Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
 
NZ516
Posts: 457
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Wed Oct 23, 2019 12:21 am

zkncj wrote:
NZ516 wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
Do we know for sure when the BR aircraft gets returned?


April 2020 iit was announced in the annual general meeting last month.


That could always change - with the long-haul mid-life cabin refits comming up


They are trying to cut costs and so the leased one can go as not needed.. During the low NS season the 77W fleet has a lot less flying. The schedule can be operated by just 6 aircraft.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Wed Oct 23, 2019 3:09 am

Zkpilot wrote:
Unless something major has changed (Brexit perhaps?) I think this is a mistake. Excited for NY (and EWR would be a solid bet) but don’t think it should be at the expense of LHR.

3 main reasons to retain LHR:
1) It is (or certainly has been) one of NZs most profitable routes.
2) Provides a certain level of diversity regarding destinations (not putting all the eggs in the US basket).
3) Brand recognition/presence - LHR does have a certain level of prestige to it, it gives NZ that presence in the UK/EU, it does have that B-list celebrity use, and even as a fly the flag exercise does give New Zealand in general a boost in the UK.

With this decision, I’m pretty certain we can farewell any chance of 77X/A350 (unless they’re secretly planning LHR direct). LAX no longer would need 2x 77W daily sized planes as the LHR through pax won’t be on it and neither will NY pax so 2x daily 78J will do the job. I’d also bet money (provided no recession) that another US/Canada destination will be on the cards as a result (SEA/YYZ/DEN).



Some thoughts on these reasons

1) Is it though? When HKG-LHR was axed by Luxon LAX-LHR held on by a thread based solely on NZ making LAX-LHR work on its own. Essentially NZ1 and 2 have been sold as 2 routes, AKLLAX vv and LAXLHR vv. The bottom line is, It's cheaper for NZ to place European passengers on an interline carrier.

Can NZ sustain LAX-LHR with a competitive edge and how long will that be worth their while or is NZ better placing the 77W elsewhere and freeing up a 789's for NYC.

My thought is, LAX-LHR has been sustainable with effort but that effort is better deployed elsewhere and NZ will continue to feed Europe with its various partners.

2) This is normally a very valid point, however, Europe has been more volatile around global events largely due to its geographical distance from NZ. But also if the USA fails so will NZ1/2 as that LAXLHR leg has been surviving based on the USA market. Therefore, any risk is voided isn't it?

3) Can you directly attribute that to money and write off any negatives with it?

I'd agree that the 77X/A350 are out of the question. It's very clear NZ is continuing with frequency and direct city pairing. We'll see a gradual increase into IAH, ORD, NYC, SFO, YVR to daily and LAX may well remain double daily.. this would work nicely with a 787 fleet.

Looks very tidy if any market shifts too, wouldn't be too hard to move equipment into other regions or even change the config for a few years if needed.
 
Jamso
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:56 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Wed Oct 23, 2019 7:56 am

Anyone have any idea what NZ will do with their LHR slots? From the little information I've been able to find, it seems after they axed HKG-LHR they kept their second slot and now lease it to CX. Could we see something similar happen with this?
 
xiaotung
Posts: 1086
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:58 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Wed Oct 23, 2019 8:09 am

Jamso wrote:
Anyone have any idea what NZ will do with their LHR slots? From the little information I've been able to find, it seems after they axed HKG-LHR they kept their second slot and now lease it to CX. Could we see something similar happen with this?


They first leased and then sold their slots to CX a while ago and I assume they would do the same with the other pair.
 
concordianSYD
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 5:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Wed Oct 23, 2019 9:24 am

With LHR out of the network, will the (now shorter and less prestigious) LAX-AKL-LAX route remain NZ’s flagship and continue to bear NZ1 & NZ2, or could the 1/2 be given to EWR? If not, does anyone have an idea on flight numbers for EWR-AKL-EWR?
Concord is simply my home, sadly not a reference to a plane I’ve flown.
 
User avatar
MillwallSean
Posts: 973
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Wed Oct 23, 2019 9:35 am

NZ out of LHR should if nothing else stop some of these ideas about new routes that has stopovers...
NZ never commanded a premium, they were cheap as to book LAX-LHR and well, good try but New Zealand as a country is to small and most European based expat kiwis with decent wallets are found on Asian carriers. Hence the route just wasnt profitable for NZ. And I have it on absolute authority that no it wasnt profitable all costs included.

I love the idea that Asia-South America is suitable through Auckland. First question is what is South America? NZ flies to Buenos Aires, not South America....
Thats far away from most other markets. Hence any Asian passenger choosing NZ needs BA as their destination or NZ faces a giant disadvantage only offering a two stop aka Asia-AKL-Buenos Aires-Brazil etc.
Compare that with say Asia-Mex-South America or Asia-LAX- South America. Pretty clear what wins. Timewise a transfer through Auckland doesnt beat a transfer through say Houston or Atlanta to most destinations either.
So what is it NZ offers to South America from Asia? BA - ok. The rest no. To the rest they see more factor against a flight than for. They can sell on price but thats about it. Neither product or place is as good as what the competitors offer.
Local demand you say, In 2015, 78% of New Zealands trade with South America was with Brazil. Passenger loads from South American virtually mirrored this and the biggest group by far arriving here were Brazilians. Argentinians were below Colombians. It might have changed since, but I highly doubt that Brazil isn't at least 60% of all South American demand..
No One Likes Us - We Dont Care.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4529
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Wed Oct 23, 2019 9:44 am

concordianSYD wrote:
With LHR out of the network, will the (now shorter and less prestigious) LAX-AKL-LAX route remain NZ’s flagship and continue to bear NZ1 & NZ2, or could the 1/2 be given to EWR? If not, does anyone have an idea on flight numbers for EWR-AKL-EWR?

Likely will keep it. If NZ ever starts up a direct AKL-LHR then that would likely take the flight number.
NZ3/4 is currently free (although they do use it occasionally for additional LAX/SFO services). I believe NZ 13/14 and 15/16 are available too.
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
NZ321
Posts: 1220
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Wed Oct 23, 2019 10:51 am

zkncj wrote:
Post October 2020 - what will the 77W fleet allocations look like?

AKL-LAX 2x Daily
AKL-SFO 1x Daily
AKL-IAH 1x Daily

Assuming IAH's 789 allocation will be moved to EWR?


I wouldn't assume LAX 2 daily 77W, at least not year round. We could see some other action. I'm not sure SFO has been reliably 77W daily year round, so this may be a chance to consolidate SFO at daily 77W and seasonal deployment of 77W on some routes not currently seeing 77W. I wouldn't pick NZ would use 77W to launch a new route to North America. So there is going to be some movement in aircraft assigned to routes, and don't forget some aircraft - 77W and 789 will need to be released for installation of the new economy extra cabin. Not sure if 772 will be getting econoy extra. Seems unlikely.
Plane mad!
 
NZ321
Posts: 1220
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Wed Oct 23, 2019 11:29 am

Thinking about EWR schedules, and projected 15.40 east bound and 17.40 west bound flight times, if we plug in NZ summer time (+13) and US winter time (-5) we have a time difference of 18 hours.

When we look at current trans-Tasman feed of the flagship widebody flights, MEL only arrives in AKL at 1745. SYD has widebody arrivals into AKL at 1655 and 1850, while BNE has widebody arrival at 1725.

So if we have an outbound departure from AKL around 1900, could look something like:

AKL- EWR dep 1920 arr 1640
EWR - AKL dep 1900 arr 0640+2

Given substantial delays at EWR in the winter at peak hour, not sure if a 2 hr 20 minute turn around is realistic or what the gate slot allocation at terminal C? may be, but such a schedule would be workable with trans-Tasman feed in both directions to all three major east-coast Australian cities. Allows for a later arrival back into Auckland in event of delays or longer flight sector time.
Plane mad!
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11134
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Wed Oct 23, 2019 2:13 pm

Forum Moderator
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11134
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Wed Oct 23, 2019 2:24 pm

NZ also says working with Boeing in maximising capability of 789's, will involve slight improvement to MTOW, load restrictions may apply dependent on season and weather

https://twitter.com/AvWeekScho/status/1 ... 06624?s=20
Forum Moderator
 
User avatar
eta unknown
Posts: 2853
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 5:03 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Wed Oct 23, 2019 3:30 pm

MillwallSean wrote:
I love the idea that Asia-South America is suitable through Auckland. First question is what is South America? NZ flies to Buenos Aires, not South America....
Thats far away from most other markets. Hence any Asian passenger choosing NZ needs BA as their destination or NZ faces a giant disadvantage only offering a two stop aka Asia-AKL-Buenos Aires-Brazil etc.
Compare that with say Asia-Mex-South America or Asia-LAX- South America. Pretty clear what wins. Timewise a transfer through Auckland doesnt beat a transfer through say Houston or Atlanta to most destinations either.
So what is it NZ offers to South America from Asia? BA - ok. The rest no. To the rest they see more factor against a flight than for. They can sell on price but thats about it. Neither product or place is as good as what the competitors offer.
Local demand you say, In 2015, 78% of New Zealands trade with South America was with Brazil. Passenger loads from South American virtually mirrored this and the biggest group by far arriving here were Brazilians. Argentinians were below Colombians. It might have changed since, but I highly doubt that Brazil isn't at least 60% of all South American demand..

I'm glad someone else is seeing sense as to not go all out on BUE-AKL-PVG. Why make PVG double daily just to secure one South American connection- that doesn't operate daily. Can NZ also command the yield for PVG-BUE to make it worthwhile? To focus on PVG connections to BUE would suggest the NZ and AU markets are not adequate to support the AKL-BUE flight. While China might be an important strategic market, it's probably best to focus only on NZ and the Pacific islands for that market.
 
Galvan316
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 5:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Wed Oct 23, 2019 6:44 pm

Anyone know how well the AKL-ORD route is performing?
ORD and MDW is where youll find Me!
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1672
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Wed Oct 23, 2019 8:20 pm

eta unknown wrote:
I'm glad someone else is seeing sense as to not go all out on BUE-AKL-PVG. Why make PVG double daily just to secure one South American connection- that doesn't operate daily. Can NZ also command the yield for PVG-BUE to make it worthwhile? To focus on PVG connections to BUE would suggest the NZ and AU markets are not adequate to support the AKL-BUE flight. While China might be an important strategic market, it's probably best to focus only on NZ and the Pacific islands for that market.

I don't disagree to an extent, but the airline itself has signalled that it does want PVG-AKL 2x daily and that it does see some sort of future in the China-South America market. Just sayin'.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
NZ6
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Wed Oct 23, 2019 8:32 pm

Galvan316 wrote:
Anyone know how well the AKL-ORD route is performing?


Good. We wouldn't have NYC if it wasn't working well for the airline.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Wed Oct 23, 2019 9:14 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
eta unknown wrote:
I'm glad someone else is seeing sense as to not go all out on BUE-AKL-PVG. Why make PVG double daily just to secure one South American connection- that doesn't operate daily. Can NZ also command the yield for PVG-BUE to make it worthwhile? To focus on PVG connections to BUE would suggest the NZ and AU markets are not adequate to support the AKL-BUE flight. While China might be an important strategic market, it's probably best to focus only on NZ and the Pacific islands for that market.

I don't disagree to an extent, but the airline itself has signalled that it does want PVG-AKL 2x daily and that it does see some sort of future in the China-South America market. Just sayin'.


Seeing as this comment is driving some much belief in China-South America, why do you think 2 PVG flights is so critical to that working? why doesn't it or can't it work with 1 and/or another China port?
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1229
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Wed Oct 23, 2019 9:40 pm

NZ6 wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
eta unknown wrote:
I'm glad someone else is seeing sense as to not go all out on BUE-AKL-PVG. Why make PVG double daily just to secure one South American connection- that doesn't operate daily. Can NZ also command the yield for PVG-BUE to make it worthwhile? To focus on PVG connections to BUE would suggest the NZ and AU markets are not adequate to support the AKL-BUE flight. While China might be an important strategic market, it's probably best to focus only on NZ and the Pacific islands for that market.

I don't disagree to an extent, but the airline itself has signalled that it does want PVG-AKL 2x daily and that it does see some sort of future in the China-South America market. Just sayin'.


Seeing as this comment is driving some much belief in China-South America, why do you think 2 PVG flights is so critical to that working? why doesn't it or can't it work with 1 and/or another China port?


No criticism, but a genuine question: So why is NZ so keen on the 2nd PVG slot then? Must be onwards connections to Europe (and other parts of Asia/China)? Surely the AKL-PVG-AKL O/D market is not that big, or is it?
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7513
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Wed Oct 23, 2019 10:17 pm

I would see several reasons for PVG to be 2 daily, some make more sense than others.

- Utilisation, 2 daily needs 3 frames where as 1 daily needs 2 need well timed slots though
-Demand O&D
- connections, to China and Europe
-securing slots for future demand
- better use of fleet to serve just PVG in China

Probably many more, like I say some make more sense than others.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1672
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Wed Oct 23, 2019 10:20 pm

NZ6 wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
eta unknown wrote:
I'm glad someone else is seeing sense as to not go all out on BUE-AKL-PVG. Why make PVG double daily just to secure one South American connection- that doesn't operate daily. Can NZ also command the yield for PVG-BUE to make it worthwhile? To focus on PVG connections to BUE would suggest the NZ and AU markets are not adequate to support the AKL-BUE flight. While China might be an important strategic market, it's probably best to focus only on NZ and the Pacific islands for that market.

I don't disagree to an extent, but the airline itself has signalled that it does want PVG-AKL 2x daily and that it does see some sort of future in the China-South America market. Just sayin'.


Seeing as this comment is driving some much belief in China-South America, why do you think 2 PVG flights is so critical to that working? why doesn't it or can't it work with 1 and/or another China port?

I think you may be confusing my apparent "belief" with what the airline is stating publicly. I'm openly sceptical about the China-South America strategy, but in discussion I'm trying to put that scepticism aside and focus on what the airline has actually said (on the basis that they know more about what they're proposing than I do). What they have said is that China-South America doesn't work for them with a single daily flight because of the timings - in order to provide good connections both ways they need a morning departure from AKL and an evening arrival back in AKL. To do that "efficiently" (which may be critical in a low-margin market like China) they have specifically stated they are actively seeking additional slots for AKL-PVG so that two daily flights can be operated (using three aircraft, rather than two for a single daily) and pax-efficient connections made between China and South America.

I don't make this stuff up - it's clearly been reported as what NZ's thinking is. Even if I personally think it's a difficult path they've chosen, we have to assume it does remain their path, given it was confirmed as recently as May this year.

Personally, I agree with you that it could be done with a single aircraft - say AKL 0900-1605 PVG, then PVG 2359-1630 AKL. That's eight hours on the ground in PVG - but that doesn't seem to be the way NZ is thinking. Perhaps you're in a better position to know why that doesn't work for them? Apart from slot availability, which is a big obstacle. Could it be a passenger preference for an overnight flight to be offered in both directions. I don't know - I'm trying not to speculate but to base my points on what the carrier has publicly stated even though, as I say, I'm also sceptical.

As for opening up other South American ports - I'm sceptical even that GRU is on the near-term horizon given the political instability in Brazil right now - and the fact that it's been reported that fuel costs out of Brazilian airports are very significantly higher than out of other (unspecified) locations, to the extent there's an inquiry into the transparency of the fuel market in Brazil. For ULH routes fuel cost must be critical.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7513
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Thu Oct 24, 2019 12:56 am

It looks like the final LHR departure ex AKL is Sunday 11th October 2020 so 12th ex LHR.

My take in the 77W usage for the peak NW20/21 would be at this stage

LAX 10 weekly 3 frames
SFO daily 2 frames
IAH 6 weekly 2 frames, one spare day with 772 ops

There will be more to come I feel with the UA JV in place, eventually UA ops AKL-LAX with NZ staying 1 daily year round but maybe not next year.

There has been some talk of UA to CHC, weather from LAX or SFO remains to be seen, one would probably go with SFO, I could see this as a seasonal service with a 787 of some sort.

NZ could use the 77W to SIN or somewhere in Asia where demand requires, NRT and HKG are the only others really but HKG would be a no right now obviously.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7513
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Thu Oct 24, 2019 1:04 am

Which also raises the question of will NZ convert any 789s from code 1 to code 2 or will the existing fleet be moved around?

MON/THURS/SAT is the days of Ops for EWR which aren’t the normal days for a 3 weekly US service starting out, do we see ORD 4 weekly on TUES/WED/FRI/SUN? With YVR daily as well needing 2 frames and SIN daily using 1. Or does as above SIN go 77W and ORD go 5-7 weekly? There has been talk of needing more premium capacity into some Asian cities, I think NRT mainly? But I could see a 772 or 77W to NRT, could they run 1 77W and not use the extra frequencies so freeing up a frame for a few days.

PER/HNL are shorter so the higher fuel burn of the 772 is less noticeable if they get 772s, both particularly HNL uses a 772 for chunks of the year.

Interesting times, I like it.
 
lessredtape
Posts: 120
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:57 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Thu Oct 24, 2019 1:18 am

DavidByrne wrote:
Sylus wrote:
Well actually, one could argue that the demand that exists ex these airports DID and probably still does exist (not entirely sure about ROT) but its more that the operator (NZ) saw fit to not cannibalise connection traffic ex AKL,WLG, CHC on trans-tasman. Freedom Air used to average 75-80 percent load lactor ex PMR whilst operating in early 2000's (Stats NZ) whilst HLZ and DUD frequently saw over 90% in some months. In 2018 the DUD-BNE route saw 21,751 passengers from 175 services (738 configured with 176 seats), resulting in around a 71% load factor. While that doesn't sound too good, it actually beat out many other VA trans-tasman routes that year. Does it make it viable though? Who knows. The point is that there is demand, but the likely operators don't seem like the right candidates. Again TT probably does seem like a possibly feasible operator. For all of LCC Kiwi Air's failures in the late 90's, apparently they made a million dollars in the first year filling aircraft over 95% ex HLZ and DUD. That's according to Ewan Wilson's book - and if you believe it of course....

It's interesting to speculate as to what the longer-term trends on Transtasman may be. Will it be consolidation on the existing (and perhaps a handful of additional) routes, or will there be a proliferation of routes to secondary ports on both sides of the Tasman? Who knows; but the existing carriers seem very comfortable with the status quo, so I woudln't think it likely they'll go for proliferation.

Having said that, it's interesting to note that the sort of loads you quote from some of the secondary ports would suit a smaller aircraft (dare I say it, but something along the lines of the A220). Which could also provide jet services to places like NSN without penalty (as far as I can determine, for the -100 at least) - if the rumour that AKL-NSN was under consideration for jet services have any basis in reality. And, clearly, routes like AKL-IVC, HLZ-CHC, WLG-DUD etc etc And services to IUE, CBR, HBA etc.

Not suggesting this has any likelihood whatsoever, but just observing . . .

with JQ exiting NZ regionals 30NOV, surely average fares eg. PMR/OZ will be higher than they are now, as Air NZ will increase the domestic portion of that fare + who wants to fly anywhere one stop, when can fly nonstop. One stop via CHC or AKL adds a minimum of approx 2.5 hours, plus hassle of changing terminals at AKL.

Presume car parking would cost less at PMR vs AKL.

HLZ seems too close to AKL to me, but PMR being a bit further from WLG than AKL/HLZ + AKL having many more flights than WLG, plus many widebodies, surely would mean that one or 2 weekly services PMR/OZ + extra in school holidays to OZ would be viable. The catchment within 90 mins drive or 120 mins drive, must be substantial.
 
xiaotung
Posts: 1086
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:58 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Thu Oct 24, 2019 1:46 am

DavidByrne wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
I don't disagree to an extent, but the airline itself has signalled that it does want PVG-AKL 2x daily and that it does see some sort of future in the China-South America market. Just sayin'.


Seeing as this comment is driving some much belief in China-South America, why do you think 2 PVG flights is so critical to that working? why doesn't it or can't it work with 1 and/or another China port?

I think you may be confusing my apparent "belief" with what the airline is stating publicly. I'm openly sceptical about the China-South America strategy, but in discussion I'm trying to put that scepticism aside and focus on what the airline has actually said (on the basis that they know more about what they're proposing than I do). What they have said is that China-South America doesn't work for them with a single daily flight because of the timings - in order to provide good connections both ways they need a morning departure from AKL and an evening arrival back in AKL. To do that "efficiently" (which may be critical in a low-margin market like China) they have specifically stated they are actively seeking additional slots for AKL-PVG so that two daily flights can be operated (using three aircraft, rather than two for a single daily) and pax-efficient connections made between China and South America.

I don't make this stuff up - it's clearly been reported as what NZ's thinking is. Even if I personally think it's a difficult path they've chosen, we have to assume it does remain their path, given it was confirmed as recently as May this year.

Personally, I agree with you that it could be done with a single aircraft - say AKL 0900-1605 PVG, then PVG 2359-1630 AKL. That's eight hours on the ground in PVG - but that doesn't seem to be the way NZ is thinking. Perhaps you're in a better position to know why that doesn't work for them? Apart from slot availability, which is a big obstacle. Could it be a passenger preference for an overnight flight to be offered in both directions. I don't know - I'm trying not to speculate but to base my points on what the carrier has publicly stated even though, as I say, I'm also sceptical.

As for opening up other South American ports - I'm sceptical even that GRU is on the near-term horizon given the political instability in Brazil right now - and the fact that it's been reported that fuel costs out of Brazilian airports are very significantly higher than out of other (unspecified) locations, to the extent there's an inquiry into the transparency of the fuel market in Brazil. For ULH routes fuel cost must be critical.


I always thought that the 2nd PVG flight was aimed at meeting the demand from Mainland China. Remember NZ was very close to opening CTU. I think it was Sichuan Airlines' entry that killed it.

The EZE connection was just a little bonus that such an end of the line carrier never thought possible. I share your skepticism regarding GRU but is EZE any better? EZE needs all the help it can get, hence the discussion about China connections. Would a EZE-GRU tag on be worth it? I see many fifth freedom carriers are doing it including TK and ET.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11134
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Thu Oct 24, 2019 5:03 am

NZ to increase AKL-NRT from 7 to 9 weekly from 23 Jul 20 to 23 Aug 20 coinciding with summer Olympics

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... -increase/
Forum Moderator
 
Gasman
Posts: 2202
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:45 am

Is it just me - or was NZ a bit disingenuous to announce the demise of LHR simultaneously with the new route to EWR? After 15 years of tease, build up & hype EWR deserved fanfare. But losing LHR is almost the bigger news, and overshadows EWR completely.

I doubt it'll affect the bottom line, but it seems NZ have poured cold water over their own marketing opportunity.
 
Sylus
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 10:14 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:48 am

Gasman wrote:
Is it just me - or was NZ a bit disingenuous to announce the demise of LHR simultaneously with the new route to EWR? After 15 years of tease, build up & hype EWR deserved fanfare. But losing LHR is almost the bigger news, and overshadows EWR completely.

I doubt it'll affect the bottom line, but it seems NZ have poured cold water over their own marketing opportunity.


Totally agree. After all QF has done to milk the JFK and LHR directs, it seems silly for NZ to announce such a historic route (EWR) only to overshadow it with the LHR news. Why not just wait even a week?.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1672
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:19 am

xiaotung wrote:
I always thought that the 2nd PVG flight was aimed at meeting the demand from Mainland China. Remember NZ was very close to opening CTU. I think it was Sichuan Airlines' entry that killed it.

Probably best to paste in the quote from May this year:

For example, he [Luxon] says Air NZ has been trying for four years to double the number of slots in and out of Shanghai airport, and change the timing on them so it can position itself as a hub to take passengers from China into South America. At the moment, constraints with timetabling often meant an untenable 12-hour stopover for passengers in Auckland. . . .

. . . He said Air New Zealand would be keen on some government help with negotiations with China over the Shanghai flights issue. He also called on New Zealand to loosen transit visa requirements so it was easier for Chinese visitors coming through New Zealand.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1672
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:30 am

A220 coming to Auckland later this month as part of a Pacific demonstration tour. Realistically, Obviously that doesn't indicate that NZ has expressed interest, but Airbus obviously think it's worth spending a bit of time trying to persuade them.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... dney-visit
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1672
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:34 am

Sylus wrote:
Gasman wrote:
Is it just me - or was NZ a bit disingenuous to announce the demise of LHR simultaneously with the new route to EWR? After 15 years of tease, build up & hype EWR deserved fanfare. But losing LHR is almost the bigger news, and overshadows EWR completely.

I doubt it'll affect the bottom line, but it seems NZ have poured cold water over their own marketing opportunity.


Totally agree. After all QF has done to milk the JFK and LHR directs, it seems silly for NZ to announce such a historic route (EWR) only to overshadow it with the LHR news. Why not just wait even a week?.

I disagree. I think it was quite smart to announce EWR, and then, almost as an afterthought, while everyone's on a high from the EWR announcement, follow up with the "by the way we're canning LHR" bit. Seems to me that the way the press have treated it, EWR was THE news, and LHR was incidental, rather than the other way around. Certainly, amongst my circle of non-av friends, the big news was EWR, and they'd not even picked up that it involved dropping LHR. Definitely not overshadowed by LHR for them. Which is pretty much the way the airline would have wanted it.
Last edited by DavidByrne on Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1672
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:36 am

[duplicate]
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3673
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Thu Oct 24, 2019 10:36 am

DavidByrne wrote:
A220 coming to Auckland later this month as part of a Pacific demonstration tour. Realistically, Obviously that doesn't indicate that NZ has expressed interest, but Airbus obviously think it's worth spending a bit of time trying to persuade them.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... dney-visit


Given Samoa Airways is analysing what to do with their fleet with the ongoing MAX debacle, I could see the A223 and A321XLR being a great fit. Regional and more destinations in Oz and NZ with the smaller craft and legs for LAX and NRT with the larger.
come visit the south pacific
 
NZ6
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:07 pm

zkeoj wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
I don't disagree to an extent, but the airline itself has signalled that it does want PVG-AKL 2x daily and that it does see some sort of future in the China-South America market. Just sayin'.


Seeing as this comment is driving some much belief in China-South America, why do you think 2 PVG flights is so critical to that working? why doesn't it or can't it work with 1 and/or another China port?


No criticism, but a genuine question: So why is NZ so keen on the 2nd PVG slot then? Must be onwards connections to Europe (and other parts of Asia/China)? Surely the AKL-PVG-AKL O/D market is not that big, or is it?


There's likely a number of reasons. Schedule for starters.

I mean currently, the PVG flight arrives early morning into AKL but EZE doesn't depart until early evening. The reverse way is worse, arriving into AKL from EZE very early morning but not departing to PVG until late evening.

That itinerary is awful and won't attract too many customers travelling through.

Alternating the schedule is an option but is that now working for one group but not another.

Does a second flight cater for both? while also growing wider China via its primary port. aka L.A for many years.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2202
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:11 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
Sylus wrote:
Gasman wrote:
Is it just me - or was NZ a bit disingenuous to announce the demise of LHR simultaneously with the new route to EWR? After 15 years of tease, build up & hype EWR deserved fanfare. But losing LHR is almost the bigger news, and overshadows EWR completely.

I doubt it'll affect the bottom line, but it seems NZ have poured cold water over their own marketing opportunity.


Totally agree. After all QF has done to milk the JFK and LHR directs, it seems silly for NZ to announce such a historic route (EWR) only to overshadow it with the LHR news. Why not just wait even a week?.

I disagree. I think it was quite smart to announce EWR, and then, almost as an afterthought, while everyone's on a high from the EWR announcement, follow up with the "by the way we're canning LHR" bit. Seems to me that the way the press have treated it, EWR was THE news, and LHR was incidental, rather than the other way around. Certainly, amongst my circle of non-av friends, the big news was EWR, and they'd not even picked up that it involved dropping LHR. Definitely not overshadowed by LHR for them. Which is pretty much the way the airline would have wanted it.


I guess it depends on the demographic of your non-av friends.

Personally, I'm glad NZ has finally strapped on a pair and dropped LHR. Competition on the route must've been brutal; the UK doesn't have the emotional pull to New Zealanders it once did and I never bought the whole "Hollywood B-listers just *love* flying NZ" bollocks. But to my circle of friends and family that are more than 10 years older than I am, that is the big news. To them the legacy of LHR is not at all compensated for by a thrice weekly flight to New York, what's more to an airport they've never even heard of. One person, himself on the bad side of 75 remarked to me that it's reminiscent of NZ being despatched to LGW in the 1980's (even though the two scenarios are in no way comparable).
 
NZ6
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:21 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
I think you may be confusing my apparent "belief" with what the airline is stating publicly. I'm openly sceptical about the China-South America strategy, but in discussion I'm trying to put that scepticism aside and focus on what the airline has actually said (on the basis that they know more about what they're proposing than I do). What they have said is that China-South America doesn't work for them with a single daily flight because of the timings - in order to provide good connections both ways they need a morning departure from AKL and an evening arrival back in AKL. To do that "efficiently" (which may be critical in a low-margin market like China) they have specifically stated they are actively seeking additional slots for AKL-PVG so that two daily flights can be operated (using three aircraft, rather than two for a single daily) and pax-efficient connections made between China and South America.

I don't make this stuff up - it's clearly been reported as what NZ's thinking is. Even if I personally think it's a difficult path they've chosen, we have to assume it does remain their path, given it was confirmed as recently as May this year.

Personally, I agree with you that it could be done with a single aircraft - say AKL 0900-1605 PVG, then PVG 2359-1630 AKL. That's eight hours on the ground in PVG - but that doesn't seem to be the way NZ is thinking. Perhaps you're in a better position to know why that doesn't work for them? Apart from slot availability, which is a big obstacle. Could it be a passenger preference for an overnight flight to be offered in both directions. I don't know - I'm trying not to speculate but to base my points on what the carrier has publicly stated even though, as I say, I'm also sceptical.

As for opening up other South American ports - I'm sceptical even that GRU is on the near-term horizon given the political instability in Brazil right now - and the fact that it's been reported that fuel costs out of Brazilian airports are very significantly higher than out of other (unspecified) locations, to the extent there's an inquiry into the transparency of the fuel market in Brazil. For ULH routes fuel cost must be critical.


Sorry I wasn't meaning just your belief, more referring to the ongoing comments that China and South America are a marriage made in heaven or reliant on each other.

While we can redo timings on PVG or EZE flights to offer a better connection, is the through traffic going to outweigh any O&D or connecting PVG traffic. By this I mean, a 1605 arrival into PVG. How does that work with onward China and European connections, does NZ want and do customers want that long daytime flight vs an overnight flight.

Or, as an open question, is NZ better off building PVG into needing a second flight or just sourcing a slot for the second flight and timing that to connect with South America 2-3 times a week. Therefore keeping PVG as is but relying on that second flight to capture the opportunity in South America through traffic
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1672
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:24 pm

Gasman wrote:
I guess it depends on the demographic of your non-av friends.

Very seasoned and regular independent travellers, the lot of them.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
NZ6
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:28 pm

Gasman wrote:
Is it just me - or was NZ a bit disingenuous to announce the demise of LHR simultaneously with the new route to EWR? After 15 years of tease, build up & hype EWR deserved fanfare. But losing LHR is almost the bigger news, and overshadows EWR completely.

I doubt it'll affect the bottom line, but it seems NZ have poured cold water over their own marketing opportunity.


You could see it both ways.

a) NYC took the heat off LHR being dropped after decades of service and people losing jobs etc
b) LHR being dropped took the sting out of an exciting new route. One QF has been taking some headlines with this week.

I've seen headlines which lean either way on it...

I think NZ expected a bit more of noise around LHR being dropped. Especially after the concern when it was rumoured to be going when HKG-LHR got axed. But by in large it's been accepted well and many can see why and understand why they're dropping it.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2202
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:31 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
Gasman wrote:
I guess it depends on the demographic of your non-av friends.

Very seasoned and regular independent travellers, the lot of them.


It's been two days. How many "seasoned, regular traveling non-av friends" have you honestly surveyed?
 
zkncj
Posts: 3887
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:33 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
A220 coming to Auckland later this month as part of a Pacific demonstration tour. Realistically, Obviously that doesn't indicate that NZ has expressed interest, but Airbus obviously think it's worth spending a bit of time trying to persuade them.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... dney-visit


Probably more likely to get an Qantas order - as they are going to have to replace the F100/717s at some stage with something. The A220 could work well for QF on routes like WLG/CHC which could provide double daily services year around vs the larger 738 and the 717s which can't cross the Tasman.

Which NZ merging Mount Cook / Air Nelson into mainline, could maybe see something happen with the A220.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1672
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:40 pm

Gasman wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
Gasman wrote:
I guess it depends on the demographic of your non-av friends.

Very seasoned and regular independent travellers, the lot of them.


It's been two days. How many "seasoned, regular traveling non-av friends" have you honestly surveyed?

Five of us meet for a beer every Wed night - their reactions to the NZ announcement were universally focused on EWR, with not a word spoken about LHR. I was frankly surprised that anyone raised it at all - I've learned over the years that any discussion of aviation matters usually results in a rolling of eyes and a "here we go again" kind of response. One of them is a very regular visitor to New York, and said she had had messages about the new service from several other friends (outside of our group). Appreciate that you can't read too much into pub talk, but notwithstanding I was surprised at the level of interest in the EWR service.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
NZ6
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:25 pm

Watch this space for a huge increase in Bali capacity next season.
 
NZ516
Posts: 457
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:32 pm

Think they already announced 6 per week in the July school holidays.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:33 pm

NZ516 wrote:
Think they already announced 6 per week in the July school holidays.


More.
 
NZ516
Posts: 457
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:41 pm

Daily all year round perhaps to give EK a run for their money.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1672
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:52 pm

NZ6 wrote:
Watch this space for a huge increase in Bali capacity next season.

Been wondering if CHC-DPS would stand a chance seasonally now that AKL has pretty much daily frequency in peak times. Also CHC-HNL?
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7513
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Thu Oct 24, 2019 10:00 pm

NZ6 wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
I think you may be confusing my apparent "belief" with what the airline is stating publicly. I'm openly sceptical about the China-South America strategy, but in discussion I'm trying to put that scepticism aside and focus on what the airline has actually said (on the basis that they know more about what they're proposing than I do). What they have said is that China-South America doesn't work for them with a single daily flight because of the timings - in order to provide good connections both ways they need a morning departure from AKL and an evening arrival back in AKL. To do that "efficiently" (which may be critical in a low-margin market like China) they have specifically stated they are actively seeking additional slots for AKL-PVG so that two daily flights can be operated (using three aircraft, rather than two for a single daily) and pax-efficient connections made between China and South America.

I don't make this stuff up - it's clearly been reported as what NZ's thinking is. Even if I personally think it's a difficult path they've chosen, we have to assume it does remain their path, given it was confirmed as recently as May this year.

Personally, I agree with you that it could be done with a single aircraft - say AKL 0900-1605 PVG, then PVG 2359-1630 AKL. That's eight hours on the ground in PVG - but that doesn't seem to be the way NZ is thinking. Perhaps you're in a better position to know why that doesn't work for them? Apart from slot availability, which is a big obstacle. Could it be a passenger preference for an overnight flight to be offered in both directions. I don't know - I'm trying not to speculate but to base my points on what the carrier has publicly stated even though, as I say, I'm also sceptical.

As for opening up other South American ports - I'm sceptical even that GRU is on the near-term horizon given the political instability in Brazil right now - and the fact that it's been reported that fuel costs out of Brazilian airports are very significantly higher than out of other (unspecified) locations, to the extent there's an inquiry into the transparency of the fuel market in Brazil. For ULH routes fuel cost must be critical.


Sorry I wasn't meaning just your belief, more referring to the ongoing comments that China and South America are a marriage made in heaven or reliant on each other.

While we can redo timings on PVG or EZE flights to offer a better connection, is the through traffic going to outweigh any O&D or connecting PVG traffic. By this I mean, a 1605 arrival into PVG. How does that work with onward China and European connections, does NZ want and do customers want that long daytime flight vs an overnight flight.

Or, as an open question, is NZ better off building PVG into needing a second flight or just sourcing a slot for the second flight and timing that to connect with South America 2-3 times a week. Therefore keeping PVG as is but relying on that second flight to capture the opportunity in South America through traffic


A daytime AKL/PVG would fit in with the move to make most other Asian flights daylight northbound, HND/2nd NRT was overnight but moved to daytime to improve utilisation, PVG would keep its existing overnight as well I’d imagine, SIN is the only other Asian city with the seasonal second NZ operated flight as an overnight. HKG changes this weekend, KIX was overnight for a while a few years back.

Admittedly most Asian services now arrive AKL 0800-0930 so EZE connections are 11/12 hrs, 2005 departure. Rather than say 1400:1500 arrivals into AKL, but the morning arrivals allow an overall better option for domestic etc and anyone that might fly NZ Asia/Australia. Also fleet utilisation is better this way.
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1229
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Thu Oct 24, 2019 10:26 pm

Oh, NZ6, you are such a tease ;-)
 
NZ6
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Fri Oct 25, 2019 12:17 am

zkeoj wrote:
Oh, NZ6, you are such a tease ;-)


Not intentional but until it’s announced anything can change.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Fri Oct 25, 2019 12:23 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
A daytime AKL/PVG would fit in with the move to make most other Asian flights daylight northbound, HND/2nd NRT was overnight but moved to daytime to improve utilisation, PVG would keep its existing overnight as well I’d imagine, SIN is the only other Asian city with the seasonal second NZ operated flight as an overnight. HKG changes this weekend, KIX was overnight for a while a few years back.

Admittedly most Asian services now arrive AKL 0800-0930 so EZE connections are 11/12 hrs, 2005 departure. Rather than say 1400:1500 arrivals into AKL, but the morning arrivals allow an overall better option for domestic etc and anyone that might fly NZ Asia/Australia. Also fleet utilisation is better this way.


Wouldn’t you want a daytime flight because that’s best for the market or secondly network utilisation if there was no detrimental effect to route performance?

Wouldn’t you need to know this before retiming a flight based on it better connecting to one South American flight?
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2788
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Fri Oct 25, 2019 1:05 am

Ugh, EWR.... really??? Dump of an airport with chronic delays and an ass to get to from large swathes of New York City. I mean, to be totally snobby about it, NZ's big New York announcement is really to New Jersey. Lame. Have they actually used Newark before settling on it or was it just "United, therefore, yes"?

JFK or bust. The Gatwick comparison is apt.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8346
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2019

Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:12 am

So the stretch seats will be in front of the sky couch rows, and Golds will have space available seat selection on the day of departure. On the 77W one row of sky couch to be added to rear cabin.

As far as NZ2 going, I will be honest it has deflated a number of employees I have talked to - even with the announcement they are starting direct flights to New Jersey. I think ORD,IAH,EZE generated a lot more internal interest. A lot feel that LAX-LHR was no longer right for NZ, but still feel that an extension from one of the other ports like SIN might have still been an option to maintain contact with UK. Facts are facts though, maintaining a unique LHR base added hugely to the overheads for the route and that was the killer against low yield. I wondered about SIN-LHR to be included under the SQ/NZ rev share agreement, but there is major competition on SIN-LHR and the lacklustre and long overdue for replacement NZ Business class is not going to be popular. So, it seems the decision is the right and correct business decision.

I flew through EWR earlier in the year, and it is a mess. It is clear that this is newly added to the UA/NZ revenue share agreement so I guess that makes sense. EWR.International arrival queues are chronic and tight connections nigh on impossible and last time I flew internationally through EWR they didn't have kiosks for ESTAs The lounges are overcrowded beyond belief and security queues ran two lengths of the terminal on two different levels and round the block last year when I flew YYZ-EWR-ZRH. I feel that it may be a success but I don't think it will do as well as ORD/IAH which have more relevant connections to Middle/Eastern USA/Caribbean and a less formidable airport. EWR is what LAX used to be.and if you all recall the rep for missing flights and bags and queues and aggressive staff was more than enough to scare many from even visiting the USA prior to SFO/IAH/ORD.
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.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

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