NZ516
Posts: 271
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:15 am

zkojq wrote:
Does anyone know what's happening to ex ZK-OJE? Seems to have been stored in Marana, US but I can't find any info on it's future. Was my favourite international A320 - hope it's not being scrapped.
.


i believe it is to be scrapped as had problems with the inhold loading system.
 
NZ516
Posts: 271
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:19 am

zkncj wrote:
At least PVG has freed up an 789 for the time being.


Actually it will free up 1.5 787s. As that what is needed to run the daily Auckland to Shanghai route.
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1188
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:43 am

zkeoj wrote:
How many years have they been in service now, and still have constant issues? I feel really sorry for NZ - not their fault, but they bear the brunt.


I too feel sorry about all the chaos that has ensued but my sympathies are limited considering they've ordered more 787s....they could have diversified the fleet.[/quote]

That's why I asked if it is entirely engine related. If there are other issues, I think it was not a good move to buy more 787s. If it is solely engine related then it doesn't really matter, since the new orders have different engines...
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4082
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Tue Feb 11, 2020 4:46 am

NZ516 wrote:
zkojq wrote:
Does anyone know what's happening to ex ZK-OJE? Seems to have been stored in Marana, US but I can't find any info on it's future. Was my favourite international A320 - hope it's not being scrapped.
.


i believe it is to be scrapped as had problems with the inhold loading system.


:cry: Not what I was hoping to hear but thanks for sharing anyway.
First to fly the 787-9
 
mrkerr7474
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:55 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:39 am

Just heard the interesting whines (personal opinion) from SQ248 as it has departed 6 hours late today. Anyone with any Intel as to possible reason?
 
Whoopeecock
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 8:35 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Tue Feb 11, 2020 8:59 am

NZ31 (OKC) just diverted into PUQ after flying for about 5.5 hours. First time ANZ has been here? Assume medical?
 
zkncj
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Tue Feb 11, 2020 9:03 am

NZ516 wrote:
zkojq wrote:
Does anyone know what's happening to ex ZK-OJE? Seems to have been stored in Marana, US but I can't find any info on it's future. Was my favourite international A320 - hope it's not being scrapped.
.


i believe it is to be scrapped as had problems with the inhold loading system.


At 16 years old, don’t expect any of them that have major issues to saved.
 
wawaman
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 2:05 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:13 am

Whoopeecock wrote:
NZ31 (OKC) just diverted into PUQ after flying for about 5.5 hours. First time ANZ has been here? Assume medical?


Does anyone know when OKC is likely to continue the journey to AKL. Assume it should be soon if it was indeed a medical stop.
 
PA515
Posts: 1570
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:50 am

wawaman wrote:
Whoopeecock wrote:
NZ31 (OKC) just diverted into PUQ after flying for about 5.5 hours. First time ANZ has been here? Assume medical?


Does anyone know when OKC is likely to continue the journey to AKL. Assume it should be soon if it was indeed a medical stop.


They should have enough crew time. A few years back ZK-OKF could not retract the undercarriage and had to dump fuel before landing. They had the undercarrige pins removed, refueled and resumed the flight in about 90 min. If crew time becomes an issue, they could do PUQ-CHC and a crew could be positioned to CHC in time for their arrival. This is assuming it's a medical.

Edit: ZK-OKC will be returning to EZE as NZ31D. https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zk-okc

PA515
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8336
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:44 am

OKC is due back in AKL around 0830 as NZ31D.
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.
 
wawaman
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 2:05 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:50 pm

aerorobnz wrote:
OKC is due back in AKL around 0830 as NZ31D.


OKC looks to be heading back to EZE on Flightradar24
 
NZ6
Posts: 1368
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Tue Feb 11, 2020 8:09 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
zkncj wrote:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12306688

How does AIAL let the main/only runway get into an condition of this stage?


Because it's the same company who's been constantly behind demand with new international gates even though aviation demand has been growing since the GFC
Because it's the same company who's still using a domestic terminal 15 years after it reached operational capacity
Because they opted to prioritize non aviation assets in the mid 2000's.

Because they can't stick to a master plan.

Look at the state it's in.

Are they actually halting domestic economic growth in a small way but preventing JQ/NZ offering more services and/or larger aircraft.


And nothing will ever improve as long as AIAL own the airport, they are far move concerned with ROI to investors than providing the facilities the travelling public needs. One day an NZ govt are going to have to nationalise AKL, it should never have been privatised in the first instance.


I agree that's the core issue. Sadly we asked for this outcome when the airport was privatized.

Obviously with the hope that we'd see an owner who wanted a world class airport with world class facilities. Instead we got a world class shopping center with high end shops, that if I'm honest, there's some which I've never seen a customer in.

The concern is, this isn't new. I've said a heap of time before so my apologies for repeating myself here, I've got a 1992 Air Expo magazine at home. At the back there's a promo for the master plan which show's the double runway concept by the year 2000 and I'm sure we can all recall the model near the viewing deck before it was removed.

Since then...

- The shopping arcade has been rebuilt 3 or 4 times.
- Domestic terminal has been left to crumble under it's own pressure. With largely cosmetic being done only
- The Airport company has built significantly more non aviation assets than aviation ones, multiple hotels and an entire shopping center for starters (to which there are benefits but only if it's done as a AND and not an OR to core aviation services)
- The use of stairs and buses at AKLI has increased.
- Major works have been completed on the main runway where the main taxiway was upgraded and used as the temporary runway, we've gone full circle and needing another upgrade while still the second one sits as clay piles and gorse.

There has been a good amount of work done in other places but on a serious note, there are 3 major areas which need urgent attention in order are

- New domestic / shout haul and regional pier and gates
- Second runway with urgency which naturally inherits a tower upgrade
- Major overhaul of Pier A at AIAL.

I'd also say we've seen a lot of movement in the last 5 years but it's all after the horse as bolted sadly.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1368
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Tue Feb 11, 2020 8:11 pm

PA515 wrote:
wawaman wrote:
Whoopeecock wrote:
NZ31 (OKC) just diverted into PUQ after flying for about 5.5 hours. First time ANZ has been here? Assume medical?


Does anyone know when OKC is likely to continue the journey to AKL. Assume it should be soon if it was indeed a medical stop.


They should have enough crew time. A few years back ZK-OKF could not retract the undercarriage and had to dump fuel before landing. They had the undercarrige pins removed, refueled and resumed the flight in about 90 min. If crew time becomes an issue, they could do PUQ-CHC and a crew could be positioned to CHC in time for their arrival. This is assuming it's a medical.

Edit: ZK-OKC will be returning to EZE as NZ31D. https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zk-okc

PA515


Yes medical offload.

It returned to EZE due crew hours and will depart EZE 0715 local time and operate as NZ6061.
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5333
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Tue Feb 11, 2020 8:24 pm

NZ6 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

Because it's the same company who's been constantly behind demand with new international gates even though aviation demand has been growing since the GFC
Because it's the same company who's still using a domestic terminal 15 years after it reached operational capacity
Because they opted to prioritize non aviation assets in the mid 2000's.

Because they can't stick to a master plan.

Look at the state it's in.

Are they actually halting domestic economic growth in a small way but preventing JQ/NZ offering more services and/or larger aircraft.


And nothing will ever improve as long as AIAL own the airport, they are far move concerned with ROI to investors than providing the facilities the travelling public needs. One day an NZ govt are going to have to nationalise AKL, it should never have been privatised in the first instance.


I agree that's the core issue. Sadly we asked for this outcome when the airport was privatized.

Obviously with the hope that we'd see an owner who wanted a world class airport with world class facilities. Instead we got a world class shopping center with high end shops, that if I'm honest, there's some which I've never seen a customer in.

The concern is, this isn't new. I've said a heap of time before so my apologies for repeating myself here, I've got a 1992 Air Expo magazine at home. At the back there's a promo for the master plan which show's the double runway concept by the year 2000 and I'm sure we can all recall the model near the viewing deck before it was removed.

Since then...

- The shopping arcade has been rebuilt 3 or 4 times.
- Domestic terminal has been left to crumble under it's own pressure. With largely cosmetic being done only
- The Airport company has built significantly more non aviation assets than aviation ones, multiple hotels and an entire shopping center for starters (to which there are benefits but only if it's done as a AND and not an OR to core aviation services)
- The use of stairs and buses at AKLI has increased.
- Major works have been completed on the main runway where the main taxiway was upgraded and used as the temporary runway, we've gone full circle and needing another upgrade while still the second one sits as clay piles and gorse.

There has been a good amount of work done in other places but on a serious note, there are 3 major areas which need urgent attention in order are

- New domestic / shout haul and regional pier and gates
- Second runway with urgency which naturally inherits a tower upgrade
- Major overhaul of Pier A at AIAL.

I'd also say we've seen a lot of movement in the last 5 years but it's all after the horse as bolted sadly.

Pretty much spot on I think. If I recall correctly the air expo brochure was entitled "Vision 2010". 20 years seemed like such a long time away. The rumblings I keep hearing point to 2023 for the opening of the domestic jet terminal. As I mentioned up thread there are works going on in the old car park S area between the police station and the control tower which I believe are related to this.I wouldn't be too surprised to hear some announcements in the next few months.

As for the regional end of the domestic terminal, I wouldn't hold my breath. It would be interesting to see if someone ran a measurement of noise exposure to passengers in the corrugated iron walkways. Surely there is no way in which the level of noise passengers are exposed to while walking through there is either safe or acceptable.

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
 
User avatar
mercure1
Posts: 4594
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:13 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Wed Feb 12, 2020 5:31 pm

Here is the IFALPA safety notice about AKL runway conditions.

https://ifalpa.org/media/3503/20sab03-a ... osures.pdf

Suggest operators take an additional 20 minutes of hold fuel.
mercure f-wtcc
 
Gasman
Posts: 2147
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:29 pm

NZ6 wrote:
Sadly we asked for this outcome when the airport was privatized.


Agree entirely, and you could make the same argument over the privatisation of NZ. Albeit far less strongly, because unlike AKL, NZ actually does have some competition.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4405
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:26 pm

Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Sadly we asked for this outcome when the airport was privatized.


Agree entirely, and you could make the same argument over the privatisation of NZ. Albeit far less strongly, because unlike AKL, NZ actually does have some competition.

It’s a bit of a pity that NZ wasn’t allowed to own a stake in AKL back in the day.
64 types. 44 countries. 24 airlines.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2147
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:52 pm

Zkpilot wrote:
Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Sadly we asked for this outcome when the airport was privatized.


Agree entirely, and you could make the same argument over the privatisation of NZ. Albeit far less strongly, because unlike AKL, NZ actually does have some competition.

It’s a bit of a pity that NZ wasn’t allowed to own a stake in AKL back in the day.


Then forever more you would have had every other airline using AKL screaming "unfair" to the commerce commission.

It's very difficult to see how privatising a utility like an airport that is free from competition benefits anyone except the shareholders - and the previous owner (the government) in terms of a short term cash injection. This is based on an extrapolation of the capitalist free market model which in my view, was an extrapolation too far.

Similarly for NZ. Prior to privatisation profits were reinvested in the airline. Its balance sheet occasionally required government help, but 2001 aside which involved a unique set of circumstances, that help was never particularly significant. And no one was arguing the airline's overall product and delivery of service was anything less than exemplary.

With privatisation, the whole focus shifts. The airline then becomes nothing more than a vehicle for generating revenue for shareholders. If they could somehow do that without the tedious hassle of flying people around, they would. Routes where there hasn't been significant competition (like AKL-USA until a few years ago) are massively fleeced. And so they should be. NZ should charge as much as the market can stand under this model. But I think the traveling public - who are surely what an airline is "for" - only lose under privatisation, and it is here I think where the capitalist model is broken.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2147
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:53 pm

Zkpilot wrote:
Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Sadly we asked for this outcome when the airport was privatized.


Agree entirely, and you could make the same argument over the privatisation of NZ. Albeit far less strongly, because unlike AKL, NZ actually does have some competition.

It’s a bit of a pity that NZ wasn’t allowed to own a stake in AKL back in the day.


Then forever more you would have had every other airline using AKL screaming "unfair" to the commerce commission.

It's very difficult to see how privatising a utility like an airport that is free from competition benefits anyone except the shareholders - and the previous owner (the government) in terms of a short term cash injection. This is based on an extrapolation of the capitalist free market model which in my view, was an extrapolation too far.

Similarly for NZ. Prior to privatisation profits were reinvested in the airline. Its balance sheet occasionally required government help, but 2001 aside which involved a unique set of circumstances, that help was never particularly significant. And no one was arguing the airline's overall product and delivery of service was anything less than exemplary.

With privatisation, the whole focus shifts. The airline then becomes nothing more than a vehicle for generating revenue for shareholders. If they could somehow do that without the tedious hassle of flying people around, they would. Routes where there hasn't been significant competition (like AKL-USA until a few years ago) are massively fleeced. And so they should be. NZ should charge as much as the market can stand under this model. But I think the traveling public - who are surely what an airline is "for" - only lose under privatisation, and it is here I think where the capitalist model is broken.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1368
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:33 pm

VirginFlyer wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

And nothing will ever improve as long as AIAL own the airport, they are far move concerned with ROI to investors than providing the facilities the travelling public needs. One day an NZ govt are going to have to nationalise AKL, it should never have been privatised in the first instance.


I agree that's the core issue. Sadly we asked for this outcome when the airport was privatized.

Obviously with the hope that we'd see an owner who wanted a world class airport with world class facilities. Instead we got a world class shopping center with high end shops, that if I'm honest, there's some which I've never seen a customer in.

The concern is, this isn't new. I've said a heap of time before so my apologies for repeating myself here, I've got a 1992 Air Expo magazine at home. At the back there's a promo for the master plan which show's the double runway concept by the year 2000 and I'm sure we can all recall the model near the viewing deck before it was removed.

Since then...

- The shopping arcade has been rebuilt 3 or 4 times.
- Domestic terminal has been left to crumble under it's own pressure. With largely cosmetic being done only
- The Airport company has built significantly more non aviation assets than aviation ones, multiple hotels and an entire shopping center for starters (to which there are benefits but only if it's done as a AND and not an OR to core aviation services)
- The use of stairs and buses at AKLI has increased.
- Major works have been completed on the main runway where the main taxiway was upgraded and used as the temporary runway, we've gone full circle and needing another upgrade while still the second one sits as clay piles and gorse.

There has been a good amount of work done in other places but on a serious note, there are 3 major areas which need urgent attention in order are

- New domestic / shout haul and regional pier and gates
- Second runway with urgency which naturally inherits a tower upgrade
- Major overhaul of Pier A at AIAL.

I'd also say we've seen a lot of movement in the last 5 years but it's all after the horse as bolted sadly.

Pretty much spot on I think. If I recall correctly the air expo brochure was entitled "Vision 2010". 20 years seemed like such a long time away. The rumblings I keep hearing point to 2023 for the opening of the domestic jet terminal. As I mentioned up thread there are works going on in the old car park S area between the police station and the control tower which I believe are related to this.I wouldn't be too surprised to hear some announcements in the next few months.

As for the regional end of the domestic terminal, I wouldn't hold my breath. It would be interesting to see if someone ran a measurement of noise exposure to passengers in the corrugated iron walkways. Surely there is no way in which the level of noise passengers are exposed to while walking through there is either safe or acceptable.

V/F


It's up in the roof at home and I have a feeling you could be right with 2010 vision, was it the runway was to be built by 2000.. it's a bit blurry but ultimately the point remains. It was known in 1992 we'd need a second runway but we've waited nearly 30 years and not done anything about it until the last minute.
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5333
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:43 pm

NZ6 wrote:
VirginFlyer wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

I agree that's the core issue. Sadly we asked for this outcome when the airport was privatized.

Obviously with the hope that we'd see an owner who wanted a world class airport with world class facilities. Instead we got a world class shopping center with high end shops, that if I'm honest, there's some which I've never seen a customer in.

The concern is, this isn't new. I've said a heap of time before so my apologies for repeating myself here, I've got a 1992 Air Expo magazine at home. At the back there's a promo for the master plan which show's the double runway concept by the year 2000 and I'm sure we can all recall the model near the viewing deck before it was removed.

Since then...

- The shopping arcade has been rebuilt 3 or 4 times.
- Domestic terminal has been left to crumble under it's own pressure. With largely cosmetic being done only
- The Airport company has built significantly more non aviation assets than aviation ones, multiple hotels and an entire shopping center for starters (to which there are benefits but only if it's done as a AND and not an OR to core aviation services)
- The use of stairs and buses at AKLI has increased.
- Major works have been completed on the main runway where the main taxiway was upgraded and used as the temporary runway, we've gone full circle and needing another upgrade while still the second one sits as clay piles and gorse.

There has been a good amount of work done in other places but on a serious note, there are 3 major areas which need urgent attention in order are

- New domestic / shout haul and regional pier and gates
- Second runway with urgency which naturally inherits a tower upgrade
- Major overhaul of Pier A at AIAL.

I'd also say we've seen a lot of movement in the last 5 years but it's all after the horse as bolted sadly.

Pretty much spot on I think. If I recall correctly the air expo brochure was entitled "Vision 2010". 20 years seemed like such a long time away. The rumblings I keep hearing point to 2023 for the opening of the domestic jet terminal. As I mentioned up thread there are works going on in the old car park S area between the police station and the control tower which I believe are related to this.I wouldn't be too surprised to hear some announcements in the next few months.

As for the regional end of the domestic terminal, I wouldn't hold my breath. It would be interesting to see if someone ran a measurement of noise exposure to passengers in the corrugated iron walkways. Surely there is no way in which the level of noise passengers are exposed to while walking through there is either safe or acceptable.

V/F


It's up in the roof at home and I have a feeling you could be right with 2010 vision, was it the runway was to be built by 2000.. it's a bit blurry but ultimately the point remains. It was known in 1992 we'd need a second runway but we've waited nearly 30 years and not done anything about it until the last minute.

Mine is also buried in a box somewhere. From memory I think you are right about the 2000 date for the opening of the runway, at a partial length; 2010 was then the full build out of the vision. The second runway definitely can’t come soon enough. Delays due to ATC sequencing in Auckland are fairly common especially for the turboprop operators. Having two runways will vastly improve the efficiency of the whole operation. The ability to run SODPROPS (simultaneous opposite direction parallel runway operations) in low wind and low traffic conditions (especially overnight) will also have significant noise benefits on the communities to the east of the airport.

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
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4405
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:49 pm

Gasman wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
Gasman wrote:

Agree entirely, and you could make the same argument over the privatisation of NZ. Albeit far less strongly, because unlike AKL, NZ actually does have some competition.

It’s a bit of a pity that NZ wasn’t allowed to own a stake in AKL back in the day.


Then forever more you would have had every other airline using AKL screaming "unfair" to the commerce commission.

It's very difficult to see how privatising a utility like an airport that is free from competition benefits anyone except the shareholders - and the previous owner (the government) in terms of a short term cash injection. This is based on an extrapolation of the capitalist free market model which in my view, was an extrapolation too far.

Similarly for NZ. Prior to privatisation profits were reinvested in the airline. Its balance sheet occasionally required government help, but 2001 aside which involved a unique set of circumstances, that help was never particularly significant. And no one was arguing the airline's overall product and delivery of service was anything less than exemplary.

With privatisation, the whole focus shifts. The airline then becomes nothing more than a vehicle for generating revenue for shareholders. If they could somehow do that without the tedious hassle of flying people around, they would. Routes where there hasn't been significant competition (like AKL-USA until a few years ago) are massively fleeced. And so they should be. NZ should charge as much as the market can stand under this model. But I think the traveling public - who are surely what an airline is "for" - only lose under privatisation, and it is here I think where the capitalist model is broken.

Oh for sure AKL should never have been privatised, but since it was I was just saying would’ve been good if NZ could’ve bought a stake - would have kept a lid on airport charges and NZ would have more of a say in the customer experience rather than the sh#tshow AKL is now.
64 types. 44 countries. 24 airlines.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1368
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:13 pm

Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Sadly we asked for this outcome when the airport was privatized.


Agree entirely, and you could make the same argument over the privatisation of NZ. Albeit far less strongly, because unlike AKL, NZ actually does have some competition.


You've hit the nail on the head with the word competition.

In both scenarios private or state ownership NZ has competition to keep itself honest so it can remain competitive. This involves having a customer satisfactory products on and off the aircraft, good safety etc.

I'd slightly change my position from the other day, if the airport was state owned, there's not certainty it'd be in better condition that it is now.

I'd love to see a model where

- AIAL was organisation accountable core aviation assets, gas lines, taxiways, gates, runways etc and was state owned.
- A separate organisation 'AIAL Developments' was reasonable for other asset management such as hotels, parking, off terminal shopping and industrial estate
- 'AIAL Developements' could operate a terminal within AIAL but there was a potential space for a private terminal operator to provide competition. Thus allowing airlines to determine where they rent space and so forth.

There's a lot of detail I've not covered obviously. But ultimately it's about making AIAL accountable for what we need to rely on, core services. Then having someone independent manage all the other assets and being able to drive competition from both airlines and passengers.

If AIAL had a private terminal X right now that was on par with the likes of HKG or ICN etc - I'm pretty confident we'd have something better than what we do.

I've had this thought for several years and goes back to a early stage concept where NZ considered building it's own private short haul terminal.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2147
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Wed Feb 12, 2020 11:18 pm

NZ6 wrote:
I'd slightly change my position from the other day, if the airport was state owned, there's not certainty it'd be in better condition that it is now.


Absolutely there's not that certainty, and there's also a possibility that the government would use it as tool to generate revenue for the consolidated fund in the same was AIAL is currently to shareholders.

NZ6 wrote:
I'd love to see a model where

- AIAL was organisation accountable core aviation assets, gas lines, taxiways, gates, runways etc and was state owned.
- A separate organisation 'AIAL Developments' was reasonable for other asset management such as hotels, parking, off terminal shopping and industrial estate
- 'AIAL Developements' could operate a terminal within AIAL but there was a potential space for a private terminal operator to provide competition. Thus allowing airlines to determine where they rent space and so forth.


I like it.
 
a7ala
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Thu Feb 13, 2020 4:22 am

Wellington Airport has installed 9 runway sensors to report real-time runway conditions (first airport in Southern Hemisphere apparently). At this stage the sensors are collecting information and used for monitoring, but its hoped in the near future the condition will be available directly to cockpit for more accurate take-off and landing assessment.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/travel/2 ... tions.html
 
pbm
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:38 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:36 am

The whole AKL is holding back money/not developing enough is a fascinating conversation.

Given the Commerce Commission analyses their performance from a ROI perspective, and capacity/customer satisfaction perspective, the light handed approach in theory prevents them from over-spending on assets, but also ensuring they deliver a quality service.

In addition, AKL is required to consult with substantial customers regarding pricing and future development at AKL to feed into their plans. It would be very interesting to see Air NZ's view on the proposed developments and whether they are necessary or not? It wouldn't surprise me if Air NZ was saying that they don't want the new domestic terminal.

From memory, AKL had a little telling off from the Commerce Commission which took a view that they would earn too much from their latest pricing round and their pricing was dropped. I wonder if they are trying to provide average facilities for a bit to argue that the ROI they are receiving it too low to justify the investment?

There are so many variables that could be impacting the development discussion!
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4405
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:43 am

pbm wrote:
The whole AKL is holding back money/not developing enough is a fascinating conversation.

Given the Commerce Commission analyses their performance from a ROI perspective, and capacity/customer satisfaction perspective, the light handed approach in theory prevents them from over-spending on assets, but also ensuring they deliver a quality service.

In addition, AKL is required to consult with substantial customers regarding pricing and future development at AKL to feed into their plans. It would be very interesting to see Air NZ's view on the proposed developments and whether they are necessary or not? It wouldn't surprise me if Air NZ was saying that they don't want the new domestic terminal.

From memory, AKL had a little telling off from the Commerce Commission which took a view that they would earn too much from their latest pricing round and their pricing was dropped. I wonder if they are trying to provide average facilities for a bit to argue that the ROI they are receiving it too low to justify the investment?

There are so many variables that could be impacting the development discussion!

NZ probably wouldn’t mind if they had the dom terminal to themselves, but since they don’t and suffer delays wAiting for gate space etc and customers not enjoying the overcrowded terminal they most definitely want the new terminal to be built if not just to get JQ out of their way.
64 types. 44 countries. 24 airlines.
 
NPL8800
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 5:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:45 am

pbm wrote:
The whole AKL is holding back money/not developing enough is a fascinating conversation.

Given the Commerce Commission analyses their performance from a ROI perspective, and capacity/customer satisfaction perspective, the light handed approach in theory prevents them from over-spending on assets, but also ensuring they deliver a quality service.

In addition, AKL is required to consult with substantial customers regarding pricing and future development at AKL to feed into their plans. It would be very interesting to see Air NZ's view on the proposed developments and whether they are necessary or not? It wouldn't surprise me if Air NZ was saying that they don't want the new domestic terminal.

From memory, AKL had a little telling off from the Commerce Commission which took a view that they would earn too much from their latest pricing round and their pricing was dropped. I wonder if they are trying to provide average facilities for a bit to argue that the ROI they are receiving it too low to justify the investment?

There are so many variables that could be impacting the development discussion!


Precisely, there is a considerable amount of truth in what you have raised, the airlines are far from innocent in this debate and are one of the major groups that are constantly holding back development, they want everything yesterday but want to pay nothing for it. They waste a considerable amount of time when it comes to negotiating the pricing levels, some negotiations have been dragging on for over 2 years, and then once these have finally wrapped up almost like clockwork you have the likes of BARNZ starting their propaganda campaigns that they are being fleeced and on it goes. I find this particularly interesting considering that their members have supposedly just been through negotiations in good faith and presumably they have agreed to the terms so why complain. I am yet to see BARNZ contribute anything moderately constructive to the industry, let alone finding some new arguments vs rehashing old ones.

On the topic of central government intervention that will achieve nothing, the 50/50 ownership models that many regional airports have just wrestled out of are testament to this. After enduring decades of being run into the ground with little to no investment support these airports are finally getting the terminal and associated infrastructure overhauls that they have needed for decades, thanks to local council support and funding, not central. NPL is one of numerous examples of this. If people want more political pressure, then local pressure from AKL council would be more meaningful and more likely to have tangible benefits than central.

I'd be quite interested to know more about Changi's funding models since it is constantly referred to, and what the airlines have to say about their expenditure and pricing, these large mega terminals every decade cannot come cheap. I also wonder how necessary some of them are and what the true capacity of their terminal infrastructure would be if they say moved from the A rating for passenger comfort to a B, would T5 actually become redundant. Food for thought.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12559
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Thu Feb 13, 2020 8:57 am

NZ6 wrote:
Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Sadly we asked for this outcome when the airport was privatized.




I'd slightly change my position from the other day, if the airport was state owned, there's not certainty it'd be in better condition that it is now.

I'd love to see a model where

- AIAL was organisation accountable core aviation assets, gas lines, taxiways, gates, runways etc and was state owned.
- A separate organisation 'AIAL Developments' was reasonable for other asset management such as hotels, parking, off terminal shopping and industrial estate
- 'AIAL Developements' could operate a terminal within AIAL but there was a potential space for a private terminal operator to provide competition. Thus allowing airlines to determine where they rent space and so forth.



There is a model it's called AVINOR, Norway has excellent airports, almost all the airports in the country are owned by AVINOR, this is the model New Zealand should have followed. AVINOR is govt owned, however the profits AVINOR make are ploughed back into airport developments.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1368
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:22 pm

pbm wrote:
The whole AKL is holding back money/not developing enough is a fascinating conversation.

Given the Commerce Commission analyses their performance from a ROI perspective, and capacity/customer satisfaction perspective, the light handed approach in theory prevents them from over-spending on assets, but also ensuring they deliver a quality service.

In addition, AKL is required to consult with substantial customers regarding pricing and future development at AKL to feed into their plans. It would be very interesting to see Air NZ's view on the proposed developments and whether they are necessary or not? It wouldn't surprise me if Air NZ was saying that they don't want the new domestic terminal.

From memory, AKL had a little telling off from the Commerce Commission which took a view that they would earn too much from their latest pricing round and their pricing was dropped. I wonder if they are trying to provide average facilities for a bit to argue that the ROI they are receiving it too low to justify the investment?

There are so many variables that could be impacting the development discussion!


You raise some valid points, but just because the commerce commission analyzes their performance (as you put it) and/or just because AIAL consult with other groups, that doesn't mean it's making the best or right choices.

I think we need to look at what role the commerce commission plays and what the actual issues are. Things such as, Is AIAL charging fees beyond reasonable market levels due to the natural monopoly or better put the market advantage it has.

A good example of this is the second hotel. Why is this a priority? Changi only has the Crowne Plaza and the transit hotel. Auckland has the Novotel and Ibis plus many more around the airport boundary like Changi. But Airport to CBD is about 20km vs 26km, passenger movements are 68m vs 21m and one is a true hub where the other is largely end of line. The commerce commission can't or won't stop AIAL from building the Grand Mercure. But under the right model would there be more investment elsewhere. That's my point.

We also need to remember the commerce commission is there to investigate any kind of breach under the Commerce Act. If or how this reflects through to customer comfort or satisfaction is a minefield.

NZ not wanting a new terminal is way off the mark.
- ATR's being forced to Intl stands
- Baggage Belt well over capacity, you see this with almost daily stoppages and checkin restrictions in peak times.
- Gate occupancy near capacity daily and at capacity during peak to a point where no additional flights can be added
- There an immediate issue where terminal/avsec congestion is demanding an earlier check in but the earlier check in is adding more pending bags into the baggage system crashing as per point 2.
- Lounges are beyond full and NZ has been forced to create a regional lounge.
- Not enough regional gates, point 3 was air bridges
- Unable to 787's on domestic flights from the domestic terminal during major events / disrupts. Previously the 767-200's could be used from domestic stands and the desire/need to use them has also increased.
- If/when 787's are used, the issue in point 2 and 4 are made worse.
- Customer satisfaction is LOW
- Unable to expand check in and checking dwell time is growing due to higher number of passengers using the same number of kiosks and kiosk numbers are unable to grow at the rate passenger demand has.
- Outside the taxi and pick up /drop off zone is horrendous and hideously over capacity. It's worse the most american airports.

As I said before, there was a project which was squashed some time ago, 2012-2014 ish - it was a feasibility study into the customer, commercial and operational benefits of NZ building it's own dedicated terminal.
 
pbm
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:38 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:51 am

NZ6 wrote:
pbm wrote:
The whole AKL is holding back money/not developing enough is a fascinating conversation.

Given the Commerce Commission analyses their performance from a ROI perspective, and capacity/customer satisfaction perspective, the light handed approach in theory prevents them from over-spending on assets, but also ensuring they deliver a quality service.

In addition, AKL is required to consult with substantial customers regarding pricing and future development at AKL to feed into their plans. It would be very interesting to see Air NZ's view on the proposed developments and whether they are necessary or not? It wouldn't surprise me if Air NZ was saying that they don't want the new domestic terminal.

From memory, AKL had a little telling off from the Commerce Commission which took a view that they would earn too much from their latest pricing round and their pricing was dropped. I wonder if they are trying to provide average facilities for a bit to argue that the ROI they are receiving it too low to justify the investment?

There are so many variables that could be impacting the development discussion!


You raise some valid points, but just because the commerce commission analyzes their performance (as you put it) and/or just because AIAL consult with other groups, that doesn't mean it's making the best or right choices.

I think we need to look at what role the commerce commission plays and what the actual issues are. Things such as, Is AIAL charging fees beyond reasonable market levels due to the natural monopoly or better put the market advantage it has.

A good example of this is the second hotel. Why is this a priority? Changi only has the Crowne Plaza and the transit hotel. Auckland has the Novotel and Ibis plus many more around the airport boundary like Changi. But Airport to CBD is about 20km vs 26km, passenger movements are 68m vs 21m and one is a true hub where the other is largely end of line. The commerce commission can't or won't stop AIAL from building the Grand Mercure. But under the right model would there be more investment elsewhere. That's my point.

We also need to remember the commerce commission is there to investigate any kind of breach under the Commerce Act. If or how this reflects through to customer comfort or satisfaction is a minefield.

NZ not wanting a new terminal is way off the mark.
- ATR's being forced to Intl stands
- Baggage Belt well over capacity, you see this with almost daily stoppages and checkin restrictions in peak times.
- Gate occupancy near capacity daily and at capacity during peak to a point where no additional flights can be added
- There an immediate issue where terminal/avsec congestion is demanding an earlier check in but the earlier check in is adding more pending bags into the baggage system crashing as per point 2.
- Lounges are beyond full and NZ has been forced to create a regional lounge.
- Not enough regional gates, point 3 was air bridges
- Unable to 787's on domestic flights from the domestic terminal during major events / disrupts. Previously the 767-200's could be used from domestic stands and the desire/need to use them has also increased.
- If/when 787's are used, the issue in point 2 and 4 are made worse.
- Customer satisfaction is LOW
- Unable to expand check in and checking dwell time is growing due to higher number of passengers using the same number of kiosks and kiosk numbers are unable to grow at the rate passenger demand has.
- Outside the taxi and pick up /drop off zone is horrendous and hideously over capacity. It's worse the most american airports.

As I said before, there was a project which was squashed some time ago, 2012-2014 ish - it was a feasibility study into the customer, commercial and operational benefits of NZ building it's own dedicated terminal.


Of course some of these things are a minefield as there is no simple answer to it, even financially, what is an acceptable return on investment is incredibly challenging. And the Commerce Commission is there to do more than look at breaches of the Commerce Act - they are required to provide studies and information into pricing and returns on regulated industries and companies which includes AKL. The most recent report on their pricing and planning has this section "Investment efficiency: is Auckland Airport investing in assets appropriately, efficiently and at a quality that reflects consumer demands?" which has some interesting reading with a position that is quite different to some of the views here.

It is also hard to make a comment about the best or right choices as those will vary from person to person and stakeholder to stakeholder.

I would've thought looking at a Hotel development is irrelevant to deciding if they should invest in further development of aeronautical assets given they aren't severely capital constrained. The only reason to not invest would be if an acceptable return doesn't exist - which could be their view given the commerce commissions recent views on the returns of the aeronautical business.

I am certainly not saying that Air NZ doesn't want a new terminal nor are the issues you raise not true. I am sure Air NZ does want a better/new terminal, the bigger question is, do they (and ultimately their customers and/or shareholders) want to pay for a new terminal. It would be completely irrational and irresponsible of AKL to not build a terminal if customers want it and the return is acceptable. So why haven't they done it?

Out of interest where are your customer satisfaction ratings from? I would've guessed that the ratings were horrendous as well, because we all know the domestic terminal is a crap experience. I decided to take a look on page 43 of the link below and they weren't that bad (although, no idea who they're using as benchmarks. https://corporate.aucklandairport.co.nz ... B72232EA6C
 
zkncj
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:22 am

China built an 1000 bed hospital in around two weeks, ok it was an prefab basic building.

Yet AKL is still using an temporary cargo terminal as there main domestic terminal 50 years later.

Is it really hard to make an new domestic terminal from scratch and have it open within an couple of years.
 
pbm
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:38 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:53 am

zkncj wrote:
China built an 1000 bed hospital in around two weeks, ok it was an prefab basic building.

Yet AKL is still using an temporary cargo terminal as there main domestic terminal 50 years later.

Is it really hard to make an new domestic terminal from scratch and have it open within an couple of years.


You could apply the Chinese comparison to just about any infrastructure project in Western world. The Chinese are exceptionally fast at building infrastructure and I am sure there are plenty of hidden costs associated with the speed they build their infrastructure.

Ultimately, they have to build something their customers want, when they want it, at a price they're willing to pay, to get the return the airport wants. As much as we all hate the domestic terminal, because it is crap, those things have to happen.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1368
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:08 am

pbm wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
pbm wrote:
The whole AKL is holding back money/not developing enough is a fascinating conversation.

Given the Commerce Commission analyses their performance from a ROI perspective, and capacity/customer satisfaction perspective, the light handed approach in theory prevents them from over-spending on assets, but also ensuring they deliver a quality service.

In addition, AKL is required to consult with substantial customers regarding pricing and future development at AKL to feed into their plans. It would be very interesting to see Air NZ's view on the proposed developments and whether they are necessary or not? It wouldn't surprise me if Air NZ was saying that they don't want the new domestic terminal.

From memory, AKL had a little telling off from the Commerce Commission which took a view that they would earn too much from their latest pricing round and their pricing was dropped. I wonder if they are trying to provide average facilities for a bit to argue that the ROI they are receiving it too low to justify the investment?

There are so many variables that could be impacting the development discussion!


You raise some valid points, but just because the commerce commission analyzes their performance (as you put it) and/or just because AIAL consult with other groups, that doesn't mean it's making the best or right choices.

I think we need to look at what role the commerce commission plays and what the actual issues are. Things such as, Is AIAL charging fees beyond reasonable market levels due to the natural monopoly or better put the market advantage it has.

A good example of this is the second hotel. Why is this a priority? Changi only has the Crowne Plaza and the transit hotel. Auckland has the Novotel and Ibis plus many more around the airport boundary like Changi. But Airport to CBD is about 20km vs 26km, passenger movements are 68m vs 21m and one is a true hub where the other is largely end of line. The commerce commission can't or won't stop AIAL from building the Grand Mercure. But under the right model would there be more investment elsewhere. That's my point.

We also need to remember the commerce commission is there to investigate any kind of breach under the Commerce Act. If or how this reflects through to customer comfort or satisfaction is a minefield.

NZ not wanting a new terminal is way off the mark.
- ATR's being forced to Intl stands
- Baggage Belt well over capacity, you see this with almost daily stoppages and checkin restrictions in peak times.
- Gate occupancy near capacity daily and at capacity during peak to a point where no additional flights can be added
- There an immediate issue where terminal/avsec congestion is demanding an earlier check in but the earlier check in is adding more pending bags into the baggage system crashing as per point 2.
- Lounges are beyond full and NZ has been forced to create a regional lounge.
- Not enough regional gates, point 3 was air bridges
- Unable to 787's on domestic flights from the domestic terminal during major events / disrupts. Previously the 767-200's could be used from domestic stands and the desire/need to use them has also increased.
- If/when 787's are used, the issue in point 2 and 4 are made worse.
- Customer satisfaction is LOW
- Unable to expand check in and checking dwell time is growing due to higher number of passengers using the same number of kiosks and kiosk numbers are unable to grow at the rate passenger demand has.
- Outside the taxi and pick up /drop off zone is horrendous and hideously over capacity. It's worse the most american airports.

As I said before, there was a project which was squashed some time ago, 2012-2014 ish - it was a feasibility study into the customer, commercial and operational benefits of NZ building it's own dedicated terminal.


Of course some of these things are a minefield as there is no simple answer to it, even financially, what is an acceptable return on investment is incredibly challenging. And the Commerce Commission is there to do more than look at breaches of the Commerce Act - they are required to provide studies and information into pricing and returns on regulated industries and companies which includes AKL. The most recent report on their pricing and planning has this section "Investment efficiency: is Auckland Airport investing in assets appropriately, efficiently and at a quality that reflects consumer demands?" which has some interesting reading with a position that is quite different to some of the views here.

It is also hard to make a comment about the best or right choices as those will vary from person to person and stakeholder to stakeholder.

I would've thought looking at a Hotel development is irrelevant to deciding if they should invest in further development of aeronautical assets given they aren't severely capital constrained. The only reason to not invest would be if an acceptable return doesn't exist - which could be their view given the commerce commissions recent views on the returns of the aeronautical business.

I am certainly not saying that Air NZ doesn't want a new terminal nor are the issues you raise not true. I am sure Air NZ does want a better/new terminal, the bigger question is, do they (and ultimately their customers and/or shareholders) want to pay for a new terminal. It would be completely irrational and irresponsible of AKL to not build a terminal if customers want it and the return is acceptable. So why haven't they done it?

Out of interest where are your customer satisfaction ratings from? I would've guessed that the ratings were horrendous as well, because we all know the domestic terminal is a crap experience. I decided to take a look on page 43 of the link below and they weren't that bad (although, no idea who they're using as benchmarks. https://corporate.aucklandairport.co.nz ... B72232EA6C


Yeah the commission does other things such as studies and reports and so forth but unless there are breaches it's powers are limited.

Besides that, i'm not suggesting anything here is unlawful, misleading, anti competitive etc. I'm just saying the airport has been allowed to prioritize other investments ahead of key aviation infrastructure, something we encouraged when we made the airport private.

The prove these reports are not perfect, if that's what the latest report says (I'm not suggesting it doesn't) WHY do we find our-self in a position where the main runway is deteriorating faster than ongoing maintenance to keep up?

When I refer to best or right choices, read the context in which I write these. I'm raising hypercritical point, I'm not saying anyone's personal view over anothers is right or wrong.

As for the hotel, there is capital expenditure required from AIAL. Is the yield from this investment better than more gates, new domestic terminal, second runway - very likely. But again, that's the choice we made. The result is, we don't have a second runway. AIAL has bad how many unplanned closures in the last 2 months? We've got a shortage of how many international gates and a domestic terminal over capacity.

Absolutely no one wants to pay for a new terminal. But that's not a reason to not build one. Again in a competitive environment, would we see one?

Would we expect Westfield to neglect their shopping malls the way we have AKLD?

Customer Satisfaction is from NZ market research.
 
pbm
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:38 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:32 am

NZ6 wrote:
pbm wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

You raise some valid points, but just because the commerce commission analyzes their performance (as you put it) and/or just because AIAL consult with other groups, that doesn't mean it's making the best or right choices.

I think we need to look at what role the commerce commission plays and what the actual issues are. Things such as, Is AIAL charging fees beyond reasonable market levels due to the natural monopoly or better put the market advantage it has.

A good example of this is the second hotel. Why is this a priority? Changi only has the Crowne Plaza and the transit hotel. Auckland has the Novotel and Ibis plus many more around the airport boundary like Changi. But Airport to CBD is about 20km vs 26km, passenger movements are 68m vs 21m and one is a true hub where the other is largely end of line. The commerce commission can't or won't stop AIAL from building the Grand Mercure. But under the right model would there be more investment elsewhere. That's my point.

We also need to remember the commerce commission is there to investigate any kind of breach under the Commerce Act. If or how this reflects through to customer comfort or satisfaction is a minefield.

NZ not wanting a new terminal is way off the mark.
- ATR's being forced to Intl stands
- Baggage Belt well over capacity, you see this with almost daily stoppages and checkin restrictions in peak times.
- Gate occupancy near capacity daily and at capacity during peak to a point where no additional flights can be added
- There an immediate issue where terminal/avsec congestion is demanding an earlier check in but the earlier check in is adding more pending bags into the baggage system crashing as per point 2.
- Lounges are beyond full and NZ has been forced to create a regional lounge.
- Not enough regional gates, point 3 was air bridges
- Unable to 787's on domestic flights from the domestic terminal during major events / disrupts. Previously the 767-200's could be used from domestic stands and the desire/need to use them has also increased.
- If/when 787's are used, the issue in point 2 and 4 are made worse.
- Customer satisfaction is LOW
- Unable to expand check in and checking dwell time is growing due to higher number of passengers using the same number of kiosks and kiosk numbers are unable to grow at the rate passenger demand has.
- Outside the taxi and pick up /drop off zone is horrendous and hideously over capacity. It's worse the most american airports.

As I said before, there was a project which was squashed some time ago, 2012-2014 ish - it was a feasibility study into the customer, commercial and operational benefits of NZ building it's own dedicated terminal.


Of course some of these things are a minefield as there is no simple answer to it, even financially, what is an acceptable return on investment is incredibly challenging. And the Commerce Commission is there to do more than look at breaches of the Commerce Act - they are required to provide studies and information into pricing and returns on regulated industries and companies which includes AKL. The most recent report on their pricing and planning has this section "Investment efficiency: is Auckland Airport investing in assets appropriately, efficiently and at a quality that reflects consumer demands?" which has some interesting reading with a position that is quite different to some of the views here.

It is also hard to make a comment about the best or right choices as those will vary from person to person and stakeholder to stakeholder.

I would've thought looking at a Hotel development is irrelevant to deciding if they should invest in further development of aeronautical assets given they aren't severely capital constrained. The only reason to not invest would be if an acceptable return doesn't exist - which could be their view given the commerce commissions recent views on the returns of the aeronautical business.

I am certainly not saying that Air NZ doesn't want a new terminal nor are the issues you raise not true. I am sure Air NZ does want a better/new terminal, the bigger question is, do they (and ultimately their customers and/or shareholders) want to pay for a new terminal. It would be completely irrational and irresponsible of AKL to not build a terminal if customers want it and the return is acceptable. So why haven't they done it?

Out of interest where are your customer satisfaction ratings from? I would've guessed that the ratings were horrendous as well, because we all know the domestic terminal is a crap experience. I decided to take a look on page 43 of the link below and they weren't that bad (although, no idea who they're using as benchmarks. https://corporate.aucklandairport.co.nz ... B72232EA6C


Yeah the commission does other things such as studies and reports and so forth but unless there are breaches it's powers are limited.

Besides that, i'm not suggesting anything here is unlawful, misleading, anti competitive etc. I'm just saying the airport has been allowed to prioritize other investments ahead of key aviation infrastructure, something we encouraged when we made the airport private.

The prove these reports are not perfect, if that's what the latest report says (I'm not suggesting it doesn't) WHY do we find our-self in a position where the main runway is deteriorating faster than ongoing maintenance to keep up?

When I refer to best or right choices, read the context in which I write these. I'm raising hypercritical point, I'm not saying anyone's personal view over anothers is right or wrong.

As for the hotel, there is capital expenditure required from AIAL. Is the yield from this investment better than more gates, new domestic terminal, second runway - very likely. But again, that's the choice we made. The result is, we don't have a second runway. AIAL has bad how many unplanned closures in the last 2 months? We've got a shortage of how many international gates and a domestic terminal over capacity.

Absolutely no one wants to pay for a new terminal. But that's not a reason to not build one. Again in a competitive environment, would we see one?

Would we expect Westfield to neglect their shopping malls the way we have AKLD?

Customer Satisfaction is from NZ market research.
You're right on the runway - it is a disgrace. 2 closures for ~30 minutes each (?). It would be amazing to know how that happened. Was it a surprise? Reduced maintenance spend? Incompetence?

And sorry, I certainly didn't mean to imply you were suggesting anything illegal.

I'll stop there because it's just going to be backwards and forward on the internet is gonna be pointless - I think we both get each other here and see each others points!
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1188
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:21 am

zkncj wrote:
China built an 1000 bed hospital in around two weeks, ok it was an prefab basic building.

Yet AKL is still using an temporary cargo terminal as there main domestic terminal 50 years later.

Is it really hard to make an new domestic terminal from scratch and have it open within an couple of years.



haha, I just got this on Facebook (in German, so I translate):

"The company that built the hospital in Wuhan offered to finish the airport in Berlin. They suggested to do this Tuesday afternoon or Wednesday morning!"

:D :D :D :D :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
 
NZ516
Posts: 271
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:45 am

It has not been a good start to the year in the Aviation sector. Here is a comment from Mr Jones he hits the nail on the head about the airport company:

Minister of Infrastructure Shane Jones said Auckland Airport, which operates as a monopoly, had failed in its duty to serve the New Zealand public.

"It just seems extraordinary to me as infrastructure minister that the gateway to New Zealand is being blemished by what strikes me as very basic failures ie an inability to look after your main asset - the runway," Jones said.

He said the board had become "seduced by the easy profit" made in other areas of its business such as retailing, parking and property development.

"It would seem the board has forgotten that their primary responsibility is to run an internationally secure runway."


more story:


https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indust ... VK6xAD653c
 
zkncj
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:53 am

NZ516 wrote:
It has not been a good start to the year in the Aviation sector. Here is a comment from Mr Jones he hits the nail on the head about the airport company:

Minister of Infrastructure Shane Jones said Auckland Airport, which operates as a monopoly, had failed in its duty to serve the New Zealand public.

"It just seems extraordinary to me as infrastructure minister that the gateway to New Zealand is being blemished by what strikes me as very basic failures ie an inability to look after your main asset - the runway," Jones said.

He said the board had become "seduced by the easy profit" made in other areas of its business such as retailing, parking and property development.

"It would seem the board has forgotten that their primary responsibility is to run an internationally secure runway."


more story:


https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indust ... VK6xAD653c


Thinking the AKL issue could very likely become an key election issue this year. Wonder if we will see one of the parties promise an new Auckland Airport (to be crown owned), as one of these pledges?

Is there anything currently in legislation giving AKL the sole rights as Aucklands International airport? Or is open gain, e.g anyone that could get resource constent for there airport could build one?
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1188
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Fri Feb 14, 2020 4:05 am

NZ516 wrote:
It has not been a good start to the year in the Aviation sector. Here is a comment from Mr Jones he hits the nail on the head about the airport company:

Minister of Infrastructure Shane Jones said Auckland Airport, which operates as a monopoly, had failed in its duty to serve the New Zealand public.

"It just seems extraordinary to me as infrastructure minister that the gateway to New Zealand is being blemished by what strikes me as very basic failures ie an inability to look after your main asset - the runway," Jones said.

He said the board had become "seduced by the easy profit" made in other areas of its business such as retailing, parking and property development.

"It would seem the board has forgotten that their primary responsibility is to run an internationally secure runway."


more story:


https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indust ... VK6xAD653c


He is a clown, but in this case he has a point. Maybe he reads a.net and the NZ thread in particular. Sounds very much like whatever some posters here have said repeatedly....;-)
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12559
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:23 am

zkncj wrote:
NZ516 wrote:
It has not been a good start to the year in the Aviation sector. Here is a comment from Mr Jones he hits the nail on the head about the airport company:

Minister of Infrastructure Shane Jones said Auckland Airport, which operates as a monopoly, had failed in its duty to serve the New Zealand public.

"It just seems extraordinary to me as infrastructure minister that the gateway to New Zealand is being blemished by what strikes me as very basic failures ie an inability to look after your main asset - the runway," Jones said.

He said the board had become "seduced by the easy profit" made in other areas of its business such as retailing, parking and property development.

"It would seem the board has forgotten that their primary responsibility is to run an internationally secure runway."


more story:


https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indust ... VK6xAD653c


Thinking the AKL issue could very likely become an key election issue this year. Wonder if we will see one of the parties promise an new Auckland Airport (to be crown owned), as one of these pledges?

Is there anything currently in legislation giving AKL the sole rights as Aucklands International airport? Or is open gain, e.g anyone that could get resource constent for there airport could build one?


I'm not a fan of Jones but he really nailed AIAL with that comment, he's 100% correct, I think it's time for the govt to sit up and take notice. AIAL have basically failed since the day they took ownership of the airport, they need to go!
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2736
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:43 pm

NZ6 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

Because it's the same company who's been constantly behind demand with new international gates even though aviation demand has been growing since the GFC
Because it's the same company who's still using a domestic terminal 15 years after it reached operational capacity
Because they opted to prioritize non aviation assets in the mid 2000's.

Because they can't stick to a master plan.

Look at the state it's in.

Are they actually halting domestic economic growth in a small way but preventing JQ/NZ offering more services and/or larger aircraft.


And nothing will ever improve as long as AIAL own the airport, they are far move concerned with ROI to investors than providing the facilities the travelling public needs. One day an NZ govt are going to have to nationalise AKL, it should never have been privatised in the first instance.


I agree that's the core issue. Sadly we asked for this outcome when the airport was privatized.

Obviously with the hope that we'd see an owner who wanted a world class airport with world class facilities. Instead we got a world class shopping center with high end shops, that if I'm honest, there's some which I've never seen a customer in.

The concern is, this isn't new. I've said a heap of time before so my apologies for repeating myself here, I've got a 1992 Air Expo magazine at home. At the back there's a promo for the master plan which show's the double runway concept by the year 2000 and I'm sure we can all recall the model near the viewing deck before it was removed.

Since then...

- The shopping arcade has been rebuilt 3 or 4 times.
- Domestic terminal has been left to crumble under it's own pressure. With largely cosmetic being done only
- The Airport company has built significantly more non aviation assets than aviation ones, multiple hotels and an entire shopping center for starters (to which there are benefits but only if it's done as a AND and not an OR to core aviation services)
- The use of stairs and buses at AKLI has increased.
- Major works have been completed on the main runway where the main taxiway was upgraded and used as the temporary runway, we've gone full circle and needing another upgrade while still the second one sits as clay piles and gorse.

There has been a good amount of work done in other places but on a serious note, there are 3 major areas which need urgent attention in order are

- New domestic / shout haul and regional pier and gates
- Second runway with urgency which naturally inherits a tower upgrade
- Major overhaul of Pier A at AIAL.

I'd also say we've seen a lot of movement in the last 5 years but it's all after the horse as bolted sadly.


Privatisation in and of itself isn't necessarily the problem.

A listed company does encourage short term thinking relating to share prices and dividends. Local government ownership of about 25 per cent hasn't helped much either.

But Helen Clark's refusal to allow the purchase of AIAL by that Canadian pension fund due to outright hostility to foreign ownership was an obvious own goal. The right type of long term investor can make all the difference. But parochialism stopped that one. This is the price you pay.

Meanwhile, some strategic thinking and pretty minor investments with Whenuapai would likely have been sufficient to keep the pressure on AKL. But short termism won the day and now it's all built out with endless sprawl. Classic kiwi short term thinking carries a cost too.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1368
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:02 pm

pbm wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
pbm wrote:

Of course some of these things are a minefield as there is no simple answer to it, even financially, what is an acceptable return on investment is incredibly challenging. And the Commerce Commission is there to do more than look at breaches of the Commerce Act - they are required to provide studies and information into pricing and returns on regulated industries and companies which includes AKL. The most recent report on their pricing and planning has this section "Investment efficiency: is Auckland Airport investing in assets appropriately, efficiently and at a quality that reflects consumer demands?" which has some interesting reading with a position that is quite different to some of the views here.

It is also hard to make a comment about the best or right choices as those will vary from person to person and stakeholder to stakeholder.

I would've thought looking at a Hotel development is irrelevant to deciding if they should invest in further development of aeronautical assets given they aren't severely capital constrained. The only reason to not invest would be if an acceptable return doesn't exist - which could be their view given the commerce commissions recent views on the returns of the aeronautical business.

I am certainly not saying that Air NZ doesn't want a new terminal nor are the issues you raise not true. I am sure Air NZ does want a better/new terminal, the bigger question is, do they (and ultimately their customers and/or shareholders) want to pay for a new terminal. It would be completely irrational and irresponsible of AKL to not build a terminal if customers want it and the return is acceptable. So why haven't they done it?

Out of interest where are your customer satisfaction ratings from? I would've guessed that the ratings were horrendous as well, because we all know the domestic terminal is a crap experience. I decided to take a look on page 43 of the link below and they weren't that bad (although, no idea who they're using as benchmarks. https://corporate.aucklandairport.co.nz ... B72232EA6C


Yeah the commission does other things such as studies and reports and so forth but unless there are breaches it's powers are limited.

Besides that, i'm not suggesting anything here is unlawful, misleading, anti competitive etc. I'm just saying the airport has been allowed to prioritize other investments ahead of key aviation infrastructure, something we encouraged when we made the airport private.

The prove these reports are not perfect, if that's what the latest report says (I'm not suggesting it doesn't) WHY do we find our-self in a position where the main runway is deteriorating faster than ongoing maintenance to keep up?

When I refer to best or right choices, read the context in which I write these. I'm raising hypercritical point, I'm not saying anyone's personal view over anothers is right or wrong.

As for the hotel, there is capital expenditure required from AIAL. Is the yield from this investment better than more gates, new domestic terminal, second runway - very likely. But again, that's the choice we made. The result is, we don't have a second runway. AIAL has bad how many unplanned closures in the last 2 months? We've got a shortage of how many international gates and a domestic terminal over capacity.

Absolutely no one wants to pay for a new terminal. But that's not a reason to not build one. Again in a competitive environment, would we see one?

Would we expect Westfield to neglect their shopping malls the way we have AKLD?

Customer Satisfaction is from NZ market research.
You're right on the runway - it is a disgrace. 2 closures for ~30 minutes each (?). It would be amazing to know how that happened. Was it a surprise? Reduced maintenance spend? Incompetence?

And sorry, I certainly didn't mean to imply you were suggesting anything illegal.

I'll stop there because it's just going to be backwards and forward on the internet is gonna be pointless - I think we both get each other here and see each others points!


All good, you raise some valid points also. It all supports my earlier concept of unbundling AIAL,
 
NZ6
Posts: 1368
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:04 pm

NZ516 wrote:
It has not been a good start to the year in the Aviation sector. Here is a comment from Mr Jones he hits the nail on the head about the airport company:

Minister of Infrastructure Shane Jones said Auckland Airport, which operates as a monopoly, had failed in its duty to serve the New Zealand public.

"It just seems extraordinary to me as infrastructure minister that the gateway to New Zealand is being blemished by what strikes me as very basic failures ie an inability to look after your main asset - the runway," Jones said.

He said the board had become "seduced by the easy profit" made in other areas of its business such as retailing, parking and property development.

"It would seem the board has forgotten that their primary responsibility is to run an internationally secure runway."


more story:


https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indust ... VK6xAD653c


Is this the first valid point he's made?.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1368
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:11 pm

aerokiwi wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

And nothing will ever improve as long as AIAL own the airport, they are far move concerned with ROI to investors than providing the facilities the travelling public needs. One day an NZ govt are going to have to nationalise AKL, it should never have been privatised in the first instance.


I agree that's the core issue. Sadly we asked for this outcome when the airport was privatized.

Obviously with the hope that we'd see an owner who wanted a world class airport with world class facilities. Instead we got a world class shopping center with high end shops, that if I'm honest, there's some which I've never seen a customer in.

The concern is, this isn't new. I've said a heap of time before so my apologies for repeating myself here, I've got a 1992 Air Expo magazine at home. At the back there's a promo for the master plan which show's the double runway concept by the year 2000 and I'm sure we can all recall the model near the viewing deck before it was removed.

Since then...

- The shopping arcade has been rebuilt 3 or 4 times.
- Domestic terminal has been left to crumble under it's own pressure. With largely cosmetic being done only
- The Airport company has built significantly more non aviation assets than aviation ones, multiple hotels and an entire shopping center for starters (to which there are benefits but only if it's done as a AND and not an OR to core aviation services)
- The use of stairs and buses at AKLI has increased.
- Major works have been completed on the main runway where the main taxiway was upgraded and used as the temporary runway, we've gone full circle and needing another upgrade while still the second one sits as clay piles and gorse.

There has been a good amount of work done in other places but on a serious note, there are 3 major areas which need urgent attention in order are

- New domestic / shout haul and regional pier and gates
- Second runway with urgency which naturally inherits a tower upgrade
- Major overhaul of Pier A at AIAL.

I'd also say we've seen a lot of movement in the last 5 years but it's all after the horse as bolted sadly.


Privatisation in and of itself isn't necessarily the problem.

A listed company does encourage short term thinking relating to share prices and dividends. Local government ownership of about 25 per cent hasn't helped much either.

But Helen Clark's refusal to allow the purchase of AIAL by that Canadian pension fund due to outright hostility to foreign ownership was an obvious own goal. The right type of long term investor can make all the difference. But parochialism stopped that one. This is the price you pay.

Meanwhile, some strategic thinking and pretty minor investments with Whenuapai would likely have been sufficient to keep the pressure on AKL. But short termism won the day and now it's all built out with endless sprawl. Classic kiwi short term thinking carries a cost too.


Absolutely agree with your first point, however if the airport was state owned, even partially, there'd be significantly less pressure to return maximum profits. There'd also be significant pressure to deliver core services and more accountability if it wasn't from both management and politicians.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4405
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Fri Feb 14, 2020 11:09 pm

aerokiwi wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

And nothing will ever improve as long as AIAL own the airport, they are far move concerned with ROI to investors than providing the facilities the travelling public needs. One day an NZ govt are going to have to nationalise AKL, it should never have been privatised in the first instance.


I agree that's the core issue. Sadly we asked for this outcome when the airport was privatized.

Obviously with the hope that we'd see an owner who wanted a world class airport with world class facilities. Instead we got a world class shopping center with high end shops, that if I'm honest, there's some which I've never seen a customer in.

The concern is, this isn't new. I've said a heap of time before so my apologies for repeating myself here, I've got a 1992 Air Expo magazine at home. At the back there's a promo for the master plan which show's the double runway concept by the year 2000 and I'm sure we can all recall the model near the viewing deck before it was removed.

Since then...

- The shopping arcade has been rebuilt 3 or 4 times.
- Domestic terminal has been left to crumble under it's own pressure. With largely cosmetic being done only
- The Airport company has built significantly more non aviation assets than aviation ones, multiple hotels and an entire shopping center for starters (to which there are benefits but only if it's done as a AND and not an OR to core aviation services)
- The use of stairs and buses at AKLI has increased.
- Major works have been completed on the main runway where the main taxiway was upgraded and used as the temporary runway, we've gone full circle and needing another upgrade while still the second one sits as clay piles and gorse.

There has been a good amount of work done in other places but on a serious note, there are 3 major areas which need urgent attention in order are

- New domestic / shout haul and regional pier and gates
- Second runway with urgency which naturally inherits a tower upgrade
- Major overhaul of Pier A at AIAL.

I'd also say we've seen a lot of movement in the last 5 years but it's all after the horse as bolted sadly.


Privatisation in and of itself isn't necessarily the problem.

A listed company does encourage short term thinking relating to share prices and dividends. Local government ownership of about 25 per cent hasn't helped much either.

But Helen Clark's refusal to allow the purchase of AIAL by that Canadian pension fund due to outright hostility to foreign ownership was an obvious own goal. The right type of long term investor can make all the difference. But parochialism stopped that one. This is the price you pay.

Meanwhile, some strategic thinking and pretty minor investments with Whenuapai would likely have been sufficient to keep the pressure on AKL. But short termism won the day and now it's all built out with endless sprawl. Classic kiwi short term thinking carries a cost too.

Disagree about the Canadian pension fund. Yes it would likely take a longer term view and make for better facilities (how much better is debatable), but it would absolutely be trying to maximise its returns as well (at the expense of airlines and the public). On top of that you would have those profits being sent off shore rather than most staying in NZ.
It really should have been retained as a SOE.
64 types. 44 countries. 24 airlines.
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2736
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:48 am

Zkpilot wrote:
aerokiwi wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

I agree that's the core issue. Sadly we asked for this outcome when the airport was privatized.

Obviously with the hope that we'd see an owner who wanted a world class airport with world class facilities. Instead we got a world class shopping center with high end shops, that if I'm honest, there's some which I've never seen a customer in.

The concern is, this isn't new. I've said a heap of time before so my apologies for repeating myself here, I've got a 1992 Air Expo magazine at home. At the back there's a promo for the master plan which show's the double runway concept by the year 2000 and I'm sure we can all recall the model near the viewing deck before it was removed.

Since then...

- The shopping arcade has been rebuilt 3 or 4 times.
- Domestic terminal has been left to crumble under it's own pressure. With largely cosmetic being done only
- The Airport company has built significantly more non aviation assets than aviation ones, multiple hotels and an entire shopping center for starters (to which there are benefits but only if it's done as a AND and not an OR to core aviation services)
- The use of stairs and buses at AKLI has increased.
- Major works have been completed on the main runway where the main taxiway was upgraded and used as the temporary runway, we've gone full circle and needing another upgrade while still the second one sits as clay piles and gorse.

There has been a good amount of work done in other places but on a serious note, there are 3 major areas which need urgent attention in order are

- New domestic / shout haul and regional pier and gates
- Second runway with urgency which naturally inherits a tower upgrade
- Major overhaul of Pier A at AIAL.

I'd also say we've seen a lot of movement in the last 5 years but it's all after the horse as bolted sadly.


Privatisation in and of itself isn't necessarily the problem.

A listed company does encourage short term thinking relating to share prices and dividends. Local government ownership of about 25 per cent hasn't helped much either.

But Helen Clark's refusal to allow the purchase of AIAL by that Canadian pension fund due to outright hostility to foreign ownership was an obvious own goal. The right type of long term investor can make all the difference. But parochialism stopped that one. This is the price you pay.

Meanwhile, some strategic thinking and pretty minor investments with Whenuapai would likely have been sufficient to keep the pressure on AKL. But short termism won the day and now it's all built out with endless sprawl. Classic kiwi short term thinking carries a cost too.

Disagree about the Canadian pension fund. Yes it would likely take a longer term view and make for better facilities (how much better is debatable), but it would absolutely be trying to maximise its returns as well (at the expense of airlines and the public). On top of that you would have those profits being sent off shore rather than most staying in NZ.
It really should have been retained as a SOE.


Again, a pretty limited perspective. And maximising returns isn't necessarily a bad thing. The main factor would be it not focusing on annual dharemarket performance and distributing all profits to shareholders.

Moot too. The company was listed in 1998. The Canadians were there to buy in, what, 2006? Do you really think the government was going to front up $x billion to repurchase the airport? Nup. So the Canadians were the best other option. Insert... the usual local, small minded approach to foreign investment. Because, New Zealand.

Melbourne Airport is owned by 5 pension funds, built Terminal 4 and is about to build its 3rd runway. It's not perfect, but it's also not dragging on public funds. And it's better than AKL. AKL is 22 per cent owned by Auckland Council, who could flex that role as the single largest shareholder to force development but hasn't. They like the fat profit margins. What a surprise.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12559
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sat Feb 15, 2020 9:12 am

aerokiwi wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
aerokiwi wrote:

Privatisation in and of itself isn't necessarily the problem.

A listed company does encourage short term thinking relating to share prices and dividends. Local government ownership of about 25 per cent hasn't helped much either.

But Helen Clark's refusal to allow the purchase of AIAL by that Canadian pension fund due to outright hostility to foreign ownership was an obvious own goal. The right type of long term investor can make all the difference. But parochialism stopped that one. This is the price you pay.

Meanwhile, some strategic thinking and pretty minor investments with Whenuapai would likely have been sufficient to keep the pressure on AKL. But short termism won the day and now it's all built out with endless sprawl. Classic kiwi short term thinking carries a cost too.

Disagree about the Canadian pension fund. Yes it would likely take a longer term view and make for better facilities (how much better is debatable), but it would absolutely be trying to maximise its returns as well (at the expense of airlines and the public). On top of that you would have those profits being sent off shore rather than most staying in NZ.
It really should have been retained as a SOE.


Again, a pretty limited perspective. And maximising returns isn't necessarily a bad thing. The main factor would be it not focusing on annual dharemarket performance and distributing all profits to shareholders.

Moot too. The company was listed in 1998. The Canadians were there to buy in, what, 2006? Do you really think the government was going to front up $x billion to repurchase the airport? Nup. So the Canadians were the best other option. Insert... the usual local, small minded approach to foreign investment. Because, New Zealand.

Melbourne Airport is owned by 5 pension funds, built Terminal 4 and is about to build its 3rd runway. It's not perfect, but it's also not dragging on public funds. And it's better than AKL. AKL is 22 per cent owned by Auckland Council, who could flex that role as the single largest shareholder to force development but hasn't. They like the fat profit margins. What a surprise.


Meh I just look at Norway where all the airports are owned by AVINOR(an SOE), they are self funding and IMO provide world class facilities.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2147
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sat Feb 15, 2020 9:16 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
aerokiwi wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
Disagree about the Canadian pension fund. Yes it would likely take a longer term view and make for better facilities (how much better is debatable), but it would absolutely be trying to maximise its returns as well (at the expense of airlines and the public). On top of that you would have those profits being sent off shore rather than most staying in NZ.
It really should have been retained as a SOE.


Again, a pretty limited perspective. And maximising returns isn't necessarily a bad thing. The main factor would be it not focusing on annual dharemarket performance and distributing all profits to shareholders.

Moot too. The company was listed in 1998. The Canadians were there to buy in, what, 2006? Do you really think the government was going to front up $x billion to repurchase the airport? Nup. So the Canadians were the best other option. Insert... the usual local, small minded approach to foreign investment. Because, New Zealand.

Melbourne Airport is owned by 5 pension funds, built Terminal 4 and is about to build its 3rd runway. It's not perfect, but it's also not dragging on public funds. And it's better than AKL. AKL is 22 per cent owned by Auckland Council, who could flex that role as the single largest shareholder to force development but hasn't. They like the fat profit margins. What a surprise.


Meh I just look at Norway where all the airports are owned by AVINOR(an SOE), they are self funding and IMO provide world class facilities.


Schiphol too.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4405
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sat Feb 15, 2020 10:20 pm

aerokiwi wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
aerokiwi wrote:

Privatisation in and of itself isn't necessarily the problem.

A listed company does encourage short term thinking relating to share prices and dividends. Local government ownership of about 25 per cent hasn't helped much either.

But Helen Clark's refusal to allow the purchase of AIAL by that Canadian pension fund due to outright hostility to foreign ownership was an obvious own goal. The right type of long term investor can make all the difference. But parochialism stopped that one. This is the price you pay.

Meanwhile, some strategic thinking and pretty minor investments with Whenuapai would likely have been sufficient to keep the pressure on AKL. But short termism won the day and now it's all built out with endless sprawl. Classic kiwi short term thinking carries a cost too.

Disagree about the Canadian pension fund. Yes it would likely take a longer term view and make for better facilities (how much better is debatable), but it would absolutely be trying to maximise its returns as well (at the expense of airlines and the public). On top of that you would have those profits being sent off shore rather than most staying in NZ.
It really should have been retained as a SOE.


Again, a pretty limited perspective. And maximising returns isn't necessarily a bad thing. The main factor would be it not focusing on annual dharemarket performance and distributing all profits to shareholders.

Moot too. The company was listed in 1998. The Canadians were there to buy in, what, 2006? Do you really think the government was going to front up $x billion to repurchase the airport? Nup. So the Canadians were the best other option. Insert... the usual local, small minded approach to foreign investment. Because, New Zealand.

Melbourne Airport is owned by 5 pension funds, built Terminal 4 and is about to build its 3rd runway. It's not perfect, but it's also not dragging on public funds. And it's better than AKL. AKL is 22 per cent owned by Auckland Council, who could flex that role as the single largest shareholder to force development but hasn't. They like the fat profit margins. What a surprise.

“Small minded approach to foreign investment”? Pull the other one champ. There aren’t many international airports around the world owned by non-nationals of that country, especially not airports that are in a monopoly position or those that are the overwhelming main airport of that entire country! Most are either owned by city/state/country as they are viewed as important and critical pieces of infrastructure.

As for MEL, are you feeling ok? MEL airport is a dog’s breakfast and the only reason why I would say it’s better than AKL is because it doesn’t have a crappy little domestic terminal and actually has more than 1 runway! Bearing in mind that MEL services a city with a bigger population that all of New Zealand it’s actually pretty embarrassing.
64 types. 44 countries. 24 airlines.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sat Feb 15, 2020 11:03 pm

Zkpilot wrote:
.
As for MEL, are you feeling ok? MEL airport is a dog’s breakfast and the only reason why I would say it’s better than AKL is because it doesn’t have a crappy little domestic terminal and actually has more than 1 runway! Bearing in mind that MEL services a city with a bigger population that all of New Zealand it’s actually pretty embarrassing.


MEL’s only decent domestic terminal is T4, which ironically is for the LCC.

The QF and VA domestic terminals are pretty bad, would put the VA terminal on side with AKL.

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