[list=][/list]

MON wrote:

The LHR slots are probably an underused valuable asset that has perhaps also hastened this decision?

So, how much will they get for the slots? $40 million? I always wonder whether airlines are better off selling the slots than flying to LHR.

Good evening.

I am sorry for a potentially stupid question (I am NOT in economics, just in physics):

Wouldn't it be a good idea to always fly towards the East so as to make use of the wind?

So why not a "circular line" LHR- NRT - AKL - YVR - LHR? Specifically since NRT is very close to the the great circle LHR-AKL.

Or why not AKL-EZE (or GRU or SCL) - LHR? Are the 2000 nm, which this path is longer than the one via NRT, in direction of the wind more expensive i drift than flying versus the wind via NRT?

Or why not LHR-NRT-AKL and v.v.?

Again, this possibly is a naive and stupid question by an ignorant in the field.

Best,

Ferroviarius

Ferroviarius wrote:

Good evening.

I am sorry for a potentially stupid question (I am NOT in economics, just in physics):

Wouldn't it be a good idea to always fly towards the East so as to make use of the wind?

So why not a "circular line" LHR- NRT - AKL - YVR - LHR? Specifically since NRT is very close to the the great circle LHR-AKL.

Or why not AKL-EZE (or GRU or SCL) - LHR? Are the 2000 nm, which this path is longer than the one via NRT, in direction of the wind more expensive i drift than flying versus the wind via NRT?

Or why not LHR-NRT-AKL and v.v.?

Again, this possibly is a naive and stupid question by an ignorant in the field.

Best,

Ferroviarius

Problem is NZ are dropping LHR so not sure it's a relevant question.

Does this have anything to do with Australia and New Zealand not having as close ties with the mother country. The last big migration was right after WW2 and maybe the younger generation doesn't feel the same pull to return.

Do we know when these EWR-AKL flights will be available for sale?

I would expect they will be for sale on Tuesday the 29th October exactly one year before they kick off.

Ferroviarius wrote:

Wouldn't it be a good idea to always fly towards the East so as to make use of the wind?

So why not a "circular line" LHR- NRT - AKL - YVR - LHR? Specifically since NRT is very close to the the great circle LHR-AKL. Or why not AKL-EZE (or GRU or SCL) - LHR? Are the 2000 nm, which this path is longer than the one via NRT, in direction of the wind more expensive i drift than flying versus the wind via NRT? Or why not LHR-NRT-AKL and v.v.?

It would make sense for non-stop to London. Qantas are reportedly planning a polar route for SYD-LHR non-stop with the route running roughly over Anchorage. So the "westbound" leg would actually be eastbound to take advantage of tail winds.

smi0006 wrote:

Wonder what the new LAX flight numbers will be? And if the schedule will change at all?

Probably the same NZ5 and NZ6 for the 77W service and NZ18 for the one via RAR. They may even leave it as low as 8 per week moving the demand over to EWR and ORD.

Lufthansa wrote:

United787 wrote:

So EWR will join the "six continents club"!

Without getting into a stupid discussion on the geology, geography and geopolitical meaning of continents, it is safe to say that the general A-Net consensus of this made up A-Net designation is that New Zealand can be counted as part of Australia...

How they're quitting London, and with that the European continent at the same time?

Also there could be some Advantages here for NZ pax heading to Europe in general. United from EWR can get the
into many more regional places out of there in Europe, single stop. Expect this route to go daily. Remember UA and
NZ have a JV so through tickets on UA shouldn't be an issue. It may be at the expense of ORD though, as QF starts
that from BNE.

EWR aka an airport in the US near New York City will join the six continents club (unless nobody is gonna fly from EWR to Europe anymore...)

NZ516 wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

Wonder what the new LAX flight numbers will be? And if the schedule will change at all?

Probably the same NZ5 and NZ6 for the 77W service and NZ18 for the one via RAR. They may even leave it as low as 8 per week moving the demand over to EWR and ORD.

NZ3/4. It will be interesting to see, it’s way to far out to say if there will be additional LAX flights, NZ2 is already removed from October 11th 2020. Amazing to think NZ ran 19 weekly non stops AKL-LAX in 2003/04 before SFO and CHC-LAX, YVR etc, it could be down to just 7, I’d expect a few more in NW but weather they are NZ or UA operated will also be interesting to see imo.

You know it's almost unthinkable for a major commonwealth country not to have a link to London.
I can see EWR going daily due to the vast connection opportunities, and also a big frequent flyer
base from the American side. If they're going to stop LHR though they must negotiate whatever they
can to use the United terminal and have a seamless connection to LHR at EWR. Perhaps UA would
be interested in their slots? It could be a good way for them to fill up another frequency to LHR. Half their
pax and half NZ.

Lufthansa wrote:

You know it's almost unthinkable for a major commonwealth country not to have a link to London.
I can see EWR going daily due to the vast connection opportunities, and also a big frequent flyer
base from the American side. If they're going to stop LHR though they must negotiate whatever they
can to use the United terminal and have a seamless connection to LHR at EWR. Perhaps UA would
be interested in their slots? It could be a good way for them to fill up another frequency to LHR. Half their
pax and half NZ.

I doubt NZ will route people to LHR via the US anymore when compared to their JV With CX and SQ and customer experiences at HKG, SIN- why would anyone want to transit the US? Collect bags clear customs then checkin and depart? No!

I don't know if LAX would go to just 7 unless someone knows that they plan to drop their other 5th freedom flight NZ18 AKL-RAR-LAX? I reckon the lowest it will go is 8 per week.

NZ516 wrote:

I don't know if LAX would go to just 7 unless someone knows that they plan to drop their other 5th freedom flight NZ18 AKL-RAR-LAX? I reckon the lowest it will go is 8 per week.

Weather RAR-LAX continues or not won’t affect how many AKL-LAX services NZ have, RAR-LAX is about that market, seperate from AKL-LAX. NZ could run daily RAR-LAX and it wouldn’t affect AKL-LAX frequency.

Tbh I could see UA take up the second AKL-LAX flight in NW atleast, NZ could use a 772 on it, LAX is still the largest market so we could still see 2 daily in NW dropping to 10 weekly or so for NS all on 77W, it may take a little while as we are 12 months away from that happening.

johns624 wrote:

Does this have anything to do with Australia and New Zealand not having as close ties with the mother country. The last big migration was right after WW2 and maybe the younger generation doesn't feel the same pull to return.

Not at all.

As already discussed, if your final destination is the UK or Europe, and you're not visiting the US, it's much more convenient & easier to transit via Asia or the Mid East, with no need to clear customs, and much quicker security screening at those transit points. Not to mention not having to obtain an ETSA, or a full visa if you're unable to obtain an ETSA. A real PITA if you're not even planning to leave the airport!

From experience as an Australian passport holder, 'transiting' the US usually means an additional few hours to a trip to clear CBP & then go through TSA screening.

I had to transit via IAH a couple of years back on the way home from CUN. I had a 4 hour layover, most of that was taken up by waiting in the CPB queue, and then another hour or so in the TSA line. Got to the gate for the flight to AKL right on boarding time.... The transfer procedure at AKL was much quicker, a check of my boarding pass for the flight to MEL, and a quick security check, I was in the departure lounge 5 minutes after walking off the plane!

An AKL-NY flight is the next best thing to a direct flight from MEL or SYD, Good call from NZ to try to get some Australian corporate business, I can see these flights becoming a popular option with the banking/finance crowd.

melpax wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Does this have anything to do with Australia and New Zealand not having as close ties with the mother country. The last big migration was right after WW2 and maybe the younger generation doesn't feel the same pull to return.

Not at all.

As already discussed, if your final destination is the UK or Europe, and you're not visiting the US, it's much more convenient & easier to transit via Asia or the Mid East, with no need to clear customs, and much quicker security screening at those transit points. Not to mention not having to obtain an ETSA, or a full visa if you're unable to obtain an ETSA. A real PITA if you're not even planning to leave the airport!

From experience as an Australian passport holder, 'transiting' the US usually means an additional few hours to a trip to clear CBP & then go through TSA screening.

I had to transit via IAH a couple of years back on the way home from CUN. I had a 4 hour layover, most of that was taken up by waiting in the CPB queue, and then another hour or so in the TSA line. Got to the gate for the flight to AKL right on boarding time.... The transfer procedure at AKL was much quicker, a check of my boarding pass for the flight to MEL, and a quick security check, I was in the departure lounge 5 minutes after walking off the plane!

An AKL-NY flight is the next best thing to a direct flight from MEL or SYD, Good call from NZ to try to get some Australian corporate business, I can see these flights becoming a popular option with the banking/finance crowd.

I can see them being popular with the cheapest ticket crowd. The banking / finance crowd will want their status credits.

If going from SYD / MEL to NYC where's the benefit in going via AKL ? You've got one stop options on QF or VA. Clearing customs in LAX or NYC is a wash IMO. Clear them in LA and step off the plane in NY as a domestic passenger works for me.

It doesn't matter how "profitable" the LHR route was on its own. Real economic profit will always be calculated as Profit of route - the Opportunity cost of selling the LHR slot and closing the station. This calculation probably came out to be that the value of closing LHR and flying to EWR instead greater

NTLDaz wrote:

I can see them being popular with the cheapest ticket crowd. The banking / finance crowd will want their status credits.

If going from SYD / MEL to NYC where's the benefit in going via AKL ? You've got one stop options on QF or VA. Clearing customs in LAX or NYC is a wash IMO. Clear them in LA and step off the plane in NY as a domestic passenger works for me.

While the finance crowd won't be able to get their status credits, this will be the quickest option from MEL/SYD-NY until the Sunrise flights eventually start. If someone needs to be in NY (or vice/versa) urgently, when dollars are at stake, they will be on this flight, QFF points & status credits be damned!

While it's still a 1-stop flight, you'll only be dealing with CPB at your final destination & there'll be no TSA ordeal, and possible terminal change, so less of a chance of your plans going pear shaped at LAX.

NZ516 wrote:

I would expect they will be for sale on Tuesday the 29th October exactly one year before they kick off.

I thought normally you can’t make reservations that far out.

johns624 wrote:

Does this have anything to do with Australia and New Zealand not having as close ties with the mother country. The last big migration was right after WW2 and maybe the younger generation doesn't feel the same pull to return.

I think has more todo with the younger generation being more open to explorering open exotic stops oversaw on the way, compared to 20 years ago.

If you look at how many additional one stop options have popped up between AKL-UK in the last 20 years.

Gone from being bound to buying return tickets on the same airline with pre-set travel options.

Now it could be you stop for a couple of days in Dubai on the way there, the drop into Shanghai on the way home.

melpax wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

I can see them being popular with the cheapest ticket crowd. The banking / finance crowd will want their status credits.

If going from SYD / MEL to NYC where's the benefit in going via AKL ? You've got one stop options on QF or VA. Clearing customs in LAX or NYC is a wash IMO. Clear them in LA and step off the plane in NY as a domestic passenger works for me.

While the finance crowd won't be able to get their status credits, this will be the quickest option from MEL/SYD-NY until the Sunrise flights eventually start. If someone needs to be in NY (or vice/versa) urgently, when dollars are at stake, they will be on this flight, QFF points & status credits be damned!

While it's still a 1-stop flight, you'll only be dealing with CPB at your final destination & there'll be no TSA ordeal, and possible terminal change, so less of a chance of your plans going pear shaped at LAX.

Not to mention the smaller feed from - CNS,MCY,OOL,BNE,ADL,PER. Not massive but incremental that helps, particularly BNE/PER which I doubt will ever have non-stop to NYC

melpax wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

I can see them being popular with the cheapest ticket crowd. The banking / finance crowd will want their status credits.

If going from SYD / MEL to NYC where's the benefit in going via AKL ? You've got one stop options on QF or VA. Clearing customs in LAX or NYC is a wash IMO. Clear them in LA and step off the plane in NY as a domestic passenger works for me.

While the finance crowd won't be able to get their status credits, this will be the quickest option from MEL/SYD-NY until the Sunrise flights eventually start. If someone needs to be in NY (or vice/versa) urgently, when dollars are at stake, they will be on this flight, QFF points & status credits be damned!

While it's still a 1-stop flight, you'll only be dealing with CPB at your final destination & there'll be no TSA ordeal, and possible terminal change, so less of a chance of your plans going pear shaped at LAX.

Hmmmm urgently ? It isn't SYD to MEL. Not to mention 3 days per week doesn't help with urgency.

smi0006 wrote:

melpax wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

I can see them being popular with the cheapest ticket crowd. The banking / finance crowd will want their status credits.

If going from SYD / MEL to NYC where's the benefit in going via AKL ? You've got one stop options on QF or VA. Clearing customs in LAX or NYC is a wash IMO. Clear them in LA and step off the plane in NY as a domestic passenger works for me.

While the finance crowd won't be able to get their status credits, this will be the quickest option from MEL/SYD-NY until the Sunrise flights eventually start. If someone needs to be in NY (or vice/versa) urgently, when dollars are at stake, they will be on this flight, QFF points & status credits be damned!

While it's still a 1-stop flight, you'll only be dealing with CPB at your final destination & there'll be no TSA ordeal, and possible terminal change, so less of a chance of your plans going pear shaped at LAX.

Not to mention the smaller feed from - CNS,MCY,OOL,BNE,ADL,PER. Not massive but incremental that helps, particularly BNE/PER which I doubt will ever have non-stop to NYC

All feed helps but this ain't going to be reliant on the finance crowd.

tealnz wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Gasman wrote:

Is there now an argument to be made for the entire medium/long haul international fleet to be made up of 789s?

789s and 10s most definitely. If they get the performance they want from a 789 doing EWR then no need to go for a bigger aircraft type (A350/77X) the 78J can cover routes needing bigger capacity with less range.

In an interview following the announcement of the 77E replacement Luxon said specifically that the 78J wasn’t going to replace the 77Ws. He added that he expected a larger type – 77X or A350 ~ would be needed in future. This followed all the technical and commercial analysis that went into the 78J decision. Unless we know something that NZ management don’t then we have to reckon on a future buy of a type with more payload/range than the 787. Given the 78Js are mostly going to be used on Asian routes that shouldn’t be a surprise.

No, that’s not what he said at all. He said that the 78J wasn’t code for 77W replacement (or something to that effect). That means it could be or couldn’t be. Before LHR was dropped I would agree that something else would replace the 77W. Now that LHR has been dropped and they have indicated that EWR is ok with 789 then I’m struggling to see them adding a new type. Costs reasons are too compelling not to.

Not shocked ANZ want to drop this route, after their performance in the rugby yesterday!

I’m surprised the EWR route isn’t at least 5 days a week from the start and also surprised they served London for so long using 3 frames , looks like someone In Air New Zealand has woken up and smelled the coffee at last . It’s such a more impressive strategic move than QF with its silly sunrise nostalgia projects

Galwayman wrote:

I’m surprised the EWR route isn’t at least 5 days a week from the start and also surprised they served London for so long using 3 frames , looks like someone In Air New Zealand has woken up and smelled the coffee at last . It’s such a more impressive strategic move than QF with its silly sunrise nostalgia projects

Not sure how it’s a nostalgia project - I’m sure QF will make more money flying direct to SYD rather than via SIN for a number of reasons.

edealinfo wrote:

[list=][/list]

MON wrote:

The LHR slots are probably an underused valuable asset that has perhaps also hastened this decision?

So, how much will they get for the slots? $40 million? I always wonder whether airlines are better off selling the slots than flying to LHR.

JetBlue should be all over that slot if you ask me. $35-40M for that slot, a late morning arrival, sounds reasonable.

Now, as for Newark, I could see this route going to 5x weekly, but at 3x weekly to start, only 1 frame is needed. Remember that NZ is short on lift because some B789s are grounded (engine issues), forcing NZ to dry-lease a blank B772(ER) from Boeing (I wouldn't be surprised if Rolls Royce is subsidizing the lease) and a B77W from BR (still in BR livery).

They have returned the two 777s and only the one leased 77W from EVA remains.

dampfnudel wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

I would expect they will be for sale on Tuesday the 29th October exactly one year before they kick off.

I thought normally you can’t make reservations that far out.

Normally you can book flights 12 months in advance.

NZ516 wrote:

dampfnudel wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

I would expect they will be for sale on Tuesday the 29th October exactly one year before they kick off.

I thought normally you can’t make reservations that far out.

Normally you can book flights 12 months in advance.

NZ allows you too book 330days ahead, so more like 11months.

zkncj wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

dampfnudel wrote:

I thought normally you can’t make reservations that far out.

Normally you can book flights 12 months in advance.

NZ allows you too book 330days ahead, so more like 11months.

same goes for most other airlines with some being around 300 days.

Galwayman wrote:

I’m surprised the EWR route isn’t at least 5 days a week from the start and also surprised they served London for so long using 3 frames , looks like someone In Air New Zealand has woken up and smelled the coffee at last . It’s such a more impressive strategic move than QF with its silly sunrise nostalgia projects

I agree. I wouldn't fly 19 hours in a QF 789 JFK - SYD in a 9 abreast Y config, and I wouldn't do 17 with NZ either. You couldn't even legally subject incarcerated war criminals to such conditions. Sure, you'll find plenty of people willing to pay; but have things on aircraft reached a point where passengers need laws to protect them from themselves?

NTLDaz wrote:

melpax wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Does this have anything to do with Australia and New Zealand not having as close ties with the mother country. The last big migration was right after WW2 and maybe the younger generation doesn't feel the same pull to return.

Not at all.

As already discussed, if your final destination is the UK or Europe, and you're not visiting the US, it's much more convenient & easier to transit via Asia or the Mid East, with no need to clear customs, and much quicker security screening at those transit points. Not to mention not having to obtain an ETSA, or a full visa if you're unable to obtain an ETSA. A real PITA if you're not even planning to leave the airport!

From experience as an Australian passport holder, 'transiting' the US usually means an additional few hours to a trip to clear CBP & then go through TSA screening.

I had to transit via IAH a couple of years back on the way home from CUN. I had a 4 hour layover, most of that was taken up by waiting in the CPB queue, and then another hour or so in the TSA line. Got to the gate for the flight to AKL right on boarding time.... The transfer procedure at AKL was much quicker, a check of my boarding pass for the flight to MEL, and a quick security check, I was in the departure lounge 5 minutes after walking off the plane!

An AKL-NY flight is the next best thing to a direct flight from MEL or SYD, Good call from NZ to try to get some Australian corporate business, I can see these flights becoming a popular option with the banking/finance crowd.

I can see them being popular with the cheapest ticket crowd. The banking / finance crowd will want their status credits.

If going from SYD / MEL to NYC where's the benefit in going via AKL ? You've got one stop options on QF or VA. Clearing customs in LAX or NYC is a wash IMO. Clear them in LA and step off the plane in NY as a domestic passenger works for me.

Agreed. Like other North American routes, the via AKL option is sold as a cheap alternative to direct flights from MEL and SYD. The Australian corporate and premium crowd will stick to their status on Qantas/American and, to a lesser extent, Virgin/Delta.

Galwayman wrote:

I’m surprised the EWR route isn’t at least 5 days a week from the start and also surprised they served London for so long using 3 frames , looks like someone In Air New Zealand has woken up and smelled the coffee at last . It’s such a more impressive strategic move than QF with its silly sunrise nostalgia projects

So I take it that you're saying NZ flying non-stop to NYC is inspired but QF doing the same is silly. NYC is a big part of PS.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

edealinfo wrote:

[list=][/list]

MON wrote:

The LHR slots are probably an underused valuable asset that has perhaps also hastened this decision?

So, how much will they get for the slots? $40 million? I always wonder whether airlines are better off selling the slots than flying to LHR.

JetBlue should be all over that slot if you ask me. $35-40M for that slot, a late morning arrival, sounds reasonable.

Now, as for Newark, I could see this route going to 5x weekly, but at 3x weekly to start, only 1 frame is needed. Remember that NZ is short on lift because some B789s are grounded (engine issues), forcing NZ to dry-lease a blank B772(ER) from Boeing (I wouldn't be surprised if Rolls Royce is subsidizing the lease) and a B77W from BR (still in BR livery).

You still haven't answered the question as to why airlines don't sell their slots and take in cash instead of operating the route

Lufthansa wrote:

You know it's almost unthinkable for a major commonwealth country not to have a link to London.
I can see EWR going daily due to the vast connection opportunities, and also a big frequent flyer
base from the American side. If they're going to stop LHR though they must negotiate whatever they
can to use the United terminal and have a seamless connection to LHR at EWR. Perhaps UA would
be interested in their slots? It could be a good way for them to fill up another frequency to LHR. Half their
pax and half NZ.

Fares on AKL-LHR are too competitive and would diminish the AKL-US and US-LON yield. There's more revenue to be made from selling AKL-US and US-LHR to separate passengers and leave all the 1-stop AKL-LHR to route via SIN/HKG/Middle East etc.

notconcerned wrote:

Lufthansa wrote:

You know it's almost unthinkable for a major commonwealth country not to have a link to London.
I can see EWR going daily due to the vast connection opportunities, and also a big frequent flyer
base from the American side. If they're going to stop LHR though they must negotiate whatever they
can to use the United terminal and have a seamless connection to LHR at EWR. Perhaps UA would
be interested in their slots? It could be a good way for them to fill up another frequency to LHR. Half their
pax and half NZ.

Fares on AKL-LHR are too competitive and would diminish the AKL-US and US-LON yield. There's more revenue to be made from selling AKL-US and US-LHR to separate passengers and leave all the 1-stop AKL-LHR to route via SIN/HKG/Middle East etc.

I have no doubt this is true. But the major government and business contracts will always need London. Though I believe Singapore Airlines still
has a small shareholding in NZ and there is an alliance there. That will need to be pushed hard. Remember NZ and Aust are a single marketplace. QF
already directs plenty of pax via the east cost of a Australia and it wouldn't be too hard for them to start an AKL-SIN service... they have Jetstar Asia that
could operate it in QF colours. The question is of course is it worth the effort? Im suspecting not. Mind you if QF get this nonstop thing off the ground with
the A350-1000.... it would be a good route for virgin Atlantic to give a crack at.

American Airlines is starting service from DFW to AKL and LAX to CHC. Another new destination from Auckland. https://simpleflying.com/american-airli ... expansion/

It is pretty sad. But, with QF SYD-LHR coming, ME3 one stop price war and premium Airlines like SQ taking the traffic away, it's only logical to do so.

Hey when you can fly AKL-LHR return on CA for NZD1300 and get a half decent product, why shell out NZD400-500 to fly NZ only part way via Asia, or more if via LAX. I see the cheapest LON options on the NZ website at the moment use VS via PVG or CX's HKG-LGW flight.

As for NZ capturing corporate AU traffic for the upcoming EWR flight- not going to happen, even if the service is daily. The corporates are too entrenched with their QF/VA points and their procurement offices aren't about to rock the boat- after all, the decision makers are getting their points too. You could status match them and they still wont convert.

ewt340 wrote:

It is pretty sad. But, with QF SYD-LHR coming, ME3 one stop price war and premium Airlines like SQ taking the traffic away, it's only logical to do so.

I think the only European airline that comes to Oceania is British Airways, and they only fly to Sydney (via Singapore) and not to Melbourne.

The USA airlines collectively lost a billion dollars in 2018 in transPacific routes with American Airlines losing over $400 million.
+$328,572,000 Delta net income in 2018 for transPacific
+$12,744,000 Hawaiian net income in 2018 for transPacific
-$85,614,000 United net income in 2018 for transPacific
-$435,678,000 American net income in 2018 for transPacific
-$1,007,124,000 All U.S. carriers including cargo net income in 2018 for transPacific

While the Delta transPacific profit is considerably higher than other passenger airlines, it only represents 8.5% of the overall net income.

Delta "net income" by market for 2018
55.1% Domestic
7.0% Latin America
29.4% Atlantic
8.5% Pacific

Despite the punishing losses suffered by American Airlines for trans-Pacific they are expanding in Auckland from seasonal flights to LAX to include DFW in October 2020.

Hawaiian Airlines usually barely breaks even in the TransPacific market, but the 660,000 round trip TransPacific passengers in 2018 are very important to the Hawaiian economy as it is roughly 25% of the international visitors to the islands.

American Airlines has limited trans-Pacific destinations (to major airports only)
Japan: Tokyo (Haneda International Airport &Narita International Airport )
Korea: Incheon International Airport
China: Beijing Capital International Airport & Shanghai Pudong International Airport
Oceania: Sydney and Auckland.
Hong Kong International Airport

Delta Airlines has limited trans-Pacific destinations (to major airports only)
Japan: Nagoya, Osaka, Tokyo (Haneda Airport)
Korea: Incheon International Airport
China: Beijing Capital International Airport & Shanghai Pudong International Airport
Oceania: Sydney
Hong Kong International Airport TERMINATED
Singapore Changi Airport TERMINATED
Bangkok TERMINATED
Ho Chi Minh City TERMINATED
Mactan-Cebu International Airport TERMINATED
Fukuoka Airport TERMINATED

zkncj wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Does this have anything to do with Australia and New Zealand not having as close ties with the mother country. The last big migration was right after WW2 and maybe the younger generation doesn't feel the same pull to return.

I think has more todo with the younger generation being more open to explorering open exotic stops oversaw on the way, compared to 20 years ago.

If you look at how many additional one stop options have popped up between AKL-UK in the last 20 years.

Gone from being bound to buying return tickets on the same airline with pre-set travel options.

Now it could be you stop for a couple of days in Dubai on the way there, the drop into Shanghai on the way home.

And you have the option of flying elsewhere in the UK rather than just Heathrow

It'll be weird though, the next time the All Blacks arrive in the UK, it will be on another airline.

All Blacks... just don't show them arriving off the plane in the UK. BUT be sure to show them arriving back in NZ (on NZ- for part of the journey).

Those AA 2018 losses... they seem too big for their limited trans-pacific operations. I could believe -$40M though

eta unknown wrote:

Those AA 2018 losses... they seem too big for their limited trans-pacific operations. I could believe -$40M though

Their losses are indeed that big.

American Airlines had $2,264,081,000 ($2.26 billion) in operating revenue in transPacific in 2018, and they did indeed have net income of NEGATIVE $400 million.

Delta Airlines had $2,953,834,000 ($2.95 billion) in operating revenue in transPacific in 2018, and they did indeed have net income of POSITIVE $329 million.

United Airlines had $5,187,905,000 ($5.19 billion) in operating revenue in transPacific in 2018.

Hawaiian Airlines had $772,214,000 ($0.77 billion) in operating revenue in transPacific in 2018, as they only fly about eight A330s in that market.

Hawaiian Airlines only has 11 TransPacific routes, but they don't fly each of them daily so they only use about eight A330s.
HNL -
SYD 5066 Australia
BNE 4684 Australia
AKL 4388 New Zealand
ICN 4577 South Korea
KIX 4117 Japan
HND 3853 Japan
NRT 3819 Japan
CTS 3751 Japan
PPT 2730 French Polynesia
PPG 2599 American Samoa
KOA -
HND 4013 Japan

Lufthansa wrote:

QF already directs plenty of pax via the east cost of a Australia and it wouldn't be too hard for them to start an AKL-SIN service... they have Jetstar Asia that
could operate it in QF colours. The question is of course is it worth the effort? Im suspecting not. Mind you if QF get this nonstop thing off the ground with
the A350-1000.... it would be a good route for virgin Atlantic to give a crack at.

Both JQ and 3K tried AKL-SIN some years ago (around 2010-ish IIRC) with a JQ 332 and gave up on it. I acknowledge, though, that the main objective wasn't to feed QF's services out of SIN, but rather, 3K's Asian network.

NZ321 wrote:

SurlyBonds wrote:

Gasman wrote:

Enough people have realised by now that you can travel to LHR on better hard products....

Who has the "better hard products"? I thought NZ was right up there with the ME3 carriers in terms of hard product.

No. Not really. Where do you want to begin?

How about the people making the claim substantiate it? I have flown NZ in J and adored it.

SurlyBonds wrote:

NZ321 wrote:

SurlyBonds wrote:

Who has the "better hard products"? I thought NZ was right up there with the ME3 carriers in terms of hard product.

No. Not really. Where do you want to begin?

How about the people making the claim substantiate it? I have flown NZ in J and adored it.

If you adored NZ's hard product in J, you:

- aren't much over 6'
- are slim
- don't value privacy
- don't enjoy looking out the window
- don't like to recline the seat much without it becoming a bed
- need no storage space for personal items

PacoMartin wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

It is pretty sad. But, with QF SYD-LHR coming, ME3 one stop price war and premium Airlines like SQ taking the traffic away, it's only logical to do so.

I think the only European airline that comes to Oceania is British Airways, and they only fly to Sydney (via Singapore) and not to Melbourne.

The USA airlines collectively lost a billion dollars in 2018 in transPacific routes with American Airlines losing over $400 million.
+$328,572,000 Delta net income in 2018 for transPacific
+$12,744,000 Hawaiian net income in 2018 for transPacific
-$85,614,000 United net income in 2018 for transPacific
-$435,678,000 American net income in 2018 for transPacific
-$1,007,124,000 All U.S. carriers including cargo net income in 2018 for transPacific

While the Delta transPacific profit is considerably higher than other passenger airlines, it only represents 8.5% of the overall net income.

Delta "net income" by market for 2018
55.1% Domestic
7.0% Latin America
29.4% Atlantic
8.5% Pacific

Despite the punishing losses suffered by American Airlines for trans-Pacific they are expanding in Auckland from seasonal flights to LAX to include DFW in October 2020.

Hawaiian Airlines usually barely breaks even in the TransPacific market, but the 660,000 round trip TransPacific passengers in 2018 are very important to the Hawaiian economy as it is roughly 25% of the international visitors to the islands.

American Airlines has limited trans-Pacific destinations (to major airports only)
Japan: Tokyo (Haneda International Airport &Narita International Airport )
Korea: Incheon International Airport
China: Beijing Capital International Airport & Shanghai Pudong International Airport
Oceania: Sydney and Auckland.
Hong Kong International Airport

Delta Airlines has limited trans-Pacific destinations (to major airports only)
Japan: Nagoya, Osaka, Tokyo (Haneda Airport)
Korea: Incheon International Airport
China: Beijing Capital International Airport & Shanghai Pudong International Airport
Oceania: Sydney
Hong Kong International Airport TERMINATED
Singapore Changi Airport TERMINATED
Bangkok TERMINATED
Ho Chi Minh City TERMINATED
Mactan-Cebu International Airport TERMINATED
Fukuoka Airport TERMINATED

You were cautioned in a different thread last week not to read too much into these numbers, and Lightsaber provided a comprehensive explanation about why you shouldn't. That you are still parroting this a week later in a different thread therefore makes me think that you are deliberately spreading misinformation.

To those who are interested, the data that US carriers provide to DOT broken down by region is based on ... not much. Oddly enough DOT has never established a standardised methodology on how to measure and report this data, and the carriers can therefore break down their revenue and costs in any way they see fit, to get the answer they want in order to satisfy whatever agenda they have. Changes YOY can be interesting (assuming the airline maintains the same methodology) but there is no value in doing an airline-to-airline comparison between the headline numbers.

RyanairGuru wrote:

You were cautioned in a different thread last week not to read too much into these numbers, and Lightsaber provided a comprehensive explanation about why you shouldn't. That you are still parroting this a week later in a different thread therefore makes me think that you are deliberately spreading misinformation.

To those who are interested, the data that US carriers provide to DOT broken down by region is based on ... not much. Oddly enough DOT has never established a standardised methodology on how to measure and report this data, and the carriers can therefore break down their revenue and costs in any way they see fit, to get the answer they want in order to satisfy whatever agenda they have. Changes YOY can be interesting (assuming the airline maintains the same methodology) but there is no value in doing an airline-to-airline comparison between the headline numbers.

You are really accusing me of deliberately spreading misinformation for posting DOT numbers. So the airlines lied to the DOT when they said they lost a billion dollars in 2018 in the transPacific market?

Are the airlines lying about revenue as well as costs?

What possible agenda could be so important that a major company would risk lying to their regulatory agency.
I must have missed Lightsaber's post. Could you please link to it.