Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
 
darrellpearce
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 8:19 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sat Feb 22, 2020 12:39 am

Auckland, New Zealand - Air New Zealand terminates its ATR 72-500 operations. The airline now put its six remaining ATR 72-500s up for sale.
The aircraft with registration ZK-MCY (MSN 703) conducted Air New Zealand's last commercial ATR72-500 flight on February 9 as flight NZ5383 from Wellington to Christchurch.
The carrier will continue to serve its regional routes with its ATR 72-600 fleet of 27 aircraft. The airline operates its ATR 72-600s for scheduled flights throughout the North and South Islands of New Zealand. NZ5383.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2202
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sat Feb 22, 2020 12:45 am

NZ6 wrote:
As for heavy rail, from where it branches off to the airport is around 5km straight line from the International terminal, only 1-2km of that is via suburbia but has been elevated to bypass existing roadways and other infrastructure. Sounds like Puhinui to me.


Absolutely.

And let's not forget, that rail link wasn't a free lunch for BNE either. If you're traveling to BNE from the Gold Coast for example, that one extra stop to the airport from Eagle Junction basically doubles your train fare. But it still remains a comparatively cheap and massively convenient option.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3893
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sat Feb 22, 2020 12:50 am

darrellpearce wrote:
Auckland, New Zealand - Air New Zealand terminates its ATR 72-500 operations. The airline now put its six remaining ATR 72-500s up for sale.
The aircraft with registration ZK-MCY (MSN 703) conducted Air New Zealand's last commercial ATR72-500 flight on February 9 as flight NZ5383 from Wellington to Christchurch.
The carrier will continue to serve its regional routes with its ATR 72-600 fleet of 27 aircraft. The airline operates its ATR 72-600s for scheduled flights throughout the North and South Islands of New Zealand. NZ5383.


Now for ATR to bring out the 72-700 in an couple of years time...

To think between 1995 and now that the ATR fleet has gone from 72-200s, 72-500s, and now 72-600s. With every round increasing the fleet size.
 
User avatar
hic787
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:29 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sat Feb 22, 2020 12:53 am

Speaking of ATR's, I see today that they're flying up to Kerikeri today instead of the usual Q300.

Is this new or have they done this previously?
 
zkncj
Posts: 3893
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sat Feb 22, 2020 2:16 am

hic787 wrote:
Speaking of ATR's, I see today that they're flying up to Kerikeri today instead of the usual Q300.

Is this new or have they done this previously?


There is an sold out Six60 gig on at Western springs tonight, that could be impacting regional loads today.
 
User avatar
SXI899
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:02 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sat Feb 22, 2020 3:57 am

hic787 wrote:
Speaking of ATR's, I see today that they're flying up to Kerikeri today instead of the usual Q300.

Is this new or have they done this previously?

Based on the flight numbers these are likely charters.
We deliver......
 
pbm
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:38 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sat Feb 22, 2020 8:44 am

Gasman wrote:
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.


What do you make of it? I’m not sure what I’m meant to make of it.
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10111
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sat Feb 22, 2020 8:47 am

Looks like another VA ATR departed NSN bound for Australia today for repainting into new colours
Head Forum Moderator
[email protected]
Flown: 1900D,S340,Q300,AT72-5/6,DC3,CR2/7,E145,E70/75/90,A319/20/21,A332/3,A359,A380,F100,B717,B733/4/8/9,B742/4,B752/3,B763,B772/3, B789
With: NZ,SJ,QF,JQ,EK,VA,AA,UA,DL,FL,AC,FJ,SQ,TG,PR
 
Gasman
Posts: 2202
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sat Feb 22, 2020 9:15 am

pbm wrote:
Gasman wrote:
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.


What do you make of it? I’m not sure what I’m meant to make of it.


What do I make of it? That after you've landed the aircraft, paid the staff and (not) maintained the runway; this little enterprise brings in a million a day after tax. From a shareholders' perspective, there are worse performing investments out there.

I can't believe that the airlines and the public would be getting a *worse* deal if AKL had remained a state owned enterprise.
 
PA515
Posts: 1608
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sat Feb 22, 2020 10:17 am

777ER wrote:
Looks like another VA ATR departed NSN bound for Australia today for repainting into new colours

It's VH-FVX (msn 986), presently BNE-CNS.
http://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/vh-fvx

That just leaves VH-FVL (msn 974) stored at NSN.

PA515
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11138
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sat Feb 22, 2020 12:51 pm

Air New Zealand HKG/PVG changes

HKG, reduced to 4 weekly instead of daily, 21 Apr - 31 May 20
PVG, cancellation extended to 29 Apr 20

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... f-21feb20/
Forum Moderator
 
Megatop747-412
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2000 1:59 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sat Feb 22, 2020 7:01 pm

SXI899 wrote:
hic787 wrote:
Speaking of ATR's, I see today that they're flying up to Kerikeri today instead of the usual Q300.

Is this new or have they done this previously?

Based on the flight numbers these are likely charters.


It was a charter indeed. The Mrs’ company had their annual company conference up in the Bay of Islands and some of them (the Mrs included of course) returned on the chartered flight. The flight was operated by ATR 72-600 ZK-MVC...
 
zkncj
Posts: 3893
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sat Feb 22, 2020 7:09 pm

qf789 wrote:
Air New Zealand HKG/PVG changes

HKG, reduced to 4 weekly instead of daily, 21 Apr - 31 May 20
PVG, cancellation extended to 29 Apr 20

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... f-21feb20/


I wonder if PVG will likely just get dropped permanently in the background? It doesn’t seem like the outlook for that route is very good, even if restrictions are dropped next month. It’s likely going to take along time for travel pattens to China to be back to normal.

Maybe we could see the PVG aircraft allocations to start an new Asian route, once things have settled down. Maybe the likes of HKT? Or making DPS year round.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3893
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sat Feb 22, 2020 7:22 pm

Coming across this old article from 2004 this morning, has to be an laugh at how 16 years old NZ said the 77E/7E7 would be more comfortable for passengers.

It will spend about $1.4 billion on two of the American planemaker's 7E7 "Dreamliners" as well as eight Boeing 777-200 ER (extended-range) twin jets, four of which it will own (the rest will be leased).

The airline is promising more comfortable seats and no increase in airfares as a result of the deal.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti ... id=3570299


In theory they got part of the announcement right, there hasn’t really been that many long-haul price increases in the last 16 years, if anything travel has got cheaper.

Although that promised more comfortable seating has gone!
 
NZ6
Posts: 1603
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sat Feb 22, 2020 8:43 pm

Gasman wrote:
pbm wrote:
Gasman wrote:
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.


What do you make of it? I’m not sure what I’m meant to make of it.


What do I make of it? That after you've landed the aircraft, paid the staff and (not) maintained the runway; this little enterprise brings in a million a day after tax. From a shareholders' perspective, there are worse performing investments out there.

I can't believe that the airlines and the public would be getting a *worse* deal if AKL had remained a state owned enterprise.


It's like your both sparing but no one wants to go first....

Obviously $147m profit is after tax and other deductions. That's why it's profit. Anyway let's just call it a $350m annual profit. Looking at their projects, firstly they claim the arrivals all is the 4th of 8 key anchor infrastructure projects to get underway over the past year. I'm not sure I can count 8, are some yet to be announced? Don't tell me the Pullman is one? Either way the major ones I can think of are the ones mentioned.

Arrivals Hall: $350m
Airfield: $750m (renewing, maintaining and expanding the airfield and associated airfield utilities... building new taxiways and remote stands).
Domestic: $1B+

You can easily see that's $2B worth of projects and no mention of additional international gates or a second runway (in fact it highlights a potential increase in bus/stair operations). Safe to assume that would double it plus a bit more, so we can call that $5-6B if we did.

SH20B is a NZTA project so AIAL should claim nothing from it.
There's also no plans beyond light rail proposal, But I bet you AIAL will clip the ticket with a platform fee once it's there though.

When we consider this;
Auckland Airport is becoming an increasingly important business hub, with more than 900 businesses and 20,000 workers based at or near the airport,” said Mr Littlewood.


I believe AIAL has positioned itself nicely to return a regular and reasonably reliable profit, however, the 'upkeep' costs of core aviation services chew into this profit significantly. But based on what' their building it will make a vast improvement.

The issue the list of 'what's required' is not helped by their lack of development and poor prioritization since the mid 90's.

I can't see another large wave of additional international carriers or flights for a while, but I would like to see plans soon to build gates onto the northern side of Pier B. This would ease the use of remote gates but also provide capacity to redevelop Pier A and build the Pier A extension. If we had both those projects done today, AKL-I terminal would be 2030 ready in my mind. Problem is, we'll be well beyond 2030 by the time that's done.

https://corporate.aucklandairport.co.nz ... im-results
 
NZ6
Posts: 1603
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sat Feb 22, 2020 9:04 pm

qf789 wrote:
Air New Zealand HKG/PVG changes

HKG, reduced to 4 weekly instead of daily, 21 Apr - 31 May 20
PVG, cancellation extended to 29 Apr 20

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... f-21feb20/


zkncj wrote:
I wonder if PVG will likely just get dropped permanently in the background? It doesn’t seem like the outlook for that route is very good, even if restrictions are dropped next month. It’s likely going to take along time for travel pattens to China to be back to normal.

Maybe we could see the PVG aircraft allocations to start an new Asian route, once things have settled down. Maybe the likes of HKT? Or making DPS year round.


The bottom has completely dropped out of Asia due to the obvious. The same thing happened with SARS so it's a matter of moving quickly and adjusting capacity in the short term to reduce operational costs.

There's no plans for remove PVG that I know of. Obviously the CEO is new and he may well have very high level thoughts or plans but, personally China should be a market they try build for the long term.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1603
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sat Feb 22, 2020 9:16 pm

zkncj wrote:
Coming across this old article from 2004 this morning, has to be an laugh at how 16 years old NZ said the 77E/7E7 would be more comfortable for passengers.

It will spend about $1.4 billion on two of the American planemaker's 7E7 "Dreamliners" as well as eight Boeing 777-200 ER (extended-range) twin jets, four of which it will own (the rest will be leased).

The airline is promising more comfortable seats and no increase in airfares as a result of the deal.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti ... id=3570299


In theory they got part of the announcement right, there hasn’t really been that many long-haul price increases in the last 16 years, if anything travel has got cheaper.

Although that promised more comfortable seating has gone!


In referernece to this

zkncj wrote:
has to be an laugh at how 16 years old NZ said the 77E/7E7 would be more comfortable for passengers.


Assuming this is reference to the 'issues' with NZ comfort such as 10 abreast or the current J model.

If so, should we remind everyone that at this time, in 2004 they were to replace the 767 fleet which had no IFE and recliner business class seats. It was very normal to sit on daytime flight to NRT, KIX, NGO, HKG, TPE, SIN with nothing other than main screen entertainment. There were no such things as iPads or smart phones and so forth. I remember having to wait (impatiently) for the movie to finish so I could find out exactly where we were on the flight map.

While some things such as 10 abeast and J product style will be up for debate - it's fair to say. As a customer things are a s**t load better.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2202
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sat Feb 22, 2020 10:02 pm

NZ6 wrote:
If so, should we remind everyone that at this time, in 2004 they were to replace the 767 fleet which had no IFE and recliner business class seats. It was very normal to sit on daytime flight to NRT, KIX, NGO, HKG, TPE, SIN with nothing other than main screen entertainment. There were no such things as iPads or smart phones and so forth. I remember having to wait (impatiently) for the movie to finish so I could find out exactly where we were on the flight map.


In 2004 the 767 fleet most definitely had IFE in J, but I think it hadn't made its way to Y. All of which was consistent for the time.

NZ6 wrote:
While some things such as 10 abeast and J product style will be up for debate - it's fair to say. As a customer things are a s**t load better.


It may be fair to say that, but I'd still disagree with it. The 2-3-2 config on the 767 was a Y passenger's dream. The recliner business seats you mention were very well padded and extremely comfortable to sit in for long periods. The KEY passenger comfort parameter - ie. bodies per unit area - has unequivocally headed in the wrong direction over the last 15 years. I'd forsake any of the window dressing "improvements" (and I'd include IFE in this category) for more space and less people.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1603
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:17 pm

Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
If so, should we remind everyone that at this time, in 2004 they were to replace the 767 fleet which had no IFE and recliner business class seats. It was very normal to sit on daytime flight to NRT, KIX, NGO, HKG, TPE, SIN with nothing other than main screen entertainment. There were no such things as iPads or smart phones and so forth. I remember having to wait (impatiently) for the movie to finish so I could find out exactly where we were on the flight map.


In 2004 the 767 fleet most definitely had IFE in J, but I think it hadn't made its way to Y. All of which was consistent for the time.

NZ6 wrote:
While some things such as 10 abeast and J product style will be up for debate - it's fair to say. As a customer things are a s**t load better.


It may be fair to say that, but I'd still disagree with it. The 2-3-2 config on the 767 was a Y passenger's dream. The recliner business seats you mention were very well padded and extremely comfortable to sit in for long periods. The KEY passenger comfort parameter - ie. bodies per unit area - has unequivocally headed in the wrong direction over the last 15 years. I'd forsake any of the window dressing "improvements" (and I'd include IFE in this category) for more space and less people.


That was meant to be two different points Gasman. Not IFE in Y class and recliner seats in J

As for your comments on the 2-3-2, yeah that was nice configuration option and something I miss myself but a very minor point when weighing up ALL factors making up comfort. As for the 767-300ER J product, it consistently got criticized by both customers and the airline and was sold as "Business Class" at lower levels vs "Business Premium" on other aircraft is was deployed primary on less business class demanding and day time flights where possible - so to suggest things are worse now than when the 767 was around to me is just another attempt at telling everyone how much you dislike NZ as all other evidence suggests that's improved, even if now, it's end of life and replacement project is underway.

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

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:46 pm

NZ6 wrote:
Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
If so, should we remind everyone that at this time, in 2004 they were to replace the 767 fleet which had no IFE and recliner business class seats. It was very normal to sit on daytime flight to NRT, KIX, NGO, HKG, TPE, SIN with nothing other than main screen entertainment. There were no such things as iPads or smart phones and so forth. I remember having to wait (impatiently) for the movie to finish so I could find out exactly where we were on the flight map.


In 2004 the 767 fleet most definitely had IFE in J, but I think it hadn't made its way to Y. All of which was consistent for the time.

NZ6 wrote:
While some things such as 10 abeast and J product style will be up for debate - it's fair to say. As a customer things are a s**t load better.


It may be fair to say that, but I'd still disagree with it. The 2-3-2 config on the 767 was a Y passenger's dream. The recliner business seats you mention were very well padded and extremely comfortable to sit in for long periods. The KEY passenger comfort parameter - ie. bodies per unit area - has unequivocally headed in the wrong direction over the last 15 years. I'd forsake any of the window dressing "improvements" (and I'd include IFE in this category) for more space and less people.


That was meant to be two different points Gasman. Not IFE in Y class and recliner seats in J

As for your comments on the 2-3-2, yeah that was nice configuration option and something I miss myself but a very minor point when weighing up ALL factors making up comfort. As for the 767-300ER J product, it consistently got criticized by both customers and the airline and was sold as "Business Class" at lower levels vs "Business Premium" on other aircraft is was deployed primary on less business class demanding and day time flights where possible - so to suggest things are worse now than when the 767 was around to me is just another attempt at telling everyone how much you dislike NZ as all other evidence suggests that's improved, even if now, it's end of life and replacement project is underway.



I think they considered Business Premier in the 763 and a W cabin? But BP would have required the floors to be strengthened due to the weight of the seat? Range probably would have been affected aswell with the extra weight although probably a few less seats overall and maybe 18J 18W 180Y or something, but the range reduction probably would have made Asian flying impossible with a viable load? Still might have been good for HNL/PER and overall consistent product across the fleet.

I wonder if that’s why the 744s were kept and the 763 fleet shrunk? They could have got 77Ws earlier as a 744 replacement. Say 5 77W 5 772?
 
NZ516
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 23, 2020 12:29 am

Essentially what I was meaning is that where Auckland Airport is today in 2020 is where Brisbane was around 15 years ago with movements and pax. When that time in 2005 Brisbane was getting ready to plan and later start with it's parallel runway. If AKL continues to kick the can down the road and not get started. The runway will be well behind assuming a 2 years of consent processes and a further 5+ years of construction and commissioning we won't see a 2nd runway up and running by well after 2030 could even be 2035. Which is very late for the demand growth curve for Auckland. The present nearly broken runway will have given up long before then. They may have to bring back the taxiway in use as a stop gap.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3893
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 23, 2020 12:39 am

Gasman wrote:
In 2004 the 767 fleet most definitely had IFE in J, but I think it hadn't made its way to Y. All of which was consistent for the time.


Think it was around 2007 that the A320/763s were fitted with AVOD in all classes.

Although AVOD has almost done an complete circle around, to on some fights I don’t bother using it, and just watch something preloaded on my phone.

Back in the early 2000s we really didn’t know much better than flying with seat back IFE in Y being pretty rear. Yet for years we were able todo with out it.

If I had an choice now of an 777 with no IFE or 3-4-4, I would most likely go for no IFE. Especially if it had free wifi.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1603
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 23, 2020 1:49 am

zkncj wrote:
Gasman wrote:
In 2004 the 767 fleet most definitely had IFE in J, but I think it hadn't made its way to Y. All of which was consistent for the time.


Think it was around 2007 that the A320/763s were fitted with AVOD in all classes.

Although AVOD has almost done an complete circle around, to on some fights I don’t bother using it, and just watch something preloaded on my phone.

Back in the early 2000s we really didn’t know much better than flying with seat back IFE in Y being pretty rear. Yet for years we were able todo with out it.

If I had an choice now of an 777 with no IFE or 3-4-4, I would most likely go for no IFE. Especially if it had free wifi.


It was announced mid 2007 that NZ would fit individual IFE screens to the remaining 5 763's (I think it was 5 then).

Gasman is talking about IFE in J class though and the 763 already them in that cabin. Well personal screens anyway, my memory doesn't recall if users had the ability to watch what they want or just main-screen entertainment on their own screen. Someone may know.

It's interesting, I can vaguely remember SQ being the benchmark in service partially due to their individual seatback IFE . That is now the norm but with devices, smartphones, wifi and in seat power becoming more and more common the market will more than likely shift again. I don't think we're there yet, no everyone has their own device especially in family groups with children etc and we're yet to see universal alternatives to holding your device all flight. I also don't think charging via USB can keep up with the drain on many devices etc

Would you opt for my 763's in that era or the 787/777 today with seatback IFE though?
Last edited by NZ6 on Sun Feb 23, 2020 1:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1603
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 23, 2020 1:54 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Gasman wrote:

In 2004 the 767 fleet most definitely had IFE in J, but I think it hadn't made its way to Y. All of which was consistent for the time.



It may be fair to say that, but I'd still disagree with it. The 2-3-2 config on the 767 was a Y passenger's dream. The recliner business seats you mention were very well padded and extremely comfortable to sit in for long periods. The KEY passenger comfort parameter - ie. bodies per unit area - has unequivocally headed in the wrong direction over the last 15 years. I'd forsake any of the window dressing "improvements" (and I'd include IFE in this category) for more space and less people.


That was meant to be two different points Gasman. Not IFE in Y class and recliner seats in J

As for your comments on the 2-3-2, yeah that was nice configuration option and something I miss myself but a very minor point when weighing up ALL factors making up comfort. As for the 767-300ER J product, it consistently got criticized by both customers and the airline and was sold as "Business Class" at lower levels vs "Business Premium" on other aircraft is was deployed primary on less business class demanding and day time flights where possible - so to suggest things are worse now than when the 767 was around to me is just another attempt at telling everyone how much you dislike NZ as all other evidence suggests that's improved, even if now, it's end of life and replacement project is underway.



I think they considered Business Premier in the 763 and a W cabin? But BP would have required the floors to be strengthened due to the weight of the seat? Range probably would have been affected aswell with the extra weight although probably a few less seats overall and maybe 18J 18W 180Y or something, but the range reduction probably would have made Asian flying impossible with a viable load? Still might have been good for HNL/PER and overall consistent product across the fleet.

I wonder if that’s why the 744s were kept and the 763 fleet shrunk? They could have got 77Ws earlier as a 744 replacement. Say 5 77W 5 772?


That was my understanding too, the 763 floor structure simply couldn't support the herringbone seat.

That could have been overcome but the materials used to strengthen the floor and the seats themselves would have added significant weight to the OEW and therefore impacted range etc.

Also, the 7E7 as it was known then, was only slightly delayed, then it got delayed again and again... perhaps other options would have been taken if they'd known the true exit date of the 763.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3893
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 23, 2020 2:02 am

NZ6 wrote:

Gasman is talking about IFE in J class though and the 763 already them in that cabin. Well personal screens anyway, my memory doesn't recall if users had the ability to watch what they want or just main-screen entertainment on their own screen. Someone may know.


From memory in J it was around 9 channels of video on loop.

It's interesting, I can vaguely remember SQ being the benchmark in service partially due to their individual seatback IFE . That is now the norm but with devices, smartphones, wifi and in seat power becoming more and more common the market will more than likely shift again. I don't think we're there yet, no everyone has their own device especially in family groups with children etc and we're yet to see universal alternatives to holding your device all flight. I also don't think charging via USB can keep up with the drain on many devices etc

Would you opt for my 763's in that era or the 787/777 today with seatback IFE though?


I would probably opt for the 763 without IFE, I been on Scoot an couple of times now on there 787s without IFE and havent really missed the IFE.

Interesting on AirAisaX / Scoot most passengers have they own devices and it doesn't seem to be to much of an issue.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7517
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 23, 2020 2:09 am

zkncj wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

Gasman is talking about IFE in J class though and the 763 already them in that cabin. Well personal screens anyway, my memory doesn't recall if users had the ability to watch what they want or just main-screen entertainment on their own screen. Someone may know.


From memory in J it was around 9 channels of video on loop.

It's interesting, I can vaguely remember SQ being the benchmark in service partially due to their individual seatback IFE . That is now the norm but with devices, smartphones, wifi and in seat power becoming more and more common the market will more than likely shift again. I don't think we're there yet, no everyone has their own device especially in family groups with children etc and we're yet to see universal alternatives to holding your device all flight. I also don't think charging via USB can keep up with the drain on many devices etc

Would you opt for my 763's in that era or the 787/777 today with seatback IFE though?


I would probably opt for the 763 without IFE, I been on Scoot an couple of times now on there 787s without IFE and havent really missed the IFE.

Interesting on AirAisaX / Scoot most passengers have they own devices.


Flew Scoot to ATH with a 9 month old which was hard going, no basinetts no IFE, somehow we ordered a meal on 1 leg not the other, they even somehow mucked up my 9 month olds name and had her as my my wifes maiden name on the ATH-SIN leg. We were on a budget and got to ATH for about $1100 return PP for my wife and I, SQ on the AKL legs. Most people on TR, D7 etc would budget conscious and know what to expect so bring a device along.

SQ were certainly IMO the industry leader with IFE on the 744s by about 1996/97 IIRC, and product with the 744 F that came out in 1998.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1603
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 23, 2020 2:32 am

zkncj wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

Gasman is talking about IFE in J class though and the 763 already them in that cabin. Well personal screens anyway, my memory doesn't recall if users had the ability to watch what they want or just main-screen entertainment on their own screen. Someone may know.


From memory in J it was around 9 channels of video on loop.

It's interesting, I can vaguely remember SQ being the benchmark in service partially due to their individual seatback IFE . That is now the norm but with devices, smartphones, wifi and in seat power becoming more and more common the market will more than likely shift again. I don't think we're there yet, no everyone has their own device especially in family groups with children etc and we're yet to see universal alternatives to holding your device all flight. I also don't think charging via USB can keep up with the drain on many devices etc

Would you opt for my 763's in that era or the 787/777 today with seatback IFE though?


I would probably opt for the 763 without IFE, I been on Scoot an couple of times now on there 787s without IFE and havent really missed the IFE.

Interesting on AirAisaX / Scoot most passengers have they own devices and it doesn't seem to be to much of an issue.


Yeah I think you're bang on with the 9 channel loop.

As for the no IFE thing, you don't have a tablet/iPad or smart phone, at best a laptop with no recharge. A deck of cards and a book/magazine. Still prefer a 763 over what we have today?
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7517
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 23, 2020 2:33 am

NZ6 wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

That was meant to be two different points Gasman. Not IFE in Y class and recliner seats in J

As for your comments on the 2-3-2, yeah that was nice configuration option and something I miss myself but a very minor point when weighing up ALL factors making up comfort. As for the 767-300ER J product, it consistently got criticized by both customers and the airline and was sold as "Business Class" at lower levels vs "Business Premium" on other aircraft is was deployed primary on less business class demanding and day time flights where possible - so to suggest things are worse now than when the 767 was around to me is just another attempt at telling everyone how much you dislike NZ as all other evidence suggests that's improved, even if now, it's end of life and replacement project is underway.



I think they considered Business Premier in the 763 and a W cabin? But BP would have required the floors to be strengthened due to the weight of the seat? Range probably would have been affected aswell with the extra weight although probably a few less seats overall and maybe 18J 18W 180Y or something, but the range reduction probably would have made Asian flying impossible with a viable load? Still might have been good for HNL/PER and overall consistent product across the fleet.

I wonder if that’s why the 744s were kept and the 763 fleet shrunk? They could have got 77Ws earlier as a 744 replacement. Say 5 77W 5 772?


That was my understanding too, the 763 floor structure simply couldn't support the herringbone seat.

That could have been overcome but the materials used to strengthen the floor and the seats themselves would have added significant weight to the OEW and therefore impacted range etc.

Also, the 7E7 as it was known then, was only slightly delayed, then it got delayed again and again... perhaps other options would have been taken if they'd known the true exit date of the 763.


I'm guessing the original 763 exit date was around 2012? Similar to the 744. Maybe even sooner given IFE and winglets were fitted in 2008/09, by then they probably knew the fleet would be around until 2014 atleast? Eventually retired in 2017.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2202
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 23, 2020 3:10 am

NZ6 wrote:
As for the no IFE thing, you don't have a tablet/iPad or smart phone, at best a laptop with no recharge. A deck of cards and a book/magazine. Still prefer a 763 over what we have today?


But.......... you do have a tablet/smartphone. Your own. How is this remotely relevant to the airline?

Personal devices have rendered inbuilt IFE pretty much redundant as a selling point. I myself haven't touched the airlines IFE for at least four years now. You may not like it; because you want to be able to say "ok we've crammed you in like sardines and the food is sh1t, **but at least nowadays we've given you IFE**!!"

It's like forcing someone who reminisces about one aspect of life in 1950's to embrace polio as well.

Fact is, my Samsung has no influence on the viability of a 767 like config to an airline in 2020. And because of it, the presence or absence of IFE on an aircraft means nothing to me. So yeah, give me the 767 over the 777/789 any day.
 
Qantas59
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat May 04, 2013 4:51 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 23, 2020 3:14 am

Does anyone know, or care to share any information on Air New Zealand's first Business Class (Pacific Class) product? When was it first introduced? I'm assuming that it was introduced on the 747-219B, or the DC-10? Thanks for any replies. Cheers.
[photoid][photoid][/photoid][/photoid]/Users/jaytanguay/Desktop/Screen Shot 2016-10-27 at 9.30.09 AM.png
 
Gasman
Posts: 2202
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 23, 2020 3:25 am

DC-8 and DC-10 had First Class. In the DC-8 it was 2+2 with recliner seats. In the DC-10, 2+2+2. I think there were three rows, plus a sort of pseudo "lounge" table in the front.

The 742 continure F class in the forward cabin. The Pacific class product was introduced on this aircraft in the upper deck. Didn't have lie flat of course, but it was a pretty sweet product.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1603
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 23, 2020 3:41 am

Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
As for the no IFE thing, you don't have a tablet/iPad or smart phone, at best a laptop with no recharge. A deck of cards and a book/magazine. Still prefer a 763 over what we have today?


But.......... you do have a tablet/smartphone. Your own. How is this remotely relevant to the airline?

Personal devices have rendered inbuilt IFE pretty much redundant as a selling point. I myself haven't touched the airlines IFE for at least four years now. You may not like it; because you want to be able to say "ok we've crammed you in like sardines and the food is sh1t, **but at least nowadays we've given you IFE**!!"

It's like forcing someone who reminisces about one aspect of life in 1950's to embrace polio as well.

Fact is, my Samsung has no influence on the viability of a 767 like config to an airline in 2020. And because of it, the presence or absence of IFE on an aircraft means nothing to me. So yeah, give me the 767 over the 777/789 any day.


Yeah I see where you're coming from now. I was thinking at the time vs today, where back then you had very little alternatives to reading and main-screen entertainment. But yes, a 763 in today's world in Y class with WIFI and your own device could be as good and I can see how some may prefer it.

I'd agree seat back IFE isn't a selling point these days, but more because it's somewhat expected on longhaul travel. In my personal experience far more people use the supplied entertainment vs their own device (unless the airline IFE is via it of course).

That'll likely change though and I won't be surprised to see airlines to encourage it either, maybe via more options etc on the connected model. For them removing seatback screens and the hardware boxes will strip a lot of weight out of the aircraft.

There's a few issues to overcome first though.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11138
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 23, 2020 3:45 am

NZ6 wrote:
qf789 wrote:
Air New Zealand HKG/PVG changes

HKG, reduced to 4 weekly instead of daily, 21 Apr - 31 May 20
PVG, cancellation extended to 29 Apr 20

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... f-21feb20/


zkncj wrote:
I wonder if PVG will likely just get dropped permanently in the background? It doesn’t seem like the outlook for that route is very good, even if restrictions are dropped next month. It’s likely going to take along time for travel pattens to China to be back to normal.

Maybe we could see the PVG aircraft allocations to start an new Asian route, once things have settled down. Maybe the likes of HKT? Or making DPS year round.


The bottom has completely dropped out of Asia due to the obvious. The same thing happened with SARS so it's a matter of moving quickly and adjusting capacity in the short term to reduce operational costs.

There's no plans for remove PVG that I know of. Obviously the CEO is new and he may well have very high level thoughts or plans but, personally China should be a market they try build for the long term.


PVG schedule has been adjusted again, will operate on alternate days

departure from AKL will be even days of the month from 2 Apr 20 (first flight is 31 Mar 20) and from PVG odd dates from 1 Apr 20

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... n-changes/
Forum Moderator
 
NZ6
Posts: 1603
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 23, 2020 3:48 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:

I think they considered Business Premier in the 763 and a W cabin? But BP would have required the floors to be strengthened due to the weight of the seat? Range probably would have been affected aswell with the extra weight although probably a few less seats overall and maybe 18J 18W 180Y or something, but the range reduction probably would have made Asian flying impossible with a viable load? Still might have been good for HNL/PER and overall consistent product across the fleet.

I wonder if that’s why the 744s were kept and the 763 fleet shrunk? They could have got 77Ws earlier as a 744 replacement. Say 5 77W 5 772?


That was my understanding too, the 763 floor structure simply couldn't support the herringbone seat.

That could have been overcome but the materials used to strengthen the floor and the seats themselves would have added significant weight to the OEW and therefore impacted range etc.

Also, the 7E7 as it was known then, was only slightly delayed, then it got delayed again and again... perhaps other options would have been taken if they'd known the true exit date of the 763.


I'm guessing the original 763 exit date was around 2012? Similar to the 744. Maybe even sooner given IFE and winglets were fitted in 2008/09, by then they probably knew the fleet would be around until 2014 atleast? Eventually retired in 2017.


Who only knows now, that article 16 years ago stated 8x 772 to and 2x 7E7's to replace the 763 fleet. The 772's arrived by the end of 2007 and the article said they would have the 7E7's before 2010. From there everything kept sliding and changing and the 763's ended up staying as extra capacity until they had 8x 772 and, wait... was it 9x 787's?
 
zkncj
Posts: 3893
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:43 am

NZ6 wrote:
As for the no IFE thing, you don't have a tablet/iPad or smart phone, at best a laptop with no recharge. A deck of cards and a book/magazine. Still prefer a 763 over what we have today?


Personally I’d take the 763, the 2-3-2 is an winner over the 3-4-3 in an 777.

Remember when the 763’s used to have an foot rest, at seat pitch starting at 32-33”. If you were lucky you got into the forward cabin with an 35” seat pitch! It was luxury compared to flying across the Tasman in an a320.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2202
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:46 am

NZ6 wrote:
while QF won't be far behind with their NYC flight, the domestic to international transfer at SYD makes AKL a much more appealing proposition....


I dunno about QF. You get the impression that EWR-AKL is already at the limit of profitable endurance. I'm sure SYD-JFK will eventually happen; but I'm not holding my breath. No QF passenger is going to be thrilled about a service that has to stop in NAN for fuel 15% of the time, as has seemed to be the case with DFW lately.

I doubt the transfer factor at SYD will influence THAT many passengers, and won't be enough to entice Australian QF fliers away from the existing one stop NYC service.

Although yes, transferring domestic-international at SYD is a total ballache.
 
NZ516
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 23, 2020 8:05 am

Lack of 2nd AKL Runway

Perhaps AKL could buy more time and reduce runway congestion by looking into what London Gatwick is considering from this

In October 2018, the airport announced that it was "exploring how to make best use of its existing runways, including the possibility of bringing its existing standby runway into routine use". One scenario would see 08L/26R used for departing narrow-body aircraft only, while the longer 08R/26L would be used for wide-body take-offs and all landings; widening 08L/26R would also increase the centreline separation slightly. New technology could also be used to increase capacity on the main runway, and in the longer term the airport remains interested in constructing a new runway to the south


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatwick_A ... _movements

Link to the source:

Gatwick Airport second runway 'by the back door'

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-45861559
 
NZ6
Posts: 1603
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 23, 2020 8:09 am

zkncj wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
As for the no IFE thing, you don't have a tablet/iPad or smart phone, at best a laptop with no recharge. A deck of cards and a book/magazine. Still prefer a 763 over what we have today?


Personally I’d take the 763, the 2-3-2 is an winner over the 3-4-3 in an 777.

Remember when the 763’s used to have an foot rest, at seat pitch starting at 32-33”. If you were lucky you got into the forward cabin with an 35” seat pitch! It was luxury compared to flying across the Tasman in an a320.


I got myself all confused earlier, were we comparing the 763 with main-screen IFE and no personal electronic entertainment with a 772 in a 3-4-3 layout with or without seatback IFE? and do you have personal electronic entertainment??

if it's the 763 and a 772 in the 3-4-3 both with no personal IFE and both with or without personal electronic entertainment then yes the 763 config would be better our of the two.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7517
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 23, 2020 8:10 am

NZ516 wrote:
Lack of 2nd AKL Runway

Perhaps AKL could buy more time and reduce runway congestion by looking into what London Gatwick is considering from this

In October 2018, the airport announced that it was "exploring how to make best use of its existing runways, including the possibility of bringing its existing standby runway into routine use". One scenario would see 08L/26R used for departing narrow-body aircraft only, while the longer 08R/26L would be used for wide-body take-offs and all landings; widening 08L/26R would also increase the centreline separation slightly. New technology could also be used to increase capacity on the main runway, and in the longer term the airport remains interested in constructing a new runway to the south


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatwick_A ... _movements

Link to the source:

Gatwick Airport second runway 'by the back door'

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-45861559


How do you envision this for AKL?

While AKL will need a 2nd runway eventually, the problem is the existing issues with the current one, I personally don’t believe AKL needs a second one right now. I do wonder if they can bring back 05L 23R as a temporary measure?
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5571
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 23, 2020 8:14 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
NZ516 wrote:
Lack of 2nd AKL Runway

Perhaps AKL could buy more time and reduce runway congestion by looking into what London Gatwick is considering from this

In October 2018, the airport announced that it was "exploring how to make best use of its existing runways, including the possibility of bringing its existing standby runway into routine use". One scenario would see 08L/26R used for departing narrow-body aircraft only, while the longer 08R/26L would be used for wide-body take-offs and all landings; widening 08L/26R would also increase the centreline separation slightly. New technology could also be used to increase capacity on the main runway, and in the longer term the airport remains interested in constructing a new runway to the south


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatwick_A ... _movements

Link to the source:

Gatwick Airport second runway 'by the back door'

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-45861559


How do you envision this for AKL?

While AKL will need a 2nd runway eventually, the problem is the existing issues with the current one, I personally don’t believe AKL needs a second one right now. I do wonder if they can bring back 05L 23R as a temporary measure?

The problem is, taking taxiway A and making it 05L/23R on a permanent basis is you then only have one full length taxiway (B). In terms of airfield capacity you’d be robbing Peter to pay Paul.

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: 4529
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 23, 2020 8:24 am

VirginFlyer wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
NZ516 wrote:
Lack of 2nd AKL Runway

Perhaps AKL could buy more time and reduce runway congestion by looking into what London Gatwick is considering from this



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatwick_A ... _movements

Link to the source:

Gatwick Airport second runway 'by the back door'

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-45861559


How do you envision this for AKL?

While AKL will need a 2nd runway eventually, the problem is the existing issues with the current one, I personally don’t believe AKL needs a second one right now. I do wonder if they can bring back 05L 23R as a temporary measure?

The problem is, taking taxiway A and making it 05L/23R on a permanent basis is you then only have one full length taxiway (B). In terms of airfield capacity you’d be robbing Peter to pay Paul.

V/F

And they currently use Bravo as hardstands at various times so would have to create at least 6 new hardstands (since the hardstands InBetween dom and intl will be a construction site for the new dom terminal.
Also they need to spend from memory about $50m to upgrade Alpha to be a standby runway again (they have apparently been doing some prep work towards this as they realise the vulnerability of having a single runway).
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2202
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 23, 2020 8:54 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
While AKL will need a 2nd runway eventually, the problem is the existing issues with the current one, I personally don’t believe AKL needs a second one right now.


I don't either, just eyeballing it; but surely there is a pretty robust formula around for making such a call?
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7517
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 23, 2020 8:56 am

VirginFlyer wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
NZ516 wrote:
Lack of 2nd AKL Runway

Perhaps AKL could buy more time and reduce runway congestion by looking into what London Gatwick is considering from this



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatwick_A ... _movements

Link to the source:

Gatwick Airport second runway 'by the back door'

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-45861559


How do you envision this for AKL?

While AKL will need a 2nd runway eventually, the problem is the existing issues with the current one, I personally don’t believe AKL needs a second one right now. I do wonder if they can bring back 05L 23R as a temporary measure?

The problem is, taking taxiway A and making it 05L/23R on a permanent basis is you then only have one full length taxiway (B). In terms of airfield capacity you’d be robbing Peter to pay Paul.

V/F


Exactly not to mention 23L/05R is to close to 23R/05L to be operational at the same time AFAIK. Even for staggered arrivals and departures off different runways in this case as you say then you only have 1 full length taxiway, hopefully when they build the new terminals they can avoid the need to use Bravo as parking.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4529
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 23, 2020 9:46 am

Gasman wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
While AKL will need a 2nd runway eventually, the problem is the existing issues with the current one, I personally don’t believe AKL needs a second one right now.


I don't either, just eyeballing it; but surely there is a pretty robust formula around for making such a call?

AKL is well past that point, they get away with it because there is no competition and because the costs of delays are worn by the airlines rather than being charged back to the airport (except in rare circumstances) there is no incentive for them to spend the cash when they can just sweat the assets.
Admittedly the delays at AKL generally are big, but I have had 20 minute delays taking off under normal ops (no weather, runway closures etc) simply because there are 5 aircraft waiting to take off and similar numbers coming in to land (they usually get preference). With a 2nd runway (even if it was just a smaller one for domestic flights to start with would clear all of that up straight away so even at the busiest of times there wouldn’t be any significant delays.
Of course medium term they both need to be standard size so that international flights can use the Northern runway and domestic can use the Southern one.
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
pbm
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:38 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 23, 2020 12:28 pm

Zkpilot wrote:
Gasman wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
While AKL will need a 2nd runway eventually, the problem is the existing issues with the current one, I personally don’t believe AKL needs a second one right now.


I don't either, just eyeballing it; but surely there is a pretty robust formula around for making such a call?

AKL is well past that point, they get away with it because there is no competition and because the costs of delays are worn by the airlines rather than being charged back to the airport (except in rare circumstances) there is no incentive for them to spend the cash when they can just sweat the assets.


As long as they’ve consulted the airlines, the airlines pay for the runway as well - either way the airlines pay.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2202
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:41 pm

There is a second runway available on the North Shore...
 
NZ6
Posts: 1603
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Sun Feb 23, 2020 8:12 pm

Zkpilot wrote:
Gasman wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
While AKL will need a 2nd runway eventually, the problem is the existing issues with the current one, I personally don’t believe AKL needs a second one right now.


I don't either, just eyeballing it; but surely there is a pretty robust formula around for making such a call?

AKL is well past that point, they get away with it because there is no competition and because the costs of delays are worn by the airlines rather than being charged back to the airport (except in rare circumstances) there is no incentive for them to spend the cash when they can just sweat the assets.
Admittedly the delays at AKL generally are big, but I have had 20 minute delays taking off under normal ops (no weather, runway closures etc) simply because there are 5 aircraft waiting to take off and similar numbers coming in to land (they usually get preference). With a 2nd runway (even if it was just a smaller one for domestic flights to start with would clear all of that up straight away so even at the busiest of times there wouldn’t be any significant delays.
Of course medium term they both need to be standard size so that international flights can use the Northern runway and domestic can use the Southern one.


This whole topic is extremely loose without any clear baselines. For example

Yes; The number of arriving and departing flights are manageable on one runway. Therefore ZK-NBT is correct on that point on its own.

At times we do see 4 or 5 aircraft in line for departure. Mostly regional turboprop but I've seen 3 or 4 internationals lined up before. Normally clears within 5-15 minutes. At international level this is quick and acceptable. Does that make it acceptable for us? For a $2-$3B cost for a second runway, probably yes in isolation. But...

But when we start to look at scheduled closures for maintenance, the duration (days. weeks and months) and available window, these days the last arrival or departure is around 0130+/- and first arrivals are usually incoming by around 0430, QR followed by EK from DPS.

Look at business contingency; with unexpected delays on an overnight closure, how many wide bodies around inbound to AKL before 0700, this morning I counted 8, QR920, EK450, NZ23, NZ7, NZ29, NZ176, NZ5 and NZ1.

Also under business contingency, what happens with unscheduled maintenance. Given the very small window available for maintenance 2-3 hours per night., it's operating on a knife edge to get scheduled maintenance done before unscheduled issues occur which has been demonstrated of late.

Touch wood it never happens, but business contingency if there was ever a incident at AKL. If this occurs on or directly near the runway, do we essentially close our country down to business and tourism. Yeah, many would enter via WLG, CHC and ZQN but the capability of these airports will significantly reduce the number of crew, pax and aircraft able to enter.

Finally, with passenger numbers expected to double to 44m within the next 20 years, it's only fair to assume we're going to need one by then for daily movements alone. It's not like we're going to see a massive jump in 2025, then 2030 and then 2035, it'll be a gradual incline in passenger movements and therefore aircraft movements. Without building now and planning ahead, we'll end up with tarmac congestion to add to the list of 'complaints' and will likely cost significantly more again.

So yes, it's not a must have in the sense of the capacity of 23L and 05R but in the wider context it's an issue.
 
NZ6
Posts: 1603
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Mon Feb 24, 2020 12:38 am

NZ: Suspension of Auckland-Seoul route until the end of June 2020

https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/travel- ... mHN5a4u0xs
 
xiaotung
Posts: 1087
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:58 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Mon Feb 24, 2020 1:07 am

NZ6 wrote:
NZ: Suspension of Auckland-Seoul route until the end of June 2020

https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/travel- ... mHN5a4u0xs


I am wondering if this is an indication of ICN was not doing well with forward bookings even before the outbreak as even PVG is resuming in April.

I fear this will be the start of mass cancellations of international flights into ICN. Of course the greatest concern is the suspension of Japan services which seems not so far fetched now.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2202
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2020

Mon Feb 24, 2020 2:07 am

xiaotung wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
I am wondering if this is an indication of ICN was not doing well with forward bookings even before the outbreak as even PVG is resuming in April


I'm sure ICN not doing that well was a factor.

Put it this way, if coronavirus had taken hold in Canada; I doubt we'd be seeing a suspension of services to LAX.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

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