Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
NZ516
Posts: 450
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Wed Nov 13, 2019 4:51 am

Air NZ cuts some fares to 1 pound excluding taxes for their soon to be axed flagship London route. What an amazing deal but how much to go back on the return leg....

https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/117 ... ndon-route
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7500
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Wed Nov 13, 2019 8:20 am

NZ6 wrote:
NZ516 wrote:
Qantas is not interested in expanding flights out of Perth due to their ongoing spat with the airport so I can't see them back on that route for a while.


While true, I'm somewhat surprised QF hasn't tried to come back in.

How recent was PER just 3-4 per week?? now in peak, you have CHC-PER and AKL-PER 9x per week.

I was told indirectly by EK DPS wasn't there preferred transit to DXB, I've been half pie expecting EK to switch the second flight over PER.

I have no idea how PER-DXB works for them, maybe it couldn't manage the extra pax inbound from AKL and maybe a second flight adds too much capacity- who knows. I'm sure all the ex-pats over there would fly EK!



I always thought going way back to when EK launched AKL that they would do it via PER, if the bilateral had allowed maybe they would have done it on top of the 4 daily services they had across the Tasman.

I wonder if they would consider it? Instead of QF?

QF were planning to come back, it may have been something to do with PER airport and also aircraft rotation? Though they were only ever seasonal weekend services.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2202
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Wed Nov 13, 2019 8:48 am

I dunno. Since the KZ7 Americas Cup days, Perth has threatened to be the Next Big Thing - that never really eventuated. Kind of like the suburbs Sandringham, or Tawa in that regard.

It's a convenient place to grab fuel, or offload a sick passenger on the way to somewhere more interesting but as an O&D destination it still isn't pulling its weight.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4522
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:05 am

NZ6 wrote:
Just another matter this week, I see an interim report or draft report was released regarding Ports of Auckland moving to WRE. I just wonder what positive changes this will make to air services up there and what this will mean for a new airport location and or more flights with bigger aircraft?

Firstly, the project is expected to cost more than $10b and would be our biggest ever infrastructure project so I can't see it happening quickly if at all so I don't want to get ahead of myself. By this time we'll likely have motorway to Wellsford and an expressway between HLZ and WRE beyond the motorway itself.

I'm also not suggesting international flights or A320 aircraft, but will we see WRE-WLG, WRE-TRG (port) for some examples...

All the associated industries around a port, and given the port is still 3hours beyond our major metropolitan area and the international airport I'd expect a fully operational port to bring a strong amount of passenger demand.

I'm not talking about just crew, I'm looking at the wider industries around a port; freight forwarding, logistics, importers, engineers, for some quick examples...

Ages away I admit. But will be interesting.

WRE have already said they are looking to move the airport due to size/capacity and indeed safety issues. I could easily see a 2000m+ jet capable runway being built between Whangarei and Marsden which could also double as a low cost 2nd Auckland airport option domestic and Tasman.
If this all goes ahead it wouldn’t surprise me if they then close Whenuapai and relocate that up there too as a joint civil/military airport.
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
PA515
Posts: 1606
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:51 pm

Ex Air NZ A320-232 ZK-OJE (msn 2148) departed CHC yesterday for North America via APW and HNL as 2-RLBR.
CHC-APW 0635/1043, APW-HNL 1119/1821.

PA515
 
PA515
Posts: 1606
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Wed Nov 13, 2019 2:32 pm

Air NZ A320-271N ZK-NHD (msn 9207) D-AVVF had it's first flight a few hours ago.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/d-avvf

PA515
 
NZ321
Posts: 1218
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:40 pm

Re AA and QF and JFK-AKL, I see this all as highy unlikely but in any event, its going to come down to slots and demand. To suggest that one should use AKL over LAX is just mindless. Or vice-versa. It's going to be about route yields and slot availability at the time of launch. Hell, QF have the slots to do a tag-along from LAX to JFK at present. What gives AKL the edge? The answer would be in terms of how best to productively use the combined airlines current LAX and future JFK slots.A bit hard to try and guess that one at the moment - it's clearly not an active proposal or we'd know about it. Right?
Plane mad!
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7500
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Wed Nov 13, 2019 7:26 pm

NZ321 wrote:
Re AA and QF and JFK-AKL, I see this all as highy unlikely but in any event, its going to come down to slots and demand. To suggest that one should use AKL over LAX is just mindless. Or vice-versa. It's going to be about route yields and slot availability at the time of launch. Hell, QF have the slots to do a tag-along from LAX to JFK at present. What gives AKL the edge? The answer would be in terms of how best to productively use the combined airlines current LAX and future JFK slots.A bit hard to try and guess that one at the moment - it's clearly not an active proposal or we'd know about it. Right?


Neither LAX or JFK are controlled by slots, the only reason they can run LAX-JFK is because the aircraft would otherwise be parked at LAX and they have feed from SYD/MEL/BNE, the yields to do this must atleast cover the costs.

I think AKL-JFK is highly unlikely, as NZ6 says you would end up on a 737 for the Tasman sector half the time or in 1 direction, this is avoidable but would mean a lot of widebodies on the Tasman just for a JFK service.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1598
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Wed Nov 13, 2019 7:43 pm

ZK-NBT wrote:
I always thought going way back to when EK launched AKL that they would do it via PER, if the bilateral had allowed maybe they would have done it on top of the 4 daily services they had across the Tasman.

I wonder if they would consider it? Instead of QF?

QF were planning to come back, it may have been something to do with PER airport and also aircraft rotation? Though they were only ever seasonal weekend services.


I can't recall the exact timeline, but back pre 2005 (ish) NZ operated 3-4 per week AKL-PER. Now in peak, they have 9x AKL-PER and 2x CHC-PER so 11 per week, that's a 350% increase in flights without calculating the capacity increase between 763 to 772/789 etc.

You wonder why EK didn't opt for that over DPS. I'm hearing mixed things on their loads.

We know why QF gave it up, but surely they'll come back at some point.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1598
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Wed Nov 13, 2019 7:46 pm

Gasman wrote:
I dunno. Since the KZ7 Americas Cup days, Perth has threatened to be the Next Big Thing - that never really eventuated. Kind of like the suburbs Sandringham, or Tawa in that regard.

It's a convenient place to grab fuel, or offload a sick passenger on the way to somewhere more interesting but as an O&D destination it still isn't pulling its weight.


Refer to my post above, something like a 350% increase in flights in the last 15-20 years and an increase in available seats on each of these also.

Being the most isolated city in the world, I wouldn't say it's a convenient place to grab fuel but that aside, there's clearly been proven record of people travelling to or from PER given the number of services now operating there.... probably speaks more about demand than anything else we assume
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7500
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Wed Nov 13, 2019 7:48 pm

NZ6 wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
I always thought going way back to when EK launched AKL that they would do it via PER, if the bilateral had allowed maybe they would have done it on top of the 4 daily services they had across the Tasman.

I wonder if they would consider it? Instead of QF?

QF were planning to come back, it may have been something to do with PER airport and also aircraft rotation? Though they were only ever seasonal weekend services.


I can't recall the exact timeline, but back pre 2005 (ish) NZ operated 3-4 per week AKL-PER. Now in peak, they have 9x AKL-PER and 2x CHC-PER so 11 per week, that's a 350% increase in flights without calculating the capacity increase between 763 to 772/789 etc.

You wonder why EK didn't opt for that over DPS. I'm hearing mixed things on their loads.

We know why QF gave it up, but surely they'll come back at some point.


I think NZ were daily in summer for several years to PER with the 763 from probably 2004ish? It did drop back to 3-4 weekly in winter.

DPS is an almost odd 5th freedom port in a way given the seasonal nature of the route demand wise. BKK I think was where they wanted to go but a lot issues or something? SIN might have been an option although SIN-AKL o&d isn’t huge, mainly connections and NZ/SQ added a third daily, maybe EK did look at SIN and NZ/SQ responded?
 
NZ6
Posts: 1598
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Wed Nov 13, 2019 7:56 pm

Zkpilot wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Just another matter this week, I see an interim report or draft report was released regarding Ports of Auckland moving to WRE. I just wonder what positive changes this will make to air services up there and what this will mean for a new airport location and or more flights with bigger aircraft?

Firstly, the project is expected to cost more than $10b and would be our biggest ever infrastructure project so I can't see it happening quickly if at all so I don't want to get ahead of myself. By this time we'll likely have motorway to Wellsford and an expressway between HLZ and WRE beyond the motorway itself.

I'm also not suggesting international flights or A320 aircraft, but will we see WRE-WLG, WRE-TRG (port) for some examples...

All the associated industries around a port, and given the port is still 3hours beyond our major metropolitan area and the international airport I'd expect a fully operational port to bring a strong amount of passenger demand.

I'm not talking about just crew, I'm looking at the wider industries around a port; freight forwarding, logistics, importers, engineers, for some quick examples...

Ages away I admit. But will be interesting.

WRE have already said they are looking to move the airport due to size/capacity and indeed safety issues. I could easily see a 2000m+ jet capable runway being built between Whangarei and Marsden which could also double as a low cost 2nd Auckland airport option domestic and Tasman.
If this all goes ahead it wouldn’t surprise me if they then close Whenuapai and relocate that up there too as a joint civil/military airport.


That's exactly right, I was aware there has been work done around WRE being moved. Given the size of the seaport, it would drive an increase in passenger numbers and how would this impact any kind of feasibility study?

Just a very quick googole and from Wikipedia...

According to an economic impact assessment, 173,000 jobs in the Auckland Region rely on trade through the ports and the ports affect a third of the local economy.


Even is a very small fraction of them travelled to WRE that's an increase!

I hadn't considered a partnership with defence where they take the sale of Whenuapai land and build a new airbase with local or central government partnership. That's actually a bloody good way of getting over the line in my opinion.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1598
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Wed Nov 13, 2019 8:21 pm

Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
NTLDaz wrote:

LAX - JFK is now the 787 from the BNE flight.


Of course, but the same situation applies. Pooling SYD/MEL/BNE pax to all connect in LAX for LAX-JFK. While you could switch that to AKL why? Is the only reason to bypass LAX? Are you going to substitute LAX with AKL? Is the lounge up to it given this would likely be a premium flight? Do you widebody schedules work? Can't imagine a first-class passenger going MEL-AKL on a 738 for 3 1/2 hours.

Even If so, is that worth doing given Sunrise is still expected to delivery SYD-JFK non-stop and may only be a few years away? i

BNE-NYC is only 100nm (+/-) off SIN-NYC so we should be reasonably comfortable that NYC can be reached from Australia.


But you agree, the idea that QF or AA does AKL-JFK if SYD-JFK turns out not to be viable isn't ridiculous, right?


ridiculous... No.

I guess the benefit of alliances these days is they make routes where 2 carriers wouldn't operate on their own work.

I can't see AA having any interest at all, DFW is still seasonal and a few times a week so why open a more targeted route like NYC-AKL?

QF, if they can't fly direct from SYD would surely look at BNE next? if that doesn't work then I'd be massively surprised, it's only 500nm more than PER-LHR.

Assuming they couldn't what is the benefit in bringing all their premium passengers to AKL? surely you'd want to have them in your premium lounge in SYD, fly the entire journey in widebody business or even first on A380.

Would anyone fly 738 Business class to AKL, spend 3-4 hours in AKL

Is the LAX experience that bad that a switch to AKL is something you'd actually consider just to reach NYC on an 18hour flight? I mean it's still one stop from SYD. If that's the case, why hasn't it happened before today, even when QF did fly AKL-LAX?

My point being, who's the airline wanting it to happen, I'm suggested 0% chance of it being AA and very low odds of it being QF.

It could work which is why it's not "ridiculous".. I just can't see either airline trying to make it happen.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2202
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:01 pm

NZ6 wrote:
Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

Of course, but the same situation applies. Pooling SYD/MEL/BNE pax to all connect in LAX for LAX-JFK. While you could switch that to AKL why? Is the only reason to bypass LAX? Are you going to substitute LAX with AKL? Is the lounge up to it given this would likely be a premium flight? Do you widebody schedules work? Can't imagine a first-class passenger going MEL-AKL on a 738 for 3 1/2 hours.

Even If so, is that worth doing given Sunrise is still expected to delivery SYD-JFK non-stop and may only be a few years away? i

BNE-NYC is only 100nm (+/-) off SIN-NYC so we should be reasonably comfortable that NYC can be reached from Australia.


But you agree, the idea that QF or AA does AKL-JFK if SYD-JFK turns out not to be viable isn't ridiculous, right?


ridiculous... No.

I guess the benefit of alliances these days is they make routes where 2 carriers wouldn't operate on their own work.

I can't see AA having any interest at all, DFW is still seasonal and a few times a week so why open a more targeted route like NYC-AKL?

QF, if they can't fly direct from SYD would surely look at BNE next? if that doesn't work then I'd be massively surprised, it's only 500nm more than PER-LHR.

Assuming they couldn't what is the benefit in bringing all their premium passengers to AKL? surely you'd want to have them in your premium lounge in SYD, fly the entire journey in widebody business or even first on A380.

Would anyone fly 738 Business class to AKL, spend 3-4 hours in AKL

Is the LAX experience that bad that a switch to AKL is something you'd actually consider just to reach NYC on an 18hour flight? I mean it's still one stop from SYD. If that's the case, why hasn't it happened before today, even when QF did fly AKL-LAX?

My point being, who's the airline wanting it to happen, I'm suggested 0% chance of it being AA and very low odds of it being QF.

It could work which is why it's not "ridiculous".. I just can't see either airline trying to make it happen.


Agree, if non stop services Australia to JFK commence and are economically viable; there is no discussion. But it's far from a foregone conclusion on the basis that BNE-JFK is only 500NM longer than PER-LHR. 500NM is still 500NM; and we're talking totally different winds.

But if they *don't* commence, I'd argue that either QF or AA will almost be obliged to start AKL-JFK. If they don't, then NZ's EWR service will be worlds more appealing to Australian travellers than QF's to JFK via LAX. That's not to mention the extra New Zealand based pax that QF or AA could transport from AKL. In other words, with no non stop service from from either Australia or New Zealand, One World would relinquish a lot of potential business to NZ, and I can't see them doing it. The best scenario as far as NZ is concerned is probably a QF BNE-JFK service. That way, NZ would probably still draw pax from SYD and MEL.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1598
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:16 pm

Gasman wrote:
Agree, if non stop services Australia to JFK commence and are economically viable; there is no discussion. But it's far from a foregone conclusion on the basis that BNE-JFK is only 500NM longer than PER-LHR. 500NM is still 500NM; and we're talking totally different winds.

But if they *don't* commence, I'd argue that either QF or AA will almost be obliged to start AKL-JFK. If they don't, then NZ's EWR service will be worlds more appealing to Australian travellers than QF's to JFK via LAX. That's not to mention the extra New Zealand based pax that QF or AA could transport from AKL. In other words, with no non stop service from from either Australia or New Zealand, One World would relinquish a lot of potential business to NZ, and I can't see them doing it. The best scenario as far as NZ is concerned is probably a QF BNE-JFK service. That way, NZ would probably still draw pax from SYD and MEL.


What is the bold underline part based on?

From what you said, it's purely the customer experience piece in LAX? am I correct?
 
Gasman
Posts: 2202
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:40 pm

NZ6 wrote:
Gasman wrote:
Agree, if non stop services Australia to JFK commence and are economically viable; there is no discussion. But it's far from a foregone conclusion on the basis that BNE-JFK is only 500NM longer than PER-LHR. 500NM is still 500NM; and we're talking totally different winds.

But if they *don't* commence, I'd argue that either QF or AA will almost be obliged to start AKL-JFK. If they don't, then NZ's EWR service will be worlds more appealing to Australian travellers than QF's to JFK via LAX. That's not to mention the extra New Zealand based pax that QF or AA could transport from AKL. In other words, with no non stop service from from either Australia or New Zealand, One World would relinquish a lot of potential business to NZ, and I can't see them doing it. The best scenario as far as NZ is concerned is probably a QF BNE-JFK service. That way, NZ would probably still draw pax from SYD and MEL.


What is the bold underline part based on?

From what you said, it's purely the customer experience piece in LAX? am I correct?


And the timing thereof. If you have to transit, it's much more pleasant to do it after a 2.5 hour flight than after a 14 hour one. And transiting at AKL you wouldn't have to clear customs, retrieve your bags, re-drop your bags and deal with the absolute zoo that is the arrivals hall at LAX. That's after you've waited on the aircraft for homeland security to arrive if your flight arrives before 0600. So the "customer experience at LAX" is no trivial concern.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1598
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:46 pm

Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

What is the bold underline part based on?

From what you said, it's purely the customer experience piece in LAX? am I correct?


And the timing thereof. If you have to transit, it's much more pleasant to do it after a 2.5 hour flight than after a 14 hour one. And transiting at AKL you wouldn't have to clear customs, retrieve your bags, re-drop your bags and deal with the absolute zoo that is the arrivals hall at LAX. That's after you've waited on the aircraft for homeland security to arrive if your flight arrives before 0600. So the "customer experience at LAX" is no trivial concern.


Hmmmm you're certainly fresher after 3 hours.

It goes back to AA doesn't want to do it and based on what you're saying it would be QF metal anyway.

Here's another question, if QF knew now, neither the A350 or 77X couldn't reach NYC (unlikely but just go with it), would they continue with NYC now, are they purely keeping a presence for when the direct start so they're not having to start again so to speak?

The reason I say this is, look at multi-leg flying globally, it's a dying trend and passengers don't pay for but your operating costs increase dramatically.

If QF moved to AKL, they'd need tech crew and cabin crew change in AKL including overnighting, you'd expect the flight to come from SYD full of PAX bound for NYC meaning it's an additional flight above the current schedule otherwise you're either a) reducing space SYDAKL or b) operating too lite to NYC. This flight SYDAKL is fuel burnt without any extra money. Therefore the SYD AKL is an additional expense on top of what SYD-NYC passengers are paying. Yes, the same applies to via LAX which is why I questioned if they'd continue if NYC is beyond range.

* Yes QF have JetConnect crew base here, but any NYC flight would have the elite of QF crew given it's a premium flight and that's with no disrespect to JetConnect crew who do an amazing job.
** Yes QF would bring in PAX from MEL, BNE but the majority would be SYD.

As I said this morning, not ridiculous but in my mind very unlikely. I just don't see any significant benefit for QF.

All you're really doing is switching LAX with AKL, sending your premium passengers to NZ often in narrowbody business class to an offshore lounge and having QF/AA both operate AKL-NYC a market neither want to fly on their own just to bypass a poor CX in LAX.

Another silly but possible option is ORD-NYC return keeping it 789 operated but also keeping it QF metal.
 
a7ala
Posts: 359
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:05 pm

Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Gasman wrote:
Agree, if non stop services Australia to JFK commence and are economically viable; there is no discussion. But it's far from a foregone conclusion on the basis that BNE-JFK is only 500NM longer than PER-LHR. 500NM is still 500NM; and we're talking totally different winds.

But if they *don't* commence, I'd argue that either QF or AA will almost be obliged to start AKL-JFK. If they don't, then NZ's EWR service will be worlds more appealing to Australian travellers than QF's to JFK via LAX. That's not to mention the extra New Zealand based pax that QF or AA could transport from AKL. In other words, with no non stop service from from either Australia or New Zealand, One World would relinquish a lot of potential business to NZ, and I can't see them doing it. The best scenario as far as NZ is concerned is probably a QF BNE-JFK service. That way, NZ would probably still draw pax from SYD and MEL.


What is the bold underline part based on?

From what you said, it's purely the customer experience piece in LAX? am I correct?


And the timing thereof. If you have to transit, it's much more pleasant to do it after a 2.5 hour flight than after a 14 hour one. And transiting at AKL you wouldn't have to clear customs, retrieve your bags, re-drop your bags and deal with the absolute zoo that is the arrivals hall at LAX. That's after you've waited on the aircraft for homeland security to arrive if your flight arrives before 0600. So the "customer experience at LAX" is no trivial concern.


Umm... what about on the way back? Presumably you are transiting after a 14 hour flight.
 
NTLDaz
Posts: 473
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 7:56 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Thu Nov 14, 2019 12:39 am

a7ala wrote:
Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

What is the bold underline part based on?

From what you said, it's purely the customer experience piece in LAX? am I correct?


And the timing thereof. If you have to transit, it's much more pleasant to do it after a 2.5 hour flight than after a 14 hour one. And transiting at AKL you wouldn't have to clear customs, retrieve your bags, re-drop your bags and deal with the absolute zoo that is the arrivals hall at LAX. That's after you've waited on the aircraft for homeland security to arrive if your flight arrives before 0600. So the "customer experience at LAX" is no trivial concern.


Umm... what about on the way back? Presumably you are transiting after a 14 hour flight.


Interesting perspective. The via LA on the return of the current schedule is easy peasy. It's like when people say they fly visit SIN instead of DXB to Europe due to the long first leg. That only holds one way.

The interesting thing about SYD-NYC non stop is that would surely kill off the LAX-JFK connector as it relies on 3 flights converging to fill it. Will MEL or BNE have the demand for a non stop to NYC ?

If not NZ one stop via AKL becomes a solid option. Lots for QF to think about ( which I'm sure they have ).
 
NZ516
Posts: 450
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Thu Nov 14, 2019 12:43 am

List of the busiest airports in New Zealand

Top six airports change to 2019 from 2018

1. Auckland Airport AKL 21,111,613 20,530,,048
2. Christchurch Airport CHC 6,931,441 6,868,948
3. Wellington Airport WLG 6,441,935 6,213,589
4. Queenstown Airport ZQN 2,321,347 2,140,699
5. Dunedin Airport DUD 1,077,475 1,035,645
6. Nelson Airport NSN 1,076,686 1,061,000

Total of 14 airports on the list which goes back 8 years::

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ew_Zealand

Auckland has done well again this year. It added an extra 581,000, Wellington added 228,000, while Christchurch only added 62,000 so growth has slowed a lot in that port as previously their growth was over 300,000. Queenstown gained an extra 181,000. While Dunedin just edged out Nellson to regain the 5th place by a tiny margin 789 passengers.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1598
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Thu Nov 14, 2019 1:05 am

NTLDaz wrote:
a7ala wrote:
Gasman wrote:

And the timing thereof. If you have to transit, it's much more pleasant to do it after a 2.5 hour flight than after a 14 hour one. And transiting at AKL you wouldn't have to clear customs, retrieve your bags, re-drop your bags and deal with the absolute zoo that is the arrivals hall at LAX. That's after you've waited on the aircraft for homeland security to arrive if your flight arrives before 0600. So the "customer experience at LAX" is no trivial concern.


Umm... what about on the way back? Presumably you are transiting after a 14 hour flight.


Interesting perspective. The via LA on the return of the current schedule is easy peasy. It's like when people say they fly visit SIN instead of DXB to Europe due to the long first leg. That only holds one way.

The interesting thing about SYD-NYC non stop is that would surely kill off the LAX-JFK connector as it relies on 3 flights converging to fill it. Will MEL or BNE have the demand for a non stop to NYC ?

If not NZ one stop via AKL becomes a solid option. Lots for QF to think about ( which I'm sure they have ).


I think the sole purpose of going direct is to kill that second leg between LAX-JFK.

QF will use their domestic network to operate ex SYD and fly all lax into SYD

Gasman is saying if SYD doesn’t work then AKL could be an option, I don’t think it’s an as well as SYD.
 
NTLDaz
Posts: 473
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 7:56 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Thu Nov 14, 2019 1:31 am

NZ6 wrote:
NTLDaz wrote:
a7ala wrote:

Umm... what about on the way back? Presumably you are transiting after a 14 hour flight.


Interesting perspective. The via LA on the return of the current schedule is easy peasy. It's like when people say they fly visit SIN instead of DXB to Europe due to the long first leg. That only holds one way.

The interesting thing about SYD-NYC non stop is that would surely kill off the LAX-JFK connector as it relies on 3 flights converging to fill it. Will MEL or BNE have the demand for a non stop to NYC ?

If not NZ one stop via AKL becomes a solid option. Lots for QF to think about ( which I'm sure they have ).


I think the sole purpose of going direct is to kill that second leg between LAX-JFK.

QF will use their domestic network to operate ex SYD and fly all lax into SYD

Gasman is saying if SYD doesn’t work then AKL could be an option, I don’t think it’s an as well as SYD.


I get that. I don't personally see QF or AA operating AKL - JFK. But if QF can't make JFK work out of BNE or MEL taking NZ to EWR via AKL becomes a more attractive option than it is now ( with one stop on QF all the way via LAX ).

Domestic to international transfers in SYD on QF aren't as painful as some make out but it's certainly not as easy as transiting AKL.

In my eyes if QF can't ( hypothetically) make JFK non stop work out of BNE and MEL that would be a best case scenario for NZ as I can't see how the LAX - JFK flight survives without the SYD connection. Then the QF options to NYC are domestic to SYD then to JFK or LAX on to AA.

QF/AA out of AKL doesn't them seem so strange. I don't think the possibility of a 3 hour trip in 737 business class being a big issue but could be wrong. BNE / MEL / AKL passengers could conceivably fill a 789 but could you get enough premium passengers to fly out of AKL on QF / AA. Of that I have no idea. You could then potentially change MEL - LAX to a 789.

There is of course the issue of filling a 789 MEL - AKL if it wasn't AA doing AKL - JFK.

It's all hypothetical but the QF/AA JV certainly opens some interesting possibilities down the track.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4522
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:20 am

NZ6 wrote:
Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

What is the bold underline part based on?

From what you said, it's purely the customer experience piece in LAX? am I correct?




* Yes QF have JetConnect crew base here, but any NYC flight would have the elite of QF crew given it's a premium flight and that's with no disrespect to JetConnect crew who do an amazing job.

QF doesn’t have “elite” crew as such and Jetconnect crew operate in amongst the other crews on almost all flights. The only thing JC doesn’t have is on board managers (due to FAAA clauses). JC crew do and have operated JFK for well over a decade. Back when AKL-LAX was operating it wasn’t uncommon to have the entire crew be AKL based except pilots and onboard managers.
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
NZ321
Posts: 1218
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Thu Nov 14, 2019 12:56 pm

Just suppose for a minute that QF decides PS is a no-go. And then they decide to train JC crew to operate the chosen aircraft or additional 789s and operate the flight via AKL. Seems unlikely but not impossible based on what we know from the past. And just supposing that QF and AA make a killing on this route and it goes daily such that NZ / UAL feel the EWR route with two players is unsustainable. Again, unlikely as NZ and UA will have been on the go for a while by the time QF have the aircraft to do it. I see UA and NZ as a strong partnership in the NYC market. But so what? The Big Apple is not the make or break of the future of NZ. Plenty of other North American destinations could be served; IAD, YYZ, LAS, DEN, SEA. With the possible exception of LAS, all of these routes could be able to support year round direct service in future. NZ is hardly short of options. Fragmentation is working in NZ's favour. 789 is a plus for this. IAD has not been talked about as far as I know. I flew into IAD last year and was through customs and into a taxi in 25 minutes off an NH flight. Amazing indeed! And UAL is finally building again at IAD. So, just to say, plenty of options on the table. It is not all about the Big A.
Plane mad!
 
Gasman
Posts: 2202
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Thu Nov 14, 2019 5:22 pm

NZ321 wrote:
Just suppose for a minute that QF decides PS is a no-go. And then they decide to train JC crew to operate the chosen aircraft or additional 789s and operate the flight via AKL. Seems unlikely but not impossible based on what we know from the past. And just supposing that QF and AA make a killing on this route and it goes daily such that NZ / UAL feel the EWR route with two players is unsustainable. Again, unlikely as NZ and UA will have been on the go for a while by the time QF have the aircraft to do it. I see UA and NZ as a strong partnership in the NYC market. But so what? The Big Apple is not the make or break of the future of NZ. Plenty of other North American destinations could be served; IAD, YYZ, LAS, DEN, SEA. With the possible exception of LAS, all of these routes could be able to support year round direct service in future. NZ is hardly short of options. Fragmentation is working in NZ's favour. 789 is a plus for this. IAD has not been talked about as far as I know. I flew into IAD last year and was through customs and into a taxi in 25 minutes off an NH flight. Amazing indeed! And UAL is finally building again at IAD. So, just to say, plenty of options on the table. It is not all about the Big A.


Technologies change, new aircraft arrive and new markets/routes are evaluated. It has been the way of things for 100 years. So can we please, as an aside, consign the term "Project Sunrise" to the recycle bin where it belongs? It's nothing but marketing; a mission statement - at most. It's QF's equivalent of the NZ jokesy safety video.

No, the "Big Apple is not the make or break of the future of NZ". No one suggested it was. But if SYD-JFK turns out to be beyond the limits of economic viability, I'm arguing that SYD-AKL-JFK (with the AKL-JFK side of things using either QF or AA metal) becomes a very close second best route for that alliance - one that they will be almost forced to introduce, lest they cede a lot of business to the competition. And if they do introduce that route, it will be a massive ball-ache for NZ.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1598
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:19 pm

NTLDaz wrote:
I get that. I don't personally see QF or AA operating AKL - JFK. But if QF can't make JFK work out of BNE or MEL taking NZ to EWR via AKL becomes a more attractive option than it is now ( with one stop on QF all the way via LAX ).

Domestic to international transfers in SYD on QF aren't as painful as some make out but it's certainly not as easy as transiting AKL.

In my eyes if QF can't ( hypothetically) make JFK non stop work out of BNE and MEL that would be a best case scenario for NZ as I can't see how the LAX - JFK flight survives without the SYD connection. Then the QF options to NYC are domestic to SYD then to JFK or LAX on to AA.

QF/AA out of AKL doesn't them seem so strange. I don't think the possibility of a 3 hour trip in 737 business class being a big issue but could be wrong. BNE / MEL / AKL passengers could conceivably fill a 789 but could you get enough premium passengers to fly out of AKL on QF / AA. Of that I have no idea. You could then potentially change MEL - LAX to a 789.

There is of course the issue of filling a 789 MEL - AKL if it wasn't AA doing AKL - JFK.

It's all hypothetical but the QF/AA JV certainly opens some interesting possibilities down the track.


We're largely on the same page I think. If SYD then BNE doesn't work and QF is fixated on getting into JFK from the down under then AKL is the solution which is why I said yesterday it wasn't ridiculous to Gasman.

I guess, my hesitation is more about a) SYD will work, if not BNE will. b) if BNE can't will AKL offer something LAX can't c) if QF can't reach NYC from Aussie long term will this remain such a focus that AKL comes into play..

Another way of looking at it is, there's a number of paths QF could or would go down before AKL-NYC came about.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1598
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:23 pm

Zkpilot wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Gasman wrote:



* Yes QF have JetConnect crew base here, but any NYC flight would have the elite of QF crew given it's a premium flight and that's with no disrespect to JetConnect crew who do an amazing job.

QF doesn’t have “elite” crew as such and Jetconnect crew operate in amongst the other crews on almost all flights. The only thing JC doesn’t have is on board managers (due to FAAA clauses). JC crew do and have operated JFK for well over a decade. Back when AKL-LAX was operating it wasn’t uncommon to have the entire crew be AKL based except pilots and onboard managers.


Oh, I knew a few people of went to fly for JetConnect and they purely flew 737 on the Tasman only. Could be completely wrong now as it's been some time since I caught up with them.

When I said Elite crew, I was simply meaning not the JetConnect crew who were on slightly different employment agreements - based on my understanding above.

Doesn't really change an awful lot but I'm sure QF would want some of their best staff looking after passengers paying a premium :-)
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4522
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Thu Nov 14, 2019 8:33 pm

NZ6 wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

QF doesn’t have “elite” crew as such and Jetconnect crew operate in amongst the other crews on almost all flights. The only thing JC doesn’t have is on board managers (due to FAAA clauses). JC crew do and have operated JFK for well over a decade. Back when AKL-LAX was operating it wasn’t uncommon to have the entire crew be AKL based except pilots and onboard managers.


Oh, I knew a few people of went to fly for JetConnect and they purely flew 737 on the Tasman only. Could be completely wrong now as it's been some time since I caught up with them.

When I said Elite crew, I was simply meaning not the JetConnect crew who were on slightly different employment agreements - based on my understanding above.

Doesn't really change an awful lot but I'm sure QF would want some of their best staff looking after passengers paying a premium :-)

You’re thinking of Jetconnect Shorthaul. Jetconnect longhaul has been around for about 20 years with crew operating throughout the QF longhaul fleet. At one point the AKL longhaul base had around 450 crew.
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
B789
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:04 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:10 am

A lurker of over 10 years has finally signed up, because I can't book any Perth flights! Does anyone know what NZ is doing with this route? No PER direct flights at all bookable in late December or January when I'm hoping to go.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1598
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:19 pm

B789 wrote:
A lurker of over 10 years has finally signed up, because I can't book any Perth flights! Does anyone know what NZ is doing with this route? No PER direct flights at all bookable in late December or January when I'm hoping to go.


From home I'd say it's completely full.

Funnily enough, we just talked about this earlier in the week.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1666
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:03 pm

B789 wrote:
A lurker of over 10 years has finally signed up, because I can't book any Perth flights! Does anyone know what NZ is doing with this route? No PER direct flights at all bookable in late December or January when I'm hoping to go.

Just tried a test AKL-PER booking myself - seats still available some days but certainly not every day. As for CHC-PER, couldn't quickly find any nonstop flights available in that time period. Be good to see the frequency and the season length increased. Next year, maybe. . . ?
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7500
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:56 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
B789 wrote:
A lurker of over 10 years has finally signed up, because I can't book any Perth flights! Does anyone know what NZ is doing with this route? No PER direct flights at all bookable in late December or January when I'm hoping to go.

Just tried a test AKL-PER booking myself - seats still available some days but certainly not every day. As for CHC-PER, couldn't quickly find any nonstop flights available in that time period. Be good to see the frequency and the season length increased. Next year, maybe. . . ?



There was talk earlier in the year that PER was doing quite well and NZ were considering increasing year round services to 10 weekly ex AKL or something to that affect, it seems over the peak season they could probably do close to double daily ex AKL and increase CHC to 3-4 weekly as well? Certainly nothing announced yet for NS 2020.

Anymore on this proposed DPS increase on top off what’s been announced? I wonder if daily ex AKL and a 2-3 weekly ex CHC? Something similar for HNL as well? And keeping a CHC-PER winter service 2-3 weekly which could keep a 789 busy ex CHC everyday.
 
User avatar
LamboAston
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:46 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Sat Nov 16, 2019 1:36 am

Yep, travel agents can't book either.
AS350, B733/4/7/8, B744/8, B762/3, B77E/L/W, B789, A319, A320, A321, A332, A346, A380, AT73/5/6, Q300, Q400, CR2/7, E190, S340, B1900C/D, E110 (E for epic)
NZ, EK, QF, SQ, UA, US, CO, FZ, FR, U2, BA, VA, VS, MH, EI, EY, LH, EN, NM, TG, GZ
 
B789
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:04 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Sat Nov 16, 2019 3:08 am

I've seen flights show up again today but definitely not every day. Earlier in the week there was nothing. I would have thought over the xmas and new year period it would be close to double daily.
Could the RR engines be causing trouble enough to reduce service? PER took the hit initially with HiFly subbing in. Hopefully just short term reductions.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7500
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Sat Nov 16, 2019 3:46 am

B789 wrote:
I've seen flights show up again today but definitely not every day. Earlier in the week there was nothing. I would have thought over the xmas and new year period it would be close to double daily.
Could the RR engines be causing trouble enough to reduce service? PER took the hit initially with HiFly subbing in. Hopefully just short term reductions.



Its been 10x AKL and 2 CHC for a few summers now minus 2x QF for AKL last year. Nothing to do with RR, there is still 1 789 grounded though, no actual reductions though, id say flights are full and a capacity increase may be needed.
 
mrkerr7474
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:55 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Sat Nov 16, 2019 3:46 am

QF171 operating MEL to WLG today 16/11 operated by VH-VZU tried landing around 2.30pm before diverting to OHA, with the return service QF164 WLG to SYD indefinitely delayed as a result.

Anyone know why this flight was diverted?
 
Gasman
Posts: 2202
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Sat Nov 16, 2019 7:00 am

mrkerr7474 wrote:
QF171 operating MEL to WLG today 16/11 operated by VH-VZU tried landing around 2.30pm before diverting to OHA, with the return service QF164 WLG to SYD indefinitely delayed as a result.

Anyone know why this flight was diverted?


It's all over the news now. Stuck flap, and WLG runway then rendered too short.

Runway extension at WLG anyone?
 
zkncj
Posts: 3876
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Sat Nov 16, 2019 7:14 am

Gasman wrote:
mrkerr7474 wrote:
QF171 operating MEL to WLG today 16/11 operated by VH-VZU tried landing around 2.30pm before diverting to OHA, with the return service QF164 WLG to SYD indefinitely delayed as a result.

Anyone know why this flight was diverted?


It's all over the news now. Stuck flap, and WLG runway then rendered too short.

Runway extension at WLG anyone?


Or if anything New Zealand needs to get an better response plan for diverted flights to airforce bases, the classic story of passengers stuck on the aircraft for hours.

Surely its time that some base staff get basic customs training, to at-least be able allow passengers off the aircraft (based on remote assitaintance from New Zealand Customs)
 
mrkerr7474
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:55 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Sat Nov 16, 2019 7:26 am

zkncj wrote:
Gasman wrote:
mrkerr7474 wrote:
QF171 operating MEL to WLG today 16/11 operated by VH-VZU tried landing around 2.30pm before diverting to OHA, with the return service QF164 WLG to SYD indefinitely delayed as a result.

Anyone know why this flight was diverted?


It's all over the news now. Stuck flap, and WLG runway then rendered too short.

Runway extension at WLG anyone?


Or if anything New Zealand needs to get an better response plan for diverted flights to airforce bases, the classic story of passengers stuck on the aircraft for hours.

Surely its time that some base staff get basic customs training, to at-least be able allow passengers off the aircraft (based on remote assitaintance from New Zealand Customs)



While a runway extension would be beneficial for multiple reasons including today's issue with the flaps, I think they'd rather just divert aircraft elsewhere. But I also agree, air bases should have some staff trained in customs to process passengers off the aircraft. Wouldn't want to imagine how bad sitting on the aircraft in hot conditions would be like, pretty much for a longer duration than the actual flight!
 
NZ516
Posts: 450
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Sat Nov 16, 2019 7:42 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
B789 wrote:
A lurker of over 10 years has finally signed up, because I can't book any Perth flights! Does anyone know what NZ is doing with this route? No PER direct flights at all bookable in late December or January when I'm hoping to go.

Just tried a test AKL-PER booking myself - seats still available some days but certainly not every day. As for CHC-PER, couldn't quickly find any nonstop flights available in that time period. Be good to see the frequency and the season length increased. Next year, maybe. . . ?



There was talk earlier in the year that PER was doing quite well and NZ were considering increasing year round services to 10 weekly ex AKL or something to that affect, it seems over the peak season they could probably do close to double daily ex AKL and increase CHC to 3-4 weekly as well? Certainly nothing announced yet for NS 2020.

Anymore on this proposed DPS increase on top off what’s been announced? I wonder if daily ex AKL and a 2-3 weekly ex CHC? Something similar for HNL as well? And keeping a CHC-PER winter service 2-3 weekly which could keep a 789 busy ex CHC everyday.


NZ might have to make future adjustments to their flying program with no sign of the 789 NZE getting back in service they will be one frame down this Dec when all 14 were needed on most days of the week. So additional flights planning on being announced eg more DPS services might be put on hold for the time being. Regarding the CHC to PER route the 789 is really too big for it. The 321LR would be the ideal equipment. Just a shame that NZ only has the standard 321neo as this size would enable a year round service between CHC and PER and more flights per week. Also the 2nd AKL to PER service could go up to daily if the 321LR was available.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7500
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:50 am

NZ516 wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
Just tried a test AKL-PER booking myself - seats still available some days but certainly not every day. As for CHC-PER, couldn't quickly find any nonstop flights available in that time period. Be good to see the frequency and the season length increased. Next year, maybe. . . ?



There was talk earlier in the year that PER was doing quite well and NZ were considering increasing year round services to 10 weekly ex AKL or something to that affect, it seems over the peak season they could probably do close to double daily ex AKL and increase CHC to 3-4 weekly as well? Certainly nothing announced yet for NS 2020.

Anymore on this proposed DPS increase on top off what’s been announced? I wonder if daily ex AKL and a 2-3 weekly ex CHC? Something similar for HNL as well? And keeping a CHC-PER winter service 2-3 weekly which could keep a 789 busy ex CHC everyday.


NZ might have to make future adjustments to their flying program with no sign of the 789 NZE getting back in service they will be one frame down this Dec when all 14 were needed on most days of the week. So additional flights planning on being announced eg more DPS services might be put on hold for the time being. Regarding the CHC to PER route the 789 is really too big for it. The 321LR would be the ideal equipment. Just a shame that NZ only has the standard 321neo as this size would enable a year round service between CHC and PER and more flights per week. Also the 2nd AKL to PER service could go up to daily if the 321LR was available.


We don’t know how far away NZE is, it was meant to be back by now, OKT is staying till April and while it is fully used I think there is a little slack in the 772 fleet atleast a few days a week.

Winter flying won’t be affected with the current situation, there is about 5 spare 772s of which probably 2 will need to go on 789 routes as they are all allocated atleast in July August which maybe a bit of a stretch given the refits and WIFI installation plus general maintenance.

Personally there isn’t many routes where a sub fleet of A321LR’s would be beneficial, CHC-PER while it could go year round isn’t a route that needs frequency.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1666
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:50 am

The QF incident with the stuck flap made me wonder why the plane didn't divert to CHC? There would have been no problem with customs then. Or was it a reluctance to fly pax CHC-WLG, while they could be bussed from Ohakea?
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11128
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:53 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
B789 wrote:
A lurker of over 10 years has finally signed up, because I can't book any Perth flights! Does anyone know what NZ is doing with this route? No PER direct flights at all bookable in late December or January when I'm hoping to go.

Just tried a test AKL-PER booking myself - seats still available some days but certainly not every day. As for CHC-PER, couldn't quickly find any nonstop flights available in that time period. Be good to see the frequency and the season length increased. Next year, maybe. . . ?



There was talk earlier in the year that PER was doing quite well and NZ were considering increasing year round services to 10 weekly ex AKL or something to that affect, it seems over the peak season they could probably do close to double daily ex AKL and increase CHC to 3-4 weekly as well? Certainly nothing announced yet for NS 2020.

Anymore on this proposed DPS increase on top off what’s been announced? I wonder if daily ex AKL and a 2-3 weekly ex CHC? Something similar for HNL as well? And keeping a CHC-PER winter service 2-3 weekly which could keep a 789 busy ex CHC everyday.


PER-AKL only operated 9 weekly last summer and is currently operating 9 weekly atm, there is no flight ex PER on Thursdays. Currently for this month the average load is around 80%, some days loads have been quite good and others not so good. I think 10-11 weekly in Dec-Jan is realistic but anything beyond that is not at this stage. CHC is probably best kept as is atm.
Forum Moderator
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4522
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:54 am

DavidByrne wrote:
The QF incident with the stuck flap made me wonder why the plane didn't divert to CHC? There would have been no problem with customs then. Or was it a reluctance to fly pax CHC-WLG, while they could be bussed from Ohakea?

More a case of why can’t Ohakea/NZ customs update their processes so that they can at least get passengers off of planes if needed and simply hold them as long as necessary (not perfect but better than being stuck on a plane if it’s hot).
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
NZ321
Posts: 1218
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Sat Nov 16, 2019 2:39 pm

Zkpilot wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
The QF incident with the stuck flap made me wonder why the plane didn't divert to CHC? There would have been no problem with customs then. Or was it a reluctance to fly pax CHC-WLG, while they could be bussed from Ohakea?

More a case of why can’t Ohakea/NZ customs update their processes so that they can at least get passengers off of planes if needed and simply hold them as long as necessary (not perfect but better than being stuck on a plane if it’s hot).


For situations where CHC is too far, why not choose to extend the runway at PMR if this is too hard for Ohakea? Also opens PMR up to more opportunities. And then passengers can be accommodated.
Plane mad!
 
mrkerr7474
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:55 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:23 pm

NZ321 wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
The QF incident with the stuck flap made me wonder why the plane didn't divert to CHC? There would have been no problem with customs then. Or was it a reluctance to fly pax CHC-WLG, while they could be bussed from Ohakea?

More a case of why can’t Ohakea/NZ customs update their processes so that they can at least get passengers off of planes if needed and simply hold them as long as necessary (not perfect but better than being stuck on a plane if it’s hot).


For situations where CHC is too far, why not choose to extend the runway at PMR if this is too hard for Ohakea? Also opens PMR up to more opportunities. And then passengers can be accommodated.


I read that Qantas said they usually would use PMR however due to local weather conditions they chose to go to OHA instead.

I'm assuming the aircraft was fixed last night as it arrived into WLG just after 11pm and operated this mornings QF162 with a 40minute delay. Maintenance worker flown down from Auckland to fix the issue perhaps?
 
Gasman
Posts: 2202
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Sun Nov 17, 2019 8:45 pm

So breaking the unspoken rule of "never mention the "E" word" on this forum for a moment.....

Has anyone listened to the Herald podcasts on the Erebus crash? I have a slight sinking that it'll be yet another rehash of the Maria Collins approved, overly simplistic diatribe along the lines of "the airline was dastardly/the crew were impeccable" that the public have been fed since Mahon's misguided attempt at an investigation. And if so, I just won't be able to stomach it.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1598
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Sun Nov 17, 2019 9:15 pm

Gasman wrote:
So breaking the unspoken rule of "never mention the "E" word" on this forum for a moment.....

Has anyone listened to the Herald podcasts on the Erebus crash? I have a slight sinking that it'll be yet another rehash of the Maria Collins approved, overly simplistic diatribe along the lines of "the airline was dastardly/the crew were impeccable" that the public have been fed since Mahon's misguided attempt at an investigation. And if so, I just won't be able to stomach it.


Not enough hours in the day for me to listen to the Heralds view on it Gasman

Personally, I have absolutely no trust in the Herald to report on things with a balanced view. Can't say if they've done it this time or not because I can't be bothered finding out if a) it's full of ads b) it's premium content after you get into it c) imbalanced as I said.

With all respect to the families of lost ones.... it's for the history books now and a private ceremony each anniversary.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2202
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Sun Nov 17, 2019 9:23 pm

NZ6 wrote:
Gasman wrote:
So breaking the unspoken rule of "never mention the "E" word" on this forum for a moment.....

Has anyone listened to the Herald podcasts on the Erebus crash? I have a slight sinking that it'll be yet another rehash of the Maria Collins approved, overly simplistic diatribe along the lines of "the airline was dastardly/the crew were impeccable" that the public have been fed since Mahon's misguided attempt at an investigation. And if so, I just won't be able to stomach it.


Not enough hours in the day for me to listen to the Heralds view on it Gasman

Personally, I have absolutely no trust in the Herald to report on things with a balanced view. Can't say if they've done it this time or not because I can't be bothered finding out if a) it's full of ads b) it's premium content after you get into it c) imbalanced as I said.

With all respect to the families of lost ones.... it's for the history books now and a private ceremony each anniversary.


Wise words.

However the fact that truth was also a casualty of this disaster will probably always disappoint me, until such a time comes as someone decides to tell the story properly.
 
Jamso
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:56 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2019

Sun Nov 17, 2019 10:37 pm

Air New Zealand have just cancelled/changed the equipment for a number of flights over summer due to new checking requirements for the Trent 1000 TEN engines. The EVA 77W, OKT, will be kept over the summer.

https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/travel-alerts#Ny1wU8OzXEMQvxdLv7VF

Bet NZ is now very, very glad they've gone with GE for the 787-10.

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