Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
 
YYZORD
Posts: 596
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 5:26 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Tue May 25, 2021 6:04 pm

Could NZ make AKL-YYZ work if they codeshared with AC's European network? There is no Oceania flights from YYZ and NZ being in *A, they have a competitive advantage with AC as their partner. Also there is no aircraft that can fly BNE/SYD/MEL-YYZ, only AKL-YYZ is possible. I assume transiting in Canada is much easier compared to the US?
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 8100
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Tue May 25, 2021 10:32 pm

YYZORD wrote:
Could NZ make AKL-YYZ work if they codeshared with AC's European network? There is no Oceania flights from YYZ and NZ being in *A, they have a competitive advantage with AC as their partner. Also there is no aircraft that can fly BNE/SYD/MEL-YYZ, only AKL-YYZ is possible. I assume transiting in Canada is much easier compared to the US?


YYZ has been mentioned in the past pre COVID, certainly one they could look to when things rebound, but several years away I would say.
 
User avatar
V60Polestar
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:08 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Tue May 25, 2021 11:58 pm

As far as I know Air Canada does a weekly freight service to Toronto in addition to the more frequent Vancouver flights as a result of covid. To my knowledge they've used both 777-300ERs and 787-9s.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 8100
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 12:55 am

V60Polestar wrote:
As far as I know Air Canada does a weekly freight service to Toronto in addition to the more frequent Vancouver flights as a result of covid. To my knowledge they've used both 777-300ERs and 787-9s.


Something like that. Yes both 77W and 789 have been used, any pax service would be a 789 you would think.
 
a7ala
Posts: 400
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 1:05 am

There seems to be some discussion happening at the moment around the significant increase in airport charges that appear to be happening at the large Australian airports. BNE for example are increasing their charges by around $45 per return passenger, presumably to cover the new runway funding in a low passenger environment.

The below article compares the taxes on WLG-BNE-WLG ($312) versus AKL-OOL-AKL ($175) where the difference is pretty much the charges at BNE vs OOL. If an airline can achieve similar fares to both then OOL will provide significantly more profit.

I wonder if we will start to see the main gateway airports of BNE/SYD/MEL who are being severely impacted by Covid and looking to materially increase charges give way to some overlapping airports which havent been impacted to the same extent and will be significantly cheaper. Thinking BNE vs OOL/MCY, SYD vs CBR/NTL, MEL vs AVV.

https://traveltalk.nz/news-opinion/bris ... an-travel/
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4630
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 9:18 am

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.

PER is considered to be an isolated airport (in effect an island) so you need to have considerable reserves flying there (and flying there is with headwinds the whole way).
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 8100
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 10:53 am

Zkpilot wrote:
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.

PER is considered to be an isolated airport (in effect an island) so you need to have considerable reserves flying there (and flying there is with headwinds the whole way).


Yes that’s true, it is often said PER has a lot of freight as well meaning the A320 isn’t any good there.
 
NZ6
Posts: 2002
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 9:09 pm

Zkpilot wrote:
PER is considered to be an isolated airport (in effect an island) so you need to have considerable reserves flying there (and flying there is with headwinds the whole way).


That's very true for the 763 (in their day), 772 and 789 due to the lack of alternatives, but if NZ flew a A321NEO to PER would that be as restrictive given KGI and GET come into contention?
 
User avatar
LamboAston
Posts: 676
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:46 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 11:29 pm

NZ6 wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
PER is considered to be an isolated airport (in effect an island) so you need to have considerable reserves flying there (and flying there is with headwinds the whole way).


That's very true for the 763 (in their day), 772 and 789 due to the lack of alternatives, but if NZ flew a A321NEO to PER would that be as restrictive given KGI and GET come into contention?

And BLN
 
User avatar
V60Polestar
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:08 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 11:45 pm

This is some pretty old news at this point, but Tasman Cargo Airlines has acquired another 767; I believe only via lease from DHL UK. Unlike the regular Sydney service with EXZ, this new 767 has been flying MEL-DRW-SIN-DRW-MEL under Tasman Cargo callsigns. The aircraft is registered as G-DHLF for those interested.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/GDHLF
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1955
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 4:11 am

[photoid][/photoid]
LamboAston wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
PER is considered to be an isolated airport (in effect an island) so you need to have considerable reserves flying there (and flying there is with headwinds the whole way).


That's very true for the 763 (in their day), 772 and 789 due to the lack of alternatives, but if NZ flew a A321NEO to PER would that be as restrictive given KGI and GET come into contention?

And BLN

I don’t think you mean BLN - that’s in Victoria. But BQB (Busselton) is v close to PER and also gets direct flights from the east coast (well, it did before the pandemic anyway).
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1955
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 4:42 am

BQB is a formally-designated alternate for international flights to PER as of Apr 2019, and is only 15-20 minutes flying time south. While acknowledging the limitations of the A320NEO for NZ-PER services, it seems to me that the aircraft could fly AKL-PER, hold 20 min and then divert to BQB even with (normal) headwinds on that sector. Whether that would be acceptable to the authorities is another issue. But the A319NEO or the A321NEO could surely do it acceptably, given their longer legs than the A320NEO.

So I wouldn’t write off the use of NBs on NZ-PER routes, keeping one 789 daily for freight and allowing the long-sought connections to NZ’s North American routes.
 
jrfspa320
Posts: 759
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:18 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 5:14 am

Is depends on the reason for diverting, just a few days ago we had a strong cold front over Perth with long flight times (BNE was 6 hours), the crosswind runway was in use as the crosswind limit was close to exceedance for the main runway (same alignment as BQB anyway). ADL is generally preferred for international diverts as that's the closest with Intl Border clearance.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1955
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 7:00 am

[code][/code]
jrfspa320 wrote:
Is depends on the reason for diverting, just a few days ago we had a strong cold front over Perth with long flight times (BNE was 6 hours), the crosswind runway was in use as the crosswind limit was close to exceedance for the main runway (same alignment as BQB anyway). ADL is generally preferred for international diverts as that's the closest with Intl Border clearance.

Presumably a flight from NZ could drop into KGI for a “splash and dash” if stronger than expected headwinds were encountered? As long as the pax stayed aboard, given the absence of border facilities there - which would be the same at BQB anyway.
 
zkncj
Posts: 4363
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 7:12 am

How much damage is the current Melbourne outbreak going to have in the Tasman bubble?

The bubble was already struggling to gain traction, now with this outbreak will it be enough to put of the remaining people willing to travel on the Tasman?

Taken Victoria’s track record, should they even be allowed into the Tasman bubble in the first place?
 
Toenga
Posts: 313
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 2:55 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 8:13 am

zkncj wrote:
How much damage is the current Melbourne outbreak going to have in the Tasman bubble?

The bubble was already struggling to gain traction, now with this outbreak will it be enough to put of the remaining people willing to travel on the Tasman?

Taken Victoria’s track record, should they even be allowed into the Tasman bubble in the first place?

Stopping all covid leakage across a functioning border is near impossible especially as covid seems to mutate at about the same rate as control enhancements are made.
Overall I do not think that Victoria has been widlly out of step in it's quality of controls with the rest of Australasia. But they were unlucky that they were an early recipient of a quarantine outbreak against an immature detection and contact tracing system that resulted in a major outbreak.
Considerable kudos to them, and to the benifit of all of us in Australasia with stringent control measures imposed over a considerable period of time, they pulled it back, so that interstate and australasian travel became possible again.
Their efforts gave us considerable reassurance that major outbreaks could be contained with stringent control measures and time. We just had to hold our nerve.
Luck, or in this case lack of luck, has meant they have now become the victim of a covid transmission between a new arrival and someone cleared to be released from a quarantine facility in SA who travelled into their state. NZ had suffered a very similar scenario, but has now modified it's quarantine procedures to ensure each facility only contains people from a narrow entry time band.
Leakage from quarantine will continue.
We just have to continue to learn how to minimise this, and more efficiently control the consequences, against an increasingly efficient virus until our respective vaccination programs have reached their critical mass.
The reality is that the quality of disease management, and random luck, or the lack of it, will continue to dictate success, or otherwise, during this current crisis.
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8784
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 8:16 am

DavidByrne wrote:
[code][/code]
jrfspa320 wrote:
Is depends on the reason for diverting, just a few days ago we had a strong cold front over Perth with long flight times (BNE was 6 hours), the crosswind runway was in use as the crosswind limit was close to exceedance for the main runway (same alignment as BQB anyway). ADL is generally preferred for international diverts as that's the closest with Intl Border clearance.

Presumably a flight from NZ could drop into KGI for a “splash and dash” if stronger than expected headwinds were encountered? As long as the pax stayed aboard, given the absence of border facilities there - which would be the same at BQB anyway.


If you are doing a ‘splash and dash’ due to stronger than normal headwinds then ADL makes the most sense. It’s not as though they wouldn’t know they have insufficient fuel until 45 minutes out.

Where ADL would be problematic is if the reason for holding eventuates west of about Esperance. At that point KGI or BQB would be the only real options.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1955
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 8:30 am

RyanairGuru wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
[code][/code]
jrfspa320 wrote:
Is depends on the reason for diverting, just a few days ago we had a strong cold front over Perth with long flight times (BNE was 6 hours), the crosswind runway was in use as the crosswind limit was close to exceedance for the main runway (same alignment as BQB anyway). ADL is generally preferred for international diverts as that's the closest with Intl Border clearance.

Presumably a flight from NZ could drop into KGI for a “splash and dash” if stronger than expected headwinds were encountered? As long as the pax stayed aboard, given the absence of border facilities there - which would be the same at BQB anyway.


If you are doing a ‘splash and dash’ due to stronger than normal headwinds then ADL makes the most sense. It’s not as though they wouldn’t know they have insufficient fuel until 45 minutes out.

Where ADL would be problematic is if the reason for holding eventuates west of about Esperance. At that point KGI or BQB would be the only real options.


Agreed - BQB would be an alternate only if the unexpected occurred, I assume. But if headwinds are known in advance, why not use HBA, as the GC route runs pretty much directly overhead? Unless fuel or landing charges are significantly cheaper at ADL.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1955
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 11:25 am

DavidByrne wrote:
But if headwinds are known in advance, why not use HBA, as the GC route runs pretty much directly overhead? Unless fuel or landing charges are significantly cheaper at ADL.

Oops, that’s not correct. The GC route AKL-PER pretty much overflies MEL. It’s the GC route for CHC-PER that overflies HBA. But presumably MEL or HBA respectively would be preferred to ADL all things being equal.
 
NZ516
Posts: 808
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 7:41 pm

https://www.routesonline.com/news/29/br ... dy-flying/

Would Air NZ consider new domestic routes to expand its business while International remains mainly closed off.
Over the ditch Qantas and Jetstar have launched 45 new domestic routes since the pandemic started.
Of course Australia has many more big cities to open new direct flying which makes it easier.
Could they restart Wellington to Whangarei it's the largest NZ city 94,000 without a service to the capital.
Same for Christchurch. Another possibility could be Gisborne to Christchurch.
More direct flying perhaps Hamilton to Queenstown could also be popular.
 
NZ6
Posts: 2002
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 10:02 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
But if headwinds are known in advance, why not use HBA, as the GC route runs pretty much directly overhead? Unless fuel or landing charges are significantly cheaper at ADL.

Oops, that’s not correct. The GC route AKL-PER pretty much overflies MEL. It’s the GC route for CHC-PER that overflies HBA. But presumably MEL or HBA respectively would be preferred to ADL all things being equal.


Just to clarify though, the "GC route" is just the most direct line across the globe between two points. It's fair to say AKL-PER does frequently follow this especially over lower Victoria - day of ops weather and operational factors can change this. I've flown to PER before and gone directly over SYD and it looks like last Fridays flight went over Tasmania.

Flight planning would be pretty piss poor if you needed to unexpectedly drop into ADL for additional fuel mid flight.

Alternatives are needed for other reasons such as if you were unable to land in PER due to obvious reasons such as weather but there's other factors such as an 'incident' which closed the runway or airfield. With weather, you need alternatives which will not be under the same weather conditions so BQB may not be suitable but looking at maps, it's a couple of hundred kilometers away so could very well be an option.
 
NZ6
Posts: 2002
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 10:12 pm

NZ516 wrote:
https://www.routesonline.com/news/29/breaking-news/295933/qantas-adds-seven-routes-increases-widebody-flying/

Would Air NZ consider new domestic routes to expand its business while International remains mainly closed off.
Over the ditch Qantas and Jetstar have launched 45 new domestic routes since the pandemic started.
Of course Australia has many more big cities to open new direct flying which makes it easier.
Could they restart Wellington to Whangarei it's the largest NZ city 94,000 without a service to the capital.
Same for Christchurch. Another possibility could be Gisborne to Christchurch.
More direct flying perhaps Hamilton to Queenstown could also be popular.


Looking at those routes, they're linking big markets directly into tourism destinations?

ADL-CNS
ADL-HBA
ADL-TSV
SYD-TSV
MEL-TSV
SYD-AYQ

Do we have that?

Our big markets are what, AKL, WLG, CHC? - their already linked to ZQN/ROT our only real tourism hubs.

Could we scale down, PMR/NPE/NPL/HLZ-ZQN etc - I guess that's an option but is there the passenger numbers to support this given the market sizes we're talking about?

Personally, I think we already have a very comprehensive domestic network given our geographic and population size but there could be some opportunities out there.
 
User avatar
LamboAston
Posts: 676
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:46 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 10:34 pm

NZ6 wrote:
NZ516 wrote:
https://www.routesonline.com/news/29/breaking-news/295933/qantas-adds-seven-routes-increases-widebody-flying/

Would Air NZ consider new domestic routes to expand its business while International remains mainly closed off.
Over the ditch Qantas and Jetstar have launched 45 new domestic routes since the pandemic started.
Of course Australia has many more big cities to open new direct flying which makes it easier.
Could they restart Wellington to Whangarei it's the largest NZ city 94,000 without a service to the capital.
Same for Christchurch. Another possibility could be Gisborne to Christchurch.
More direct flying perhaps Hamilton to Queenstown could also be popular.


Looking at those routes, they're linking big markets directly into tourism destinations?

ADL-CNS
ADL-HBA
ADL-TSV
SYD-TSV
MEL-TSV
SYD-AYQ

Do we have that?

Our big markets are what, AKL, WLG, CHC? - their already linked to ZQN/ROT our only real tourism hubs.

Could we scale down, PMR/NPE/NPL/HLZ-ZQN etc - I guess that's an option but is there the passenger numbers to support this given the market sizes we're talking about?

Personally, I think we already have a very comprehensive domestic network given our geographic and population size but there could be some opportunities out there.

I would have thought that they're Sounds Air/Air Chathams sized routes.
 
NZ516
Posts: 808
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 11:35 pm

NZ6 wrote:
NZ516 wrote:
https://www.routesonline.com/news/29/breaking-news/295933/qantas-adds-seven-routes-increases-widebody-flying/

Would Air NZ consider new domestic routes to expand its business while International remains mainly closed off.
Over the ditch Qantas and Jetstar have launched 45 new domestic routes since the pandemic started.
Of course Australia has many more big cities to open new direct flying which makes it easier.
Could they restart Wellington to Whangarei it's the largest NZ city 94,000 without a service to the capital.
Same for Christchurch. Another possibility could be Gisborne to Christchurch.
More direct flying perhaps Hamilton to Queenstown could also be popular.


Looking at those routes, they're linking big markets directly into tourism destinations?

ADL-CNS
ADL-HBA
ADL-TSV
SYD-TSV
MEL-TSV
SYD-AYQ

Do we have that?

Our big markets are what, AKL, WLG, CHC? - their already linked to ZQN/ROT our only real tourism hubs.

Could we scale down, PMR/NPE/NPL/HLZ-ZQN etc - I guess that's an option but is there the passenger numbers to support this given the market sizes we're talking about?

Personally, I think we already have a very comprehensive domestic network given our geographic and population size but there could be some opportunities out there.


The next largest NZ city without a direct route to Queenstown is Hamilton. A 3 weekly 320 direct service could work to begin with it would stimulate demand and would be ideal for the winter peak season. A lot of the new routes starting in Australia are 3 to 4 weekly and not big enough to start out daily. Which would be a similar case for HLZ to ZQN.
 
a7ala
Posts: 400
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 11:53 pm

LamboAston wrote:

I would have thought that they're Sounds Air/Air Chathams sized routes.


Agree - I think the opportunities are more with the smaller destinations that currently arent really served. Thinking Wanaka (only from CHC with Sounds Air) and Kaikoura (ad-hoc service from WLG) could both be expanded by the smaller operators.
 
NZ516
Posts: 808
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Fri May 28, 2021 12:12 am

LamboAston wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
NZ516 wrote:
https://www.routesonline.com/news/29/breaking-news/295933/qantas-adds-seven-routes-increases-widebody-flying/

Would Air NZ consider new domestic routes to expand its business while International remains mainly closed off.
Over the ditch Qantas and Jetstar have launched 45 new domestic routes since the pandemic started.
Of course Australia has many more big cities to open new direct flying which makes it easier.
Could they restart Wellington to Whangarei it's the largest NZ city 94,000 without a service to the capital.
Same for Christchurch. Another possibility could be Gisborne to Christchurch.
More direct flying perhaps Hamilton to Queenstown could also be popular.


Looking at those routes, they're linking big markets directly into tourism destinations?

ADL-CNS
ADL-HBA
ADL-TSV
SYD-TSV
MEL-TSV
SYD-AYQ

Do we have that?

Our big markets are what, AKL, WLG, CHC? - their already linked to ZQN/ROT our only real tourism hubs.

Could we scale down, PMR/NPE/NPL/HLZ-ZQN etc - I guess that's an option but is there the passenger numbers to support this given the market sizes we're talking about?

Personally, I think we already have a very comprehensive domestic network given our geographic and population size but there could be some opportunities out there.

I would have thought that they're Sounds Air/Air Chathams sized routes.


Which ones specifically? Both those airlines usually take up abandoned AIR NZ routes. So eventually we will see Air Chats on AKL to MRO when the runway upgrades are complete.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1955
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Fri May 28, 2021 12:28 am

NZ6 wrote:
Just to clarify though, the "GC route" is just the most direct line across the globe between two points. It's fair to say AKL-PER does frequently follow this especially over lower Victoria - day of ops weather and operational factors can change this. I've flown to PER before and gone directly over SYD and it looks like last Fridays flight went over Tasmania.

Flight planning would be pretty piss poor if you needed to unexpectedly drop into ADL for additional fuel mid flight.

Yes, I corrected myself later: AKL-PER GC route takes you over MEL; it's CHC-PER GC that would take you over HBA.

My point was that the A320NEO could be an option on PER flights, with no problems under "normal" headwind conditions as I see it, but when winds are adverse, could use MEL or HBA to top up. How often that would be I don't know.

But the outcome in the summer months could be
(1) two daily AKL-PER (one 789, one 320NEO) (14 weekly services instead of 10)
(2) daily connection from PER to the North American network each direction (not one direction connecting only three days a week, as in 2019-20)
(3) three times a week CHC-PER (in place of 2x weekly)
(4) total PER capacity only about 3% higher than 2019-2020

ie still maintains some 789 freight capacity (and wide body comfort on AKL-PER for those who can't do without it) but vastly expands NZ's level of service in PER. Given the current fleet of 14 789s is VERY stretched in the coming summer, this could be an attractive option. With an A320, the CHC-PER season could be possibly extended with 2x weekly services.

Of course, this all assumes some return to normality. That won't likely be this summer, but possibly next summer . . . ?
 
NZ6
Posts: 2002
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Fri May 28, 2021 12:58 am

LamboAston wrote:
I would have thought that they're Sounds Air/Air Chathams sized routes.


On the PC12 CHC-WKA is scheduled for 50mins and that's 297km using the GCMap tool. NPE-ZQN is 911km - so are we looking at 2 and half hours plus without a toilet?

Would be a hard sell -given NZ offer via WLG and CHC.
 
User avatar
LamboAston
Posts: 676
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:46 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Fri May 28, 2021 2:02 am

a7ala wrote:
LamboAston wrote:

I would have thought that they're Sounds Air/Air Chathams sized routes.


Agree - I think the opportunities are more with the smaller destinations that currently arent really served. Thinking Wanaka (only from CHC with Sounds Air) and Kaikoura (ad-hoc service from WLG) could both be expanded by the smaller operators.

Kaikoura to WLG is already served by Air Kaikoura a couple of times a week on their Airvans.
 
User avatar
LamboAston
Posts: 676
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:46 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Fri May 28, 2021 2:03 am

NZ6 wrote:
LamboAston wrote:
I would have thought that they're Sounds Air/Air Chathams sized routes.


On the PC12 CHC-WKA is scheduled for 50mins and that's 297km using the GCMap tool. NPE-ZQN is 911km - so are we looking at 2 and half hours plus without a toilet?

Would be a hard sell -given NZ offer via WLG and CHC.

Around two hours in the air NPE-ZQN on a PC12
 
NZ6
Posts: 2002
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Fri May 28, 2021 3:13 am

LamboAston wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
LamboAston wrote:
I would have thought that they're Sounds Air/Air Chathams sized routes.


On the PC12 CHC-WKA is scheduled for 50mins and that's 297km using the GCMap tool. NPE-ZQN is 911km - so are we looking at 2 and half hours plus without a toilet?

Would be a hard sell -given NZ offer via WLG and CHC.

Around two hours in the air NPE-ZQN on a PC12


While most can hold their bladder much longer, it's getting to the upper end of acceptable, you wouldn't want to sink a few Friday beers before boarding would you.
 
NZ6
Posts: 2002
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Fri May 28, 2021 3:19 am

The issue with the likes of NPL-ZQN, NPE-ZQN etc is, space for ski gear is limited. The central plateau is within a few hours drive and much more affordable but ultimately NZ can dump Grab-a-Seats into the market which for a potential 30 min stop and go in WLG or CHC becomes "easy" as the public have trust in the product and service by in large.

These mino operators need to focus on niche markets where there's limited to no competition but also regular need to travel where air is more convenient than road.

Sounds Air largely focus on locations either side of the Cook Straight, Air Chatham's ex NZ routes with an awkward or inconvenient travel time to an alternative airport.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 8100
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Fri May 28, 2021 8:28 am

NZ516 wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
NZ516 wrote:
https://www.routesonline.com/news/29/breaking-news/295933/qantas-adds-seven-routes-increases-widebody-flying/

Would Air NZ consider new domestic routes to expand its business while International remains mainly closed off.
Over the ditch Qantas and Jetstar have launched 45 new domestic routes since the pandemic started.
Of course Australia has many more big cities to open new direct flying which makes it easier.
Could they restart Wellington to Whangarei it's the largest NZ city 94,000 without a service to the capital.
Same for Christchurch. Another possibility could be Gisborne to Christchurch.
More direct flying perhaps Hamilton to Queenstown could also be popular.


Looking at those routes, they're linking big markets directly into tourism destinations?

ADL-CNS
ADL-HBA
ADL-TSV
SYD-TSV
MEL-TSV
SYD-AYQ

Do we have that?

Our big markets are what, AKL, WLG, CHC? - their already linked to ZQN/ROT our only real tourism hubs.

Could we scale down, PMR/NPE/NPL/HLZ-ZQN etc - I guess that's an option but is there the passenger numbers to support this given the market sizes we're talking about?

Personally, I think we already have a very comprehensive domestic network given our geographic and population size but there could be some opportunities out there.


The next largest NZ city without a direct route to Queenstown is Hamilton. A 3 weekly 320 direct service could work to begin with it would stimulate demand and would be ideal for the wiA320nter peak season. A lot of the new routes starting in Australia are 3 to 4 weekly and not big enough to start out daily. Which would be a similar case for HLZ to ZQN.


How about a daily ATR HLZ-ZQN? Long flight but a lot cheaper to run than an A320. NZ6 did mention later not so much room for ski gear.

Interesting thought I recall a decade or so ago talk of NZ looking at more jets into the regions, IVC is the only one that got 1. I guess NZ doubled down on frequency and the A7R, that was back in the 733 days.

But the reality is in terms of new domestic routes, there surely isn't many viable ones that aren't already served? NZ are at about 90% of pre Covid levels on domestic which says more kiwis than ever are flying as what was the % of international connections on domestic before? 20-25%?
 
NZ516
Posts: 808
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Fri May 28, 2021 10:09 pm

ZK-NBT wrote:
NZ516 wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

Looking at those routes, they're linking big markets directly into tourism destinations?

ADL-CNS
ADL-HBA
ADL-TSV
SYD-TSV
MEL-TSV
SYD-AYQ

Do we have that?

Our big markets are what, AKL, WLG, CHC? - their already linked to ZQN/ROT our only real tourism hubs.

Could we scale down, PMR/NPE/NPL/HLZ-ZQN etc - I guess that's an option but is there the passenger numbers to support this given the market sizes we're talking about?

Personally, I think we already have a very comprehensive domestic network given our geographic and population size but there could be some opportunities out there.


The next largest NZ city without a direct route to Queenstown is Hamilton. A 3 weekly 320 direct service could work to begin with it would stimulate demand and would be ideal for the wiA320nter peak season. A lot of the new routes starting in Australia are 3 to 4 weekly and not big enough to start out daily. Which would be a similar case for HLZ to ZQN.


How about a daily ATR HLZ-ZQN? Long flight but a lot cheaper to run than an A320. NZ6 did mention later not so much room for ski gear.

Interesting thought I recall a decade or so ago talk of NZ looking at more jets into the regions, IVC is the only one that got 1. I guess NZ doubled down on frequency and the A7R, that was back in the 733 days.

But the reality is in terms of new domestic routes, there surely isn't many viable ones that aren't already served? NZ are at about 90% of pre Covid levels on domestic which says more kiwis than ever are flying as what was the % of international connections on domestic before? 20-25%?


I think HLZ to ZQN would be too long in a ATR over two hours. So a 320 flight be the only option. For a Whangarei to Wellington a Q300 would fit well along with the existing AKL Q300 flights. Originally both routes were served by the Eagle Beech 1900. But only the AKL service remains. Now with the huge population growth in Northland the supply of flights has not kept up with demand.
Regarding the third question of how much percent were Int connection pax not sure how high it was.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1955
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Fri May 28, 2021 11:05 pm

NZ516 wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
NZ516 wrote:

The next largest NZ city without a direct route to Queenstown is Hamilton. A 3 weekly 320 direct service could work to begin with it would stimulate demand and would be ideal for the wiA320nter peak season. A lot of the new routes starting in Australia are 3 to 4 weekly and not big enough to start out daily. Which would be a similar case for HLZ to ZQN.


How about a daily ATR HLZ-ZQN? Long flight but a lot cheaper to run than an A320. NZ6 did mention later not so much room for ski gear.

Interesting thought I recall a decade or so ago talk of NZ looking at more jets into the regions, IVC is the only one that got 1. I guess NZ doubled down on frequency and the A7R, that was back in the 733 days.

But the reality is in terms of new domestic routes, there surely isn't many viable ones that aren't already served? NZ are at about 90% of pre Covid levels on domestic which says more kiwis than ever are flying as what was the % of international connections on domestic before? 20-25%?


I think HLZ to ZQN would be too long in a ATR over two hours. So a 320 flight be the only option. For a Whangarei to Wellington a Q300 would fit well along with the existing AKL Q300 flights. Originally both routes were served by the Eagle Beech 1900. But only the AKL service remains. Now with the huge population growth in Northland the supply of flights has not kept up with demand.
Regarding the third question of how much percent were Int connection pax not sure how high it was.

In the back of my mind I recall something about WRE’s limitations making it impractical to run a Q300 WRE-WLG. Is that correct?
 
NZ6
Posts: 2002
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Sat May 29, 2021 2:30 am

ZK-NBT wrote:

How about a daily ATR HLZ-ZQN? Long flight but a lot cheaper to run than an A320. NZ6 did mention later not so much room for ski gear.

Interesting thought I recall a decade or so ago talk of NZ looking at more jets into the regions, IVC is the only one that got 1. I guess NZ doubled down on frequency and the A7R, that was back in the 733 days.

But the reality is in terms of new domestic routes, there surely isn't many viable ones that aren't already served? NZ are at about 90% of pre Covid levels on domestic which says more kiwis than ever are flying as what was the % of international connections on domestic before? 20-25%?


My first thoughts are why.

Firstly the population of HLZ is around 180,000, you can increase that if you include the wider catchment area but we also start introducing TRG, AKL, ROT as alternatives for some of these people.

HLZ has very limited tourism appeal. Hobbiton & Waitomo being the only significant attractions that I can think of and both served well from AKL on day trips so limited onward movement for those moving around the country.

Business: There's very limited business need between the two points. HLZ does not have a sea port and key industries don't align (Dairy Farming vs some tree fruit growing) for some examples.

For our domestic network, HLZ is end of line. People aren't going to fly in from WRE, KKE, TRG and onwards to ZQN.

So we're left with domestic O&D tourists.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1955
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Sat May 29, 2021 3:01 am

NZ6 wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:

How about a daily ATR HLZ-ZQN? Long flight but a lot cheaper to run than an A320. NZ6 did mention later not so much room for ski gear.

Interesting thought I recall a decade or so ago talk of NZ looking at more jets into the regions, IVC is the only one that got 1. I guess NZ doubled down on frequency and the A7R, that was back in the 733 days.

But the reality is in terms of new domestic routes, there surely isn't many viable ones that aren't already served? NZ are at about 90% of pre Covid levels on domestic which says more kiwis than ever are flying as what was the % of international connections on domestic before? 20-25%?


My first thoughts are why.

Firstly the population of HLZ is around 180,000, you can increase that if you include the wider catchment area but we also start introducing TRG, AKL, ROT as alternatives for some of these people.

HLZ has very limited tourism appeal. Hobbiton & Waitomo being the only significant attractions that I can think of and both served well from AKL on day trips so limited onward movement for those moving around the country.

Business: There's very limited business need between the two points. HLZ does not have a sea port and key industries don't align (Dairy Farming vs some tree fruit growing) for some examples.

For our domestic network, HLZ is end of line. People aren't going to fly in from WRE, KKE, TRG and onwards to ZQN.

So we're left with domestic O&D tourists.

I think you may be underestimating the potential leisure market. As has been suggested, a seasonal 3x weekly HLZ-ZQN service might be a starter; even a TRG-ZQN service (TRG now being the home to countless well-heeled retirees, among others).

I know that NZ did study ROT-ZQN a while back, and this still could be possible once tourism resumes. That service could be at the expense of one of the daily ROT-CHC services. It’s worth remembering that Mt Cook Airlines ran a daily ROT-MON-ZQN with an HS748 for many years way back.

In general, I think we underestimate the potential of the global trend toward point-to-point services at the expense of hubbing - and the potential for those markets to grow and flourish. NZ has recognised this to an extent with the development of new services from the provinces to CHC over the last five years or so, and they have proven themselves with significantly more capacity being added. However, there could still be more.

Among the other possibilities for domestic point-to-point expansion could be more direct routes to DUD - perhaps from HLZ or PMR by AT7 (though HLZ-DUD would be a long way in a turboprop. Now if only the airline had some A220s . . .

And for 3C, perhaps a daily Saab on WAG-CHC would be a starter. WAG hasn’t had a connection to the south for many years, since S8 gave up WAG-WLG. But I don’t see NZ’s hopes of AKL-WKA materialising soon given all the shenanigans over the airport development plans there.
 
NZ516
Posts: 808
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Sat May 29, 2021 3:42 am

In addition to the above 3C should give Kapiti Coast to CHC an ideal route for their Saab 340. The population of the Kapiti district is growing fast 50,000 and the convenience of this airport compared with using WLG is fairly obvious.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 8100
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Sat May 29, 2021 4:30 am

NZ6 wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:

How about a daily ATR HLZ-ZQN? Long flight but a lot cheaper to run than an A320. NZ6 did mention later not so much room for ski gear.

Interesting thought I recall a decade or so ago talk of NZ looking at more jets into the regions, IVC is the only one that got 1. I guess NZ doubled down on frequency and the A7R, that was back in the 733 days.

But the reality is in terms of new domestic routes, there surely isn't many viable ones that aren't already served? NZ are at about 90% of pre Covid levels on domestic which says more kiwis than ever are flying as what was the % of international connections on domestic before? 20-25%?


My first thoughts are why.

Firstly the population of HLZ is around 180,000, you can increase that if you include the wider catchment area but we also start introducing TRG, AKL, ROT as alternatives for some of these people.

HLZ has very limited tourism appeal. Hobbiton & Waitomo being the only significant attractions that I can think of and both served well from AKL on day trips so limited onward movement for those moving around the country.

Business: There's very limited business need between the two points. HLZ does not have a sea port and key industries don't align (Dairy Farming vs some tree fruit growing) for some examples.

For our domestic network, HLZ is end of line. People aren't going to fly in from WRE, KKE, TRG and onwards to ZQN.

So we're left with domestic O&D tourists.


I was more continuing what NZ516 said, though I do think NZ must cover most of the viable routes domestically currently atleast.

NZ do love the ATR, which I have to think is a lot cheaper than running an A320, but weather there are any new routes among existing destinations remains to be seen.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1955
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Sat May 29, 2021 5:32 am

NZ516 wrote:
In addition to the above 3C should give Kapiti Coast to CHC an ideal route for their Saab 340. The population of the Kapiti district is growing fast 50,000 and the convenience of this airport compared with using WLG is fairly obvious.

That’s true - when NZ operated into PPQ it either planned or operated CHC services briefly. 3C, with a smaller aircraft and a lower cost base, might well be able to make a go of it.

Also, I wonder whether NSN-DUD, tried briefly by Kiwi Regional, would support either an NZ Q300 or an Origin Jet-stream. I don’t see this as a route for 3C given they don’t serve either centre currently, nor for S8 (their aircraft are too small for a flight of that length IMO).
 
zkncj
Posts: 4363
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Sat May 29, 2021 6:42 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
NZ do love the ATR, which I have to think is a lot cheaper than running an A320, but weather there are any new routes among existing destinations remains to be seen.


I do wonder if the a220-100/300s has an place in NZ’s future domestic fleet.

Wonder if the longer term domestic fleet, could end up something along the lines of:

30x ATR 72-600s
7x a220-100
7x a220-300
7x a321NEO

The a321NEOs are already on order for domestic, and NZ already has around 30x ATR’a along with the q300 needing replacement in the next 5-10 years.

14x a220’s could provide a lot more flexibility to the fleet, and could go places now that the a320/1 can’t.

In the next 5-10 years an route like AKL-NSN could probably support an a220-100, same as AKL-IVC/PMR.

Even could do some WLG/CHC Tasman runs that the 321NEO is no large for.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 8100
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Sat May 29, 2021 8:01 am

zkncj wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
NZ do love the ATR, which I have to think is a lot cheaper than running an A320, but weather there are any new routes among existing destinations remains to be seen.


I do wonder if the a220-100/300s has an place in NZ’s future domestic fleet.

Wonder if the longer term domestic fleet, could end up something along the lines of:

30x ATR 72-600s
7x a220-100
7x a220-300
7x a321NEO

The a321NEOs are already on order for domestic, and NZ already has around 30x ATR’a along with the q300 needing replacement in the next 5-10 years.

14x a220’s could provide a lot more flexibility to the fleet, and could go places now that the a320/1 can’t.

In the next 5-10 years an route like AKL-NSN could probably support an a220-100, same as AKL-IVC/PMR.

Even could do some WLG/CHC Tasman runs that the 321NEO is no large for.


3 configurations with 7 of each seems to much? Flexibility sure but complexity aswell with small sub fleets. I don’t see them going smaller probably another A320NEO order to replace the sharklet fleet in time mid late 2020s.
 
zkncj
Posts: 4363
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Sat May 29, 2021 4:46 pm

ZK-NBT wrote:

3 configurations with 7 of each seems to much? Flexibility sure but complexity aswell with small sub fleets. I don’t see them going smaller probably another A320NEO order to replace the sharklet fleet in time mid late 2020s.


I’m half expecting the domestic a321N’s to be cross shared with the International Fleet. Giving them an total fleet of 14x a321NEO.
 
NZ516
Posts: 808
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Sat May 29, 2021 11:03 pm

A day in the 'lonely' life of Kāpiti Airport's only employee
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/125083 ... app-iPhone

Good article a long one too. There is a lot of challenges for Kapiti. Hopefully only some of the land can be used for housing and keep the runway for the operations
 
NZ6
Posts: 2002
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Sat May 29, 2021 11:19 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
I think you may be underestimating the potential leisure market. As has been suggested, a seasonal 3x weekly HLZ-ZQN service might be a starter; even a TRG-ZQN service (TRG now being the home to countless well-heeled retirees, among others).

I know that NZ did study ROT-ZQN a while back, and this still could be possible once tourism resumes. That service could be at the expense of one of the daily ROT-CHC services. It’s worth remembering that Mt Cook Airlines ran a daily ROT-MON-ZQN with an HS748 for many years way back.

In general, I think we underestimate the potential of the global trend toward point-to-point services at the expense of hubbing - and the potential for those markets to grow and flourish. NZ has recognised this to an extent with the development of new services from the provinces to CHC over the last five years or so, and they have proven themselves with significantly more capacity being added. However, there could still be more.

Among the other possibilities for domestic point-to-point expansion could be more direct routes to DUD - perhaps from HLZ or PMR by AT7 (though HLZ-DUD would be a long way in a turboprop. Now if only the airline had some A220s . . .

And for 3C, perhaps a daily Saab on WAG-CHC would be a starter. WAG hasn’t had a connection to the south for many years, since S8 gave up WAG-WLG. But I don’t see NZ’s hopes of AKL-WKA materialising soon given all the shenanigans over the airport development plans there.


I don't think it's so much about under estimating the 'potential leisure market'. We already have baseline numbers around how many people currently board HLZ destined for ZQN? - What, if anything can the airline, tourism operators do to increase these numbers? That is the question

That's the only viable option isn't it? - Like I said in my earlier reply. You don't have a regular and reliable supply of business travelers and HLZ isn't a international visitor hub. So as both airports are end of line you're really only left with local O&D passengers.

You talk of the global 'mega trend' but where's the evidence to suggest that'll scale down and be relevant to two relatively small markets such as this? - Ultimately will a direct flights change patronage numbers? - or reversed. Is the lack of a direct flight forcing domestic tourism into other centers? (On another note, that 'mega trend' is more about the A350/787 economics and capability vs the previous generation aircraft which makes long point to point travel possible but that's another topic)

ZQN isn't a rinse & repeat destination like the tropical Islands might be so unless you have a special interest in winter sports it's by in large a once off destination, well at least once every several years then once the borders open, will that interest go elsewhere.

Of course, direct flights might make a weekend away more appealing. Conferences, events, weddings and so forth also help lift some of that patronage. But the A320 at 180 odd seats is a lot of aircraft to fill on an ongoing basis.

Then you come to the suggestion of operating 3 per week etc. Ultimately, that doesn't really work domestically. If you're trying to generate growth via more direct convenient options if needs to be regular otherwise it's a half baked option that'll likely fail.

The other scenario is going direct to ease congestion via WLG/CHC but that isn't the case here. A peak HLZ-CHC A320 would be more likely before HLZ-ZQN.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1955
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Sun May 30, 2021 12:26 am

NZ6 wrote:
I don't think it's so much about under estimating the 'potential leisure market'. We already have baseline numbers around how many people currently board HLZ destined for ZQN? - What, if anything can the airline, tourism operators do to increase these numbers? That is the question

That's the only viable option isn't it? - Like I said in my earlier reply. You don't have a regular and reliable supply of business travelers and HLZ isn't a international visitor hub. So as both airports are end of line you're really only left with local O&D passengers.

I think the issue with "potential leisure markets" is that you don't really know how many bums you'll get on seats until you try it. Experience elsewhere shows that leisure travellers who would avoid an indirect flight will jump at the chance of a nonstop connection. Of course there's a risk attached, but a winter and/or summer peak season getaway might just work.

NZ6 wrote:
You talk of the global 'mega trend' but where's the evidence to suggest that'll scale down and be relevant to two relatively small markets such as this? - Ultimately will a direct flights change patronage numbers? - or reversed. Is the lack of a direct flight forcing domestic tourism into other centers? (On another note, that 'mega trend' is more about the A350/787 economics and capability vs the previous generation aircraft which makes long point to point travel possible but that's another topic)

I think that the evidence of the LCCs in Europe, using 320/738-sized aircraft shows that many city pairs which might at first appear bizarre can have a life. Of course, they try some and drop some, but they see no shame in that. Some of the routes come back seasonally year after year, even if only two- or three-times weekly. At a domestic and Transtasman level NZ is pretty much akin to an LCC in its economy offering. And in Europe, you'll see that the trend toward connecting smaller centres short-haul by LCC is accelerating, alongside a proliferation of long-haul services by major legacy carriers. Are they being over-optimistic? Perhaps; but with our relatively covid-free status in Australasia we are probably in a better position than in Europe.

NZ6 wrote:
ZQN isn't a rinse & repeat destination like the tropical Islands might be so unless you have a special interest in winter sports it's by in large a once off destination, well at least once every several years then once the borders open, will that interest go elsewhere.

Of course, direct flights might make a weekend away more appealing. Conferences, events, weddings and so forth also help lift some of that patronage. But the A320 at 180 odd seats is a lot of aircraft to fill on an ongoing basis.

Agree there - and this is where I get on my old hobby-horse of suggesting a need for an aircraft in between the AT7 and the 320. To me, it seems illogical that a carrier should have a fleet mix which actively militates against further route development in its core markets. But that's for another day. Yes, the 320 is large, but failing alternatives it's the only game in town.

NZ6 wrote:
Then you come to the suggestion of operating 3 per week etc. Ultimately, that doesn't really work domestically. If you're trying to generate growth via more direct convenient options if needs to be regular otherwise it's a half baked option that'll likely fail.

I disagree completely. It's not as if a connection can't be made via WLG or CHC on the days that a nonstop flight is unavailable. We only have to look across the Tasman to see how new domestic connections are often added (even between business destinations) on a 3x weekly basis as a starting point.

NZ6 wrote:
The other scenario is going direct to ease congestion via WLG/CHC but that isn't the case here. A peak HLZ-CHC A320 would be more likely before HLZ-ZQN.

I don't disagree with the idea of a peak hour HLZ-CHC 320 either - but once again, even more likely if there was a smaller capacity jet in the fleet mix.

I'm keen for NZ to shed its conservatism when it comes to route development. I think there's a serious risk of it losing ground to QF, JQ (and soon VA) when normal transmission resumes. QF has shown its hand domestically in Australia to be very aggressive - not only against ZL but also against VA. It has also given notice of its intentions on the Tasman with new routes AKL-OOL and AKL-CNS. Maybe these are kites that they're flying to test demand, maybe they're in it for the long haul. But NZ seems unwilling (other than AKL-HBA) to do anything innovative as we come out of covid. I'd like to see a bit of competitive spirit from them.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 8100
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Sun May 30, 2021 1:13 am

zkncj wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:

3 configurations with 7 of each seems to much? Flexibility sure but complexity aswell with small sub fleets. I don’t see them going smaller probably another A320NEO order to replace the sharklet fleet in time mid late 2020s.


I’m half expecting the domestic a321N’s to be cross shared with the International Fleet. Giving them an total fleet of 14x a321NEO.


Fair enough, I would tend to disagree though given the extra weight of the International aircraft with things like life rafts, lavs and also galley space, extra galley space on the domestic fleet might mean an extra 2-3 rows of seats, the A321NEO can seat up to 240 I believe not saying NZ will have that many, but domestically they may go for 226/232 or something. I would say as domestic grows you might eventually see a fleet of 10 A321 for AKL-WLG/CHC/ZQN, then is there a case and will the A220 be the same type rating as the A320/321? So you end up with 10 A321s and say 10 A220s of some sort ? The A220 could cover the rest of the domestic jet routes and upgauge some busier regional routes, say a 130/140 seater?

You would still have A321/320 International fleet aswell and then could maybe longer term look at A220s on international routes, AKL-IUE/NOU/HBT/CBR and ex WLG/CHC routes. You may end up long term with 20 A321 and a similar number of A220s in 10-12 years time.
 
NZ516
Posts: 808
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Sun May 30, 2021 2:07 am

DavidByrne wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
I don't think it's so much about under estimating the 'potential leisure market'. We already have baseline numbers around how many people currently board HLZ destined for ZQN? - What, if anything can the airline, tourism operators do to increase these numbers? That is the question

That's the only viable option isn't it? - Like I said in my earlier reply. You don't have a regular and reliable supply of business travelers and HLZ isn't a international visitor hub. So as both airports are end of line you're really only left with local O&D passengers.

I think the issue with "potential leisure markets" is that you don't really know how many bums you'll get on seats until you try it. Experience elsewhere shows that leisure travellers who would avoid an indirect flight will jump at the chance of a nonstop connection. Of course there's a risk attached, but a winter and/or summer peak season getaway might just work.

NZ6 wrote:
You talk of the global 'mega trend' but where's the evidence to suggest that'll scale down and be relevant to two relatively small markets such as this? - Ultimately will a direct flights change patronage numbers? - or reversed. Is the lack of a direct flight forcing domestic tourism into other centers? (On another note, that 'mega trend' is more about the A350/787 economics and capability vs the previous generation aircraft which makes long point to point travel possible but that's another topic)

I think that the evidence of the LCCs in Europe, using 320/738-sized aircraft shows that many city pairs which might at first appear bizarre can have a life. Of course, they try some and drop some, but they see no shame in that. Some of the routes come back seasonally year after year, even if only two- or three-times weekly. At a domestic and Transtasman level NZ is pretty much akin to an LCC in its economy offering. And in Europe, you'll see that the trend toward connecting smaller centres short-haul by LCC is accelerating, alongside a proliferation of long-haul services by major legacy carriers. Are they being over-optimistic? Perhaps; but with our relatively covid-free status in Australasia we are probably in a better position than in Europe.

NZ6 wrote:
ZQN isn't a rinse & repeat destination like the tropical Islands might be so unless you have a special interest in winter sports it's by in large a once off destination, well at least once every several years then once the borders open, will that interest go elsewhere.

Of course, direct flights might make a weekend away more appealing. Conferences, events, weddings and so forth also help lift some of that patronage. But the A320 at 180 odd seats is a lot of aircraft to fill on an ongoing basis.

Agree there - and this is where I get on my old hobby-horse of suggesting a need for an aircraft in between the AT7 and the 320. To me, it seems illogical that a carrier should have a fleet mix which actively militates against further route development in its core markets. But that's for another day. Yes, the 320 is large, but failing alternatives it's the only game in town.

NZ6 wrote:
Then you come to the suggestion of operating 3 per week etc. Ultimately, that doesn't really work domestically. If you're trying to generate growth via more direct convenient options if needs to be regular otherwise it's a half baked option that'll likely fail.

I disagree completely. It's not as if a connection can't be made via WLG or CHC on the days that a nonstop flight is unavailable. We only have to look across the Tasman to see how new domestic connections are often added (even between business destinations) on a 3x weekly basis as a starting point.

NZ6 wrote:
The other scenario is going direct to ease congestion via WLG/CHC but that isn't the case here. A peak HLZ-CHC A320 would be more likely before HLZ-ZQN.

I don't disagree with the idea of a peak hour HLZ-CHC 320 either - but once again, even more likely if there was a smaller capacity jet in the fleet mix.

I'm keen for NZ to shed its conservatism when it comes to route development. I think there's a serious risk of it losing ground to QF, JQ (and soon VA) when normal transmission resumes. QF has shown its hand domestically in Australia to be very aggressive - not only against ZL but also against VA. It has also given notice of its intentions on the Tasman with new routes AKL-OOL and AKL-CNS. Maybe these are kites that they're flying to test demand, maybe they're in it for the long haul. But NZ seems unwilling (other than AKL-HBA) to do anything innovative as we come out of covid. I'd like to see a bit of competitive spirit from them.


Very good post thanks for all your effort writing it David.
Certainly there is lots of route possibilities with a small regional jet if they were available. Alliance airlines perhaps?
On the topic of Hamilton people often don't realize how big a city it is. Before the boundary changes it was 241,000 in 2018.
Now since reduced to 180,000 like all other NZ cities have been reduced. There is enough of a home market in the region for 320 services to CHC, ZQN and some Tasman flights.
The Waikato region has a whopping 500,000 residents and is forth in NZ behind Auckland, Canterbury and Wellington. I can see why Kiwi International was set up all those years ago. And the region has had exponential growth since then
 
NZ6
Posts: 2002
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Sun May 30, 2021 3:06 am

DavidByrne wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
I don't think it's so much about under estimating the 'potential leisure market'. We already have baseline numbers around how many people currently board HLZ destined for ZQN? - What, if anything can the airline, tourism operators do to increase these numbers? That is the question

That's the only viable option isn't it? - Like I said in my earlier reply. You don't have a regular and reliable supply of business travelers and HLZ isn't a international visitor hub. So as both airports are end of line you're really only left with local O&D passengers.

I think the issue with "potential leisure markets" is that you don't really know how many bums you'll get on seats until you try it. Experience elsewhere shows that leisure travellers who would avoid an indirect flight will jump at the chance of a nonstop connection. Of course there's a risk attached, but a winter and/or summer peak season getaway might just work.

NZ6 wrote:
You talk of the global 'mega trend' but where's the evidence to suggest that'll scale down and be relevant to two relatively small markets such as this? - Ultimately will a direct flights change patronage numbers? - or reversed. Is the lack of a direct flight forcing domestic tourism into other centers? (On another note, that 'mega trend' is more about the A350/787 economics and capability vs the previous generation aircraft which makes long point to point travel possible but that's another topic)

I think that the evidence of the LCCs in Europe, using 320/738-sized aircraft shows that many city pairs which might at first appear bizarre can have a life. Of course, they try some and drop some, but they see no shame in that. Some of the routes come back seasonally year after year, even if only two- or three-times weekly. At a domestic and Transtasman level NZ is pretty much akin to an LCC in its economy offering. And in Europe, you'll see that the trend toward connecting smaller centres short-haul by LCC is accelerating, alongside a proliferation of long-haul services by major legacy carriers. Are they being over-optimistic? Perhaps; but with our relatively covid-free status in Australasia we are probably in a better position than in Europe.

NZ6 wrote:
ZQN isn't a rinse & repeat destination like the tropical Islands might be so unless you have a special interest in winter sports it's by in large a once off destination, well at least once every several years then once the borders open, will that interest go elsewhere.

Of course, direct flights might make a weekend away more appealing. Conferences, events, weddings and so forth also help lift some of that patronage. But the A320 at 180 odd seats is a lot of aircraft to fill on an ongoing basis.

Agree there - and this is where I get on my old hobby-horse of suggesting a need for an aircraft in between the AT7 and the 320. To me, it seems illogical that a carrier should have a fleet mix which actively militates against further route development in its core markets. But that's for another day. Yes, the 320 is large, but failing alternatives it's the only game in town.

NZ6 wrote:
Then you come to the suggestion of operating 3 per week etc. Ultimately, that doesn't really work domestically. If you're trying to generate growth via more direct convenient options if needs to be regular otherwise it's a half baked option that'll likely fail.

I disagree completely. It's not as if a connection can't be made via WLG or CHC on the days that a nonstop flight is unavailable. We only have to look across the Tasman to see how new domestic connections are often added (even between business destinations) on a 3x weekly basis as a starting point.

NZ6 wrote:
The other scenario is going direct to ease congestion via WLG/CHC but that isn't the case here. A peak HLZ-CHC A320 would be more likely before HLZ-ZQN.

I don't disagree with the idea of a peak hour HLZ-CHC 320 either - but once again, even more likely if there was a smaller capacity jet in the fleet mix.

I'm keen for NZ to shed its conservatism when it comes to route development. I think there's a serious risk of it losing ground to QF, JQ (and soon VA) when normal transmission resumes. QF has shown its hand domestically in Australia to be very aggressive - not only against ZL but also against VA. It has also given notice of its intentions on the Tasman with new routes AKL-OOL and AKL-CNS. Maybe these are kites that they're flying to test demand, maybe they're in it for the long haul. But NZ seems unwilling (other than AKL-HBA) to do anything innovative as we come out of covid. I'd like to see a bit of competitive spirit from them.


A quick point on each paragraph.

  • Airlines worldwide spend money to find this information out. You get analytics via market research, google data, NZ via their website reporting and current passenger data. GDS sell this information for some examples. So you should have some calculated idea.
  • European LCC's are playing in much. much bigger markets in general and their operating model can't be replicated here. We've seen it tried here many times.
  • I don't dispute that. As the 732, 733 and now A320 sized has increased, the gap between the turboprop fleet and jet has widened considerably. Find a suitably sized aircraft that has benefits which outweigh the negatives or alternatives though?
  • It simply doesn't. It's been proven on so many routes. Make sure you read my full comment incase you overlook a key point. It was about growing the market. Frequency is critical to that.
  • HLZ-CHC is one of many routes a 100 seat aircraft could suit, but engineering which includes parts, training, engine workshops, tech and cabin crew, airport handling, fleet complexities (I could go on) all add the overall cost. Re QF, VA - are we still talking domestic of Tasman now? JQ left regional NZ? QF master brand has tried multiple times, VA has been here done that. If it's the Tasman. QF have opened obvious routes in my mind. AKL-OOL (the cookie cutter winter get away for Kiwis), AK:-CNS an alterative QLD escape so also seems logical. When we start seeing QF at DUD/PMR/HLZ going to the big three in Oz or opening HBA, NTL, MCY, CBR, ADL, TSV from NZ, or even PER again then I'd agree.
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 1041
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - May 2021

Sun May 30, 2021 3:10 am

Living south of Hamilton, it and the surrounding towns are growing very fast, huge new subdivisions opening up, massive new roading projects (although one could argue the finished expressway makes flying from AKL a little less of a hassle).

I also think the A220 would make a good fleet fit but much more unlikely now after C19 etc. I doubt it would get the same type rating as the A320 family which is the nail in its coffin until at least the A320CEO domestic are up for replacement. Even then, I reckon more A320NEO would be where they end up going.

An ATR92 would be interesting though... especially if ATR could pair it with a more powerful engine that perhaps allowed a bump up in speed while keeping costs similar.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos