Why would Air New Zealand choose EWR instead of JFK, JFK carries more Passenger Traffic around more than 60 Million while EWR is 46 Million????

Subwayfan1998 wrote:

Why would Air New Zealand choose EWR instead of JFK, JFK carries more Passenger Traffic around more than 60 Million while EWR is 46 Million????

Why wouldn't NZ choose the airport where its joint venture partner has a major hub? Seems entirely logical to me, given that it's not all about point-to-point traffic.

To put those AA numbers in perspective, at a former gig I had access to all of my carrier's monthly Australian route financial performance figures. Most routes were unprofitable due to senior management's inability and/or refusal to keep operational expenses in check. Now when I see those AA numbers, remembering their trans-pacific operation isn't that large compared to other US carriers and they have a JV with JAL (and used to have one with QF which is now re-activated), it would appear that almost every flight is losing $20M/month on paper. We're talking about a publicly traded company with stockholders that is professionally run with people who know what they're doing, not a government run vanity project. So as RyanairGuru pointed out, those numbers are a case of lies, damn lies, and statistics.

I thought this discussion deserved it's own thread, but I was overruled.

Each airline reports operational revenue in at least 8 categories
Transport Revenues Scheduled Passenger
Mail
Property Freight
Property Passenger Baggage Fees
Charter Passenger
Reservation Cancellation Fees
Miscellaneous Operating Revenues
Transport Related Revenues

Each airline reports operational expenses in at least 8 categories
Flying Operations
Maintenance
Passenger Service
Aircraft And Traffic Servicing
Promotion And Sales
General And Administrative
Depreciation And Amortization
Transport Related Expenses

The difference between Operational Revenue and Operational Expenses is called Operational Profit.

But to get to Net Income you take Operational Profit and subtract Income/Expense for financial considerations for a company
Interest On Long Term Debt And Capital Leases Income/Expense
Other Interest Expense Income/Expense
Foreign Exchange Gains And Losses Income/Expense
Capital Gains And Losses Income/Expense
Capital Gains And Losses Income/Expense
Other Income And Expenses Net Income/Expense
Nonoperating Income And Expense Income/Expense
Income Taxes For Current Period

So far this is pretty standard reporting for a company

The 2018 corporate wide Op Revenue, Net Income and Operational Profit (in all cases Operational Profit > Net Income)
Operational Revenue Airline | Net Income | Operational Profit
$178,773,707 Mainline Airlines | $11,537,021 | $17,117,939
$44,537,997 Delta Air Lines Inc. | $3,885,635 | $5,503,904
$41,303,230 United Air Lines Inc. | $2,131,078 | $3,294,296
$21,965,049 Southwest Airlines Co. | $2,464,967 | $3,205,668
$44,529,814 American Airlines Inc. | $1,658,067 | $2,723,345
$8,259,807 Alaska Airlines Inc. | $508,759 | $687,279
$7,658,451 JetBlue Airways | $188,224 | $650,379
$3,323,035 Spirit Air Lines | $155,749 | $350,915
$2,827,216 Hawaiian Airlines Inc. | $243,264 | $329,324
$1,596,808 Allegiant Air | $191,731 | $215,833
$2,155,858 Frontier Airlines Inc. | $82,527 | $119,889
$616,442 Sun Country Airlines | $27,019 | $37,107

eta unknown wrote:

So as RyanairGuru pointed out, those numbers are a case of lies, damn lies, and statistics.

The government seems to let each ariline decide how to prorate the Income/Expense for financial considerations per market (Domestic, Latin America, Trans Atlantic or Trans Pacific).

American Airlines (unlike Delta or United) puts them entirely in the domestic category. That is the difference in accounting. Unfortunately that means that American Airlines lost $435.678 million dollars solely in operations in the Pacific.


Operational Revenue Airline (Pacific) | Net Income | Operational Profit
$5,187,905 United Air Lines Inc. | -$85,614 | $103,442
$2,953,834 Delta Air Lines Inc. | $328,572 | $434,225
$772,214 Hawaiian Airlines Inc. | $12,744 | $41,249
$2,264,081 American Airlines Inc. | -$435,678 | -$435,678

United returned an operational profit in the Pacific (admittedly somewhat small considering the $5 billion in revenue), but after financial considerations the net income shows a loss.

It is a rather surprising result that in the Pacific American would have an operating loss of over $400 million on $2.26 billion in revenue, while Delta would show an operating profit of over $400 million on $2.95 billion in revenue, but keep in mind that Delta corporate wide operational profit was double that of American.

I sincerely doubt that the companies are lying, however.

Subwayfan1998 wrote:

Why would Air New Zealand choose EWR instead of JFK, JFK carries more Passenger Traffic around more than 60 Million while EWR is 46 Million????

United feed. I expect that Air New Zealand will seek an afternoon arrival time, around 3 PM or so, so as to be able to feed United's PM departure bank at Newark (as a way of replacing AKL-LAX-LHR), and with a late evening departure, around 9 PM to 10 PM, for the return flight to New Zealand to make the morning bank in Auckland. This falls under the NZ/UA joint venture.

double post, I can't delete

eta unknown wrote:

Now when I see those AA numbers, remembering their trans-pacific operation isn't that large compared to other US carriers and they have a JV with JAL (and used to have one with QF which is now re-activated), it would appear that almost every flight is losing $20M/month on paper.

For the month of April 2019 there were 368 round trips for a 30 day month.
DFW
HKG 28
ICN 30
NRT 59
PEK 29
PVG 29
LAX
HKG 30
HND 30
NRT 30
PEK 30
PVG 30
SYD 30
ORD
NRT 13

If AA loses -$435,678,000 for the year 2018, that is -$36,307,000 per month for all flights. Records indicate roughly 370 round trip trans Pacific flights per month so that is closer to $100K per flight or over $3.7 M per month loss. I'm not sure how you arrived at $20M/month.

The lack of a OneWorld partner in Korea or China must really hurt them. American is actually stepping up flights to New Zealand next year.

I did start this line to point out that TransPacific is not very profitable for USA airlines in general. I am not totally shocked that ANZ gave up their flight to Europe given the depth and the strength of the competition from Asian and ME carriers.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Subwayfan1998 wrote:

Why would Air New Zealand choose EWR instead of JFK, JFK carries more Passenger Traffic around more than 60 Million while EWR is 46 Million????

United feed. I expect that Air New Zealand will seek an afternoon arrival time, around 3 PM or so, so as to be able to feed United's PM departure bank at Newark (as a way of replacing AKL-LAX-LHR), and with a late evening departure, around 9 PM to 10 PM, for the return flight to New Zealand to make the morning bank in Auckland. This falls under the NZ/UA joint venture.

Schedule announced is

AKL 1955 EWR 1735
EWR 1905 AKL 0645

Picks up all the Australian feed in AKL with 1700/1830 arrivals and same other direction depart AKL to Australia 0815/0930, in a wee bit skeptical of a 90 minute turn in EWR, hopefully they can add an extra 30 mins, depart AKL 1925 arrive 0715 or something.

ZK-NBT wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Subwayfan1998 wrote:

Why would Air New Zealand choose EWR instead of JFK, JFK carries more Passenger Traffic around more than 60 Million while EWR is 46 Million????

United feed. I expect that Air New Zealand will seek an afternoon arrival time, around 3 PM or so, so as to be able to feed United's PM departure bank at Newark (as a way of replacing AKL-LAX-LHR), and with a late evening departure, around 9 PM to 10 PM, for the return flight to New Zealand to make the morning bank in Auckland. This falls under the NZ/UA joint venture.

Schedule announced is

AKL 1955 EWR 1735
EWR 1905 AKL 0645

Picks up all the Australian feed in AKL with 1700/1830 arrivals and same other direction depart AKL to Australia 0815/0930, in a wee bit skeptical of a 90 minute turn in EWR, hopefully they can add an extra 30 mins, depart AKL 1925 arrive 0715 or something.

I'm more suspicious with the forward schedule than the return.

This should be a good route for NY State and northeastern US Doomsday Preppers who have identified NZ as the last safe haven. Hopefully they are generous on the baggage allowance.

Subwayfan1998 wrote:

Why would Air New Zealand choose EWR instead of JFK, JFK carries more Passenger Traffic around more than 60 Million while EWR is 46 Million????

Air New Zealand is part of the Star alliance with United Airlines. In addition to HNL, they are only flying to United hubs on the mainland (LAX, SFO, IAH, ORD and now EWR). They are not yet flying to DEN and IAD.

United does not fly to JFK.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

United feed. I expect that Air New Zealand will seek an afternoon arrival time, around 3 PM or so, so as to be able to feed United's PM departure bank at Newark (as a way of replacing AKL-LAX-LHR), and with a late evening departure, around 9 PM to 10 PM, for the return flight to New Zealand to make the morning bank in Auckland. This falls under the NZ/UA joint venture.

Schedule announced is

AKL 1955 EWR 1735
EWR 1905 AKL 0645

Picks up all the Australian feed in AKL with 1700/1830 arrivals and same other direction depart AKL to Australia 0815/0930, in a wee bit skeptical of a 90 minute turn in EWR, hopefully they can add an extra 30 mins, depart AKL 1925 arrive 0715 or something.

I'm more suspicious with the forward schedule than the return.

Yeah, I wrote it earlier, something is up with the timing of the AKL-EWR route. Seems too short.