Kent350787 wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

(re Australia opening borders):

Kent350787 wrote:

The most recent statement was mid-2022, but there is no apparent plan to get there other than "high vaccination rates" being the trigger, yet a poor vaccination rollout

I think people are asking a lot of any government to give a timeline as to when the borders will reopen. Given there's so much we still don't know about the future direction of the pandemic (especially about new variants and whether the current vaccines will work effectively against them), I think it's absolutely common sense that governments should not set a date or criteria and raise expectations - and then be pilloried when they have to change their position. No one at all benefits from that.

A challenge we have in both our nations with reopning borders and restarting internataionl air travel is that neither country yet has "vaccines for all".

Once supply exceeds demand, I can see both Governments being more prepared to set a target, providing an extra impetus for people to vaccinate. There are many this side of the ditch adopting an "I can't travel so why would I bother yet" position.

Does anyone have load data for trans-Tasman flights. I know a few people who have visited NZ or are actively planning to, and there appear to be plenty of flights, but are they actually filling?

While I don't know about tasman demand, the demand for flights to Milford has dropped.

Kent350787 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Kiwings wrote:

The Govt. is going to come under increasing pressure to open the borders to vaccinated travelers by then. The rest of the world will be open and if they still say that the vaccine schedule is on time, then by Dec,/Jan, travel should be happening.

What is Australia’s current plan?

You're assuming thst the current Australian Government has a plan?

The most recent statement was mid-2022, but there is no apparent plan to get there other than "high vaccination rates" being the trigger, yet a poor vaccination rollout.

Vaccination hesitancy seems to be an issue in both our nations. Many discussions I've seen in Australia are moving towards a reopening target being a key to vaccine uptake (NB. I had my first AZ shot on Weds - hooray!)

No I'm not saying they have a plan, however who does really? Atleast one where the goalposts don't keep moving every 5 mins.

I think most countries are relying on a high vaccine uptake aren't they in terms of border reopening.

Avtur wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Do you mean they could have continued to serve LHR if they hadn’t already pulled out and sold the slots? Even if the plan was to pull out? I would probably agree if that was the case but now I have to be honest and think LHR via anywhere is pure fantasy. MEX lol, yeah that is an odd one, probably an O&D of 3 people a day in good times.

All I was saying was; if LHR was kept throughout COVID similar to say, LAX and if it was scheduled to be axed at the end of this year, keeping it for another 12 months could have been realistic.

A lot of IFs in there. But a safe COVID zone between NZ and the UK over the coming 12 months may have been a success even with higher airfares .

But at the end of the day, it will always be significantly cheaper to put passengers on interline carriers from the Pacific Rim hubs into Europe so IF NZ isn't interesting in keeping LAX-LHR or any other US-UK route self sustainable on it's own then whatever happens post COVID remains the same.

I have to say, that I agree with NZ6. Nobody really saw COVID coming, and couldn’t have predicted what effect it would go on to have in the airline industry. Hindsight is always a wonderful thing. I personally think that there are opportunities to come out of this. Let me explain: the UK has had BREXIT, and is keen to strengthen its ties with “the commonwealth”. Australia and New Zealand have had better success dealing with COVID than many of the nation’s that lay in between there and the UK. Those two factors, and the desire of people to travel again (avoiding what could be perceived as “troubled nations”) could provide a steady stream of pax and cargo wishing to travel between the countries. Obviously QF have the advantage with the non stop PER-LHR route, where as NZ would have to stop somewhere, and finding that “somewhere” that is considered safe could be a challenge. It should be noted that New Zealand’s first case of Covid-19, and many others since have arrived here on middle eastern carriers…..!

Sure, however as NZ6 said in his last sentence and that is an IF, what has actually changed that would cause NZ to change their mind now? Given they would have to atleast lease LHR slots, having the LHR cabin crew base would have meant training was required for crew etc howwver a saving in that they didn't need to pay a hotel for crew to stay in which they now would plus another set of crew at the stopover point.

I saw a photo today on Facebook showing two Air NZ B732s and a Saab340 at Napier/Hastings.

Did Air NZ operate the B732 into Napier/Hastings or could it have been a charter say?

777ER wrote:

I saw a photo today on Facebook showing two Air NZ B732s and a Saab340 at Napier/Hastings.

Did Air NZ operate the B732 into Napier/Hastings or could it have been a charter say?

I’m fairly certain they did for a period of time.

V/F

777ER wrote:

I saw a photo today on Facebook showing two Air NZ B732s and a Saab340 at Napier/Hastings.

Did Air NZ operate the B732 into Napier/Hastings or could it have been a charter say?

Yes 732 did operate a scheduled service through Napier, I think it was in the late 80's
A single plane was fitted with fat low pressure tyres to cope with surface loading rules
for sched ops. It had a small performance penalty for all its flights as the fat tyres stuck
out below. Other normal 732's could go there on non-sched flights if required. I was also on
a one of 732 flight to New Plymouth around that time.

I think the 732s tended to operate as through flights eg: AKL-PMR-CHC rather than AKL-NPE-AKL, so I would expect that the NPE operation might have been the same kind of thing. The F27s operated the same way.

777ER wrote:

I saw a photo today on Facebook showing two Air NZ B732s and a Saab340 at Napier/Hastings.

Did Air NZ operate the B732 into Napier/Hastings or could it have been a charter say?

Following the F27 retirement in the early 90's, the 732 operated three return flight's a day between NPE and WLG, NPE-AKL had a similiar schedule. It lasted a couple of years until Air Nelson opened a NPE base and replaced the 737 with the SF340. It was never said as such, but I imagine it was an interim measure given the market size and the limitations of the NPE runway at the time. HLZ also had it's 737/F27 schedule changed to a three daily 737 operation. That lasted a bit longer but eventually two of the three 737 flights were replaced with ATR flights leaving just the night stop as a jet until the 737-200 was retired.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

I hadn’t seen AA set a date for CHC, AKL-LAX from December 2021 and AKL-DFW from January 2022, still have my doubts though.

Here is an article on it from today:

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/travel/2 ... hurch.html

Thanks for that.

With all these "announcement's" I wonder when NZ will resume IAH? They won't want to let AA take to much with their new DFW service, though while proposed i'm not sure I would see it this year anyway. Possibly ORD/EWR aswell for NZ, although AA are proposing a daily service which won't run or isn't scheduled to run beyond March, I just wonder if NZ will have some response or not.

Unclekoru wrote:

777ER wrote:

I saw a photo today on Facebook showing two Air NZ B732s and a Saab340 at Napier/Hastings.

Did Air NZ operate the B732 into Napier/Hastings or could it have been a charter say?

Following the F27 retirement in the early 90's, the 732 operated three return flight's a day between NPE and WLG, NPE-AKL had a similiar schedule. It lasted a couple of years until Air Nelson opened a NPE base and replaced the 737 with the SF340. It was never said as such, but I imagine it was an interim measure given the market size and the limitations of the NPE runway at the time. HLZ also had it's 737/F27 schedule changed to a three daily 737 operation. That lasted a bit longer but eventually two of the three 737 flights were replaced with ATR flights leaving just the night stop as a jet until the 737-200 was retired.

Interesting bit of history thanks for sharing. The 737-200 was quite capable of serving the non trunk routes.with not too many seats only 100 to fill. I remember one would start the morning flying HLZ WLG CHC with the same flight number. Another did AKL PMR CHC late morning return in the afternoon. Queenstown got it's first jet service thanks to the 737 or was it the 146 pretty close together.

NZ516 wrote:

Unclekoru wrote:

777ER wrote:

I saw a photo today on Facebook showing two Air NZ B732s and a Saab340 at Napier/Hastings.

Did Air NZ operate the B732 into Napier/Hastings or could it have been a charter say?

Following the F27 retirement in the early 90's, the 732 operated three return flight's a day between NPE and WLG, NPE-AKL had a similiar schedule. It lasted a couple of years until Air Nelson opened a NPE base and replaced the 737 with the SF340. It was never said as such, but I imagine it was an interim measure given the market size and the limitations of the NPE runway at the time. HLZ also had it's 737/F27 schedule changed to a three daily 737 operation. That lasted a bit longer but eventually two of the three 737 flights were replaced with ATR flights leaving just the night stop as a jet until the 737-200 was retired.

Interesting bit of history thanks for sharing. The 737-200 was quite capable of serving the non trunk routes.with not too many seats only 100 to fill. I remember one would start the morning flying HLZ WLG CHC with the same flight number. Another did AKL PMR CHC late morning return in the afternoon. Queenstown got it's first jet service thanks to the 737 or was it the 146 pretty close together.

No problem. Yes, you're right about the continuation of the HLZ-WLG flight to CHC. I believe that the afternoon HLZ-WLG departure also continued to CHC.

The 737-200 was a very capable aircraft performance wise and as deepinsider mentioned, charter flights to regional ports were not unusual. GIS for JNL and WLG-BHE flights for the Marlborough wine festival also come to mind.

At about the same time as the 737 was operating scheduled flights to NPE, it was also being used on up to three flights a day between WLG and PMR. I know the morning flight used to continue to AKL (departed WLG at 06:30) and some people used it as a thru service to AKL if the 07:00 Auckland flight was full. I'm not certain but I wouldn't be surprised if some of the other flights between the two cities originated from or continued to CHC. This was what happened once the ATR's took over the WLG-PMR-WLG from the 737 (or whatever operated between the ATR and the 737 - I can't recall now).

As far as ZQN goes, I think it may have been the BAe 146-200 first, but yes, the 737 was not far behind. Hard to believe in this day and age of RNP-AR that the jets used to cancel IFR and proceed VFR through the mountains. Speaking of the deep South, the morning 737-200 from IVC used to operate to DUD where you could either remain on that flight to Wellington or change to the first DUD-CHC flight allowing early departures to both cities with minimal fuss. I also remember Ansett NZ operating a CHC-ZQN-DUD flight once a week for a short period of time.

Question for someone with an old timetable, did NZ ever operate a IVC-DUD-CHC-WLG-AKL flight (same flight number right thru)?

Unclekoru wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Unclekoru wrote:

Following the F27 retirement in the early 90's, the 732 operated three return flight's a day between NPE and WLG, NPE-AKL had a similiar schedule. It lasted a couple of years until Air Nelson opened a NPE base and replaced the 737 with the SF340. It was never said as such, but I imagine it was an interim measure given the market size and the limitations of the NPE runway at the time. HLZ also had it's 737/F27 schedule changed to a three daily 737 operation. That lasted a bit longer but eventually two of the three 737 flights were replaced with ATR flights leaving just the night stop as a jet until the 737-200 was retired.

Interesting bit of history thanks for sharing. The 737-200 was quite capable of serving the non trunk routes.with not too many seats only 100 to fill. I remember one would start the morning flying HLZ WLG CHC with the same flight number. Another did AKL PMR CHC late morning return in the afternoon. Queenstown got it's first jet service thanks to the 737 or was it the 146 pretty close together.

No problem. Yes, you're right about the continuation of the HLZ-WLG flight to CHC. I believe that the afternoon HLZ-WLG departure also continued to CHC.

The 737-200 was a very capable aircraft performance wise and as deepinsider mentioned, charter flights to regional ports were not unusual. GIS for JNL and WLG-BHE flights for the Marlborough wine festival also come to mind.

At about the same time as the 737 was operating scheduled flights to NPE, it was also being used on up to three flights a day between WLG and PMR. I know the morning flight used to continue to AKL (departed WLG at 06:30) and some people used it as a thru service to AKL if the 07:00 Auckland flight was full. I'm not certain but I wouldn't be surprised if some of the other flights between the two cities originated from or continued to CHC. This was what happened once the ATR's took over the WLG-PMR-WLG from the 737 (or whatever operated between the ATR and the 737 - I can't recall now).

As far as ZQN goes, I think it may have been the BAe 146-200 first, but yes, the 737 was not far behind. Hard to believe in this day and age of RNP-AR that the jets used to cancel IFR and proceed VFR through the mountains. Speaking of the deep South, the morning 737-200 from IVC used to operate to DUD where you could either remain on that flight to Wellington or change to the first DUD-CHC flight allowing early departures to both cities with minimal fuss. I also remember Ansett NZ operating a CHC-ZQN-DUD flight once a week for a short period of time.

Question for someone with an old timetable, did NZ ever operate a IVC-DUD-CHC-WLG-AKL flight (same flight number right thru)?

Not sure on that, but there were IVC-DUD-CHC ATR flights 5-10 years ago.

I love these milk run routes, really hope it returns to that again, I think F27s used to operate WLG-WHK-AKL, I think that was a good way to provide air service to a place like WHK. The closest these days is the NZ478 DUD-WLG-AKL these days (WLG-PMR-HLZ too if still operating?).

The 737-200 spiritual successor is the A220-100, although there is no real replacement for the 732 for gravel/low surface loading runways in the last 40 years, I actually think that it would be an interesting aircraft for NZ, as it would be suitable for NLK IUE HBA CBR TBU VLI as well as being useful for linking longer ATR flights and peak hour flying to main centres. How cool would an IVC-CHC-PMR-AKL or DUD-CHC-NPE-AKL or a WLG-RAR be on an A220?

aerorobnz wrote:

I love these milk run routes, really hope it returns to that again, I think F27s used to operate WLG-WHK-AKL, I think that was a good way to provide air service to a place like WHK. The closest these days is the NZ478 DUD-WLG-AKL these days (WLG-PMR-HLZ too if still operating?).

The 737-200 spiritual successor is the A220-100, although there is no real replacement for the 732 for gravel/low surface loading runways in the last 40 years, I actually think that it would be an interesting aircraft for NZ, as it would be suitable for NLK IUE HBA CBR TBU VLI as well as being useful for linking longer ATR flights and peak hour flying to main centres. How cool would an IVC-CHC-PMR-AKL or DUD-CHC-NPE-AKL or a WLG-RAR be on an A220?

Believe the only 2 multi-stop same aircraft services left currently would be the NZ651/642 ZQN-CHC-WLG return and OGs NSN-PMR-HLZ flights.

Unclekoru wrote:

Speaking of the deep South, the morning 737-200 from IVC used to operate to DUD where you could either remain on that flight to Wellington or change to the first DUD-CHC flight allowing early departures to both cities with minimal fuss.

Yes, my records show I flew WLG-DUD-IVC on the evening reverse of that flight as early as Feb 1983. My return flight two days later was IVC-CHC by F27.

aerorobnz wrote:

I love these milk run routes, really hope it returns to that again, I think F27s used to operate WLG-WHK-AKL, I think that was a good way to provide air service to a place like WHK. Theo closest these days is the NZ478 DUD-WLG-AKL these days (WLG-PMR-HLZ too if still operating?).

The routing for WHK was actually WLG-WAG-WHK-AKL, and this was complemented by the second flight serving WAG which flew WLG-WAG-TUO-AKL. Being WAG born and bred I used them both several times. Back in the DC3 days, the routings were WLG-WAG-HLZ-AKL complemented by WLG-WAG-NPL-AKL. For a brief period just after the introduction of the F27s in 1960 or 1961, WAG was one of the first to have the F27. However neither HLZ nor NPL were in those days sealed, so it ran direct WLG-WAG-AKL. The third daily flight couldn’t generate enough traffic, alas, and we had to go back to the two indirect services by DC3.

aerorobnz wrote:

The 737-200 spiritual successor is the A220-100, although there is no real replacement for the 732 for gravel/low surface loading runways in the last 40 years, I actually think that it would be an interesting aircraft for NZ, as it would be suitable for NLK IUE HBA CBR TBU VLI as well as being useful for linking longer ATR flights and peak hour flying to main centres. How cool would an IVC-CHC-PMR-AKL or DUD-CHC-NPE-AKL or a WLG-RAR be on an A220?

I’m with you there - I’ve long thought that the A220 was ideal for NZ’s long thin domestic, Transtasman and Pacific routes. There’s a very large jump in capacity from the ATR to the A320 - about a factor of 2.5. I could see a fleet of 8 or so being possible.

DavidByrne wrote:

I’m with you there - I’ve long thought that the A220 was ideal for NZ’s long thin domestic, Transtasman and Pacific routes. There’s a very large jump in capacity from the ATR to the A320 - about a factor of 2.5. I could see a fleet of 8 or so being possible.

While I understand that the A220 might be an excellent theoretical match for a number of routes, I'm not sure I see that justifying adding another type to the fleet, especially a fleet as small as 8 aircraft.

The trend over recent times for NZ has been to reduce fleet complexity, not add to it.

NPL8800 wrote:

aerorobnz wrote:

I love these milk run routes, really hope it returns to that again, I think F27s used to operate WLG-WHK-AKL, I think that was a good way to provide air service to a place like WHK. The closest these days is the NZ478 DUD-WLG-AKL these days (WLG-PMR-HLZ too if still operating?).

The 737-200 spiritual successor is the A220-100, although there is no real replacement for the 732 for gravel/low surface loading runways in the last 40 years, I actually think that it would be an interesting aircraft for NZ, as it would be suitable for NLK IUE HBA CBR TBU VLI as well as being useful for linking longer ATR flights and peak hour flying to main centres. How cool would an IVC-CHC-PMR-AKL or DUD-CHC-NPE-AKL or a WLG-RAR be on an A220?

Believe the only 2 multi-stop same aircraft services left currently would be the NZ651/642 ZQN-CHC-WLG return and OGs NSN-PMR-HLZ flights.

And NZ680 DUD-WLG-AKL / NZ691 AKL-WLG-DUD.

NPL8800 wrote:

aerorobnz wrote:

I love these milk run routes, really hope it returns to that again, I think F27s used to operate WLG-WHK-AKL, I think that was a good way to provide air service to a place like WHK. The closest these days is the NZ478 DUD-WLG-AKL these days (WLG-PMR-HLZ too if still operating?).

The 737-200 spiritual successor is the A220-100, although there is no real replacement for the 732 for gravel/low surface loading runways in the last 40 years, I actually think that it would be an interesting aircraft for NZ, as it would be suitable for NLK IUE HBA CBR TBU VLI as well as being useful for linking longer ATR flights and peak hour flying to main centres. How cool would an IVC-CHC-PMR-AKL or DUD-CHC-NPE-AKL or a WLG-RAR be on an A220?

Believe the only 2 multi-stop same aircraft services left currently would be the NZ651/642 ZQN-CHC-WLG return and OGs NSN-PMR-HLZ flights.

There is also a DUD WLG AKL 320 service. Think it's NZ680 and not operates weekends.

ZK-NBT wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Here is an article on it from today:

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/travel/2 ... hurch.html

Thanks for that.

With all these "announcement's" I wonder when NZ will resume IAH? They won't want to let AA take to much with their new DFW service, though while proposed i'm not sure I would see it this year anyway. Possibly ORD/EWR aswell for NZ, although AA are proposing a daily service which won't run or isn't scheduled to run beyond March, I just wonder if NZ will have some response or not.

According to booking schedule, IAH resumes for NZ on November 1st

AVENSAB727 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Thanks for that.

With all these "announcement's" I wonder when NZ will resume IAH? They won't want to let AA take to much with their new DFW service, though while proposed i'm not sure I would see it this year anyway. Possibly ORD/EWR aswell for NZ, although AA are proposing a daily service which won't run or isn't scheduled to run beyond March, I just wonder if NZ will have some response or not.

According to booking schedule, IAH resumes for NZ on November 1st

Very unlikely it will be that early. Hence why AA are currently saying January which is inline with what the Government have in mind.

Kiwiandrew wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

I’m with you there - I’ve long thought that the A220 was ideal for NZ’s long thin domestic, Transtasman and Pacific routes. There’s a very large jump in capacity from the ATR to the A320 - about a factor of 2.5. I could see a fleet of 8 or so being possible.

While I understand that the A220 might be an excellent theoretical match for a number of routes, I'm not sure I see that justifying adding another type to the fleet, especially a fleet as small as 8 aircraft.

The trend over recent times for NZ has been to reduce fleet complexity, not add to it.

Agreed Kiwiandrew, overall the ATR is cheaper to operate regionally with higher frequency while the A320 is fine on routes like AKL-DUD and is now 3-4 daily, yes there are a small handful of routes that could use something inbetween including some pacific island Tasman routes but NZ obviously don't see it as a viable option. How similar will airbus make the A220 compared to the A320?

I'll stick by my pre covid word and say NZ will end up with
789
781
320
321
ATR 72
possibly ATR 42 as a Q300 replacement otherwise more ATR72s

More flights coming from Sounds Air.on 8 June
Westport to Wellington
Taupo to Wellington
Blenheim to Christchurch

http://3rdlevelnz.blogspot.com/2021/05/ ... y.html?m=1

Long time viewer first time poster...
With talk about the 737-200, I couldn't resist... One place that has not received a mention and that is the Rotorua 737-200 service.
Air New Zealand definitely flew a daily 737-200 flight from Queenstown via Christchurch and at one stage for an extended period of time 'more than a year', was a 3x weekly 737-200 Queenstown-Christchurch-Rotorua with the afternoon 3pm flight going on to Auckland, along with the daily Bae 146 from Ansett New Zealand and the regular daily Mount Cook airlines HS748s and the Ansett New Zealand Dash 8 100s. Rotorua during the 90s was definitely the crown jewel for a airport outside of those main centers with the colors of 90s NZ aviation.
I grew up in Rotorua during the 90s... It was a fantastic time and place for someone who loved aviation as a kid with all the various types used and seeing the various colors of the main airliners of that time!!! I guess it would have to be one of the very few airports outside of the main centers in New Zealand that basically saw every domestic fleet type used in one particular period from the main carriers i.e early 00s Air NZ's entire domestic fleet type operated schedule flights into Rotorua in a single day period; 737-200, Air Nelson/Eagle metro, Saab, EMB110 and the ATR72-200 along with Ansett Bae146-200/300 Dash8-100...

Early to mid 90s (daily)
Air NZ 737-200 F27
Ansett Bae 146-200-300
Mount Cook Airlines HS748, F27
Mid-late 90s
Air NZ 737-200
Ansett Bae 146-200-300, Q100
Air Nelson Saab 340,Metro
Eagle air EMB110, Metro
Mount Cook Hs748,ATR 72-200

2000's-2021
Air NZ 737-200-300
Ansett NZ/Qantas NZ Bae 146-200-300,Q100-200-300
Tasman Pacific J32
Origin Pacific J32-41-ATR-200
Air Nelson Saab,Metro,Q300
Eagle Air Metro, EMB110, B1900D
Mount Cook Bae146-200/300,ATR 727-200/500/600

The only domestic type that hasn't been operated by Air NZ but has been used for International flights out of Rotorua....A320

Just looking at the BITRE monthly passenger stats for BNE-DUD: Loads over the year before the pandemic had improved significantly, and were up to around 2,000 each way per month, relatively evenly spread throughout the year; some months as many as 2,400 pax each way. At 2,000 average, that's about 450/week, or three decent loads each way per week on a 737 or A320. Acknowledging that we don't have any information about yields, nevertheless it would surprise me if VA didn't bring the route back at some point in the future. And if not, why not NZ? The carrier already has a well-established presence at both airports, and the global trend is to focus in the post-pandemic era on leisure destinations as the fastest way to get bums back on seats. So many carriers elsewhere have launched multiple new leisure routes; but on the Tasman we just have QF starting AKL-OOL and a seasonal AKL-CNS; NZ's response has been a rather paltry offering on AKL-HBA (though not to disparage that - it's a "right-sized" offering). I'd love to see NZ take lessons from the northern hemisphere airlines and be a bit bolder in its recovery plans.

fras444 wrote:

Long time viewer first time poster...
With talk about the 737-200, I couldn't resist... One place that has not received a mention and that is the Rotorua 737-200 service.
Air New Zealand definitely flew a daily 737-200 flight from Queenstown via Christchurch and at one stage for an extended period of time 'more than a year', was a 3x weekly 737-200 Queenstown-Christchurch-Rotorua with the afternoon 3pm flight going on to Auckland, along with the daily Bae 146 from Ansett New Zealand and the regular daily Mount Cook airlines HS748s and the Ansett New Zealand Dash 8 100s. Rotorua during the 90s was definitely the crown jewel for a airport outside of those main centers with the colors of 90s NZ aviation.
I grew up in Rotorua during the 90s... It was a fantastic time and place for someone who loved aviation as a kid with all the various types used and seeing the various colors of the main airliners of that time!!! I guess it would have to be one of the very few airports outside of the main centers in New Zealand that basically saw every domestic fleet type used in one particular period from the main carriers i.e early 00s Air NZ's entire domestic fleet type operated schedule flights into Rotorua in a single day period; 737-200, Air Nelson/Eagle metro, Saab, EMB110 and the ATR72-200 along with Ansett Bae146-200/300 Dash8-100...

Early to mid 90s (daily)
Air NZ 737-200 F27
Ansett Bae 146-200-300
Mount Cook Airlines HS748, F27
Mid-late 90s
Air NZ 737-200
Ansett Bae 146-200-300, Q100
Air Nelson Saab 340,Metro
Eagle air EMB110, Metro
Mount Cook Hs748,ATR 72-200

2000's-2021
Air NZ 737-200-300
Ansett NZ/Qantas NZ Bae 146-200-300,Q100-200-300
Tasman Pacific J32
Origin Pacific J32-41-ATR-200
Air Nelson Saab,Metro,Q300
Eagle Air Metro, EMB110, B1900D
Mount Cook Bae146-200/300,ATR 727-200/500/600

The only domestic type that hasn't been operated by Air NZ but has been used for International flights out of Rotorua....A320

Nice, QF also ran a daily 733 from CHC in the early mid 2000s.

Rotorua has seen a 320 domestic service from CHC. But only for special events. There is a picture of ZKOAB on the tarmac at the Rotorua airport website.

DavidByrne wrote:

Just looking at the BITRE monthly passenger stats for BNE-DUD: Loads over the year before the pandemic had improved significantly, and were up to around 2,000 each way per month, relatively evenly spread throughout the year; some months as many as 2,400 pax each way. At 2,000 average, that's about 450/week, or three decent loads each way per week on a 737 or A320. Acknowledging that we don't have any information about yields, nevertheless it would surprise me if VA didn't bring the route back at some point in the future. And if not, why not NZ? The carrier already has a well-established presence at both airports, and the global trend is to focus in the post-pandemic era on leisure destinations as the fastest way to get bums back on seats. So many carriers elsewhere have launched multiple new leisure routes; but on the Tasman we just have QF starting AKL-OOL and a seasonal AKL-CNS; NZ's response has been a rather paltry offering on AKL-HBA (though not to disparage that - it's a "right-sized" offering). I'd love to see NZ take lessons from the northern hemisphere airlines and be a bit bolder in its recovery plans.

Good point the market is certainly there for it to return. I agree there is more potential on the Tasman for new routes and one other to return.
Both Auckland to Newcastle and Auckland to Canberra should really be served already. The former was served by Freedom Air back in the 90s. Then again recently with Virgin.
Newcastle with 500,000 and Canberra with 430,000 are both bigger than Wellington and Christchurch. Plus now with very limited options for residents of those cities to travel further out of the bubble. There would be strong demand to fill flights to NZ.

NZ516 wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

Just looking at the BITRE monthly passenger stats for BNE-DUD: Loads over the year before the pandemic had improved significantly, and were up to around 2,000 each way per month, relatively evenly spread throughout the year; some months as many as 2,400 pax each way. At 2,000 average, that's about 450/week, or three decent loads each way per week on a 737 or A320. Acknowledging that we don't have any information about yields, nevertheless it would surprise me if VA didn't bring the route back at some point in the future. And if not, why not NZ? The carrier already has a well-established presence at both airports, and the global trend is to focus in the post-pandemic era on leisure destinations as the fastest way to get bums back on seats. So many carriers elsewhere have launched multiple new leisure routes; but on the Tasman we just have QF starting AKL-OOL and a seasonal AKL-CNS; NZ's response has been a rather paltry offering on AKL-HBA (though not to disparage that - it's a "right-sized" offering). I'd love to see NZ take lessons from the northern hemisphere airlines and be a bit bolder in its recovery plans.

Good point the market is certainly there for it to return. I agree there is more potential on the Tasman for new routes and one other to return.
Both Auckland to Newcastle and Auckland to Canberra should really be served already. The former was served by Freedom Air back in the 90s. Then again recently with Virgin.
Newcastle with 500,000 and Canberra with 430,000 are both bigger than Wellington and Christchurch. Plus now with very limited options for residents of those cities to travel further out of the bubble. There would be strong demand to fill flights to NZ.

NCL and CBR to SYD are both between 2-3 hours drive and nether have an established inbound visitor market like CHC (south island leisure) or to a lesser extent WLG. They arent really comparable.

Also the competitive situation is completely different to what is happening in the Northern Hemisphere. Airlines are being innovative up there as they know there is an opportunity to one-up their competitors, there are ample aircraft and crew available, and airports that are fairly slot constrained normally now arent. In the NZ/OZ context, you now have two airlines only (QF/JQ and NZ) with no VA likely in the short-term and they have shown to be very risk adverse so no new routes including the return of DUD-BNE. The pressure of the 5th freedoms wont be happening for some time with the inability to mix red and green passengers on the same flight. And neither QF or NZ will be wanting to start a capacity war on the Tasman with new marginal routes - unfortunately its the duopoly we have for the near future.

And with airlines looking to be as profitable as possible (and without competitive tension) they would much prefer to funnel passenger through their hubs than to provide non-stops. Whats happened to Air NZ's plans to start CHC/WLG-RAR now that the competitive pressure of Mike Pero has now gone? Competition drives many of the decisions made in the aviation world, and in this part of the world there just isnt much of it.

a7ala wrote:

NCL and CBR to SYD are both between 2-3 hours drive and nether have an established inbound visitor market like CHC (south island leisure) or to a lesser extent WLG. They arent really comparable.

Also the competitive situation is completely different to what is happening in the Northern Hemisphere. Airlines are being innovative up there as they know there is an opportunity to one-up their competitors, there are ample aircraft and crew available, and airports that are fairly slot constrained normally now arent. In the NZ/OZ context, you now have two airlines only (QF/JQ and NZ) with no VA likely in the short-term and they have shown to be very risk adverse so no new routes including the return of DUD-BNE. The pressure of the 5th freedoms wont be happening for some time with the inability to mix red and green passengers on the same flight. And neither QF or NZ will be wanting to start a capacity war on the Tasman with new marginal routes - unfortunately its the duopoly we have for the near future.

And with airlines looking to be as profitable as possible (and without competitive tension) they would much prefer to funnel passenger through their hubs than to provide non-stops. Whats happened to Air NZ's plans to start CHC/WLG-RAR now that the competitive pressure of Mike Pero has now gone? Competition drives many of the decisions made in the aviation world, and in this part of the world there just isnt much of it.

Actually, I think QF has already signalled its intentions to up its game on the Tasman. The launch of daily AKL-OOL and seasonal three-weekly AKL-CNS for a start. And then, there’s the wider use of A330s on routes like AKL-BNE. The Tasman has traditionally been “owned” by NZ (just) but it’s leadership will come under threat IMO with QF’s current approach.

There’s another factor that also enters into the equation, to: the resumption of transpacific routes - which may be less than 6-9 months away on present indications, though 12 months is predicted for Australia and we may follow suit. A significant number of pax use AKL as a transit point from Australia to North America, and this market will be critical when the resumption comes. QF/AA have already shown quite aggressive intentions with AA’s recent announcement, and while we could quibble about the realism of the start date, their intentions are well-signalled. Feed for NZ’s transpacific operation from Australia will be vital to NZ’s success.

And then there’s the acknowledged global trend toward point-to-point services over hubbed. Routes like AKL-CBR and AKL-NTL both improve point-to-point offerings for Transtasman travellers, and feed the Pacific network through the AKL hub. Already, VA (summer 2019) have done quite well on NTL, without the advantage of on-carrier feed at either end. Their loads more than justified the 3x weekly offering for what was a rather oddball route in the context of the VA network. I could imagine NZ having a similar level of service on AKL-NTL, feeding domestic and Pacific connections, to that proposed for HBA initially. The levels achieved by SQ on WLG-CBR would have justified 2x weekly A320 services, and I could imagine NZ offering 3x weekly AKL-CBR, feeding into the transpacific network would be quite sustainable.

Of course, no one wants to undermine existing routes. But in a market that has in the past grown strongly, and where your chief competitor is starting to flex its muscles, NZ needs to find a competitive response. Frequency and network diversity are obvious options, but at AKL, where the main Tasman routes have supported 3-6 flights a day in the past, the value of frequency becomes less and less. Diversity (and feeding the Pacific network) is an obvious option.

And if that isn’t to be NZ’s competitive response, what then?

Just as an aside, we seem on A-net to have an aversion to new Tasman routes out of fear that they will undermine existing routes or spread the carrier too thinly. But who now would argue for AKL-MCY, CHC-PER or AKL-HBA to be dropped on those grounds? I’d suggest that future new Tasman routes will in future be seen as just as “normal” as these do now.

I suspect that QF is only showing some more interest in NZL as they currently have no where else to go. Once the Aust. border reopens they will be reviewing where they put there resources to.

Kiwings wrote:

I suspect that QF is only showing some more interest in NZL as they currently have no where else to go. Once the Aust. border reopens they will be reviewing where they put there resources to.

I suspect that many of the new routes being started around the world are quite speculative and may not last long. But I don’t see that as a reason for NZ to stand back and watch while others consolidate their market positions. For a start, NZ would be delighted if VA found it “too hard” to return to the Tasman because its position had been eroded by others.

a7ala wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

Just looking at the BITRE monthly passenger stats for BNE-DUD: Loads over the year before the pandemic had improved significantly, and were up to around 2,000 each way per month, relatively evenly spread throughout the year; some months as many as 2,400 pax each way. At 2,000 average, that's about 450/week, or three decent loads each way per week on a 737 or A320. Acknowledging that we don't have any information about yields, nevertheless it would surprise me if VA didn't bring the route back at some point in the future. And if not, why not NZ? The carrier already has a well-established presence at both airports, and the global trend is to focus in the post-pandemic era on leisure destinations as the fastest way to get bums back on seats. So many carriers elsewhere have launched multiple new leisure routes; but on the Tasman we just have QF starting AKL-OOL and a seasonal AKL-CNS; NZ's response has been a rather paltry offering on AKL-HBA (though not to disparage that - it's a "right-sized" offering). I'd love to see NZ take lessons from the northern hemisphere airlines and be a bit bolder in its recovery plans.

Good point the market is certainly there for it to return. I agree there is more potential on the Tasman for new routes and one other to return.
Both Auckland to Newcastle and Auckland to Canberra should really be served already. The former was served by Freedom Air back in the 90s. Then again recently with Virgin.
Newcastle with 500,000 and Canberra with 430,000 are both bigger than Wellington and Christchurch. Plus now with very limited options for residents of those cities to travel further out of the bubble. There would be strong demand to fill flights to NZ.

NCL and CBR to SYD are both between 2-3 hours drive and nether have an established inbound visitor market like CHC (south island leisure) or to a lesser extent WLG. They arent really comparable.

Also the competitive situation is completely different to what is happening in the Northern Hemisphere. Airlines are being innovative up there as they know there is an opportunity to one-up their competitors, there are ample aircraft and crew available, and airports that are fairly slot constrained normally now arent. In the NZ/OZ context, you now have two airlines only (QF/JQ and NZ) with no VA likely in the short-term and they have shown to be very risk adverse so no new routes including the return of DUD-BNE. The pressure of the 5th freedoms wont be happening for some time with the inability to mix red and green passengers on the same flight. And neither QF or NZ will be wanting to start a capacity war on the Tasman with new marginal routes - unfortunately its the duopoly we have for the near future.

And with airlines looking to be as profitable as possible (and without competitive tension) they would much prefer to funnel passenger through their hubs than to provide non-stops. Whats happened to Air NZ's plans to start CHC/WLG-RAR now that the competitive pressure of Mike Pero has now gone? Competition drives many of the decisions made in the aviation world, and in this part of the world there just isnt much of it.

I was mainly suggesting these routes for the inbound market to NZ while there is little choice except the domestic routes option currently open for them. But I see the point you made that not many Kiwis will go to NTL or CBR for a holiday.

DavidByrne wrote:

Kiwings wrote:

I suspect that QF is only showing some more interest in NZL as they currently have no where else to go. Once the Aust. border reopens they will be reviewing where they put there resources to.

I suspect that many of the new routes being started around the world are quite speculative and may not last long. But I don’t see that as a reason for NZ to stand back and watch while others consolidate their market positions. For a start, NZ would be delighted if VA found it “too hard” to return to the Tasman because its position had been eroded by others.

It's not that it is too hard for VA, it is more that the fleet can be more profitably utilised on core domestic services. At the moment, domestic travel is booming in Australia particularly leisure routes. Why would VA be interested in marginal routes and a three-way price war across the Tasman if they can make more money more easily servicing their core market?

aerorobnz wrote:

I love these milk run routes, really hope it returns to that again, I think F27s used to operate WLG-WHK-AKL, I think that was a good way to provide air service to a place like WHK. The closest these days is the NZ478 DUD-WLG-AKL these days (WLG-PMR-HLZ too if still operating?).

The 737-200 spiritual successor is the A220-100, although there is no real replacement for the 732 for gravel/low surface loading runways in the last 40 years, I actually think that it would be an interesting aircraft for NZ, as it would be suitable for NLK IUE HBA CBR TBU VLI as well as being useful for linking longer ATR flights and peak hour flying to main centres. How cool would an IVC-CHC-PMR-AKL or DUD-CHC-NPE-AKL or a WLG-RAR be on an A220?

Yes, the milk run flights have there own special character.

The F27 in particular had some great routings. The WAG flights you mentioned, as well as CHC-HKK-WSZ-WLG, WLG-ROT-TRG, WLG-TIU-OAM and WLG-NPE-GIS-AKL (the AKL leg may have been a seperate flight number but the crews operated thru).

DavidByrne wrote:

Unclekoru wrote:

Speaking of the deep South, the morning 737-200 from IVC used to operate to DUD where you could either remain on that flight to Wellington or change to the first DUD-CHC flight allowing early departures to both cities with minimal fuss.

Yes, my records show I flew WLG-DUD-IVC on the evening reverse of that flight as early as Feb 1983. My return flight two days later was IVC-CHC by F27.

I think Ansett did something similiar with an early morning Dash 8-100 departure that operated IVC-DUD-CHC for a while. IVC originating passengers could change at DUD to the direct 146 flight to Wellington. Reverse operated in the evening. This was in addition to the two direct IVC-CHC flights later in the day.

Retired Air NZ A320-232 ZK-OJF (msn 2153) has just had a test flight and departs tomorrow as NZ6094 CHC-RAR.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zkojf

PA515

I flew AKL-BNE today, it was not what I had expected!

I was expecting it to be an painful process with additional checks etc required, if anything apart from needing to use the SmartGate at either end it almost felt like an domestic trip.

The NZ lounge in AKL this morning was near reaching capacity, with also handling the QF passengers for the time being.

DavidByrne wrote:

Kiwings wrote:

I suspect that QF is only showing some more interest in NZL as they currently have no where else to go. Once the Aust. border reopens they will be reviewing where they put there resources to.

I suspect that many of the new routes being started around the world are quite speculative and may not last long. But I don’t see that as a reason for NZ to stand back and watch while others consolidate their market positions. For a start, NZ would be delighted if VA found it “too hard” to return to the Tasman because its position had been eroded by others.

NZ own the Tasman as you said David and have in normal times the US network to feed and some pacific islands in some cases, it make more sense for NZ than QF or it is easier to schedule for NZ given they can do AKL-NCL/CBR in a day, QF can easily enough with a W pattern SYD-AKL-CBR-AKL-SYD but QF can also use the same aircraft on an additional AKL-SYD and feed into Asia or its own domestic network, NZ can offer a point of difference and tbh there is probably demand for 1 carrier AKL-CBR and NZ can feed the US network.

I wouldn’t expect QF to keep OOL/CNS for to long once things are normal again, they don’t have any other international routes from those ports, hopefully AKL-PER can have a better go of it though in future, other than that I see QF just SYD/MEL/BNE from AKL.

ZK-NBT wrote:

I wouldn’t expect QF to keep OOL/CNS for to long once things are normal again, they don’t have any other international routes from those ports, hopefully AKL-PER can have a better go of it though in future, other than that I see QF just SYD/MEL/BNE from AKL.

I'm not sure we can yet make any predictions about QF's future operations on AKL-OOL and AKL-CNS. To suggest that they might only be in it for the short-haul (no pun intended) is really only speculation at this stage. I'm sure this is what NZ is hoping, notwithstanding.

AKL-PER is a different matter. QF intruding on that route would be most unwelcome by NZ, as it would frustrate its long-stated ambition to provide connections to the North American network in both directions. Play with the schedules and you'll see it's nigh impossible to have an efficient PER service that provides these connections in both directions, unless you have 2x weekly CHC-PER and about 10-12x weekly AKL-PER. Anything less and you end up with rather low utilisation of your aircraft. QF adding even 3x weekly into the mix would definitely frustrate this ambition.

Any chance of EWR being added to a YVR or LAX type route?

Nicknuzzii wrote:

Any chance of EWR being added to a YVR or LAX type route?

No: NZ has been clear on two points: (1) no new long-haul one-stop services, and (2) AKL-EWR planning is for a nonstop service. To move to a one-stop service would eliminate NZ's competitive advantage in the Australia-New York market.

DavidByrne wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

I wouldn’t expect QF to keep OOL/CNS for to long once things are normal again, they don’t have any other international routes from those ports, hopefully AKL-PER can have a better go of it though in future, other than that I see QF just SYD/MEL/BNE from AKL.

I'm not sure we can yet make any predictions about QF's future operations on AKL-OOL and AKL-CNS. To suggest that they might only be in it for the short-haul (no pun intended) is really only speculation at this stage. I'm sure this is what NZ is hoping, notwithstanding.

AKL-PER is a different matter. QF intruding on that route would be most unwelcome by NZ, as it would frustrate its long-stated ambition to provide connections to the North American network in both directions. Play with the schedules and you'll see it's nigh impossible to have an efficient PER service that provides these connections in both directions, unless you have 2x weekly CHC-PER and about 10-12x weekly AKL-PER. Anything less and you end up with rather low utilisation of your aircraft. QF adding even 3x weekly into the mix would definitely frustrate this ambition.

Yea PER is more difficult given the longer sector times particularly. Which is probably where an A321LR comes in handy except I don’t know NZ will want a sub fleet of 4-5 aircraft for maybe 2-3 routes, and also provide product consistency with the long haul fleet.

There was some talk pre COVID of QF using an A332 AKL-PER-JNB, probably a change of flight number not even a through flight just the same aircraft would be used for efficiency. They didn’t run AKL-PER in NW 2019/20, not sure if this was to do with their spat with PER airport.

ZK-NBT wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

I wouldn’t expect QF to keep OOL/CNS for to long once things are normal again, they don’t have any other international routes from those ports, hopefully AKL-PER can have a better go of it though in future, other than that I see QF just SYD/MEL/BNE from AKL.

I'm not sure we can yet make any predictions about QF's future operations on AKL-OOL and AKL-CNS. To suggest that they might only be in it for the short-haul (no pun intended) is really only speculation at this stage. I'm sure this is what NZ is hoping, notwithstanding.

AKL-PER is a different matter. QF intruding on that route would be most unwelcome by NZ, as it would frustrate its long-stated ambition to provide connections to the North American network in both directions. Play with the schedules and you'll see it's nigh impossible to have an efficient PER service that provides these connections in both directions, unless you have 2x weekly CHC-PER and about 10-12x weekly AKL-PER. Anything less and you end up with rather low utilisation of your aircraft. QF adding even 3x weekly into the mix would definitely frustrate this ambition.

Yea PER is more difficult given the longer sector times particularly. Which is probably where an A321LR comes in handy except I don’t know NZ will want a sub fleet of 4-5 aircraft for maybe 2-3 routes, and also provide product consistency with the long haul fleet.

There was some talk pre COVID of QF using an A332 AKL-PER-JNB, probably a change of flight number not even a through flight just the same aircraft would be used for efficiency. They didn’t run AKL-PER in NW 2019/20, not sure if this was to do with their spat with PER airport.

Yes QF used to run a 332 AKL-PER seasonally i think 2 weekly - ran for about 3 summers i think

jrfspa320 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

I'm not sure we can yet make any predictions about QF's future operations on AKL-OOL and AKL-CNS. To suggest that they might only be in it for the short-haul (no pun intended) is really only speculation at this stage. I'm sure this is what NZ is hoping, notwithstanding.

AKL-PER is a different matter. QF intruding on that route would be most unwelcome by NZ, as it would frustrate its long-stated ambition to provide connections to the North American network in both directions. Play with the schedules and you'll see it's nigh impossible to have an efficient PER service that provides these connections in both directions, unless you have 2x weekly CHC-PER and about 10-12x weekly AKL-PER. Anything less and you end up with rather low utilisation of your aircraft. QF adding even 3x weekly into the mix would definitely frustrate this ambition.

Yea PER is more difficult given the longer sector times particularly. Which is probably where an A321LR comes in handy except I don’t know NZ will want a sub fleet of 4-5 aircraft for maybe 2-3 routes, and also provide product consistency with the long haul fleet.

There was some talk pre COVID of QF using an A332 AKL-PER-JNB, probably a change of flight number not even a through flight just the same aircraft would be used for efficiency. They didn’t run AKL-PER in NW 2019/20, not sure if this was to do with their spat with PER airport.

Yes QF used to run a 332 AKL-PER seasonally i think 2 weekly - ran for about 3 summers i think

It ran Saturday Sunday in summer when the A330 would otherwise be parked at PER for the weekend. It ran for several years, think it started around 2012/13 maybe a little later but it ran for atleast 5 if not 6-7 years.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Yea PER is more difficult given the longer sector times particularly. Which is probably where an A321LR comes in handy except I don’t know NZ will want a sub fleet of 4-5 aircraft for maybe 2-3 routes, and also provide product consistency with the long haul fleet.

I can imagine the howls of outrage from some A-netters at the prospect of using a narrow-bodied aircraft on AKL/CHC-PER. But the reality is that globally such distances will soon become commonplace with narrow bodies (just as they were in the days of the DC8 and 707).

Actually, you don’t even need an A321XLR to cover the route. The A320NEO has a “sticker range” of 3,500 nmi and the standard A321NEO 3,650 nmi. AKL-PER is just 2,888 nmi, comfortably inside that; CHC-PER a little less.

On the back of an envelope, NZ ran about 3,600 seats a week into PER in the last summer of full operations. I think that 3x weekly CHC-PER with an A320, plus two daily AKL-PER (one 789, one A320) would deliver about 3,800 seats a week. Loads are still unlikely this coming summer to warrant that level of service, but maybe summer 2022-23? That level of service would enable the PER-North America connection to be made both ways, daily. Food for thought.

DavidByrne wrote:

Nicknuzzii wrote:

Any chance of EWR being added to a YVR or LAX type route?

No: NZ has been clear on two points: (1) no new long-haul one-stop services, and (2) AKL-EWR planning is for a nonstop service. To move to a one-stop service would eliminate NZ's competitive advantage in the Australia-New York market.

To be fair, with a new CEO, a lot of new faces in the exco and board one could question if the direction will change?

But I agree it's a no. It also goes against the global trend of more point to point travel with upper mid sized aircraft.

You wait with the A321XLR and any future Boeing NMA - we very well may see long-haul narrow body flying within the next decade + but that's a while other topic.

DavidByrne wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Yea PER is more difficult given the longer sector times particularly. Which is probably where an A321LR comes in handy except I don’t know NZ will want a sub fleet of 4-5 aircraft for maybe 2-3 routes, and also provide product consistency with the long haul fleet.

I can imagine the howls of outrage from some A-netters at the prospect of using a narrow-bodied aircraft on AKL/CHC-PER. But the reality is that globally such distances will soon become commonplace with narrow bodies (just as they were in the days of the DC8 and 707).

Actually, you don’t even need an A321XLR to cover the route. The A320NEO has a “sticker range” of 3,500 nmi and the standard A321NEO 3,650 nmi. AKL-PER is just 2,888 nmi, comfortably inside that; CHC-PER a little less.

On the back of an envelope, NZ ran about 3,600 seats a week into PER in the last summer of full operations. I think that 3x weekly CHC-PER with an A320, plus two daily AKL-PER (one 789, one A320) would deliver about 3,800 seats a week. Loads are still unlikely this coming summer to warrant that level of service, but maybe summer 2022-23? That level of service would enable the PER-North America connection to be made both ways, daily. Food for thought.

Thats "Still air" range however, real world example, winds are often strong in winter going west, Sundays NZ175 flight had a flight time of 7:10 which in the slower A320 would be about 7:40, plus fuel requirements for PER operations, its marginal at best.

DavidByrne wrote:

I'm not sure we can yet make any predictions about QF's future operations on AKL-OOL and AKL-CNS. To suggest that they might only be in it for the short-haul (no pun intended) is really only speculation at this stage. I'm sure this is what NZ is hoping, notwithstanding.

.

QF have been pretty clear to the market that in normal times they will fly profitable routes but during the pandemic they will fly any route that generates positive cashflow and makes more than the plane sitting on the ground. Once international opens demand will shift and so will the focus of the airline back to profitablilty rather than cash generation. So yes.. some of these routes will not survive or will be handed over to Jetstar.