 6:39 am

WLG787 wrote:


Politics next eh!?
come visit the south pacific
 
Deepinsider
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:36 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Wed Jun 19, 2019 9:48 am

Mr Luxon to leave. Didn't see that coming.
A sincere good luck to him moving on.

Air NZ has had three amazing CEO's in a row.

Mr Norris did a truly amazing job resetting the
Company after it's disastrous 'Brierley' years.
The whole culture at all levels changed to a
modern forward looking company.

Mr Fyfe then forged ahead out of the square with all
sorts of fresh air, new ideas.

Mr Luxon continued as above and also took care of
'housekeeping' (cost control) along the way.

Now the Airline is Flying high. When the next CEO
hops into the pilot's seat, he or she will see some
clouds on the horizon ahead. That will have to be
someone pretty special, being what's been done so far.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8282
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Wed Jun 19, 2019 10:33 am

Alan Joyce perhaps ?? haha. I have a feeling it will be internal appointment again, Avi Golan possibly?
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4266
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Wed Jun 19, 2019 10:49 am

concordianSYD wrote:
Over the last few years I’ve wondered if BKK will ever show up again on NZ’s radar, especially in the expansion mode we’ve seen of late. IIRC it flew to the now-superseded Don Mueang airport in the early-to-late 90’s. Bangkok is one of the world’s most visited cities, if not THE most visited city. Is it due to low O&D between New Zealand & Bangkok/Thailand, or too strong a competitor in TG, or TG’s unwillingness to JV, or proximity to SIN combined with NZ’s strong alliance with SQ, or some other reason? And while on the subject, how ‘close’ are the two *A carriers NZ and TG?

I've also thought about BKK for NZ. If TG had not yet built up to daily, I'd have given it more of a chance (i.e. for TG to do 4x weekly and NZ to do 3x weekly). With TG already being daily, I don't see a lot of scope for additional capacity, and I'm not sure TG would want to share its daily flight with NZ, given that would erode product consistency?

One other factor worth thinking about is the potential for someone other than NZ to do AKL - BKK. EK or QR may do a fifth-freedom BKK - AKL tag (EK, in particular, moving its DPS - AKL tag if that underperforms in the medium-term). That would definitely make BKK a no-go for NZ, IMO. You may also see a LHLC, like Nok Air or Jetstar?

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4266
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Wed Jun 19, 2019 10:53 am

VirginFlyer wrote:
An intriguing suggestion; one that goes against the grain of funnelling services through Auckland (and a lesser extent Christchurch), but which would connect the Cook Islands with New Zealand’s captital, and also connect Wellington with the movie-making capital of the world without requiring an international-domestic transfer.

RAR's terminal is far from great - minimal/lower-quality amenities - so RAR's same-terminal transfer offering, IMO, wouldn't be any more attractive than the existing AKL transfer offering. (What AKL loses on, in terms of the hassle of having to move terminals, it makes up for in the amount and quality of amenities it offers - plus schedules.)

Cheers,

C.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Posts: 8393
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Wed Jun 19, 2019 8:11 pm

Could we please stick to aviation in these thread, if you want to talk about politics discuss it in the non-aviation forum
Forum Moderator
 
Gasman
Posts: 2048
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Wed Jun 19, 2019 9:12 pm

aerorobnz wrote:
Alan Joyce perhaps ?? haha. I have a feeling it will be internal appointment again, Avi Golan possibly?


I sincerely hope they'll look externally this time.

Under the last two CEOs the airline has become circular. It prides itself on being innovative; but that "innovation" follows a completely predictable theme - more jokesy, more All Blacks, and increasingly cramped aircraft. If comments on page 4 of this thread are any indication, as I have long predicted (and been derided for) previously loyal NZ frequent fliers are shifting their loyalty elsewhere. In terms of financial performance, whether the airline could have (or should have) performed better during Luxon's reign is a moot point.

Regardless, this is an opportunity for the airline to hit the reset button with a fresh set of eyes, and I hope the board takes it.
 
a7ala
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Wed Jun 19, 2019 9:20 pm

planemanofnz wrote:
VirginFlyer wrote:
An intriguing suggestion; one that goes against the grain of funnelling services through Auckland (and a lesser extent Christchurch), but which would connect the Cook Islands with New Zealand’s captital, and also connect Wellington with the movie-making capital of the world without requiring an international-domestic transfer.

RAR's terminal is far from great - minimal/lower-quality amenities - so RAR's same-terminal transfer offering, IMO, wouldn't be any more attractive than the existing AKL transfer offering. (What AKL loses on, in terms of the hassle of having to move terminals, it makes up for in the amount and quality of amenities it offers - plus schedules.)

Cheers,

C.


Same terminal is only part of it:

- International all the way
- Ability to offer business and prem econ all the way, particularly for the lucrative film and IT industries of which there are a large number of premium travellers. Film industry also generates a lot of air cargo.
- A link to RAR which is a pretty large market out of WLG, plus the ability for dual destination Pacific Is/USA holidays
- As VirginFlyer mentioned, would further lessen the case for a runway extension which would be a positive for Air NZ
- A good way of Air NZ protecting their WLG-US position in the face of what will be tough competition from QF/AA in AKL and soon to be CHC
- A big win for the Cook Islands with added capacity RAR-LAX I would imagine with less of a subsidy required

The question would be how to get the B789 down to WLG which they could do either as a AKL-WLG Domestic (during the peak) - Swingate to WLG-RAR-LAX-RAR-WLG swingate back to WLG OR AKL-LAX-RAR-WLG-RAR-LAX-AKL.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1020
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Wed Jun 19, 2019 9:40 pm

aerorobnz wrote:
Alan Joyce perhaps ?? haha. I have a feeling it will be internal appointment again, Avi Golan possibly?


Avi who?

The last couple of CEO's have come from newer Executive members... Fyfe then Luxon... align that with Luxon's recent comments about gender equality... do we look at Jennifer Sepull? A female outsider could be Carrier Hurihanganui who has previously been GM of Eagle, I can't see Jodie King doing for it

If Luxon has an influence in his successor, they'll need to have a strong background in that Commerical and Sales Distribution space...

With that in mind, others in the current Exco group, Cam Wallace (but hopefully not) or Jeff McDowall... or I wouldn't be surprised to see them go external.
 
Unclekoru
Posts: 298
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Wed Jun 19, 2019 9:52 pm

a7ala wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
VirginFlyer wrote:
An intriguing suggestion; one that goes against the grain of funnelling services through Auckland (and a lesser extent Christchurch), but which would connect the Cook Islands with New Zealand’s captital, and also connect Wellington with the movie-making capital of the world without requiring an international-domestic transfer.

RAR's terminal is far from great - minimal/lower-quality amenities - so RAR's same-terminal transfer offering, IMO, wouldn't be any more attractive than the existing AKL transfer offering. (What AKL loses on, in terms of the hassle of having to move terminals, it makes up for in the amount and quality of amenities it offers - plus schedules.)

Cheers,

C.


Same terminal is only part of it:

- International all the way
- Ability to offer business and prem econ all the way, particularly for the lucrative film and IT industries of which there are a large number of premium travellers. Film industry also generates a lot of air cargo.
- A link to RAR which is a pretty large market out of WLG, plus the ability for dual destination Pacific Is/USA holidays
- As VirginFlyer mentioned, would further lessen the case for a runway extension which would be a positive for Air NZ
- A good way of Air NZ protecting their WLG-US position in the face of what will be tough competition from QF/AA in AKL and soon to be CHC
- A big win for the Cook Islands with added capacity RAR-LAX I would imagine with less of a subsidy required

The question would be how to get the B789 down to WLG which they could do either as a AKL-WLG Domestic (during the peak) - Swingate to WLG-RAR-LAX-RAR-WLG swingate back to WLG OR AKL-LAX-RAR-WLG-RAR-LAX-AKL.


Agree, a good option for all the reasons listed above. Could be made to work with a 77E as well. Don't see it happening though.

NZ6 wrote:
aerorobnz wrote:
Alan Joyce perhaps ?? haha. I have a feeling it will be internal appointment again, Avi Golan possibly?


Avi who?

The last couple of CEO's have come from newer Executive members... Fyfe then Luxon... align that with Luxon's recent comments about gender equality... do we look at Jennifer Sepull? A female outsider could be Carrier Hurihanganui who has previously been GM of Eagle, I can't see Jodie King doing for it

If Luxon has an influence in his successor, they'll need to have a strong background in that Commerical and Sales Distribution space...

With that in mind, others in the current Exco group, Cam Wallace (but hopefully not) or Jeff McDowall... or I wouldn't be surprised to see them go external.


It's hard to see a standout contender from within, although I don't know a lot about Jennifer Sepull other than she hasn't been there long.
It sounds like english, but I can't understand a word you're saying
 
NZ6
Posts: 1020
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Wed Jun 19, 2019 10:16 pm

planemanofnz wrote:
concordianSYD wrote:
Over the last few years I’ve wondered if BKK will ever show up again on NZ’s radar, especially in the expansion mode we’ve seen of late. IIRC it flew to the now-superseded Don Mueang airport in the early-to-late 90’s. Bangkok is one of the world’s most visited cities, if not THE most visited city. Is it due to low O&D between New Zealand & Bangkok/Thailand, or too strong a competitor in TG, or TG’s unwillingness to JV, or proximity to SIN combined with NZ’s strong alliance with SQ, or some other reason? And while on the subject, how ‘close’ are the two *A carriers NZ and TG?

I've also thought about BKK for NZ. If TG had not yet built up to daily, I'd have given it more of a chance (i.e. for TG to do 4x weekly and NZ to do 3x weekly). With TG already being daily, I don't see a lot of scope for additional capacity, and I'm not sure TG would want to share its daily flight with NZ, given that would erode product consistency?

One other factor worth thinking about is the potential for someone other than NZ to do AKL - BKK. EK or QR may do a fifth-freedom BKK - AKL tag (EK, in particular, moving its DPS - AKL tag if that underperforms in the medium-term). That would definitely make BKK a no-go for NZ, IMO. You may also see a LHLC, like Nok Air or Jetstar?

Cheers,

C.


BKK is a route which has been on the so-called 'watch list' for some time as it does have potential.

Some of the challenges with it are....

1) TG's ability to scale up when needed
2) TG's willingness and or NZ's ability/willingness to form an alliance
3) Strong Competition, we've seen Air Asia from both AKL and CHC over the last few years, MH and TG offer cheap lead-in fares and VA/JQ both connect via Australia.
4) Market appeal - 20-30 single price sensitive adventure, where SGN appealed more to the mid-age bracket (they'll spend more). Largely driven by the War and the relevance it holds to this group
5) Operationally, you can't send a single frame return in a 24 hour period.
6) Peak Season Of Nov-Mar overlaps with the end of the Northern Winter peak period so doesn't hold the same benefit as SGN/DPS where the airline can send underutilised NS equipment on a seasonal run to the tropics.
7) Does it offer anything new by way of connections over SIN, HKG, TYO, PVG

If you could send a 787 return in 24 hours during June/July/August 3 days a week, we might have seen it already.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1020
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Wed Jun 19, 2019 10:50 pm

a7ala wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
VirginFlyer wrote:
An intriguing suggestion; one that goes against the grain of funnelling services through Auckland (and a lesser extent Christchurch), but which would connect the Cook Islands with New Zealand’s captital, and also connect Wellington with the movie-making capital of the world without requiring an international-domestic transfer.

RAR's terminal is far from great - minimal/lower-quality amenities - so RAR's same-terminal transfer offering, IMO, wouldn't be any more attractive than the existing AKL transfer offering. (What AKL loses on, in terms of the hassle of having to move terminals, it makes up for in the amount and quality of amenities it offers - plus schedules.)

Cheers,

C.


Same terminal is only part of it:

- International all the way
- Ability to offer business and prem econ all the way, particularly for the lucrative film and IT industries of which there are a large number of premium travellers. Film industry also generates a lot of air cargo.
- A link to RAR which is a pretty large market out of WLG, plus the ability for dual destination Pacific Is/USA holidays
- As VirginFlyer mentioned, would further lessen the case for a runway extension which would be a positive for Air NZ
- A good way of Air NZ protecting their WLG-US position in the face of what will be tough competition from QF/AA in AKL and soon to be CHC
- A big win for the Cook Islands with added capacity RAR-LAX I would imagine with less of a subsidy required

The question would be how to get the B789 down to WLG which they could do either as a AKL-WLG Domestic (during the peak) - Swingate to WLG-RAR-LAX-RAR-WLG swingate back to WLG OR AKL-LAX-RAR-WLG-RAR-LAX-AKL.


I completely agree with planemanofnz here.

Firstly an LAX-RAR-WLG route sounds great as it opens a WLG-RAR flight if such a thing was needed, will it convince more people in WLG to visit RAR? or will free up space for AKL-RAR etc...

In view of your comments..

- What does "International all the way" actually give you? I'm not 100% sure on this but I believe LAX bound passengers need to be re security screened in RAR
- The Lucrative film and IT industries are the exact group who will avoid RAR, the lounge is just that, a small and comfortable lounge room, it's just like a very large corporate box or hotel room, the airport holds only basic facilities and there are no airbridges etc.
- Look at the scale of Fiji and the Cook Islands for outbound tourism, now scale that proportionally to how WLG-NAN works and you have a quick and dirty view on a WLG-RAR direct. It could work, but as my old saying goes, 'are we just'drawing lines on a map' this time to justify an XLR aircraft
- As for connections and hubs, "A decently timed connection could even allow through routing to London on NZ1/2" - NZ for a long time has encouraged NZ1/2 to be sold as two flights AKL-LAX and then LAX-LHR , with the vast majority of LHR bound traffic from NZ being encouraged to fly over the East and that mid pacific flying, that was all but ended under the Fyfe era, RAR-LAX would be gone if it wasn't supported by the Cooks Islands.
- Protecting WLG-US traffic? Protecting it from what exactly, people who may fly east to Australia or fly to AKL and onto NZ/AA/? A lot like the first two points, what makes RAR so appealing over AKL, BNE, SYD as it's still a one-stop connection. NZ much like QF are doing in Australia, they are opening new markets directly into more ports within the states, this is where the market protection comes from. How many US-bound passengers use WLG-NAN-LAX over AKL, SYD, MEL and is that seen as a threat to any of the major carriers?

Your last point confuses me, you say it's a big win for the Cook Island as there's "added capacity RAR-LAX I would imagine with less of a subsidy required" but if there's a need for it to be subsidised today, why's there a need for more capacity and how is that going to be filled and converted into revenue offsetting the subsidy.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1351
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Wed Jun 19, 2019 11:28 pm

NZ6 wrote:
If you could send a 787 return in 24 hours during June/July/August 3 days a week, we might have seen it already.

Sorry, but I don't get this thing about flights having to be less than 24-hours return to give them that added viability - enabling a return trip in a single day.

Logic suggests to me that a flight over 12 hours can be absolutely as viable as one under 12 hours, so long as you can occupy the aircraft on a shorter sector on the following rotation. For example, a flight to BKK (12 hours-ish) could be twinned with a flight to HNL (eight-nine hours-ish) so the aircraft flew BKK one day and HNL the next, then back to BKK - and so on. Of course, the second flight could be any medium-distance sector, like DPS, PPT, even PER. In effect, it's exactly the same strategy that NZ already uses (and has used since the 1960s, apart from their initial disastrous flirtation with daylight flights) on the Pacific long-haul routes: the flights are too long for a single aircraft to do a daily rotation, but add in a sector to ADL, MEL, BNE, SYD or wherever, and the overall utilisation becomes tolerable. Am I missing something here?
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
Gasman
Posts: 2048
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Wed Jun 19, 2019 11:35 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
apart from their initial disastrous flirtation with daylight flights) on the Pacific long-haul routes


David can you elaborate on this? The lack of daylight Pacific long haul flights is one of the reasons I prefer QF to to the US - even via Australia, you're out of bed for a shorter period of time. I remember a 1600-ish AKL-LAX flight in the early 2000's, but apart from this when was NZ's flirtation with daylight flights - and why was it disastrous?
 
a7ala
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Thu Jun 20, 2019 12:35 am

NZ6 wrote:
Firstly an LAX-RAR-WLG route sounds great as it opens a WLG-RAR flight if such a thing was needed, will it convince more people in WLG to visit RAR? or will free up space for AKL-RAR etc...


There will clearly be some displacement from AKL-RAR, but you only need to see whats occurred with more non-stop capacity WLG-NAN over the years. Its these connecting shorthaul international (leisure) routes that stimulate the most when you introduce non-stop services.

NZ6 wrote:

- What does "International all the way" actually give you? I'm not 100% sure on this but I believe LAX bound passengers need to be re security screened in RAR


If you know anything about airline network modelling you will also know passengers place a preference on I-I connections vs D-I AND for thru flights vs connecting flights AND widebody aircraft vs narrowbody. A service such as this delivers on all of these vs travelling via AKL

NZ6 wrote:
- The Lucrative film and IT industries are the exact group who will avoid RAR, the lounge is just that, a small and comfortable lounge room, it's just like a very large corporate box or hotel room, the airport holds only basic facilities and there are no airbridges etc.


See previous comment - yes the lounge might not be up to it, but the other benefits, including the ability to fly business/prem econ all the way should outweigh, and also allow Air NZ to get more yield out of the market.

NZ6 wrote:

- Look at the scale of Fiji and the Cook Islands for outbound tourism, now scale that proportionally to how WLG-NAN works and you have a quick and dirty view on a WLG-RAR direct. It could work, but as my old saying goes, 'are we just'drawing lines on a map' this time to justify an XLR aircraft


No actually Im saying they should use a widebody aircraft replacing the AKL-RAR-LAX 1/week subsidised service with WLG-RAR-LAX 3-4/week

NZ6 wrote:
- Protecting WLG-US traffic? Protecting it from what exactly, people who may fly east to Australia or fly to AKL and onto NZ/AA/? A lot like the first two points, what makes RAR so appealing over AKL, BNE, SYD as it's still a one-stop connection. NZ much like QF are doing in Australia, they are opening new markets directly into more ports within the states, this is where the market protection comes from. How many US-bound passengers use WLG-NAN-LAX over AKL, SYD, MEL and is that seen as a threat to any of the major carriers?


Its going to continue to be tough for Air NZ to compete with the QF/AA partnership particularly when they expand their offering. NZ may well lose a significant amount of their CHC-US market with the introduction of CHC-LAX, and expansion in AKL will make it tougher there as well. A potential tug of war for WLG connecting traffic in the middle. A WLG-LAX thru service gives NZ an unassailable position.

NZ6 wrote:
Your last point confuses me, you say it's a big win for the Cook Island as there's "added capacity RAR-LAX I would imagine with less of a subsidy required" but if there's a need for it to be subsidised today, why's there a need for more capacity and how is that going to be filled and converted into revenue offsetting the subsidy.


Pretty simple really, RAR-LAX is subsidised as the local market isnt large support a non-stop service, and there is no thru traffic from AKL or LAX to help as anyone going AKL-LAX will be on the non-stops. Were the service to be run WLG-RAR-LAX then there would be a signifcant amount of thru traffic on both sectors (is explained previously it would be the best way to connect WLG-LAX) supporting a frequency increase (I would imagine 3-4/week) and in all likelihood reducing (or eliminating) the subsidy currently paid.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1020
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Thu Jun 20, 2019 12:54 am

DavidByrne wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
If you could send a 787 return in 24 hours during June/July/August 3 days a week, we might have seen it already.

Sorry, but I don't get this thing about flights having to be less than 24-hours return to give them that added viability - enabling a return trip in a single day.

Logic suggests to me that a flight over 12 hours can be absolutely as viable as one under 12 hours, so long as you can occupy the aircraft on a shorter sector on the following rotation. For example, a flight to BKK (12 hours-ish) could be twinned with a flight to HNL (eight-nine hours-ish) so the aircraft flew BKK one day and HNL the next, then back to BKK - and so on. Of course, the second flight could be any medium-distance sector, like DPS, PPT, even PER. In effect, it's exactly the same strategy that NZ already uses (and has used since the 1960s, apart from their initial disastrous flirtation with daylight flights) on the Pacific long-haul routes: the flights are too long for a single aircraft to do a daily rotation, but add in a sector to ADL, MEL, BNE, SYD or wherever, and the overall utilisation becomes tolerable. Am I missing something here?


It's about the operational complexity that can be associated with flights when they start spanning 24-28+ Hour cycles, especially if/when your 3-4 day a week service has two consecutive days as you can't send the same aircraft up two days in a row.

It's not a game changer as far as the route goes, and if the 787 schedules had 3 days where say 26-hour window could be created with little impact elsewhere then that's fine too.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1020
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:28 am

a7ala wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Firstly an LAX-RAR-WLG route sounds great as it opens a WLG-RAR flight if such a thing was needed, will it convince more people in WLG to visit RAR? or will free up space for AKL-RAR etc...


There will clearly be some displacement from AKL-RAR, but you only need to see whats occurred with more non-stop capacity WLG-NAN over the years. Its these connecting shorthaul international (leisure) routes that stimulate the most when you introduce non-stop services.

NZ6 wrote:

- What does "International all the way" actually give you? I'm not 100% sure on this but I believe LAX bound passengers need to be re security screened in RAR


If you know anything about airline network modelling you will also know passengers place a preference on I-I connections vs D-I AND for thru flights vs connecting flights AND widebody aircraft vs narrowbody. A service such as this delivers on all of these vs travelling via AKL

NZ6 wrote:
- The Lucrative film and IT industries are the exact group who will avoid RAR, the lounge is just that, a small and comfortable lounge room, it's just like a very large corporate box or hotel room, the airport holds only basic facilities and there are no airbridges etc.


See previous comment - yes the lounge might not be up to it, but the other benefits, including the ability to fly business/prem econ all the way should outweigh, and also allow Air NZ to get more yield out of the market.

NZ6 wrote:

- Look at the scale of Fiji and the Cook Islands for outbound tourism, now scale that proportionally to how WLG-NAN works and you have a quick and dirty view on a WLG-RAR direct. It could work, but as my old saying goes, 'are we just'drawing lines on a map' this time to justify an XLR aircraft


No actually Im saying they should use a widebody aircraft replacing the AKL-RAR-LAX 1/week subsidised service with WLG-RAR-LAX 3-4/week

NZ6 wrote:
- Protecting WLG-US traffic? Protecting it from what exactly, people who may fly east to Australia or fly to AKL and onto NZ/AA/? A lot like the first two points, what makes RAR so appealing over AKL, BNE, SYD as it's still a one-stop connection. NZ much like QF are doing in Australia, they are opening new markets directly into more ports within the states, this is where the market protection comes from. How many US-bound passengers use WLG-NAN-LAX over AKL, SYD, MEL and is that seen as a threat to any of the major carriers?


Its going to continue to be tough for Air NZ to compete with the QF/AA partnership particularly when they expand their offering. NZ may well lose a significant amount of their CHC-US market with the introduction of CHC-LAX, and expansion in AKL will make it tougher there as well. A potential tug of war for WLG connecting traffic in the middle. A WLG-LAX thru service gives NZ an unassailable position.

NZ6 wrote:
Your last point confuses me, you say it's a big win for the Cook Island as there's "added capacity RAR-LAX I would imagine with less of a subsidy required" but if there's a need for it to be subsidised today, why's there a need for more capacity and how is that going to be filled and converted into revenue offsetting the subsidy.


Pretty simple really, RAR-LAX is subsidised as the local market isnt large support a non-stop service, and there is no thru traffic from AKL or LAX to help as anyone going AKL-LAX will be on the non-stops. Were the service to be run WLG-RAR-LAX then there would be a signifcant amount of thru traffic on both sectors (is explained previously it would be the best way to connect WLG-LAX) supporting a frequency increase (I would imagine 3-4/week) and in all likelihood reducing (or eliminating) the subsidy currently paid.


My replies in order.

- RAR does experience a capacity issue due to the lack of accommodation on the Island(s). Does NZ need to displace those transitting AKL so it can pick up more AKL traffic as well as generating more WLG? There are times when the airline can't give away seats as there's either no accommodation there or the occupancy rates get so high, travellers opt for another destination where accommodation is cheaper.
- Some Passengers may prefer I-I flights, however, this is by no means a general rule and has absolutely no relevance to network modelling. The 'lure' of an I-I connection where the transit is a basic, Pacific Island airport predominantly designed for arriving and departing passengers where there is virtually no or very limited infrastructure to support customers transiting, does not outweigh a 1 hour 5-minute frequent connection between (in this example) AKL-WLG.
- There is a massive assumption, the XLR would firstly have BP on it, secondly that these lurcrative industries will opt for long narrowbody sectors over widebody flights, thirdly the number of passengers in these industries will actually want to transit for 90 minutes - 2-hours where they need to disembark via stars and wait in a 2nd or 3rd tier lounge with almost no other facilities in the airport.
- You've stated I.T industries, however, there's more of demand into SFO than LAX for that industries.
- What impacts does it have on on the contact between Air NZ and the Cook Islands if NZ starts to fill the plane with traffic between NZ and the US?
- If QF or AA do CHC-LAX, this will not direct difference to WLG-RAR-LAX than what an additional AKL-LAX, or AKL-DFW would offer.
- The US market for NZ and QF is heavily balanced towards the inbound US passenger, hence why you're seeing hubs in NZ and Australia being connected to more places deeper into the US. You're not seeing CBR, CNS, NTL's etc being connected to LAX. The logic applied here, is based on a small minority group of "lucrative" travellers and the smallish outbound WLG market to the US. If you're flying anywhere beyond the Western Seaboard from WLG then NZ/QF want you over AKL/SYD/BNE on their widebodies direct into IAH/ORD/DFW and one day NYC/YYZ etc. Further to this, a lot outbound passengers are opting for this to avoid the traditional negative transit experience of LAX.
- You need to better understand, or understand full stop! how and what is subsidised by the Cook Islands before making any claims like this.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1020
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:37 am

a7ala wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Firstly an LAX-RAR-WLG route sounds great as it opens a WLG-RAR flight if such a thing was needed, will it convince more people in WLG to visit RAR? or will free up space for AKL-RAR etc...


There will clearly be some displacement from AKL-RAR, but you only need to see whats occurred with more non-stop capacity WLG-NAN over the years. Its these connecting shorthaul international (leisure) routes that stimulate the most when you introduce non-stop services.

NZ6 wrote:

- What does "International all the way" actually give you? I'm not 100% sure on this but I believe LAX bound passengers need to be re security screened in RAR


If you know anything about airline network modelling you will also know passengers place a preference on I-I connections vs D-I AND for thru flights vs connecting flights AND widebody aircraft vs narrowbody. A service such as this delivers on all of these vs travelling via AKL

NZ6 wrote:
- The Lucrative film and IT industries are the exact group who will avoid RAR, the lounge is just that, a small and comfortable lounge room, it's just like a very large corporate box or hotel room, the airport holds only basic facilities and there are no airbridges etc.


See previous comment - yes the lounge might not be up to it, but the other benefits, including the ability to fly business/prem econ all the way should outweigh, and also allow Air NZ to get more yield out of the market.

NZ6 wrote:

- Look at the scale of Fiji and the Cook Islands for outbound tourism, now scale that proportionally to how WLG-NAN works and you have a quick and dirty view on a WLG-RAR direct. It could work, but as my old saying goes, 'are we just'drawing lines on a map' this time to justify an XLR aircraft


No actually Im saying they should use a widebody aircraft replacing the AKL-RAR-LAX 1/week subsidised service with WLG-RAR-LAX 3-4/week

NZ6 wrote:
- Protecting WLG-US traffic? Protecting it from what exactly, people who may fly east to Australia or fly to AKL and onto NZ/AA/? A lot like the first two points, what makes RAR so appealing over AKL, BNE, SYD as it's still a one-stop connection. NZ much like QF are doing in Australia, they are opening new markets directly into more ports within the states, this is where the market protection comes from. How many US-bound passengers use WLG-NAN-LAX over AKL, SYD, MEL and is that seen as a threat to any of the major carriers?


Its going to continue to be tough for Air NZ to compete with the QF/AA partnership particularly when they expand their offering. NZ may well lose a significant amount of their CHC-US market with the introduction of CHC-LAX, and expansion in AKL will make it tougher there as well. A potential tug of war for WLG connecting traffic in the middle. A WLG-LAX thru service gives NZ an unassailable position.

NZ6 wrote:
Your last point confuses me, you say it's a big win for the Cook Island as there's "added capacity RAR-LAX I would imagine with less of a subsidy required" but if there's a need for it to be subsidised today, why's there a need for more capacity and how is that going to be filled and converted into revenue offsetting the subsidy.


Pretty simple really, RAR-LAX is subsidised as the local market isnt large support a non-stop service, and there is no thru traffic from AKL or LAX to help as anyone going AKL-LAX will be on the non-stops. Were the service to be run WLG-RAR-LAX then there would be a signifcant amount of thru traffic on both sectors (is explained previously it would be the best way to connect WLG-LAX) supporting a frequency increase (I would imagine 3-4/week) and in all likelihood reducing (or eliminating) the subsidy currently paid.


My replies in order.

- RAR does experience a capacity issue due to the lack of accommodation on the Island(s). Does NZ need to displace those transitting AKL so it can pick up more AKL traffic as well as generating more WLG? There are times when the airline can't give away seats as there's either no accommodation there or the occupancy rates get so high, travellers opt for another destination where accommodation is cheaper.
- Some Passengers may prefer I-I flights, however, this is by no means a general rule and has absolutely no relevance to network modelling. The 'lure' of an I-I connection where the transit is a basic, Pacific Island airport predominantly designed for arriving and departing passengers where there is virtually no or very limited infrastructure to support customers transiting, does not outweigh a 1 hour 5-minute frequent connection between (in this example) AKL-WLG.
- There is a massive assumption, the XLR would firstly have BP on it, secondly that these lurcrative industries will opt for long narrowbody sectors over widebody flights, thirdly the number of passengers in these industries will actually want to transit for 90 minutes - 2-hours where they need to disembark via stars and wait in a 2nd or 3rd tier lounge with almost no other facilities in the airport.
- You've stated I.T industries, however, there's more of demand into SFO than LAX for that industries.
- What impacts does it have on on the contact between Air NZ and the Cook Islands if NZ starts to fill the plane with traffic between NZ and the US?
- If QF or AA do CHC-LAX, this will not direct difference to WLG-RAR-LAX than what an additional AKL-LAX, or AKL-DFW would offer.
- The US market for NZ and QF is heavily balanced towards the inbound US passenger, hence why you're seeing hubs in NZ and Australia being connected to more places deeper into the US. You're not seeing CBR, CNS, NTL's etc being connected to LAX. The logic applied here, is based on a small minority group of "lucrative" travellers and the smallish outbound WLG market to the US. If you're flying anywhere beyond the Western Seaboard from WLG then NZ/QF want you over AKL/SYD/BNE on their widebodies direct into IAH/ORD/DFW and one day NYC/YYZ etc. Further to this, a lot outbound passengers are opting for this to avoid the traditional negative transit experience of LAX.
- You need to better understand, or understand full stop! how and what is subsidised by the Cook Islands before making any claims like this.
 
a7ala
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:50 am

NZ6 wrote:
My replies in order.

- RAR does experience a capacity issue due to the lack of accommodation on the Island(s). Does NZ need to displace those transitting AKL so it can pick up more AKL traffic as well as generating more WLG? There are times when the airline can't give away seats as there's either no accommodation there or the occupancy rates get so high, travellers opt for another destination where accommodation is cheaper.
- Some Passengers may prefer I-I flights, however, this is by no means a general rule and has absolutely no relevance to network modelling. The 'lure' of an I-I connection where the transit is a basic, Pacific Island airport predominantly designed for arriving and departing passengers where there is virtually no or very limited infrastructure to support customers transiting, does not outweigh a 1 hour 5-minute frequent connection between (in this example) AKL-WLG.
- There is a massive assumption, the XLR would firstly have BP on it, secondly that these lurcrative industries will opt for long narrowbody sectors over widebody flights, thirdly the number of passengers in these industries will actually want to transit for 90 minutes - 2-hours where they need to disembark via stars and wait in a 2nd or 3rd tier lounge with almost no other facilities in the airport.
- You've stated I.T industries, however, there's more of demand into SFO than LAX for that industries.
- What impacts does it have on on the contact between Air NZ and the Cook Islands if NZ starts to fill the plane with traffic between NZ and the US?
- If QF or AA do CHC-LAX, this will not direct difference to WLG-RAR-LAX than what an additional AKL-LAX, or AKL-DFW would offer.
- The US market for NZ and QF is heavily balanced towards the inbound US passenger, hence why you're seeing hubs in NZ and Australia being connected to more places deeper into the US. You're not seeing CBR, CNS, NTL's etc being connected to LAX. The logic applied here, is based on a small minority group of "lucrative" travellers and the smallish outbound WLG market to the US. If you're flying anywhere beyond the Western Seaboard from WLG then NZ/QF want you over AKL/SYD/BNE on their widebodies direct into IAH/ORD/DFW and one day NYC/YYZ etc. Further to this, a lot outbound passengers are opting for this to avoid the traditional negative transit experience of LAX.
- You need to better understand, or understand full stop! how and what is subsidised by the Cook Islands before making any claims like this.


- My understanding is that there is accommodation for at least 17,000 visitors a month in Raro (and at least 2000 on Aitutaki) and its unusual for numbers to get above 13,000 - maybe its the type of accommodation thats the issue?
- Of course there will be some passengers where I-I isnt important. The fact there are different values placed on these when looking at customers preferences shows that the majority would prefer that. Also as I mentioned previously the thru flight, widebody aircraft, business/Prem econ would make this the preferred option for the WLG market
- Read my comment - I wasnt referring to the XLR - im referring to existing widebody aircraft!
- Agree that some of the IT in SFO.... but actually now becoming more dispersed across the US
- Who knows about the impacts between Air NZ and cook islands govt. That would be for them to sort out, however if it resulted in more visitors to the Cook Islands and a more profitable service for Air NZ probably a good thing for both of them?
- Some people prefer connecting via CHC than AKL.... and at the end of the day its more capacity into New Zealand that needs to be filled
- Please enlighten me on what is subsidised by the Cook Islands govt.
 
DavidJ08
Posts: 158
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:18 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:55 am

a7ala wrote:
- Please enlighten me on what is subsidised by the Cook Islands govt.

I'll butt in here, I believe NZ18 RAR-LAX and NZ61 RAR-SYD are subsidised.
http://www.mfem.gov.ck/images/Covec_Eco ... Report.pdf

EDIT to add:
- I'm not sure if connecting in RAR is necessarily more appealing than having to spend an hour in a non-business premier seat on a AKL-WLG flight?
- If the RAR-LAX service is maintained at a minimum level with the help of a subsidy, how does it make sense to make it 3-4x weekly, just by adding a WLG-RAR connection?
- The preference by some to connect in CHC rather than AKL hasn't resulted in a direct CHC to US service so far, so how will RAR be better - because surely the slogan "connect in RAR, we're not AKL" can only go so far?
Last edited by DavidJ08 on Thu Jun 20, 2019 2:17 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1351
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Thu Jun 20, 2019 2:09 am

Gasman wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
apart from their initial disastrous flirtation with daylight flights) on the Pacific long-haul routes


David can you elaborate on this? The lack of daylight Pacific long haul flights is one of the reasons I prefer QF to to the US - even via Australia, you're out of bed for a shorter period of time. I remember a 1600-ish AKL-LAX flight in the early 2000's, but apart from this when was NZ's flirtation with daylight flights - and why was it disastrous?

We're going way back to 1965, when the first DC8 flights were running AKL-NAN-HNL-LAX, and the departure time was 1015 ex AKL, arriving in LAX at around 0630 or thereabouts - I've no idea how I remember this stuff! After the initial 2x weekly operation had been going a few months there was a newspaper report saying that staff at NZ (then TE) had been prohibited from speaking publicly about the loads on the flights. The article suggested that some flights had been going out with as few as eight pax. At that stage, it was their only long-haul route (HKG came next, then SIN) so for an airline starting to reach for the corners of its region it was pretty embarrassing. After a while, the flights changed to an evening departure from AKL and connections from SYD, and from there on capacity grew pretty regularly.

It's hardly a predictor of what might happen in today's market with daylight flights; just a random historical fact!
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1351
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Thu Jun 20, 2019 2:21 am

DavidJ08 wrote:
I believe NZ18 RAR-LAX and NZ61 RAR-SYD are subsidised.

Being really nit-picky, but the services are under-written by the Cooks Govt, rather than subsidised automatically. This means that they may or may not receive a subsidy, depending on performance of the route. Highly likely, though, that they've been subsidised each year but don't have that info.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
a7ala
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Thu Jun 20, 2019 2:27 am

DavidJ08 wrote:
- If the RAR-LAX service is maintained at a minimum level with the help of a subsidy, how does it make sense to make it 3-4x weekly, just by adding a WLG-RAR connection?


It makes the service much more viable as a through flight from WLG as you are carrying WLG-LAX passengers it whereas the current fight from AKL gets no AKL-LAX on it due to the non-stop options - supporting a higher frequency and/or lower subsidy. Whether it makes financial sense for the airline we dont know - the issue will be that because it is subsidised Air NZ will be quite happy just taking the subsidy for the 1/week. But maybe there is a yield opportunity for the widebody from WLG.

If its not an option for Air NZ, maybe an opportunity for someone else in a future without an extended runway.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1020
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Thu Jun 20, 2019 2:36 am

a7ala wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
My replies in order.

- RAR does experience a capacity issue due to the lack of accommodation on the Island(s). Does NZ need to displace those transitting AKL so it can pick up more AKL traffic as well as generating more WLG? There are times when the airline can't give away seats as there's either no accommodation there or the occupancy rates get so high, travellers opt for another destination where accommodation is cheaper.
- Some Passengers may prefer I-I flights, however, this is by no means a general rule and has absolutely no relevance to network modelling. The 'lure' of an I-I connection where the transit is a basic, Pacific Island airport predominantly designed for arriving and departing passengers where there is virtually no or very limited infrastructure to support customers transiting, does not outweigh a 1 hour 5-minute frequent connection between (in this example) AKL-WLG.
- There is a massive assumption, the XLR would firstly have BP on it, secondly that these lurcrative industries will opt for long narrowbody sectors over widebody flights, thirdly the number of passengers in these industries will actually want to transit for 90 minutes - 2-hours where they need to disembark via stars and wait in a 2nd or 3rd tier lounge with almost no other facilities in the airport.
- You've stated I.T industries, however, there's more of demand into SFO than LAX for that industries.
- What impacts does it have on on the contact between Air NZ and the Cook Islands if NZ starts to fill the plane with traffic between NZ and the US?
- If QF or AA do CHC-LAX, this will not direct difference to WLG-RAR-LAX than what an additional AKL-LAX, or AKL-DFW would offer.
- The US market for NZ and QF is heavily balanced towards the inbound US passenger, hence why you're seeing hubs in NZ and Australia being connected to more places deeper into the US. You're not seeing CBR, CNS, NTL's etc being connected to LAX. The logic applied here, is based on a small minority group of "lucrative" travellers and the smallish outbound WLG market to the US. If you're flying anywhere beyond the Western Seaboard from WLG then NZ/QF want you over AKL/SYD/BNE on their widebodies direct into IAH/ORD/DFW and one day NYC/YYZ etc. Further to this, a lot outbound passengers are opting for this to avoid the traditional negative transit experience of LAX.
- You need to better understand, or understand full stop! how and what is subsidised by the Cook Islands before making any claims like this.


- My understanding is that there is accommodation for at least 17,000 visitors a month in Raro (and at least 2000 on Aitutaki) and its unusual for numbers to get above 13,000 - maybe its the type of accommodation thats the issue?
- Of course there will be some passengers where I-I isnt important. The fact there are different values placed on these when looking at customers preferences shows that the majority would prefer that. Also as I mentioned previously the thru flight, widebody aircraft, business/Prem econ would make this the preferred option for the WLG market
- Read my comment - I wasnt referring to the XLR - im referring to existing widebody aircraft!
- Agree that some of the IT in SFO.... but actually now becoming more dispersed across the US
- Who knows about the impacts between Air NZ and cook islands govt. That would be for them to sort out, however if it resulted in more visitors to the Cook Islands and a more profitable service for Air NZ probably a good thing for both of them?
- Some people prefer connecting via CHC than AKL.... and at the end of the day its more capacity into New Zealand that needs to be filled
- Please enlighten me on what is subsidised by the Cook Islands govt.


- As I mentioned, they do experience accommodation issues both with no accommodation and secondly the cost of accommodation, partly driven by occupancy rates but also cost of living, wages etc in the Cook Islands and what customers see as value over other Pacific get aways and Australia.
- You said, "If you know anything about airline network modelling you will also know passengers place a preference on I-I connections vs D-I" This is completely incorrect and goes against NZ's and gloabl trends for airlines with networks as they have. Global trends are showing more direct connections between pairs and NZ's network is hub and spoke. Yes, EK, SQ and many others have I-I networks but that's not NZ's model. If the I-I model was so critical to "network modelling" why did the I-I AKL-CHC flights not flourish?
- I may be mistaken, I understood this topic evolved from the idea of NZ accruing the A321-XLR. I'm not sure if deploying their widebody fleet onto a what's essentially a non-profit sector is much better. You also need to now factor in ferry flights.

- You say this; "Who knows about the impacts between Air NZ and cook islands govt. That would be for them to sort out" I'm at a loss to why/how you've come to the conclusion that NZ should fly WLG-RAR-LAX then.
- Sure lots of people prefer connecting via CHC is they're visiting the South Island, this holds no relevance to why fly WLG-RAR-LAX and extra capacity being generated will come from more flights into ORD, IAH and NYC one day. Let's also hope AA/QF do more.

- The Cook Islands has a contract with Air NZ to subsidize flights between the USA (LAX) and Rarotonga (as well as SYD-RAR).

One underlying critical point, this is subsidized. The airline wouldn't otherwise fly it and has been renewed a few times so isn't new to the airline.

From the link DavidJ08 posted

"The LAX-RAR underwrite is largely a “maintenance” strategy. It delivers a relatively large number of visitors but from stagnant or declining markets"
 
NZ6
Posts: 1020
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Thu Jun 20, 2019 2:39 am

a7ala wrote:
DavidJ08 wrote:
- If the RAR-LAX service is maintained at a minimum level with the help of a subsidy, how does it make sense to make it 3-4x weekly, just by adding a WLG-RAR connection?


It makes the service much more viable as a through flight from WLG as you are carrying WLG-LAX passengers it whereas the current fight from AKL gets no AKL-LAX on it due to the non-stop options - supporting a higher frequency and/or lower subsidy. Whether it makes financial sense for the airline we dont know - the issue will be that because it is subsidised Air NZ will be quite happy just taking the subsidy for the 1/week. But maybe there is a yield opportunity for the widebody from WLG.

If its not an option for Air NZ, maybe an opportunity for someone else in a future without an extended runway.


The cook islands aren't going to pay for Wellingtonian to fly to the USA!

The agreement is to bring American tourists into the Cook Islands!

Air New Zealand will take Wellingtonians, and everyone else to the USA directly from AKL on their LAX, SFO, YVR, IAH, ORD and one day NYC and YYZ flights.
 
a7ala
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Thu Jun 20, 2019 2:54 am

NZ6 wrote:
a7ala wrote:
DavidJ08 wrote:
- If the RAR-LAX service is maintained at a minimum level with the help of a subsidy, how does it make sense to make it 3-4x weekly, just by adding a WLG-RAR connection?


It makes the service much more viable as a through flight from WLG as you are carrying WLG-LAX passengers it whereas the current fight from AKL gets no AKL-LAX on it due to the non-stop options - supporting a higher frequency and/or lower subsidy. Whether it makes financial sense for the airline we dont know - the issue will be that because it is subsidised Air NZ will be quite happy just taking the subsidy for the 1/week. But maybe there is a yield opportunity for the widebody from WLG.

If its not an option for Air NZ, maybe an opportunity for someone else in a future without an extended runway.


The cook islands aren't going to pay for Wellingtonian to fly to the USA!

The agreement is to bring American tourists into the Cook Islands!

Air New Zealand will take Wellingtonians, and everyone else to the USA directly from AKL on their LAX, SFO, YVR, IAH, ORD and one day NYC and YYZ flights.


I dont think you quite get it. If, with the help of the WLG-LAX traffic, the service can support an increase from 1/week to 3-4/week then the Cooks govt potentially benefits from:
- An increase in WLG visitors some of which will transfer from other Pacific leisure destinations that are 1-stop to the new non-stop
- Stimulation in US visitors some of which will come from the increase in frequency and promotion in the US, some of which will come from the fact that unless you are wanting to visit the Cooks for a week you are going to have to fly back via AKL currently, and some that will take the opportunity for a stopover on the way through to New Zealand

Clearly they would need to look at the case, but if the Cooks Govt could get a 3-4/week service with the same level of underwrite then surely its a good thing for them.

I suspect you are right on what Air NZ will do however, but you never know how things might play out in the future.
 
a7ala
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Thu Jun 20, 2019 4:59 am

Hi there, does anyone know what the current status is of the RESA extension at WHK? Has it been completed? Thanks.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1020
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:42 am

a7ala wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
a7ala wrote:

It makes the service much more viable as a through flight from WLG as you are carrying WLG-LAX passengers it whereas the current fight from AKL gets no AKL-LAX on it due to the non-stop options - supporting a higher frequency and/or lower subsidy. Whether it makes financial sense for the airline we dont know - the issue will be that because it is subsidised Air NZ will be quite happy just taking the subsidy for the 1/week. But maybe there is a yield opportunity for the widebody from WLG.

If its not an option for Air NZ, maybe an opportunity for someone else in a future without an extended runway.


The cook islands aren't going to pay for Wellingtonian to fly to the USA!

The agreement is to bring American tourists into the Cook Islands!

Air New Zealand will take Wellingtonians, and everyone else to the USA directly from AKL on their LAX, SFO, YVR, IAH, ORD and one day NYC and YYZ flights.


I dont think you quite get it. If, with the help of the WLG-LAX traffic, the service can support an increase from 1/week to 3-4/week then the Cooks govt potentially benefits from:
- An increase in WLG visitors some of which will transfer from other Pacific leisure destinations that are 1-stop to the new non-stop
- Stimulation in US visitors some of which will come from the increase in frequency and promotion in the US, some of which will come from the fact that unless you are wanting to visit the Cooks for a week you are going to have to fly back via AKL currently, and some that will take the opportunity for a stopover on the way through to New Zealand

Clearly they would need to look at the case, but if the Cooks Govt could get a 3-4/week service with the same level of underwrite then surely its a good thing for them.

I suspect you are right on what Air NZ will do however, but you never know how things might play out in the future.


- NZ's focus is not on LAX as a hub as it was in the 90's, it's now connecting AKL directly into various ports within the USA and using all their domestic and south pacific 'spokes' to feed into that, none of this critical I-I stuff that was suggested earlier.
- The focus and money is with inbound USA customers.
- NZ's growth is about making New Zealand as a country more accessible to millions of Americans by creating direct new routes IAH, ORD, NYC.
- Will and does the Cook Islands want 3-4 per week? Did you read the link provided early which clearly stats "The LAX-RAR underwrite is largely a “maintenance” strategy. It delivers a relatively large number of visitors but from stagnant or declining markets". As I've said before, the cooks subsidise the service based on inbound American Tourists. Given the above sentence, there is a significant gap between that and what Wellingtonians will need to make up on a route that already needs to be subsidized, especially when another branch of NZ is pushing for SFO, YVR, IAH, ORD and one day soon NYC.
- You talk about NZ wanting to 'Stimulate' the Cook Islands, is this NZ's core role and responsibility? How much time, effort and ultimately money should be spent on this stimulation, especially when the Cooks are looking to Australia for growth.

WLG-RAR, with an A320 or A321 which arrives in time for the AKL-RAR-LAX, maybe you could test that and see how important I-I travel is for the film industry?
 
DavidJ08
Posts: 158
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:18 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:17 pm

I just wanna point out that from Air NZ's website booking system, the only way to get on the RAR-LAX leg of NZ18/19 is to search specifically for RAR-LAX, either directly or via multistop (like AKL-RAR-LAX). The RAR-LAX leg is not available to be booked as an AKL-LAX or LAX-AKL journey.

I think this says something - the fact that you can't actually book a RAR-transit AKL-LAX flight says something about NZ's lack of inclination to offer such a service. I don't know if it's because they don't think it's worth doing, or because their agreement with the Cook Islands govt prevents it. For all we know, the underwriting agreement might prohibit NZ from selling seats on the RAR-LAX service to AKL-LAX passengers, to ensure that Cook Islands locals and visitors can access the lower fare buckets on that service.

I would say don't assume that just because RAR-LAX is a route flown by an NZ aircraft, that NZ has any wish to grow/expand it. If anything, should the Cook Islands govt opt to cease the underwriting, I would say NZ18 as a flight will cease to operate.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1020
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Thu Jun 20, 2019 10:03 pm

DavidJ08 wrote:
I just wanna point out that from Air NZ's website booking system, the only way to get on the RAR-LAX leg of NZ18/19 is to search specifically for RAR-LAX, either directly or via multistop (like AKL-RAR-LAX). The RAR-LAX leg is not available to be booked as an AKL-LAX or LAX-AKL journey.

I think this says something - the fact that you can't actually book a RAR-transit AKL-LAX flight says something about NZ's lack of inclination to offer such a service. I don't know if it's because they don't think it's worth doing, or because their agreement with the Cook Islands govt prevents it. For all we know, the underwriting agreement might prohibit NZ from selling seats on the RAR-LAX service to AKL-LAX passengers, to ensure that Cook Islands locals and visitors can access the lower fare buckets on that service.

I would say don't assume that just because RAR-LAX is a route flown by an NZ aircraft, that NZ has any wish to grow/expand it. If anything, should the Cook Islands govt opt to cease the underwriting, I would say NZ18 as a flight will cease to operate.



Sales on NZ18/19 between AKL-LAX are typically locked down to offer no availability unless looking at a journey that starts of ends in RAR, at least by default.

Air NZ doesn't want passengers being booked onto AKL-RAR-LAX when there is sometimes 2x daily direct, it creates a terrible customer experience if it's missed online or your agent misses the 1 indicator which shows it stops somewhere. Trust me, this used to happen a lot with NAN, APW, RAR, PPT

You can stopover in RAR and use the through the flight on both legs, you just need to do a multistop online, or your agent just needs to book NZ18 AKLRAR then NZ18 RARLAX.

You can also see, all long term Los Angeles fares are eligible for sale when you're booked on NZ18/19.

https://www.airnzagent.co.nz/long-term- ... shed-fares.

I hope everyone can see, under the principals of Pacific Rim and what Luxon has built NZ on, segments like RAR-LAX are not a focus. It does not make money and the Cook Islands cover the difference and contract Air NZ to continue the flight on the basis that these Americans will come into the country and spend more than it cost them on hotels, restaurants, tourism services which in turn keeping locals employed etc..
 
NZ6
Posts: 1020
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Thu Jun 20, 2019 10:51 pm

On a different note but something that was discussed quickly earlier in the week.

We know Luxon is going, what positive or negative changes will that mean for the airline and the public. Luxon was GGM Long Haul Airline, or a title similar to this and lead the project on the review of the international long haul arm of the airline prior to becoming CEO.

This is where BJS, HKG-LHR were axed and Pacific Rim born, the 10 abreast was installed under his realm, Airpoints moved from an airline loyalty program to an everyday loyalty program and the end of Eagle Airways and small regional flying was under his watch.

We've also seen loyalty members almost double, we've gone back into SIN, TPE, DPS, KIX and shortly ICN, we've opened EZE, IAH, ORD and tried SGN and MNL.

Overall, he's returned the best brand reputation and financial performance in the airline's history.

At a real high level, Norris was about automation and self-service, Fyfe was about Brand and Image, Luxon about Sales.

I wonder what will be next and do we have a wish list?
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6807
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Sat Jun 22, 2019 5:24 am

DavidJ08 wrote:
I just wanna point out that from Air NZ's website booking system, the only way to get on the RAR-LAX leg of NZ18/19 is to search specifically for RAR-LAX, either directly or via multistop (like AKL-RAR-LAX). The RAR-LAX leg is not available to be booked as an AKL-LAX or LAX-AKL journey.

I think this says something - the fact that you can't actually book a RAR-transit AKL-LAX flight says something about NZ's lack of inclination to offer such a service. I don't know if it's because they don't think it's worth doing, or because their agreement with the Cook Islands govt prevents it. For all we know, the underwriting agreement might prohibit NZ from selling seats on the RAR-LAX service to AKL-LAX passengers, to ensure that Cook Islands locals and visitors can access the lower fare buckets on that service.

I would say don't assume that just because RAR-LAX is a route flown by an NZ aircraft, that NZ has any wish to grow/expand it. If anything, should the Cook Islands govt opt to cease the underwriting, I would say NZ18 as a flight will cease to operate.


To weigh in on this I agree if the Cook Islands opted out of underwriting this service NZ would terminate it, this what happened with TBU-APW-LAX it survived until 2011 with a subsidy until the subsidy was pulled, while the other flights NAN/PPT-LAX were pulled in favour of codeshares with FJ/TN in 2008 which still stand today.

HNL was a hub of sorts until the early 2000s however NZ didn’t feed it from CHC or even SYD only AKL/NAN/RAR/APW with through flights to LAX/LHR/FRA, problem was you had to be on an NZ ticket all the way as they couldn’t carry HNL-LAX traffic due to cabotage rules being a domestic US flight. There were also short lived HNL-DFW/YVR services.

LAX had SYD/AKL/NAN/PPT/RAR/APW and a brief CHC services through to FRA/LHR.

Since then the Pacific Rim strategy sees Everything hubbed through AKL with services to LAX/SFO/HNL/YVR/IAH/ORD/EZE, anything else from anywhere else would seem to go against the current strategy including WLG-RAR-LAX.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3172
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Sat Jun 22, 2019 7:01 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
Since then the Pacific Rim strategy sees Everything hubbed through AKL with services to LAX/SFO/HNL/YVR/IAH/ORD/EZE, anything else from anywhere else would seem to go against the current strategy including WLG-RAR-LAX.


WLG-(Pacific Islands)-LAX is probably best left to FJ via NAN.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6807
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Sat Jun 22, 2019 7:36 am

zkncj wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
Since then the Pacific Rim strategy sees Everything hubbed through AKL with services to LAX/SFO/HNL/YVR/IAH/ORD/EZE, anything else from anywhere else would seem to go against the current strategy including WLG-RAR-LAX.


WLG-(Pacific Islands)-LAX is probably best left to FJ via NAN.


I agree there, I’m not sure how much 6th freedom traffic FJ chase these days using smaller A330s compared to the previous 744s with the old FJ. However they could/should look to build frequency to the likes of WLG/CHC from 2-3 per week towards 5-7 weekly, given they have expanded to 6 A330s and soon 2 A350s to help back fill some of the additional capacity they have added if need be.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1351
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Sat Jun 22, 2019 1:00 pm

Random blue-sky thinking: is there potential for a Pacific Island-based LCC operating 321XLRs between Aus, NZ and West Coast USA? Potentially to (say) Oakland and other secondary airports via RAR? That would be welcomed by airports like WLG and CHC. Still may founder on the lack of accommodation in Raro, though, as for many the opportunity of an “exotic” stopover would be a drawcard.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
NZ6
Posts: 1020
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Sat Jun 22, 2019 9:43 pm

zkncj wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
Since then the Pacific Rim strategy sees Everything hubbed through AKL with services to LAX/SFO/HNL/YVR/IAH/ORD/EZE, anything else from anywhere else would seem to go against the current strategy including WLG-RAR-LAX.


WLG-(Pacific Islands)-LAX is probably best left to FJ via NAN.


FJ does this to an extent with AKL-NAN-LAX but to be honest, they scrape the bottom of the barrel with regard to airfares for those who don't want to stoppover. TN also does it AKL-PPT-LAX with not much more success.

The mid pacific transit option used to be an attractive 15 years ago as it was much cheaper than the directs, but as the lead in airfares have dropped more and more people are able to access seats on the directs with NZ, QF, AA and UA at a reasonable price. It wasn't so long ago where you weren't getting much change from $3,000 return to Los Angeles but now with some planning and good luck, you'll now get it below $1K but shouldn't struggle to get it around $1,500.

FJ like TN are targeting the inbound market from the North, the return 'through flights' may have some Kiwi based traffic going through to the US but it'll predominantly be made up of people stopping in NAN, remember people don't typically stop both directions either.

I recall when NZ operated NAN-LAX there was always an issue with directional imbalance, people would prefer to 'stop' on their way home and do the relaxing island thing then. Which meant NAN-LAX had a reasonable load but LAX-NAN didn't as they came direct on one of those flights. It may have been the other way around, it's been some time.
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3572
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Sat Jun 22, 2019 10:05 pm

Re Cook Islands tourism, the Puna/Brown government is developing a strategy to increase the value of the existing numbers of tourists as they cannot grow the number. They want higher end product to attract higher spend tourists as their infrastructure is already struggling with tourist numbers.

Also, as David Byrne has pointed out, the LAX and SYD flights are underwritten rather than subsidised ie if NZ don’t get the bums on seats at the right margin to make the flights profitable, the Cooks’ govt makes up the rest. My understanding is they don’t have to this very often.
come visit the south pacific
 
NZ6
Posts: 1020
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Sat Jun 22, 2019 10:11 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
Random blue-sky thinking: is there potential for a Pacific Island-based LCC operating 321XLRs between Aus, NZ and West Coast USA? Potentially to (say) Oakland and other secondary airports via RAR? That would be welcomed by airports like WLG and CHC. Still may founder on the lack of accommodation in Raro, though, as for many the opportunity of an “exotic” stopover would be a drawcard.


Hmmmmm I think there is an opportunity for a Pacific Island LCC, especially from around NZ/AU and the P.I, yeah there's JetStar but they're also not really an LCC in the sense we expect.

I'd argue to the US point, especially if it's a startup. You would have read the comments from the Cook Island government on LAX-RAR, now factor in just how hard it is to gain awareness and exposure in the US market of the South Pacific Islands but also operating costs, you'd need crew change given sector lengths and your market is only at one end (i.e. you're not flying between two metropolitan catchments).

Is there a US Carrier who could do it? well it won't be South West or Alaskan, JetBlue could be a contender as they could use something like Long Beach and also have a strong presence on the East Coast, but why would American's travel NYC-LGB-TBU (for example) when they've got the Carribean right there. They will if it's part of a larger trip but you start going away from LCC's and into flying to the region and bases your plans around that.

Hypothetically, if Air Asia started flying from ports within Asia into NAN/APW/TBU/PPT and then opened a base in Australia would that better serve the Islands. Now take Air Asia away and consider could that be someone else or a startup?

If someone asked me to do it, I'd look to operate between NAN/APW/RAR/PPT and SYD/MEL/BNE/AKL/SIN/HKG/TYO even with a7-day non-flex package style, i.e for $499, $599 or $699 you're flying on this day returning this day and these are your accommodation choices.

It won't happen, just continuing your "blue sky thinking"
 
NZ6
Posts: 1020
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Sun Jun 23, 2019 12:12 am

Motorhussy wrote:
Re Cook Islands tourism, the Puna/Brown government is developing a strategy to increase the value of the existing numbers of tourists as they cannot grow the number. They want higher end product to attract higher spend tourists as their infrastructure is already struggling with tourist numbers.

Also, as David Byrne has pointed out, the LAX and SYD flights are underwritten rather than subsidised ie if NZ don’t get the bums on seats at the right margin to make the flights profitable, the Cooks’ govt makes up the rest. My understanding is they don’t have to this very often.


You are technically correct with the definition of the agreement but are incorrect with how often this occurs. Let's also not forget it's the RAR-LAX leg that's underwritten, so overall performance of NZ18/19 or loads etc for AKL-RAR cannot be looked at unless it's forming part of that RAR-LAX leg. The Cook Islands covers operating expense to be neutral.

Airlines or in fact any commercial organisation who sells a product does not do so to be neutral.

Even if the overall cost was underwritten by 1%, does this make it any more sustainable or attractive to an operator?

My understanding is Air NZ wants out so it can use the equipment elsewhere but there was some political pressure to continue the service, they had also hoped with the removal of the 767 from the fleet the Cook Islands wouldn't want the cost of the larger 777. Obviously, that's now changed down to the more economical 787.
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 10043
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Sun Jun 23, 2019 12:41 am

NZ6 wrote:
DavidJ08 wrote:
I just wanna point out that from Air NZ's website booking system, the only way to get on the RAR-LAX leg of NZ18/19 is to search specifically for RAR-LAX, either directly or via multistop (like AKL-RAR-LAX). The RAR-LAX leg is not available to be booked as an AKL-LAX or LAX-AKL journey.

I think this says something - the fact that you can't actually book a RAR-transit AKL-LAX flight says something about NZ's lack of inclination to offer such a service. I don't know if it's because they don't think it's worth doing, or because their agreement with the Cook Islands govt prevents it. For all we know, the underwriting agreement might prohibit NZ from selling seats on the RAR-LAX service to AKL-LAX passengers, to ensure that Cook Islands locals and visitors can access the lower fare buckets on that service.

I would say don't assume that just because RAR-LAX is a route flown by an NZ aircraft, that NZ has any wish to grow/expand it. If anything, should the Cook Islands govt opt to cease the underwriting, I would say NZ18 as a flight will cease to operate.



Sales on NZ18/19 between AKL-LAX are typically locked down to offer no availability unless looking at a journey that starts of ends in RAR, at least by default.

Air NZ doesn't want passengers being booked onto AKL-RAR-LAX when there is sometimes 2x daily direct, it creates a terrible customer experience if it's missed online or your agent misses the 1 indicator which shows it stops somewhere. Trust me, this used to happen a lot with NAN, APW, RAR, PPT

You can stopover in RAR and use the through the flight on both legs, you just need to do a multistop online, or your agent just needs to book NZ18 AKLRAR then NZ18 RARLAX.

You can also see, all long term Los Angeles fares are eligible for sale when you're booked on NZ18/19.

https://www.airnzagent.co.nz/long-term- ... shed-fares.

I hope everyone can see, under the principals of Pacific Rim and what Luxon has built NZ on, segments like RAR-LAX are not a focus. It does not make money and the Cook Islands cover the difference and contract Air NZ to continue the flight on the basis that these Americans will come into the country and spend more than it cost them on hotels, restaurants, tourism services which in turn keeping locals employed etc..

Had always wondered why NZ18/19 didn't show up for AKL-LAX booking. Its a real pity NZ doesn't seem interested in linking up LAX/SFO - Islands - AKL/WLG/CHC, even if its just during the higher demand seasons. Even if your on transit, there is a high chance your going to buy something from the airport (which will eventually in turn help the locals) plus there is a high chance that if advertising inside the airport/on the aircraft via the welcome video is done right, it will encourage the flyer to return for a holiday. Its worked with me before several times.
Head Forum Moderator
[email protected]
Flown: 1900D,S340,Q300,AT72-5/6,DC3,CR2/7,E145,E70/75/90,A319/20/21,A332/3,A359,A380,F100,B717,B733/4/8/9,B742/4,B752/3,B763,B772/3, B789
With: NZ,SJ,QF,JQ,EK,VA,AA,UA,DL,FL,AC,FJ,SQ,TG,PR
 
NZ6
Posts: 1020
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2019

Sun Jun 23, 2019 1:40 am

777ER wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
DavidJ08 wrote:
I just wanna point out that from Air NZ's website booking system, the only way to get on the RAR-LAX leg of NZ18/19 is to search specifically for RAR-LAX, either directly or via multistop (like AKL-RAR-LAX). The RAR-LAX leg is not available to be booked as an AKL-LAX or LAX-AKL journey.

I think this says something - the fact that you can't actually book a RAR-transit AKL-LAX flight says something about NZ's lack of inclination to offer such a service. I don't know if it's because they don't think it's worth doing, or because their agreement with the Cook Islands govt prevents it. For all we know, the underwriting agreement might prohibit NZ from selling seats on the RAR-LAX service to AKL-LAX passengers, to ensure that Cook Islands locals and visitors can access the lower fare buckets on that service.

I would say don't assume that just because RAR-LAX is a route flown by an NZ aircraft, that NZ has any wish to grow/expand it. If anything, should the Cook Islands govt opt to cease the underwriting, I would say NZ18 as a flight will cease to operate.



Sales on NZ18/19 between AKL-LAX are typically locked down to offer no availability unless looking at a journey that starts of ends in RAR, at least by default.

Air NZ doesn't want passengers being booked onto AKL-RAR-LAX when there is sometimes 2x daily direct, it creates a terrible customer experience if it's missed online or your agent misses the 1 indicator which shows it stops somewhere. Trust me, this used to happen a lot with NAN, APW, RAR, PPT

You can stopover in RAR and use the through the flight on both legs, you just need to do a multistop online, or your agent just needs to book NZ18 AKLRAR then NZ18 RARLAX.

You can also see, all long term Los Angeles fares are eligible for sale when you're booked on NZ18/19.

https://www.airnzagent.co.nz/long-term- ... shed-fares.

I hope everyone can see, under the principals of Pacific Rim and what Luxon has built NZ on, segments like RAR-LAX are not a focus. It does not make money and the Cook Islands cover the difference and contract Air NZ to continue the flight on the basis that these Americans will come into the country and spend more than it cost them on hotels, restaurants, tourism services which in turn keeping locals employed etc..

Had always wondered why NZ18/19 didn't show up for AKL-LAX booking. Its a real pity NZ doesn't seem interested in linking up LAX/SFO - Islands - AKL/WLG/CHC, even if its just during the higher demand seasons. Even if your on transit, there is a high chance your going to buy something from the airport (which will eventually in turn help the locals) plus there is a high chance that if advertising inside the airport/on the aircraft via the welcome video is done right, it will encourage the flyer to return for a holiday. Its worked with me before several times.


The whole network is structured differently though.

To run a flight between any of the Islands and mainland America, you'll need a 777 or 787 aircraft, based on their existing fleet. The majority of their island runs are done by A320 and A321 with most Islands getting that daily widebody during the NZT daytime, utilising widebodies which have arrived in that morning and probably won't go out again until later that evening.

To ferry a flight down to WLG or CHC, turn it around and send to America via the islands and back again, would see the plane out of action 2 - 2-1/2 days.

Wouldn't the airline be better using it's existing fleet of A320/A321's to run flights between WLG/PMR/DUD/CHC etc into NAN/RAR while taking long haul traffic ex their hub where they connect the passenger directly to their destination of choice, while WLG would be connected to LAX, it still offers those wanting YVR/SFO/IAH/ORD nothing. The 787/777 you have freed up is now able to do another return sector to the USA which is fed from the entire network.

While money spent in transit shops would help a small minority of people, from a customer experience standpoint it would be negative towards the airline. Customers would expect a level of comfort from their transit and the overprice souvenier shop or cafe with bland basic overpriced food wouldn't go down well with the Kiwi public as a whole.

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