Welcome to the February 2021 edition of the New Zealand threads.

Link to January 2021 viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1455905&start=100

Thanks 777ER for starting the Feb thread. I thought we were all forgotten about down in this part of the world.

From NZ6 Jan Thread

NZ intend to fly AKL-HBA. Nothing official until (if/when) a bubble is opened

Well this is some really good news for a change its been a long time since we have had a new route announcement. I will be very keen to go and are looking forward to the launch specials when they come out..

DavidByrne wrote:

To me, it's entirely logical that NZ should fly the route. Any other carrier would have to rely solely on end-to-end demand, as none of the other potential operators have long-haul connections out of HBA or AKL, and going by NZ's success in attracting Australian traffic onto their North American flights there's no reason to think HBA will be different. Additionally, there may be a real novelty for Tasmanians flying to the Americas to arrive home in Tasmania on a proper international flight, and a real desire by many to support this service because of the potential it offers the state. After all, to lose a connection to New Zealand twice would be devastating to many, including people I know personally in Tasmania who have for years been lobbying the state government and (specifically) Air NZ for the service to start.

HBA has been on the "watch list for sometime". But...

There's no significant weighting being added into HBA based on its AKL's Hub and the North American services. This will largely be a "COVID' route. TAS wants additional tourists, there will be Kiwis looking for holidays closer to home - put simply it's a win win partnership. Fingers crossed it becomes a permanent fixture though.

DavidByrne wrote:

At risk of raising the "constant negativity" banner again, I'm a bit sceptical about "pent up demand". Domestically, the tourist industry has had an adequate season but the signs are already there that it may not last into winter - at least not in sufficient numbers to make up for the loss of international visitors. I think that some international destinations will bounce back relatively fast, but I would not count on NZ operating to ALL of LAX, SFO, YVR, IAH, ORD and EWR for a couple of years yet, at least. The USA must surely represent easily a good 50% of the carrier's long-haul traffic, so that could be a significant dent in capacity offered. Even if the pandemic is "over" there will be many who will baulk at visiting a country where the virus will likely continue to spread for a good period given the number of conspiracy theorists, anti-maskers, ant-vaxxers etc who seem to hold huge influence in one of the major political parties. Even if we ourselves get a vaccine uptake of 70% plus, and even if the vaccine is 80-90% effective. That still leaves a lot of leeway for ongoing infection (herd immunity notwithstanding) - especially given that we still don't know how long the vaccine will continue to be effective for. Time will tell.

No, your not being negative but there's a few points here which we should look at separately.

• Pent up demand isn't a particular level, so no one is suggesting things will rebound equal to or exceed pre COVID levels. It's not a knot in the hose which is ready to burst. There's just people out there hanging for a trip overseas for various reasons including having credits. I'm one. I'd love nothing more than 10 days in Tropical North Queensland in May, Jun or Jul this year.
• Domestic air movements are higher than pre COVID levels if you were to remove international passengers from pre COVID levels. The schedules reflect this too.. So Kiwis are moving around.
• The Tourism sector is struggling. Some areas more than others. It's safe to assume many Kiwis aren't interested in a culture show, a guided tours and many of the premium excursions rely on the wealth of the foreign dollar. I've also heard a lot of negative feedback on the cost or value for money in ZQN so arguably some have become greedy and reliant of the foreign dollar more than they perhaps should.
• I do agree long haul travel which relies on inbound travelers so will take longer to recover. The US is a prime example especially given the demographic who typically travel down under. But we can look at short haul and long haul in isolation to each other for a period of time during the recovery phase.
• Further to the above, as tourism recovers in the years ahead, people will look for "safer" alternatives "closer to home" which provides opportunities for airlines via new routes, new destinations and potentially added capacity. This may settle back down when traveler confidence is restored.

zkncj wrote:

Same problem here, I had to take 160hours leave over January. I could say I’m over taking holidays in New Zealand, there is only so much you can do local. I ended up going to ZQN twice, for something todo.

I could of spent an weeks in the Cook Islands, if we had to sorted out stuff out before Christmas with select Pacific Islands.

The biggest issue I’ve found with hoildaying New Zealand, is it is so expensive. 1 weeks food in New Zealand, is close to what you get for approximately 4 weeks in Asia. Also even though there are many deals out there, many attractions in New Zealand are well over priced.

This is very typical mindset of many New Zealanders.. I'm guilty of this too so not having a go.

There's so much to do here if we looked for it.

You say you wanted a week in the Cook Islands, so instead spend a week in the North Auckland region. Snorkel Goat Island, Surf Parkiri/Omaha, do a fishing charter from Sandspit or Leigh, hire a bike in Mangawhai, dine in Matakana etc. I often wonder if all this was at the end of a 8 hour flight where we used foreign currency would it feel different?

There's so much to do which is why millions have come here every year often from the other side of earth.

You also say NZ is expensive. But comparing the cost of food to Asia isn't really a fair comparison. Everything's cheaper in Asia, accommodation, goods, food, transport etc. It's the opposite in the likes of the US and Europe where NZ can seem cheap in comparison.

I'd actually say, in my experience in VLI, RAR, APW, NAN and PPT vs my self drive holiday around the upper south Island in November - the cost of meals each night was cheaper in NZ.

Where I personally struggle is our long winter, I'd include the months Apr to Sep to be inclusive but without question May-Aug. I personally love my warm weather and 6months of cold, wet wind is for me a long stretch.

Winter sports fans, or big city explorers will naturally disagree with my 2 cents worth.

NZ6 wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Same problem here, I had to take 160hours leave over January. I could say I’m over taking holidays in New Zealand, there is only so much you can do local. I ended up going to ZQN twice, for something todo.

I could of spent an weeks in the Cook Islands, if we had to sorted out stuff out before Christmas with select Pacific Islands.

The biggest issue I’ve found with hoildaying New Zealand, is it is so expensive. 1 weeks food in New Zealand, is close to what you get for approximately 4 weeks in Asia. Also even though there are many deals out there, many attractions in New Zealand are well over priced.

This is very typical mindset of many New Zealanders.. I'm guilty of this too so not having a go.

There's so much to do here if we looked for it.

You say you wanted a week in the Cook Islands, so instead spend a week in the North Auckland region. Snorkel Goat Island, Surf Parkiri/Omaha, do a fishing charter from Sandspit or Leigh, hire a bike in Mangawhai, dine in Matakana etc. I often wonder if all this was at the end of a 8 hour flight where we used foreign currency would it feel different?

There's so much to do which is why millions have come here every year often from the other side of earth.

You also say NZ is expensive. But comparing the cost of food to Asia isn't really a fair comparison. Everything's cheaper in Asia, accommodation, goods, food, transport etc. It's the opposite in the likes of the US and Europe where NZ can seem cheap in comparison.

I'd actually say, in my experience in VLI, RAR, APW, NAN and PPT vs my self drive holiday around the upper south Island in November - the cost of meals each night was cheaper in NZ.an

Where I personally struggle is our long winter, I'd include the months Apr to Sep to be inclusive but without question May-Aug. I personally love my warm weather and 6months of cold, wet wind is for me a long stretch.

Winter sports fans, or big city explorers will naturally disagree with my 2 cents worth.

I agree here, I don't get to travel overseas to often, love it when I do, young family now but tbh NZ and AKL in particular has a lot to offer, I live in the Northern suburbs of AKL grew up in a Southern suburb and I can't say I found or find myself getting bored or needing to travel overseas, camping isn't for everyone but we enjoy it or visiting the local beaches etc, eating locally.

NZ or upper NZ winter lately is hardly cold and wet but that changes and we can't predict what the weather will be, I enjoy a bit of rugby in season, or cricket in summer.

NZ6 wrote:

This is very typical mindset of many New Zealanders.. I'm guilty of this too so not having a go.

There's so much to do here if we looked for it.

.

I think NZ has plenty of things to do for people who haven't travelled much domestically or internationally, but it isn't diverse or large enough to maintain interest for long trips and subsequent trips over time once you have. I've travelled all over New Zealand and visited the main tourist spots and the lesser known gems as a kid and teenager/young adult, but now that I have done it, I don't really have a great urgency to revisit it., at least until I am retired.

aerorobnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

This is very typical mindset of many New Zealanders.. I'm guilty of this too so not having a go.

There's so much to do here if we looked for it.

.

I think NZ has plenty of things to do for people who haven't travelled much domestically or internationally, but it isn't diverse or large enough to maintain interest for long trips and subsequent trips over time once you have. I've travelled all over New Zealand and visited the main tourist spots and the lesser known gems as a kid and teenager/young adult, but now that I have done it, I don't really have a great urgency to revisit it., at least until I am retired.

The main issue with New Zealand tourism is that it largely attracts International visitors coming here for the nature or winter sports side of things (plus the odd LOTR fans).

When you live in New Zealand nature is part of your everyday life, and really isn't that special. Look how manny New Zealaders took until 2020 to even think about an trip to Milford Sound, I just did it an few weeks back but I'm in no hurry to rush back there.

Personally for me going on holiday that includes an large city is part of what makes it, something outside of the normal that we have in New Zealand.
There is something about being in an crowed city like Hong Kong, New York, London, Berlin that you can't experience here.
There is only so many mountains and tree's to you can look at on holiday.

The issue of Covid passports is really coming through now. NZ seem to be saying it is inevitable, however governments such as the UK say they are not going to do it. It seems very unlikely NZ govt will allow visitors (non NZ citizens) without one, and I suspect the airlines will insist on it when it become obvious this will help speed up the return in confidence of long haul travel. Surely now is the time to get this done.

Sources.
https://www.bbc.com/news/55970801
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indust ... e-airlines

wawaman wrote:

The issue of Covid passports is really coming through now. NZ seem to be saying it is inevitable, however governments such as the UK say they are not going to do it. It seems very unlikely NZ govt will allow visitors (non NZ citizens) without one, and I suspect the airlines will insist on it when it become obvious this will help speed up the return in confidence of long haul travel. Surely now is the time to get this done.

This is not a new concept. When I went on my OE in 1971 I had to have a Smallpox and Typhoid inoculation which was recorded in a small booklet and signed by the medical practitioner. My concern is that anything similar for Covid-19 could be forged or a database hacked.

PA515

About 2100 on Thursday Air NZ 77W ZK-OKO was moved from in front of the Air NZ hangars to a remote stand at the International Terminal usually inhabited by cargo aircraft. I wondered if the 77Ws were going to do some cargo flying, but there's been nothing so far.

PA515

aerorobnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

This is very typical mindset of many New Zealanders.. I'm guilty of this too so not having a go.

There's so much to do here if we looked for it.

.

I think NZ has plenty of things to do for people who haven't travelled much domestically or internationally, but it isn't diverse or large enough to maintain interest for long trips and subsequent trips over time once you have. I've travelled all over New Zealand and visited the main tourist spots and the lesser known gems as a kid and teenager/young adult, but now that I have done it, I don't really have a great urgency to revisit it., at least until I am retired.

Hard to disagree - but we're only talking about a couple of years (fingers crossed) and we've done one already.

ZQN is a great little trip in itself but if your going for longer Milford/Doubtful Sound and the glaciers are amazing. If we went to the Canadian Rockies or the Swiss Alps it'd be almost mandatory to do these things.

Want some excitement, bungy, jetboat, hydro attack, sky dive etc...

But yeah, it's a once or twice thing only, but after that. If you want something slower, Marlborough wine tours in a luxury resort. Just like Nappa Valley or the Hunter/Yarra regions

It's fair to say the vast majority of our attractions are nature based and if that's not your thing then I can understand the limitations.

We don't have big cities to explore, theme parks or historic places but you can fill a bunch of smaller breaks in nicely if you look hard enough.

The biggest issue is travelling to the same season... If you're a winter season enthusiast you can't head to the Northern Hemisphere during our summer. Just like I can't head to the topical beaches during our winter. Heading to ZQN in winter isn't the "escape" I want in winter.

zkncj wrote:

aerorobnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

This is very typical mindset of many New Zealanders.. I'm guilty of this too so not having a go.

There's so much to do here if we looked for it.

.

I think NZ has plenty of things to do for people who haven't travelled much domestically or internationally, but it isn't diverse or large enough to maintain interest for long trips and subsequent trips over time once you have. I've travelled all over New Zealand and visited the main tourist spots and the lesser known gems as a kid and teenager/young adult, but now that I have done it, I don't really have a great urgency to revisit it., at least until I am retired.

The main issue with New Zealand tourism is that it largely attracts International visitors coming here for the nature or winter sports side of things (plus the odd LOTR fans).

When you live in New Zealand nature is part of your everyday life, and really isn't that special. Look how manny New Zealaders took until 2020 to even think about an trip to Milford Sound, I just did it an few weeks back but I'm in no hurry to rush back there.

Personally for me going on holiday that includes an large city is part of what makes it, something outside of the normal that we have in New Zealand.
There is something about being in an crowed city like Hong Kong, New York, London, Berlin that you can't experience here.
There is only so many mountains and tree's to you can look at on holiday.

Yeah absolutely.

When you can't do much about it, all you can do is tick off the things at home now while you can.

wawaman wrote:

The issue of Covid passports is really coming through now. NZ seem to be saying it is inevitable, however governments such as the UK say they are not going to do it. It seems very unlikely NZ govt will allow visitors (non NZ citizens) without one, and I suspect the airlines will insist on it when it become obvious this will help speed up the return in confidence of long haul travel. Surely now is the time to get this done.

Sources.
https://www.bbc.com/news/55970801
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indust ... e-airlines

Every day of the week.

For New Zealand, I suspect, it'll be if you leave NZ post X date. You need the Vaccine to return OR you will be required to self isolate on your return.

For all foreign nationals you need verification or A, B, C or D vaccine to enter NZ. It then falls back on ANY airline to check prior to boarding to avoid denied entry on arrival just like passport validity or visa requirements.

This isn't good

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/436 ... n-launches

I feel sorry for Foran. His entire career at Air NZ is going to be plagued with issues he didn't create.

PA515 wrote:

About 2100 on Thursday Air NZ 77W ZK-OKO was moved from in front of the Air NZ hangars to a remote stand at the International Terminal usually inhabited by cargo aircraft. I wondered if the 77Ws were going to do some cargo flying, but there's been nothing so far.

PA515

It might be to free up space at the Hangar for a 787 to come in for a check or an engine change.

https://bbs.feeyo.com/m/?a=viewthread&tid=6036277
Chinese government approved NZ's application for five-weekly passenger flight from AKL and CHC to CAN in Guangzhou.
It's noted on Chinese forum that, NZ will be the first airlines from Five Eyes alliance countries to have service to Guangzhou airport the only intercontinental gateway in Southern China, which is kind of unexpected and is a Chinese New Year of Ox Surprise, even though New Zealand is more obedient in recent times, and they hope that such service could lead to additional service by other airlines from Five Eyes alliance country to China

c933103 wrote:

https://bbs.feeyo.com/m/?a=viewthread&tid=6036277
Chinese government approved NZ's application for five-weekly passenger flight from AKL and CHC to CAN in Guangzhou.
It's noted on Chinese forum that, NZ will be the first airlines from Five Eyes alliance countries to have service to Guangzhou airport the only intercontinental gateway in Southern China, which is kind of unexpected and is a Chinese New Year of Ox Surprise, even though New Zealand is more obedient in recent times, and they hope that such service could lead to additional service by other airlines from Five Eyes alliance country to China

Is this for real (can’t read the original in Chinese)? Earlier reports I read suggested freight flights. I flew a kite a few days ago asking if pax flights might follow, but I seriously didn’t expect an answer like this. Can someone who reads Chinese confirm?

DavidByrne wrote:

c933103 wrote:

https://bbs.feeyo.com/m/?a=viewthread&tid=6036277
Chinese government approved NZ's application for five-weekly passenger flight from AKL and CHC to CAN in Guangzhou.
It's noted on Chinese forum that, NZ will be the first airlines from Five Eyes alliance countries to have service to Guangzhou airport the only intercontinental gateway in Southern China, which is kind of unexpected and is a Chinese New Year of Ox Surprise, even though New Zealand is more obedient in recent times, and they hope that such service could lead to additional service by other airlines from Five Eyes alliance country to China

Is this for real (can’t read the original in Chinese)? Earlier reports I read suggested freight flights. I flew a kite a few days ago asking if pax flights might follow, but I seriously didn’t expect an answer like this. Can someone who reads Chinese confirm?

The NZ field in the link's image from official document say 客货混载, which mean mixed passengers and freight service

https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/press-r ... -guangzhou

Nothing about Pax here in NZ's own release. I can't personally imagine they would fly pax to CAN, in these times it is possible I guess with limited pax.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/124188862/jacinda-ardern-and-the-transtasman-bubble-trust-deficit

After today’s post cabinet press conference, I’m starting to think that an Tasman Bubble by the end of Q1 is now off the table. It seems that New Zealand views of Covid management have drifted far apart over the last couple of weeks. It doesn’t almost seem that the NZ Govt was not very happy with Australia recent temporary boarder closure to New Zealand over an single case.

If Australia is off the cards, maybe it’s time to start looking at other markets for an bubble? Ever hopefully the Cool Islands will happen soon-ish.

zkncj wrote:

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/124188862/jacinda-ardern-and-the-transtasman-bubble-trust-deficit

After today’s post cabinet press conference, I’m starting to think that an Tasman Bubble by the end of Q1 is now off the table. It seems that New Zealand views of Covid management have drifted far apart over the last couple of weeks. It doesn’t almost seem that the NZ Govt was not very happy with Australia recent temporary boarder closure to New Zealand over an single case.

If Australia is off the cards, maybe it’s time to start looking at other markets for an bubble? Ever hopefully the Cool Islands will happen soon-ish.

I can't see it happening until the leaks coming out of MIQ are solved on either side.

• Vaccinate the border force
• Vaccinate all those willing on entry (Not all will be willing but it will greatly minimize some risk)

Then let's review.

This comment makes me chuckle

Ardern is clearly not happy with Australia, and feels short-changed by its decision earlier in January to suspend quarantine-free travel with New Zealand after the Northland community case of Covid-19.

Sorry, what exactly has Ardern done in this space? That's right NOTHING!.

And this, well... one could argue this is very so slightly becoming a diplomatic issue vs an actual public health prevention measure based on these comments alone.

But there clearly now a trust deficit, at least at Ardern’s end, over how the Australian Government handled its shutdown in January. In fact, when asked the PM turned to good old-fashioned Kiwi passive-aggression, suggesting that the Australians shutting down the border recently is to blame for the newfound reticence.

A case in the community does not itself become "community transmission" which is what we are fearful of. The recent Auckland, Northland and Perth examples are case and point. All directly linked to MIQ. Community transmission is when it's being caught and spread within the community.

tullamarine wrote:

The issue for New Zealand is more economic than anything else. Tourism contributes over 20% on the country's export income and, different from Australia for example, the total spend of foreigners in NZ massively exceeds what NZ residents spend overseas. With a small population of around 5 million, there is no way local travel compensate for the massive economic hit the country is taking with the closure of its international borders. Obviously, opening the country to Australia would assist given Australians made up over a 1/3 of international tourists to NZ but, even that, is looking unlikely in the next 6 months or so.

I think the government is more than happy with how the economy is going and going back 11 months would take what we have with open arms.

Unemployment under 5%, feared 12% and for those who say people aren't working any hours and it's a false statistic, look beyond the mainstream news who LOVE to report on the negative.

"The solid employment story has translated into a
similarly positive activity story, with hours worked
up 4.5% in the December quarter following the
9.4% bounce-back in the September quarter after
the 10.2% fall seen in the June quarter. Hours
worked in the December quarter were up 3.9% on
the same quarter last year, however the
corresponding QES hours paid series was up only
0.3% over the year"

https://www.treasury.govt.nz/system/fil ... 5feb21.pdf

The point is, we're doing exceptionally well. We don't "need" the tourist dollar at a national level. Certain industries do, tourism being the obvious.

NZ6 wrote:

aerorobnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

This is very typical mindset of many New Zealanders.. I'm guilty of this too so not having a go.

There's so much to do here if we looked for it.

.

I think NZ has plenty of things to do for people who haven't travelled much domestically or internationally, but it isn't diverse or large enough to maintain interest for long trips and subsequent trips over time once you have. I've travelled all over New Zealand and visited the main tourist spots and the lesser known gems as a kid and teenager/young adult, but now that I have done it, I don't really have a great urgency to revisit it., at least until I am retired.

Hard to disagree - but we're only talking about a couple of years (fingers crossed) and we've done one already.

ZQN is a great little trip in itself but if your going for longer Milford/Doubtful Sound and the glaciers are amazing. If we went to the Canadian Rockies or the Swiss Alps it'd be almost mandatory to do these things.

Want some excitement, bungy, jetboat, hydro attack, sky dive etc...

But yeah, it's a once or twice thing only, but after that. If you want something slower, Marlborough wine tours in a luxury resort. Just like Nappa Valley or the Hunter/Yarra regions

It's fair to say the vast majority of our attractions are nature based and if that's not your thing then I can understand the limitations.

We don't have big cities to explore, theme parks or historic places but you can fill a bunch of smaller breaks in nicely if you look hard enough.

The biggest issue is travelling to the same season... If you're a winter season enthusiast you can't head to the Northern Hemisphere during our summer. Just like I can't head to the topical beaches during our winter. Heading to ZQN in winter isn't the "escape" I want in winter.

I do have to say I agree with @zkncj’s sentiment. For us, going on holiday means going away and not something that is kind of part of your daily life. Living in NZ anywhere is NZ seemed to be a part of daily life and makes it less special LOL... Also, one thing that I supposed you can’t find in NZ is the public transport, especially the peak hour subway rushes. We actually loved it - it is great experience! Have visited placed like Hong Kong, Beijing, Japan (Tokyo/Osaka), Taiwan and South Korea, not forgetting Singapore, and we absolutely love taking their trains - something that you can never find in NZ.

And as for winter in New Zealand, for us it isn’t too bad, especially over the past few years where we have been living in Auckland (used to live in Welly before that). The weather, although can be unpredictable, winter Auckland is “bearable”... What gets us though is the short daylight hours (and lack on stuff to do after hours) in New Zealand. This gets worse in winter with the shorter days. Funnily enough, we have visited Japan (twice) and Taiwan (once) smack in the middle of winter (over Christmas/New Year holidays), and whilst their days are shorter and it gets back by around 4:30-5:00pm, the fact that the cities are still pretty much “alive” after days make is kind of special, and we didn’t mind the shorter days over there at all!

Don’t get me wrong - we would love to visit the South Island proper again at some stage, but then, the Mrs have been travelling down to CHC for work literally every week and she commented she doesn’t want to visit a work place city for holiday LOL.... I guess it is all in the mindset!

With now the third level 3 lockdown taking place in Auckland, is time that AKL stops taking the majority of the International arrivals?

It seems like we need todo more to spread / control the load of passenger flights into New Zealand going forward. AKL has taken more than it fair share of High Risk flights, and the locals have had to deal with it.

Should it be time that we look at landing more higher risk flights onto other parts of the country too?

zkncj wrote:

With now the third level 3 lockdown taking place in Auckland, is time that AKL stops taking the majority of the International arrivals?

It seems like we need todo more to spread / control the load of passenger flights into New Zealand going forward. AKL has taken more than it fair share of High Risk flights, and the locals have had to deal with it.

Should it be time that we look at landing more higher risk flights onto other parts of the country too?

The opposite in my mind. Make AKL water tight, vaccinate anyone and everyone at every touchpoint and those close to... starting this coming Saturday.

NZ6 wrote:

The opposite in my mind. Make AKL water tight, vaccinate anyone and everyone at every touchpoint and those close to... starting this coming Saturday.

Hopefully we can get it right this time, seem that AKL has an few cracks in the system. If they can trace it back to LGS, then an serious look needs to be done on everything secondary service provider at AKL.

I don’t get how someone on the first place is allowed to wash dirty blankets etc, then also be allowed pack catering trolleys that could end up on an domestic flight. Seems that we may have some very leaky secondary services at AKL.

zkncj wrote:

With now the third level 3 lockdown taking place in Auckland, is time that AKL stops taking the majority of the International arrivals?

It seems like we need todo more to spread / control the load of passenger flights into New Zealand going forward. AKL has taken more than it fair share of High Risk flights, and the locals have had to deal with it.

Should it be time that we look at landing more higher risk flights onto other parts of the country too?

Probably not, CHC is the only other point of entry and the city may not have the capacity to handle what AKL handles? It could possibly affect airline crew schedules etc? Not sure but it doesn’t make sense to me.

Tried getting back to NZ lately? Can you even imagine what it is like to be stuck overseas at the moment in a territory where the number of new cases per day exceeds NZ's total altogether? In case you wondered, it's really hard to even imagine returning for many of us stuck overseas because the capacity to accept returnees and the routines involved make it almost too difficult to book. Tried to even make a booking lately? Maybe it's time for a little perspective. Good thing Auckland is on to it.... and so they should be....!

zkncj wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

The opposite in my mind. Make AKL water tight, vaccinate anyone and everyone at every touchpoint and those close to... starting this coming Saturday.

Hopefully we can get it right this time, seem that AKL has an few cracks in the system. If they can trace it back to LGS, then an serious look needs to be done on everything secondary service provider at AKL.

I don’t get how someone on the first place is allowed to wash dirty blankets etc, then also be allowed pack catering trolleys that could end up on an domestic flight. Seems that we may have some very leaky secondary services at AKL.

I guess to be fair we (well, the experts) need to know how it got in.

It's not linked to any known cases here. So rules out getting it from an inbound NZ passenger or someone previously in MIQ. It really only leaves crew or transit passengers or another random source like Americold. Epidemiologist Dr Michael Baker says there's no evidence globally to suggest it can be caught by handling dirty laundry but we shouldn't suggest it can't based on this.

We're all also assuming the mother caught it first. Extremely likely but not yet confirmed.

Good news is, vaccination commences in 5 days and should be done within 3 weeks. We can just be hopefully that will improve things.

NZ321 wrote:

Tried getting back to NZ lately? Can you even imagine what it is like to be stuck overseas at the moment in a territory where the number of new cases per day exceeds NZ's total altogether? In case you wondered, it's really hard to even imagine returning for many of us stuck overseas because the capacity to accept returnees and the routines involved make it almost too difficult to book. Tried to even make a booking lately? Maybe it's time for a little perspective. Good thing Auckland is on to it.... and so they should be....!

Can't be that hard can it? The Wiggles got in!!!

I'm in the UK. My wife looked semi-seriously at her and our kids going back to NZ for a couple of months to give them back some 'normalcy' for a while. Unfortunately the earliest available slots in the MIQ scheme were in late May/early June!

afterburner33 wrote:

I'm in the UK. My wife looked semi-seriously at her and our kids going back to NZ for a couple of months to give them back some 'normalcy' for a while. Unfortunately the earliest available slots in the MIQ scheme were in late May/early June!

It is an hard one, MIQ has approximately 4500 rooms available per night. I don’t really think you could add much more capacity onto the system, without public disapproval in New Zealand.

Even with the pre-flight testing we are still seeing positive cases in MIQ daily.

afterburner33 wrote:

I'm in the UK. My wife looked semi-seriously at her and our kids going back to NZ for a couple of months to give them back some 'normalcy' for a while. Unfortunately the earliest available slots in the MIQ scheme were in late May/early June!

New Zealand MIQ capacity was close to Australian capacity when they reduced it recently.
Even when Australia is running their system at full capacity, if is less then half the NZ capacity per head of population.

zkncj wrote:

afterburner33 wrote:

I'm in the UK. My wife looked semi-seriously at her and our kids going back to NZ for a couple of months to give them back some 'normalcy' for a while. Unfortunately the earliest available slots in the MIQ scheme were in late May/early June!

It is an hard one, MIQ has approximately 4500 rooms available per night. I don’t really think you could add much more capacity onto the system, without public disapproval in New Zealand.

Even with the pre-flight testing we are still seeing positive cases in MIQ daily.

It's a hell of a hard one.

I don't know the number of occupied rooms vs available ones but understanding is there's close to 50% redundancy built in for situations where like the Pullman a facility needs be closed down quickly and those people in MIQ can be accommodated safely in another facility without risk to the general public and the spread of COVID.

Post the Pullman issue Chris Hipkins said they're doing analysis on having everyone on a floor arrive and depart MIQ on the same day, but indicated it would likely lead to reduced capacity overall in MIQ due to these limitations. There's also complications where they're trying not mix high risk passengers with others (USA for example).

There's 5 loose groups of people returning.

1. Kiwis Involuntarily coming home. They've lost their job, visa expired/cancelled and they need to return home or in that sad case in Japan, returning to spend the last few months of life at home.
1. Returning Emergency/Compassionate travel, someone died overseas. They've gone and are now returning.
1. Returning Business Travel
1. Those who are entitled to return legally who are opting to return now due to the largely COVID free status we hold
1. Foreign Nationals; sports/entertainment (Professional Sports, Concerts, Entertainers Wiggles)

In my mind, a better system would be some form of application process. Priority going in that order too but with a clause around 5 that large groups arrange their own MIQ provided they can demonstrate HOW it'll meet MOH guidelines. Point 3 and 5 must be paid in FULL. Point 4 should partially pay.

My two cents worth.

I'm hoping optional vaccine in MIQ with the workforce having had it too it will enable more occupancy of the capacity and maybe a bubble somewhere

NZ6 wrote:

It's a hell of a hard one.

I don't know the number of occupied rooms vs available ones but understanding is there's close to 50% redundancy built in for situations where like the Pullman a facility needs be closed down quickly and those people in MIQ can be accommodated safely in another facility without risk to the general public and the spread of COVID.

https://www.mbie.govt.nz/business-and-employment/economic-development/covid-19-data-resources/managed-isolation-and-quarantine-data/

MIQ publish this daily, report on an 14 day period. Today they have 4500 rooms, with 4224 allocated.

zkncj wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

It's a hell of a hard one.

I don't know the number of occupied rooms vs available ones but understanding is there's close to 50% redundancy built in for situations where like the Pullman a facility needs be closed down quickly and those people in MIQ can be accommodated safely in another facility without risk to the general public and the spread of COVID.

https://www.mbie.govt.nz/business-and-employment/economic-development/covid-19-data-resources/managed-isolation-and-quarantine-data/

MIQ publish this daily, report on an 14 day period. Today they have 4500 rooms, with 4224 allocated.

"Operational Capacity", that's got the redundancy built in.

I did a quick google of these hotels, I reach 4,500 rooms in Rotorua and I'm missing info from 4 AKL Hotels, 1 HLZ and 1 ROT hotel as the info wasn't immediately available.

I gave up at this point but add 12 more hotels at an average of 125 rooms each (given they're smaller locations) it's another 1,500 rooms. Not the 50% I understood but perhaps 30%.Although add in other room types, maybe the average is 160+ and it could be closer.

https://www.miq.govt.nz/being-in-manage ... locations/

I think the idea of spreading the load is partially correct. It's quite logical really to have all the green flights out of CHC inc RAR and the red transit flights out of AKL. All the 'Green' flights for no quarantine would require the 14 days quarantine to book as they do now, and because they can't fly internationally into CHC on red flights there is no risk of plagued people mixing so the terminal does not need the stupid pier A/Pier B segregation like at AKL However it should be part of a larger picture ...

The problem with AKL is that the Govt and AIAL are both running the MIQ stuff and running a racket whereby they don't want any process that doesn't use their facilities or cost anything., What should have been obvious to anyone is that a makeshift layover processing facility (it could be constructed from shipping containers even, or something that can be easily sterilized) should have been erected somewhere isolated on the apron area (say 80/81) and all intl arrivals (prior to green clearances like RAR) should have been processed out there through Customs/MPI and straight into buses which should then be escorted by cops or army straight to the hotels. This is just what they already did for VIPs and heads of state delegations in private jets, and is much more secure and can be run as a police or military op. It limits the possibility of casual exposure off surfaces and mixed skill staff. The disadvantage is processing ability so it might require some schedule adjustments

This would allow for all green flights to arrive on the gate and be processed normally, and also for transit between green ports like RAR-AKL-SYD unimpeded. As we choose to, we could then add certain flights back into the airport and slowly wind the external processing one flight at a time (or suddenly increase for outbreaks) A specific core team of staff from the greater airport could then solely be used for just these flights, rather than the willy-nilly overlap that currently happens where staff rostered one day at intl can go to domestic the next, or depart an MOH charter and go straight to a green flight to Australia. LSG was not a surprise, I don't know why the govt is surprised, it was not to anyone who works at the airport if not of interest to anyone from MIQ. Separate teams for everything should be a boom for jobs not taking away too.

I see that SQ are shipping the first batch of vaccines (around 60,000 - Pfizer/BioNTech ) into AKL - BRU-SIN-AKL route. Any reason NZ didn't put it's planes and staff up for this chance?

ZKOJH wrote:

I see that SQ are shipping the first batch of vaccines (around 60,000 - Pfizer/BioNTech ) into AKL - BRU-SIN-AKL route. Any reason NZ didn't put it's planes and staff up for this chance?

Its a regular PAX service, not sure that it was tendered for?

ZK-NBT wrote:

ZKOJH wrote:

I see that SQ are shipping the first batch of vaccines (around 60,000 - Pfizer/BioNTech ) into AKL - BRU-SIN-AKL route. Any reason NZ didn't put it's planes and staff up for this chance?

Its a regular PAX service, not sure that it was tendered for?

Yep, a regular flight with a minimal connection in SIN to allow the chilled Pfizer vaccines to survive. Not cost or resource effective sending a charter for either govt or NZ. I am surprised it wasn't on a dedicated freighter, but then again it was only 60000, so not especially heavy or requiring much volume.

For those interested in or following the debate on AIAL development (or argued lack of). Their half year results are out. While there's naturally a huge drop in revenue and profit they're still turning $30m in profit.

https://corporate.aucklandairport.co.nz ... nd-reports

Surprising they're still able to be profitable given the lack of international pax and cargo flights in addition to a small reduction in domestic movements. I've made my thoughts clear on their investment in domestic passenger experience before

NZ6 wrote:

For those interested in or following the debate on AIAL development (or argued lack of). Their half year results are out. While there's naturally a huge drop in revenue and profit they're still turning $30m in profit.

https://corporate.aucklandairport.co.nz ... nd-reports

Surprising they're still able to be profitable given the lack of international pax and cargo flights in addition to a small reduction in domestic movements. I've made my thoughts clear on their investment in domestic passenger experience before

It does beg the question is AIAL really in the business of running an airport? Or are they more into the property business. While using the airport as front to get all there needed resource consents.

If only someone would threaten to build another private airport near Auckland.

Would have thought that CHC would of be better in building an second Auckland Airport, than second Queenstown Airport in Tarras.

zkncj wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

For those interested in or following the debate on AIAL development (or argued lack of). Their half year results are out. While there's naturally a huge drop in revenue and profit they're still turning $30m in profit.

https://corporate.aucklandairport.co.nz ... nd-reports

Surprising they're still able to be profitable given the lack of international pax and cargo flights in addition to a small reduction in domestic movements. I've made my thoughts clear on their investment in domestic passenger experience before

It does beg the question is AIAL really in the business of running an airport? Or are they more into the property business. While using the airport as front to get all there needed resource consents.

If only someone would threaten to build another private airport near Auckland.

Would have thought that CHC would of be better in building an second Auckland Airport, than second Queenstown Airport in Tarras.

Airports have two different types of revenue streams. Aeronautical (runways, terminals - for passengers/cargo) and non Aeronautical (car parking, retail, non-aero property). The non-aero side of the business is not regulated and they can do what they like. For the assets that are defined as Aero, they charge airlines to use and prices are determined using a building blocks method overseen but not regulated by the commerce commission. On the aero assets (terminals for simplicity) there is always tension between airlines and airports about how much and quickly to invest. AIAL would love to build a brand new shiny terminal as they can recover the costs from the airlines - however the airlines are wanting to keep their costs low and so like to see the investment deferred as long as possible. This is particularly the case for Air NZ where investment in new facilities could enable more competition in the future - and so they will only support investment when the situation is getting so bad that its hurting their operations and customers.

In the current environment where airlines are losing huge amounts of money, there is zero interest in paying for shiny new terminals, and also airports recognise they cant ask airlines to pay for these things - so many aero capital projects are being deferred. Added to this you have the complication that at AKL I think some of the facilities arent even owned by the airport..

So when people complain about AKL airport and the terminal facilities remember the lack of investment is probably being driven by the airlines.

I am surprised nobody has commented on the new recommendations by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (released yesterday)

https://www.pce.parliament.nz/our-work/ ... le-tourism

One of his four recommendations is

Introduce a departure tax that reflects the environmental cost of flying internationally from New Zealand, and use the revenue to support the development of low-emissions aviation technologies and provide a source of climate finance for Pacific Island nations.

That would apply to ALL travellers leaving NZ, i.e. no exemptions for Kiwis, as it is in the Tourist Levy.

IMO more MIQ space needs to be added in smaller cities where an outbreak isn't going to put our biggest city into Level Three (or Level Four). Somewhere like Taupo would be ideal in this regard, though I guess Taupo is more difficult to seal off - handy that Auckland is on the narrowest bit of the country. Obviously it's a trade off though with a need to have big enough facilities to get economies of scale (security guards, doctors + nurses etc).



I'm not opposed to Aviation taxes as such, provided that all the proceeds from them go directly towards mitigating the environmental effects of aviation and not just as a tax grab. The "development of low-emissions aviation technologies" sounds a bit wishy washy to me. Would rather give the money to the Department Of Conservation to plant more trees. If they could plant enough trees that every tourist's trip to New Zealand would be fully offset in terms of CO2, I think that would be a good selling point for brand New Zealand.

Just my 2c.

a7ala wrote:

zkncj wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

For those interested in or following the debate on AIAL development (or argued lack of). Their half year results are out. While there's naturally a huge drop in revenue and profit they're still turning $30m in profit.

https://corporate.aucklandairport.co.nz ... nd-reports

Surprising they're still able to be profitable given the lack of international pax and cargo flights in addition to a small reduction in domestic movements. I've made my thoughts clear on their investment in domestic passenger experience before

It does beg the question is AIAL really in the business of running an airport? Or are they more into the property business. While using the airport as front to get all there needed resource consents.

If only someone would threaten to build another private airport near Auckland.

Would have thought that CHC would of be better in building an second Auckland Airport, than second Queenstown Airport in Tarras.

Airports have two different types of revenue streams. Aeronautical (runways, terminals - for passengers/cargo) and non Aeronautical (car parking, retail, non-aero property). The non-aero side of the business is not regulated and they can do what they like. For the assets that are defined as Aero, they charge airlines to use and prices are determined using a building blocks method overseen but not regulated by the commerce commission. On the aero assets (terminals for simplicity) there is always tension between airlines and airports about how much and quickly to invest. AIAL would love to build a brand new shiny terminal as they can recover the costs from the airlines - however the airlines are wanting to keep their costs low and so like to see the investment deferred as long as possible. This is particularly the case for Air NZ where investment in new facilities could enable more competition in the future - and so they will only support investment when the situation is getting so bad that its hurting their operations and customers.

In the current environment where airlines are losing huge amounts of money, there is zero interest in paying for shiny new terminals, and also airports recognise they cant ask airlines to pay for these things - so many aero capital projects are being deferred. Added to this you have the complication that at AKL I think some of the facilities arent even owned by the airport..

So when people complain about AKL airport and the terminal facilities remember the lack of investment is probably being driven by the airlines.

I'm on the fence with this.

On one hand, the diversity in AIAL's overall portfolio has likely played a part in still being able to generate revenue.

However, look at slide 6, $40m in Aeronautical which is down 74% so should/could have been $152m - that's massive. Retail: $7.0m and down 94% - so the original number being $113m. Even transport down from $34m to $12.5m.

In those 3 alone, there's $285.5m of revenue lost due to COVID.

It's clear to say the majority of their retail revenue comes via the international terminal. Domestic and Off terminal revenue would still exist with the exception of the August lock down. Is that partly due to the lack of facilities and places to spend or the lack of dwell time?

I'd imagine AIAL would know how much money each passenger spends (on average) in retail in Dom vs Intl and this number would be much higher at Intl hence the ongoing investment to generate more facilities.

My opinion, it's the wealthy tourists spending money on overpriced last minute souvenirs along with the longer dwell time between check-in and boarding.

Ultimately my point remains.

AIAL provide a core critical business in a non competitive environment. We elected to privatize the facility and their management are now accountable to shareholders. The downstream consequence of this is low revenue areas of the business get neglected which is impacts on the customer/travelling public. But what can they do?

One look at the changes made to the international terminal vs the domestic terminal highlights where money is being spent.

I'm not sure what the answer is? Short Haul terminal / Private terminal operators?

zkojq wrote:

IMO more MIQ space needs to be added in smaller cities where an outbreak isn't going to put our biggest city into Level Three (or Level Four). Somewhere like Taupo would be ideal in this regard, though I guess Taupo is more difficult to seal off - handy that Auckland is on the narrowest bit of the country. Obviously it's a trade off though with a need to have big enough facilities to get economies of scale (security guards, doctors + nurses etc).

I'm not opposed to Aviation taxes as such, provided that all the proceeds from them go directly towards mitigating the environmental effects of aviation and not just as a tax grab. The "development of low-emissions aviation technologies" sounds a bit wishy washy to me. Would rather give the money to the Department Of Conservation to plant more trees. If they could plant enough trees that every tourist's trip to New Zealand would be fully offset in terms of CO2, I think that would be a good selling point for brand New Zealand.

Just my 2c.

Two points which i'll add my 2c on top of.

- MIQ: I'm hoping the vaccination of these workers will greatly reduce this risk. Like you've said though, smaller cities are easier to "block off" but also harder to manage due to the resources available. Hospitals, Drs, Nurses, Hotel rooms etc etc. Worth noting - we've not had a MIQ leak other than the Northland case which as it turns out wasn't a threat the city itself. The lions share of our MIQ rooms are in AKL which simplifies the logistics. Try finding 6,500-8,000 rooms in smaller towns might mean we're using every small town in NZ and need drastically increase the number of personal required to manage it. Least of all increase the risk while moving people from Isolation to Quarantine which occurs seemingly daily.

- Aviation Tax: Seems like another avenue to collect money. I would need to see exactly how's it going to go towards the "environmental effects". We can't plant our way out of this issue. Some tangible actions need to be tabled...

zkojq wrote:

IMO more MIQ space needs to be added in smaller cities where an outbreak isn't going to put our biggest city into Level Three (or Level Four). Somewhere like Taupo would be ideal in this regard, though I guess Taupo is more difficult to seal off - handy that Auckland is on the narrowest bit of the country. Obviously it's a trade off though with a need to have big enough facilities to get economies of scale (security guards, doctors + nurses etc).

The latest lockdown was projected to have cost Auckland, $30m/day so around $90million for 72hours. If International arrivals are going to be kept by large kept in AKL MIQ Hotels. Then maybe it’s time to start charging an MIQ Auckland Recovery Tax on all returnees staying in Auckland? $1000 per returnee should be going into an Auckland Recovery fund, to subsidise and compensate Aucklanders for MIQ outbreaks.

Aucklanders live in constant stress and fear of lockdown from MIQ leaks, yet we get nothing for it. We didn’t ask to have returning International Traveler locked up in our hotels.