Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7517
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Sat Jan 18, 2020 5:59 am

janders wrote:
Thank you, everyone, for the info on the NZ narrowbody product. Never realize NZ ditched premium product on narrowbodies so long ago.

I was informed that the group who was on a work trip to AKL before continuing to Australia did not find a NZ flight with suitable timing for them with the premium cabins. Looking myself online I do see NZ does AKL-MEL most days 4 times, 2 on widebodies, and 2 narrowbodies most often, so depending on your timing needs it could be a problem. Shame really as NZ lost out on the trans-Pacific sectors to AA/QF as they could not offer the same class of service on all legs.


MEL/BNE has a widebody in the morning picking up the US connections 0500/0700 arrivals departs AKL 0830/0900 returns 1730/1800 for the onward US connections 1930/2030, the aircraft will do a LAX-AKL-MEL-AKL-SFO type routing so its not parked during the day.

MEL usually has a widebody most days on the 1515 ex AKL which departs MEL around 1845, SYD is the market where the most demand overall premium and leisure where generally there is 5 daily in NZ winter and 6 in NZ summer with 3-4 widebodies.
 
NZ516
Posts: 459
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Sat Jan 18, 2020 6:01 am

NZ6 wrote:
NZ516 wrote:
Origin Air press release on its return to WLG is now out:
https://originair.co.nz/originair-adds- ... ton-route/


They really need to get to a point where they're daily morning and evening each way to complete seriously.


Indeed they need to beef up their frequencies a bit. At least get it up to daily for a start for both PMR and WLG. At the moment they only schedule 4 weekly flights on each route. I can't see how they can earn enough revenue to cover the running costs of their business.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3892
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Sat Jan 18, 2020 6:38 am

Zkpilot wrote:
you got the “starting” part right, but in reality most business seats are selling for double that. Even averaged out conservatively you’re looking at around $7200 income for those seats vs the $6300 for Y. Yes there may be some upgrades in there but those still use points and/or loyalty which is harder to put an actual value on (of course it does also mean that complimentary upgrade on an A321 might free up a seat to be sold on a 787 etc)...
Oh an you wouldn’t need another FA... while premium configs do usually attract a higher ratio, because it’s only 8 seats and with the onscreen ordering system it balances out.[/quote]

The hard product on the A321NEO would need to match the price e.g. you would be competing against the 777/787 PE's on AKL-BNE/SYD/MEL/ADL against the A321NEO J seat that would be very simliar to the product in PE.

VA/QF both have an FA on the 738s that mainly looks after J on these flights, ordering drinks via an screen in J is pretty poor level of service.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1603
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Sat Jan 18, 2020 7:37 am

janders wrote:
Thank you, everyone, for the info on the NZ narrowbody product. Never realize NZ ditched premium product on narrowbodies so long ago.

I was informed that the group who was on a work trip to AKL before continuing to Australia did not find a NZ flight with suitable timing for them with the premium cabins. Looking myself online I do see NZ does AKL-MEL most days 4 times, 2 on widebodies, and 2 narrowbodies most often, so depending on your timing needs it could be a problem. Shame really as NZ lost out on the trans-Pacific sectors to AA/QF as they could not offer the same class of service on all legs.


Did you book online or via an agent? What was your route? You should have got Business the whole way.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1603
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Sat Jan 18, 2020 7:39 am

zkncj wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
- Should short haul be like Silk Air is to SQ?
- Would this impact it's "network" via AKL to Australia from North and South America? .


Think Silk Air is more full service than NZ, which because of this is being folded back into SQ this year with there service levels apparently being brought up to match SQ.

I think EuroWings would be an closer example to NZ’s product were as they are offering seat / seat + bag / works / business light fare type products around Europe.

It’s an interesting model that LH takes, that it’s on own branded Short-Haul services are ex-MUC/FRA, everything else is operated by Eurowings. For example if you book with LH on LHR-TXL you are book onto Eurowings into there fare package that includes an bag/snack box.

The Tasman to America’s primary connections wouldn’t be effected by an NZ LCC apart from OOL/CNS (which are probably more point to point). BNE/SYD/MEL/ADL/PER all have 787/777 services that connect to the long-haul bank.

NZ6 wrote:
- Should Works Deluxe include lounges .

Despite over crowing in the lounges, I think should it’s often around the same price as an cheap J fares on VA/QF.

NZ6 wrote:

- Is NZ seen in the market as LCC? I know many talk here like they are, but their brand and trust is valued and seen in high regard? so would they be devaluing themselves?
- Has this been done before with Freedom?
.


Branding as an traditional LCC would defiantly take them back to the Freedom Air days. They would need to go for an more modern approach, more along the lines of say JetBlue or Air Canada Rouge.


Reference to Silk was more a different brand for short-haul vs the specific difference.

Works Deluxe must have lounge access in my opinion. Definitely something I don't agree with, too busy dishing out passes to credit card holders on P class sale fares.

NZ really isn't a LCC. Seat only perhaps heads that way which it's intended to, but you can have the Works which is full service and more so than VA.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4529
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Sat Jan 18, 2020 8:28 am

zkncj wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
you got the “starting” part right, but in reality most business seats are selling for double that. Even averaged out conservatively you’re looking at around $7200 income for those seats vs the $6300 for Y. Yes there may be some upgrades in there but those still use points and/or loyalty which is harder to put an actual value on (of course it does also mean that complimentary upgrade on an A321 might free up a seat to be sold on a 787 etc)...
Oh an you wouldn’t need another FA... while premium configs do usually attract a higher ratio, because it’s only 8 seats and with the onscreen ordering system it balances out.


The hard product on the A321NEO would need to match the price e.g. you would be competing against the 777/787 PE's on AKL-BNE/SYD/MEL/ADL against the A321NEO J seat that would be very simliar to the product in PE.

VA/QF both have an FA on the 738s that mainly looks after J on these flights, ordering drinks via an screen in J is pretty poor level of service.[/quote]
They don’t put an additional FA on, they have 4, just like NZ has on it’s A320s. Their A321s have 5x FA. I’m not suggesting that the service is done through the screen, just saying that it does help the workload. Having flown in business many times, ordering a drink through the screen was usually better than waiting for a FA to be available.
As for the product, only needs to be as good as QF/VA so basically a premium economy seat pretty much with better food and drinks. Doesn’t have to be a bed for a Tasman flight.
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2202
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:29 am

NZ6 wrote:
- Is NZ seen in the market as LCC?


Let's look at that. Firstly, defining a LCC is difficult - it's like craft beer in that regard. Everyone uses the term without really knowing what it means. But there are a few characteristics that are predictable in what gets labelled "LCC"; let's look at whether NZ has them.

- regular, readily available ultra low fares : :thumbsdown:
- flight crew with an average chronological age of 22 and mental age of 18 :thumbsdown:
- an unbundled product :thumbsup: with addons costing the deposit of a small house :thumbsdown:
- a Y product that's cramped to the point of open rebellion. Debatable this one - but I'm going to go for :thumbsup:
- a cheesy, fluorescent livery :thumbsdown:
- annoying, in your face marketing that doesn't stop once you've boarded the aircraft :thumbsup:
- on time performance about 40% :thumbsdown:

............ so more reasons to call NZ a full service carrier than a LCC. But they're undoubtedly dippping their toe in the LCC model.


NZ6 wrote:
NZ isn't a 5 star Hilton of the Skies, they're not Emirates


No, they're the Novotel of the skies. Functional, but nothing to get excited about. What's disappointing to me is that while air travel is undoubtedly changing globally, NZ is changing its rank. There was once a time as I have said previously when you could argue the airline's product was every bit as good and in many ways better, than SQ and it left QF in its wake. Y pitch on the 744s started at 36". The soft product was exemplary. You paid more (not much more) to fly NZ but didn't mind doing so as you were paying for reliability and a positive travel experience. While all airlines are having a race to the bottom, NZ has overtaken several players on the way down. And I just don't understand why.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1603
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Sun Jan 19, 2020 7:09 am

Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
- Is NZ seen in the market as LCC?


Let's look at that. Firstly, defining a LCC is difficult - it's like craft beer in that regard. Everyone uses the term without really knowing what it means. But there are a few characteristics that are predictable in what gets labelled "LCC"; let's look at whether NZ has them.

- regular, readily available ultra low fares : :thumbsdown:
- flight crew with an average chronological age of 22 and mental age of 18 :thumbsdown:
- an unbundled product :thumbsup: with addons costing the deposit of a small house :thumbsdown:
- a Y product that's cramped to the point of open rebellion. Debatable this one - but I'm going to go for :thumbsup:
- a cheesy, fluorescent livery :thumbsdown:
- annoying, in your face marketing that doesn't stop once you've boarded the aircraft :thumbsup:
- on time performance about 40% :thumbsdown:

............ so more reasons to call NZ a full service carrier than a LCC. But they're undoubtedly dippping their toe in the LCC model.


Just be careful Gasman, your clear distaste or dislike of NZ is preventing any logical argument here....to your points

- This article stats NZ has 2.9 million of seats under $100. Now, looking at the November operating statistics, 920,000 passengers, to save doing each month i'll multiple by 12 and we have 11,208,000 domestic passengers. So 25% of fares under $100. Very loose but I'd argue that's bloody good.
https://www.odt.co.nz/business/air-nz-p ... -under-100
https://p-airnz.com/cms/assets/PDFs/Inv ... -FINAL.pdf

- Flight crew age is irrelevant in determining if an airline is LCC.
- An true LCC is not unbundled, it's just basic with essential options such as bags, seat select and maybe buy on board. NZ offers this BUT ALSO offers full service.
- Cabin comfort in pretty much consistent across the industry and does not feature highly in customer feedback
- Uniform is personal taste, much like the age it's largely irrelevant to determining an LCC. Although, one could argue, hard wearing casual-wear features highly amongst the LCC's I've been on, polo shirts are what spring to mind.
- I can't understand what this is, are you talking about the safety video again? In my experience LCC's have billboard marketing on overhead lockers and sometimes around the seat backs as well as PA promotions of the buy on board service.
- No idea where 40% came from, first link on the google search found this whcih highlights a bad result at 76%. Depending if you want the Links/Domesitc/Short-haul/Long Haul all a combination the result will vary. It's higher than this 76% now and over double the stated 40%

https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/109 ... -last-year


Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
NZ isn't a 5 star Hilton of the Skies, they're not Emirates


No, they're the Novotel of the skies. Functional, but nothing to get excited about. What's disappointing to me is that while air travel is undoubtedly changing globally, NZ is changing its rank. There was once a time as I have said previously when you could argue the airline's product was every bit as good and in many ways better, than SQ and it left QF in its wake. Y pitch on the 744s started at 36". The soft product was exemplary. You paid more (not much more) to fly NZ but didn't mind doing so as you were paying for reliability and a positive travel experience. While all airlines are having a race to the bottom, NZ has overtaken several players on the way down. And I just don't understand why.


I guess the question is, what does the New Zealand market need? What will provide the best return for investors? That's what matters.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2202
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Sun Jan 19, 2020 9:31 am

Errrrm I think you misunderstood? The points I made were factors that I associate the LCC label with. Thumbs up = NZ is similar. Thumbs down = not similar.
 
User avatar
janders
Moderator
Posts: 1121
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Sun Jan 19, 2020 11:36 pm

NZ6 wrote:
Did you book online or via an agent? What was your route? You should have got Business the whole way.


I'm sure it was all via the corporate travel department since employees belong to a major U.S defence contractor.

The point was as relayed by my colleague was that since ANZ does not offer biz cabin on the flight the group wanted between AKL-MEL, so the entire business went to AA/QF which could accommodate them in premium cabins on all segments.
"We make war that we may live in peace." -- Aristotle
 
jimmyah
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:53 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:04 am

Stuff article today re NZ NYC flights Mentioned that the aircraft will be configured with

“ a newly configured cabin featuring business premier, premium economy, economy skycouch and its new economy stretch legroom product.”

Do we think this is the new business seat? Have heard little from NZ on this recently.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1603
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Mon Jan 20, 2020 3:12 am

janders wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Did you book online or via an agent? What was your route? You should have got Business the whole way.


I'm sure it was all via the corporate travel department since employees belong to a major U.S defence contractor.

The point was as relayed by my colleague was that since ANZ does not offer biz cabin on the flight the group wanted between AKL-MEL, so the entire business went to AA/QF which could accommodate them in premium cabins on all segments.


It's disappointing, if your agent called sales support they would have been helped with this. No sure why they agent didn't get you onto Business the whole way as it's designed to. Can't make it the agents fault but it's a continual battle being a small player and trying to get agents to know this information.

IAH-MEL,ORD-MEL, SFO-MEL and LAX-MEL all connect to NZ123 in AKL which is operated daily by a 777-300ER. This type for NZ has 44 business class seats.

At a guess...

- The number of passengers outweighed the availability on your specific date
- You flew on a date when there was NZ121 which is A320/A321 and no business class. May have shown up first as it departs at 0700. NZ123 departs around 0830
- You flew a random day where NZ123 was scheduled for as a narrow body. I can't recall if this happened this year.
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2788
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:08 am

NZ6 wrote:
janders wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Did you book online or via an agent? What was your route? You should have got Business the whole way.


I'm sure it was all via the corporate travel department since employees belong to a major U.S defence contractor.

The point was as relayed by my colleague was that since ANZ does not offer biz cabin on the flight the group wanted between AKL-MEL, so the entire business went to AA/QF which could accommodate them in premium cabins on all segments.


It's disappointing, if your agent called sales support they would have been helped with this. No sure why they agent didn't get you onto Business the whole way as it's designed to. Can't make it the agents fault but it's a continual battle being a small player and trying to get agents to know this information.

IAH-MEL,ORD-MEL, SFO-MEL and LAX-MEL all connect to NZ123 in AKL which is operated daily by a 777-300ER. This type for NZ has 44 business class seats.

At a guess...

- The number of passengers outweighed the availability on your specific date
- You flew on a date when there was NZ121 which is A320/A321 and no business class. May have shown up first as it departs at 0700. NZ123 departs around 0830
- You flew a random day where NZ123 was scheduled for as a narrow body. I can't recall if this happened this year.


All of which suggests there is a cost to product inconsistency and it's realised at the more premium end of the market.

My suggestion for NZ.... rejig S2S product so it offers genuine choice - ie. unbubdle everything - and add in a premium cabin on all Tasman flights. Redo the entire look and feel of the airline from cabins (especially premium long haul) to uniforms to checkin to livery. If it's not dated it's a bit of a mess. I dunno about Airpoints anymore as I pretty much quit a few years back but the loyalty schemes seem to be key profit drivers for a lot of airlines. If it's not for NZ then I'd focus on that too.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1603
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Mon Jan 20, 2020 7:26 am

aerokiwi wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
janders wrote:

I'm sure it was all via the corporate travel department since employees belong to a major U.S defence contractor.

The point was as relayed by my colleague was that since ANZ does not offer biz cabin on the flight the group wanted between AKL-MEL, so the entire business went to AA/QF which could accommodate them in premium cabins on all segments.


It's disappointing, if your agent called sales support they would have been helped with this. No sure why they agent didn't get you onto Business the whole way as it's designed to. Can't make it the agents fault but it's a continual battle being a small player and trying to get agents to know this information.

IAH-MEL,ORD-MEL, SFO-MEL and LAX-MEL all connect to NZ123 in AKL which is operated daily by a 777-300ER. This type for NZ has 44 business class seats.

At a guess...

- The number of passengers outweighed the availability on your specific date
- You flew on a date when there was NZ121 which is A320/A321 and no business class. May have shown up first as it departs at 0700. NZ123 departs around 0830
- You flew a random day where NZ123 was scheduled for as a narrow body. I can't recall if this happened this year.


All of which suggests there is a cost to product inconsistency and it's realised at the more premium end of the market.

My suggestion for NZ.... rejig S2S product so it offers genuine choice - ie. unbubdle everything - and add in a premium cabin on all Tasman flights. Redo the entire look and feel of the airline from cabins (especially premium long haul) to uniforms to checkin to livery. If it's not dated it's a bit of a mess. I dunno about Airpoints anymore as I pretty much quit a few years back but the loyalty schemes seem to be key profit drivers for a lot of airlines. If it's not for NZ then I'd focus on that too.


Let's talk product inconsistency should we... two scenarios here.
NZ: Have the same Business Class across all widebody aircraft and none on narrowbody
QF: Have at least two forms of Business class.

So ORD-MEL, you can fly ORD-BNE-MEL on QF and receive two different types of J project. or ORD-AKL-MEL and should get the same but risk getting none depending on connections or your agent. I just looked online and could only get a 77W on NZ123 AKL-MEL from all American destinations.

Both have their faults. Pick a knowledgeable agent who's not afraid to ask questions of the airline or use tools provided to them.

As for a complete rejig of the S2S product, assuming it's needed. Is going completely unbundled the best way to go? Looking back to key objective of this approach, it's to appeal to the entry level market yet still offer the traditional full service experience.

Personally, I think Works Deluxe highlights the lack of need for a premium cabin and the gap between Seat+Bag and Works is too much.

They should look to either limit it to 3 products or have a 4th between Seat+Bag and the Works. Perhaps, meals of IFE but not both
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8347
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:57 am

With all this talk of expensive airfares, I just booked today a very good promo fare by New Zealand standards. AKL-MNL return in business class for $1620 with PR, which equates to about 10c a km. Two of us going for less than what CX/MH could offer for 1 person and about $900 less than what NZ/SQ was offering for 1 person and it still offers 4 across direct aisle seats and lie-flat, slippers and amenity kits.
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2788
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:58 am

NZ6 wrote:
aerokiwi wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

It's disappointing, if your agent called sales support they would have been helped with this. No sure why they agent didn't get you onto Business the whole way as it's designed to. Can't make it the agents fault but it's a continual battle being a small player and trying to get agents to know this information.

IAH-MEL,ORD-MEL, SFO-MEL and LAX-MEL all connect to NZ123 in AKL which is operated daily by a 777-300ER. This type for NZ has 44 business class seats.

At a guess...

- The number of passengers outweighed the availability on your specific date
- You flew on a date when there was NZ121 which is A320/A321 and no business class. May have shown up first as it departs at 0700. NZ123 departs around 0830
- You flew a random day where NZ123 was scheduled for as a narrow body. I can't recall if this happened this year.


All of which suggests there is a cost to product inconsistency and it's realised at the more premium end of the market.

My suggestion for NZ.... rejig S2S product so it offers genuine choice - ie. unbubdle everything - and add in a premium cabin on all Tasman flights. Redo the entire look and feel of the airline from cabins (especially premium long haul) to uniforms to checkin to livery. If it's not dated it's a bit of a mess. I dunno about Airpoints anymore as I pretty much quit a few years back but the loyalty schemes seem to be key profit drivers for a lot of airlines. If it's not for NZ then I'd focus on that too.


Let's talk product inconsistency should we... two scenarios here.
NZ: Have the same Business Class across all widebody aircraft and none on narrowbody
QF: Have at least two forms of Business class.

So ORD-MEL, you can fly ORD-BNE-MEL on QF and receive two different types of J project. or ORD-AKL-MEL and should get the same but risk getting none depending on connections or your agent. I just looked online and could only get a 77W on NZ123 AKL-MEL from all American destinations.

Both have their faults. Pick a knowledgeable agent who's not afraid to ask questions of the airline or use tools provided to them.

As for a complete rejig of the S2S product, assuming it's needed. Is going completely unbundled the best way to go? Looking back to key objective of this approach, it's to appeal to the entry level market yet still offer the traditional full service experience.

Personally, I think Works Deluxe highlights the lack of need for a premium cabin and the gap between Seat+Bag and Works is too much.

They should look to either limit it to 3 products or have a 4th between Seat+Bag and the Works. Perhaps, meals of IFE but not both


Product inconsistency with reference to having a premium cabin, not the seat itself. I don't think anyone expects a lie flat on the narrow body fleet, though a JetBlue style Mint offering would be interesting. Seats 2 Suit, even its name, grates. It doesn't always suit.

But fine. I guess everything's just dandy and no need for change - a predictable response from a complacent airline. I don't use NZ any more so don't really care but given the smug and stale approach with their hard product for the past 10 years, likely borne from the near monopoly domestic market, you shouldn't be surprised for NZ to hit its ceiling.

What it is now really is all NZ will ever be.
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 1038
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Mon Jan 20, 2020 9:29 pm

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/407 ... -third-day

I'm surprised no one has started moaning about WLG not having more than CAT-II. It usually pops up as a talking point after a few days of fog delays.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1603
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Tue Jan 21, 2020 12:17 am

aerokiwi wrote:
Product inconsistency with reference to having a premium cabin, not the seat itself. I don't think anyone expects a lie flat on the narrow body fleet, though a JetBlue style Mint offering would be interesting. Seats 2 Suit, even its name, grates. It doesn't always suit.

But fine. I guess everything's just dandy and no need for change - a predictable response from a complacent airline. I don't use NZ any more so don't really care but given the smug and stale approach with their hard product for the past 10 years, likely borne from the near monopoly domestic market, you shouldn't be surprised for NZ to hit its ceiling.

What it is now really is all NZ will ever be.


Product inconsistency is simply what it means - inconsistent products. You can't have it both ways as claim on one hand it's okay to have different products on narrow body and that's not inconsistent but when you have no product on narrowbody it all of a sudden becomes "product inconsistency". They both are. Just in different ways.

In my scenario when you're booked on a narrowbody connecting flight with either airline you're getting a different experience. Yes, most would prefer the QF experience in some form of J product over Y class on NZ but that's exactly why NZ uses widebody aircraft from AKL to ADL, MEL, SYD and BNE each morning that connect with inbound long haul from North and South America.

I hear what you're saying about people assuming narrowbody flights will have different products, but it's just as safe to assume or know the narrowbody flights are all economy. It spells it out to you, hence in the original example here they opted to fly QF/AA.

As for the suits to suit name, it's marketing! You can't seriously expect it to suit everyone 100% can you. I mean, do we go to the level of I want seat 24F, 2 movies and 1 TV show of my pre-selected choice, just the hot chicken with not side dishes, 2 Stella Beers with a 12.5kg checked bag? Because that's what you're suggesting if you insist the options need to live up to it's true in full!

I'm not sure what a "predictable response from a complacent airline". I'm not the airline. It's my personal view.I offered a few suggestions of how you could change the S2S model, do you want to put some ideas on the table?
 
Gasman
Posts: 2202
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Tue Jan 21, 2020 12:35 am

NZ6 wrote:
I hear what you're saying about people assuming narrowbody flights will have different products,


I'm not sure. Don't forget, popular wisdom (I'm not sure it's true actually, but for the sake of argument) suggests that your average punter has absolutely no clue what sort of aircraft they're flying on, even while they're actually flying it. All they know is they booked "business class".

Let's look at QF's on the 738. The decor is not particularly appealing. The seat doesn't recline much. Pitch isn't overly generous. The "lavatory for business class passengers" is used constantly by the 460 Y pax who traipse through the cabin constantly. You're sitting right adjacent to someone else. The catering, while good in itself is prepared literally 2 feet from the lavatory, so I generally don't touch it. WORLDS different from the A332 J product on the same routes which costs the same but gives you lie flat (I do use it on the Tasman), complete privacy, a big screen and a quieter cabin. In fact, on the 738 I almost prefer Y to J as I'm usually in row 4 which gives unlimited legroom and very often no neighbour. There is absolutely no reason why you couldn't put proper J seats on a narrow body. It's only the shareholders who would object.

While I don't really support NZ's dual approach either, at least they're honest about what their narrow bodies provide and for me, the differences between works deluxe and QF 738 J are trivial. Arguably, I'd prefer WD as you're guaranteed a vacant seat between you and your neighbour, and it's been proven scientifically that all people are gross.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4529
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:41 am

NZ6 wrote:
aerokiwi wrote:
Product inconsistency with reference to having a premium cabin, not the seat itself. I don't think anyone expects a lie flat on the narrow body fleet, though a JetBlue style Mint offering would be interesting. Seats 2 Suit, even its name, grates. It doesn't always suit.

But fine. I guess everything's just dandy and no need for change - a predictable response from a complacent airline. I don't use NZ any more so don't really care but given the smug and stale approach with their hard product for the past 10 years, likely borne from the near monopoly domestic market, you shouldn't be surprised for NZ to hit its ceiling.

What it is now really is all NZ will ever be.


Product inconsistency is simply what it means - inconsistent products. You can't have it both ways as claim on one hand it's okay to have different products on narrow body and that's not inconsistent but when you have no product on narrowbody it all of a sudden becomes "product inconsistency". They both are. Just in different ways.

In my scenario when you're booked on a narrowbody connecting flight with either airline you're getting a different experience. Yes, most would prefer the QF experience in some form of J product over Y class on NZ but that's exactly why NZ uses widebody aircraft from AKL to ADL, MEL, SYD and BNE each morning that connect with inbound long haul from North and South America.

I hear what you're saying about people assuming narrowbody flights will have different products, but it's just as safe to assume or know the narrowbody flights are all economy. It spells it out to you, hence in the original example here they opted to fly QF/AA.

As for the suits to suit name, it's marketing! You can't seriously expect it to suit everyone 100% can you. I mean, do we go to the level of I want seat 24F, 2 movies and 1 TV show of my pre-selected choice, just the hot chicken with not side dishes, 2 Stella Beers with a 12.5kg checked bag? Because that's what you're suggesting if you insist the options need to live up to it's true in full!

I'm not sure what a "predictable response from a complacent airline". I'm not the airline. It's my personal view.I offered a few suggestions of how you could change the S2S model, do you want to put some ideas on the table?

Then again WLG doesn’t get any NZ widebody service and CHC only very very limited. While they aren’t as significant for corporates, there must surely be some demand for business seats (especially certain government types). I’m not suggesting the A320s get it but the A321s probably should.
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1603
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:05 am

Zkpilot wrote:
Then again WLG doesn’t get any NZ widebody service and CHC only very very limited. While they aren’t as significant for corporates, there must surely be some demand for business seats (especially certain government types). I’m not suggesting the A320s get it but the A321s probably should.


Yet NZ won the All of Government contract with the narrowbody single class configuration. So I highly doubt it's an issue for them.

Also talk to anyone in working in the corporate contracts space they'll share with you just how many have travel policies which say travel under 4 hours travel must be in Y. Obviously the number of hours will vary but many will have economy on the Tasman as it's just not worth the expense.

That's not to say people don't, QF shows people will fly Business class but the vast majority are either long haul travelling via AKL, discussed above. Or reward points / upgrades.

I once heard, to have your 8 Business Seats you essentially remove 24 Y seats so have 14 less seats to sell. To do this, you're essentially removing two full rows and 1 seat from each Business class row. That's the 14. It was some time ago I was told this info, I very quick search on Seat Guru to find an example shows this exact scenario between SB and NZ which highlights what I'm saying.

With this in mind, do you go for option A, burn a few points, surprise / delight a few people but have 14 less seats to sell, arguably 24 less or option B and have more bums in seats and generate more money??

https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Airca ... 20-200.php
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Air_N ... s_A320.php
 
Gasman
Posts: 2202
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:16 am

NZ6 wrote:
With this in mind, do you go for option A, burn a few points, surprise / delight a few people but have 14 less seats to sell, arguably 24 less or option B and have more bums in seats and generate more money??

https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Airca ... 20-200.php
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Air_N ... s_A320.php


I think even you yourself would concede that this way of looking at it is very simplistic. There is a bigger picture here in terms of customer loyalty, brand image, product consistency - all of which may serve to improve the health of the airline (and therefore generate more money) but is just not as instantly tangible or measurable as 14 extra seats to sell.
 
User avatar
janders
Moderator
Posts: 1121
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:34 am

NZ6 wrote:
It's disappointing, if your agent called sales support they would have been helped with this. No sure why they agent didn't get you onto Business the whole way as it's designed to. Can't make it the agents fault but it's a continual battle being a small player and trying to get agents to know this information.

IAH-MEL,ORD-MEL, SFO-MEL and LAX-MEL all connect to NZ123 in AKL which is operated daily by a 777-300ER. This type for NZ has 44 business class seats.

At a guess...

- The number of passengers outweighed the availability on your specific date
- You flew on a date when there was NZ121 which is A320/A321 and no business class. May have shown up first as it departs at 0700. NZ123 departs around 0830
- You flew a random day where NZ123 was scheduled for as a narrow body. I can't recall if this happened this year.


I think you keep missing the point. The group was not connecting from the U.S. They arrived in NZ, performed some work, and then departed for Australia.

There was not available NZ service with a premium cabin at the time of day they desired to travel -- only the single class Airbus. On the other hand, QF had a flight within the preferred time frame with the premium cabin so they opted for AA/QF itinerary for their entire journey.
"We make war that we may live in peace." -- Aristotle
 
NTLDaz
Posts: 474
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 7:56 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:37 am

Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
With this in mind, do you go for option A, burn a few points, surprise / delight a few people but have 14 less seats to sell, arguably 24 less or option B and have more bums in seats and generate more money??

https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Airca ... 20-200.php
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Air_N ... s_A320.php


I think even you yourself would concede that this way of looking at it is very simplistic. There is a bigger picture here in terms of customer loyalty, brand image, product consistency - all of which may serve to improve the health of the airline (and therefore generate more money) but is just not as instantly tangible or measurable as 14 extra seats to sell.


I think in the case of QF 738 the case for business class is in big part about Australia. There's demand for business on domestic routes so it makes sense for all 738's to have it.

I'm guessing not near as much demand on NZ domestically.
 
aerohottie
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:52 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:52 am

Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
With this in mind, do you go for option A, burn a few points, surprise / delight a few people but have 14 less seats to sell, arguably 24 less or option B and have more bums in seats and generate more money??

https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Airca ... 20-200.php
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Air_N ... s_A320.php


I think even you yourself would concede that this way of looking at it is very simplistic. There is a bigger picture here in terms of customer loyalty, brand image, product consistency - all of which may serve to improve the health of the airline (and therefore generate more money) but is just not as instantly tangible or measurable as 14 extra seats to sell.

It's also important to note that AirCalin has 15 rows of Y seats aft of the mid cabin emergency exits, whereas Air NZ squeezes in 17 rows. This makes up for 12 of the 14 seat differential. So if the 8 business seats on Air Calin can bring in enough revenue for 10 economy seats then the Air Calin aircraft has more revenue potential (if it matched Air NZ's aft layout)
What?
 
NZ6
Posts: 1603
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Tue Jan 21, 2020 9:34 am

janders wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
It's disappointing, if your agent called sales support they would have been helped with this. No sure why they agent didn't get you onto Business the whole way as it's designed to. Can't make it the agents fault but it's a continual battle being a small player and trying to get agents to know this information.

IAH-MEL,ORD-MEL, SFO-MEL and LAX-MEL all connect to NZ123 in AKL which is operated daily by a 777-300ER. This type for NZ has 44 business class seats.

At a guess...

- The number of passengers outweighed the availability on your specific date
- You flew on a date when there was NZ121 which is A320/A321 and no business class. May have shown up first as it departs at 0700. NZ123 departs around 0830
- You flew a random day where NZ123 was scheduled for as a narrow body. I can't recall if this happened this year.


I think you keep missing the point. The group was not connecting from the U.S. They arrived in NZ, performed some work, and then departed for Australia.

There was not available NZ service with a premium cabin at the time of day they desired to travel -- only the single class Airbus. On the other hand, QF had a flight within the preferred time frame with the premium cabin so they opted for AA/QF itinerary for their entire journey.


Oh right, yes, re-read your posts and you do say working in AKL and then MEL. In that case, yip if you're looking for specific times then NZ may not suit if you must travel premium all the way.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1603
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Tue Jan 21, 2020 9:49 am

Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
With this in mind, do you go for option A, burn a few points, surprise / delight a few people but have 14 less seats to sell, arguably 24 less or option B and have more bums in seats and generate more money??

https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Airca ... 20-200.php
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Air_N ... s_A320.php


I think even you yourself would concede that this way of looking at it is very simplistic. There is a bigger picture here in terms of customer loyalty, brand image, product consistency - all of which may serve to improve the health of the airline (and therefore generate more money) but is just not as instantly tangible or measurable as 14 extra seats to sell.


Let's say 18 international A320/A321 aircraft on an average of say 3x sectors per day (yes some of the 18 are used domestically or are OAG but some also do 4-5 sectors in a calendar day. So on a loose average that's 756 seats a day, 275,000 seats a year.

Customer loyalty: Who though, on a serious note. As I said above, most corporates will be economy? The one off America who won't go economy but is one off anyway, do you drop 1/4 million seats (rounding down) to have good brand and happy upgraded customers?

Brand Image; the airline has won a bunch of awards around reputation both in NZ and Australia. So what suggests this is an issue?

Product Consistency: It's never been more consistent, narrowbody all Y, widebody same style J. Other carriers may offer J but is that consistent?

With the last two in mind, go back and consider trying to sell another 275,000 seats every year....
 
NZ6
Posts: 1603
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Tue Jan 21, 2020 9:52 am

aerohottie wrote:
Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
With this in mind, do you go for option A, burn a few points, surprise / delight a few people but have 14 less seats to sell, arguably 24 less or option B and have more bums in seats and generate more money??

https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Airca ... 20-200.php
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Air_N ... s_A320.php


I think even you yourself would concede that this way of looking at it is very simplistic. There is a bigger picture here in terms of customer loyalty, brand image, product consistency - all of which may serve to improve the health of the airline (and therefore generate more money) but is just not as instantly tangible or measurable as 14 extra seats to sell.

It's also important to note that AirCalin has 15 rows of Y seats aft of the mid cabin emergency exits, whereas Air NZ squeezes in 17 rows. This makes up for 12 of the 14 seat differential. So if the 8 business seats on Air Calin can bring in enough revenue for 10 economy seats then the Air Calin aircraft has more revenue potential (if it matched Air NZ's aft layout)


It's important to also note this was an EXAMPLE. I was not suggesting this was NZ's seat map if they went with J cabin. I was referring to the information I was advised off back around 2006-2008ish at a guess which said, it's 24Y or 8J... do the math.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4529
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Tue Jan 21, 2020 11:25 am

NZ6 wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
Then again WLG doesn’t get any NZ widebody service and CHC only very very limited. While they aren’t as significant for corporates, there must surely be some demand for business seats (especially certain government types). I’m not suggesting the A320s get it but the A321s probably should.


Yet NZ won the All of Government contract with the narrowbody single class configuration. So I highly doubt it's an issue for them.

Also talk to anyone in working in the corporate contracts space they'll share with you just how many have travel policies which say travel under 4 hours travel must be in Y. Obviously the number of hours will vary but many will have economy on the Tasman as it's just not worth the expense.

That's not to say people don't, QF shows people will fly Business class but the vast majority are either long haul travelling via AKL, discussed above. Or reward points / upgrades.

I once heard, to have your 8 Business Seats you essentially remove 24 Y seats so have 14 less seats to sell. To do this, you're essentially removing two full rows and 1 seat from each Business class row. That's the 14. It was some time ago I was told this info, I very quick search on Seat Guru to find an example shows this exact scenario between SB and NZ which highlights what I'm saying.

With this in mind, do you go for option A, burn a few points, surprise / delight a few people but have 14 less seats to sell, arguably 24 less or option B and have more bums in seats and generate more money??

https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Airca ... 20-200.php
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Air_N ... s_A320.php

Those seat plans in your example have 18 Y seats removed not 24 and you gain 8 J seats meaning a net loss of 10 seats but a gain in revenue (as has been discussed before - provided you include points burning which is a legitimate use) and a reduction in weight (potentially allowing for extra freight).
Other side of the coin is that you steal some high value pax back from the likes of QF too. There are a lot of boomers now with disposable income who don’t mind splashing out on things like this too.
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1603
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Tue Jan 21, 2020 8:31 pm

Zkpilot wrote:
Those seat plans in your example have 18 Y seats removed not 24 and you gain 8 J seats meaning a net loss of 10 seats but a gain in revenue (as has been discussed before - provided you include points burning which is a legitimate use) and a reduction in weight (potentially allowing for extra freight).
Other side of the coin is that you steal some high value pax back from the likes of QF too. There are a lot of boomers now with disposable income who don’t mind splashing out on things like this too.


Again, this was an example seat map, not the exact LOPA NZ would have used. I don't even know if this was ever drawn.

I can't work out your numbers either. NZ has 28 rows at 6 abreast which gives you your 168 Y seats. SB has 24 rows at 6 abreast with 144 Y seats, that's 4 rows or 24 seats smaller but add back in your 8 Business. So my math was slightly out yesterday, it's actually 16 seats out.

That aside, what I clearly recall being told was, to have 8 J seats you need to remove 4 rows of Y seats. That was fact at the time so not any specifics on how.

I don't dispute burning points is a legitimate use of them, but do you remove 1/4 millions seats from your market each year so people can "burn points"?

As for cargo, I've said this before, in 2019 cargo operating revenue was $390m, for the same period passenger revenue was $4,960m put anothre way cargo was under 8% of what passenger revenue was. So do you need to remove a quarter of a millions more seats for this "cargo". I wonder what would generate more revenue?

https://p-airnz.com/cms/assets/PDFs/air ... esults.pdf
 
User avatar
mercure1
Posts: 4854
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:13 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Tue Jan 21, 2020 9:57 pm

NZ cabin discussion reminds of Aer Lingus. These days they are all now single class and LCC product on narrowbodies.

I know they lost out on US origin beyond Dublin connections from corporate clients which dont desire to come off a premium lieflat seat onto a LCC bus for their onward connecting journey.

But it seems, EI long ago accepted this and does not push sales of Europe/British Isles connections as strongly as they did in past decades. Now focus more on Ireland O&D flow and fighting the big cadre of other Europe LCCs.
mercure f-wtcc
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4529
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Tue Jan 21, 2020 11:41 pm

NZ6 wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
Those seat plans in your example have 18 Y seats removed not 24 and you gain 8 J seats meaning a net loss of 10 seats but a gain in revenue (as has been discussed before - provided you include points burning which is a legitimate use) and a reduction in weight (potentially allowing for extra freight).
Other side of the coin is that you steal some high value pax back from the likes of QF too. There are a lot of boomers now with disposable income who don’t mind splashing out on things like this too.


Again, this was an example seat map, not the exact LOPA NZ would have used. I don't even know if this was ever drawn.

I can't work out your numbers either. NZ has 28 rows at 6 abreast which gives you your 168 Y seats. SB has 24 rows at 6 abreast with 144 Y seats, that's 4 rows or 24 seats smaller but add back in your 8 Business. So my math was slightly out yesterday, it's actually 16 seats out.

That aside, what I clearly recall being told was, to have 8 J seats you need to remove 4 rows of Y seats. That was fact at the time so not any specifics on how.

I don't dispute burning points is a legitimate use of them, but do you remove 1/4 millions seats from your market each year so people can "burn points"?

As for cargo, I've said this before, in 2019 cargo operating revenue was $390m, for the same period passenger revenue was $4,960m put anothre way cargo was under 8% of what passenger revenue was. So do you need to remove a quarter of a millions more seats for this "cargo". I wonder what would generate more revenue?

https://p-airnz.com/cms/assets/PDFs/air ... esults.pdf

To work our numbers on an A320 (A321 is similar) you need to look forward of the emergency exits as those seats are effectively fixed in place due to emergency requirements.
Using SBs seat layout is how you get that. You lose 3 rows not 4 unless you go for an overly generous J cabin (which is needed on shorthaul flights).
Weight is still weight and dictates fuel burn. The smaller planes are a bit more weight and volume restricted when it comes to freight so freeing up both payload and volume does allow the opportunity to grow that freight side of the business... which per kg is more profitable than passengers.
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1603
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:19 am

Zkpilot wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
Those seat plans in your example have 18 Y seats removed not 24 and you gain 8 J seats meaning a net loss of 10 seats but a gain in revenue (as has been discussed before - provided you include points burning which is a legitimate use) and a reduction in weight (potentially allowing for extra freight).
Other side of the coin is that you steal some high value pax back from the likes of QF too. There are a lot of boomers now with disposable income who don’t mind splashing out on things like this too.


Again, this was an example seat map, not the exact LOPA NZ would have used. I don't even know if this was ever drawn.

I can't work out your numbers either. NZ has 28 rows at 6 abreast which gives you your 168 Y seats. SB has 24 rows at 6 abreast with 144 Y seats, that's 4 rows or 24 seats smaller but add back in your 8 Business. So my math was slightly out yesterday, it's actually 16 seats out.

That aside, what I clearly recall being told was, to have 8 J seats you need to remove 4 rows of Y seats. That was fact at the time so not any specifics on how.

I don't dispute burning points is a legitimate use of them, but do you remove 1/4 millions seats from your market each year so people can "burn points"?

As for cargo, I've said this before, in 2019 cargo operating revenue was $390m, for the same period passenger revenue was $4,960m put anothre way cargo was under 8% of what passenger revenue was. So do you need to remove a quarter of a millions more seats for this "cargo". I wonder what would generate more revenue?

https://p-airnz.com/cms/assets/PDFs/air ... esults.pdf

To work our numbers on an A320 (A321 is similar) you need to look forward of the emergency exits as those seats are effectively fixed in place due to emergency requirements.
Using SBs seat layout is how you get that. You lose 3 rows not 4 unless you go for an overly generous J cabin (which is needed on shorthaul flights).
Weight is still weight and dictates fuel burn. The smaller planes are a bit more weight and volume restricted when it comes to freight so freeing up both payload and volume does allow the opportunity to grow that freight side of the business... which per kg is more profitable than passengers.


Like I said, this was not the exact LOPA so positioning of doors or any other fixed points was not part of the discussion for where and why I was given this information and I'm not an engineer or airbus employee. I'll say this again, the information I had when working on a particular bit of work was; if we were to have 8C class seats, it'll involve removing 4 rows or 24Y seats.

How that happens I can't say. It was not part of the information I had or why I was given it. You can believe it, dispute it... I don't mind. I've seen it, read it, discussed it in a meeting, I've probably still got it tucked away in a folder somewhere.

Weight is weight and weight is fuel burn and freight is more profitable than passengers is all potentially correct in isolation but is single vision thinking. How does this work across a network across a year?,Is there freight demand AKL-OOL, CHC-BNE, WLG-MEL or ZQN-SYD. What is the cargo and is it heavy/regular and reliable? How do you grow markets looking at capacity adjustments yet reducing operating costs? Look at how to run a network airline. Are you looking at this in terms of CASM and RSAM with load factors and yields, market-share and other critical metrics to ensure ultimately you meet the expectations of you shareholders and board.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3892
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Thu Jan 23, 2020 5:51 am

Does anyone know how many widebodies day on average are getting the stair/bus treatment at AKL?

I’ve just sat watching two flights get buses, seems like AKL never fixes the issues year after year.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8347
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Thu Jan 23, 2020 12:39 pm

zkncj wrote:
Does anyone know how many widebodies day on average are getting the stair/bus treatment at AKL?

I’ve just sat watching two flights get buses, seems like AKL never fixes the issues year after year.

It varies on days of the week, but invariably 2-3 arrivals every morning and 1-2 arrivals in the evening, plus a few departures. On a Friday or Sunday or periods of widespread off schedule operations or periods when 1 or more gates are out with scheduled maintenance/breakdowns in which case it is probably double that for AM/PM. On a monday or tuesday there might be one or only 1 in morning and one at night.
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2202
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:43 pm

zkncj wrote:
Does anyone know how many widebodies day on average are getting the stair/bus treatment at AKL?

I’ve just sat watching two flights get buses, seems like AKL never fixes the issues year after year.


You'd almost be forgiven for thinking AIAL has a complete unchallenged monopoly on commercial flights in the region ;)

The sooner NZ starts NZWP-SYD, NZWP-WLG and NZWP-CHC, the better for everyone.
 
haggis73
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:42 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Thu Jan 23, 2020 11:55 pm

The runway at AKL currently closed for all arrivals & Jet departures due to a FOD issue (Concrete) so the alert says. Plenty of aircraft in a hold at the moment.
Last edited by haggis73 on Fri Jan 24, 2020 12:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5571
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Fri Jan 24, 2020 12:13 am

haggis73 wrote:
The runway at AKL currently closed for all arrivals & Jet departures due to a FOD issue (Concrete) so the alert says. Plenty of aircraft in a hold at the moment.

Was closed for a good half hour. Just reopened a couple of minutes ago.

V/F
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh
 
a7ala
Posts: 359
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Fri Jan 24, 2020 12:39 am

haggis73 wrote:
The runway at AKL currently closed for all arrivals & Jet departures due to a FOD issue (Concrete) so the alert says. Plenty of aircraft in a hold at the moment.


Looks like Air Calin A330 diverted to WLG, and SQ A380 to OHA.
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5571
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Fri Jan 24, 2020 12:39 am

VirginFlyer wrote:
haggis73 wrote:
The runway at AKL currently closed for all arrivals & Jet departures due to a FOD issue (Concrete) so the alert says. Plenty of aircraft in a hold at the moment.

Was closed for a good half hour. Just reopened a couple of minutes ago.

V/F

SQ285 (A380) diverted to Ohakea and SB410 (A330-200) diverting to Wellington.

V/F
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh
 
zkncj
Posts: 3892
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Fri Jan 24, 2020 12:54 am

haggis73 wrote:
The runway at AKL currently closed for all arrivals & Jet departures due to a FOD issue (Concrete) so the alert says. Plenty of aircraft in a hold at the moment.


Looks like SQ went to OHA, must be OHA’s first A388?
 
mrkerr7474
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:55 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Fri Jan 24, 2020 12:57 am

Would be a neat photo to see SQ and Air Calin next to one another at WLG mind you!
 
NZ3
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2019 2:28 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:30 am

zkncj wrote:
haggis73 wrote:
The runway at AKL currently closed for all arrivals & Jet departures due to a FOD issue (Concrete) so the alert says. Plenty of aircraft in a hold at the moment.


Looks like SQ went to OHA, must be OHA’s first A388?


OHA had a Emirates A388 divert there in Jan 2017. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/888739 ... ay-closure
 
dhaliwal
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:41 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Fri Jan 24, 2020 2:50 am

https://www.flightradar24.com/SIA285/23a12054

Here is the diverted SQ A380 flight now taking off from OHA back to AKL.
 
NZ3
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2019 2:28 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Fri Jan 24, 2020 6:11 am

dhaliwal wrote:
https://www.flightradar24.com/SIA285/23a12054

Here is the diverted SQ A380 flight now taking off from OHA back to AKL.


Video of it taking off from OHA just posted. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixv9BMM6DeI

Roll starts at 57 Seconds.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1603
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Fri Jan 24, 2020 7:20 pm

Yesterdays' runway closure in AKL raises a issue.. the second runway that was to be built in time in time for the new millennium would have potentially avoided most diversions.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7517
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Fri Jan 24, 2020 8:33 pm

NZ6 wrote:
Yesterdays' runway closure in AKL raises a issue.. the second runway that was to be built in time in time for the new millennium would have potentially avoided most diversions.


Speaking of diversions QF8 A380 DFW/SYD is currently in AKL, I’m picking for several hours waiting for a new crew, already diverted to NAN this morning presumably for fuel. Poor pax on that one.
 
PA515
Posts: 1608
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Fri Jan 24, 2020 11:19 pm

Air NZ A320-232 ZK-OJK (msn 2445) is presently on a test flight south from CHC as NZ6231 after having not flown since 25 Nov 2019.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zk-ojk

Air NZ A320-232 ZK-OJD (msn 2130) is due to return to service on 27 Jan 2020 after three weeks of maintenance.

https://flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zk-ojd

PA515
 
Gasman
Posts: 2202
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Sat Jan 25, 2020 5:09 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Yesterdays' runway closure in AKL raises a issue.. the second runway that was to be built in time in time for the new millennium would have potentially avoided most diversions.


Speaking of diversions QF8 A380 DFW/SYD is currently in AKL, I’m picking for several hours waiting for a new crew, already diverted to NAN this morning presumably for fuel. Poor pax on that one.


Anyone know if it's left AKL yet? Doesn't seem to have according to FR24. Those poor pax are running at least 12 hours behind schedule, and get to experience the QF lounge at AKL. Frightening.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7517
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2020

Sat Jan 25, 2020 6:01 am

Gasman wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Yesterdays' runway closure in AKL raises a issue.. the second runway that was to be built in time in time for the new millennium would have potentially avoided most diversions.


Speaking of diversions QF8 A380 DFW/SYD is currently in AKL, I’m picking for several hours waiting for a new crew, already diverted to NAN this morning presumably for fuel. Poor pax on that one.


Anyone know if it's left AKL yet? Doesn't seem to have according to FR24. Those poor pax are running at least 12 hours behind schedule, and get to experience the QF lounge at AKL. Frightening.



Not yet, 1900 ETD, a lonnnng day for Those poor pax.

They sent a 789 from BNE, not sure if the new crew were on that but I’m guessing they were, though maybe not pilots as they don’t fly the A380 to BNE but maybe some live there.

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