User avatar
MillwallSean
Posts: 961
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:47 am

Ah I am not sure how many of you that have seen the other projects Canadian pension funds have been investing in. They arent charities but instead bankers that are tasked to deliver a pretty hefty return annually to the funds. That the Clark government didn't fall for that, is one of the best things they did. There has also been a fair bit of asset recycling that has seen pension funds actively involved and their investments and ownership directive today is to be active, not financial investors.
The less such investors we get in our core and crucial national infrastructure the better. And if they get to build Aucklands, extremely needed, new light rail/heavy rail/whatever rail, it will end in a financial moneypit and high fares. Scary, Auckland already sees ridiculous fares in its PT infrastructure while almost no cost at all for car ownership/parking etc.

Not sure how we can say that Singapore-Changi sees two hotels?
For someone that visits this marble of an airport weekly, I last counted to 8 separate transit-hotels / hotels but but. Might have missed something in Jewel too since I primarily have been there for shopping and drinks.
That is actually 2 hotels per terminal and seem to match Auckland quite well. BUT since Auckland has provinces to consider and Singapore doesn't, and people going to/from the provinces often need to overnight in AKL, I can see the need for further hotels being built adjacent to the terminal no matter inadequate terminals at AKL.
How many hotels are adjacent to Oslo airport? Oslo might be a good indicator of what Aucklands potential demand for hotels might be.

With that said Auckland airport is pure shambles. I dont understand how there cant be severe pressure on them to combine two terminals into one. Auckland is the gateway to New Zealand and present airport shafts people in the provinces and makes transfers a pretty awful project for anyone not keen to go on a 1km walking trek or locate some terminal bus that shows up according to its drivers needs.
Avinor is actually not a bad comparison but that is to late now. We have to accept what we have and start applying real pressure on the airport to deliver for its main stakeholders, the people.

I wonder if our dear aviation CAA still think they were bright and fair, did the right thing, when NZ got to cooperate with incumbents to both Singapore and HongKong. 'Matey -matey' decisions sure haven't helped prices or the travelling public...
No One Likes Us - We Dont Care.
 
NZ516
Posts: 305
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:37 am

NZ6 wrote:
Is this the first valid point he's made?.

Not sure if the first valid point but one of his best so far.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:53 am

MillwallSean wrote:
Ah I am not sure how many of you that have seen the other projects Canadian pension funds have been investing in. They arent charities but instead bankers that are tasked to deliver a pretty hefty return annually to the funds. That the Clark government didn't fall for that, is one of the best things they did. There has also been a fair bit of asset recycling that has seen pension funds actively involved and their investments and ownership directive today is to be active, not financial investors.
The less such investors we get in our core and crucial national infrastructure the better. And if they get to build Aucklands, extremely needed, new light rail/heavy rail/whatever rail, it will end in a financial moneypit and high fares. Scary, Auckland already sees ridiculous fares in its PT infrastructure while almost no cost at all for car ownership/parking etc.

Not sure how we can say that Singapore-Changi sees two hotels?
For someone that visits this marble of an airport weekly, I last counted to 8 separate transit-hotels / hotels but but. Might have missed something in Jewel too since I primarily have been there for shopping and drinks.
That is actually 2 hotels per terminal and seem to match Auckland quite well. BUT since Auckland has provinces to consider and Singapore doesn't, and people going to/from the provinces often need to overnight in AKL, I can see the need for further hotels being built adjacent to the terminal no matter inadequate terminals at AKL.
How many hotels are adjacent to Oslo airport? Oslo might be a good indicator of what Aucklands potential demand for hotels might be.

With that said Auckland airport is pure shambles. I dont understand how there cant be severe pressure on them to combine two terminals into one. Auckland is the gateway to New Zealand and present airport shafts people in the provinces and makes transfers a pretty awful project for anyone not keen to go on a 1km walking trek or locate some terminal bus that shows up according to its drivers needs.
Avinor is actually not a bad comparison but that is to late now. We have to accept what we have and start applying real pressure on the airport to deliver for its main stakeholders, the people.

I wonder if our dear aviation CAA still think they were bright and fair, did the right thing, when NZ got to cooperate with incumbents to both Singapore and HongKong. 'Matey -matey' decisions sure haven't helped prices or the travelling public...


To clarify the Changi point, there's the Crowne Plaza as the main 'chain hotel' and my understanding was a single operator for the transit hotel with multiple 'hotels' spread around the terminals but all operated as one and all reasonably small on their own.

I could well be wrong. it's not something I know a lot about.

I guess I just looked at Singapore being a major hub and 20km ish from the CBD and thought to myself there's not rows and rows of hotels onsite here and it's 4 times bigger than the end of line airport in Auckland. Perhaps, SYD/MEL/BNE were better examples.

But my issue isn't with hotels being built, it's that this development has taken priority over other critical elements.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:54 am

NZ516 wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Is this the first valid point he's made?.

Not sure if the first valid point but one of his best so far.


And ironically has nothing to do with regional development. Well not directly anyway.

Is it me or is he always in the headlines for making negative comments on things.?
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2781
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:00 am

Zkpilot 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.

“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.


Yup, demonstrating magnificently exactly what I said. Also, that perfect is the enemy of good.

The option isn't between government ownership and private. That was signed sealed and delivered in 1998 when the airport was listed. Because repurchasing the asset at market rates is a ginormous expense that can't be justified, even after a 30 minute runway closure or two. And yes, owning an asset that isn't essential is a drag on public funds - financing debt, managing liabilities, tying up funds otherwise used in the delivery of essential services (health, education).

Hence, post privatisation, the point of state ownership is moot.

The choice thereafter was what type of private owner. I realise this nuance is lost on the masses, but it makes a difference. And pension funds deliver superior returns on infrastructure investments because of their long term horizons rather than annual reports and the vagaries of share prices.

Auckland Council, meanwhile, ostensibly a government owner and the largest shareholder, is perfectly content sitting back and watching the profits roll. Public ownership doesn't seem to have much impact. And yes the largest shareholder can and does flex their muscle on boards, even if still a minority holder.

Not only that, the Clark government's decision did untold damage to NZ's reputation as a destination for FDI. I saw a major construction sector investor go cold within weeks of the block by Clark. Oh and what sector is now causing all sorts of economic damage because of lack of capacity and capability? Construction.

Like I said, and you ignored, Melbourne isn't perfect. But it's a damn sight better than the offering at AKL and they actually have a development plan that will see it have developed two new terminals and a runway before AKL likely turns a sod.
Last edited by aerokiwi on Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:08 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
NZ516
Posts: 305
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:02 am

NZ6 wrote:
Is it me or is he always in the headlines for making negative comments on things.?


Certainly seems that way for sure...
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12635
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:13 am

Zkpilot 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.

“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.


I can think of a big one Heathrow is part owned by Ferrovial, they’re Spanish.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12635
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:26 am

MillwallSean wrote:
Ah I am not sure how many of you that have seen the other projects Canadian pension funds have been investing in. They arent charities but instead bankers that are tasked to deliver a pretty hefty return annually to the funds. That the Clark government didn't fall for that, is one of the best things they did. There has also been a fair bit of asset recycling that has seen pension funds actively involved and their investments and ownership directive today is to be active, not financial investors.
The less such investors we get in our core and crucial national infrastructure the better. And if they get to build Aucklands, extremely needed, new light rail/heavy rail/whatever rail, it will end in a financial moneypit and high fares. Scary, Auckland already sees ridiculous fares in its PT infrastructure while almost no cost at all for car ownership/parking etc.

Not sure how we can say that Singapore-Changi sees two hotels?
For someone that visits this marble of an airport weekly, I last counted to 8 separate transit-hotels / hotels but but. Might have missed something in Jewel too since I primarily have been there for shopping and drinks.
That is actually 2 hotels per terminal and seem to match Auckland quite well. BUT since Auckland has provinces to consider and Singapore doesn't, and people going to/from the provinces often need to overnight in AKL, I can see the need for further hotels being built adjacent to the terminal no matter inadequate terminals at AKL.
How many hotels are adjacent to Oslo airport? Oslo might be a good indicator of what Aucklands potential demand for hotels might be.

With that said Auckland airport is pure shambles. I dont understand how there cant be severe pressure on them to combine two terminals into one. Auckland is the gateway to New Zealand and present airport shafts people in the provinces and makes transfers a pretty awful project for anyone not keen to go on a 1km walking trek or locate some terminal bus that shows up according to its drivers needs.
Avinor is actually not a bad comparison but that is to late now. We have to accept what we have and start applying real pressure on the airport to deliver for its main stakeholders, the people.

I wonder if our dear aviation CAA still think they were bright and fair, did the right thing, when NZ got to cooperate with incumbents to both Singapore and HongKong. 'Matey -matey' decisions sure haven't helped prices or the travelling public...


Oslo has two hotels walking distance from the terminal, a Park Inn and a Radisson Blu, all the other hotels are off site and a bus ride away.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4459
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:29 am

Kiwirob wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
aerokiwi wrote:

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.


I can think of a big one Heathrow is part owned by Ferrovial, they’re Spanish.

Andddddd London has how many airports???? Nevermind the other airports in the UK that have international flights.
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12635
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:35 am

Zkpilot wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
“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.


I can think of a big one Heathrow is part owned by Ferrovial, they’re Spanish.

Andddddd London has how many airports???? Nevermind the other airports in the UK that have international flights.


Gatwick is owned by a French US partnership.

Stansted owned by Manchester Airport which is part owned by an Australian Investment fund.

Luton is Council owned.

Birmingham Airport is part owned by the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan.

Edinburgh is owned by Global Infrastructure Partners, the US part of the Gatwick ownership partnership.

Aberdeen, Glasgow and Southampton airports are owned by Ferrovial and Macquarie Group.

So most of the major UK international airports are foreign owned or with significant foreign ownership.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4459
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:16 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

I can think of a big one Heathrow is part owned by Ferrovial, they’re Spanish.

Andddddd London has how many airports???? Nevermind the other airports in the UK that have international flights.


Gatwick is owned by a French US partnership.

Stansted owned by Manchester Airport which is part owned by an Australian Investment fund.

Luton is Council owned.

Birmingham Airport is part owned by the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan.

Edinburgh is owned by Global Infrastructure Partners, the US part of the Gatwick ownership partnership.

Aberdeen, Glasgow and Southampton airports are owned by Ferrovial and Macquarie Group.

So most of the major UK international airports are foreign owned or with significant foreign ownership.

And all are competing with each other and have good roads and decent rail connections between them for the most part. There’s also LCY for even more competition.
I would add that UK airports in general are pretty grim... so the whole private equity hasn’t done wonders... T2&5 at LHR aren’t bad being that they are new.
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 16, 2020 10:32 pm

It interests me that for all the usual diversity of opinion we see here, including some who always take a hard nose "business first" attitude when it comes to NZ, not one of us is suggesting that privatisation of AKL was an inspired decision.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4459
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:40 pm

Gasman wrote:
It interests me that for all the usual diversity of opinion we see here, including some who always take a hard nose "business first" attitude when it comes to NZ, not one of us is suggesting that privatisation of AKL was an inspired decision.

Airlines are more flexible, generally more competitive, don’t have anywhere near the monopoly that some airports do, and are usually in the media a lot more due to people spending more time on flights than at airports.
The wrong model was chosen for AIAL back in the day. It should have been made a SOE. However since the apparent reason was to free up some cash for the government at the time they really should have retained a majority shareholding and placed more caveats/restrictions on how the airport operates/does business (national interest clause perhaps requiring minimum standards at least of reinvestment etc).
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:02 pm

Gasman wrote:
It interests me that for all the usual diversity of opinion we see here, including some who always take a hard nose "business first" attitude when it comes to NZ, not one of us is suggesting that privatisation of AKL was an inspired decision.


Gee Gasman why didn't you just quote my name :rotfl: - I wouldn't mind :bigthumbsup:

Out of interest, I really enjoy Paul Stewarts vlog's and he loaded a Tasman 738 one a few nights ago.... I'm struggling to see why you rate QF so highly above NZ. I'm not saying anything wrong with QF at all. Just given how you view and rate NZ I'm not seeing where or why QF is so much better.

Perhaps to better support that though, a good friend of mine recently flew QF over the ditch A330 and 738, he's not an aviation person but is one of those who love to hate NZ so naturally I gave him a hard time for flying QF etc - turns out, and direct quotes here

Breakfast: "The scrambled eggs were so over cooked they better resembled a quiche...",
B738 IFE "The range of entertainment on their system was limited I ended up watching 3 TV shows I'd send countless times before..."
A330 WIFI: "Qantas doesn't have IFE" (continues below)
A330 IFE "Was told to download the QF app before we left as there wasn't enough ipads for each passenger, what long haul plane doesn't have seat back TV these days?.... So I had TV for about an hour then my phone went flat."

I'm not trying to light the NZ vs QF fire, just given Paul's video and you comment here.. I thought I'd put it out there.

QF 737-800 review:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZZDY8R4yRU

NZ A321 review:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO0ysPn6MgU
 
NZ6
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:01 pm

Zkpilot wrote:
Gasman wrote:
It interests me that for all the usual diversity of opinion we see here, including some who always take a hard nose "business first" attitude when it comes to NZ, not one of us is suggesting that privatisation of AKL was an inspired decision.

Airlines are more flexible, generally more competitive, don’t have anywhere near the monopoly that some airports do, and are usually in the media a lot more due to people spending more time on flights than at airports.
The wrong model was chosen for AIAL back in the day. It should have been made a SOE. However since the apparent reason was to free up some cash for the government at the time they really should have retained a majority shareholding and placed more caveats/restrictions on how the airport operates/does business (national interest clause perhaps requiring minimum standards at least of reinvestment etc).


I often ask myself, what's the actual issue with AKL, mainly because you can get bogged down thinking about micro issues and forget some of the bigger issues.

When I try and stand back from it, I come to the following

1. AKL is required by shareholders to return a health profit year on year.
2. It is not a competitive environment therefore invest goes into those things which will return profit

The expense is the travelling passenger and arguably safety (looking at recent runway issues).

When I say it's not competitive, I don't just mean with an alternative to AKL in Auckland. They know they're largely end of line (few transit so can't use that SQ/SIN approach), there's no major threat in NZ for an alternative gateway to our country. These things all add up too, airlines will come here regardless as passengers will want to enter NZ and AKL is the only real option.

Like I've said before, we still use stairs at International, we still have an over crowded domestic terminal but for some reason we have high end shops with almost no customers in them, all because they pay high end rent to AKL.

I'd still like to see runways, taxiways etc controlled by an independent group owned by government. Invest going into the second runway asap and then some type of privatization or joint ventures into new piers/gates or terminals.

None of this will happen though. We'll slowly develop facilities slower than growth and when we do, we'll deliver an average customer experience like AKLI pier B which is a cold shell of a corridor with a few seats, a satellite duty free store and the mandatory toilets.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4459
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Tue Feb 18, 2020 6:38 pm

NZ6 wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
Gasman wrote:
It interests me that for all the usual diversity of opinion we see here, including some who always take a hard nose "business first" attitude when it comes to NZ, not one of us is suggesting that privatisation of AKL was an inspired decision.

Airlines are more flexible, generally more competitive, don’t have anywhere near the monopoly that some airports do, and are usually in the media a lot more due to people spending more time on flights than at airports.
The wrong model was chosen for AIAL back in the day. It should have been made a SOE. However since the apparent reason was to free up some cash for the government at the time they really should have retained a majority shareholding and placed more caveats/restrictions on how the airport operates/does business (national interest clause perhaps requiring minimum standards at least of reinvestment etc).


I often ask myself, what's the actual issue with AKL, mainly because you can get bogged down thinking about micro issues and forget some of the bigger issues.

When I try and stand back from it, I come to the following

1. AKL is required by shareholders to return a health profit year on year.
2. It is not a competitive environment therefore invest goes into those things which will return profit

The expense is the travelling passenger and arguably safety (looking at recent runway issues).

When I say it's not competitive, I don't just mean with an alternative to AKL in Auckland. They know they're largely end of line (few transit so can't use that SQ/SIN approach), there's no major threat in NZ for an alternative gateway to our country. These things all add up too, airlines will come here regardless as passengers will want to enter NZ and AKL is the only real option.

Like I've said before, we still use stairs at International, we still have an over crowded domestic terminal but for some reason we have high end shops with almost no customers in them, all because they pay high end rent to AKL.

I'd still like to see runways, taxiways etc controlled by an independent group owned by government. Invest going into the second runway asap and then some type of privatization or joint ventures into new piers/gates or terminals.

None of this will happen though. We'll slowly develop facilities slower than growth and when we do, we'll deliver an average customer experience like AKLI pier B which is a cold shell of a corridor with a few seats, a satellite duty free store and the mandatory toilets.

Yup B pier is a bloody wool shed! Hot in summer cold in winter, no thought to proper insulation etc, missing travellators (too cheap to install them), lack of facilities for food etc.

My main issues with AKL are:
1) Lack of international aircraft gates - it’s missing at least 2 if not 6 gates.
2) Lack of rail to the airport (not all their fault but they certainly have played a big part in protecting their parking revenue).
3) Domestic Terminal - no further comment needed.
4) No second runway
5) Poor maintenance on existing runway and other airport facilities (baggage belts etc too)
6) Cheap, cramped, poor user experience terminals
7) (I don’t personally care so much but...) unnecessary shops (luxury goods etc) rather than actually useful shops.
8) Deliberately not displaying gate details in an attempt to get passengers to spend more time at the shops.
There’s other points too but that will do for now.
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1582
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Wed Feb 19, 2020 5:15 am

Someone please wake me up when all the slagging and bagging is over. Oh, wait; I forgot - this is A-net. Seriously, though, guys: everyone agrees AKL is crap. Can't we just leave it there and move on?
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
Gasman
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Wed Feb 19, 2020 6:59 am

NZ6 wrote:
Gasman wrote:
It interests me that for all the usual diversity of opinion we see here, including some who always take a hard nose "business first" attitude when it comes to NZ, not one of us is suggesting that privatisation of AKL was an inspired decision.


Gee Gasman why didn't you just quote my name :rotfl: - I wouldn't mind :bigthumbsup:


You're actually one of the more moderate ones, but the weight of opinion here when it comes to NZ is very much "shareholders first, staff second, passengers third". Which isn't a crime, but I'm arguing there is a cultural failure in NZ in terms of acknowledging value in things that don't have a direct relationship to the balance sheet. And I believe that that's shortsighted (and ultimately will, ironically, hurt the balance sheet).

NZ6 wrote:
Out of interest, I really enjoy Paul Stewarts vlog's and he loaded a Tasman 738 one a few nights ago.... I'm struggling to see why you rate QF so highly above NZ. I'm not saying anything wrong with QF at all. Just given how you view and rate NZ I'm not seeing where or why QF is so much better.


Oh that's easy. Yes, NZ probably has better a Y product on the Tasman; but that's where it stops. Why I rate QF as better overall?

- better J product - even the old Skybeds
- they have an F product
- more generous frequent flier program
- First class lounges in SYD, MEL, LHR and LAX are sublime
- generally a more professional approach - although I admit I haven't really flown NZ long haul much since days of Fyfe.
- No jokesy safety videos which to me are like an ice pick in the head
- less "woke"
- still have 744s and A380's - at least for now
- little service touches in Y, like being regularly offered water on long haul
- often cheaper
- still fly to LHR

Think that's about all.

Back to AKL. I wonder if there's any scope for making re-nationalisation an election issue?? THIS could be our finest hour.....
 
NZ516
Posts: 305
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Wed Feb 19, 2020 11:53 am

Recently ZKOJH has been retired with it's last flight being NZ888 SYD to CHC on the 16 Feb.
This leaves just 5 of the original A320s left as 8 gone.. When does the next 320neo arrive ZKNHE?
I think there is 2 more to go until the domestic neos join the fleet:
OJB
OJD
OJF
OJI
OJM
 
NZ321
Posts: 1197
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Wed Feb 19, 2020 3:01 pm

I think most Aucklanders have had enough. I agree with Gasman. Time to to get the AKL issue on the election agenda.
Plane mad!
 
zkncj
Posts: 3556
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Wed Feb 19, 2020 6:41 pm

NZ516 wrote:
Recently ZKOJH has been retired with it's last flight being NZ888 SYD to CHC on the 16 Feb.
This leaves just 5 of the original A320s left as 8 gone.. When does the next 320neo arrive ZKNHE?
I think there is 2 more to go until the domestic neos join the fleet:
OJB
OJD
OJF
OJI
OJM


Has an replacement *A livery A321/320NEO joined the fleet yet? since OJK was the *A branded A320.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Wed Feb 19, 2020 8:25 pm

Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Out of interest, I really enjoy Paul Stewarts vlog's and he loaded a Tasman 738 one a few nights ago.... I'm struggling to see why you rate QF so highly above NZ. I'm not saying anything wrong with QF at all. Just given how you view and rate NZ I'm not seeing where or why QF is so much better.


Oh that's easy. Yes, NZ probably has better a Y product on the Tasman; but that's where it stops. Why I rate QF as better overall?

- better J product - even the old Skybeds
- they have an F product
- more generous frequent flier program
- First class lounges in SYD, MEL, LHR and LAX are sublime
- generally a more professional approach - although I admit I haven't really flown NZ long haul much since days of Fyfe.
- No jokesy safety videos which to me are like an ice pick in the head
- less "woke"
- still have 744s and A380's - at least for now
- little service touches in Y, like being regularly offered water on long haul
- often cheaper
- still fly to LHR

Think that's about all.

Back to AKL. I wonder if there's any scope for making re-nationalisation an election issue?? THIS could be our finest hour.....


But various J products and having F class only on some aircraft is "Product Inconsistency" with NZ? :duck:

A more generous FFP, so generous in fact it's adding millions of dollars of liability to QF each year with points that haven't or should we say can't be redeemed. :hissyfit:

Not a clue what professional means and how this relates to not flying with NZ since Fyfe days. If it's reference to cabin crew then this has for a long time been once of the key differences and strengths of the NZ brand.

Still fly 744 and A380.... I'm sure their accountants hate them for it.

Can order anything you like via your IFE on NZ... including water. Most NZ long haul flights are at night time so cabin crew by deign keep their activity to a minimum. :champagne: :coffee:

Often cheaper, well if you're comparing it to NZ on the markets they compete... doesn't that say something about NZ. If you look at the Tasman, higher market-share then QF/JQ combined yet more expensive. Supply, Demand perhaps. :stirthepot:

Still fly to LHR lol... If flying QF metal is that important then :checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark: but NZ flies to LHR with SQ and others... while QF doesn't fly to places NZ does.

In all seriousness both brands are pretty good and we're lucky to have them both here.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1582
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Wed Feb 19, 2020 8:45 pm

NZ321 wrote:
I think most Aucklanders have had enough. I agree with Gasman. Time to to get the AKL issue on the election agenda.

Sorry to say, but I think "most Aucklanders" don't know or care about the state of AKL. This is an issue in the A-net bubble, but hardly an election issue. Besides, what's the solution at governmental level? Nationalise a "successful" private company? Legislate to compel AIAL to invest? Subsidise a competitor in NZWP (now that WOULD be an election issue, but doomed to failure). I think we cooked our goose decades ago.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 990
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Wed Feb 19, 2020 9:06 pm

Generally most people don't care too much about airport capability on the airside as long as they can get to an airport easily and have somewhere to sit and eat while there. Super efficient runways and gorgeous views are secondary nice to haves. As most will only spend a couple hours at a time in an airport. Spending more time preparing, traveling to, and then traveling from an airport.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Wed Feb 19, 2020 10:19 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
NZ321 wrote:
I think most Aucklanders have had enough. I agree with Gasman. Time to to get the AKL issue on the election agenda.

Sorry to say, but I think "most Aucklanders" don't know or care about the state of AKL. This is an issue in the A-net bubble, but hardly an election issue. Besides, what's the solution at governmental level? Nationalise a "successful" private company? Legislate to compel AIAL to invest? Subsidise a competitor in NZWP (now that WOULD be an election issue, but doomed to failure). I think we cooked our goose decades ago.


I agree it's not an election issue, there are significantly bigger fish to fry or promises to make.

But I disagree that it's an a.net bubble. Almost every person I know who travels through AKL is frustrated with the lack of development beyond the shops. Without doubt the common themes are

- Congestion
- Transport / Parking costs
- Use of stairs and lack of adequately sizes gates
- Overall lack of facilities while air side vs world class airports elsewhere.

One point which has not been brought up in this debate is the extended journey times for AKL-WLG and AKL-CHC sectors partially caused by increased tarmac congestion, 5 mins hardly justifies an additional runway but add up on top of additional fuel over thousands of flights and it starts to become another factor.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1582
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Wed Feb 19, 2020 11:04 pm

NZ6 wrote:
But I disagree that [the state of AKL is an a.net bubble. Almost every person I know who travels through AKL is frustrated with the lack of development beyond the shops.

I guess it depends on who you know. In my circle (many regular travellers) it really doesn't rate a mention (apart from the cost of parking). But then, we're all "easy come easy go" personalities. We certainly don't have the exacting travel expectations that many on this thread appear to have!
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
NZ6
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Wed Feb 19, 2020 11:32 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
But I disagree that [the state of AKL is an a.net bubble. Almost every person I know who travels through AKL is frustrated with the lack of development beyond the shops.

I guess it depends on who you know. In my circle (many regular travellers) it really doesn't rate a mention (apart from the cost of parking). But then, we're all "easy come easy go" personalities. We certainly don't have the exacting travel expectations that many on this thread appear to have!


And it's worth noting there's a difference between acceptable/tolerable and good (or any other better adjective).

I think many have grown to accept AKL for what it is and therefore don't comment, I'm not sure if that's a reliable measurement how success, acceptance or an indication that money is being spent where it ideally should.

Likewise it's not a concern or issue for others.

Anyway, I thought you wanted to be woken when this conversation was over :scratchchin: Good that you've decided to add another point of view though :bigthumbsup:
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1582
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Wed Feb 19, 2020 11:38 pm

NZ6 wrote:
Anyway, I thought you wanted to be woken when this conversation was over :scratchchin: Good that you've decided to add another point of view though :bigthumbsup:

Touché! Clearly I just can’t help myself!
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4170
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Wed Feb 19, 2020 11:50 pm

zkncj wrote:
Has an replacement *A livery A321/320NEO joined the fleet yet?


I'm also wondering how this is being dealt with.

Kiwirob wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

I can think of a big one Heathrow is part owned by Ferrovial, they’re Spanish.
Stansted owned by Manchester Airport which is part owned by an Australian Investment fund.

Manchester Airport makes Auckland look like Changi Airport. Truly amazing how an airport in a first world country can be such an unpleasant and generally awful place.
First to fly the 787-9
 
PA515
Posts: 1588
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Thu Feb 20, 2020 12:14 am

NZ516 wrote:
Recently ZKOJH has been retired with it's last flight being NZ888 SYD to CHC on the 16 Feb.
This leaves just 5 of the original A320s left as 8 gone.. When does the next 320neo arrive ZKNHE?
I think there is 2 more to go until the domestic neos join the fleet:
OJB
OJD
OJF
OJI
OJM


Is ZK-OJH definitely retired or just in maintenance?

The two A320-271s ZK-NHE and ZK-NHF were due for delivery in FY2022, probably by Dec 2021.
The three domestic A321-271NXs were due for delivery in FY2021, probably by Feb 2021.

The half yearly result is due next week, Thu 27 Feb 2020, there could be some changes.

PA515
 
NZ516
Posts: 305
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Thu Feb 20, 2020 12:36 am

zkncj wrote:

Has an replacement *A livery A321/320NEO joined the fleet yet? since OJK was the *A branded A320.


The Star Alliance 320 was actually OJH. There is no replacement yet perhaps ZKNHE the next one to come will be painted in the livery.
 
NZ516
Posts: 305
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Thu Feb 20, 2020 12:46 am

PA515 wrote:
[

Is ZK-OJH definitely retired or just in maintenance?

The two A320-271s ZK-NHE and ZK-NHF were due for delivery in FY2022, probably by Dec 2021.
The three domestic A321-271NXs were due for delivery in FY2021, probably by Feb 2021.

The half yearly result is due next week, Thu 27 Feb 2020, there could be some changes.

PA515


All finished up for OJH from many posts I have read. Just the 5 now left 3 doing domestic flying and 2 international.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3556
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Thu Feb 20, 2020 3:23 am

NZ516 wrote:
PA515 wrote:
[

Is ZK-OJH definitely retired or just in maintenance?

The two A320-271s ZK-NHE and ZK-NHF were due for delivery in FY2022, probably by Dec 2021.
The three domestic A321-271NXs were due for delivery in FY2021, probably by Feb 2021.

The half yearly result is due next week, Thu 27 Feb 2020, there could be some changes.

PA515


All finished up for OJH from many posts I have read. Just the 5 now left 3 doing domestic flying and 2 international.


WLG-BNE-NLK seems to be an popular route for the a320CEO’s at the moment.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4459
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Thu Feb 20, 2020 6:51 am

AKL has just announced today that they are getting to work immediately on expanding the arrivals hall (big new roof, extending into the taxi rank area, lots of wood paneling in the design (ie Maori design influences).
They have also said they expect the new domestic terminal to be underway within 3 years and are indeed doing prep work for it now - someone was talking about that recently... I still doubt it will be operational within 5 years but this is a positive announcement. No update on the 2nd runway.
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3556
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Thu Feb 20, 2020 6:56 am

Zkpilot wrote:
AKL has just announced today that they are getting to work immediately on expanding the arrivals hall (big new roof, extending into the taxi rank area, lots of wood paneling in the design (ie Maori design influences).
They have also said they expect the new domestic terminal to be underway within 3 years and are indeed doing prep work for it now - someone was talking about that recently... I still doubt it will be operational within 5 years but this is a positive announcement. No update on the 2nd runway.


I wonder how much shops will be going into the new doubled sized arrivals space? Versus how much extra space there will be for passengers processing.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12635
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Thu Feb 20, 2020 7:28 am

zkojq wrote:
zkncj wrote:
Has an replacement *A livery A321/320NEO joined the fleet yet?


I'm also wondering how this is being dealt with.

Kiwirob wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
Stansted owned by Manchester Airport which is part owned by an Australian Investment fund.

Manchester Airport makes Auckland look like Changi Airport. Truly amazing how an airport in a first world country can be such an unpleasant and generally awful place.


I'd put Manchester and Auckland on equal footing, they're both as bad as each other, however Manchester's runway isn't falling to pieces and they have two of them.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12635
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Thu Feb 20, 2020 7:40 am

Zkpilot wrote:
AKL has just announced today that they are getting to work immediately on expanding the arrivals hall (big new roof, extending into the taxi rank area, lots of wood paneling in the design (ie Maori design influences).
They have also said they expect the new domestic terminal to be underway within 3 years and are indeed doing prep work for it now - someone was talking about that recently... I still doubt it will be operational within 5 years but this is a positive announcement. No update on the 2nd runway.


What not another new roof, if you've ever google earthed AKL the number of different roofs on there terminal is astounding, I'd imagine it must be a nightmare for the people installing guttering to work out where all the water should go!
 
Gasman
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:27 am

NZ6 wrote:
Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Out of interest, I really enjoy Paul Stewarts vlog's and he loaded a Tasman 738 one a few nights ago.... I'm struggling to see why you rate QF so highly above NZ. I'm not saying anything wrong with QF at all. Just given how you view and rate NZ I'm not seeing where or why QF is so much better.


Oh that's easy. Yes, NZ probably has better a Y product on the Tasman; but that's where it stops. Why I rate QF as better overall?

- better J product - even the old Skybeds
- they have an F product
- more generous frequent flier program
- First class lounges in SYD, MEL, LHR and LAX are sublime
- generally a more professional approach - although I admit I haven't really flown NZ long haul much since days of Fyfe.
- No jokesy safety videos which to me are like an ice pick in the head
- less "woke"
- still have 744s and A380's - at least for now
- little service touches in Y, like being regularly offered water on long haul
- often cheaper
- still fly to LHR

Think that's about all.

Back to AKL. I wonder if there's any scope for making re-nationalisation an election issue?? THIS could be our finest hour.....


Your retorts below are really rather weak, and perhaps I should just let the audience decide; but anyway......

nz6 wrote:
But various J products and having F class only on some aircraft is "Product Inconsistency" with NZ? :duck:


Not sure what you mean. I find QF's long haul J product worlds better than NZ's. And QF have a F class. Those things are appealing to me. End of.

NZ6 wrote:
A more generous FFP, so generous in fact it's adding millions of dollars of liability to QF each year with points that haven't or should we say can't be redeemed. :hissyfit:


Of course it's a liability. All loyalty programs are a liability. I personally have no trouble spending my QF points (I have done, many hundreds of thousands) and it's a more generous program than NZ's

NZ6 wrote:
Not a clue what professional means and how this relates to not flying with NZ since Fyfe days. If it's reference to cabin crew then this has for a long time been once of the key differences and strengths of the NZ brand.


Don't pretend to be thick. You know exactly what "professionalism" means. It means not dumbing everything down to the lowest common denominator. It means not cramming 10 abreast into an aircraft designed for 9 and calling it an "enhancement". It means not insulting our intelligence with marketing efforts like Ricco. It means not greeting me with "Hi mate" when you're a 20 year old FA in J with your shirt hanging out. It means striking a balance between friendliness, attentiveness and respect which QF manage to do. Fyfe? Perhaps it wasn't directly related, but much of the culture shift towards "casual everything, and let's pretend we don't even know what "professionalism" means (oh such a "boomer" term!)" happened under his watch.

NZ6 wrote:
Still fly 744 and A380.... I'm sure their accountants hate them for it.


Maybe they do, maybe they don't; but how is this relevant to me as a fare paying passenger who prefers to fly on A380s and 747s over 777s and 787s?

NZ6 wrote:
Can order anything you like via your IFE on NZ... including water. Most NZ long haul flights are at night time so cabin crew by deign keep their activity to a minimum. :champagne: :coffee:


You can, but it's a bit of a crap shoot as to how long it'll take to come and anyway, I think for something basic like water it's a nice touch to have it frequently offered.

NZ6" wrote:
In all seriousness both brands are pretty good and we're lucky to have them both here.


The one thing you said that actually does make sense.

You asked me a genuine question as to why I prefer QF, and I replied.
 
User avatar
MillwallSean
Posts: 961
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:56 am

zkncj wrote:
I wonder how much shops will be going into the new doubled sized arrivals space? Versus how much extra space there will be for passengers processing.


I must say that if they build a new domestic terminal adjacent to the international and if they expand the 'protect the farmers from competition' section, I am more than happy to walk through five minutes of shopping mall.
I spend a few hours bi-weekly in SG malls and 30 minutes going through 277 or St Lukes anyway. Whats an extra five minutes walking through some mall. I dont mind Terminal 2 in KLIA either despite me having to walk through a shopping mall. Its 5 minutes and the terminal is a huge improvement to what they had before.

And if they are serious about doing something to the damn MAF process Id be happy.
The MAF section is what is truly god damn awful at AKL. Chaos in the queue, slow process and a general waste of time that leads to frustration and annoyance. 35% of NZ population and growing lives in Auckland and hmm the understanding of the need for these biosecurity rules isn't exactly growing.
The comment, 'I dont care if we got fruit-flies, in fact I'm all for fruit-flies if it helps us get some decent mangoes/pineapples/apples/cheese/wine/delis in the supermarkets etc' seems to be the norm these days. At least among the crowds I move in.
And when belief in a system is lost, consequences are quite obvious aka no surprise that we have seen the fruit-fly detection in some of Auckland's more affluent areas...
No One Likes Us - We Dont Care.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:36 pm

MillwallSean wrote:
zkncj wrote:
And if they are serious about doing something to the damn MAF process Id be happy.
The MAF section is what is truly god damn awful at AKL. Chaos in the queue, slow process and a general waste of time that leads to frustration and annoyance. 35% of NZ population and growing lives in Auckland and hmm the understanding of the need for these biosecurity rules isn't exactly growing


Completely agree. The MAF area is a disgrace and has been that way for at least 20 years now. And I wonder, as you intimate, is there any real evidence it achieves a darn thing anyway?
 
aklrno
Posts: 1545
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:18 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:55 pm

MillwallSean wrote:
zkncj wrote:
I wonder how much shops will be going into the new doubled sized arrivals space? Versus how much extra space there will be for passengers processing.


I must say that if they build a new domestic terminal adjacent to the international and if they expand the 'protect the farmers from competition' section, I am more than happy to walk through five minutes of shopping mall.
I spend a few hours bi-weekly in SG malls and 30 minutes going through 277 or St Lukes anyway. Whats an extra five minutes walking through some mall. I dont mind Terminal 2 in KLIA either despite me having to walk through a shopping mall. Its 5 minutes and the terminal is a huge improvement to what they had before.

And if they are serious about doing something to the damn MAF process Id be happy.
The MAF section is what is truly god damn awful at AKL. Chaos in the queue, slow process and a general waste of time that leads to frustration and annoyance. 35% of NZ population and growing lives in Auckland and hmm the understanding of the need for these biosecurity rules isn't exactly growing.
The comment, 'I dont care if we got fruit-flies, in fact I'm all for fruit-flies if it helps us get some decent mangoes/pineapples/apples/cheese/wine/delis in the supermarkets etc' seems to be the norm these days. At least among the crowds I move in.
And when belief in a system is lost, consequences are quite obvious aka no surprise that we have seen the fruit-fly detection in some of Auckland's more affluent areas...

You REALLY REALLY don't want fruit flies in NZ. They can devastate fruit orchards. There are plenty of other bugs you also don't want.

I have my own problems with the biosecurity inspection (and isn't it now MPI, not MAF?) I tried to bring in a jar of Orville Redenbacher Gourmet popcorn kernels (its really good stuff) and was told it was forbidden. Not that it could carry bugs, but because it was GMO corn kernels, and they claimed you could grow forbidden corn from it. The whole GMO thing is pseudo science anyway, and who is going to use it for seed corn? They offered to heat treat it for me for $60 and then I could have it. Not just financial nonsense, but I think it would then be popped, requiring several huge bags to take it home.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:06 pm

Zkpilot wrote:
AKL has just announced today that they are getting to work immediately on expanding the arrivals hall (big new roof, extending into the taxi rank area, lots of wood paneling in the design (ie Maori design influences).
They have also said they expect the new domestic terminal to be underway within 3 years and are indeed doing prep work for it now - someone was talking about that recently... I still doubt it will be operational within 5 years but this is a positive announcement. No update on the 2nd runway.


I always find the MPI queues long but it moves reasonably quickly, having said that, it's probably at or very near capacity so it's good to see this being redeveloped now.

Customs and baggage claim are also pretty quick. e-Gates have made customs an absolute breeze, so much so that you're often at the baggage belt well before your bags are there.

On one hand I want to be critical and say they're building something with 50% more space but have no gates for these growth passengers to de-plane but I also want to acknowledge AKLI for building for the future with this size.

They have 14 years to get ready for double the number of passengers:
traveller numbers are estimated to more than double to 40 million-plus per year by 2044

Given the time frame given for the domestic terminal construction and demonstrated time frame for the development of pier B and those gates, I think we need to see another announcement within the next 12-18 months for gates 19-20-21-22-23 on the northern side of pier B. Fingers crossed this will include more 'facilities' in Pier B also.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:05 pm

Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Gasman wrote:

Oh that's easy. Yes, NZ probably has better a Y product on the Tasman; but that's where it stops. Why I rate QF as better overall?

- better J product - even the old Skybeds
- they have an F product
- more generous frequent flier program
- First class lounges in SYD, MEL, LHR and LAX are sublime
- generally a more professional approach - although I admit I haven't really flown NZ long haul much since days of Fyfe.
- No jokesy safety videos which to me are like an ice pick in the head
- less "woke"
- still have 744s and A380's - at least for now
- little service touches in Y, like being regularly offered water on long haul
- often cheaper
- still fly to LHR

Think that's about all.

Back to AKL. I wonder if there's any scope for making re-nationalisation an election issue?? THIS could be our finest hour.....


Your retorts below are really rather weak, and perhaps I should just let the audience decide; but anyway......

nz6 wrote:
But various J products and having F class only on some aircraft is "Product Inconsistency" with NZ? :duck:


Not sure what you mean. I find QF's long haul J product worlds better than NZ's. And QF have a F class. Those things are appealing to me. End of.

NZ6 wrote:
A more generous FFP, so generous in fact it's adding millions of dollars of liability to QF each year with points that haven't or should we say can't be redeemed. :hissyfit:


Of course it's a liability. All loyalty programs are a liability. I personally have no trouble spending my QF points (I have done, many hundreds of thousands) and it's a more generous program than NZ's

NZ6 wrote:
Not a clue what professional means and how this relates to not flying with NZ since Fyfe days. If it's reference to cabin crew then this has for a long time been once of the key differences and strengths of the NZ brand.


Don't pretend to be thick. You know exactly what "professionalism" means. It means not dumbing everything down to the lowest common denominator. It means not cramming 10 abreast into an aircraft designed for 9 and calling it an "enhancement". It means not insulting our intelligence with marketing efforts like Ricco. It means not greeting me with "Hi mate" when you're a 20 year old FA in J with your shirt hanging out. It means striking a balance between friendliness, attentiveness and respect which QF manage to do. Fyfe? Perhaps it wasn't directly related, but much of the culture shift towards "casual everything, and let's pretend we don't even know what "professionalism" means (oh such a "boomer" term!)" happened under his watch.

NZ6 wrote:
Still fly 744 and A380.... I'm sure their accountants hate them for it.


Maybe they do, maybe they don't; but how is this relevant to me as a fare paying passenger who prefers to fly on A380s and 747s over 777s and 787s?

NZ6 wrote:
Can order anything you like via your IFE on NZ... including water. Most NZ long haul flights are at night time so cabin crew by deign keep their activity to a minimum. :champagne: :coffee:


You can, but it's a bit of a crap shoot as to how long it'll take to come and anyway, I think for something basic like water it's a nice touch to have it frequently offered.

NZ6" wrote:
In all seriousness both brands are pretty good and we're lucky to have them both here.


The one thing you said that actually does make sense.

You asked me a genuine question as to why I prefer QF, and I replied.


Most of my replies were tongue and check hence the use of emojis, just to lighten the mood as many are sick of the back and forth of it.

To clarify my comments though and not for the purpose of debate
- Inconsistent product comment was on the back of members calling NZ out for being having "Inconsistent Product" on the back of NZ not having J on A320. The link is QF don't have F on all aircraft and two types of J product. As the saying goes, what's good for the goose is good for the....

- As for the FFP, there's pros and cons to both approaches, a quick google search highlights some of the negative sides to the QF model. But if that works for your travel needs then brilliant but it has it's challenges and that is, you need to fly when there are redemption seats available which doesn't always suit and can undo any potential generosity.

- I know what professionalism is; if you read the whole sentence you'll see my confusion is on how this relates to you disliking NZ. I'm not sure if you're completely answered it there as well but probably gave a better indication to the entire question. FYI Rob Fyfe left NZ at the end of 2012, closing in on 8 years ago now. We've had Luxon since then and onto a 3rd one now. You can't judge someones level of service by their age so the credibility of any augment because they're 20 is void. Besides that, being in the J cabin as you quoted would highlight they've developed into this duty from being good at what they do. As for the shirt, there are very strict uniform standards and one can only assume a shirt as slipped out while reaching up or down for something in the course of their duties. Heaven forbid that happening. Ricco, was about 10 years ago and was a marketing tool which was succeeded by the more successful safety videos.

- You said you prefer QF over NZ as they still fly A380's and 744's. It's a odd reason to dislike NZ, by all means prefer QF because they have the equipment you prefer but the days are numbered due to the inefficiency of the types.

- Much like the other points here, if being offered a couple of inches of water every hour or so makes QF your airline of choice that's okay. But I'm not sure how it makes NZ so bad, they do as well for what it's worth. Just not as often on overnight flights etc and as mentioned, the full menu is available free via IFE.

I'm not trying to say you must prefer NZ over QF. QF is a great airline, I'm just trying to work out why you 'hate' NZ so much. From what I've seen, heard, experienced first hand. Both NZ and QF offer pros and cons in their differences. This came from the IFE, WIFI and meal service my friend of mine experienced a week or so ago.

It seems you're most passionate about some of the decisions made between 2005 and 2012 under Rob Fyfe. While the FFP may not suit your personal travel needs, perhaps its time to open your mind and eyes to what's changed over the last 8 years. You can still prefer QF and can still dislike individual choices of NZ.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:31 pm

NZ6 wrote:
Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:


Your retorts below are really rather weak, and perhaps I should just let the audience decide; but anyway......

nz6 wrote:
But various J products and having F class only on some aircraft is "Product Inconsistency" with NZ? :duck:


Not sure what you mean. I find QF's long haul J product worlds better than NZ's. And QF have a F class. Those things are appealing to me. End of.

NZ6 wrote:
A more generous FFP, so generous in fact it's adding millions of dollars of liability to QF each year with points that haven't or should we say can't be redeemed. :hissyfit:


Of course it's a liability. All loyalty programs are a liability. I personally have no trouble spending my QF points (I have done, many hundreds of thousands) and it's a more generous program than NZ's

NZ6 wrote:
Not a clue what professional means and how this relates to not flying with NZ since Fyfe days. If it's reference to cabin crew then this has for a long time been once of the key differences and strengths of the NZ brand.


Don't pretend to be thick. You know exactly what "professionalism" means. It means not dumbing everything down to the lowest common denominator. It means not cramming 10 abreast into an aircraft designed for 9 and calling it an "enhancement". It means not insulting our intelligence with marketing efforts like Ricco. It means not greeting me with "Hi mate" when you're a 20 year old FA in J with your shirt hanging out. It means striking a balance between friendliness, attentiveness and respect which QF manage to do. Fyfe? Perhaps it wasn't directly related, but much of the culture shift towards "casual everything, and let's pretend we don't even know what "professionalism" means (oh such a "boomer" term!)" happened under his watch.

NZ6 wrote:
Still fly 744 and A380.... I'm sure their accountants hate them for it.


Maybe they do, maybe they don't; but how is this relevant to me as a fare paying passenger who prefers to fly on A380s and 747s over 777s and 787s?

NZ6 wrote:
Can order anything you like via your IFE on NZ... including water. Most NZ long haul flights are at night time so cabin crew by deign keep their activity to a minimum. :champagne: :coffee:


You can, but it's a bit of a crap shoot as to how long it'll take to come and anyway, I think for something basic like water it's a nice touch to have it frequently offered.

NZ6" wrote:
In all seriousness both brands are pretty good and we're lucky to have them both here.


The one thing you said that actually does make sense.

You asked me a genuine question as to why I prefer QF, and I replied.


Most of my replies were tongue and check hence the use of emojis, just to lighten the mood as many are sick of the back and forth of it.

To clarify my comments though and not for the purpose of debate
- Inconsistent product comment was on the back of members calling NZ out for being having "Inconsistent Product" on the back of NZ not having J on A320. The link is QF don't have F on all aircraft and two types of J product. As the saying goes, what's good for the goose is good for the....

- As for the FFP, there's pros and cons to both approaches, a quick google search highlights some of the negative sides to the QF model. But if that works for your travel needs then brilliant but it has it's challenges and that is, you need to fly when there are redemption seats available which doesn't always suit and can undo any potential generosity.

- I know what professionalism is; if you read the whole sentence you'll see my confusion is on how this relates to you disliking NZ. I'm not sure if you're completely answered it there as well but probably gave a better indication to the entire question. FYI Rob Fyfe left NZ at the end of 2012, closing in on 8 years ago now. We've had Luxon since then and onto a 3rd one now. You can't judge someones level of service by their age so the credibility of any augment because they're 20 is void. Besides that, being in the J cabin as you quoted would highlight they've developed into this duty from being good at what they do. As for the shirt, there are very strict uniform standards and one can only assume a shirt as slipped out while reaching up or down for something in the course of their duties. Heaven forbid that happening. Ricco, was about 10 years ago and was a marketing tool which was succeeded by the more successful safety videos.

- You said you prefer QF over NZ as they still fly A380's and 744's. It's a odd reason to dislike NZ, by all means prefer QF because they have the equipment you prefer but the days are numbered due to the inefficiency of the types.

- Much like the other points here, if being offered a couple of inches of water every hour or so makes QF your airline of choice that's okay. But I'm not sure how it makes NZ so bad, they do as well for what it's worth. Just not as often on overnight flights etc and as mentioned, the full menu is available free via IFE.

I'm not trying to say you must prefer NZ over QF. QF is a great airline, I'm just trying to work out why you 'hate' NZ so much. From what I've seen, heard, experienced first hand. Both NZ and QF offer pros and cons in their differences. This came from the IFE, WIFI and meal service my friend of mine experienced a week or so ago.

It seems you're most passionate about some of the decisions made between 2005 and 2012 under Rob Fyfe. While the FFP may not suit your personal travel needs, perhaps its time to open your mind and eyes to what's changed over the last 8 years. You can still prefer QF and can still dislike individual choices of NZ.


You still don't seem to really get it.

I don't "hate" NZ at all. The changes to the hard & soft product between 2005ish - 2014 simultaneously with what I perceived to be a reduction in professionalism did cause me to explore other options, and QF ended up providing pretty much 100% what I wanted. You asked why I prefer them; I explained. If those reasons are still baffling, there's really not much I can add.

It bothered me on an emotional level for a while; because I was once passionate about NZ and believed I couldn't be the only NZ FF who felt this way; and once you lose someone's loyalty, it's very hard to get it back - particularly if they're enjoying where they've gone. Would I ever come back? unlikely. There'd have to be a few decisions that irked the shareholders and accountants, and there's no recent precedent for that with NZ at all.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Thu Feb 20, 2020 11:37 pm

Gasman wrote:
You still don't seem to really get it.

I don't "hate" NZ at all. The changes to the hard & soft product between 2005ish - 2014 simultaneously with what I perceived to be a reduction in professionalism did cause me to explore other options, and QF ended up providing pretty much 100% what I wanted. You asked why I prefer them; I explained. If those reasons are still baffling, there's really not much I can add.


Perhaps hate is not the correct word, should we call it a strong dislike which is expressed at every opportunity.

You don't have to prefer NZ. I just don't get what makes the gap so big. :scratchchin: Anyway.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1582
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Fri Feb 21, 2020 12:39 am

NZ6 wrote:
Gasman wrote:
You still don't seem to really get it.

I don't "hate" NZ at all. The changes to the hard & soft product between 2005ish - 2014 simultaneously with what I perceived to be a reduction in professionalism did cause me to explore other options, and QF ended up providing pretty much 100% what I wanted. You asked why I prefer them; I explained. If those reasons are still baffling, there's really not much I can add.


Perhaps hate is not the correct word, should we call it a strong dislike which is expressed at every opportunity.

You don't have to prefer NZ. I just don't get what makes the gap so big. :scratchchin: Anyway.

I’ve rarely encountered someone who has such strong feelings about initiatives that took place in some cases well over a decade ago (Ricco etc) and who still allows them not only to influence their current decisions but also to spawn such screeds of written diatribe. Directed to A-netters, and not to the people who could actually change things. Each to their own, of course, but I couldn’t sustain such hate (that’s certainly the way it comes across, even though Gasman denies it’s hate) for such a long period. Maybe I’m too lacking in principle. Respect, I guess, for Gasman’s stickability!

BTW Gasman - are you the same person who used to post eons ago as Gasman767? Just curious!
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
Gasman
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Fri Feb 21, 2020 1:03 am

DavidByrne wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Gasman wrote:
You still don't seem to really get it.

I don't "hate" NZ at all. The changes to the hard & soft product between 2005ish - 2014 simultaneously with what I perceived to be a reduction in professionalism did cause me to explore other options, and QF ended up providing pretty much 100% what I wanted. You asked why I prefer them; I explained. If those reasons are still baffling, there's really not much I can add.


Perhaps hate is not the correct word, should we call it a strong dislike which is expressed at every opportunity.

You don't have to prefer NZ. I just don't get what makes the gap so big. :scratchchin: Anyway.

I’ve rarely encountered someone who has such strong feelings about initiatives that took place in some cases well over a decade ago (Ricco etc) and who still allows them not only to influence their current decisions


It doesn't. My current decisions are based on maintaining frequent flier status with an airline I'm quite happy with. The decision to switch was made 6 years ago and based on many factors.

davidbyrne wrote:
but also to spawn such screeds of written diatribe.


Cheers. In this case, answering a genuine question from NZ6 which he initiated.

NZ6 wrote:
Directed to A-netters, and not to the people who could actually change things.


How do you know what a-netters might be in a position to change things??

As it happens, I did write to Rob Fyfe, who replied (and I quote) "we're on a new journey, and we recognise we won't be able to take everyone with us".

davidbyrne wrote:
Each to their own, of course, but I couldn’t sustain such hate (that’s certainly the way it comes across, even though Gasman denies it’s hate) for such a long period. Maybe I’m too lacking in principle. Respect, I guess, for Gasman’s stickability!

BTW Gasman - are you the same person who used to post eons ago as Gasman767? Just curious!


No.
 
NZ516
Posts: 305
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Fri Feb 21, 2020 2:28 pm

We could compare Auckland Airport with Brisbane Airport as they were both former Government owned and now both privatised. BNE was sold in 1997 to financial institutions one of which is the Amsterdam Airport group. A wise decision by the Australian government.

They are both similar operations with BNE slightly busier than AKL.
BNE handle 23 million passengers a year while AKL is not too far behind at 21 million.
But somehow BNE is the better facility has a train service to the city privately funded.
The big question is how they can afford a second parallel runway and Auckland cannot plus terminal upgrades at the same time. Their runway cost of $1.1 billion ($200m under budget too) all payed for without the taxpayer having to give a cent. A remarkable outcome for the city. As they will have one of if not the best airports in Australia. If only we could have gone with the same model when AKL was privatised things could be so much better today
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5453
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:40 pm

NZ516 wrote:
We could compare Auckland Airport with Brisbane Airport as they were both former Government owned and now both privatised. BNE was sold in 1997 to financial institutions one of which is the Amsterdam Airport group. A wise decision by the Australian government.

They are both similar operations with BNE slightly busier than AKL.
BNE handle 23 million passengers a year while AKL is not too far behind at 21 million.
But somehow BNE is the better facility has a train service to the city privately funded.
The big question is how they can afford a second parallel runway and Auckland cannot plus terminal upgrades at the same time. Their runway cost of $1.1 billion ($200m under budget too) all payed for without the taxpayer having to give a cent. A remarkable outcome for the city. As they will have one of if not the best airports in Australia. If only we could have gone with the same model when AKL was privatised things could be so much better today

There are probably a few differences worth pointing out too:
  • Brisbane had new terminals built more or less immediately prior to privatisation (domestic in 1988, international in 1995).
  • Brisbane had a more extensive suburban rail network which had been revitalised with electrification in the late 1970s/early 1980s.
  • Having lives in Brisbane, I’ve seen firsthand how major infrastructure projects move very quickly there; more so than in Sydney or Melbourne and definitely more so than Auckland. It isn’t my area of expertise so I wouldn’t want to hazard a guess on reasons for this, but I suspect well resourced civil engineering contractors that have benefitted from state government policies from the 1980s up to today are probably a big part of the reason for this.

All that said, I too wish AKL could be a bit more like BNE, which definitely did benefit from Schiphol’s expertise.

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
 
Gasman
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:58 pm

AKL has announced a $147.2 million profit after tax in the six months to 31 Dec 2019. That's after operating costs have been deducted. Make of that what you will.

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