DavidByrne wrote:

NZ516 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%?

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?

As I understand it, you'd be able to carry 50 in and out of WRE in most conditions on a Wellington flight. It might get a bit restricted in the hight of summer. You'd have to sort some fuel out as well. Charter flights have been run from WRE to NSN (amounst other places) in the distant past with the Q300 fleet. Assume they tankered fuel in from AKL on those occasions. I'd be surprised if the airline added a direct WLG flight though.

DavidByrne wrote:

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).

NZ ran PPQ-CHC flights for a considerable period of time. I can't recall exactly how long but believe it was a couple of years, maybe even three. It operated at the expense of one of the AKL rotations and was middle of the day.

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.

Another fleet (A220) is a lot of complexity to introduce though. It's a shame the proposed ATR stretch never came to anything. A 90-100 seat turboprop with some commonality to the exisiting fleet would have been hard for NZ to resist.

NZ6 wrote:

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.

I think what you are saying NZ6 is what i'm thinking alot of the time. NZ want a simplified fleet and are a small operator on the world scale and rely on a strong domestic market and a few core long haul routes, the US mainly and possibly NRT/HKG/SIN in Asia. Domestic is strong and what new routes are there? Internationally saw a fairly big expansion from 2014-2018 SIN/EZE/IAH/ORD/TPE/ICN and some seasonal routes SGN, some have stayed some have been dropped. Others will be or have been looked at MNL etc. I've been saying it for ages NZ will have a fleet of 789/78J, A320/321, ATR72, possibly ATR 42 as a Q300 replacement. Anything else would really surprise me, if the A220 is a single type rating to the A320 then maybe but I think even from me thats more hopeful than anything and won't happen.

For NZ people don't accept imo that with the 787 in particular they can have an all 787 long haul fleet, this has been possible with the 777 and A330/340 for a while, NZ were a bit late on the 772 but possibly could have done it and at one point even considered an all 777 fleet, possibly still with some 763s back in the day, basically removed the 744s earlier. The 787 now allows a single type right sized ULH capable 789 and very efficient 78J. The 77X was I believe considered to big both 778 which may not be built and the 779 to big with more P2P flying. A350 I have my doubts ever had a chance really when it came to it given the earlier 787 commitments. And I have to think the A320/321 was the same, as I said A220 would have to be a single type rating with the A320 to have any chance, it is economics of scale, the simplest fleet with the most flexibility.

QF I don't see them operating regionally PMR/ROT-SYD/MEL/BNE etc. AKL-OOL/CNS will operate as long as there is no where else more profitable for those aircraft, they are JQ type routes, OOL was for along time JQ and they tried CNS at one point as did VA and PR. PER is the only market ex AKL I see, QF also tried ADL while TSV operated before CNS became the main North Queensland gateway in the 1980s.

ZK-NBT wrote:

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.

That's what makes most sense to me. Airbus are apparently redesigning the A320 series wing to be longer with folding tips, for a potential A322 as well.

77west wrote:

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.

What we really need is for JQ to get an fleet of a220s for the New Zealand domestic market. Not that is likely to happen, but could be an massive game changer to the domestic market post Covid.

zkncj wrote:

77west wrote:

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.

What we really need is for JQ to get an fleet of a220s for the New Zealand domestic market. Not that is likely to happen, but could be an massive game changer to the domestic market post Covid.

Dreams are free aren’t they. They couldn’t use a few second hand Q300s regionally and make money. I don’t think JQ have the kind of interest in the NZ domestic market where they would invest in a brand new aircraft type that’s not part of the QF group.

NZ516 wrote:

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

That is a terrible and pointless article and serves no purpose then to paint a bad picture of an airport manager.


All this talk of sizes between ATR and A320/321 is interesting, especially when NZ removes all the A320s from domestic. There will basically be a gap of 130 seats between the two fleets. Some ports/routes will benefit with increased services but then a fleet of A220/EJets would also benefit many ports and enable regional centres to have jets at convenient times.

In all honesty, NZ have a great opportunity right now

777ER wrote:

All this talk of sizes between ATR and A320/321 is interesting, especially when NZ removes all the A320s from domestic. There will basically be a gap of 130 seats between the two fleets.

Has this actually been decided and announced? I’m aware there’s been A-net speculation, but maybe this is one of those situations where repeating something often enough has made it an A-net “fact”?

777ER wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

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

That is a terrible and pointless article and serves no purpose then to paint a bad picture of an airport manager.


All this talk of sizes between ATR and A320/321 is interesting, especially when NZ removes all the A320s from domestic. There will basically be a gap of 130 seats between the two fleets. Some ports/routes will benefit with increased services but then a fleet of A220/EJets would also benefit many ports and enable regional centres to have jets at convenient times.

In all honesty, NZ have a great opportunity right now

Firstly I thought the article on PPQ AIrport was well written with them not being able to afford any more staff due to lack of cashflow. I liked the joke he might have to chase after a stray dog off from the runway. It made me laugh a bit.

Secondly I can't see them removing the A320s off domestic for a long time. The OX series will go for another 10 years before needing to be replaced most likely with Neos instead of a different jet.

zkncj wrote:

77west wrote:

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.

What we really need is for JQ to get an fleet of a220s for the New Zealand domestic market. Not that is likely to happen, but could be an massive game changer to the domestic market post Covid.

Or perhaps Air NZ could wet lease some of the Alliance Airlines E190s from Australia. They are getting 30 over from America. Qantas are going to use 8 of them to open up all this new point to point Aust domestic routes. They could be so useful for NZ flying with 94 seats.
HLZ to CHC. AKL to NSN,. AKL to IVC twice daily. Plus new Tasman routes AKL to CBR and NTL. Year round services to MCY and CNS. They would need to fly them over for maintenance anyway. Would bridge the gap nicely between the ATR and the 320 too. Air NZ could easily find enough routes for a fleet of 6 with wet lease crews from Alliance.

NZ516 wrote:

zkncj wrote:

77west wrote:

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.

What we really need is for JQ to get an fleet of a220s for the New Zealand domestic market. Not that is likely to happen, but could be an massive game changer to the domestic market post Covid.

Or perhaps Air NZ could wet lease some of the Alliance Airlines E190s from Australia. They are getting 30 over from America. Qantas are going to use 8 of them to open up all this new point to point Aust domestic routes. They could be so useful for NZ flying with 94 seats.
HLZ to CHC. AKL to NSN,. AKL to IVC twice daily. Plus new Tasman routes AKL to CBR and NTL. Year round services to MCY and CNS. They would need to fly them over for maintenance anyway. Would bridge the gap nicely between the ATR and the 320 too. Air NZ could easily find enough routes for a fleet of 6 with wet lease crews from Alliance.

What about interiors, particularly for international routes.

777ER wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

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

That is a terrible and pointless article and serves no purpose then to paint a bad picture of an airport manager.


All this talk of sizes between ATR and A320/321 is interesting, especially when NZ removes all the A320s from domestic. There will basically be a gap of 130 seats between the two fleets. Some ports/routes will benefit with increased services but then a fleet of A220/EJets would also benefit many ports and enable regional centres to have jets at convenient times.

In all honesty, NZ have a great opportunity right now

A complete removal of the A320 from the domestic fleet is atleast 10 years away, I would expect they will order A320NEOs, but the A220 maybe as it’s a little smaller and fits more in the middle of the ATR-A321, is that what the airline wants or needs?

There is a huge gap between the ATR-600 and A320. Best case 103 seat difference. That's A320 _X_ range domestic fleet with 171 seats less the ATR72-600 with 68.

The question is what are your options?

Turbo Prop:
Q400 While it adds an additional 20 or so seats to what the ATR offers it's CX and capability is very much the same and adds the cost of a new type to the fleet. There could be savings due to the Q300 being in the fleet but their average age is 13 years so until their long future is decided you wouldn't put much weight on that.
ATR-92 It simply doesn't exist and we don't know if it ever will. A turbo-prop in the vicinity of 90-100 seats could be a nice fit for NZ. If ATR produced it and if there was some commonality with the -72 mode. I wouldn't be surprised if NZ seriously considered it. But as far as I know. It's been mothballed.

I don't believe there are any other options in the market

Jets
A220 - Most likely candidate. I'm not 100% sure how much the A220 and A320 has in common.
Embraer E2 - Second in line. But I'd imagine NZ would secure a better overall package via Airbus (not just looking at the cost of the actual planes)
Sukhoi Super Jet - Never.
Comac ARJ21 - Never
Mitsubishi MRJ - No

While there's a big gap in the fleet size. One looks at this list and soon realizes the only real option in regional jet aircraft.

So if NZ went this way, where would we fly them?

AKL-NSN
HLZ-CHC
ROT-CHC/ZQN

There's other options out there, I'm not intending to list them all. But have we considered airfield facilities, such as the additional weight on runway overtime. Airways NZ looking to close control towers (By memory there's some restrictions on Jet services going into un-controlled airfields). Can baggage belts handle additional bags, do we need AVSEC set up.

It seems simple to say, there's a gap of over 100 seats in the fleet and the CX is dramatically different. But how many aircraft would you actually need. half a dozen at most? What if there's significant wrap around cost to support such a fleet? (beyond buying the planes, training the crew and engineers, getting parts and simulators....).

Who pays for this and how does it stack up with sticking with status quo.

NZ516 wrote:

zkncj wrote:

77west wrote:

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.

What we really need is for JQ to get an fleet of a220s for the New Zealand domestic market. Not that is likely to happen, but could be an massive game changer to the domestic market post Covid.

Or perhaps Air NZ could wet lease some of the Alliance Airlines E190s from Australia. They are getting 30 over from America. Qantas are going to use 8 of them to open up all this new point to point Aust domestic routes. They could be so useful for NZ flying with 94 seats.
HLZ to CHC. AKL to NSN,. AKL to IVC twice daily. Plus new Tasman routes AKL to CBR and NTL. Year round services to MCY and CNS. They would need to fly them over for maintenance anyway. Would bridge the gap nicely between the ATR and the 320 too. Air NZ could easily find enough routes for a fleet of 6 with wet lease crews from Alliance.

Agree using Alliance E190s is an option. However not sure whether they are overwater capable. Also, at 94 seats they may be a little small for the longer term. But maybe as an interim pending a fleet of something larger?

With continued investment in road and rail transport I honestly think the demand for regional airports will reduce. Transmission Gully will largely kill off Paraparaumu Airport. And in time (10-20 years) when there's a properly hourly Hamilton-Auckland service at a reasonable speed then that will put a dent in a bunch of Hamilton Airport. That or a full on dual carriageway from Hamilton all the way up to Auckland Airport.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

With continued investment in road and rail transport I honestly think the demand for regional airports will reduce. Transmission Gully will largely kill off Paraparaumu Airport. And in time (10-20 years) when there's a properly hourly Hamilton-Auckland service at a reasonable speed then that will put a dent in a bunch of Hamilton Airport. That or a full on dual carriageway from Hamilton all the way up to Auckland Airport.

The final section of the dual carriageway you talk of is due to open later this year. It will allow full expressway speeds all the way from Hamilton\Cambridge to Auckland and the airport.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

With continued investment in road and rail transport I honestly think the demand for regional airports will reduce. Transmission Gully will largely kill off Paraparaumu Airport. And in time (10-20 years) when there's a properly hourly Hamilton-Auckland service at a reasonable speed then that will put a dent in a bunch of Hamilton Airport. That or a full on dual carriageway from Hamilton all the way up to Auckland Airport.

You're bang on the money. Even if I wish you were wrong, you're not.

There was an interesting program on Sky yesterday morning. I don't know which channel it was as I just stumbled across it randomly. It was an interview with Craig Emeny.

He admitted outright, PPQ only works for peak services. They've struggled to get much interest outside of these hours mainly due to the convenience of WLG and the cheaper fares larger Jets offer. His words.

20 years ago we had HLZ-AKL flights. It's now faster to drive.

People opt to drive HLZ to AKL for international flights too which has all but killed the hopes of HLZ as an international airport. Of course if HLZ city council wants to subsidize costs of find alternative tenants and revenue which can make it affordable and attractive for an LCC then maybe but extremely unlikely.

NZ6 wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

With continued investment in road and rail transport I honestly think the demand for regional airports will reduce. Transmission Gully will largely kill off Paraparaumu Airport. And in time (10-20 years) when there's a properly hourly Hamilton-Auckland service at a reasonable speed then that will put a dent in a bunch of Hamilton Airport. That or a full on dual carriageway from Hamilton all the way up to Auckland Airport.

You're bang on the money. Even if I wish you were wrong, you're not.

There was an interesting program on Sky yesterday morning. I don't know which channel it was as I just stumbled across it randomly. It was an interview with Craig Emeny.

He admitted outright, PPQ only works for peak services. They've struggled to get much interest outside of these hours mainly due to the convenience of WLG and the cheaper fares larger Jets offer. His words.

20 years ago we had HLZ-AKL flights. It's now faster to drive.

People opt to drive HLZ to AKL for international flights too which has all but killed the hopes of HLZ as an international airport. Of course if HLZ city council wants to subsidize costs of find alternative tenants and revenue which can make it affordable and attractive for an LCC then maybe but extremely unlikely.

Wasn't quite 20 years ago, I remember doing it around the 2009ish timeframe. And it was about a half hour flight from memory. Handy when connecting to another flight.

But you are both right of course.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

With continued investment in road and rail transport I honestly think the demand for regional airports will reduce. Transmission Gully will largely kill off Paraparaumu Airport. And in time (10-20 years) when there's a properly hourly Hamilton-Auckland service at a reasonable speed then that will put a dent in a bunch of Hamilton Airport. That or a full on dual carriageway from Hamilton all the way up to Auckland Airport.

This actually made me think of another example for that HLZ-ZQN scenario.

Here's a current scenario

AKL-ZQN L class $160
HLZ-ZQN L class $262

So, going return family of 4. Let's assume you get the same fare levels. $102 cheaper to go from AKL each way, $204 per person return or all up for everyone return $816.

Hamilton to Auckland return via car is under half a tank of gas. Let's say $70, (that's generous). A weeks parking in August at ParknFly ($40) or directly at AIAL ($106).

So you're better off driving to AKL and saving around $700.

Would direct flights change this much?

- HLZ/ZQN direct on a ATR would still be more expensive per seat to operate than a A320 so still not saving much
- A320 could be a struggle to sell meaning the the L class level may not be the same as AKL which has 5-6 sectors per day.

Again, frequency is also more effective and cheaper.

77west wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

With continued investment in road and rail transport I honestly think the demand for regional airports will reduce. Transmission Gully will largely kill off Paraparaumu Airport. And in time (10-20 years) when there's a properly hourly Hamilton-Auckland service at a reasonable speed then that will put a dent in a bunch of Hamilton Airport. That or a full on dual carriageway from Hamilton all the way up to Auckland Airport.

The final section of the dual carriageway you talk of is due to open later this year. It will allow full expressway speeds all the way from Hamilton\Cambridge to Auckland and the airport.

Yes, the direct train/bus connection to AKL soon to be possible via Puhinui may make a dent in HLZ development. Even when hourly in future years (which is a strong possibility) however, I don’t think it will eliminate the need for and use of HLZ. It will still be a little under two hours from Frankton to AKL. Even with the dual carriageway road, travel time to and from Hamilton is not reliable. It only takes a small “incident” and driving time can balloon way out, with diversions in place through the Waikato hinterland. As I’ve found out myself twice, quite recently, missing an appointment I thought I’d allowed ample travel time for with a buffer as well. Ultimately, IMO, HLZ will surely get a jet service of some sort to CHC at least.

DavidByrne wrote:

77west wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

With continued investment in road and rail transport I honestly think the demand for regional airports will reduce. Transmission Gully will largely kill off Paraparaumu Airport. And in time (10-20 years) when there's a properly hourly Hamilton-Auckland service at a reasonable speed then that will put a dent in a bunch of Hamilton Airport. That or a full on dual carriageway from Hamilton all the way up to Auckland Airport.

The final section of the dual carriageway you talk of is due to open later this year. It will allow full expressway speeds all the way from Hamilton\Cambridge to Auckland and the airport.

Yes, the direct train/bus connection to AKL soon to be possible via Puhinui may make a dent in HLZ development. Even when hourly in future years (which is a strong possibility) however, I don’t think it will eliminate the need for and use of HLZ. It will still be a little under two hours from Frankton to AKL. Even with the dual carriageway road, travel time to and from Hamilton is not reliable. It only takes a small “incident” and driving time can balloon way out, with diversions in place through the Waikato hinterland. As I’ve found out myself twice, quite recently, missing an appointment I thought I’d allowed ample travel time for with a buffer as well. Ultimately, IMO, HLZ will surely get a jet service of some sort to CHC at least.

It shouldn't be too hard to rotate an A320 through CHC-HLZ-CHC to avoid any positioning flights. AVSEC might be the issue though, not sure if HLZ has the equipment anymore.

DavidByrne wrote:

77west wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

With continued investment in road and rail transport I honestly think the demand for regional airports will reduce. Transmission Gully will largely kill off Paraparaumu Airport. And in time (10-20 years) when there's a properly hourly Hamilton-Auckland service at a reasonable speed then that will put a dent in a bunch of Hamilton Airport. That or a full on dual carriageway from Hamilton all the way up to Auckland Airport.

The final section of the dual carriageway you talk of is due to open later this year. It will allow full expressway speeds all the way from Hamilton\Cambridge to Auckland and the airport.

Yes, the direct train/bus connection to AKL soon to be possible via Puhinui may make a dent in HLZ development. Even when hourly in future years (which is a strong possibility) however, I don’t think it will eliminate the need for and use of HLZ. It will still be a little under two hours from Frankton to AKL. Even with the dual carriageway road, travel time to and from Hamilton is not reliable. It only takes a small “incident” and driving time can balloon way out, with diversions in place through the Waikato hinterland. As I’ve found out myself twice, quite recently, missing an appointment I thought I’d allowed ample travel time for with a buffer as well. Ultimately, IMO, HLZ will surely get a jet service of some sort to CHC at least.

You might still have peak HLZ-WLG and HLZ-CHC flights. But outside of that they will diminish as land transport improves. Like if you built a proper high speed rail connection to connect Auckland and Wellington in a few hours you'd effectively destroy WLG as an international airport. In the true long term I expect NZ to cut back to two major commercial airports, one for each island. With smaller airports/airstrips for the occasional point to point service or local/regional use. But that timeframe is decades+ and probably beyond our current lifespans.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

77west wrote:

The final section of the dual carriageway you talk of is due to open later this year. It will allow full expressway speeds all the way from Hamilton\Cambridge to Auckland and the airport.

Yes, the direct train/bus connection to AKL soon to be possible via Puhinui may make a dent in HLZ development. Even when hourly in future years (which is a strong possibility) however, I don’t think it will eliminate the need for and use of HLZ. It will still be a little under two hours from Frankton to AKL. Even with the dual carriageway road, travel time to and from Hamilton is not reliable. It only takes a small “incident” and driving time can balloon way out, with diversions in place through the Waikato hinterland. As I’ve found out myself twice, quite recently, missing an appointment I thought I’d allowed ample travel time for with a buffer as well. Ultimately, IMO, HLZ will surely get a jet service of some sort to CHC at least.

You might still have peak HLZ-WLG and HLZ-CHC flights. But outside of that they will diminish as land transport improves. Like if you built a proper high speed rail connection to connect Auckland and Wellington in a few hours you'd effectively destroy WLG as an international airport. In the true long term I expect NZ to cut back to two major commercial airports, one for each island. With smaller airports/airstrips for the occasional point to point service or local/regional use. But that timeframe is decades+ and probably beyond our current lifespans.

I don't think we will see a true high speed rail link in NZ ever. The costs just don't stack up especially given our topography. HLZ-AKL 'maybe,' with a tunnel through to Tauranga perhaps. But that's probably 30+ years away if ever. They can't even get the new Te Huia running at full design speed on the current tracks. Agreed on the travel time issues - had family fly out on Sunday and we left HLZ at 8am for a 12pm flight, just to make sure we had enough buffer. Thats 5 hours travel including the hour flight. Once the train frequency increases and they sort out some of the speed issues we may see some drop off at HLZ.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

You might still have peak HLZ-WLG and HLZ-CHC flights. But outside of that they will diminish as land transport improves. Like if you built a proper high speed rail connection to connect Auckland and Wellington in a few hours you'd effectively destroy WLG as an international airport. In the true long term I expect NZ to cut back to two major commercial airports, one for each island. With smaller airports/airstrips for the occasional point to point service or local/regional use. But that timeframe is decades+ and probably beyond our current lifespans.

I doubt it - even with a high speed rail (where there is absolutely zero chance in the next 100 years) getting traffic from Wellington explain to me why anyone would use the train to AKL to fly to SYD/MEL/BNE when non-stop services exist? The better surface connection argument (such as HLZ-AKL or PMR-WLG) only works when the regional port (HLZ or PMR) cant sustain their own services at a reasonable and comparable cost to the other airport (AKL or WLG). This is definitely not the case for WLG. How cheap do you expect international flights from AKL to become compared with WLG to encourage this inefficient behaviour?

And as for your argument of two main airports in New Zealand - again I just dont get it. So Wellingtonians will fly WLG-AKL-NPE or WLG-CHC-NSN? Are you suggesting that because the roads are so good a person that is currently flying TRG-TIU via WLG will instead drive TRG-AKL then fly AKL-CHC to then drive CHC-TIU? Sorry maybe I'm not understanding what you are suggesting.

77west wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

77west wrote:

The final section of the dual carriageway you talk of is due to open later this year. It will allow full expressway speeds all the way from Hamilton\Cambridge to Auckland and the airport.

Yes, the direct train/bus connection to AKL soon to be possible via Puhinui may make a dent in HLZ development. Even when hourly in future years (which is a strong possibility) however, I don’t think it will eliminate the need for and use of HLZ. It will still be a little under two hours from Frankton to AKL. Even with the dual carriageway road, travel time to and from Hamilton is not reliable. It only takes a small “incident” and driving time can balloon way out, with diversions in place through the Waikato hinterland. As I’ve found out myself twice, quite recently, missing an appointment I thought I’d allowed ample travel time for with a buffer as well. Ultimately, IMO, HLZ will surely get a jet service of some sort to CHC at least.

It shouldn't be too hard to rotate an A320 through CHC-HLZ-CHC to avoid any positioning flights. AVSEC might be the issue though, not sure if HLZ has the equipment anymore.

That would be easy to do with an A320, what is the current ATR frequency HLZ-CHC?

77west wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

Yes, the direct train/bus connection to AKL soon to be possible via Puhinui may make a dent in HLZ development. Even when hourly in future years (which is a strong possibility) however, I don’t think it will eliminate the need for and use of HLZ. It will still be a little under two hours from Frankton to AKL. Even with the dual carriageway road, travel time to and from Hamilton is not reliable. It only takes a small “incident” and driving time can balloon way out, with diversions in place through the Waikato hinterland. As I’ve found out myself twice, quite recently, missing an appointment I thought I’d allowed ample travel time for with a buffer as well. Ultimately, IMO, HLZ will surely get a jet service of some sort to CHC at least.

You might still have peak HLZ-WLG and HLZ-CHC flights. But outside of that they will diminish as land transport improves. Like if you built a proper high speed rail connection to connect Auckland and Wellington in a few hours you'd effectively destroy WLG as an international airport. In the true long term I expect NZ to cut back to two major commercial airports, one for each island. With smaller airports/airstrips for the occasional point to point service or local/regional use. But that timeframe is decades+ and probably beyond our current lifespans.

I don't think we will see a true high speed rail link in NZ ever. The costs just don't stack up especially given our topography. HLZ-AKL 'maybe,' with a tunnel through to Tauranga perhaps. But that's probably 30+ years away if ever. They can't even get the new Te Huia running at full design speed on the current tracks. Agreed on the travel time issues - had family fly out on Sunday and we left HLZ at 8am for a 12pm flight, just to make sure we had enough buffer. Thats 5 hours travel including the hour flight. Once the train frequency increases and they sort out some of the speed issues we may see some drop off at HLZ.

What is the main reason a train service HLZ-AKL isn’t popular?

I live in Whangaparaoa and while my job would make it difficult to catch a train unless I parked my work vehicle in the city somewhere. A train to WRE seems a no brainer to me rather than all these bus lanes along the northern motorway. The travel times are getting beyond silly for a 40km trip. Mind you south to Drury is the same.

ZK-NBT wrote:

77west wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

You might still have peak HLZ-WLG and HLZ-CHC flights. But outside of that they will diminish as land transport improves. Like if you built a proper high speed rail connection to connect Auckland and Wellington in a few hours you'd effectively destroy WLG as an international airport. In the true long term I expect NZ to cut back to two major commercial airports, one for each island. With smaller airports/airstrips for the occasional point to point service or local/regional use. But that timeframe is decades+ and probably beyond our current lifespans.

I don't think we will see a true high speed rail link in NZ ever. The costs just don't stack up especially given our topography. HLZ-AKL 'maybe,' with a tunnel through to Tauranga perhaps. But that's probably 30+ years away if ever. They can't even get the new Te Huia running at full design speed on the current tracks. Agreed on the travel time issues - had family fly out on Sunday and we left HLZ at 8am for a 12pm flight, just to make sure we had enough buffer. Thats 5 hours travel including the hour flight. Once the train frequency increases and they sort out some of the speed issues we may see some drop off at HLZ.

What is the main reason a train service HLZ-AKL isn’t popular?

I live in Whangaparaoa and while my job would make it difficult to catch a train unless I parked my work vehicle in the city somewhere. A train to WRE seems a no brainer to me rather than all these bus lanes along the northern motorway. The travel times are getting beyond silly for a 40km trip. Mind you south to Drury is the same.

It takes too long - 1hr30 from Hamilton-Papakura, change trains, then at least another hour to the CBD. They need to double-track and electrify fully the bit between Hamilton and Papakura and have more frequent, fast services.

77west wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

77west wrote:

I don't think we will see a true high speed rail link in NZ ever. The costs just don't stack up especially given our topography. HLZ-AKL 'maybe,' with a tunnel through to Tauranga perhaps. But that's probably 30+ years away if ever. They can't even get the new Te Huia running at full design speed on the current tracks. Agreed on the travel time issues - had family fly out on Sunday and we left HLZ at 8am for a 12pm flight, just to make sure we had enough buffer. Thats 5 hours travel including the hour flight. Once the train frequency increases and they sort out some of the speed issues we may see some drop off at HLZ.

What is the main reason a train service HLZ-AKL isn’t popular?

I live in Whangaparaoa and while my job would make it difficult to catch a train unless I parked my work vehicle in the city somewhere. A train to WRE seems a no brainer to me rather than all these bus lanes along the northern motorway. The travel times are getting beyond silly for a 40km trip. Mind you south to Drury is the same.

It takes too long - 1hr30 from Hamilton-Papakura, change trains, then at least another hour to the CBD. They need to double-track and electrify fully the bit between Hamilton and Papakura and have more frequent, fast services.

And how long to drive HLZ to AKL city?

ZK-NBT wrote:

77west wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

What is the main reason a train service HLZ-AKL isn’t popular?

I live in Whangaparaoa and while my job would make it difficult to catch a train unless I parked my work vehicle in the city somewhere. A train to WRE seems a no brainer to me rather than all these bus lanes along the northern motorway. The travel times are getting beyond silly for a 40km trip. Mind you south to Drury is the same.

It takes too long - 1hr30 from Hamilton-Papakura, change trains, then at least another hour to the CBD. They need to double-track and electrify fully the bit between Hamilton and Papakura and have more frequent, fast services.

And how long to drive HLZ to AKL city?

If traffic is smooth, about 1hr30 right into the CBD. The train would only be at Papakura at this point with another hour to CBD. Airport is about 1hr15mins with good traffic.

I suspect a high speed train line is not as easy as it sounds. The swamp land through the back of Meremere presents some issues. This is why the trains currently just dawdle through that area.

If ANZ really wanted a smaller jet, i think they would go with the A319, rather than adding the more economical A220. A small fleet wouldn't add significant cost, unlike a new type.

If they wanted to do it cheaply - second hand A319s are plentiful and could be leased or bought far cheaper than the A220.

jrfspa320 wrote:

If ANZ really wanted a smaller jet, i think they would go with the A319, rather than adding the more economical A220. A small fleet wouldn't add significant cost, unlike a new type.

If they wanted to do it cheaply - second hand A319s are plentiful and could be leased or bought far cheaper than the A220.

I did think about the A319 but I believe the operating costs are so similar to an A320 these days that you would almost be better just getting more A320s - reflected in the total sales of the A319neo of 73 units.

Some cheap second hand A319ceo with IAE might be an interesting concept though

77west wrote:

I did think about the A319 but I believe the operating costs are so similar to an A320 these days that you would almost be better just getting more A320s - reflected in the total sales of the A319neo of 3 units.

Actually 73 units, with 3 delivered so far. But still, your point is valid.

DavidByrne wrote:

77west wrote:

I did think about the A319 but I believe the operating costs are so similar to an A320 these days that you would almost be better just getting more A320s - reflected in the total sales of the A319neo of 3 units.

Actually 73 units, with 3 delivered so far. But still, your point is valid.

Yes I mis-typed and have fixed it, thanks

jrfspa320 wrote:

If ANZ really wanted a smaller jet, i think they would go with the A319, rather than adding the more economical A220. A small fleet wouldn't add significant cost, unlike a new type.

If they wanted to do it cheaply - second hand A319s are plentiful and could be leased or bought far cheaper than the A220.

Yeah na I don’t think so, if they didn’t want a new type they would get more A320s, it is about economics of scale and for a carrier like NZ the feeer types the better.

NZ6 wrote:

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 in case 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.

I don't disagree with some of what you say, though I do disagree about other bits. But rather than trying to answer point-by-point, which would be tedious for everyone, I thought it's perhaps better to look at the bigger picture.

Fundamentally, this is about the ongoing strategic direction of NZ. My "vision" for this would be the "Finnair" model for Transtasman and the Americas - using AKL as a hub to serve multiple Australian ports from multiple ports in the Americas. Currently, there are nine Australian cities in the mix, and five (soon six) North American cities, Over (say) ten years, I could see this growing to twelve Australian ports and a dozen North and South American ports (assuming South America is not an ongoing basket case in the years to come). On top of that, it's point-to-point for Asia and the Pacific - plus a marginally denser Tasman network from WLG, CHC, ZQN. Domestically, I do see a growth in point-to-point links as discussed elsewhere.

I'm less clear what your vision for NZ's strategic direction is, though. You don't seem keen on proliferation of routes on the Tasman, nor for proliferation domestically. And you've been quite down on purchasing a smaller jet that would facilitate this kind of proliferation. I'd be interested to know where you do see NZ in 10 or more years from now.

I start to get nervous when I see how QF has approached the post-pandemic era. Domestically, it has added 41 new routes in the last 12 months (no, that's not a misprint). Some of them duplicate parts of JQ's network, and some compete with VA. Some of the regional flights compete with ZL But some sectors are brand new, linking (for example) ADL and TSV with E90s. In fact, QF has signalled even more growth with the basing of 5 E90s in ADL. All in all it shows very aggressive intentions, and this has to a small extent been followed through on the Tasman with the launch of two new routes there as well. By the time QF start serving points like HBA, CBR, NTL or TSV it will be game over for any effective NZ competition - there will only be enough room for one carrier on those routes. By comparison, NZ's post-pandemic response has been hugely conservative, and I fear that if QF continues unchallenged with this kind of expansion, NZ could easily lose its market leadership position on the Tasman. It's by no means guaranteed that it will remain the biggest carrier.

As an aside, I note that you see the Q400 as a possible "larger" aircraft for domestic use. My understanding is that the 90 seat version is just a 74-seater frame with more seats crammed in - so not necessarily a great plus. And I believe that there's not so much commonality with the Q300 either, though I'm open to correction on this. It does have the advantage of a higher speed over the AT7, though.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/12518 ... neighbours

An odd title in this story. Most aircraft don't leave smoke coming from the engines anymore. Perhaps they remember the old days of the 737-200s. She should not have to clean the soot off her house nowadays. You can always move away.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

zkncj wrote:

What we really need is for JQ to get an fleet of a220s for the New Zealand domestic market. Not that is likely to happen, but could be an massive game changer to the domestic market post Covid.

Or perhaps Air NZ could wet lease some of the Alliance Airlines E190s from Australia. They are getting 30 over from America. Qantas are going to use 8 of them to open up all this new point to point Aust domestic routes. They could be so useful for NZ flying with 94 seats.
HLZ to CHC. AKL to NSN,. AKL to IVC twice daily. Plus new Tasman routes AKL to CBR and NTL. Year round services to MCY and CNS. They would need to fly them over for maintenance anyway. Would bridge the gap nicely between the ATR and the 320 too. Air NZ could easily find enough routes for a fleet of 6 with wet lease crews from Alliance.

What about interiors, particularly for international routes.

They could use the ex AA ones I think they were the newer ones than the ones from Cops.

ZK-NBT wrote:

What is the main reason a train service HLZ-AKL isn’t popular?

I live in Whangaparaoa and while my job would make it difficult to catch a train unless I parked my work vehicle in the city somewhere. A train to WRE seems a no brainer to me rather than all these bus lanes along the northern motorway. The travel times are getting beyond silly for a 40km trip. Mind you south to Drury is the same.

Others have answered this but the simple answer is; it's slow and drops you off an hour away from the CBD. Yeah 50 mins by train but you've got to change trains so I'll add in a few mins for that.

As for an airport solution. Dropped off (I assume) in Hamilton to to Papakura and switch to AT Train, then at Puhinui onto a bus. I guess that could be worse but if they went with that Sky Train model from Puhinui then Te Huia could then carry on to this point. At least to a true transport hub.

NZ6 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

What is the main reason a train service HLZ-AKL isn’t popular?

I live in Whangaparaoa and while my job would make it difficult to catch a train unless I parked my work vehicle in the city somewhere. A train to WRE seems a no brainer to me rather than all these bus lanes along the northern motorway. The travel times are getting beyond silly for a 40km trip. Mind you south to Drury is the same.

Others have answered this but the simple answer is; it's slow and drops you off an hour away from the CBD. Yeah 50 mins by train but you've got to change trains so I'll add in a few mins for that.

As for an airport solution. Dropped off (I assume) in Hamilton to to Papakura and switch to AT Train, then at Puhinui onto a bus. I guess that could be worse but if they went with that Sky Train model from Puhinui then Te Huia could then carry on to this point. At least to a true transport hub.

What’s stopping them from running it to Britomart as an express service? It can stop in Papakura for those who need to get off and connect to other services. I get that the line isn’t electric to HLZ but surely.

ZK-NBT wrote:

And how long to drive HLZ to AKL city?

Google Maps: Hamilton Train Station to Papakua Train Station: 1Hr 5 mins - 1Hr 25 mins via car. So quicker than the Te Huia by upwards of 30 mins on a good day but not really any slower. Nothing stopping you jumping on AT from there. I always find driving times quicker than what Google suggests too and I don't really speed.

If heading to the Airport (given it's an aviation forum) from Papakura - timewise it's similar on public transport vs Car but PT requires and transfer. Ultimately for Kiwis it needs to be reliable, cheap and more convenient to get us out of our cars.

Looking at this, It's quicker and way easier to drive still.

Besides, you can't leave your car at Papakura for an extended stay. I'd be on blocks or gone after the first night I'd imagine.

jrfspa320 wrote:

If ANZ really wanted a smaller jet, i think they would go with the A319, rather than adding the more economical A220. A small fleet wouldn't add significant cost, unlike a new type.

If they wanted to do it cheaply - second hand A319s are plentiful and could be leased or bought far cheaper than the A220.

Like others have said, it's no cheaper to operate than a A320 so better off just using them. I think the bottom line here is there's just not enough potential routes for regional jets.

Sectors like AKL-PMR are short, frequency keeps competition away and the ATR's are cheap to run. Sectors like NPL-CHC, NPE-CHC, TRG-CHC are small in regard to patronage, so on a regional jet 2x daily would get squeezed into 1 daily. Then the fact that there's not many of them so any sub-fleet would be small and costly. Sectors like ROT-CHC, AKL-IVC, WLG-DUD which could scale down to a regional jet can do okay with the A320.

I'd like something, I just wish there was a Q500 or ATR92

ZK-NBT wrote:

What’s stopping them from running it to Britomart as an express service? It can stop in Papakura for those who need to get off and connect to other services. I get that the line isn’t electric to HLZ but surely.

No idea, at a guess. It gets in the way of the AT schedule. They run trains every 10 mins and I thought I'd read the lines are near capacity and work is needed for a 3rd line in places just for the city rail link.

Of course one does wonder why one of the AT services doesn't just start in Hamilton but that's probably politics between Auckland and Waikato City Councils and Kiwi Rail but that's a wild guess.

NZ6 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

What’s stopping them from running it to Britomart as an express service? It can stop in Papakura for those who need to get off and connect to other services. I get that the line isn’t electric to HLZ but surely.

No idea, at a guess. It gets in the way of the AT schedule. They run trains every 10 mins and I thought I'd read the lines are near capacity and work is needed for a 3rd line in places just for the city rail link.

Of course one does wonder why one of the AT services doesn't just start in Hamilton but that's probably politics between Auckland and Waikato City Councils and Kiwi Rail but that's a wild guess.

Yes that is a good point. Thanks for your input as usual!

I did read today on another board someone mentioned a Q300 needing a repaint (still in teal) and 1 poster said their days were numbered. Curious...

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

What’s stopping them from running it to Britomart as an express service? It can stop in Papakura for those who need to get off and connect to other services. I get that the line isn’t electric to HLZ but surely.

No idea, at a guess. It gets in the way of the AT schedule. They run trains every 10 mins and I thought I'd read the lines are near capacity and work is needed for a 3rd line in places just for the city rail link.

Of course one does wonder why one of the AT services doesn't just start in Hamilton but that's probably politics between Auckland and Waikato City Councils and Kiwi Rail but that's a wild guess.

I did read today on another board someone mentioned a Q300 needing a repaint (still in teal) and 1 poster said their days were numbered. Curious...

By all accounts, the Q300s will be around for another ten years (at least).

Unclekoru wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

No idea, at a guess. It gets in the way of the AT schedule. They run trains every 10 mins and I thought I'd read the lines are near capacity and work is needed for a 3rd line in places just for the city rail link.

Of course one does wonder why one of the AT services doesn't just start in Hamilton but that's probably politics between Auckland and Waikato City Councils and Kiwi Rail but that's a wild guess.

I did read today on another board someone mentioned a Q300 needing a repaint (still in teal) and 1 poster said their days were numbered. Curious...

By all accounts, the Q300s will be around for another ten years (at least).

Interesting thank you, that doesn’t surprise me, they are fine for what they do not that old and you don’t want to invest hundreds of millions of capex in these times to replace them when you don’t need to.

I would have loved for NZ to have chosen the 717 to replace the 737-200 fleet all those years ago. Small enough to operate to regional ports, big enough for most flights on trunk routes, great takeoff performance and tough as anything.

I understand of course the many reasons why NZ chose the -300 (and later A320). But I do wonder what might have been, had NZ taken a different path. The 717 is a great aircraft and would have been a reliable workhorse for the domestic fleet.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

What is the main reason a train service HLZ-AKL isn’t popular?

I live in Whangaparaoa and while my job would make it difficult to catch a train unless I parked my work vehicle in the city somewhere. A train to WRE seems a no brainer to me rather than all these bus lanes along the northern motorway. The travel times are getting beyond silly for a 40km trip. Mind you south to Drury is the same.

Others have answered this but the simple answer is; it's slow and drops you off an hour away from the CBD. Yeah 50 mins by train but you've got to change trains so I'll add in a few mins for that.

As for an airport solution. Dropped off (I assume) in Hamilton to to Papakura and switch to AT Train, then at Puhinui onto a bus. I guess that could be worse but if they went with that Sky Train model from Puhinui then Te Huia could then carry on to this point. At least to a true transport hub.

What’s stopping them from running it to Britomart as an express service? It can stop in Papakura for those who need to get off and connect to other services. I get that the line isn’t electric to HLZ but surely.

I don't think Britomart can take Diesel powered trains anymore. Strand station is the closest to the CBD and they have said they are looking at operating to Strand late 2021/early2022

budgetflyer wrote:

I would have loved for NZ to have chosen the 717 to replace the 737-200 fleet all those years ago. Small enough to operate to regional ports, big enough for most flights on trunk routes, great takeoff performance and tough as anything.

I understand of course the many reasons why NZ chose the -300 (and later A320). But I do wonder what might have been, had NZ taken a different path. The 717 is a great aircraft and would have been a reliable workhorse for the domestic fleet.

It's hardly any bigger than a 732 capacity wise is it? Only 156 built so it wasn't exactly popular and would have probably been retired now if NZ had brought it in 1998-2006 which was its production span.

NZ6 wrote:

Sectors like AKL-PMR are short, frequency keeps competition away and the ATR's are cheap to run. Sectors like NPL-CHC, NPE-CHC, TRG-CHC are small in regard to patronage, so on a regional jet 2x daily would get squeezed into 1 daily. Then the fact that there's not many of them so any sub-fleet would be small and costly. Sectors like ROT-CHC, AKL-IVC, WLG-DUD which could scale down to a regional jet can do okay with the A320.

Exactly. A defensive strategy of two early morning ATR72 / Q300 departures about 45 mins apart makes it difficult for a competitor. This happened when the 732 was withdrawn from IVC and HLZ (ZQ), then later at PMR, NPE and NSN (JQ).

PA515

ZK-NBT wrote:

budgetflyer wrote:

I would have loved for NZ to have chosen the 717 to replace the 737-200 fleet all those years ago. Small enough to operate to regional ports, big enough for most flights on trunk routes, great takeoff performance and tough as anything.

I understand of course the many reasons why NZ chose the -300 (and later A320). But I do wonder what might have been, had NZ taken a different path. The 717 is a great aircraft and would have been a reliable workhorse for the domestic fleet.

It's hardly any bigger than a 732 capacity wise is it? Only 156 built so it wasn't exactly popular and would have probably been retired now if NZ had brought it in 1998-2006 which was its production span.

Correct but those who still operate them seem to really like them, QF Link, Delta, Hawaiian. It would have worked well on the smaller regional routes although probably better in AU where the average distances are a bit greater.