User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4288
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Wed Aug 07, 2019 8:44 am

Some1Somewhere wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
Some1Somewhere wrote:
Having readily removable battery packs means pulling multiple tons out of likely the wings. Fuel is already likely the heaviest thing on the plane, and batteries are less energy dense.

There is work being done on flow cells, where you have liquid components allowing very fast recharging (cycle old fluid off, new fluid on), but they're not ready yet or for some time.

Multiple chargers isn't going to speed up charging vs one large charger. That's primarily a problem of keeping it in the right temperature range (both too hot and too cold are very bad) and avoiding over-volting the pack, which requires a significant slowdown near end of charge. That last 10% takes a lot longer (per percentile) than the rest of the capacity.

You’re right about multiple chargers for smaller arrangements. Aircraft on the other hand due to their larger size and need for rapid charging would likely have multiple chargers to speed up the process. Yes the final 10% is the hardest, but there is no reason why the battery banks can’t be independent for charging. 2x 5L buckets fill up with 2 taps faster than a 10L bucket with 1 tap is an analogy to help explain it.

The fundamental limit isn't the tap, or the number of buckets. You can use a fire hose if you want, and that's faster than two taps.

When it comes down to it, the issue is a) getting rid of waste heat, and b) not over-volting the pack (charge acceptance).

A clearly isn't affected by the number of chargers.

B... the battery doesn't care about where the current is coming from. It's all about terminal voltage and amps in that one cell. Kirchoff's law and all that.

And an aircraft is going to have multiple packs - too dangerous to have just one. Also too slow to charge.
59 types. 41 countries. 24 airlines.
 
Polo5959
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:18 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Wed Aug 07, 2019 11:37 am

QFs announcement they will expand their US ops from BNE with flights to ORD and SFO has me thinking how much impact this could have on NZ.

It is clear NZs strategy is to diversity the US market with new markets. Both IAH and ORD have been successfully launched in the last 4 years.

As NZ loses their competitive one stop advantage from BNE, SYD, MEL Into the US, is the time right for NZ to start expanding into secondary AUS cities?
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8301
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:32 pm

Polo5959 wrote:
is the time right for NZ to start expanding into secondary AUS cities?


Yes. They need A220s for that though IMO. HBA and TSV should be first
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.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1378
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:14 pm

aerorobnz wrote:
Polo5959 wrote:
is the time right for NZ to start expanding into secondary AUS cities?


Yes. They need A220s for that though IMO. HBA and TSV should be first

Yes, the A220 seems to be the best option. Interesting that one of the major customers (AF/KL) is pressing for a stretch to the -300 which would compete directly with the A320. Also I think CBR has to be up there with HBA and TSV. And if VA wasn't already flying it, NTL as well.

Having said that, let's not kid ourselves that the addition of these ports will somehow be sufficient in and of itself to counter QF's diversification in the USA. NZ's own diversification strategy in the USA will also be critical to maintaining their market share.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
NZ6
Posts: 1061
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:22 pm

Polo5959 wrote:
QFs announcement they will expand their US ops from BNE with flights to ORD and SFO has me thinking how much impact this could have on NZ.

It is clear NZs strategy is to diversity the US market with new markets. Both IAH and ORD have been successfully launched in the last 4 years.

As NZ loses their competitive one stop advantage from BNE, SYD, MEL Into the US, is the time right for NZ to start expanding into secondary AUS cities?


With QF's BNE-ORD route, BNE has most likely been selected as SYD is out of range, I mean it's longer than PER-LHR! Therefore, SYD/MEL the two biggest AU cities are still a "one-stop" flight from ORD. NZ also offers one-stop ORD-SYD flights so equals that out again. In fact, that's International to International flying and that's been quoted here as being more preferred that Int-Dom.

Of course, project sunrise will change some of this, but hold on.... I've also been told that that project has nothing to with America. :stirthepot:

It's no different today if you're in DFW and want to fly into CHC, QF offers a "one-stop" option where NZ is a two-stop option.

I guess my point is, we'll get to a point where the major cities such as NYC/ORD will be connected to SYD and AKL directly by the respective carriers. There will be some advantages both ways as we see today with each carrier going into unique places, NZ with IAH and QF with DFW for example.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1061
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Wed Aug 07, 2019 10:19 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
aerorobnz wrote:
Polo5959 wrote:
is the time right for NZ to start expanding into secondary AUS cities?


Yes. They need A220s for that though IMO. HBA and TSV should be first

Yes, the A220 seems to be the best option. Interesting that one of the major customers (AF/KL) is pressing for a stretch to the -300 which would compete directly with the A320. Also I think CBR has to be up there with HBA and TSV. And if VA wasn't already flying it, NTL as well.

Having said that, let's not kid ourselves that the addition of these ports will somehow be sufficient in and of itself to counter QF's diversification in the USA. NZ's own diversification strategy in the USA will also be critical to maintaining their market share.


A few thoughts/comments on this. I hope we're not suggesting NTL, CBR, TSV etc based on NZ's long-haul network alone. While NZ's North America network is a great way to attract more passengers onto NZ's Tasman and long-haul network... they are often enticed by a lower price point

As for the cities named here

HBA: Obviously a serious option. There's very low business traffic but tourism and general awareness of Tasmania as a destination are growing so it's a matter of time.
TSV: While the city is larger than CNS and there's a large military base there, North Queensland is more a tourism region, CNS is the gateway for the Reef and the resort areas such as Port Douglas. It's also very seasonal so question why you'd need TSV also when you could grow CNS.
CBR: It's the capital of Australia and a surprisingly peaceful/beautiful city, that's sort of where it stops in my mind. There's no real business demand and tourism to CBR itself is low.

One that's not been said yet and while some time off will be interesting to see, Sydney's new western airport. Will we see a flight or two, even from AKL into it?

The airline won't buy a new aircraft for "risky" and "unknown" new routes. They'll test the waters with older A320 first, besides the benefits of an A220 wouldn't outweigh all the risk around having that type in fleet vs just using what you have.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1378
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Thu Aug 08, 2019 12:46 am

NZ6 wrote:
The airline won't buy a new aircraft for "risky" and "unknown" new routes. They'll test the waters with older A320 first, besides the benefits of an A220 wouldn't outweigh all the risk around having that type in fleet vs just using what you have.

With the benefit of some operational experience with the A220 it seems that the A220-300 and A320NEO, are more or less equivalent in fuel consumption per km and per seat-km (accurate comparisons would need proper testing under exactly the same conditions). The A220-100, at around 120 pax capacity to the A320's 170-180 is cheaper to operate per km (but more expensive per seat-km). On that basis, it could be a vehicle to use on more marginal routes or where greater frequency is required than the A320 can economically provide. I'd suggest that some of the routes suggested (HBA, CBR, TSV etc) would be in this category, though as you say, the airline is not going to purchase a new aircraft type just for risky new routes.

Where I think the A220-100 could be a real star is on existing routes like AKL-IVC, HLZ/TRG/NPL/NPE/PMR-CHC, and WLG-DUD/IVC (plus potentially AKL-WKA if that project does get off the ground). And routes like AKL-IUE etc as well. It could also be used as support on other thinner Tasman or Pacific routes where frequency or the season length could benefit from a smaller aircraft. Again, direct comparisons are difficult in the absence of controlled test data, but the A220 also seems to have similar or lower fuel consumption per seat than the ATR-72 over shorter hauls.

That's not to say that the advantages would outweigh the disadvantages of another fleet type, but I don't think that it's a foregone conclusion that the A220 couldn't benefit NZ at some time in the near future.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
NZ6
Posts: 1061
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Thu Aug 08, 2019 3:43 am

DavidByrne wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
The airline won't buy a new aircraft for "risky" and "unknown" new routes. They'll test the waters with older A320 first, besides the benefits of an A220 wouldn't outweigh all the risk around having that type in fleet vs just using what you have.

With the benefit of some operational experience with the A220 it seems that the A220-300 and A320NEO, are more or less equivalent in fuel consumption per km and per seat-km (accurate comparisons would need proper testing under exactly the same conditions). The A220-100, at around 120 pax capacity to the A320's 170-180 is cheaper to operate per km (but more expensive per seat-km). On that basis, it could be a vehicle to use on more marginal routes or where greater frequency is required than the A320 can economically provide. I'd suggest that some of the routes suggested (HBA, CBR, TSV etc) would be in this category, though as you say, the airline is not going to purchase a new aircraft type just for risky new routes.

Where I think the A220-100 could be a real star is on existing routes like AKL-IVC, HLZ/TRG/NPL/NPE/PMR-CHC, and WLG-DUD/IVC (plus potentially AKL-WKA if that project does get off the ground). And routes like AKL-IUE etc as well. It could also be used as support on other thinner Tasman or Pacific routes where frequency or the season length could benefit from a smaller aircraft. Again, direct comparisons are difficult in the absence of controlled test data, but the A220 also seems to have similar or lower fuel consumption per seat than the ATR-72 over shorter hauls.

That's not to say that the advantages would outweigh the disadvantages of another fleet type, but I don't think that it's a foregone conclusion that the A220 couldn't benefit NZ at some time in the near future.


So, correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying the A220 is more expensive to run per seat per km than the A320?

If correct, you then go on to suggest the airline buys this aircraft to run it on, quote "marginal" routes?. Do I have that right?

So buying a more expensive plane to operate, run it on 'ify' routes with some reassurance that if it fails you've still got an aircraft you could use on onto the government support route of IUE, or AKL-IVC or on one of many ATR services which would likely also be an increase in operating cost that'll give JQ a headstart and make life interesting.

Maybe I've understood this wrong...
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1378
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Thu Aug 08, 2019 4:13 am

NZ6 wrote:
So, correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying the A220 is more expensive to run per seat per km than the A320?

If correct, you then go on to suggest the airline buys this aircraft to run it on, quote "marginal" routes?. Do I have that right?

So buying a more expensive plane to operate, run it on 'ify' routes with some reassurance that if it fails you've still got an aircraft you could use on onto the government support route of IUE, or AKL-IVC or on one of many ATR services which would likely also be an increase in operating cost that'll give JQ a headstart and make life interesting.

Maybe I've understood this wrong...

I think you're putting words in my mouth and have skimmed over what I wrote too lightly and read too much into it at the same time . . . !

I'm saying that the A220-100 beats the A320 in aircraft-mile costs, but is slightly worse per passenger-mile. This means that that where frequency is more of an issue than capacity (like, AKL-IUE and AKL-IVC as two dissimilar examples) a smaller aircraft may work better than an A320, despite the (slightly) higher costs per pax. I'm also saying that when the long ATR routes build patronage, the lower per passenger costs of the A220 may give it an advantage over the ATR-72 (and the A220 may be more "right-size" than the A320), so I don't see any advantage given to JQ at all in that regard.

I think it's also wrong to characterise routes such as AKL-HBA/CBR etc as "marginal" in advance of starting service there. Like any new route, they would take time to develop. My argument is that because of the lower aircraft-mile costs of the A220, they might stand a better chance of success using a smaller aircraft.

But most of all, I'm not "proposing" NZ do anything - just observing that the A220 might well have the potential to cover off routes that are currently served by the A320 or the ATR-72, and to do so in a financially-beneficial way. I'd never suggest that this was THE answer, just that it was an interesting possibility.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
NZ6
Posts: 1061
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Fri Aug 09, 2019 12:46 am

DavidByrne wrote:
I think you're putting words in my mouth and have skimmed over what I wrote too lightly and read too much into it at the same time . . . !

I'm saying that the A220-100 beats the A320 in aircraft-mile costs, but is slightly worse per passenger-mile. This means that that where frequency is more of an issue than capacity (like, AKL-IUE and AKL-IVC as two dissimilar examples) a smaller aircraft may work better than an A320, despite the (slightly) higher costs per pax. I'm also saying that when the long ATR routes build patronage, the lower per passenger costs of the A220 may give it an advantage over the ATR-72 (and the A220 may be more "right-size" than the A320), so I don't see any advantage given to JQ at all in that regard.

I think it's also wrong to characterise routes such as AKL-HBA/CBR etc as "marginal" in advance of starting service there. Like any new route, they would take time to develop. My argument is that because of the lower aircraft-mile costs of the A220, they might stand a better chance of success using a smaller aircraft.

But most of all, I'm not "proposing" NZ do anything - just observing that the A220 might well have the potential to cover off routes that are currently served by the A320 or the ATR-72, and to do so in a financially-beneficial way. I'd never suggest that this was THE answer, just that it was an interesting possibility.


You're talking about the CASM and it's like aircraft range, you can crunch some brochure stats and have a calculated guess but will differ from operator to operator so we'd need to look at both options specific to NZ. For example, NZ would have to have liferafts, lifejackets and other equipment for overwater flying... that's going to be different to a carrier in the USA for example, that may add an extra 1T to the OEW and changes everything.

Just some thoughts though...

- I never called these routes, marginal. Someone else did.
- NZ isn't going to buy a plane for IUE period. NZ's been asked to operate it and they've clearly agreed on the basis of using the equipment they have. It's not a route NZ's even remotely trying to develop.
- AKL-IVC: I'm sure the airline's focus will be on building that through the new direct flight and then via CHC even if it's a single flight number jet, IVC-CHC-AKL or an IVC-WLG in addition to IVC-AKL
- ATR routes, the regions for decades have said they want frequency above anything else (oh, apart from cheaper fares). Even an A220 at 120 seats is double the capacity of the ATR.
- HBA/CBR: You'd need specific CASM estimates but I doubt there would be any meaningful benefit if any of the A220 on these routes.

I'm sure the airline could find a use for an A220 sized aircraft.. but would the airline be finding a need for is vs having a need for it?

The real issue here, if there is one, is the gap between the ATR and the A320 on the domestic market, there is no larger turboprop on the market and our geographical footprint means most ATR flights are around 60mins or less, while there's a number of regional jets in the market now over these sector lengths they're aren't as economical as a turbo-prop to run and maintain.

Also, what' the future with the electric or hybrid turbo-props and how will this compare to regional jets over the coming 20 years? Will the regions get cheaper fares and more flights?
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10050
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Fri Aug 09, 2019 7:11 am

Looks like from an AA route announcement post, AA is making an Oceania region announcement next week
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
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6884
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Fri Aug 09, 2019 8:10 am

777ER wrote:
Looks like from an AA route announcement post, AA is making an Oceania region announcement next week


I had read AA would launch 1 new route initially as part of the JV with QF, I’d say LAX-CHC or DFW -AKL both eventually.
 
PA515
Posts: 1499
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Fri Aug 09, 2019 8:51 am

Air NZ 789 ZK-NZI returns from SIN as NZ281 SIN-AKL on Sun 11 Aug after two weeks in SIN. It's swapping with ZK-NZJ which is doing NZ282 AKL-SIN on Sat 10 Aug.

PA515
 
jimmyah
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:53 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Sat Aug 10, 2019 1:05 am

NZ has just posted a mockup of the "Air All Blacks" livery with the caption "Here's how we #BackBlack". Maybe a special livery is in fact on the cards.
 
GW54
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 3:05 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Tue Aug 13, 2019 7:42 am

Air NZ A320 ZK-OJB last operated SYD-CHC back on 3 August. Does anyone know if it is undergoing maintenance or has it been withdrawn from service now that A321 NNF is in ssrvice?
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1378
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:34 am

NZ6 wrote:
The real issue here, if there is one, is the gap between the ATR and the A320 on the domestic market, there is no larger turboprop on the market and our geographical footprint means most ATR flights are around 60mins or less, while there's a number of regional jets in the market now over these sector lengths they're aren't as economical as a turbo-prop to run and maintain.

I think we're talking about two distinct markets: (a) Tasman/Pacific thin routes and (b) long domestic ATR and thin A320 routes.

Re (a) I could see a small fleet of A220s allowing daily operation on routes that wouldn't otherwise warrant it and permit new routes to be established. Hard to be sure from published consumption per aircraft and consumption per seat data, but over that sort of range the aircraft-mile costs appear to be approx equivalent to the A319 NEO (and presumably therefore less than the A320 NEO). The pax-mile costs also appear to be broadly similar, though to some extent it's hard to make "real" comparisons when there are so many variables which could be called into play. It's not a slam-dunk for either aircraft, but if new routes or frequency over volume is preferred, the A220 would prob come out as having the edge.

Re (b) there's the issue of how many flights on (say) AKL-NSN or HLZ-CHC is enough before a larger capacity aircraft (with shorter transit time) becomes preferable to more frequency. I'd say that AKL-NSN is probably pretty much at that point now - little passenger advantage in adding more services. On some data, the seat-mile costs for the AT7 and the A220 is more or less equivalent, and the advantages for pax are obvious. It was interesting, for example, to see NZ's response to JQ's commencement on the WLG-DUD route - all of a sudden the A320s were there in force, while as soon as JQ withdrew the AT7s were back on many of the offpeak flights. To me that suggests that cheaper fares doesn't always trump jet speed and comfort for the public, especially in a competitive environment. It could be argued that if NZ was serious about seeing off the JQ challenge on routes like AKL-NSN it could take the fight to them by employing jets on that route.

I'd also argue that NZ could totally cement its position on AKL-DUD with a smaller aircraft that could operate (say) 3-6 times a day rather than the present 2-4 times a day. That might make JQ's offering on that route pretty difficult.

As I said earlier though - this is speculation and blue-sky thinking rather than a serious proposal. However, I don't think it can or should be dismissed outright without far more rigorous analysis - which would include analysis of the likely future competitive environment as well as the current situation.

Also, what' the future with the electric or hybrid turbo-props and how will this compare to regional jets over the coming 20 years? Will the regions get cheaper fares and more flights?

I think that NZ's partnership with ATR over electric turboprops is intriguing. We're unlikely to see any fruit from it for many years, but I'm really pleased that NZ is taking the lead on this, as we all know that air travel will increasingly come under the gun for its negative impact on the environment. As one of the most trusted corporates on both sides of the Tasman, NZ needs to be seen to be progressive and sensitive to needs beyond the immediate bottom line.

And should they go for photovoltaics on the hull as a partial mechanism for charging the batteries, an all-black aircraft covered in photovoltaic cells would look pretty much like any other all-black NZ aircraft! Not that I seriously expect that in-flight charging like this will be a part of the solution, but hey, you never know!

As for the economics of electric aircraft, I assume there would be a weight penalty but very significant operational cost savings compared with current turboprops and regional jets.Time will tell.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
dhaliwal
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:41 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:56 am

Can someone tell me why doesn't Air NZ or any other airline start a AKL- KUL- AKL service?
Is there simply not enough pax to justify it?


The reason I ask is, Malaysia Airlines product is so bad on this route now that they are using the Ex Berline A330-200s product on this route.
Their business product is terrible for the money they ask for.

What if another airline with a superior product gives MAS a run for their money?

They don't have any competition on this route.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6884
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:01 pm

dhaliwal wrote:
Can someone tell me why doesn't Air NZ or any other airline start a AKL- KUL- AKL service?
Is there simply not enough pax to justify it?


The reason I ask is, Malaysia Airlines product is so bad on this route now that they are using the Ex Berline A330-200s product on this route.
Their business product is terrible for the money they ask for.

What if another airline with a superior product gives MAS a run for their money?

They don't have any competition on this route.


NZ offer KUL via SIN with SQ, MH hardly do that well and a fair potion of their PAX would be connecting, basically via SIN is better for NZ and IMO not enough PAX for another non stop carrier.

D7 talked about it however before pulling their OOL-AKL service, their costs might be more likely than NZ although NZ 789s have the sort of configuration that might work.

Who else would fly it? EK maybe whi might get enough through traffic from DXB to make it work but otherwise I can’t see anyone else.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1378
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:16 pm

ZK-NBT wrote:
NZ offer KUL via SIN with SQ, MH hardly do that well and a fair potion of their PAX would be connecting, basically via SIN is better for NZ and IMO not enough PAX for another non stop carrier.

D7 talked about it however before pulling their OOL-AKL service, their costs might be more likely than NZ although NZ 789s have the sort of configuration that might work.

Never say never. There was general scorn expressed at the idea that TPE or ICN might be served again by NZ, yet here we are with both back in the network. I've given up trying to predict what the carrier's next move in Asia might be.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
NPL8800
Posts: 120
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 5:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Wed Aug 14, 2019 1:47 am

NZ/SQ to maintain x3 daily AKL-SIN thru the NS season with SQ to also operate the A380 during the Easter period for the first time.

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zea ... -three-day
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4277
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:15 am

NPL8800 wrote:
NZ/SQ to maintain x3 daily AKL-SIN thru the NS season with SQ to also operate the A380 during the Easter period for the first time.

Impressive, particularly given tourism to New Zealand is slowing, and there have already been increases announced for CHC - SIN and WLG - SIN. I wonder if they are forecasting there will be more demand for travel through SIN, on the back of recent developments in HKG (e.g. for Europe - New Zealand traffic).

Cheers,

C.
 
PA515
Posts: 1499
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:43 am

GW54 wrote:
Air NZ A320 ZK-OJB last operated SYD-CHC back on 3 August. Does anyone know if it is undergoing maintenance or has it been withdrawn from service now that A321 NNF is in ssrvice?


Possibly withdrawn. It's the last of three Macquarie Air Finance owned 320s. ZK-OJG and ZK-OJA having already left. However ZK-OJK was out for three weeks 01-22 Jun and resumed flying. One source of info was http://mrcaviation.blogspot.com which closed down today.

PA515
 
NZ6
Posts: 1061
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:00 am

DavidByrne wrote:
I think we're talking about two distinct markets: (a) Tasman/Pacific thin routes and (b) long domestic ATR and thin A320 routes.

We probably are, I thought two scenarios of where NZ could use an A220 were brought up. Tasman and Domestic. My comments were based on the second one and how an A220 could fill the gap created between the two current aircraft, A320 and the ATR.

DavidByrne wrote:
Re (a) I could see a small fleet of A220s allowing daily operation on routes that wouldn't otherwise warrant it and permit new routes to be established

Not dismissing anything else you wrote, I'm just trying to keep this short.

The thing with CASM is it's specific to the airline and their operation and cost which is pilots, MX, crewing, cargo, airport Ops etc... then calculated over aircraft efficiency and your configuration (passengers).

I think part of the issue is raised in your comment though, or as it was put earlier "marginal" routes. If NZ had a stack of well-performing routes which generated daily traffic around that 100-130 seat mark then I could see the merit in such an aircraft. But to buy an aircraft to open AKL-HBA or AKL-CBR? Is that a path an investor wants to go down?

Could they be used WLG-BNE, CHC-MEL etc.... maybe! But looking at the bigger picture and how much capacity you want to place in the market, you don't want to encourage competition, what's your overall growth plan and ultimately, what's the cost comparison over both options with this in mind.

DavidByrne wrote:
Re (b) there's the issue of how many flights on (say) AKL-NSN or HLZ-CHC is enough before a larger capacity aircraft (with shorter transit time) becomes preferable to more frequency

It's an interesting topic and NSN is a good example of why there probably isn't a need for an A220. There are about 10 flights a day give or take (this changes) and over a window of about 13-14 hours and the majority are ATR operated.

Compare that to WLG-AKL which has about 20 directs a day.

The point is, there are regular services there but also still room for growth, once you've grown the market another 1-2 services, likely peak morning. You can condense some back down into a single A320 flight.

Time saving

DavidByrne wrote:
I think that NZ's partnership with ATR over electric turboprops is intriguing. We're unlikely to see any fruit from it for many years

Luxon has said they want them within the decade, so if not flying passengers around will be on the order books. The Q300's could go around until then and the new -600 ATR's definitely can.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1061
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:08 am

PA515 wrote:
One source of info was http://mrcaviation.blogspot.com which closed down today.PA515


Gutted! As such a great blog to follow.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 8625
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Wed Aug 14, 2019 6:56 am

Parts have started to arrive at PAE for NZ's next 789 ZK-NZR, should be loaded for final assembly in about a week's time
Forum Moderator
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6884
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Wed Aug 14, 2019 8:08 am

DavidByrne wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
NZ offer KUL via SIN with SQ, MH hardly do that well and a fair potion of their PAX would be connecting, basically via SIN is better for NZ and IMO not enough PAX for another non stop carrier.

D7 talked about it however before pulling their OOL-AKL service, their costs might be more likely than NZ although NZ 789s have the sort of configuration that might work.

Never say never. There was general scorn expressed at the idea that TPE or ICN might be served again by NZ, yet here we are with both back in the network. I've given up trying to predict what the carrier's next move in Asia might be.


That’s true and I was one that didn’t expect to see ICN or TPE, however they are star hubs where KUL isn’t, maybe NZ could work closer with TG and add BKK at some point?
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6884
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Wed Aug 14, 2019 8:10 am

planemanofnz wrote:
NPL8800 wrote:
NZ/SQ to maintain x3 daily AKL-SIN thru the NS season with SQ to also operate the A380 during the Easter period for the first time.

Impressive, particularly given tourism to New Zealand is slowing, and there have already been increases announced for CHC - SIN and WLG - SIN. I wonder if they are forecasting there will be more demand for travel through SIN, on the back of recent developments in HKG (e.g. for Europe - New Zealand traffic).

Cheers,

C.


The HKG situation may be interesting to watch, personally I still think NZ/CX will go 3 daily year round eventually with similar schedules to SIN or NZ run 2 daily in NS and CX as they do run 2 daily in NW.
 
Whoopeecock
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 8:35 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Wed Aug 14, 2019 8:47 am

NZ6 wrote:
PA515 wrote:
One source of info was http://mrcaviation.blogspot.com which closed down today.PA515


Gutted! As such a great blog to follow.


Agreed. I’ve always wondered how he got so much information on the private and military planes; made a really interesting read most days.
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:11 am

NZ6 wrote:
PA515 wrote:
One source of info was http://mrcaviation.blogspot.com which closed down today.PA515


Gutted! As such a great blog to follow.


Agreed, it was a great resource. Many thanks to the owner and let's hope someone else can pick up the reins. Always good for us based offshore to keep an eye on things at home.

Just regarding our brief mention of a hostel type facility at AKL, NZ6, in a previous thread, I do think there'd be a market. All those early morning departures to Australia make life pretty sleepless for the backpackers crowd. 8 bed dorms for $40 for say, 8 hours, would go down very well, I'd say. Throw in some reasonably priced food and bev, make it walking distance from the terminal, and I think there'd be a market.

Have just been through several German airports and while you'd be hard pressed to call any of them architectural wonders, they offer so much sensible, practical amenity to pax - resting lounges, 2 euro DIY nespresso outlets, flight info on screens for transferring pax walking off the plane, power outlets all over, fantastic viewing facilities (Stuttgart, amazing!), sleeping pods. It really shows up how little there is in NZ and Australian airports.

Re the A220 at NZ... I doubt it. The marginal operating cost of using existing A320s for lower frequency/demand routes is probably low enough to mitigate any benefits from right sizing with an additional type and all the added cost that brings. And the electric planes? Yeah yeah like biofuels I'm sure this will come to pass in 2050 something or so. The cynic in me says it's just a PR exercise to give the impression of environmental blah blah. Meanwhile... biofuels has gone veeeeery quiet. Airline sustainability initiatives are largely PR fluff.
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3586
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:16 pm

Question for regular NZ 789 Y+ fliers pls. Is 27K a decent seat? Does the bulkhead behind impact the recline?

Thanks in advance
MH
come visit the south pacific
 
NZ6
Posts: 1061
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:58 pm

aerokiwi wrote:
Just regarding our brief mention of a hostel type facility at AKL, NZ6, in a previous thread, I do think there'd be a market. All those early morning departures to Australia make life pretty sleepless for the backpackers crowd. 8 bed dorms for $40 for say, 8 hours, would go down very well, I'd say. Throw in some reasonably priced food and bev, make it walking distance from the terminal, and I think there'd be a market.


There could be... it would ultimately depend on how much AKL would charge in terms of the lease and where they'd want it.. a new building would have a high capex cost and I'd question if there's space inside the terminal now that AIAL would want to lease out.

The European Gap year travellers typically travel east to west, down through S.E Asia, into Australia and then NZ before heading over the Pacific. The older European backpackers typically fly in/out long haul and stay a few months.

The South Americans are definitely a group that would head NZ>AU but it raises the question of how many book onto the 0600/0700 departures which can be restricted to higher booking classes due to the higher business demand.

Is there enough fitting into a fairly specific group to cover what AIAL will likely charge?

I like the idea, just wonder if there would enough interest to make it work.


aerokiwi wrote:
Have just been through several German airports and while you'd be hard pressed to call any of them architectural wonders, they offer so much sensible, practical amenity to pax - resting lounges, 2 euro DIY nespresso outlets, flight info on screens for transferring pax walking off the plane, power outlets all over, fantastic viewing facilities (Stuttgart, amazing!), sleeping pods. It really shows up how little there is in NZ and Australian airports.


I agree, AIAL is designed largely for the outgoing passenger who doesn't need to 'rest' or 'wait' for extended periods and as a result, haven't bothered with many long-term waiting facilities such as massage chairs, phone recharges, 'dark rooms' outside spaces etc

aerokiwi wrote:
And the electric planes? Yeah yeah like biofuels I'm sure this will come to pass in 2050 something or so. The cynic in me says it's just a PR exercise to give the impression of environmental blah blah. Meanwhile... biofuels has gone veeeeery quiet. Airline sustainability initiatives are largely PR fluff.


While I'm far from an environmentalist I don't think the topic or issue will die a death anytime soon. If there's no significant work being done now on electric propulsion I'd be very surprised. I think the world moved past biofuels quicker than a renewable clean source could be found.

Will electric be on the immediate horizon or in play within the next 10 years? who knows... I don't have a crystal ball but I think it's very much a reality especially in the turboprop market so much more than PR fluff... Luxon talking about now will likely be PR fluff though
 
jimmyah
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:53 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:40 pm

Motorhussy wrote:
Question for regular NZ 789 Y+ fliers pls. Is 27K a decent seat? Does the bulkhead behind impact the recline?

Thanks in advance
MH


From what I remember, no it doesn't, in fact, I prefer it because I don't feel bad stretching out as soon as that seatbelt sign comes off!
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3586
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Thu Aug 15, 2019 3:28 am

jimmyah wrote:
Motorhussy wrote:
Question for regular NZ 789 Y+ fliers pls. Is 27K a decent seat? Does the bulkhead behind impact the recline?

Thanks in advance
MH


From what I remember, no it doesn't, in fact, I prefer it because I don't feel bad stretching out as soon as that seatbelt sign comes off!


Great, thank you. I won’t changes seats.
come visit the south pacific
 
NZ321
Posts: 1071
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:20 am

dhaliwal wrote:
Can someone tell me why doesn't Air NZ or any other airline start a AKL- KUL- AKL service?
Is there simply not enough pax to justify it?


The reason I ask is, Malaysia Airlines product is so bad on this route now that they are using the Ex Berline A330-200s product on this route.
Their business product is terrible for the money they ask for.

What if another airline with a superior product gives MAS a run for their money?

They don't have any competition on this route.


As somebody who flies this route regularly I agree, since MH used the ex Air Berlin aircraft the service is substandard. I only fly business class on this route and have not tried the economy on MH A332 but hear it is ridiculously tight on legroom compared to their other aircraft. The business product is also not on par with the A333. It's a pain for sure whichever seat you are in on that aircraft and the MH crew are only too aware of it and I find, usually subtly apologetic. Sometimes I use TG or CX but TG requires an overnight in BKK on the return. They often have good fares KUL-AKL. I find it's hard to get seats on NZ/SQ and when they are available they are usually quite high unless you book well in advance, especially if you want to avoid the 1am departure from AKL. As they say, you get what you pay for. At least on special, which AKL often is on MH, the MH fares are quite reasonable and with the new schedule you can choose daylight or overnight in both directions.

But with MH currently in limbo pending investment and restructuring it could be a while before we see anything change if the direct service even survives. Could be a few months till we know the new direction for MH.

I wouldn't be holding my breath for an EK service any time soon unless they drop DPS.

You could try PR. Hearing increasingly good things about them and often good airfares too.
Plane mad!
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1378
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:41 pm

ZK-NBT wrote:
That’s true and I was one that didn’t expect to see ICN or TPE, however they are star hubs where KUL isn’t, maybe NZ could work closer with TG and add BKK at some point?

I'd be less confident about BKK as an NZ destination given that any connection traffic would be at the expense of the close partnership with SQ. I'm guessing that the bulk of that traffic would be to the subcontinent and to China. It's interesting to note that TG has twice as many destinations (12) in China as SQ's 6 (though bolstered by Silkair and Scoot) and 18 destinations from BKK to the subcontinent to SQ's 12 (plus Silkair and Scoot again). So as a connection point BKK is not a stupid idea - just that it would be a major commercial realignment and possible disruption for NZ.

Of course it's possible for NZ to open BKK with point-to-point traffic only in mind, but I still think SQ would feel a bit slighted. But as they say, "all's fair in love and war, um business".
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4288
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 6:24 am

Bit of a reshuffle going on at NZ. Both Air Nelson and Mt Cook are going to be folded into NZ properly. Makes sense from a streamlining point of view, less overheads.
59 types. 41 countries. 24 airlines.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3205
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 6:53 am

Zkpilot wrote:
Bit of a reshuffle going on at NZ. Both Air Nelson and Mt Cook are going to be folded into NZ properly. Makes sense from a streamlining point of view, less overheads.


That will make HR’s day (well in the long term) it must be an pain at the moment, when it comes to moving resources around etc.

Wonder if the Q300/ATR cabin crew will get cross trained, so they can operate either. That would provide allot more flexibility when it comes to crewing. Even maybe some of the cabin crew could be cross trained onto the A320.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6884
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:45 am

DavidByrne wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
That’s true and I was one that didn’t expect to see ICN or TPE, however they are star hubs where KUL isn’t, maybe NZ could work closer with TG and add BKK at some point?

I'd be less confident about BKK as an NZ destination given that any connection traffic would be at the expense of the close partnership with SQ. I'm guessing that the bulk of that traffic would be to the subcontinent and to China. It's interesting to note that TG has twice as many destinations (12) in China as SQ's 6 (though bolstered by Silkair and Scoot) and 18 destinations from BKK to the subcontinent to SQ's 12 (plus Silkair and Scoot again). So as a connection point BKK is not a stupid idea - just that it would be a major commercial realignment and possible disruption for NZ.

Of course it's possible for NZ to open BKK with point-to-point traffic only in mind, but I still think SQ would feel a bit slighted. But as they say, "all's fair in love and war, um business".


You are right re SQ, I wonder what the next expansion for NZ/SQ could be, 4 daily AKL-SIN in NW? Or 3 daily with SQ doing both their services with A380s? NZ don’t have any spare 77W capacity and it seems unlikely they would move them off US routes.

BKK is a star hub, maybe use TG for Thailand and Scandinavia services since TG fly daily to CPH/ARN/OSL, SQ do fly to CPH and now ARN. Not that there are huge amounts of traffic there but there would be some.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4288
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 3:05 pm

ZK-NBT wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
That’s true and I was one that didn’t expect to see ICN or TPE, however they are star hubs where KUL isn’t, maybe NZ could work closer with TG and add BKK at some point?

I'd be less confident about BKK as an NZ destination given that any connection traffic would be at the expense of the close partnership with SQ. I'm guessing that the bulk of that traffic would be to the subcontinent and to China. It's interesting to note that TG has twice as many destinations (12) in China as SQ's 6 (though bolstered by Silkair and Scoot) and 18 destinations from BKK to the subcontinent to SQ's 12 (plus Silkair and Scoot again). So as a connection point BKK is not a stupid idea - just that it would be a major commercial realignment and possible disruption for NZ.

Of course it's possible for NZ to open BKK with point-to-point traffic only in mind, but I still think SQ would feel a bit slighted. But as they say, "all's fair in love and war, um business".


You are right re SQ, I wonder what the next expansion for NZ/SQ could be, 4 daily AKL-SIN in NW? Or 3 daily with SQ doing both their services with A380s? NZ don’t have any spare 77W capacity and it seems unlikely they would move them off US routes.

BKK is a star hub, maybe use TG for Thailand and Scandinavia services since TG fly daily to CPH/ARN/OSL, SQ do fly to CPH and now ARN. Not that there are huge amounts of traffic there but there would be some.

That should about cover SIN for the foreseeable future, you don’t really gain anything from having a 4th daily since 3 daily covers business and connecting traffic fine as well as O&D. Add in CHC and WLG and that’s a lot of capacity. Even going forward NZ could switch to 78J or 77W (if they were freed up). SQ will be scrapping its A380 at some point so then is when you might finally see a 4th daily.
59 types. 41 countries. 24 airlines.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3205
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:18 pm

Zkpilot wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
I'd be less confident about BKK as an NZ destination given that any connection traffic would be at the expense of the close partnership with SQ. I'm guessing that the bulk of that traffic would be to the subcontinent and to China. It's interesting to note that TG has twice as many destinations (12) in China as SQ's 6 (though bolstered by Silkair and Scoot) and 18 destinations from BKK to the subcontinent to SQ's 12 (plus Silkair and Scoot again). So as a connection point BKK is not a stupid idea - just that it would be a major commercial realignment and possible disruption for NZ.

Of course it's possible for NZ to open BKK with point-to-point traffic only in mind, but I still think SQ would feel a bit slighted. But as they say, "all's fair in love and war, um business".


You are right re SQ, I wonder what the next expansion for NZ/SQ could be, 4 daily AKL-SIN in NW? Or 3 daily with SQ doing both their services with A380s? NZ don’t have any spare 77W capacity and it seems unlikely they would move them off US routes.

BKK is a star hub, maybe use TG for Thailand and Scandinavia services since TG fly daily to CPH/ARN/OSL, SQ do fly to CPH and now ARN. Not that there are huge amounts of traffic there but there would be some.

That should about cover SIN for the foreseeable future, you don’t really gain anything from having a 4th daily since 3 daily covers business and connecting traffic fine as well as O&D. Add in CHC and WLG and that’s a lot of capacity. Even going forward NZ could switch to 78J or 77W (if they were freed up). SQ will be scrapping its A380 at some point so then is when you might finally see a 4th daily.


If the current on going keep going in HKG, we could maybe some of this transit traffic re-route via SIN.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1061
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Sat Aug 17, 2019 12:43 am

dhaliwal wrote:
Can someone tell me why doesn't Air NZ or any other airline start a AKL- KUL- AKL service?
Is there simply not enough pax to justify it?


The reason I ask is, Malaysia Airlines product is so bad on this route now that they are using the Ex Berline A330-200s product on this route.
Their business product is terrible for the money they ask for.

What if another airline with a superior product gives MAS a run for their money?

They don't have any competition on this route.


How many would have an endpoint of KUL or within Malaysia? You'd need to run at least daily to outperform MH on convenience. Is there enough there for 2 carriers? AirAsia has given it a go and struggled and that was supported with a reliable supply of Kiwis travelling to the Gold Coast for cheap.

As for connecting traffic, NZ needs to be mindful of SIN for the South East Asia connections and the strategic alliance NZ/SQ have formed. There's also the north Asia capacity (NRT/ICN/PVG/TPE) and even HKG and the capacity they offer with connections into Europe and going backwards, SIN and SQ for that premium Europe traffic.

I guess in summary, there's not an endless supply for European traffic to support Asian routes and what effect would KUL have on SIN and how would SQ feel about it for both long haul connections but also South-East Asian ones.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1061
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Sat Aug 17, 2019 1:07 am

DavidByrne wrote:
I'd be less confident about BKK as an NZ destination given that any connection traffic would be at the expense of the close partnership with SQ. I'm guessing that the bulk of that traffic would be to the subcontinent and to China. It's interesting to note that TG has twice as many destinations (12) in China as SQ's 6 (though bolstered by Silkair and Scoot) and 18 destinations from BKK to the subcontinent to SQ's 12 (plus Silkair and Scoot again). So as a connection point BKK is not a stupid idea - just that it would be a major commercial realignment and possible disruption for NZ.

Of course it's possible for NZ to open BKK with point-to-point traffic only in mind, but I still think SQ would feel a bit slighted. But as they say, "all's fair in love and war, um business".


Thailand could be different as it has the potential to appeal more to O&D traffic over connections. NZ/SQ could agree NZ's European fares have flight restrictions on the AKL-BKK flight for example.

Thailand was the 9th most visited country in the world in 2018 and 2nd most visited in Asia.

If it was during winter, would enough Kiwis be encouraged to go there based on the weather within the Gulf of Thailand (Ko Samui) and maybe the North (Chiang Mai) for exmaple? The weather in those places is more suitable Mar-Aug/Sep but the hotspots BKK and HKT are better suited during our summer months.

If not, would NZ want to send an aircraft away Nov-Apr into an outbound leisure route like this when it could be bringing the wealthy Japanese, Chinese or American tourists in?
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1378
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Sat Aug 17, 2019 3:39 am

NZ6 wrote:
If it was during winter, would enough Kiwis be encouraged to go there based on the weather within the Gulf of Thailand (Ko Samui) and maybe the North (Chiang Mai) for exmaple? The weather in those places is more suitable Mar-Aug/Sep but the hotspots BKK and HKT are better suited during our summer months.

If that's the case, then I'd presume that they'd go for a year-round service. TBH, I don't understand why people might want to go to BKK, but that's just me. Having said that, my partner and I are off there soon for her to have some dental work done. Not my favourite place, but I'll endure it.

Agree that SQ might be comfortable if there were restrictions on NZ selling connecting flights onward from BKK. My own view is that HKT as a winter seasonal (Edit: duh - just saw that you wrote about HKT as a potential summer destination) might come before BKK - there's a surplus of four-five WBs in winter according to my back-of-envelope calculations, and I'd think that winter seasonal flights would be attractive to NZ for that reason.

On that note, is there any prospect of RNP-capable 787s operating from Australia to ZQN in the winter peak? The runway length should be enough, but not sure whether the terrain or terminal would cope.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
NZAA
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Sat Aug 17, 2019 5:58 am

DavidByrne wrote:
On that note, is there any prospect of RNP-capable 787s operating from Australia to ZQN in the winter peak? The runway length should be enough, but not sure whether the terrain or terminal would cope.


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1378
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:20 am

NZAA wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
On that note, is there any prospect of RNP-capable 787s operating from Australia to ZQN in the winter peak? The runway length should be enough, but not sure whether the terrain or terminal would cope.


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Not sure why it's so funny! If the airport is capable then given the crush of flights in the afternoons putting pressure on gate space it may be a logical option. Already there are more than daily flights some days to SYD at winter peak, operating less than an hour apart. Frequency isn't important for a leisure destination and one 789 flight may be cheaper to operate than two A320s. Not saying there aren't obstacles, but if there are it would be good to know what they are.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6884
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Sat Aug 17, 2019 8:28 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
NZAA wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
On that note, is there any prospect of RNP-capable 787s operating from Australia to ZQN in the winter peak? The runway length should be enough, but not sure whether the terrain or terminal would cope.


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Not sure why it's so funny! If the airport is capable then given the crush of flights in the afternoons putting pressure on gate space it may be a logical option. Already there are more than daily flights some days to SYD at winter peak, operating less than an hour apart. Frequency isn't important for a leisure destination and one 789 flight may be cheaper to operate than two A320s. Not saying there aren't obstacles, but if there are it would be good to know what they are.


Ramp space I’d imagine, terminal space, how wide is the runway? Wide enough for anything bigger than a 320/737? What’s the largest aircraft to ever fly into ZQN? And then mountains. NZ have other places to send 789s, they usually overnight an A320 in SYD? I don’t even think an A321 can operate ex ZQN atm?
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4288
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:26 pm

ZK-NBT wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
NZAA wrote:

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Not sure why it's so funny! If the airport is capable then given the crush of flights in the afternoons putting pressure on gate space it may be a logical option. Already there are more than daily flights some days to SYD at winter peak, operating less than an hour apart. Frequency isn't important for a leisure destination and one 789 flight may be cheaper to operate than two A320s. Not saying there aren't obstacles, but if there are it would be good to know what they are.


Ramp space I’d imagine, terminal space, how wide is the runway? Wide enough for anything bigger than a 320/737? What’s the largest aircraft to ever fly into ZQN? And then mountains. NZ have other places to send 789s, they usually overnight an A320 in SYD? I don’t even think an A321 can operate ex ZQN atm?
A321 can and has but only really as a test. Big weight restriction don’t know if it can reach Australia from ZQN was a domestic flight.

Yes a 789 could probably land there and takeoff but again would be severely weight restricted and it really wouldn’t be a very safe operation due to the runway length. WLG typically has strong headwinds which make a big difference.
59 types. 41 countries. 24 airlines.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1061
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:49 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
If that's the case, then I'd presume that they'd go for a year-round service. TBH, I don't understand why people might want to go to BKK, but that's just me. Having said that, my partner and I are off there soon for her to have some dental work done. Not my favourite place, but I'll endure it.

Agree that SQ might be comfortable if there were restrictions on NZ selling connecting flights onward from BKK. My own view is that HKT as a winter seasonal (Edit: duh - just saw that you wrote about HKT as a potential summer destination) might come before BKK - there's a surplus of four-five WBs in winter according to my back-of-envelope calculations, and I'd think that winter seasonal flights would be attractive to NZ for that reason.

On that note, is there any prospect of RNP-capable 787s operating from Australia to ZQN in the winter peak? The runway length should be enough, but not sure whether the terrain or terminal would cope.


BKK is the gateway to one of the worlds major tourist hubs, as I said Thailand is the 9th most visited country in the world and is growing year on year!

There is a tone of reasons why people go to Thailand (not just BKK), dental and cosmetic surgery is one but the culture and experience that BKK offers but Thailands miles of pristine beaches, fantastic weather and amazing food are others...

I don't think SQ would or could dictate how NZ would operate it. I think both carriers are reasonably happy with each other and agree on building the alliance for premium NZ to South-East Asia/Europe. Would NZ run a Thailand service as it has with DPS and SGN with no on connections beyond, no codesharing etc?

Another scenario is NZ/TG for an alliance to operate AKL-BKK and AKL-HKT.

Re, ZQN and the 787. No, just no.
 
ZKNCI
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:38 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Sun Aug 18, 2019 1:27 am

Close up exterior view of the former ZK-NZC, the last surviving NZ DC-8. Last registered as PP-TPC and sitting in Manaus, Brazil, since 2005
https://www.facebook.com/bringourbirdshome/videos/480317309465935/
Unfortunately stripped on the inside, but looks otherwise pretty good for sitting outdoors for almost 15 years.
https://www.facebook.com/bringourbirdshome/videos/499784927422696/
Really hope they succeed in getting it back to NZ!
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6884
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2019

Sun Aug 18, 2019 2:17 am

NZ6 wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
If that's the case, then I'd presume that they'd go for a year-round service. TBH, I don't understand why people might want to go to BKK, but that's just me. Having said that, my partner and I are off there soon for her to have some dental work done. Not my favourite place, but I'll endure it.

Agree that SQ might be comfortable if there were restrictions on NZ selling connecting flights onward from BKK. My own view is that HKT as a winter seasonal (Edit: duh - just saw that you wrote about HKT as a potential summer destination) might come before BKK - there's a surplus of four-five WBs in winter according to my back-of-envelope calculations, and I'd think that winter seasonal flights would be attractive to NZ for that reason.

On that note, is there any prospect of RNP-capable 787s operating from Australia to ZQN in the winter peak? The runway length should be enough, but not sure whether the terrain or terminal would cope.


BKK is the gateway to one of the worlds major tourist hubs, as I said Thailand is the 9th most visited country in the world and is growing year on year!

There is a tone of reasons why people go to Thailand (not just BKK), dental and cosmetic surgery is one but the culture and experience that BKK offers but Thailands miles of pristine beaches, fantastic weather and amazing food are others...

I don't think SQ would or could dictate how NZ would operate it. I think both carriers are reasonably happy with each other and agree on building the alliance for premium NZ to South-East Asia/Europe. Would NZ run a Thailand service as it has with DPS and SGN with no on connections beyond, no codesharing etc?

Another scenario is NZ/TG for an alliance to operate AKL-BKK and AKL-HKT.

Re, ZQN and the 787. No, just no.


NZ/TG working closer together probably isn’t that likely? I thought of it as well though. I thought HKT would be a good potential option after DPS/SGN, though maybe NZ will find other uses for their fleet like more SIN maybe more HKG/NRT year round KIX.

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