Airliners.net

aerokiwi wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

There would certainly be a market for those routes. But the Wanaka airport needs the upgrade to make it happen runway & tarmac strengthening etc. An expansion to the terminal will likely be needed. But unfortunately the locals don't want it to go ahead so there is the main stumbling block for it to be a goer.

I haven't followed WKA closely - had just thought the infrastructure that supported the NZ B1900D flights in the past would still be there and able to support 3C CV580 ones now - but appreciate this might not be the case.

Cheers,

C.

Was this the ZQN-WKA service? I think I remember seeing route maps of ZQN-WKA and ZQN-Te Anau. Were these B1900s or did they ATR those? And if the 1900s, how did they position them into ZQN in the first place? I could be wrong though and it's all a figment.

NZ516 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

I notice NZ’s new ICN services will now depart at 5 different times ex AKL, 4 between 1035-1155 with the 5th at 1420, returning they depart ICN between 2155-2215 4 days with the 5th at 2355.

I wasn’t aware how full ICN was until NZ announced services which had a single departure time.

AKL 1200 ICN 1955
ICN 2145 AKL 1255

That’s seemed late so at least most of the flights have similar or slightly earlier departures ex AKL. I’d say over time they will be looking to get a 1730/1800 ICN arrival 1900/1930 departure to fit in with NZ’s other Asian services ex AKL between 1000/1100.

I wonder what the chances of PVG slots in the early evening are like? Probably not great? Although that is a route overtime they were looking to go 2 daily, is that still the see slots permitting? They ran additional CNY services for 2-3 years with a midnight arrival 0200 departure ex PVG, the plan was an early evening arrival initially midnight departure.

NZ516 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

I notice NZ’s new ICN services will now depart at 5 different times ex AKL, 4 between 1035-1155 with the 5th at 1420, returning they depart ICN between 2155-2215 4 days with the 5th at 2355.

I wasn’t aware how full ICN was until NZ announced services which had a single departure time.

AKL 1200 ICN 1955
ICN 2145 AKL 1255

That’s seemed late so at least most of the flights have similar or slightly earlier departures ex AKL. I’d say over time they will be looking to get a 1730/1800 ICN arrival 1900/1930 departure to fit in with NZ’s other Asian services ex AKL between 1000/1100.

I wonder what the chances of PVG slots in the early evening are like? Probably not great? Although that is a route overtime they were looking to go 2 daily, is that still the see slots permitting? They ran additional CNY services for 2-3 years with a midnight arrival 0200 departure ex PVG, the plan was an early evening arrival initially midnight departure.

I noticed it has been updated also. Might be 787 related due to one frame down for maintenance from February onwards it's a busy schedule for the 14 in fleet. Once one is taken out it's going to cause a few challenges so flight times have to be adjusted. Regarding PVG it's looking like NZ is not showing interest in going double daily there anymore they didn't fly the extra services last summer.

qf789 wrote:

ZK-NZR is out of final assembly



https://twitter.com/jenschuld/status/11 ... 63456?s=21

A new report into the proposed Wanaka Airport expansion says it would need more than three million passenger movements a year to ensure a return on investment.
The report was commissioned by the Wanaka Stakeholders Group to assess the activity levels that may result from the proposed $400 million investment.

Report author Richard Somerville said passenger jets would have to take off and land every 10 minutes during a 12-hour day to cover costs and ensure an acceptable return rate.

"The objective of this work was to calculate the level of commercial aviation activity, which should follow from an investment of this size," he said in the report.

"The analysis concludes that a market return on $400 million requires an annual throughput of 3.14 million passengers in order to cover costs and provide a commercial return in line with broadly similar commercial airport operations."

That translated to more than 500 flights per week, carrying an average of 120 passengers.

The proposed investment was discussed by the Queenstown Airport Corporation earlier this year, he said.

"This would appear to be a reasonable cost assumption to create a jet-capable airport, allowing for a 1900m long jet capable runway with safety margins at either end, and then airport infrastructure including terminal, control tower and electronics, Mr Somerville said.

The report did not review the potential financial outcomes from the investment.

Last year, about 2.2 million passenger arrivals and departures were recorded at Queenstown Airport.

Airline pilot and Wanaka resident Terry Hetherington said the report's figures meant the Wanaka Airport would be busier than the current Queenstown Airport.

But he said the figures weren't surprising because such a significant investment needed to generate a good return.

He expected the airport would operate over 16 hour days, meaning one flight every 13 minutes.

There was increasing community concern about the future of their town if the airport expanded significantly, Mr Hetherington said.

"It's massive for Wanaka community. We don't have the infrastructure in the town and the planning for that level of infrastructure, the council hasn't done any planning towards that.

"It will change Wanaka community or change Wanaka forever."

Wanaka Stakeholders Group chair Michael Ross said his group had been raising concerns around this development for nearly a year.

He said the Queenstown Airport Corporation had projections of numbers tripling over the next 15 to 20 years and "clearly have an expectation to grow those numbers over time."

He said the group was not against growth in the region.

"Growth is not a problem for us. We are blessed with the fastest growing activity in the whole of New Zealand. It's not as though we need more growth.

"Some are saying it wouldn't hurt if the tourism visitor numbers levelled off a bit to give us a chance to recover."

Queenstown Lakes District Council referred questions to Queenstown Airport.

Queenstown Airport response
Queenstown Airport Corporation chief executive Colin Keel said the analysis was commissioned to support opposition of development of the Wanaka Airport.

"QAC was not contacted by Mr Somerville prior to the analysis being shared publicly. QAC does not propose to comment on the fundamentally flawed analysis except to say the quality of any analysis depends on the accuracy and reasonableness of the underlying assumption," he said.

The assumptions did not reflect how the corporation would proceed and grossly exaggerated any likely outcome, Mr Keel said.

Any investment would be spread over a 25-year plus period and airport revenues were not solely based on passenger activity, he said.

"QAC will wait for QLDC to undertake its economic and social impact assessments and share the district spatial plan being developed with Government before providing more detail on any future airport development planning."

NZ516 wrote:

Huge growth needed to make Wanaka Airport investment viable - report

A new report into the proposed Wanaka Airport expansion says it would need more than three million passenger movements a year to ensure a return on investment.
The report was commissioned by the Wanaka Stakeholders Group to assess the activity levels that may result from the proposed $400 million investment.

Report author Richard Somerville said passenger jets would have to take off and land every 10 minutes during a 12-hour day to cover costs and ensure an acceptable return rate.

"The objective of this work was to calculate the level of commercial aviation activity, which should follow from an investment of this size," he said in the report.

"The analysis concludes that a market return on $400 million requires an annual throughput of 3.14 million passengers in order to cover costs and provide a commercial return in line with broadly similar commercial airport operations."

That translated to more than 500 flights per week, carrying an average of 120 passengers.

The proposed investment was discussed by the Queenstown Airport Corporation earlier this year, he said.

"This would appear to be a reasonable cost assumption to create a jet-capable airport, allowing for a 1900m long jet capable runway with safety margins at either end, and then airport infrastructure including terminal, control tower and electronics, Mr Somerville said.

The report did not review the potential financial outcomes from the investment.

Last year, about 2.2 million passenger arrivals and departures were recorded at Queenstown Airport.

Airline pilot and Wanaka resident Terry Hetherington said the report's figures meant the Wanaka Airport would be busier than the current Queenstown Airport.

But he said the figures weren't surprising because such a significant investment needed to generate a good return.

He expected the airport would operate over 16 hour days, meaning one flight every 13 minutes.

There was increasing community concern about the future of their town if the airport expanded significantly, Mr Hetherington said.

"It's massive for Wanaka community. We don't have the infrastructure in the town and the planning for that level of infrastructure, the council hasn't done any planning towards that.

"It will change Wanaka community or change Wanaka forever."

Wanaka Stakeholders Group chair Michael Ross said his group had been raising concerns around this development for nearly a year.

He said the Queenstown Airport Corporation had projections of numbers tripling over the next 15 to 20 years and "clearly have an expectation to grow those numbers over time."

He said the group was not against growth in the region.

"Growth is not a problem for us. We are blessed with the fastest growing activity in the whole of New Zealand. It's not as though we need more growth.

"Some are saying it wouldn't hurt if the tourism visitor numbers levelled off a bit to give us a chance to recover."

Queenstown Lakes District Council referred questions to Queenstown Airport.

Queenstown Airport response
Queenstown Airport Corporation chief executive Colin Keel said the analysis was commissioned to support opposition of development of the Wanaka Airport.

"QAC was not contacted by Mr Somerville prior to the analysis being shared publicly. QAC does not propose to comment on the fundamentally flawed analysis except to say the quality of any analysis depends on the accuracy and reasonableness of the underlying assumption," he said.

The assumptions did not reflect how the corporation would proceed and grossly exaggerated any likely outcome, Mr Keel said.

Any investment would be spread over a 25-year plus period and airport revenues were not solely based on passenger activity, he said.

"QAC will wait for QLDC to undertake its economic and social impact assessments and share the district spatial plan being developed with Government before providing more detail on any future airport development planning."

Source: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/398 ... ble-report

The numbers just don't stack up in that analysis on any level, amateur stuff. There is never going to be enough demand for a jet service every 10 mins.
Its like a new No Wanaka airport action group has been set up..

777ER wrote:

Ewan Wilson (Kiwi Air) is standing for Hamilton City Council and is running on a proposal to make HLZ landing fee free for 2 years for all new international carriers. He is using pictures of a Kiwi B752 outside HLZ in his campaigns.

777ER wrote:

... proposal to make HLZ landing fee free for 2 years for all new international carriers.

planemanofnz wrote:

777ER wrote:

... proposal to make HLZ landing fee free for 2 years for all new international carriers.

Perhaps Tiger could have a go? VA Group has shown some interest in this type of market (e.g. by maintaining DUD-BNE, and by recently launching AKL-NTL).

AirAsia is another interesting one. Their move to AVV from MEL shows an interest in this type of proposition, I think. However, I still doubt HLZ-Asia could work.

Cheers,

C.

a7ala wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Just on 3C, I believe they won't want to compete with NZ in any markets If you look at their network, obviously CHT is their home route but outside of this they have WAG, WHK and PPQ which are routes NZ has closed down. With regard to NLK, I'm assuming conversations were held and assurances given by that NZ have shown no desire to fly there which gives some level of comfort to 3C.

There's then the carter business which is where they're using the ATR.

This is not a pro-NZ post. I'm just wondering how interested 3C are about entering any type of market where they'll have to compete with NZ. Such as WKA that'll potentially affect NZ's ZQN flights.

I think 3C can still grow in our home market. There's KAT, WSZ, OAM, MON, PCN, MRO, KKR and maybe even TEU

Whakatane-Wellington and Whanganui-Wellington seem logical next steps given shorter sector lengths plus they already have a presence in all 3.

Air Chathams is interested in operating air passenger services from Masterton Airport but will only do so if there is significant local support.

In response to questions from the Times-Age on Friday, Air Chatham general manager Duane Emeny comfirmed the airline had been in talks to operate in Masterton, and had put in a registration of interest when Masterton District Council called for them late last year.

A document on a government tender site last November said the Wairarapa community and council were seeking registrations of interest because both the Masterton district and Wairarapa region were experiencing strong growth in business and population.

Emeny said support from the council would be essential for a deal to proceed.

Depending on the type of aircraft operated, work on the runway could be required, he said, but he would not give further details.

The air service would be scheduled and would operate from the existing terminal but Emeny said discussions had not got down to details about what kind of planes would operate or the frequency of the service.

There was no timeline for a deal to be done and the airline says it would need to see a significant investment and support package before agreeing to provide any service.

“We would be interested if it makes sense commercially. That ultimately rests with the investment and support,” he said.

“The airline has not made any decisions on this service provision at all and does not want to give any false hope to the community.”

The airline has been operating on the Chatham Islands for more than 25 years and an Auckland base runs services to Whakatane, Whanganui and the Kapiti Coast.

It was interested in Auckland-to-Masterton services in 2014 after Air New Zealand pulled out but Masterton District Council picked Vincent Aviation, which collapsed soon after.

The council would only say that it was in “very early discussions” with a potential service provider.

The tender document last year said businesses and outside businesses operating in Masterton had expressed a desire to support a carrier operating into the town.

It says the council wished to conduct the project in a collaborative and open manner with potential suppliers. It talks about “some sort of financial contribution from council” and a due diligence to protect any ratepayer contribution.

Air New Zealand established a regular Masterton-Auckland daily service in 2009 but pulled the plug in early 2014.

An air passenger service linking Masterton and Auckland operated by Vincent Aviation was due to restart in mid-November of that year but the airline went bust.

The council’s decision to choose Vincent Aviation meant there was no immediate need for a runway extension for which $180,000 had been earmarked had Air Chathams won the day.

Wairarapa’s passenger air service history is a chequered one, with Wairarapa Airlines finally opting out in 1997, having failed in its bid to make the Masterton-Auckland route profitable.

It was followed by Air Wairarapa, which was short-lived and failed financially, and, subsequently, the Air New Zealand-backed Eagle Air service.

DavidByrne wrote:

Wasn't there an issue with the MRO runway that required some investment before Metroliner services could be initiated? Or was it a different aircraft type?

NZ516 wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

Wasn't there an issue with the MRO runway that required some investment before Metroliner services could be initiated? Or was it a different aircraft type?

Correct regarding the Metroliner. Partly why they wanted Vincent Aviation to fly the route with their Saab as the existing runway could take it without any further investment needed at Hood Airport. However they went bust, if they selected Air Chathams back in 2015 and did the upgrades. They would have had an air service well established by now. But hindsight is a wonderful thing.

NZ6 wrote:

When the Whenuapai idea was raised again just over a week ago, I thought it would be a one-off which would die away as quickly as it got raised.

Yet we're still seeing various pieces covering it with what appears to a bit of support... Will momentum grow or will it be killed off as soon as serious consideration is given?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/115778 ... al-airport

Personally, I would love it, even if it had a strict curfew but think it's just too unrealistic and if it was going to happen it should of happened 10 years ago.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

When the Whenuapai idea was raised again just over a week ago, I thought it would be a one-off which would die away as quickly as it got raised.

Yet we're still seeing various pieces covering it with what appears to a bit of support... Will momentum grow or will it be killed off as soon as serious consideration is given?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/115778 ... al-airport

Personally, I would love it, even if it had a strict curfew but think it's just too unrealistic and if it was going to happen it should of happened 10 years ago.

I just honestly can’t see it, like you say and I said earlier it would have happened 10-15 years ago imo. Auckland is growing fast and is wide spread and public transport is terrible at times but the reality is it’s still a city of 1.7 million and AKL where it is has a huge amount of land to grow. I think continuing to join the dots rail to AKL particularly is what needs to happen.

Even if NZ said they will use WPE I can’t see the whole thing getting off the ground, who’s paying for some sort of terminal to be built, noise is a big issue given the residential housing now surrounding.

ZK-NBT wrote:

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/airlineroute/286358/united-nw19-international-service-changes-as-of-13sep19/

UA to run 78J SFO-AKL.

This could never happen according to several due to the lack of range on the 78J. I’m not surprised at all tbh, probably just right sizing the market a bit, 77W will run on some days.

Being a JV partner with NZ, I think NZ will be very interested to see how the 78J goes on this route.

ZK-NBT wrote:

UA to run 78J SFO-AKL. This could never happen according to several due to the lack of range on the 78J. I’m not surprised at all tbh, probably just right sizing the market a bit, 77W will run on some days.

Being a JV partner with NZ, I think NZ will be very interested to see how the 78J goes on this route.

planemanofnz wrote:

777ER wrote:

... proposal to make HLZ landing fee free for 2 years for all new international carriers.

Perhaps Tiger could have a go? VA Group has shown some interest in this type of market (e.g. by maintaining DUD-BNE, and by recently launching AKL-NTL).

AirAsia is another interesting one. Their move to AVV from MEL shows an interest in this type of proposition, I think. However, I still doubt HLZ-Asia could work.

Cheers,

C.

NZ6 wrote:

777ER wrote:

Ewan Wilson (Kiwi Air) is standing for Hamilton City Council and is running on a proposal to make HLZ landing fee free for 2 years for all new international carriers. He is using pictures of a Kiwi B752 outside HLZ in his campaigns.

And who trusts his corporate nouse...

I don't think it's the landing fees which is putting the airlines off. I'd say it's more the lack of travellers who aren't willing to drive a couple of hours up the Waikato expressway where there's competition and flights direct to the destination of choice.

We've done this before with HLZ itself, ROT, PMR we've talked about IVC and TRG... the only one that's worked is ZQN and DUD (if that lasts)

We'll have to wait and see what happens.

SCFlyer wrote:

Any VA (or their subsidiary TT) Trans-Tasman expansion outside of their hubs is unlikely unless if a state/local government is subsidising the flights (ala the summer seasonal AKL-NTL).

Considering VA's Trans-Tasman ops in general is not doing great post NZ partnership, it's more likely VA will be trimming around the edges with a combination of seasonal and permanent frequency cutbacks on the non-subsidised routes.

QuayWeeAir wrote:

Maybe a reshuffle of flights/flight times

AKL-SYD = Double Daily (Drop the third service)
AKL-MEL = Double Daily
AKL-BNE = Double Daily
AKL-OOL = Daily (Add extra flight during peak)
WLG-BNE = Double Daily
WLG-SYD = 4 Times p/w (Extra flights in peak)
CHC-BNE = Daily
CHC-MEL = Daily
CHC-SYD = Seasonal
DUD-BNE = 4 Times p/w (Extra flights in peak)
AKL-RAR = 4 Times p/w (Extra flights in peak)
AKL-TBU = 4 Times p/w (Extra flights in peak)
Flights to ZQN and from MEL,SYD & BNE should be double daily especially during the NZ Ski season.

I would like to see VA expand their Trans-Tasman & Pacific Island presence; maybe the following could be considered;

(Trans-Tasman)
ZQN-ADL
WLG-OOL
CHC-OOL
AKL-TSV
AKL-CNS

(Pacific Islands)

TSV-NAN
TSV-DPS
NTL-NAN
NTL-DPS
BNE-TBU
SYD-VLI
BNE-NOU

If not VA operated maybe TT could operate.

QuayWeeAir wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

Any VA (or their subsidiary TT) Trans-Tasman expansion outside of their hubs is unlikely unless if a state/local government is subsidising the flights (ala the summer seasonal AKL-NTL).

Considering VA's Trans-Tasman ops in general is not doing great post NZ partnership, it's more likely VA will be trimming around the edges with a combination of seasonal and permanent frequency cutbacks on the non-subsidised routes.

Maybe a reshuffle of flights/flight times

AKL-SYD = Double Daily (Drop the third service)
AKL-MEL = Double Daily
AKL-BNE = Double Daily
AKL-OOL = Daily (Add extra flight during peak)
WLG-BNE = Double Daily
WLG-SYD = 4 Times p/w (Extra flights in peak)
CHC-BNE = Daily
CHC-MEL = Daily
CHC-SYD = Seasonal
DUD-BNE = 4 Times p/w (Extra flights in peak)
AKL-RAR = 4 Times p/w (Extra flights in peak)
AKL-TBU = 4 Times p/w (Extra flights in peak)
Flights to ZQN and from MEL,SYD & BNE should be double daily especially during the NZ Ski season.

I would like to see VA expand their Trans-Tasman & Pacific Island presence; maybe the following could be considered;

(Trans-Tasman)
ZQN-ADL
WLG-OOL


CHC-OOL
AKL-TSV
AKL-CNS

(Pacific Islands)

TSV-NAN
TSV-DPS
NTL-NAN
NTL-DPS
BNE-TBU
SYD-VLI
BNE-NOU

If not VA operated maybe TT could operate.

LYuen wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

777ER wrote:

Ewan Wilson (Kiwi Air) is standing for Hamilton City Council and is running on a proposal to make HLZ landing fee free for 2 years for all new international carriers. He is using pictures of a Kiwi B752 outside HLZ in his campaigns.

And who trusts his corporate nouse...

I don't think it's the landing fees which is putting the airlines off. I'd say it's more the lack of travellers who aren't willing to drive a couple of hours up the Waikato expressway where there's competition and flights direct to the destination of choice.

We've done this before with HLZ itself, ROT, PMR we've talked about IVC and TRG... the only one that's worked is ZQN and DUD (if that lasts)

We'll have to wait and see what happens.

He is also suggesting a bus to the airport. I am more surprised there is no bus to the airport right now.

QuayWeeAir wrote:

I would like to see VA expand their Trans-Tasman & Pacific Island presence; maybe the following could be considered;

(Trans-Tasman)
ZQN-ADL
WLG-OOL
CHC-OOL
AKL-TSV
AKL-CNS

(Pacific Islands)

TSV-NAN
TSV-DPS
NTL-NAN
NTL-DPS
BNE-TBU
SYD-VLI
BNE-NOU

If not VA operated maybe TT could operate.

DavidByrne wrote:

This doesn't sound at all like an airline which is seriously struggling! Have you been reading different reports from the ones I've been reading?

zkncj wrote:

VA needs to work on getting there current Tasman/Pacific networks profitable before they expand anymore. In reality they should probably stick to the Australian domestic market as there priority and have that operating with an profit more than anything.

If VA ends up cutting HKG it would be great to see that A330 put onto AKL-SYD-AKL-SYD-AKL run.

AKL-SYD is an key Tasman market, which both NZ/QF run multiple wide body services on an day providing an much better level of service than VA’s 738s.

With TT I struggle to see that brand still be around in 24months time, I would say as leases expire they will slowly fold TT back into VA (TT is also an loss maker).

PA515 wrote:

Just found an 01 Sep 2019 photo of ZK-NZI at ADL https://flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zk-nzi and it does not have the Wifi radome fitted, so did not get Wifi when in SIN for the 14 days 28 Jul to 11 Aug 2019.

ZK-NZJ was in SIN for 26 days 11 Aug to 06 Sep 2019 and is presently doing AKL-RAR-LAX-RAR-AKL. Can't find a recent photo of ZK-NZJ, so will have a look when it arrives tomorrow.

PA515

NZ6 wrote:

They then decided to go international, why? too much too soon? Wrong equipment? Why take on QF on North America? - Did Australia see them as Virgin Blue, the low-cost carrier and not Virgin Australia and therefore opting for other long haul carriers? - do they even know?

NZ6 wrote:

Something isn't right at VA! I personally I believe somewhere in the boardroom or executive team, someone influential is wanting the airline to be something it's not. That person(s) needs to move on before VA isn't here anymore.

Opening ZQN-ADL or AKL-TSV isn't going to change something which has broken foundations.

SCFlyer wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

They then decided to go international, why? too much too soon? Wrong equipment? Why take on QF on North America? - Did Australia see them as Virgin Blue, the low-cost carrier and not Virgin Australia and therefore opting for other long haul carriers? - do they even know?

V Australia was a Godfrey/Branson decision, it was during the pre-SQ/NZ equity era (and before JB's arrival). At the same time they signed up to a codeshare agreement with VX and DL, ending the former UA codeshare at the time.

Back then the Virgin Blue group was rolling around in profit, left, right and centre and was able at the time cover the start up costs of the V Australia long haul division.

The few questionable decision(s) from Godfrey at the time is that the 77Ws were simply too big, but it was the only a/c available to VA at the time. Using the 77Ws on HKT (Low Yield/Tourist) and JNB (ETOPS restricted) didn't help either.

In addition, Scurrah recently singled out LAX as one of the few (if not only) destinations that is performing well for VA, in addition to him stating that HKG will need to be looked at.

https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-a ... ee3f320b51

NZ6 wrote:

Something isn't right at VA! I personally I believe somewhere in the boardroom or executive team, someone influential is wanting the airline to be something it's not. That person(s) needs to move on before VA isn't here anymore.

Opening ZQN-ADL or AKL-TSV isn't going to change something which has broken foundations.

Much of that team at the time post Godfrey (mostly JB era) has mostly moved on (or have been moved on by PS) with the management cleanup (and the merging of the TT/VARA/VAd management structure) by PS.

NZ6 wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

They then decided to go international, why? too much too soon? Wrong equipment? Why take on QF on North America? - Did Australia see them as Virgin Blue, the low-cost carrier and not Virgin Australia and therefore opting for other long haul carriers? - do they even know?

V Australia was a Godfrey/Branson decision, it was during the pre-SQ/NZ equity era (and before JB's arrival). At the same time they signed up to a codeshare agreement with VX and DL, ending the former UA codeshare at the time.

Back then the Virgin Blue group was rolling around in profit, left, right and centre and was able at the time cover the start up costs of the V Australia long haul division.

The few questionable decision(s) from Godfrey at the time is that the 77Ws were simply too big, but it was the only a/c available to VA at the time. Using the 77Ws on HKT (Low Yield/Tourist) and JNB (ETOPS restricted) didn't help either.

In addition, Scurrah recently singled out LAX as one of the few (if not only) destinations that is performing well for VA, in addition to him stating that HKG will need to be looked at.

https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-a ... ee3f320b51

NZ6 wrote:

Something isn't right at VA! I personally I believe somewhere in the boardroom or executive team, someone influential is wanting the airline to be something it's not. That person(s) needs to move on before VA isn't here anymore.

Opening ZQN-ADL or AKL-TSV isn't going to change something which has broken foundations.

Much of that team at the time post Godfrey (mostly JB era) has mostly moved on (or have been moved on by PS) with the management cleanup (and the merging of the TT/VARA/VAd management structure) by PS.

We could look at some of Luxon's commentary from NZ's time with VA and what appeared to complete frustration in poor performance and lack of movement in turning it around which points directly at the current executive group regardless of who did what in the past.

But I'd also agree that changing from being a lowcost carrier in Virgin Blue into a full-service carrier and also opening and international long haul arm isn't something which would have been dreamt up overnight so questions could be pointed and former executives who made some of these decisions.

I mean, we had Virgin Blue humming along nicely and then (in no particular order)

- Let's create V Australia and be a long haul carrier, to do so we'll buy what we can and that's the 77W even if it's the wrong aircraft.
- Let's go to New Zealand and open Pacific Blue
- Let's open the Pacific with Polynesian Blue
- Let's rebrand and be full service and become Virgin Australia
- Let's buy Tiger and run that as our low-cost arm seeing as we're full service

Was there ever a long term plan on transitioning from a successful Virgin Blue brand into what it wants to be today?

Even if there wasn't. Do something now!

jimmyah wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

V Australia was a Godfrey/Branson decision, it was during the pre-SQ/NZ equity era (and before JB's arrival). At the same time they signed up to a codeshare agreement with VX and DL, ending the former UA codeshare at the time.

Back then the Virgin Blue group was rolling around in profit, left, right and centre and was able at the time cover the start up costs of the V Australia long haul division.

The few questionable decision(s) from Godfrey at the time is that the 77Ws were simply too big, but it was the only a/c available to VA at the time. Using the 77Ws on HKT (Low Yield/Tourist) and JNB (ETOPS restricted) didn't help either.

In addition, Scurrah recently singled out LAX as one of the few (if not only) destinations that is performing well for VA, in addition to him stating that HKG will need to be looked at.

https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-a ... ee3f320b51



Much of that team at the time post Godfrey (mostly JB era) has mostly moved on (or have been moved on by PS) with the management cleanup (and the merging of the TT/VARA/VAd management structure) by PS.

We could look at some of Luxon's commentary from NZ's time with VA and what appeared to complete frustration in poor performance and lack of movement in turning it around which points directly at the current executive group regardless of who did what in the past.

But I'd also agree that changing from being a lowcost carrier in Virgin Blue into a full-service carrier and also opening and international long haul arm isn't something which would have been dreamt up overnight so questions could be pointed and former executives who made some of these decisions.

I mean, we had Virgin Blue humming along nicely and then (in no particular order)

- Let's create V Australia and be a long haul carrier, to do so we'll buy what we can and that's the 77W even if it's the wrong aircraft.
- Let's go to New Zealand and open Pacific Blue
- Let's open the Pacific with Polynesian Blue
- Let's rebrand and be full service and become Virgin Australia
- Let's buy Tiger and run that as our low-cost arm seeing as we're full service

Was there ever a long term plan on transitioning from a successful Virgin Blue brand into what it wants to be today?

Even if there wasn't. Do something now!

In short - "What's Qantas up to? Let's do that!"

NTLDaz wrote:

I believe VA can make New Zealand work - but they need to show a level of nous which may have been absent previously.

GW54 wrote:

Raised by someone previously but Mt Cook ATR ZK-MVP seems to have been out of service for a long period of time. It's last flight was into HLZ and it's next service HLZ-CHC was cancelled. Assume it's not still in Hamilton and being a relatively new addition it wouldn't be on extended maintenance in CHC or NSN. Has it been damaged in some way?

zkncj wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

I believe VA can make New Zealand work - but they need to show a level of nous which may have been absent previously.

VA just needs to work on there hard and soft products on the Tasman to getter there. They are trying to be full service, but at the same time aren’t just there yet.

While you could say NZ doesn’t have J or PE on the A320/321s, at the same time they aren’t claiming to be full service on the Tasman.

Ideally VA needs to upgrade there fleet of 738s that operate the Tasman (which could be used for East/West overnight flights too).

PA515 wrote:

GW54 wrote:

Raised by someone previously but Mt Cook ATR ZK-MVP seems to have been out of service for a long period of time. It's last flight was into HLZ and it's next service HLZ-CHC was cancelled. Assume it's not still in Hamilton and being a relatively new addition it wouldn't be on extended maintenance in CHC or NSN. Has it been damaged in some way?

That was me. It's been 62 days now and according to flightaware it has not left HLZ. There's an Air NZ hangar at HLZ that can take an ATR. I don't have the flightradar24 package that gives more than the last eight days, so unable to check if flightaware is correct.

https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/ZKMVP

PA515

Johnv707 wrote:

Can any New Zealand watchers report if the final B789 ZK-NZE grounded by the Rolls Royce engine issue is being prepared for flight? It was previously reported that all 789's would be back in the air by the end of September. Thanks in advance.

NTLDaz wrote:

Clearly mistakes were made with VA over the last decade or so. DJ was so profitable due to getting the gift that was the demise of AN.

The start up of JQ put them in a vulnerable position. JQ with a lower cost base and QF with most of the high yield traffic.

I can't see how VA can go back to DJ without risking a lot of their hard won corporates fleeing to QF.

I believe VA can make New Zealand work - but they need to show a level of nous which may have been absent previously.

zkncj wrote:

VA just needs to work on there hard and soft products on the Tasman to getter there. They are trying to be full service, but at the same time aren’t just there yet.

While you could say NZ doesn’t have J or PE on the A320/321s, at the same time they aren’t claiming to be full service on the Tasman.

Ideally VA needs to upgrade there fleet of 738s that operate the Tasman (which could be used for East/West overnight flights too).

NTLDaz wrote:

I'm not sure what you see as wrong with the VA product Trans Tasman. They have a small J cabin, being a NB isn't really an issue on a 3 hours flight and aren't connecting people on to WB planes.They are essentially full service. Plenty of people fly longer flights in Australia on NB without a problem.

I think their product is fine. They just need to find their niche. NZ wouldn't be flying so many WB flights across the Tasman without all the connections. There are more VFF members in Australia than people in NZ. My guess is they need to work out how to in to New Zealand based passengers.