DavidByrne wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

My initial thoughts are...forget the E190's. NZ won't do that. They've already go excess fleet at their disposal with little to no P.I and the Tasman not at full capacity. I'd imagine there'll also be 'outrage' of using offshore based Pilots when we've got highly skilled unemployed ones here coupled with government handouts **cough cough** sorry loan.

So if we're back to the A320 we're looking at 2 weekly at 75% at an unknown "yield". That's the kicker of it all. If you could fly once a week if you were making solid double digit yield.

I don't disagree with that - in the short term. I doubt very much that NTL or CBR would stand a chance of serious consideration until the Tasman market has fully recovered - and until the North American market is also back to all destinations being served. Bujt in the medium term, I do see an advantage in having a smaller jet for thinner domestic and regional routes, and I think that it could eventually be a workable-sized fleet.

NZ6 wrote:

I guess what I'm saying is filling planes is half the equation.. perhaps we could look at VA's seasonal service that didn't grow and or that fact NZ didn't continue it post Freedom nor pick it up again under Fyfe or Luxon who both grew the airline considerably as signs for the second half of that equation.

Please don't think I'm completely disagreeing with you or NTL. Clearly there's something there. It's been done before, twice by two different airlines.

I also accept that filling planes is only half the issue - and we don't have the info re VA's yield. My conclusion is also pretty much the same as yours: clearly there's something there, and I'd suggest that in the medium term NZ should keep NTL on its radar, and that it shouldn't be rejected out of hand as a possibility.

NZ6 wrote:

How many people paid positive yield fares WLG-MEL-WLG.

I understood this sector on it's own was wickedly unprofitable which was partially why they switched to MEL eventually although I recall that side of it being kept reasonably quiet.

I assume you meant WLG-CBR-WLG? Again, we just don't know. I suspect SQ did have trouble attracting pax at decent yields, even on WLG-MEL, as the last time I went to HBA I took a routing including SQ from AKL-WLG-MEL-HBA, sold by consolidators at the lowest price on the day. But my point here is that if WLG-CBR could support 2-3x A320 equivalents at low yields, then maybe AKL-CBR with the same frequency could work with higher yields and potentially be profitable.

Overall, I'm thinking of the grander strategy for NZ. It's operating in a Single Aviation Market with Australia, but is still very NZ-focused. Efforts at establishing a domestic operation in Australia have been and gone three times - once when the Australian government pulled the plug on an NZ-"own metal" proposal, then with Ansett, and latterly with Virgin. I can't see them trying this again in the near future, especially with the current level of competition there in the domestic market. Serving points to the west beyond Australia is not going to happen unless the current "no more one-stop services" policy is abandoned (though I confess I find the suggestion someone made a while back for a resumption of LHR services via PER to be intriguing, and more plausible than almost any other operation to Europe in my view). So that leaves serving Australian cities via NZ to points eastward - what I call the "Finnair strategy" (which has done remarkably well for that carrier, and has resulted in a plethora of secondary points being served both to the west and east of Helsinki).

Of course NZ's "home" market is only 30 million compared with Finnair's "home" market of several hundred million, so let's not imagine miracles. But a steady growth in destinations served in Australia (to at least 11, including CBR and NTL) and a corresponding growth over time in routes to North America (LAS, DEN and YYZ have been on NZ's radar before) - and possibly even to South America once it recovers from its present covid, economic and political crises (I'm not holding my breath for that) would position NZ's offering very comfortably in a competitive transpacific market where it competes with QF, AA, TN, FJ and DL. This is not a short-term strategy, but medium-term (five to ten years perhaps).

But if not that, what should NZ's strategy be? Conservatively maintain the status quo? I don't see that being a winner in a growing global market where point-to-point travel is becoming increasingly offered over hubbing: the use of AKL for both point-to-point and hubbing is a natural advantage that needs IMO to be grasped.

NZ516 wrote:

Kiwings wrote:

And we really don't know how much money the WLG council also paid to subsidise the service plus WLG airport would have also provided significant financial assistance - most likely in advertising and marketing support.
The problem with both CBR and NTL is that they will generally be once only visitors - unlike QNSLND where you know there are constant repeat visitors.

The CBR and NTL markets will be not just for Tourists. There will be a significant amount of VFR segment, sport teams plus business and Government traffic especially to CBR.

New proposals which could result in a massive hike in charges for all travellers entering New Zealand are extremely troubling and should not go ahead, Tourism Industry Aotearoa says.

The levy used to fund customs and biosecurity services is under review by the Customs Service and the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI).

Currently, the border processing levy is $20.11 for every air passenger and $21.96 for cruise passengers.

Customs and MPI are proposing a range of options from no change through to an increase that would see the levy jump to $160.76 per passenger, and $70.23 for cruise passengers from December 1.
...

NZ516 wrote:

The current Government does not want a return to mass tourism. So they are moving away from the backpackers .Only the higher tier travellers will be welcome back. And they will be able to afford the fee increases.

NZ516 wrote:

I didn't realize how steep the increase is. It will really put off most travellers if implemented. It might be introduced in a way to ease the Government's budget blow out. Also it is a delicate subject of the Taxpayer subsidizing international tourists it's not easy to answer.

NZ6 wrote:

I don't support or agree with the levi. But many European "backpackers" spend some considerable time here, months in many cases. $160NZD is around €94 Euro or thereabouts. Not a huge expense if you're spending 60-90 days in a country. Plan to buy a old beat up van and drive around for a month or two.

I don't think this is the end of the backpacker market .

Exorbitant fees like this will more likely be a deterrent to the short term middle class family groups.

NZ6 wrote:

I don't support or agree with the levi. But many European "backpackers" spend some considerable time here, months in many cases. $160NZD is around €94 Euro or thereabouts. Not a huge expense if you're spending 60-90 days in a country. Plan to buy a old beat up van and drive around for a month or two.

I don't think this is the end of the backpacker market .

Exorbitant fees like this will more likely be a deterrent to the short term middle class family groups.

a7ala wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

I don't support or agree with the levi. But many European "backpackers" spend some considerable time here, months in many cases. $160NZD is around €94 Euro or thereabouts. Not a huge expense if you're spending 60-90 days in a country. Plan to buy a old beat up van and drive around for a month or two.

I don't think this is the end of the backpacker market .

Exorbitant fees like this will more likely be a deterrent to the short term middle class family groups.

This is but one of many levies being talked about. Including the IVL increasing to $200/visitor and including Australian visitors (currently exempt) at $100. Add on to that some of the large airport increases particularly across the Tasman and you are potentially talking about $550 worth of taxes for a return NZ-OZ trip by an Australian visitor. And thats not even including any future climate requirements, or any increase in charges by overseas countries which will follow.

DavidByrne wrote:

The philosophical question is this: these charges are intended to meet real costs that are currently being absorbed by the taxpayer. Is it right or fair that we should subsidise foreign tourism - or perhaps it's beneficial that we should?

There is also the issue that as things stand (or stood, before the pandemic) NZ was at risk of becoming over-touristed. I already hear a lot of grumbling about the focus of many of our towns and cities having shifted away from locals' needs. We hear a lot also about the risks posed by drivers unfamiliar with our road rules or driving on the left.

On the other hand a reduction in tourist numbers and a refocusing on high value customers would devastate many smaller communities as the high-end tourists went elsewhere. No easy answers to any of this.

NZ516 wrote:

My friend told me that Air NZ has won a two year contract starting 30 August with the Australian Govt to operate 3 BNE and 3 SYD to Norfolk Island flights per week. That would be good to get that revenue back for sure

NZ6 wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

My friend told me that Air NZ has won a two year contract starting 30 August with the Australian Govt to operate 3 BNE and 3 SYD to Norfolk Island flights per week. That would be good to get that revenue back for sure

NZ has already confirmed this. It's not a secret

https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/press-r ... d-services

MillwallSean wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

I don't support or agree with the levi. But many European "backpackers" spend some considerable time here, months in many cases. $160NZD is around €94 Euro or thereabouts. Not a huge expense if you're spending 60-90 days in a country. Plan to buy a old beat up van and drive around for a month or two.

I don't think this is the end of the backpacker market .

Exorbitant fees like this will more likely be a deterrent to the short term middle class family groups.

The discussion is just crazy. we really think that customs and MPI should be paid more? They deliver nada for NZ as is.

For real. I am tired of subsidising some farmers in hillbillyville so they can grow apples, oranges and kiwis without competition from Australia.
My advise would be to cancel MPI completely. Maybe its because where i live in Auckland, but everyone and his mother have gotten tired of MPI and people bring sand, fruit, plants the lot, continuously, and have done so for ten years. Chillis from Asia grows in every second backyard, limau/kalimansi from Se Asia, mango from Aussie you name it, its everywhere on the shore. These clowns want higher fees to do what?

And also this idea that NZ will attract the crowds that visit St Moritz. NZ is great for a one time visit. Its not Nice, its not St Moritz and it never will be. We need to lower our fees so we attract every tourist. Aussies, chinese, backpackers, the few high end that may come etc. Seriously its not like the world is standing in a queue waiting to enter nz...
We should be happy for everyone willing to spend money here since our own economy minus migration and property is pretty dreadful for anyone reading the numbers.

zkncj wrote:

Pretty sure in the 2000s NZ still had an weekly 733 service that flew something like AKL-NAN-RAR-PPT and back.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Did NZ run the 733 as far as PPT? I certainly remember it as AKL-NAN-RAR, there was a 763 service in the late 90s early 00s that was AKL-NAN-RAR-PPT-LAX.

eta unknown wrote:

Are you sure about the NAN stop on the RAR-PPT-LAX flight? I thought they were two separate flights: AKL-NAN-RAR-PPT & AKL-RAR-PPT-LAX.

DavidByrne wrote:

I remember that for a period one of the RAR flights was routing LAX-RAR-NAN-AKL. There was also a HNL-RAR-AKL flight at one time.

aerorobnz wrote:

MillwallSean wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

I don't support or agree with the levi. But many European "backpackers" spend some considerable time here, months in many cases. $160NZD is around €94 Euro or thereabouts. Not a huge expense if you're spending 60-90 days in a country. Plan to buy a old beat up van and drive around for a month or two.

I don't think this is the end of the backpacker market .

Exorbitant fees like this will more likely be a deterrent to the short term middle class family groups.

The discussion is just crazy. we really think that customs and MPI should be paid more? They deliver nada for NZ as is.

For real. I am tired of subsidising some farmers in hillbillyville so they can grow apples, oranges and kiwis without competition from Australia.
My advise would be to cancel MPI completely. Maybe its because where i live in Auckland, but everyone and his mother have gotten tired of MPI and people bring sand, fruit, plants the lot, continuously, and have done so for ten years. Chillis from Asia grows in every second backyard, limau/kalimansi from Se Asia, mango from Aussie you name it, its everywhere on the shore. These clowns want higher fees to do what?

And also this idea that NZ will attract the crowds that visit St Moritz. NZ is great for a one time visit. Its not Nice, its not St Moritz and it never will be. We need to lower our fees so we attract every tourist. Aussies, chinese, backpackers, the few high end that may come etc. Seriously its not like the world is standing in a queue waiting to enter nz...
We should be happy for everyone willing to spend money here since our own economy minus migration and property is pretty dreadful for anyone reading the numbers.

Hear, Hear. It's fairly typical of the legacy brand countries who rely on past glories, good PR representation citing bogus industry awards like "most liveable city" and "100% green" etc, and arrogant assumptions to bring in tourism and charge more for less, rather than those who understand that tourism is a competitive enterprise with all nations of the world in one pool all competing for the same money. To get the money you have to actually compete for it, and that also means you have to build the required infrastructure to be able to compete(which needs private investment). As you say, the jet-set can go to private lodges in Africa, beaches in Seychelles, Holistic Spa resorts in Sri Lanka or Bali, Yachting in Greece, Cruising the Nile in Egypt, and much much more without the necessity to fly around the world or take more time off in order to get here. The investment for new tourism projects is heading to dynamic and business-friendly nations that require less capital investment, take less tax, and higher rewards as a result.

It's one thing to take freedom campers off the roads, and increase fines/imprisonment/deportation for those who get caught and those kinds of things which are sound, it's another thing entirely to blame tourists for your nation not building the required infrastructure to allow for tourist volume/sustainability. .

PA515 wrote:

In May - Nov 2000 the same pattern except NZ40 AKL-RAR-NAN and NZ43 NAN-RAR-AKL are a 733.

aerokiwi wrote:

Dud government wrapped up in a helluva lot of gooey bs.

zkncj wrote:

BNE-NLK, must be doing good currently on the temporary QF services to become 3x weekly. Pre-covid wasn’t NZ only doing it 2x weekly?

Looks like the flight pattern will now change with the new BNE crew base. Looks like it will route BNE-NLK-SYD-NLK-BNE etc.

I wonder if one of the remaining a320CEO from the International fleet, will get the honours of being BNE bassed.

PA515 wrote:

zkncj wrote:

BNE-NLK, must be doing good currently on the temporary QF services to become 3x weekly. Pre-covid wasn’t NZ only doing it 2x weekly?

Looks like the flight pattern will now change with the new BNE crew base. Looks like it will route BNE-NLK-SYD-NLK-BNE etc.

I wonder if one of the remaining a320CEO from the International fleet, will get the honours of being BNE bassed.

Yes, an extra BNE flight. Feb 2020 was Mo Fr Su SYD-NLK-SYD and Tu Sa BNE-NLK-BNE. Each week there was a different mix, usually two 320NEO and three 320ceo.

I expect NLK will be all 320NEO when Air NZ resumes at the end of Aug as they can more easily circulate the NEOs through SYD and BNE. ZK-NHE is due in Aug and ZK-NHF in Oct.

ZK-OJB is in CHC and could be next to leave the fleet. That would leave ZK-OJI and ZK-OJM as the only regional 320ceos.

Edit: Just checked the online booking system and they are all 320NEO, but there's a mistake in the Press Release. SYD-NLK and NLK-BNE should be Tu Fr Su (not Tu Fr Sa).

PA515

NZ516 wrote:

So with the NLK pattern changing to BNE NLK SYD NLK BNE. All the services use just 3 days of 320 flying which is more effective than a year ago when it used 5 days of 320 flying to serve the route. This frees up two days which would be of huge benefit. The old routing was like CHC BNE overnight then BNE NLK BNE overnight then BNE CHC etc SYD was similar to get the crews over with the 320 I imagine.

NZ516 wrote:

That would line up nicely so the incoming NEOs will replace the CEOs one for one. Then we would say a final farewell to the last around Oct when ZK NHF arrives.

Then the INT fleet will be up to 14 (7 320 neos 7 321 neos) while the domestic 17 (3 320 ceos 14 320 SLs). Another ATR will come which will allow a 320 to come off domestic and back to International flying. Plus with no 321s on the way currently been pushed back delivery a year

PA515 wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

So with the NLK pattern changing to BNE NLK SYD NLK BNE. All the services use just 3 days of 320 flying which is more effective than a year ago when it used 5 days of 320 flying to serve the route. This frees up two days which would be of huge benefit. The old routing was like CHC BNE overnight then BNE NLK BNE overnight then BNE CHC etc SYD was similar to get the crews over with the 320 I imagine.

It's six days.
Mo Th Sa BNE-NLK 1015/1330, NLK-SYD 1440/1630
Tu Fr Su SYD-NLK 0955/1335, NLK-BNE 1440/1605

There could be a morning and / or evening Trans Tasman to / from BNE and SYD.

NZ516 wrote:

That would line up nicely so the incoming NEOs will replace the CEOs one for one. Then we would say a final farewell to the last around Oct when ZK NHF arrives.

Then the INT fleet will be up to 14 (7 320 neos 7 321 neos) while the domestic 17 (3 320 ceos 14 320 SLs). Another ATR will come which will allow a 320 to come off domestic and back to International flying. Plus with no 321s on the way currently been pushed back delivery a year

The International fleet will be 13, 6 x 320NEOs (NHA-NHF) and 7 x 321NEOs (NNA-NNG).
The Domestic fleet will be 17, 4 x 320ceos (OAB, OJQ, OJR, OJS) and 13 x 320ceoSLs (OXA-OXM).

PA515

NZ516 wrote:

PA515 wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

So with the NLK pattern changing to BNE NLK SYD NLK BNE. All the services use just 3 days of 320 flying which is more effective than a year ago when it used 5 days of 320 flying to serve the route. This frees up two days which would be of huge benefit. The old routing was like CHC BNE overnight then BNE NLK BNE overnight then BNE CHC etc SYD was similar to get the crews over with the 320 I imagine.

It's six days.
Mo Th Sa BNE-NLK 1015/1330, NLK-SYD 1440/1630
Tu Fr Su SYD-NLK 0955/1335, NLK-BNE 1440/1605

There could be a morning and / or evening Trans Tasman to / from BNE and SYD.

NZ516 wrote:

That would line up nicely so the incoming NEOs will replace the CEOs one for one. Then we would say a final farewell to the last around Oct when ZK NHF arrives.

Then the INT fleet will be up to 14 (7 320 neos 7 321 neos) while the domestic 17 (3 320 ceos 14 320 SLs). Another ATR will come which will allow a 320 to come off domestic and back to International flying. Plus with no 321s on the way currently been pushed back delivery a year

The International fleet will be 13, 6 x 320NEOs (NHA-NHF) and 7 x 321NEOs (NNA-NNG).
The Domestic fleet will be 17, 4 x 320ceos (OAB, OJQ, OJR, OJS) and 13 x 320ceoSLs (OXA-OXM).

PA515

Thanks PA515 for the NLK schedule and fleet correction some how I thought we had 5 320 neos already.. The NLK flight leaves late still out of BNE so utilization isn't a priority it seems. As you say a Tasman flight from BNE could be possible on Wed.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

PA515 wrote:

It's six days.
Mo Th Sa BNE-NLK 1015/1330, NLK-SYD 1440/1630
Tu Fr Su SYD-NLK 0955/1335, NLK-BNE 1440/1605

There could be a morning and / or evening Trans Tasman to / from BNE and SYD.



The International fleet will be 13, 6 x 320NEOs (NHA-NHF) and 7 x 321NEOs (NNA-NNG).
The Domestic fleet will be 17, 4 x 320ceos (OAB, OJQ, OJR, OJS) and 13 x 320ceoSLs (OXA-OXM).

PA515

Thanks PA515 for the NLK schedule and fleet correction some how I thought we had 5 320 neos already.. The NLK flight leaves late still out of BNE so utilization isn't a priority it seems. As you say a Tasman flight from BNE could be possible on Wed.

PA515 means there could be a Tasman flight each more into SYD/BNE then NLK rotation before a Tasman service in the evening, when things are normal that would certainly be the case, probably not so much atm.

PA515 wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

So with the NLK pattern changing to BNE NLK SYD NLK BNE. All the services use just 3 days of 320 flying which is more effective than a year ago when it used 5 days of 320 flying to serve the route. This frees up two days which would be of huge benefit. The old routing was like CHC BNE overnight then BNE NLK BNE overnight then BNE CHC etc SYD was similar to get the crews over with the 320 I imagine.

It's six days.
Mo Th Sa BNE-NLK 1015/1330, NLK-SYD 1440/1630
Tu Fr Su SYD-NLK 0955/1335, NLK-BNE 1440/1605

There could be a morning and / or evening Trans Tasman to / from BNE and SYD.

NZ516 wrote:

That would line up nicely so the incoming NEOs will replace the CEOs one for one. Then we would say a final farewell to the last around Oct when ZK NHF arrives.

Then the INT fleet will be up to 14 (7 320 neos 7 321 neos) while the domestic 17 (3 320 ceos 14 320 SLs). Another ATR will come which will allow a 320 to come off domestic and back to International flying. Plus with no 321s on the way currently been pushed back delivery a year

The International fleet will be 13, 6 x 320NEOs (NHA-NHF) and 7 x 321NEOs (NNA-NNG).
The Domestic fleet will be 17, 4 x 320ceos (OAB, OJQ, OJR, OJS) and 13 x 320ceoSLs (OXA-OXM).

PA515

77west wrote:

PA515 wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

So with the NLK pattern changing to BNE NLK SYD NLK BNE. All the services use just 3 days of 320 flying which is more effective than a year ago when it used 5 days of 320 flying to serve the route. This frees up two days which would be of huge benefit. The old routing was like CHC BNE overnight then BNE NLK BNE overnight then BNE CHC etc SYD was similar to get the crews over with the 320 I imagine.

It's six days.
Mo Th Sa BNE-NLK 1015/1330, NLK-SYD 1440/1630
Tu Fr Su SYD-NLK 0955/1335, NLK-BNE 1440/1605

There could be a morning and / or evening Trans Tasman to / from BNE and SYD.

NZ516 wrote:

That would line up nicely so the incoming NEOs will replace the CEOs one for one. Then we would say a final farewell to the last around Oct when ZK NHF arrives.

Then the INT fleet will be up to 14 (7 320 neos 7 321 neos) while the domestic 17 (3 320 ceos 14 320 SLs). Another ATR will come which will allow a 320 to come off domestic and back to International flying. Plus with no 321s on the way currently been pushed back delivery a year

The International fleet will be 13, 6 x 320NEOs (NHA-NHF) and 7 x 321NEOs (NNA-NNG).
The Domestic fleet will be 17, 4 x 320ceos (OAB, OJQ, OJR, OJS) and 13 x 320ceoSLs (OXA-OXM).

PA515

I notice the A321 seems to be doing lots of domestic flying, would this be intentional or due to positioning flights to do intl sectors?

77west wrote:

I notice the A321 seems to be doing lots of domestic flying, would this be intentional or due to positioning flights to do intl sectors?

aerorobnz wrote:

77west wrote:

I notice the A321 seems to be doing lots of domestic flying, would this be intentional or due to positioning flights to do intl sectors?

A combination of things including maintenance on domestic fleet but mostly just best aircraft utilising They use A321s as scheduled peaks, disrupt recovery and also just as gap fillers to allow for an A320 MIQ rotation. Lately, the A321s have been getting more of a workout because of unscheduled maintenance and south island weather with fog and icing across all the southern jet ports causing delays, cancellations lots of disrupted passengers.
With the MEL bubble burst, the spare availability was the aircraft that should have operated the evening A321 to MEL and back the next day

77west wrote:

I wonder if they have been filling them well we might see the A321 domestic order brought forward somewhat. When's it due for first delivery now? 2023?

aerorobnz wrote:

77west wrote:

I wonder if they have been filling them well we might see the A321 domestic order brought forward somewhat. When's it due for first delivery now? 2023?

If they can shift slots maybe, but I don't think so. For the most part, fleet flexibility is more important in this fluctuating and unpredictable demand
Better to sub the intl aircraft through than have these domestic specs versions that can't do anything else, I think 2023 is a good time for them, the world should have corrected by then, pending any further interventions around the world to restrict free movement and commercial aviation.

PA515 wrote:

aerorobnz wrote:

77west wrote:

I wonder if they have been filling them well we might see the A321 domestic order brought forward somewhat. When's it due for first delivery now? 2023?

If they can shift slots maybe, but I don't think so. For the most part, fleet flexibility is more important in this fluctuating and unpredictable demand
Better to sub the intl aircraft through than have these domestic specs versions that can't do anything else, I think 2023 is a good time for them, the world should have corrected by then, pending any further interventions around the world to restrict free movement and commercial aviation.

The first Domestic 321NEO delivery is only a year from now. The first five were deferred. That last two can be deferred with a decision window of Jul to Nov 2022.
# 1 --- Jun 2022
# 2 --- Jul-Sep 2022
# 3 --- Jul-Sep 2022
# 4 --- Apr-Jun 2023
# 5 --- Nov 2023
# 6 --- Jul 2023 - Jun 2024
# 7 --- Jul 2023 - Jun 2024

https://p-airnz.com/cms/assets/PDFs/air ... tation.pdf (Slide 19 and Slide 20)

https://p-airnz.com/cms/assets/PDFs/air ... esults.pdf (22. Commitments, bottom of page 33)

PA515

NZ321 wrote:

When you say "first domestic" that implies that the current config is international only. Can you confirm this? Is it possible, in fact, the the new "domestic" config will be literally, identical to the A321 aircraft currently flying a mix of domestic and international? What differences do we expect on the "domestic" aircraft? Or is it more a case of "place holders" for aircraft which will operate domestic?

NZ321 wrote:

For an airline the size of NZ, I'm not sure I understand enough about the pros & cons of operating two sub-fleets of a type like this in the numbers they have on order; specifically the line between the need for differentiation on the one hand, and the need for simplicity & flexibility on the other, when it comes to these things over important but relatively short haul flights. Would love to understand this better but anyhow I suspect that fleet flexibility for A321, given there is no substantial onboard config difference, could be helpful to the flexibility to adjust capacity according to demand for seasonal routes to Pacific islands, Queensland, etc... nimble & adaptable!

77west wrote:

That's what I was thinking as well, are the weight savings enough to offset the reduced flexibility? What would it be, maybe 1500kg?

Unless of course NZ ever considered a small Business cabin on the Intl A321 fleet to compete with QF J product on its 737's (and A330 which seem to be over here quite often these days)