https://www.nzherald.co.nz/travel/transtasman-bubble-auckland-airport-arrivals-gears-up-to-welcome-australia/UMNJHSMUZL22GOK6LATAIUJ5IY/

Auckland Airport has now fully ready for the Tasman bubble from Monday, the final stages of the terminal split taken place.

Going from 36 Tasman flights week at the start off April, to around 400 flights an week.

DavidByrne wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

VirginFlyer wrote:

Meanwhile on the other end of the spectrum there is some welcome news from New Zealand's other international airline; if you go to the Air Chathams website there is a new picture on the front page linking to this:


https://sh1.sendinblue.com/vdneggmett7e ... 1618455077

Additionally, they've announced a second weekly rotation on Mondays, starting on the 2nd of August. Exciting news for Norfolk Island!

V/F

Am I reading this correctly? NLK-AKL 1090kms over the ocean on a Saab 340B! Count me out!!!

It's only marginally further than AKL-CHT, and only a bit further on the actual over water portion. I understand that 3C has used the 340 on some Chathams services recently. Just to put it in context: my parents flew to NLK for their honeymoon in 1952 - on an NAC DC3.

I think that this is a smart move by 3C - around half the size of an AT7/580 and twice the frequency. I suspect that a weekly flight (which they have been operating since they took on the route) would have seriously limited the potential market.

This! I would be happy to go back to Norfolk Island, but not for a whole week. The twice a week option makes it much more attractive for many I think. Fares are quite steep, but fair. It's a small market and not cheap to operate an aircraft of that size (i.e. no economies of scale), similar to the Chathams. I sincerely hope they will make it work, both for having the options, and for having a successful airline - I love Air Chats!

tullamarine wrote:

VirginFlyer wrote:

Meanwhile on the other end of the spectrum there is some welcome news from New Zealand's other international airline; if you go to the Air Chathams website there is a new picture on the front page linking to this:

We're heading back to Norfolk Island

Following the announcement of the trans-Tasman bubble, we're excited to announce that we're resuming flights to and from Norfolk Island from May 27th.

Our timetable has been adjusted to see us flying from New Zealand to Norfolk Island on Thursdays departing Auckland at 10:30am allowing easy connections from domestic flights. Flights will arrive back into Auckland at 4:45pm, again allowing for easy transit to destinations outside of Auckland.

We'll also be introducing a new aircraft type on this route - the Saab 340. If you've travelled between Auckland and Whanganui or Kapiti with us before, you'll have experienced the comfortable and spacious interior of this popular aircraft that will be flying with our famous inflight service of Tim Tams!

Norfolk Island, always a popular short-haul holiday escape for New Zealanders, has remained virus-free through the global pandemic and offers visitors everything needed to relax the mind, enjoy a special holiday and escape from crowds.

With safety and health on everyone's minds and, while the island continues to deliver outdoor, culinary, or historical experiences, there is even more of a focus now on wellbeing.

The island is an ideal spot for a retreat to relax and revive, reconnect to earth and oneself, enjoy nature and participate in adrenalin-rushing or soothing activity and adventure.

https://sh1.sendinblue.com/vdneggmett7e ... 1618455077

Additionally, they've announced a second weekly rotation on Mondays, starting on the 2nd of August. Exciting news for Norfolk Island!

V/F

Am I reading this correctly? NLK-AKL 1090kms over the ocean on a Saab 340B! Count me out!!!

Air New Zealand started the route using F27s
When they switched to 737's they announced the switch with advertisements with the line "Friendships are fun, but Boeings are better"

aerorobnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

I'm sure this will shock people. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/440 ... a-air-plan

I would like to tell you "I told you so" re not getting off the ground but I'm not sure if anyone disagreed with me

I think it is the one topic in this forum we unanimously agreed on. Not fleet orders, not route prospects, not govt lockdown protocols, not catering or cleaning standards nor competition. and fare prices. That's quite a consensus It goes to show there is still hope for a partisan world...

If he's that interested in branching out to aviation - I'd be really interested to see how the dollars stack up for a seasonal adhoc charter airline. Perhaps initially just in the Jul school holidays but looking grow out to include the Apr/Sep holidays also.

Connecting AKL with non served short-haul ports or CHC/PMR/DUD/WLG with popular destinations not served directly.

The first one becomes very 'tricky' with limited options and the second is open to competition both via AKL but also with competitor airlines commencing direct routes.

Drive down costs by block booking accommodation, making it inclusive of transfers and sell it as a package. They can be seen as a "affordable" no hidden costs holiday for budget mindful travelers and families who want fixed costs etc

These are popular in parts of Europe and Air NZ have explored it before with the HKT, LAS GrabaSeat "charters" with various degrees of success.

Obviously something post COVID.

DavidByrne wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

VirginFlyer wrote:

Meanwhile on the other end of the spectrum there is some welcome news from New Zealand's other international airline; if you go to the Air Chathams website there is a new picture on the front page linking to this:


https://sh1.sendinblue.com/vdneggmett7e ... 1618455077

Additionally, they've announced a second weekly rotation on Mondays, starting on the 2nd of August. Exciting news for Norfolk Island!

V/F

Am I reading this correctly? NLK-AKL 1090kms over the ocean on a Saab 340B! Count me out!!!

It's only marginally further than AKL-CHT, and only a bit further on the actual over water portion. I understand that 3C has used the 340 on some Chathams services recently. Just to put it in context: my parents flew to NLK for their honeymoon in 1952 - on an NAC DC3.

I think that this is a smart move by 3C - around half the size of an AT7/580 and twice the frequency. I suspect that a weekly flight (which they have been operating since they took on the route) would have seriously limited the potential market.

I'm with tullamarine here, count me out. The SAAB's were a good aircraft but they've had their day. Unless NLK was on my bucket list or I had a specific need to go there It'd put me off.

For me it's a combination of physical comfort but also peace of mind (long overwater trip on an aging aircraft.

ZK-KRA: 34 years old
ZK-CIY: 33 years old
ZK-CIZ: 24 years old

NZ6 wrote:

For me it's a combination of physical comfort but also peace of mind (long overwater trip on an aging aircraft.

ZK-KRA: 34 years old
ZK-CIY: 33 years old
ZK-CIZ: 24 years old

I wasn't really expressing support or opposition to the use of the SF340 on AKL-NLK, more noting the carrier's move (and the context of having a DC3 on the route 70 years ago).

But I'd also point out that the incumbent aircraft, the CV580, has an airframe that's about twice as old as the SF340 fleet which will replace it. So that's an improvement, of sorts, I guess. Not having flown on the CV580, I couldn't vouch for the difference in comfort levels, though.

DavidByrne wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

For me it's a combination of physical comfort but also peace of mind (long overwater trip on an aging aircraft.

ZK-KRA: 34 years old
ZK-CIY: 33 years old
ZK-CIZ: 24 years old

I wasn't really expressing support or opposition to the use of the SF340 on AKL-NLK, more noting the carrier's move (and the context of having a DC3 on the route 70 years ago).

But I'd also point out that the incumbent aircraft, the CV580, has an airframe that's about twice as old as the SF340 fleet which will replace it. So that's an improvement, of sorts, I guess. Not having flown on the CV580, I couldn't vouch for the difference in comfort levels, though.

ZK-CIB which was in the route pre-Covid, turns 68 years old this July! It was built on 1954!

Wonder if NZ would ever return with an ATR? Now that the bubble is an thing.

While on the subject of 3C and the SF3, I remember that some months ago there was speculation about new domestic destinations for the airline, fuelled by rumors that two or three more were being looked at. I recall that at the time there was consensus that MRO would be most likely one of them, but I can't recall the others that were in discussion.

I was wondering whether the carrier might look at AKL-WKA. I'm sure there's a market for WKA, and the QAC would hopefully be supportive, given they do hope to lengthen and strengthen the WKA runway (but not for some years as it's not in their current plans to 2023).

At present WKA cannot (according to the QAC) take the AT7, but they imply smaller airliners are possible. I'm not sure if it could take a loaded SF3 for a flight to AKL, though. The runway length of 3937 ft may not be enough.

If 3C could get established on that route, it would be well-placed in future to use its AT7 (or even a potential 737 if it goes that way). After all, I doubt that CHT would keep a 737 fully utilised, so they may be interested in other destinations that could support that. There's no reason why, if ZQN can support up to 10+ A320 flights a day from AKL, that WKA couldn't support two or three. The big question would be how NZ would respond, though 3C could potentially have had four or more years' operation to build the market with the SF3 before NZ would be able to compete.

But I'm aware that there were obstacles even to S8's CHC-WKA service, and I recall QAC ifself was one of them. Does anyone recall what QAC's position was? And why?

zkncj wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

For me it's a combination of physical comfort but also peace of mind (long overwater trip on an aging aircraft.

ZK-KRA: 34 years old
ZK-CIY: 33 years old
ZK-CIZ: 24 years old

I wasn't really expressing support or opposition to the use of the SF340 on AKL-NLK, more noting the carrier's move (and the context of having a DC3 on the route 70 years ago).

But I'd also point out that the incumbent aircraft, the CV580, has an airframe that's about twice as old as the SF340 fleet which will replace it. So that's an improvement, of sorts, I guess. Not having flown on the CV580, I couldn't vouch for the difference in comfort levels, though.

ZK-CIB which was in the route pre-Covid, turns 68 years old this July! It was built on 1954!

Wonder if NZ would ever return with an ATR? Now that the bubble is an thing.

Dont think the NZ ATR's are overwater-rated

The Convairs are brilliant. Comfortable well-padded seats, better legroom than a 787. Saabs are not, and they are noisier than anything bar an EMB-120.

PA515 wrote:

Found some 12 Apr 2021 photos of ZK-NEG at NSN without engines and the comment:
"NEG is just being used for parts because there are long lead-in times for parts from overseas"

https://3rdlevelnz.blogspot.com/2021/04 ... going.html

PA515

On the subject I have seen a ATR at CHC with engines and other bits removed. Must be a cheaper option than sourcing expensive brand new parts from overseas. Every little bit helps I guess to get planes back in the air. Especially when your business is loosing $2m per day it's such a battle to keep your head above the water line. So many Q300 flights have been cancelled lately which could be maintenance related or lack of spare parts etc.

I am not sure it is a full part out, just the relevant bits that regularly need replacing on the fleet, and some of the less common ones as they have happened on other members of the fleet. Same as NZE was a parts mule when it had the engine blowout and fuselage damage. It was stripped all sorts of bits and pieces, including once it was fixed and re-engined, they subsequently stripped it for another 787 shortly after.

As the parts are produced by Bombardier/ATR and put into parts store you may find they return it to flying condition. And of course, it may not yet be determined as a scrapping yet, until they know how things pan out. There may well be a time limit, like the 777 fleet has, after which it passes the point of no return.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ew_Zealand

List of Busiest Airports in New Zealand
I have finally updated the 2020 table on this page with sources. For it shows a dramatic drop around the country in passengers at each Airport.
Queenstown is nearly down by 50% all airports have suffered due to Covid.

DavidByrne wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

For me it's a combination of physical comfort but also peace of mind (long overwater trip on an aging aircraft.

ZK-KRA: 34 years old
ZK-CIY: 33 years old
ZK-CIZ: 24 years old

I wasn't really expressing support or opposition to the use of the SF340 on AKL-NLK, more noting the carrier's move (and the context of having a DC3 on the route 70 years ago).

But I'd also point out that the incumbent aircraft, the CV580, has an airframe that's about twice as old as the SF340 fleet which will replace it. So that's an improvement, of sorts, I guess. Not having flown on the CV580, I couldn't vouch for the difference in comfort levels, though.

All good, that's how I took it. I was just adding my thoughts onto it.

aerorobnz wrote:

The Convairs are brilliant. Comfortable well-padded seats, better legroom than a 787. Saabs are not, and they are noisier than anything bar an EMB-120.

I once flew Air Raro RAR-AIT on the Saab. That was 50mins and I'd agree it's noisy but doable for that length.

AKL-NLK is 2Hrs 45min! so almost 3 times that. Ewwww.

Perhaps it's irrelevant with those going to NLK being half deaf anyway.

77west wrote:

zkncj wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

I wasn't really expressing support or opposition to the use of the SF340 on AKL-NLK, more noting the carrier's move (and the context of having a DC3 on the route 70 years ago).

But I'd also point out that the incumbent aircraft, the CV580, has an airframe that's about twice as old as the SF340 fleet which will replace it. So that's an improvement, of sorts, I guess. Not having flown on the CV580, I couldn't vouch for the difference in comfort levels, though.

ZK-CIB which was in the route pre-Covid, turns 68 years old this July! It was built on 1954!

Wonder if NZ would ever return with an ATR? Now that the bubble is an thing.

Dont think the NZ ATR's are overwater-rated

Well they're flying AKL-CHT so must be

NZ516 wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_busiest_airports_in_New_Zealand

List of Busiest Airports in New Zealand
I have finally updated the 2020 table on this page with sources. For it shows a dramatic drop around the country in passengers at each Airport.
Queenstown is nearly down by 50% all airports have suffered due to Covid.

For AKL to have still done around 15million passengers last year that is pretty good, since most of that would of just been domestic travel for apart fo the year.

If you would take away the months that domestic travel wasn't allowed in 2020, that would be around 3-4 months of restrictions. I think you would find domestic travel ex-AKL ended up with an strong growth in 2020.

zkncj wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_busiest_airports_in_New_Zealand

List of Busiest Airports in New Zealand
I have finally updated the 2020 table on this page with sources. For it shows a dramatic drop around the country in passengers at each Airport.
Queenstown is nearly down by 50% all airports have suffered due to Covid.

For AKL to have still done around 15million passengers last year that is pretty good, since most of that would of just been domestic travel for apart fo the year.

If you would take away the months that domestic travel wasn't allowed in 2020, that would be around 3-4 months of restrictions. I think you would find domestic travel ex-AKL ended up with an strong growth in 2020.

They didnt. In calendar year 2020 they did 5.3M according to their own stats. https://corporate.aucklandairport.co.nz ... ic-updates

WLG did 3.3M for the same calendar year according to their website. https://www.wellingtonairport.co.nz/bus ... c-reports/

CHC doesnt report monthly anymore, but I suspect it will be similar to WLG.

You need to be careful when comparing stats for FY's as some airports have different FY's. The 2020 referred to for AKL is probably to June last year so has very little Covid impact in it.

NZ6 wrote:

aerorobnz wrote:

The Convairs are brilliant. Comfortable well-padded seats, better legroom than a 787. Saabs are not, and they are noisier than anything bar an EMB-120.

I once flew Air Raro RAR-AIT on the Saab. That was 50mins and I'd agree it's noisy but doable for that length.

AKL-NLK is 2Hrs 45min! so almost 3 times that. Ewwww.

Perhaps it's irrelevant with those going to NLK being half deaf anyway.

Would hope they have you an full size pack of Tim Tams on that flight, rather that the normal single serve packs on 3C.

Must not be an very comfortable flight for the FA, with not much todo after an drinks run.

a7ala wrote:

zkncj wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_busiest_airports_in_New_Zealand

List of Busiest Airports in New Zealand
I have finally updated the 2020 table on this page with sources. For it shows a dramatic drop around the country in passengers at each Airport.
Queenstown is nearly down by 50% all airports have suffered due to Covid.

For AKL to have still done around 15million passengers last year that is pretty good, since most of that would of just been domestic travel for apart fo the year.

If you would take away the months that domestic travel wasn't allowed in 2020, that would be around 3-4 months of restrictions. I think you would find domestic travel ex-AKL ended up with an strong growth in 2020.

They didnt. In calendar year 2020 they did 5.3M according to their own stats. https://corporate.aucklandairport.co.nz ... ic-updates

WLG did 3.3M for the same calendar year according to their website. https://www.wellingtonairport.co.nz/bus ... c-reports/

CHC doesnt report monthly anymore, but I suspect it will be similar to WLG.

You need to be careful when comparing stats for FY's as some airports have different FY's. The 2020 referred to for AKL is probably to June last year so has very little Covid impact in it.

Correct also I expect the current year will be very dire for AKL. For the 12 months ending 30 June 2021.

NZ6 wrote:

77west wrote:

zkncj wrote:

ZK-CIB which was in the route pre-Covid, turns 68 years old this July! It was built on 1954!

Wonder if NZ would ever return with an ATR? Now that the bubble is an thing.

Dont think the NZ ATR's are overwater-rated

Well they're flying AKL-CHT so must be

NZ’s aren’t; 3C’s one is. And that required a process to get it approved for operation in oceanic airspace.

Say what you will about the Saab, I think you’ll find those wanting to travel between Norfolk Island and New Zealand will find it a superior option to the alternative of flying via Brisbane.

V/F

VirginFlyer wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

77west wrote:

Dont think the NZ ATR's are overwater-rated

Well they're flying AKL-CHT so must be

NZ’s aren’t; 3C’s one is. And that required a process to get it approved for operation in oceanic airspace.

Say what you will about the Saab, I think you’ll find those wanting to travel between Norfolk Island and New Zealand will find it a superior option to the alternative of flying via Brisbane.

V/F

Apologies, didn't see it was in response to NZ's equipment. I thought the comment was about 3C's ATR's.

Also, yeah if travel to NLK is a must then I'd agree that the Saab is way better than via BNE. But how many would opt for a NLK vacation based on the Saab vs opting for an alternative. Or are we accepting 3C is servicing it for primarily for those who have a need for travel vs conniving the public to travel there.

NZ6 wrote:

But how many would opt for a NLK vacation based on the Saab vs opting for an alternative. Or are we accepting 3C is servicing it for primarily for those who have a need for travel vs conniving the public to travel there.

I think this is the core issue. I don't see 3C's primary market as being discretional travellers, but those who need to travel. Having said that, twice weekly does make holiday travel more attractive, the merits or otherwise of the Saab notwithstanding.

For 3C it was a question of having few options. With the CV580 on the way out it was probably a choice between an ATR72 once weekly or the Saab twice weekly. Realistically the most that could be expected in the medium term would be an upgrade to the ATR or a third frequency with the Saab. Either of those developments would assist the development of tourism to some extent. But in all of this we have to remember that NLK is a very small community of about 1,800 people, and is never going to support a large tourist industry. In some ways I'm surprised that NZ was able to offer 168 or whatever seats a week for so long before pulling the plug. That flights from Australia to NLK has to be operated under a government contract is a good illustration of how difficult the market to New Zealand is likely to be.

NZ6 wrote:

I once flew Air Raro RAR-AIT on the Saab. That was 50mins and I'd agree it's noisy but doable for that length.

Years ago I did the RAR-AIT route on a Bandeirante. I vividly remember a feeling of complete insignificance in the vastness of the Pacific, heading toward a speck a couple of hundred of kilometres somewhere out there at relatively low altitude (so you feel a stronger connection with the sea). It also gave me a real respect (and gratitude) for the pilots' navigational skills! Quite a different experience from flying the Pacific at much higher altitude in a wide body.

DavidByrne wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

But how many would opt for a NLK vacation based on the Saab vs opting for an alternative. Or are we accepting 3C is servicing it for primarily for those who have a need for travel vs conniving the public to travel there.

I think this is the core issue. I don't see 3C's primary market as being discretional travellers, but those who need to travel. Having said that, twice weekly does make holiday travel more attractive, the merits or otherwise of the Saab notwithstanding.

For 3C it was a question of having few options. With the CV580 on the way out it was probably a choice between an ATR72 once weekly or the Saab twice weekly. Realistically the most that could be expected in the medium term would be an upgrade to the ATR or a third frequency with the Saab. Either of those developments would assist the development of tourism to some extent. But in all of this we have to remember that NLK is a very small community of about 1,800 people, and is never going to support a large tourist industry. In some ways I'm surprised that NZ was able to offer 168 or whatever seats a week for so long before pulling the plug. That flights from Australia to NLK has to be operated under a government contract is a good illustration of how difficult the market to New Zealand is likely to be.

They market the flight in such a way that indicates they're trying to appeal to the undecided traveler vs just those who have a family or business need to travel there.

For the record, I'm not against 3C and NLK in the slightest. I wish them all the best and hope they can make it work.

My comments were simply my personal thoughts on traveling nearly 3 hours overwater on an aging Saab. There's just zero chance of me even entertaining that idea. Perhaps if it was MLE but not NLK.

I also wonder how many others would feel this same way and be put off by this? How many agents would be comfortable selling their clients onto this service when not directly asked etc.

With that in mind, I wonder how much of a barrier to success it might be. Would the ATR once a week be better for this market? But perhaps fresh freight twice a week is better in the pocket at the expense of the Saab v ATR..

DavidByrne wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

I once flew Air Raro RAR-AIT on the Saab. That was 50mins and I'd agree it's noisy but doable for that length.

Years ago I did the RAR-AIT route on a Bandeirante. I vividly remember a feeling of complete insignificance in the vastness of the Pacific, heading toward a speck a couple of hundred of kilometres somewhere out there at relatively low altitude (so you feel a stronger connection with the sea). It also gave me a real respect (and gratitude) for the pilots' navigational skills! Quite a different experience from flying the Pacific at much higher altitude in a wide body.

I did that route in the Saab a few years ago, quite a bit of turbulence I remember. Only time I’ve actually flown a Saab, fairly noisy, only 10-11 pax from memory on that particular flight.

Its been shown for decades now that with a choice between larger or more frequent people will always choose more frequent and more direct if possible. Most people don't fly for the experience, they fly to get to a location. So I'm sure the Saab will be perfectly fine for the people that use it.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

Its been shown for decades now that with a choice between larger or more frequent people will always choose more frequent and more direct if possible. Most people don't fly for the experience, they fly to get to a location. So I'm sure the Saab will be perfectly fine for the people that use it.

That trend has come from the hub and spoke vs point to point models derived from the A380, A350/787 development era. While there's parallels in play here i.e via BNE vs direct - I think the question is really would you even consider NLK with the Saab on offer.

For example;

If it's a matter of: "I'm going to NLK, how do I get there?" Then the Saab direct is the best and by far most convenient option unless comfort and peace of mind is a higher priority than the huge time and cost impact caused by going via mainland Australia. That for me is not up for dispute.

If it's a matter of saying the agent "I'm looking for a holiday close to home?" Is NLK on the Saab a serious contender?

If the Saab isn't a factor, does that suggest NLK only has the interest of around 60 odd seats a week? (30 couples)?

Most people will not even ask the question of what type, the question is whether in the long term the repeat traffic returns once they experience it for the first time. I suspect that the general public is not so discerning in New Zealand. We have not been spoiled for jet services like the USA for example where regional jets have long been a reason that they don't want turboprop flights for the most par (and tha we have in abundance domestically)t. I will be honest, from a unique aviation experience it is tempting to fly once for the logbook. The Convairs only had booked loads for a Saab on the once a week anyway. I'm more bullish on this route for Air Chathams, I think it will serve a purpose. Hopefully they will not have much in the way of operation restrictions related to alternates and weather minima.

NZ6 wrote:

If it's a matter of: "I'm going to NLK, how do I get there?" Then the Saab direct is the best and by far most convenient option unless comfort and peace of mind is a higher priority than the huge time and cost impact caused by going via mainland Australia. That for me is not up for dispute.

If it's a matter of saying the agent "I'm looking for a holiday close to home?" Is NLK on the Saab a serious contender?

If the Saab isn't a factor, does that suggest NLK only has the interest of around 60 odd seats a week? (30 couples)?

The factor you mention - the huge cost and time involved in travelling to NLK via Australia is very pertinent. A quick scan of a popular airfares app for a random week in October suggests that the nonstop flight costs $346 one way - perhaps a little cheaper than the equivalent flight to CHT. Flying via Australia in the same week suggests a fare of between $625 and $846 depending on the day.

Even more significant is that an overnight stay (with all the expense that involves) in Australia is also required, and the total journey time is typically between 18 and 22 hours for the cheapest indirect option.

On that basis, I'd suggest that there will be zero market for an indirect flight unless it's an absolutely "in extremis" situation, and that anyone at all who wants to go to NLK will take the Saab.

And re your last point about the demand being perhaps limited to 60 people per week: When you add in the demand from Australia (likely to be greater than that from NZ by a margin), I'd be surprised if NLK had the accommodation available to offer to more than about 60 people per week from NZ. Sweeping generalisation, I appreciate, but as I noted before, it's a very small island (population about the same as Moerewa or Edgecumbe for comparison), though it's obviously more geared to tourism than either of those places. Perhaps a better comparison woudl be Niue (population slightly smaller than NLK). Would IUE be able to accommodate pax from four-five A320s and two Saabs a week? Unlikely. So my guess is that the demand may well be accommodation-limited to around a couple of Saabs a week.

Further analysis here on Air NZ choice of returning to Hobart. Despite the previous two way travel market between NZ and TAS being fairly small. The prospects of the route is that it will improve long term. Which we have discussed on here sometime back we knew it has potential to do well.

https://simpleflying.com/air-new-zealand-tasmania/amp/

Looks like QF is positioning an a333 to AKL tonight, QF149 arriving at 00:05.

JQ201 at 11:20 from SYD seems to be the first passenger flight into AKL from Australia.

Very odd to to look at the AKL departure board for tomorrow morning and see so many International flights.

SYD/MEL are both getting 3x A330 service from QF tomorrow.

zkncj wrote:

Looks like QF is positioning an a333 to AKL tonight, QF149 arriving at 00:05.

JQ201 at 11:20 from SYD seems to be the first passenger flight into AKL from Australia.

Very odd to to look at the AKL departure board for tomorrow morning and see so many International flights.

SYD/MEL are both getting 3x A330 service from QF tomorrow.

I had noticed overall the number of flights had been reduced in the coming weeks from what showed initially, SYD 12-13 weekly, MEL 9-10 weekly, then the QF schedule page doesn’t work properly half the time for me.

ZK-NBT wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Looks like QF is positioning an a333 to AKL tonight, QF149 arriving at 00:05.

JQ201 at 11:20 from SYD seems to be the first passenger flight into AKL from Australia.

Very odd to to look at the AKL departure board for tomorrow morning and see so many International flights.

SYD/MEL are both getting 3x A330 service from QF tomorrow.

I had noticed overall the number of flights had been reduced in the coming weeks from what showed initially, SYD 12-13 weekly, MEL 9-10 weekly, then the QF schedule page doesn’t work properly half the time for me.

I’m thinking demand/capacity is going to be very fluid over the next few weeks are people decide to travel or not. Personally I want to leave it an couple of weeks to see how fast the bubble closes over an single case.

Although it is tempting to go for an long weekend in Queensland this comming week. That nice winter chill in Auckland tonight will be an added sales point.

NZ516 wrote:

Further analysis here on Air NZ choice of returning to Hobart. Despite the previous two way travel market between NZ and TAS being fairly small. The prospects of the route is that it will improve long term. Which we have discussed on here sometime back we knew it has potential to do well.

https://simpleflying.com/air-new-zealand-tasmania/amp/

I'm no great fan of that particular website/app as it appears (as per its name) to reflect a simplistic view of almost everything it covers. But the numbers are interesting.

Interestingly there appears to be wide awareness in Tasmania about the flights, and I know two couples who are already planning trips to NZ in June-July. What the article doesn't appear to appreciate is that the mere existence of the link will generate traffic that wouldn't otherwise have considered a trip - in both directions. As do new routes the world over. And there's potential for a decent number of pax travelling on to North America and the Pacific Islands as well as point-to-point traffic. So I'm a little more optimistic than the author with "the incredible aviation brain" as the site portrays him.

zkncj wrote:

SYD/MEL are both getting 3x A330 service from QF tomorrow.

As per Airport company passenger numbers for those flights they are still pretty light.
QF166 XZB 33
JQ202 36
QF156 EBQ 58
QF126 QPD 33
QF146 QPI 69
QF148 QPC 11
QF158 QPF 2

WLG first International Flight in over an year has just left at 0605 to SYD.

[url]https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/124877455/transtasman-bubble-first-outbound-passengers-begin-checkin-under-new-quarantinefree-arrangement
[/url]


NZ 245 operated by ZK-NNC left just after 0615 this morning
https://www.flightradar24.com/ANZ245/2771272e

Interesting or perhaps unsurprising, both QF flights this morning, AKL-SYD and AKL-MEL are cancelled according to the AKL airport website.

NZ801 wrote:

Interesting or perhaps unsurprising, both QF flights this morning, AKL-SYD and AKL-MEL are both cancelled according to the AKL airport website.

They didn’t have the aircraft here to operate them this morning. It looks like the 738 that came over will do AKL-OOL.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ801 wrote:

Interesting or perhaps unsurprising, both QF flights this morning, AKL-SYD and AKL-MEL are both cancelled according to the AKL airport website.

They didn’t have the aircraft here to operate them this morning. It looks like the 738 that came over will do AKL-OOL.

Not sure that’s the reason, they could have repositioned them over. I’m assuming they sold those flights expecting them to operate so maybe loads didn’t make it worthwhile?

DavidByrne wrote:

The factor you mention - the huge cost and time involved in travelling to NLK via Australia is very pertinent. A quick scan of a popular airfares app for a random week in October suggests that the nonstop flight costs $346 one way - perhaps a little cheaper than the equivalent flight to CHT. Flying via Australia in the same week suggests a fare of between $625 and $846 depending on the day.

Even more significant is that an overnight stay (with all the expense that involves) in Australia is also required, and the total journey time is typically between 18 and 22 hours for the cheapest indirect option.

On that basis, I'd suggest that there will be zero market for an indirect flight unless it's an absolutely "in extremis" situation, and that anyone at all who wants to go to NLK will take the Saab.

And re your last point about the demand being perhaps limited to 60 people per week: When you add in the demand from Australia (likely to be greater than that from NZ by a margin), I'd be surprised if NLK had the accommodation available to offer to more than about 60 people per week from NZ. Sweeping generalisation, I appreciate, but as I noted before, it's a very small island (population about the same as Moerewa or Edgecumbe for comparison), though it's obviously more geared to tourism than either of those places. Perhaps a better comparison woudl be Niue (population slightly smaller than NLK). Would IUE be able to accommodate pax from four-five A320s and two Saabs a week? Unlikely. So my guess is that the demand may well be accommodation-limited to around a couple of Saabs a week.

Have you taken my comments as a suggestion that via BNE/SYD is better than direct on the Saab?

That's not the case at all. When I said "alternative" in reply 122, I meant alternative destination, VLI, NOU, APW, TBU, RAR, NAN, PPT, OOL, BNE, CNS, MCY etc

Nobody expects passengers to via via Australia. That's crazy. It's just that scenario of, option A being 3 hours on a Saab to NLK or option B being 3-5 hours on a A320/737 to X, Y and Z - I'd imagine most people would be put off with option A based on the near 3 hour flight being stuck on an old, small and noisy Saab. UNLESS the destination itself was the overriding factor.

I actually don't know much about the 3C flights here. Is the purpose of the route one of freight followed by carrying a few passengers as a bonus? Or is their aim to make it a viable passenger route?

aerorobnz wrote:

zkncj wrote:

SYD/MEL are both getting 3x A330 service from QF tomorrow.

As per Airport company passenger numbers for those flights they are still pretty light.
QF166 XZB 33
JQ202 36
QF156 EBQ 58
QF126 QPD 33
QF146 QPI 69
QF148 QPC 11
QF158 QPF 2

Ouch. I'm amazed they didn't swap to 738

NZ6 wrote:

Have you taken my comments as a suggestion that via BNE/SYD is better than direct on the Saab?

That's not the case at all. When I said "alternative" in reply 122, I meant alternative destination, VLI, NOU, APW, TBU, RAR, NAN, PPT, OOL, BNE, CNS, MCY etc

Nobody expects passengers to via via Australia. That's crazy. It's just that scenario of, option A being 3 hours on a Saab to NLK or option B being 3-5 hours on a A320/737 to X, Y and Z - I'd imagine most people would be put off with option A based on the near 3 hour flight being stuck on an old, small and noisy Saab. UNLESS the destination itself was the overriding factor.

Not at all! In my ham-fisted way I was actually trying to show I agreed with you!

LamboAston wrote:

aerorobnz wrote:

zkncj wrote:

SYD/MEL are both getting 3x A330 service from QF tomorrow.

As per Airport company passenger numbers for those flights they are still pretty light.
QF166 XZB 33
JQ202 36
QF156 EBQ 58
QF126 QPD 33
QF146 QPI 69
QF148 QPC 11
QF158 QPF 2

Ouch. I'm amazed they didn't swap to 738

Would assume the Australia to New Zealand loads are strong?

zkncj wrote:

LamboAston wrote:

aerorobnz wrote:

As per Airport company passenger numbers for those flights they are still pretty light.
QF166 XZB 33
JQ202 36
QF156 EBQ 58
QF126 QPD 33
QF146 QPI 69
QF148 QPC 11
QF158 QPF 2

Ouch. I'm amazed they didn't swap to 738

Would assume the Australia to New Zealand loads are strong?

And the availability of aircraft and crew too, as I understand not everyone that was asked to return has. I am sure they would do anything to be seen on day one as operating as demand will build, but not being present at the beginning might impact customer perception/confidence and therefore longer-term loads. The NZ loads were healthy this morning, that that is more to do with customer confidence than airline preference, as NZ maintained schedules throughout the last 13 months

DavidByrne wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

https://simpleflying.com/air-new-zealand-tasmania/amp/

I'm no great fan of that particular website/app as it appears (as per its name) to reflect a simplistic view of almost everything it covers. But the numbers are interesting.

Interestingly there appears to be wide awareness in Tasmania about the flights, and I know two couples who are already planning trips to NZ in June-July. What the article doesn't appear to appreciate is that the mere existence of the link will generate traffic that wouldn't otherwise have considered a trip - in both directions. As do new routes the world over. And there's potential for a decent number of pax travelling on to North America and the Pacific Islands as well as point-to-point traffic. So I'm a little more optimistic than the author with "the incredible aviation brain" as the site portrays him.

Just to add to my earlier comment, the "incredible aviation brain" was also quite wrong when he said that Hobart was NZ's largest unserved city in Australia. He's forgetting, of course, that Canberra is around 2.5 times larger than Hobart.

Which raises the point: does CBR have a chance of being added to the network soon?

DavidByrne wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

https://simpleflying.com/air-new-zealand-tasmania/amp/

I'm no great fan of that particular website/app as it appears (as per its name) to reflect a simplistic view of almost everything it covers. But the numbers are interesting.

Interestingly there appears to be wide awareness in Tasmania about the flights, and I know two couples who are already planning trips to NZ in June-July. What the article doesn't appear to appreciate is that the mere existence of the link will generate traffic that wouldn't otherwise have considered a trip - in both directions. As do new routes the world over. And there's potential for a decent number of pax travelling on to North America and the Pacific Islands as well as point-to-point traffic. So I'm a little more optimistic than the author with "the incredible aviation brain" as the site portrays him.

Just to add to my earlier comment, the "incredible aviation brain" was also quite wrong when he said that Hobart was NZ's largest unserved city in Australia. He's forgetting, of course, that Canberra is around 2.5 times larger than Hobart.

Which raises the point: does CBR have a chance of being added to the network soon?

CBR is far less of a destination than HBA (which includes wider Tasmania) is. The city size itself means very little, after all the population of Avarua is under 5,000 yet that has daily flights, sometimes double with widebody.

CBR isn't a business hub either.

Nothing against CBR, I've heard good things. But's it's not exactly a weeklong destination for travelers and if you're not going on business....

NZ6 wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

I'm no great fan of that particular website/app as it appears (as per its name) to reflect a simplistic view of almost everything it covers. But the numbers are interesting.

Interestingly there appears to be wide awareness in Tasmania about the flights, and I know two couples who are already planning trips to NZ in June-July. What the article doesn't appear to appreciate is that the mere existence of the link will generate traffic that wouldn't otherwise have considered a trip - in both directions. As do new routes the world over. And there's potential for a decent number of pax travelling on to North America and the Pacific Islands as well as point-to-point traffic. So I'm a little more optimistic than the author with "the incredible aviation brain" as the site portrays him.

Just to add to my earlier comment, the "incredible aviation brain" was also quite wrong when he said that Hobart was NZ's largest unserved city in Australia. He's forgetting, of course, that Canberra is around 2.5 times larger than Hobart.

Which raises the point: does CBR have a chance of being added to the network soon?

CBR is far less of a destination than HBA (which includes wider Tasmania) is. The city size itself means very little, after all the population of Avarua is under 5,000 yet that has daily flights, sometimes double with widebody.

CBR isn't a business hub either.

Nothing against CBR, I've heard good things. But's it's not exactly a weeklong destination for travelers and if you're not going on business....

There is also the obvious issue that CBR is only a 3 hour drive from SYD so there really isn't a huge demand for a direct service. SQ did try CBR-WLG for a while but it was a failure and only lasted as long as it did because of subsidies from the ACT Government and the owners of Canberra Airport.

tullamarine wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

Just to add to my earlier comment, the "incredible aviation brain" was also quite wrong when he said that Hobart was NZ's largest unserved city in Australia. He's forgetting, of course, that Canberra is around 2.5 times larger than Hobart.

Which raises the point: does CBR have a chance of being added to the network soon?

CBR is far less of a destination than HBA (which includes wider Tasmania) is. The city size itself means very little, after all the population of Avarua is under 5,000 yet that has daily flights, sometimes double with widebody.

CBR isn't a business hub either.

Nothing against CBR, I've heard good things. But's it's not exactly a weeklong destination for travelers and if you're not going on business....

There is also the obvious issue that CBR is only a 3 hour drive from SYD so there really isn't a huge demand for a direct service. SQ did try CBR-WLG for a while but it was a failure and only lasted as long as it did because of subsidies from the ACT Government and the owners of Canberra Airport.

Ummmm, from memory the SIN-CBR route went daily. It was the tag on to WLG that was moved to be a tag on the SIN-MEL route.

But yeah, traveling from NZ to CBR isn't going to have that much traffic. Especially when you have multiple connecting flights a day from SYD.

To an extent it is the effect of the school holidays, but the Auckland domestic terminal was very busy today, and there were definitely people connecting from flights from Australia. Very encouraging to see!

V/F