Kiwiandrew wrote:

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)

I believe they considered it, and rejected it.

From memory, I recall hearing that back in the day when they had an 8 seat business cabin on the original international A320 fleet, they averaged 1 paid J passenger per flight on Tassie routes to/from WLG/CHC When they did the sums, it made more sense to rip out those seats and replace them with a product they could actually sell.

True, I suppose the 787's provide enough J tasman capacity for those who really want it. Does anyone know the weight difference between the intl and domestic config?

PA515 wrote:

Found a post by 'Zkpilot' 03 Sep 2019 talking about the difference between the regional 320ceos and the domestic 320ceos. The domestic 320s have smaller galleys, no life rafts, no IFE, one less lavatory, less bulkheads and no HF radio. The weight saving enables the aircraft to get to cruising altitude quicker, and there are three extra seats. Haven't seen anything about the domestic fleet getting Wifi, probably unnecessary.

PA515

I'd be rather dissappointed if the domestic fleet didn't have wifi, they've said previously their aim was to have wifi on all jets

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!

You have to really consider the NEO international fleet as one…. 320/321 are interchangeable for the most part so the size of that fleet increases well above critical mass. Same applies for the domestic fleet. Furthermore, in terms of maintenance and training etc you can combine them all so there really isn’t much lost by having different configurations (and plenty to gain from doing so). The international fleet will always have a bit of spare capacity compared to the domestic fleet since the international aircraft can of course operate domestically.

Having only a single configuration of A321s is only an advantage in the rare, or extremly rare, situation when the available international A321s are over committed.
But the cost is the loss of three saleable seats on domestic flights, the costs of fuelling unnecessary weight on domestic flights, and the additional costs of inspecting and servicing un needed equipment, the LR radios and life rafts.

A220 question - I know this has been discussed before. Would a fleet of both A222 and A223 be a possibility in the future? Think about it - A222 could be used to increase frequency on thicker regional routes, possibly opening new ones (HLZ-ZQN? TRG-ZQN? NSN-ZQN? - as a thinking point) and A223 could also increase frequency and open new trunk domestic routes, but both frames could also be used to open up some thinner tasman / island routes and also increase frequency on existing.

77west wrote:

A220 question - I know this has been discussed before. Would a fleet of both A222 and A223 be a possibility in the future? Think about it - A222 could be used to increase frequency on thicker regional routes, possibly opening new ones (HLZ-ZQN? TRG-ZQN? NSN-ZQN? - as a thinking point) and A223 could also increase frequency and open new trunk domestic routes, but both frames could also be used to open up some thinner tasman / island routes and also increase frequency on existing.

Even though my comments my not reflect this - I would love nothing more than regional jets.

The topic is coupled by the huge gap in the equipment NZ has at it's disposal. Here's some questions and thoughts.

• What is or Is there an issue that needs to be solved?
• If so, Is that issue because the ATR can't fly certain routes or does it not offer the capacity? Personally I can't think of a route that fits into either category.
• What's the long term strategy with domestic and regional flying?
• What airfields would they be used at and what impacts does this have? controlled towers, aprons, baggage belts/equipment, AVSEC etc.
• Does the market prefer schedule and frequency or direct?
• Does it save money or generate more revenue?
• How many aircraft would you need? and how many would you need to make an investment worth while? -do these numbers align?

The -600's are new and will be around for some time. The Q300 and the electric future will likely be known before they're replaced. I don't believe there's anything larger than the ATR72-600 in the passenger turboprop market currently? So while more could be ordered there's no sign of a new sub-fleet of larger turbo-prop aircraft.

So if we look at where such and aircraft could be used and as I mentioned earlier in the month. The options are limited, even more so it you don't pull other flights.

For example, if you opened HLZ-ZQN, does that then remove the need for a HLZ-CHC for example? Could HLZ-CHC work, but would the market react better for 6x ATR vs 3x A220. How could the airline grow that sector into a morning peak A320 with off peak ATR's? how achievable is that vs a costly investment into a sub fleet?

HLZ's tricky because of AKL, what happens when NZ starts to use 787's AKL-CHC and floods capacity there. How much of HLZ is sucked into AKL.

HLZ would be one of the more promising sectors, NPE, NPL, PMR, ROT are much more limited in their potential. DUD/IVC are more of a A320 candidate.

The final scenario is the likes of AKL-PMR, IVC-CHC which already has a reasonably high frequency. You could potentially keep this schedule while adding larger aircraft in but how does the cost compare over such a short sector? The ATR's are cheap to run. Again, if you're left with a limit scope for a A220, does it move this into the grow camp where NZ just adds more and more flights until it condenses peak flights to a A320?

Another factor is CX - many say the jet experience is better. But with the jet experience, comes larger passenger numbers and therefore in some cases overcrowding in lounges etc. A small factor but while you get a tick in the good column, you get one in the bad also.

My summary is, NZ could still grow frequency via the ATR on many routes and move the masses via the trunks using the 787 where needed. Some key markets could be joined directly if balanced with other network requirements.

777-300ER. Some of you may have seen a re-entry date for the first 77W's posted elsewhere. I mentioned a month or two back this work was underway and I can't wait to see these birds flying again.

All I'll say is don't count on those dates just yet. It's very unlikely to be that soon but it will hopefully be soon after if it's not.

There was a "calculated" prediction that by around September NZ would be in a position to have at least one long-haul international travel window open and it's a lot more complex than getting the keys out of the lockbox on day one and heading off so they'll be used on the Tasman for a bit first.

I'll still say, we'll have some international passengers crossing the border before XMAS. It's wont be open like pre-COVID of course but it won't be completely closed as it is today.

NZ6 wrote:

777-300ER. Some of you may have seen a re-entry date for the first 77W's posted elsewhere. I mentioned a month or two back this work was underway and I can't wait to see these birds flying again.

All I'll say is don't count on those dates just yet. It's very unlikely to be that soon but it will hopefully be soon after if it's not.

Thank you. I saw that information elsewhere, and was pleasantly surprised (if more than a wee bit sceptical). I hope it turns out to not be too far off reality. It would be a sign of huge progress if/when the reintroduction of 3 ( that was the number I saw) 77W becomes warranted. I look forward to eventual updates on this as the situation becomes clearer.

Kiwiandrew wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

777-300ER. Some of you may have seen a re-entry date for the first 77W's posted elsewhere. I mentioned a month or two back this work was underway and I can't wait to see these birds flying again.

All I'll say is don't count on those dates just yet. It's very unlikely to be that soon but it will hopefully be soon after if it's not.

Thank you. I saw that information elsewhere, and was pleasantly surprised (if more than a wee bit sceptical). I hope it turns out to not be too far off reality. It would be a sign of huge progress if/when the reintroduction of 3 ( that was the number I saw) 77W becomes warranted. I look forward to eventual updates on this as the situation becomes clearer.

I noticed OKQ was back at the engineering base on Sunday when I went past, with what looked like something going on around her.

Toenga wrote:

Having only a single configuration of A321s is only an advantage in the rare, or extremly rare, situation when the available international A321s are over committed.
But the cost is the loss of three saleable seats on domestic flights, the costs of fuelling unnecessary weight on domestic flights, and the additional costs of inspecting and servicing un needed equipment, the LR radios and life rafts.

Really appreciate the insight on the fleet specifics. So a domestic version 321 is most certain, it could be around a 220 seater too. Being lighter than the International version will mean lower landing fees at airports. I think I read somewhere that the old INT 320 CEO was 3 tonnes heavier than the DOM 320. Plus the size of both fleets will be large enough to have economy of scale in the long one.

NZ6 wrote:

77west wrote:

A220 question - I know this has been discussed before. Would a fleet of both A222 and A223 be a possibility in the future? Think about it - A222 could be used to increase frequency on thicker regional routes, possibly opening new ones (HLZ-ZQN? TRG-ZQN? NSN-ZQN? - as a thinking point) and A223 could also increase frequency and open new trunk domestic routes, but both frames could also be used to open up some thinner tasman / island routes and also increase frequency on existing.

Even though my comments my not reflect this - I would love nothing more than regional jets.

The topic is coupled by the huge gap in the equipment NZ has at it's disposal. Here's some questions and thoughts.

• What is or Is there an issue that needs to be solved?
• If so, Is that issue because the ATR can't fly certain routes or does it not offer the capacity? Personally I can't think of a route that fits into either category.
• What's the long term strategy with domestic and regional flying?
• What airfields would they be used at and what impacts does this have? controlled towers, aprons, baggage belts/equipment, AVSEC etc.
• Does the market prefer schedule and frequency or direct?
• Does it save money or generate more revenue?
• How many aircraft would you need? and how many would you need to make an investment worth while? -do these numbers align?

The -600's are new and will be around for some time. The Q300 and the electric future will likely be known before they're replaced. I don't believe there's anything larger than the ATR72-600 in the passenger turboprop market currently? So while more could be ordered there's no sign of a new sub-fleet of larger turbo-prop aircraft.

So if we look at where such and aircraft could be used and as I mentioned earlier in the month. The options are limited, even more so it you don't pull other flights.

For example, if you opened HLZ-ZQN, does that then remove the need for a HLZ-CHC for example? Could HLZ-CHC work, but would the market react better for 6x ATR vs 3x A220. How could the airline grow that sector into a morning peak A320 with off peak ATR's? how achievable is that vs a costly investment into a sub fleet?

HLZ's tricky because of AKL, what happens when NZ starts to use 787's AKL-CHC and floods capacity there. How much of HLZ is sucked into AKL.

HLZ would be one of the more promising sectors, NPE, NPL, PMR, ROT are much more limited in their potential. DUD/IVC are more of a A320 candidate.

The final scenario is the likes of AKL-PMR, IVC-CHC which already has a reasonably high frequency. You could potentially keep this schedule while adding larger aircraft in but how does the cost compare over such a short sector? The ATR's are cheap to run. Again, if you're left with a limit scope for a A220, does it move this into the grow camp where NZ just adds more and more flights until it condenses peak flights to a A320?

Another factor is CX - many say the jet experience is better. But with the jet experience, comes larger passenger numbers and therefore in some cases overcrowding in lounges etc. A small factor but while you get a tick in the good column, you get one in the bad also.

My summary is, NZ could still grow frequency via the ATR on many routes and move the masses via the trunks using the 787 where needed. Some key markets could be joined directly if balanced with other network requirements.

Well, if you think, Dunedin is an airport that would significantly benefit from any A220s on the WLG and AKL routes, which are currently only 3-4 daily, and could be increased to 5 daily each on the smaller A220. Internationally, the typical loads on the VA BNE flights would be perfect to fill an A220 3-4, maybe 5 times per week while the 180 seat 737 was a little too big, with typical loads being 90-120 outside peak times. Sydney could also sustain 2-4 flights a week based on the historical flights and demand, particularly on the smaller aircraft. Just on Dunedin routes, you could commit 3 aircraft.

When you add on all the other ports, theres potential for a decent size fleet, to replace the OX series A320, and add international capacity on thinner routes.

77west wrote:

Kiwiandrew wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

777-300ER. Some of you may have seen a re-entry date for the first 77W's posted elsewhere. I mentioned a month or two back this work was underway and I can't wait to see these birds flying again.

All I'll say is don't count on those dates just yet. It's very unlikely to be that soon but it will hopefully be soon after if it's not.

Thank you. I saw that information elsewhere, and was pleasantly surprised (if more than a wee bit sceptical). I hope it turns out to not be too far off reality. It would be a sign of huge progress if/when the reintroduction of 3 ( that was the number I saw) 77W becomes warranted. I look forward to eventual updates on this as the situation becomes clearer.

I noticed OKQ was back at the engineering base on Sunday when I went past, with what looked like something going on around her.

Yeah OKQ move early June, since mid 2020 OKQ had spent most of its time reseting on an closed taxiway between International and Domestic.

ZK-NBT wrote:

LamboAston wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Even though my comments my not reflect this - I would love nothing more than regional jets.

The topic is coupled by the huge gap in the equipment NZ has at it's disposal. Here's some questions and thoughts.

• What is or Is there an issue that needs to be solved?
• If so, Is that issue because the ATR can't fly certain routes or does it not offer the capacity? Personally I can't think of a route that fits into either category.
• What's the long term strategy with domestic and regional flying?
• What airfields would they be used at and what impacts does this have? controlled towers, aprons, baggage belts/equipment, AVSEC etc.
• Does the market prefer schedule and frequency or direct?
• Does it save money or generate more revenue?
• How many aircraft would you need? and how many would you need to make an investment worth while? -do these numbers align?

The -600's are new and will be around for some time. The Q300 and the electric future will likely be known before they're replaced. I don't believe there's anything larger than the ATR72-600 in the passenger turboprop market currently? So while more could be ordered there's no sign of a new sub-fleet of larger turbo-prop aircraft.

So if we look at where such and aircraft could be used and as I mentioned earlier in the month. The options are limited, even more so it you don't pull other flights.

For example, if you opened HLZ-ZQN, does that then remove the need for a HLZ-CHC for example? Could HLZ-CHC work, but would the market react better for 6x ATR vs 3x A220. How could the airline grow that sector into a morning peak A320 with off peak ATR's? how achievable is that vs a costly investment into a sub fleet?

HLZ's tricky because of AKL, what happens when NZ starts to use 787's AKL-CHC and floods capacity there. How much of HLZ is sucked into AKL.

HLZ would be one of the more promising sectors, NPE, NPL, PMR, ROT are much more limited in their potential. DUD/IVC are more of a A320 candidate.

The final scenario is the likes of AKL-PMR, IVC-CHC which already has a reasonably high frequency. You could potentially keep this schedule while adding larger aircraft in but how does the cost compare over such a short sector? The ATR's are cheap to run. Again, if you're left with a limit scope for a A220, does it move this into the grow camp where NZ just adds more and more flights until it condenses peak flights to a A320?

Another factor is CX - many say the jet experience is better. But with the jet experience, comes larger passenger numbers and therefore in some cases overcrowding in lounges etc. A small factor but while you get a tick in the good column, you get one in the bad also.

My summary is, NZ could still grow frequency via the ATR on many routes and move the masses via the trunks using the 787 where needed. Some key markets could be joined directly if balanced with other network requirements.

Well, if you think, Dunedin is an airport that would significantly benefit from any A220s on the WLG and AKL routes, which are currently only 3-4 daily, and could be increased to 5 daily each on the smaller A220. Internationally, the typical loads on the VA BNE flights would be perfect to fill an A220 3-4, maybe 5 times per week while the 180 seat 737 was a little too big, with typical loads being 90-120 outside peak times. Sydney could also sustain 2-4 flights a week based on the historical flights and demand, particularly on the smaller aircraft. Just on Dunedin routes, you could commit 3 aircraft.

When you add on all the other ports, theres potential for a decent size fleet, to replace the OX series A320, and add international capacity on thinner routes.

How much frequency does DUD need? It was like 1 daily AKL-DUD only 15ish years ago on a 733, if growth continues it could be 4-5 daily A320s within a few years. There was I think atleast 1 daily AKL-WLG-DUD through flight aswell possibly 2.

You are right in that as a replacement it could be considered in 7-8 years for the OX series domestic A320s but also it is a new type and certainly now is a different type to the A320/321, it would have to eventually have the same type rating to be a serious consideration. A new type would have to be atleast 15 aircraft IMO in that size.

The thing is though NZ is all about economics of scale, fewer types plays a big roll in that. Less pilots, sims, maintenance all the costs included.

If the OX were replaced one for one, with no growth, that's 13 aircraft. Add on some domestic growth and some for international, and you could easily see a fleet of 20+

If they opened a HLZ ZQN route for example it would not take away demand from HLZ CHC route causing it to be dropped. HLZ to ZQN will facilitate new demand most likely. The demand for HLZ CHC continues to grow year by year. It will always be served its often sold out!

Ok I understand. As an example if HLZ ZQN was started daily then the HLZ CHC might drop a daily flight to 4 per day. I think HLZ ZQN non stop would create new demand so would require it's own service. Plus it would free up seats on the HLZ CHC allow that to grow as well.

Another possibility for a Regional jet is the AKL NSN route which is sometimes 12 turboprops a day. Plus in the summer peak I have seen it at 14 per day.
The big problem I know is of course the short runway at NSN just 1347m. Not likely to ever be extended as well. But the demand is strong already for at least 8 flights per day using a 100 seater RJ .

NZ516 wrote:

Another possibility for a Regional jet is the AKL NSN route which is sometimes 12 turboprops a day. Plus in the summer peak I have seen it at 14 per day.
The big problem I know is of course the short runway at NSN just 1347m. Not likely to ever be extended as well. But the demand is strong already for at least 8 flights per day using a 100 seater RJ .

Could an A320 operate NSN?

LamboAston wrote:

Well, if you think, Dunedin is an airport that would significantly benefit from any A220s on the WLG and AKL routes, which are currently only 3-4 daily, and could be increased to 5 daily each on the smaller A220. Internationally, the typical loads on the VA BNE flights would be perfect to fill an A220 3-4, maybe 5 times per week while the 180 seat 737 was a little too big, with typical loads being 90-120 outside peak times. Sydney could also sustain 2-4 flights a week based on the historical flights and demand, particularly on the smaller aircraft. Just on Dunedin routes, you could commit 3 aircraft.

When you add on all the other ports, theres potential for a decent size fleet, to replace the OX series A320, and add international capacity on thinner routes.

I hear what you're saying re DUD. Split ASM over more services on smaller aircraft. Therefore improving frequency which I've said is key.

Let's assume you'd opt for the E190-E2 which are list price $60m (+/-). How many are you getting? Let's say it's 4 and you're purchase offer was $200m USD. Factor in many other associated costs such as tech ops, parts, mx training even line MX across the network. Tech training and just tech numbers. For the fleet of 4 you're probably looking at 20 odd pilots with lower hours each but a need to redundancy in the pool..

Once you have an idea on the complete package cost. Sit in front of the CEO & Board and convince them this is what the airline needs to grow the market and grow revenue and how that investment will return profit.

Quickly we can see DUD-WLG/AKL are both served direct with several A320's and both via CHC on the regular ATR runs. So frequency is already there. Could the airline instead gradually look to increase the number of A320 services and they grow the market. How does this compare over the next 25 or so years (between now and the future end of life date for any E190's).

I guess what I'm saying is there's two proposition's here.
1) 5+ A220 services daily with ATR's via CHC
2) 3-4 A320 coupled with 8x ATR via CHC

When I write that and re-read what you've suggested, 3-4 moving to 5 daily. Would such an investment be worth the extra additional service?

With regard to thin international routes, that's fought with danger. Thin typically equals low demand and low yield. It's going to take you a long to time to pay off that investment and the other thing 'thin' represents is volatile and risk. So the likes of your DUD-BNE may be an option looking at previous passenger numbers but if they're all on K/G class fares it's going to take a long time to pay off your investment and if the market weakens where/how do you redeploy your equipment. If something is seasonal, do you have an option for off-season.

Worth putting on the table too - you can make them interchangeable Tasman/Domestic but you'll be carrying a heap of extra weight on all Domestic flights which is why some NZ's A320's are restricted to domestic only. With that in mind you make domestic more expensive, don't use them on international or your small fleet has become two very small fleets.

Like I've said. I'd love regional jets. I really would. They look sexy and would make a great addition to some of our smaller airports. But in my mind.

1) We're too geographically small.
2) Our domestic airports dramatically drop in size. AKL/WLG/CHC/ZQN to HLZ/DUD etc to NPL/ROT/NPE/NSN/PMR etc
3) Our main centers are split nicely geographically. Top middle bottom (AKL - WLG - CHC) which is a natural advantage.
4) Our main centers are very well connected.
5) Our regionals are well connected to the main centers.
6) Some regional centers are connected together with 1-2 daily.

To save several hundred million dollar investments and on-going costs could the airline continue doing what it is. Even if more ATR's were acquired?

NZ6 wrote:

[*]What's the long term strategy with domestic and regional flying?

I've put some more thought into my own question from yesterday and if I was the CEO.

Truthfully, the COVID tail will be around for up to the next 5 years. So while the domestic market is doing very well in comparison to pre-COVID we probably won't see any significant growth for a while. There's also huge debit and no cash reserves left.

Given the lay of the land in NZ, main centers evenly spaced out with small regional centers which are growing slowly. I wouldn't be spending hundreds of millions to achieve the same thing I can today. Unless it opened new revenue or new markets. Which I can't see it doing.

Looking forward, I'd be exploring what larger regional turbo-props are out there - the answer will likely be nothing new until the next generation of propulsion is known.

I'd be working closely with the like of ATR (which NZ is), Bombardier & Embraer and I'd be very much first in line as a launch customer and pushing for a '-92' sized option or 'XWB' variant with the intent/buying power to also replace the Q300's towards 2030 in the same order.

Air NZ is very generously giving $1000 worth of shares to it's staff. Also in this story they plan to delay the delivery of the next 787 another year to 2024.
https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/industri ... app-iPhone

77west wrote:

Could an A320 operate NSN?

Can't see it taking off out of NSN. The runway needed is 2100m at MTOW and 1500m for landing. But some might have other data. Source from wiki:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_ ... ifications

NZ516 wrote:

77west wrote:

Could an A320 operate NSN?

Can't see it taking off out of NSN. The runway needed is 2100m at MTOW and 1500m for landing. But some might have other data. Source from wiki:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_ ... ifications

Looking at the A320CEO-IAE chart from Airbus, it looks like an absolute lower runway limit of 4,000ft as thats where the chart begins. Looks like it would be limited to 59t. With a maximum zero fuel weight of 63t it would not work, but at ZFW of say 55t it would allow 4,000kg fuel which I would think would be enough for NSN-AKL with reserves. 180pax and bags would be around 19t and with an empty weight of 43t (so 62t ZFW) you will be leaving people behind I think. Ask them to make an ATR92

NZ516 wrote:

Air NZ is very generously giving $1000 worth of shares to it's staff. Also in this story they plan to delay the delivery of the next 787 another year to 2024.
https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/industri ... app-iPhone

A good thing to do. Even if I think traded companies should be doing stuff like that by default. It's still good to see.

77west wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

77west wrote:

Could an A320 operate NSN?

Can't see it taking off out of NSN. The runway needed is 2100m at MTOW and 1500m for landing. But some might have other data. Source from wiki:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_ ... ifications

Looking at the A320CEO-IAE chart from Airbus, it looks like an absolute lower runway limit of 4,000ft as thats where the chart begins. Looks like it would be limited to 59t. With a maximum zero fuel weight of 63t it would not work, but at ZFW of say 55t it would allow 4,000kg fuel which I would think would be enough for NSN-AKL with reserves. 180pax and bags would be around 19t and with an empty weight of 43t (so 62t ZFW) you will be leaving people behind I think. Ask them to make an ATR92

However the E190 can serve Nelson runway well. As from the performance info from Embraer. At full pax for a 500NM flight it only needs 1267m and landing is less 1144m. NSN to AKL is about 260 NM so would handle that sector with ease.

https://www.embraercommercialaviation.c ... jets/e190/

I am not sure if this news has been announced on this forum as yet, but Air New Zealand has delayed delivery of their first 787-10s from FY2023 to FY2024

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... very-delay

77west wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Another possibility for a Regional jet is the AKL NSN route which is sometimes 12 turboprops a day. Plus in the summer peak I have seen it at 14 per day.
The big problem I know is of course the short runway at NSN just 1347m. Not likely to ever be extended as well. But the demand is strong already for at least 8 flights per day using a 100 seater RJ .

Could an A320 operate NSN?

No. I know of someone previously who had a 100ish pax charter WLG-NSN, they said they couldn't operate A320 in, so it was two ATR if I remember correctly

aschachter wrote:

I am not sure if this news has been announced on this forum as yet, but Air New Zealand has delayed delivery of their first 787-10s from FY2023 to FY2024

The announcement does not specify which type the deferred aircraft will be. The first GE 787-10 for FY2023 delivery was converted to a 787-9 last year, so probably still a 787-9.

...... the airline has recently renegotiated the delivery date of the first of eight new Boeing 787 Dreamliners .....

PA515

ZK-NBT wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

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!

You have to really consider the NEO international fleet as one…. 320/321 are interchangeable for the most part so the size of that fleet increases well above critical mass. Same applies for the domestic fleet. Furthermore, in terms of maintenance and training etc you can combine them all so there really isn’t much lost by having different configurations (and plenty to gain from doing so). The international fleet will always have a bit of spare capacity compared to the domestic fleet since the international aircraft can of course operate domestically.

I agree with that, international fleet does domestic when required and available, or really sure you gain that much by having a fully international and domestic fleet integrated. While there would be some pros no doubt, domestic should always generally be strong so having its own dedicated fleet works well, international short haul they can move aircraft around and put a wide body on a route to free up A320/321 capacity.

Not sure how many exits the NZ fleet have, the A321 can seat up to 240 though.

NZ only have 1 over wing exit activated (on each side), but the other exit is still there and can be activated relatively easily. Only needed in budget airline type configuration though.

With the deferment of the 787-10s, you can see why NZ is doing prep work on getting the 77W fleet back flying. There is a slight ray of light for the 77E fleet but highly unlikely and it would take a rapid return of traffic for NZ to even consider it. The 77W however have a lot of life left in them and haul a lot of freight.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Air NZ is very generously giving $1000 worth of shares to it's staff. Also in this story they plan to delay the delivery of the next 787 another year to 2024.
https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/industri ... app-iPhone

A good thing to do. Even if I think traded companies should be doing stuff like that by default. It's still good to see.

The only question I have and a few others have asked is they are using taxpayers money to fund the shares for their staff. If the airline was profitable at this point in time there would not be an issue with rewarding staff. So in normal circumstances it is good to reward staff I agree.

Zkpilot wrote:

With the deferment of the 787-10s, you can see why NZ is doing prep work on getting the 77W fleet back flying. There is a slight ray of light for the 77E fleet but highly unlikely and it would take a rapid return of traffic for NZ to even consider it. The 77W however have a lot of life left in them and haul a lot of freight.

Yes, as soon as the delay in the delivery of the 787s was announced, the reactivation of the 77Ws made a lot of sense.

If you analyse the schedule that NZ proposes to run this summer, you can see that there is almost no slack in the 789 fleet, with only 14 aircraft. Almost all routes (except CHC-PER) are theoretically back, and there really aren’t enough aircraft to easily add that route. Whether this level of activity will actually happen in practice is of course another matter altogether, but it does show an intention to restore the network quickly, albeit at lower frequencies.

NZ516 wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Air NZ is very generously giving $1000 worth of shares to it's staff. Also in this story they plan to delay the delivery of the next 787 another year to 2024.
https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/industri ... app-iPhone

A good thing to do. Even if I think traded companies should be doing stuff like that by default. It's still good to see.

The only question I have and a few others have asked is they are using taxpayers money to fund the shares for their staff. If the airline was profitable at this point in time there would not be an issue with rewarding staff. So in normal circumstances it is good to reward staff I agree.

They aren’t using taxpayers money, they are borrowing money at commercial rates from the government…. In other words the government is making money off them. What they do with that money for the most part is up to them. Considering the anxiety and strain the past year or so has been with people worried about their jobs etc I don’t have a problem at all with this. In fact I applaud them for doing so and really more NZ companies should be doing this! When you make employees a financial stakeholder in a company they become more engaged, more productive and the outcomes for the company are better (as well as the financial situation of the employees and consequently the overall economy).

NZ516 wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Air NZ is very generously giving $1000 worth of shares to it's staff. Also in this story they plan to delay the delivery of the next 787 another year to 2024.
https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/industri ... app-iPhone

A good thing to do. Even if I think traded companies should be doing stuff like that by default. It's still good to see.

The only question I have and a few others have asked is they are using taxpayers money to fund the shares for their staff. If the airline was profitable at this point in time there would not be an issue with rewarding staff. So in normal circumstances it is good to reward staff I agree.

Hmmm I'll quote NZ here

The airline has had positive EBITDA since September 2020 and has been operating cash flow positive since the second quarter of the 2021 financial year

So while the airline could be using part of the loan for this (which they will be required to repay), they aren't just spending government cash like you imply they are.

Secondly while the full year figures will still be negative. I bet you didn't realize the above which has come at the cost of many thousand employees.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Is this something NZ have said? What is the schedule we are analysing?

I just looked at the forward schedules on one of the sites (FlightLookup) that still contains these. My experience is that they are not always up-to-date, but I nevertheless assume that at some point recently the summer schedule I referred to was what NZ was proposing. Given the nature of the pandemic, it should be taken only as a guide as to their intentions at that particular point in time (it was several weeks ago that I looked it up).

https://i.stuff.co.nz/travel/125497621/ ... ermanently

Mike Pero pulls his plans for new airline. I think it would be easier for him to just charter a AIR NZ 320 to test the market for CHC & WLG to RAR.

NZ516 wrote:

https://i.stuff.co.nz/travel/125497621/mike-pero-pulls-plug-on-planned-pasifika-air-permanently

Mike Pero pulls his plans for new airline. I think it would be easier for him to just charter a AIR NZ 320 to test the market for CHC & WLG to RAR.

Hopefully he's learnt how difficult is it to run and airline. Hopefully he'll now show VA. NZ & QF the respect they deserve. He's known for being very difficult and critical towards airlines.

Out of interest, are you the old planemanofnz?

The schedules are very much written in pencil right now, I would not expect half of what they currently have 'scheduled'. For example, I do not expect that ORD/SFO/YVR will feature any time soon for passenger operations, and there are plenty more that might make a very low frequency appearance below the scheduled frequency. There is no desire or indeed a plan by the govt for much more in the way of intl flights/increased passenger numbers, so until there is, I don't think that NZ will just be starting back routes without more govt guidance in regard to border reopening/individual country 'green' approvals etc. Otherwise the operational complexity and risk vs potential gains is too much.
On the other hand, MCY and CNS are a matter of days away for NZ. I noticed CNS starts om 29JUN 3 a week with a mix of 32Q/320, and MCY 3 a week from 28JUN with mix of 320/32N.

Looks like ZQN, just had an sudden wind change with NZ232, NZ260, QF185 all aborted landing on finals.

Ironically QF121 had just made it in, I just departed on NZ622 and it was an smooth as trip out of ZQN.

NZ6 wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

A good thing to do. Even if I think traded companies should be doing stuff like that by default. It's still good to see.

The only question I have and a few others have asked is they are using taxpayers money to fund the shares for their staff. If the airline was profitable at this point in time there would not be an issue with rewarding staff. So in normal circumstances it is good to reward staff I agree.

Hmmm I'll quote NZ here

The airline has had positive EBITDA since September 2020 and has been operating cash flow positive since the second quarter of the 2021 financial year

So while the airline could be using part of the loan for this (which they will be required to repay), they aren't just spending government cash like you imply they are.

Secondly while the full year figures will still be negative. I bet you didn't realize the above which has come at the cost of many thousand employees.

I do know a lot of hard working members lost their jobs which was awful for them. The stuff article has since been updated as previously it did mention that AIR NZ is still loss making. They put the correction at the bottom to the previous version of the story. At least the EBITDA has improved tremendously in the last six months

NZ516 wrote:

77west wrote:

Could an A320 operate NSN?

Can't see it taking off out of NSN. The runway needed is 2100m at MTOW and 1500m for landing. But some might have other data. Source from wiki:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_ ... ifications

The other issue with NSN is their runway is built on sand and is deemed too soft. I was involved in charter work a few years ago and we couldn't get a 737 into NSN but we could in BHE so that's what happened on more than one occasion. NSN is 1347m long and BHE is 1425m long so not a lot of difference, it was the load/weight factor that NSN couldn't take it. I have seen the whisper jet that Vincent Aviation use to operate on charter flights in NSN.

How many domestic terminals in New Zealand, could support 240 a321Ns?

Maybe just CHC? AKL / ZQN struggle with full passenger loaded on an a321NEO currently with only 220 seats.

The boarding process becomes chaotic, with the lack of room at the gate. It’s no lines just organised chaos of people pushing there way up to boarding pass scanning station.

zkncj wrote:

How many domestic terminals in New Zealand, could support 240 a321Ns?

Maybe just CHC? AKL / ZQN struggle with full passenger loaded on an a321NEO currently with only 220 seats.

The boarding process becomes chaotic, with the lack of room at the gate. It’s no lines just organised chaos of people pushing there way up to boarding pass scanning station.

Quite frankly from a physical space sense any airport that can support a current 321 could support it, we are talking an extra 20 passengers which in the scheme things is really nothing and hardly takes up much more space.

I'm most instances of less orderly boarding it really stems from passengers not listening to boarding calls and in turn airline staff not enforcing it as well as people not allowing enough time and then panicking. People are so used to so much of the journey becoming automated and queueless that it's almost as though some have forgotten how to queue properly and that it is an inevitable part of travel.

The bigger questions I think are can the back of house systems/processes associated with the additional capacity cope: is there enough belt space back of house for the extra cans required for the luggage? Are there enough loaders to load these cans efficiently? Does avsec have the staffing and equipment available to accommodate the extra people? Do the airports have enough sheltered stands to enable dual boarding a greater percentage of the time? Without dual, a full 321 currently can struggle to make its turn time. The list could go on.

NPL8800 wrote:

zkncj wrote:

How many domestic terminals in New Zealand, could support 240 a321Ns?

Maybe just CHC? AKL / ZQN struggle with full passenger loaded on an a321NEO currently with only 220 seats.

The boarding process becomes chaotic, with the lack of room at the gate. It’s no lines just organised chaos of people pushing there way up to boarding pass scanning station.

Quite frankly from a physical space sense any airport that can support a current 321 could support it, we are talking an extra 20 passengers which in the scheme things is really nothing and hardly takes up much more space.

I'm most instances of less orderly boarding it really stems from passengers not listening to boarding calls and in turn airline staff not enforcing it as well as people not allowing enough time and then panicking. People are so used to so much of the journey becoming automated and queueless that it's almost as though some have forgotten how to queue properly and that it is an inevitable part of travel.

The bigger questions I think are can the back of house systems/processes associated with the additional capacity cope: is there enough belt space back of house for the extra cans required for the luggage? Are there enough loaders to load these cans efficiently? Does avsec have the staffing and equipment available to accommodate the extra people? Do the airports have enough sheltered stands to enable dual boarding a greater percentage of the time? Without dual, a full 321 currently can struggle to make its turn time. The list could go on.

While an AKL domestic gate can physically handle a321 with 220 passengers, the question is more can it handle it well?

Half the problem with the gates in AKL, is there is physically no where for passengers to wait / line up orderly to board there flight. It’s just going to get worse once the domestic a321NEO’s become an thing. I’ve already been so pretty bad examples already it the use of 321s from domestic.

Bare in mind some of those gates were built for 732’s which back in the 70/80s had around 100 seats on them. Then the terminal was expanded overtime, but then some of those gates where built when the 733s where the main domestic work horse which only had around 133 seats.
That AKL gate area become’s an zoo already when there are an peak hour ZQN/CHC/WLG 321 service all departing close together.

Does anyone remember what Ansett New Zealand, had planned todo with additional gates off that shed that is now gate 62/63? For years it’s had poles leading out to it from an airbridge that was never installed.