Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
DavidByrne
Posts: 2004
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:15 am

NZ6 wrote:
I'm not sure if the first half of this is serious or not. But to the second point which is valid. Making it more convenient may attract some people off other holiday destinations. I guess one could wonder what direct destinations they're coming out of though? NAN has had very limited schedules and then there's Australia?

Yes, I was being serious. I truly appreciate a well-argued case, even if I disagree with it. That's what these forums (should be) are about, in my view. I'm less keen on the knee-jerk responses that sometimes appear on these threads which trash people's views without offering any argument of substance at all.

I think we have to assume that the market size isn't fixed, and that there is the potential for expansion. Historically, that's been the case . . . pretty much for ever, with a few blips. So I don't see the addition of new leisure routes as being necessarily to the detriment of existing leisure routes, certainly not in the long term.

NZ6 wrote:
What if I want to go Tue-Tue as that's where my leave is booked in for but the direct is on Thursday or what if I want 10 days 7 RAR, 3 AIT? More services weekly cover this but are there the numbers?

Back to the original question adding in extra services, my NZ46 doesn't connect via any Tasman flights, so a mid/late afternoon service would offer me Australia connections. It'll also suit those travelling via road to AKL or coming in from ports that don't connect etc. This afternoon flights adds more seats into the market ex AKL. Moving NZ46 to the PM becomes unattractive due to the late arrival in RAR.

Right now, none of the NZ flights to RAR are timed conveniently for Transtasman connections. With 14x AKL-RAR, though, the early flight could return in time for afternoon connections to at least some Australian cities, while the later flight could depart mid-afternoon with pax from early Transtasman flights on board. This doesn't impact on the arguments for CHC- or WLG-RAR in any way.

As for pax who want to stay an odd number of days, they're in no way disadvantaged by the addition of direct flights. If there isn't a direct flight on the day they want, they can still take an indirect flight. The same logic can be applied to ANY route that's operated less than daily - from AKL-ADL down to AKL-HBA. Most will choose the nonstop flight on the basis that it's cheaper than the indirect routing. I think this is a non-argument.

NZ6 wrote:
The real question is, are there enough people ex CHC willing to may high end end booking classes to travel direct to RAR? ultimately that's it.

I think you may be over-thinking this. I just took a random date in September, and there's about a $200 price differential between a one-way NZ flight from AKL-RAR ($500-ish) and a one-way CHC-AKL-RAR ($700-ish). Actually quite surprised how high they were - absence of competition at the moment, I suspect. In November, the fares are around $390 and $460 respectively, a margin of about $70. Anyway, I'm suggesting that a nonstop CHC-RAR priced somewhere in between the AKL-RAR and the CHC-AKL-RAR fares would attract more passengers than currently use the inconvenient transfer option, and would be attractive enough for people to choose the nonstop flight over the indirect routing, without impacting NZ's return per pax-km.

As for whether there are enough pax in the high-end booking classes ex CHC: ultimately I don't think leisure travel is for most people about business class travel, with some exceptions. Historically, NZ has run lots of all-economy A320s into the Pacific (including many AKL-RAR services), and almost certainly will again post-pandemic. The economics of CHC-RAR would be fundamentally no different from these.
Last edited by DavidByrne on Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 2004
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:20 am

tullamarine wrote:
Plus it could be well suited for the long routes into Asia such as HBA -AKL - NRT / PVG etc. As they will also be an easier transfer than via the Aussie hubs.


What tosh! How long do you think it takes to move from T3 or T1 in MEL to T2 International? Realistically, you can do it in less than 15 minutes including Immigration and because there are a lot more HBA-MEL flights than there ever will be HBA-AKL, chances are the connection will work better. Now, you have to factor in the extra 2500kms you need to fly which is approximately another 3 hours flying time. That is for Japan, the most easterly Asian destination; for other destinations, such as HKG, PVG, the extra flying time just grows and grows.

Absolutely agree that Australia to Asia via AKL will never be a market that NZ can make serious cash from. Having said that, QF used to market AKL-USA via Australia at the bottom end of the market and I've known pax who have done that - for the price. At best, it could be a way of filling seats that would otherwise be empty at rock-bottom prices, but it will never be a serious market to make real money from. I can only assume that this is what the NZ exec interviewed was referring to.
 
zkncj
Posts: 4504
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:36 am

Anyone recently flown back to New Zealand from OOL? and not had any issues around part of the OOL Airport (including the Terminal being in NSW)?

Image

The NSW/QLD runs right down the middle of the airport property, and long with the Southern Part of the terminal being in NSW.

So technically if you have been in NSW, if you have been to the airport and shouldn't be allowed to fly back to New Zealand....

There doesn't seem to be any offical information the New Zealand COVID19 website on this one.
 
tullamarine
Posts: 3209
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:14 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:43 am

zkncj wrote:
Anyone recently flown back to New Zealand from OOL? and not had any issues around part of the OOL Airport (including the Terminal being in NSW)?

Image

The NSW/QLD runs right down the middle of the airport property, and long with the Southern Part of the terminal being in NSW.

So technically if you have been in NSW, if you have been to the airport and shouldn't be allowed to fly back to New Zealand....

There doesn't seem to be any offical information the New Zealand COVID19 website on this one.

The airport is technically federal land so the state border does not apply. You exit the airport into Queensland so you are deemed to arrive in Queensland and are subject to whatever restrictions apply for that state.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 2004
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:43 am

A couple of links which suggest that we may not have to wait as long as we thought for zero-emission travel domestically:

https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/ ... liegtuigen
https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/ ... -waterstof

Sorry, they're in Dutch, but Google translate should be able to make sense of them. The upshot is that both Iberia (Air Nostrum) and Icelandair are working with Universal Hydrogen on retrofitting kits for their ATR-72s and Dash-8s respectively which will enable them to run on hydrogen (with water as the only emissions). The report suggests that Air Nostrum has actually placed an order for the kits for their 11 ATRs, while Icelandair has signed an MoU with regard to their Dash-8s. Obviously there's a long way to go before they're certified and in use, but we're certainly not talking decades by any means. Given NZ operates both the ATR and the Dash-8, and sees itself as a green airline in future, this will be of great interest to them I'd suggest.

Elsewhere I see that United (yes, United) has signed a deal with Heart Aerospace for 200 of their ES-19 electric 19-seat commuter aircraft, and Mesa Air for another 100. I have to say I'm really surprised that United is going back into the 19-seat market, but whatever (they're also interested in the market for even smaller air taxis). While we know that Sounds Air is keen on the ES-19, I could see this aircraft being also of interest for many provincial-to-provincial routes within NZ - potentially even by NZ. If United is heading in this direction, why not NZ? This news is also interesting because it goes completely against the accepted wisdom that the market for small commuter aircraft is dead and buried.
 
NZ516
Posts: 989
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Thu Jul 15, 2021 5:23 am

tullamarine wrote:
Plus it could be well suited for the long routes into Asia such as HBA -AKL - NRT / PVG etc. As they will also be an easier transfer than via the Aussie hubs.


What tosh! How long do you think it takes to move from T3 or T1 in MEL to T2 International? Realistically, you can do it in less than 15 minutes including Immigration and because there are a lot more HBA-MEL flights than there ever will be HBA-AKL, chances are the connection will work better. Now, you have to factor in the extra 2500kms you need to fly which is approximately another 3 hours flying time. That is for Japan, the most easterly Asian destination; for other destinations, such as HKG, PVG, the extra flying time just grows and grows.


Fair point regarding MEL. But the transfer via SYD and BNE requires a change of terminal so less convenient than AKL.
 
zkncj
Posts: 4504
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Thu Jul 15, 2021 6:53 am

https://covid19.govt.nz/travel/quarantine-free-travel/australia/victoria/

The bubble with VIC is popped again from 2am Friday, and will be reviewed on Monday.
 
NZ516
Posts: 989
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:29 am

NZ516 wrote:
tullamarine wrote:
Plus it could be well suited for the long routes into Asia such as HBA -AKL - NRT / PVG etc. As they will also be an easier transfer than via the Aussie hubs.


What tosh! How long do you think it takes to move from T3 or T1 in MEL to T2 International? Realistically, you can do it in less than 15 minutes including Immigration and because there are a lot more HBA-MEL flights than there ever will be HBA-AKL, chances are the connection will work better. Now, you have to factor in the extra 2500kms you need to fly which is approximately another 3 hours flying time. That is for Japan, the most easterly Asian destination; for other destinations, such as HKG, PVG, the extra flying time just grows and grows.


Fair point regarding MEL. But the transfer via SYD and BNE requires a change of terminal so less convenient than AKL.


Another point that I forgot to mention. When your transit is via AKL on the return leg your bags will be transfered for you and you will collect them at your final destination so this works well for any final Australian city. When you do a transit international to domestic at an Australian hub you will need to collect your bags go through screening. Then take them to domestic terminal and re check them in for the final leg of your journey. So this adds to the stress after a long trip and is why the seamless experience that happens with the AKL hub works well.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4681
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:48 am

tullamarine wrote:
NZ516 wrote:
Air NZ best performing route for future bookings is AKL to HBA so this is really unexpected. There is also talk on growing transfer traffic via AKL due to the better customer experience than using the likes of BNE, SYD or MEL. Mainly for markets that have to do a stop enroute such as Cairns, Perth and Adelaide.

https://simpleflying.com/air-new-zealand-3-challenges/

This sounds weird. Australians really can't travel anywhere other than New Zealand at the moment so I am puzzled as to what transfer traffic means other than to other domestic ports within NZ and realistically the numbers here ex HBA are going to be small.

The discussion that Australians will one day use AKL as a transit point towards Asia seems completely fanciful. The evidence is that Australians only used the AKL transit to North America as a price based decision. It is hard to see how NZ could possibly make the sums work for Australians and how few Australians would actually be interested in nearly doubling their travel time to get to Asia.

Put it this way… pre-Covid there were plenty of Australians from cities like MEL and SYD flying via SIN/BKK/KUL on their way to Japan…. That is time-wise a pretty similar diversion. If you then add in the domestic transfers from other cities (HBA/CBR etc) then yes going via AKL isn’t that bad… especially if the fares are competitive. Some even add a stopover in NZ.
 
NZ6
Posts: 2127
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Thu Jul 15, 2021 8:18 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
I'm not sure if the first half of this is serious or not. But to the second point which is valid. Making it more convenient may attract some people off other holiday destinations. I guess one could wonder what direct destinations they're coming out of though? NAN has had very limited schedules and then there's Australia?

Yes, I was being serious. I truly appreciate a well-argued case, even if I disagree with it. That's what these forums (should be) are about, in my view. I'm less keen on the knee-jerk responses that sometimes appear on these threads which trash people's views without offering any argument of substance at all.

I think we have to assume that the market size isn't fixed, and that there is the potential for expansion. Historically, that's been the case . . . pretty much for ever, with a few blips. So I don't see the addition of new leisure routes as being necessarily to the detriment of existing leisure routes, certainly not in the long term.

NZ6 wrote:
What if I want to go Tue-Tue as that's where my leave is booked in for but the direct is on Thursday or what if I want 10 days 7 RAR, 3 AIT? More services weekly cover this but are there the numbers?

Back to the original question adding in extra services, my NZ46 doesn't connect via any Tasman flights, so a mid/late afternoon service would offer me Australia connections. It'll also suit those travelling via road to AKL or coming in from ports that don't connect etc. This afternoon flights adds more seats into the market ex AKL. Moving NZ46 to the PM becomes unattractive due to the late arrival in RAR.

Right now, none of the NZ flights to RAR are timed conveniently for Transtasman connections. With 14x AKL-RAR, though, the early flight could return in time for afternoon connections to at least some Australian cities, while the later flight could depart mid-afternoon with pax from early Transtasman flights on board. This doesn't impact on the arguments for CHC- or WLG-RAR in any way.

As for pax who want to stay an odd number of days, they're in no way disadvantaged by the addition of direct flights. If there isn't a direct flight on the day they want, they can still take an indirect flight. The same logic can be applied to ANY route that's operated less than daily - from AKL-ADL down to AKL-HBA. Most will choose the nonstop flight on the basis that it's cheaper than the indirect routing. I think this is a non-argument.

NZ6 wrote:
The real question is, are there enough people ex CHC willing to may high end end booking classes to travel direct to RAR? ultimately that's it.

I think you may be over-thinking this. I just took a random date in September, and there's about a $200 price differential between a one-way NZ flight from AKL-RAR ($500-ish) and a one-way CHC-AKL-RAR ($700-ish). Actually quite surprised how high they were - absence of competition at the moment, I suspect. In November, the fares are around $390 and $460 respectively, a margin of about $70. Anyway, I'm suggesting that a nonstop CHC-RAR priced somewhere in between the AKL-RAR and the CHC-AKL-RAR fares would attract more passengers than currently use the inconvenient transfer option, and would be attractive enough for people to choose the nonstop flight over the indirect routing, without impacting NZ's return per pax-km.

As for whether there are enough pax in the high-end booking classes ex CHC: ultimately I don't think leisure travel is for most people about business class travel, with some exceptions. Historically, NZ has run lots of all-economy A320s into the Pacific (including many AKL-RAR services), and almost certainly will again post-pandemic. The economics of CHC-RAR would be fundamentally no different from these.


You say I'm overthinking it, but I prefer to call it experience from close to two decades working in this area. When I'm talking about prices, I'm not comparing CHC-RAR fares with AKL-RAR fares. I'm talking about the inventory availability and simple route performance management.

Where the airline feeds all routes over AKL you end up with X number of AKL-RAR services. Let's say it's 18 as that been previously quoted here. Let's say 7 are 77W, the daily NZ46 flight the rest A320. Just over 4200 weekly seats in Y class. If 10% were K class you're 420 rounding up as the 77W could have more let's say it's 500 weekly seats at that level. Then there's G, L, S etc. The point being more lower end seats than the direct which has only 16, based on the same 10%. Firstly no they don't have a flat 10% allowance. It's just an example.

Most flights, even NZ46 connect from CHC so when looking for your cheap holiday, if you're offered V class direct $531 vs L class $351 do you consider via AKL. I mean that's around $350 return over a family of 4 it's around $1.5K.

Given RAR is largely low cost family destination price is important.

Like I've said, this is the challenge - not the stopper. Will enough people pay for direct over going via AKL? or will AKL's size hamper CHC's chances?

Things like frequency and odd day stays only impact the service by way of directional imbalance. People going up direct back indirect, it can cancel itself off with higher numbers but if they're thin it can become an issue.

Like I've said, the share number of people in CHC going to RAR would indicate it's possible. But how do you persuade them to go onto the direct at any price or even to RAR once APW, NAN, PPT, VLI, NOU open or the Tasman becomes stable?

There are a number of things they could use up their sleeve or they could just run it at a "loss" (sell more K class seats than they should) but AKL normally has so much spare capacity and cargo to justify it, so what's the incentive for the airline?
 
tullamarine
Posts: 3209
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:14 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Thu Jul 15, 2021 10:38 pm

Put it this way… pre-Covid there were plenty of Australians from cities like MEL and SYD flying via SIN/BKK/KUL on their way to Japan…. That is time-wise a pretty similar diversion. If you then add in the domestic transfers from other cities (HBA/CBR etc) then yes going via AKL isn’t that bad… especially if the fares are competitive. Some even add a stopover in NZ.


We seem to be talking about some pretty junky "back of the bus" fares. Few, if any, premium pax would choose to do MEL-SIN-NRT over MEL-NRT unless they were already going to SIN for business reasons. Pre-Covid, I often did circuit visits to my company's offices throughout Asia but I always designed the journey for minimal backtracking; the idea of unnecessarily adding another 3 hours to an already tiring business trip was not something I'd ever accept.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 2004
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Fri Jul 16, 2021 12:51 am

NZ6 wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
I'm not sure if the first half of this is serious or not. But to the second point which is valid. Making it more convenient may attract some people off other holiday destinations. I guess one could wonder what direct destinations they're coming out of though? NAN has had very limited schedules and then there's Australia?

Yes, I was being serious. I truly appreciate a well-argued case, even if I disagree with it. That's what these forums (should be) are about, in my view. I'm less keen on the knee-jerk responses that sometimes appear on these threads which trash people's views without offering any argument of substance at all.

I think we have to assume that the market size isn't fixed, and that there is the potential for expansion. Historically, that's been the case . . . pretty much for ever, with a few blips. So I don't see the addition of new leisure routes as being necessarily to the detriment of existing leisure routes, certainly not in the long term.

NZ6 wrote:
What if I want to go Tue-Tue as that's where my leave is booked in for but the direct is on Thursday or what if I want 10 days 7 RAR, 3 AIT? More services weekly cover this but are there the numbers?

Back to the original question adding in extra services, my NZ46 doesn't connect via any Tasman flights, so a mid/late afternoon service would offer me Australia connections. It'll also suit those travelling via road to AKL or coming in from ports that don't connect etc. This afternoon flights adds more seats into the market ex AKL. Moving NZ46 to the PM becomes unattractive due to the late arrival in RAR.

Right now, none of the NZ flights to RAR are timed conveniently for Transtasman connections. With 14x AKL-RAR, though, the early flight could return in time for afternoon connections to at least some Australian cities, while the later flight could depart mid-afternoon with pax from early Transtasman flights on board. This doesn't impact on the arguments for CHC- or WLG-RAR in any way.

As for pax who want to stay an odd number of days, they're in no way disadvantaged by the addition of direct flights. If there isn't a direct flight on the day they want, they can still take an indirect flight. The same logic can be applied to ANY route that's operated less than daily - from AKL-ADL down to AKL-HBA. Most will choose the nonstop flight on the basis that it's cheaper than the indirect routing. I think this is a non-argument.

NZ6 wrote:
The real question is, are there enough people ex CHC willing to may high end end booking classes to travel direct to RAR? ultimately that's it.

I think you may be over-thinking this. I just took a random date in September, and there's about a $200 price differential between a one-way NZ flight from AKL-RAR ($500-ish) and a one-way CHC-AKL-RAR ($700-ish). Actually quite surprised how high they were - absence of competition at the moment, I suspect. In November, the fares are around $390 and $460 respectively, a margin of about $70. Anyway, I'm suggesting that a nonstop CHC-RAR priced somewhere in between the AKL-RAR and the CHC-AKL-RAR fares would attract more passengers than currently use the inconvenient transfer option, and would be attractive enough for people to choose the nonstop flight over the indirect routing, without impacting NZ's return per pax-km.

As for whether there are enough pax in the high-end booking classes ex CHC: ultimately I don't think leisure travel is for most people about business class travel, with some exceptions. Historically, NZ has run lots of all-economy A320s into the Pacific (including many AKL-RAR services), and almost certainly will again post-pandemic. The economics of CHC-RAR would be fundamentally no different from these.


You say I'm overthinking it, but I prefer to call it experience from close to two decades working in this area. When I'm talking about prices, I'm not comparing CHC-RAR fares with AKL-RAR fares. I'm talking about the inventory availability and simple route performance management.

Where the airline feeds all routes over AKL you end up with X number of AKL-RAR services. Let's say it's 18 as that been previously quoted here. Let's say 7 are 77W, the daily NZ46 flight the rest A320. Just over 4200 weekly seats in Y class. If 10% were K class you're 420 rounding up as the 77W could have more let's say it's 500 weekly seats at that level. Then there's G, L, S etc. The point being more lower end seats than the direct which has only 16, based on the same 10%. Firstly no they don't have a flat 10% allowance. It's just an example.

Most flights, even NZ46 connect from CHC so when looking for your cheap holiday, if you're offered V class direct $531 vs L class $351 do you consider via AKL. I mean that's around $350 return over a family of 4 it's around $1.5K.

Given RAR is largely low cost family destination price is important.

Like I've said, this is the challenge - not the stopper. Will enough people pay for direct over going via AKL? or will AKL's size hamper CHC's chances?

Things like frequency and odd day stays only impact the service by way of directional imbalance. People going up direct back indirect, it can cancel itself off with higher numbers but if they're thin it can become an issue.

Like I've said, the share number of people in CHC going to RAR would indicate it's possible. But how do you persuade them to go onto the direct at any price or even to RAR once APW, NAN, PPT, VLI, NOU open or the Tasman becomes stable?

There are a number of things they could use up their sleeve or they could just run it at a "loss" (sell more K class seats than they should) but AKL normally has so much spare capacity and cargo to justify it, so what's the incentive for the airline?

OK, now I understand what you were trying to explain. I can appreciate that what looks attractive on a high level analysis may look different at a more fine-grained level. And my apologies for the rather flippant comment - it absolutely wasn't intended to cast aspersions on your expertise.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 2004
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Fri Jul 16, 2021 12:57 am

tullamarine wrote:
Put it this way… pre-Covid there were plenty of Australians from cities like MEL and SYD flying via SIN/BKK/KUL on their way to Japan…. That is time-wise a pretty similar diversion. If you then add in the domestic transfers from other cities (HBA/CBR etc) then yes going via AKL isn’t that bad… especially if the fares are competitive. Some even add a stopover in NZ.


We seem to be talking about some pretty junky "back of the bus" fares. Few, if any, premium pax would choose to do MEL-SIN-NRT over MEL-NRT unless they were already going to SIN for business reasons. Pre-Covid, I often did circuit visits to my company's offices throughout Asia but I always designed the journey for minimal backtracking; the idea of unnecessarily adding another 3 hours to an already tiring business trip was not something I'd ever accept.

I think this is exactly the point. Whether it's pax travelling NZ-AUS-USA or AUS-NZ-Asia we're talking here about pax for whom cost is paramount and these won't generally be business travellers but leisure. And even then, those for whom time is not an issue. Definitely "top-up-the-plane fares".
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 8417
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Fri Jul 16, 2021 6:16 am

DavidByrne wrote:
tullamarine wrote:
Put it this way… pre-Covid there were plenty of Australians from cities like MEL and SYD flying via SIN/BKK/KUL on their way to Japan…. That is time-wise a pretty similar diversion. If you then add in the domestic transfers from other cities (HBA/CBR etc) then yes going via AKL isn’t that bad… especially if the fares are competitive. Some even add a stopover in NZ.


We seem to be talking about some pretty junky "back of the bus" fares. Few, if any, premium pax would choose to do MEL-SIN-NRT over MEL-NRT unless they were already going to SIN for business reasons. Pre-Covid, I often did circuit visits to my company's offices throughout Asia but I always designed the journey for minimal backtracking; the idea of unnecessarily adding another 3 hours to an already tiring business trip was not something I'd ever accept.

I think this is exactly the point. Whether it's pax travelling NZ-AUS-USA or AUS-NZ-Asia we're talking here about pax for whom cost is paramount and these won't generally be business travellers but leisure. And even then, those for whom time is not an issue. Definitely "top-up-the-plane fares".


Yea it seems to be about getting bums on seats and offering cheap fares to help fill aircraft as things slowly eventually return to normal, whenever that is. And getting a bit more of the Australian market.
 
tullamarine
Posts: 3209
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:14 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Fri Jul 16, 2021 9:42 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
tullamarine wrote:

We seem to be talking about some pretty junky "back of the bus" fares. Few, if any, premium pax would choose to do MEL-SIN-NRT over MEL-NRT unless they were already going to SIN for business reasons. Pre-Covid, I often did circuit visits to my company's offices throughout Asia but I always designed the journey for minimal backtracking; the idea of unnecessarily adding another 3 hours to an already tiring business trip was not something I'd ever accept.

I think this is exactly the point. Whether it's pax travelling NZ-AUS-USA or AUS-NZ-Asia we're talking here about pax for whom cost is paramount and these won't generally be business travellers but leisure. And even then, those for whom time is not an issue. Definitely "top-up-the-plane fares".


Yea it seems to be about getting bums on seats and offering cheap fares to help fill aircraft as things slowly eventually return to normal, whenever that is. And getting a bit more of the Australian market.

With their current route structures and alliances,NZ will never attract too much of a market from Australia beyond trans-Tasman.

Star Alliance has limited presence in Australia with relatively low members except KrisFlyer who are just as likely to be Velocity members anyway. The QF alliance doesn’t offer any drag with QF having zero interest in directing passengers onto NZ services. VA offered more potential for NZ but Luxon and Borghetti let their egos get in the way; both are gone now so may be the 2 logical partners can reconcile.

Absent an alliance with VA, the only way NZ could generate serious non-Tasman traffic from AU would be to use its rights and operate flights directly from Australia which it is able to do with existing rights but QF would probably be brutal in its response and without access to the VA Velocity base, it would probably never get traction anyway.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4681
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Fri Jul 16, 2021 10:30 pm

tullamarine wrote:
Put it this way… pre-Covid there were plenty of Australians from cities like MEL and SYD flying via SIN/BKK/KUL on their way to Japan…. That is time-wise a pretty similar diversion. If you then add in the domestic transfers from other cities (HBA/CBR etc) then yes going via AKL isn’t that bad… especially if the fares are competitive. Some even add a stopover in NZ.


We seem to be talking about some pretty junky "back of the bus" fares. Few, if any, premium pax would choose to do MEL-SIN-NRT over MEL-NRT unless they were already going to SIN for business reasons. Pre-Covid, I often did circuit visits to my company's offices throughout Asia but I always designed the journey for minimal backtracking; the idea of unnecessarily adding another 3 hours to an already tiring business trip was not something I'd ever accept.

Depends on the season, but during the northern winter in particular direct fares to Japan were quite expensive (about the same as fares to LAX which is of course a lot further).
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 8417
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Sat Jul 17, 2021 2:54 am

tullamarine wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
I think this is exactly the point. Whether it's pax travelling NZ-AUS-USA or AUS-NZ-Asia we're talking here about pax for whom cost is paramount and these won't generally be business travellers but leisure. And even then, those for whom time is not an issue. Definitely "top-up-the-plane fares".


Yea it seems to be about getting bums on seats and offering cheap fares to help fill aircraft as things slowly eventually return to normal, whenever that is. And getting a bit more of the Australian market.

With their current route structures and alliances,NZ will never attract too much of a market from Australia beyond trans-Tasman.

Star Alliance has limited presence in Australia with relatively low members except KrisFlyer who are just as likely to be Velocity members anyway. The QF alliance doesn’t offer any drag with QF having zero interest in directing passengers onto NZ services. VA offered more potential for NZ but Luxon and Borghetti let their egos get in the way; both are gone now so may be the 2 logical partners can reconcile.

Absent an alliance with VA, the only way NZ could generate serious non-Tasman traffic from AU would be to use its rights and operate flights directly from Australia which it is able to do with existing rights but QF would probably be brutal in its response and without access to the VA Velocity base, it would probably never get traction anyway.


I’m not sure what you mean in the first part about current route structures, NZ aren’t going to operate from Australian cities to anywhere outside of NZ /RAR if that returns. As you said QF will just respond aggressively and make life hard.

NZ have done quite well in building up Australia outside of SYD/MEL/BNE with PER/OOL/CNS:ADL/MCY/HBT, ok some are seasonal and Less than daily, but all contribute a little to NZ’s AKL hub with flights to LAX/SFO/IAH/ORD/HNL/YVR. The last few years have seen Others expand with S-IAH, BNE/MEL-YVR, BNE/MEL-SFO etc. NZ were said to get a 777 worth of pax to Australian pax transit to the US a day. That obviously helps their bottom line and is an important part of what they do and they want to grow it.

I do agree Australia-AKL-Asia will be bottom of the yield pile like NZ-Australia-US, just a way to fill some mainly back of the bus seats so to speak.
 
User avatar
LamboAston
Posts: 680
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:46 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Sat Jul 17, 2021 3:32 am

zkncj wrote:
https://covid19.govt.nz/travel/quarantine-free-travel/australia/victoria/

The bubble with VIC is popped again from 2am Friday, and will be reviewed on Monday.

They've already cancelled my mid August flight to MEL completely. Was a 321N.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 2004
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Sat Jul 17, 2021 3:52 am

LamboAston wrote:
zkncj wrote:
https://covid19.govt.nz/travel/quarantine-free-travel/australia/victoria/

The bubble with VIC is popped again from 2am Friday, and will be reviewed on Monday.

They've already cancelled my mid August flight to MEL completely. Was a 321N.

August??? I'm flying AKL-HBA in early August (so far, so good for Tasmania and Covid) but was planning to spend a week in Victoria in the third week of August before flying home (or heading north to Queensland). But if they're cancelling flights in August to/from Victoria . . . perhaps I should fly home from HBA.
 
433977
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 8:19 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Sat Jul 17, 2021 6:17 am

F-WWEN msn 1691 AT76 active on ground as ATR1691 ZK-MZF. The info is on www.digitalairliners.com
 
zkncj
Posts: 4504
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Sat Jul 17, 2021 7:02 am

LamboAston wrote:
zkncj wrote:
https://covid19.govt.nz/travel/quarantine-free-travel/australia/victoria/

The bubble with VIC is popped again from 2am Friday, and will be reviewed on Monday.

They've already cancelled my mid August flight to MEL completely. Was a 321N.


I had my OOL-AKL mid August flights cancelled too, was meant to be 2x flights on Saturdays now back now to 1x daily...

Surely there will be more cuts to come in coming weeks, traveller confidence will go down hill even more if we get more people stuck in VIC again for an extended period of time. They have really send MIQ is now fill for arrivals from NSW until at-least the 29th of July.

You would think the sooner we get people out of VIC the better, rather than locking them down there over the weekend as the risk gets higher.

It should of been let people come back from VIC, with an test of arrival in AKL/CHC/WLG only, followed by an self isolation order slapped on them.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 8417
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Sat Jul 17, 2021 7:54 am

DavidByrne wrote:
LamboAston wrote:
zkncj wrote:
https://covid19.govt.nz/travel/quarantine-free-travel/australia/victoria/

The bubble with VIC is popped again from 2am Friday, and will be reviewed on Monday.

They've already cancelled my mid August flight to MEL completely. Was a 321N.

August??? I'm flying AKL-HBA in early August (so far, so good for Tasmania and Covid) but was planning to spend a week in Victoria in the third week of August before flying home (or heading north to Queensland). But if they're cancelling flights in August to/from Victoria . . . perhaps I should fly home from HBA.


By completely I thought he meant cancelled trip but reading again LamboAston must mean his flight, mid August is still 4 weeks away, I’m guessing loads aren’t very high and they plan to operate the morning 789 atleast at this stage?
 
NZ6
Posts: 2127
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Sat Jul 17, 2021 9:53 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
LamboAston wrote:
zkncj wrote:
https://covid19.govt.nz/travel/quarantine-free-travel/australia/victoria/

The bubble with VIC is popped again from 2am Friday, and will be reviewed on Monday.

They've already cancelled my mid August flight to MEL completely. Was a 321N.

August??? I'm flying AKL-HBA in early August (so far, so good for Tasmania and Covid) but was planning to spend a week in Victoria in the third week of August before flying home (or heading north to Queensland). But if they're cancelling flights in August to/from Victoria . . . perhaps I should fly home from HBA.


You're onto it so I'm going to assume you know you still need a negative COVID test within 72hrs of your flight home? even from TAS - they're also not cheap and it's still the PCR test.

Although fingers crossed, with the announcement last week around moving to the saliva test for border surveillance it could lead to the way for that to be used for arrival clearance (perhaps in conjunction with a vaccination cert) but not before your trip next month.

Depending how early August you're talking and where in Victoria you were going. If you're flying into MEL on the first week, it'd personally pull the pin and play it safe. I can't see it clearing up in the next few days and I can't see NZ opening the bubble until they've had 14 days without community transmission given the volumes and that it's the Delta strain. That's my two cents worth.

I had plans to go to QLD early November, I was going to have to bring it forward to October, but I'm thinking that might even be optimistic. Some are suggesting restrictions could be in place until Xmas in SYD?!? - I don't want the expense or drama with having to get a negative test within 72 hours (when known about, I'd otherwise take the risk).

I'm just hopeful the next two months of vaccinations will start to make a difference.
 
NZ6
Posts: 2127
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Sat Jul 17, 2021 10:12 pm

tullamarine wrote:
Put it this way… pre-Covid there were plenty of Australians from cities like MEL and SYD flying via SIN/BKK/KUL on their way to Japan…. That is time-wise a pretty similar diversion. If you then add in the domestic transfers from other cities (HBA/CBR etc) then yes going via AKL isn’t that bad… especially if the fares are competitive. Some even add a stopover in NZ.


We seem to be talking about some pretty junky "back of the bus" fares. Few, if any, premium pax would choose to do MEL-SIN-NRT over MEL-NRT unless they were already going to SIN for business reasons. Pre-Covid, I often did circuit visits to my company's offices throughout Asia but I always designed the journey for minimal backtracking; the idea of unnecessarily adding another 3 hours to an already tiring business trip was not something I'd ever accept.


Most airlines are keen on this as "back of the bus" fares at it's essentially supplementary revenue.. fill up empty seats etc.

Naturally your high value fares will go via the most direct, or premium carrier or via a loyalty based approach (HVC with One World, Star etc). But that doesn't typically fill the plane and people will go out their way to get affordability, value for money etc.

Without this, NZ wouldn't see a single passenger ex MEL,SYD or BNE to LAX. Yet they get plenty and although it's typically lower end fares. It's a heathy source of revenue for them.

Likewise, Kiwis head over to SYD on QF to go to North America.
 
NZ6
Posts: 2127
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Sat Jul 17, 2021 11:04 pm

So this week UA has ordered 200 Heart Aerospace ES-19 electric aircraft, a 19 seat aircraft with a range of 400km which is miles under the capabilities of the old 1900D's

But being electric, NZ's longstanding troubles with the regions and all routes this sized aircraft would be used on being under this length - does anyone think NZ would or should go there?

I'm still unsure if the range performance is there. It doesn't have the ability to do CHC-WKA then turn back to CHC or AKL-TUO and would also require recharge or battery change after each leg, not sure if the latter is possible or how long it takes to recharge?

It would be exciting if they did go there however.
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 1220
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Sat Jul 17, 2021 11:29 pm

I stumbled across this neat little home video from 1981 of the Qantas 747SP operating from WLG. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHZEh7zVJcA

NZ6 wrote:
So this week UA has ordered 200 Heart Aerospace ES-19 electric aircraft, a 19 seat aircraft with a range of 400km which is miles under the capabilities of the old 1900D's

But being electric, NZ's longstanding troubles with the regions and all routes this sized aircraft would be used on being under this length - does anyone think NZ would or should go there?

I'm still unsure if the range performance is there. It doesn't have the ability to do CHC-WKA then turn back to CHC or AKL-TUO and would also require recharge or battery change after each leg, not sure if the latter is possible or how long it takes to recharge?

It would be exciting if they did go there however.


Sounds Air already have a statement of interest with the manufacturer for that model with plans to purchase if it meets the performance requirements. For regional NZ operation I think the first generation of battery electric aircraft will basically usher in a bit of a golden age. Especially if they end up being a couple orders of magnitude quieter than fossil fuel powered ones and the extra maintenance costs do not eat up the difference in energy price.

https://www.facebook.com/soundsairnz/po ... 7697173246

Heart Aerospace Press Release - One step closer to building an electric plane!
A word from our Managing Director, Andrew Crawford:
In line with Sounds Air's goal to become the first New Zealand airline to offer zero-emission flights, below is a link to the 'Press Release from Heart Aerospace' dated 13th July 2021.
This is a huge development milestone in the goal of achieving Zero Emission flights world-wide, and in New Zealand. Sounds Air is very excited to be part of this world leading technology and the order for 200 ES-19’s by United Airlines cements the future of this project.
It is so easy to say "too hard" or "not in my lifetime" but Sounds Air says "if not us - then who"? As a board and company we are dedicated to being at the forefront of this technology in New Zealand and wish Heart Aerospace all success as they lead the way towards Zero Emission flight.
https://heartaerospace.com/newsroom/
 
NZ6
Posts: 2127
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Sun Jul 18, 2021 12:14 am

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
I stumbled across this neat little home video from 1981 of the Qantas 747SP operating from WLG. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHZEh7zVJcA

NZ6 wrote:
So this week UA has ordered 200 Heart Aerospace ES-19 electric aircraft, a 19 seat aircraft with a range of 400km which is miles under the capabilities of the old 1900D's

But being electric, NZ's longstanding troubles with the regions and all routes this sized aircraft would be used on being under this length - does anyone think NZ would or should go there?

I'm still unsure if the range performance is there. It doesn't have the ability to do CHC-WKA then turn back to CHC or AKL-TUO and would also require recharge or battery change after each leg, not sure if the latter is possible or how long it takes to recharge?

It would be exciting if they did go there however.


Sounds Air already have a statement of interest with the manufacturer for that model with plans to purchase if it meets the performance requirements. For regional NZ operation I think the first generation of battery electric aircraft will basically usher in a bit of a golden age. Especially if they end up being a couple orders of magnitude quieter than fossil fuel powered ones and the extra maintenance costs do not eat up the difference in energy price.

https://www.facebook.com/soundsairnz/po ... 7697173246

Heart Aerospace Press Release - One step closer to building an electric plane!
A word from our Managing Director, Andrew Crawford:
In line with Sounds Air's goal to become the first New Zealand airline to offer zero-emission flights, below is a link to the 'Press Release from Heart Aerospace' dated 13th July 2021.
This is a huge development milestone in the goal of achieving Zero Emission flights world-wide, and in New Zealand. Sounds Air is very excited to be part of this world leading technology and the order for 200 ES-19’s by United Airlines cements the future of this project.
It is so easy to say "too hard" or "not in my lifetime" but Sounds Air says "if not us - then who"? As a board and company we are dedicated to being at the forefront of this technology in New Zealand and wish Heart Aerospace all success as they lead the way towards Zero Emission flight.
https://heartaerospace.com/newsroom/


Yeah was aware of that. Getting the likes of UA ordering 200 really gives the program a boost. Could this give NZ the confidence to go down this path and also into the 19 seat market again?!?!
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 1220
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Sun Jul 18, 2021 12:34 am

NZ6 wrote:
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
I stumbled across this neat little home video from 1981 of the Qantas 747SP operating from WLG. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHZEh7zVJcA

NZ6 wrote:
So this week UA has ordered 200 Heart Aerospace ES-19 electric aircraft, a 19 seat aircraft with a range of 400km which is miles under the capabilities of the old 1900D's

But being electric, NZ's longstanding troubles with the regions and all routes this sized aircraft would be used on being under this length - does anyone think NZ would or should go there?

I'm still unsure if the range performance is there. It doesn't have the ability to do CHC-WKA then turn back to CHC or AKL-TUO and would also require recharge or battery change after each leg, not sure if the latter is possible or how long it takes to recharge?

It would be exciting if they did go there however.


Sounds Air already have a statement of interest with the manufacturer for that model with plans to purchase if it meets the performance requirements. For regional NZ operation I think the first generation of battery electric aircraft will basically usher in a bit of a golden age. Especially if they end up being a couple orders of magnitude quieter than fossil fuel powered ones and the extra maintenance costs do not eat up the difference in energy price.

https://www.facebook.com/soundsairnz/po ... 7697173246

Heart Aerospace Press Release - One step closer to building an electric plane!
A word from our Managing Director, Andrew Crawford:
In line with Sounds Air's goal to become the first New Zealand airline to offer zero-emission flights, below is a link to the 'Press Release from Heart Aerospace' dated 13th July 2021.
This is a huge development milestone in the goal of achieving Zero Emission flights world-wide, and in New Zealand. Sounds Air is very excited to be part of this world leading technology and the order for 200 ES-19’s by United Airlines cements the future of this project.
It is so easy to say "too hard" or "not in my lifetime" but Sounds Air says "if not us - then who"? As a board and company we are dedicated to being at the forefront of this technology in New Zealand and wish Heart Aerospace all success as they lead the way towards Zero Emission flight.
https://heartaerospace.com/newsroom/


Yeah was aware of that. Getting the likes of UA ordering 200 really gives the program a boost. Could this give NZ the confidence to go down this path and also into the 19 seat market again?!?!

What I'd honestly prefer is Air NZ making arrangements and deals with the smaller operators so that they can book onto or from Air NZ flights. Maybe not full on code sharing or even opening it to general consumers. But at least for business or travel agent organised travel. That then leaves Air NZ to focus on the stuff that can handle ATR72 and up sized routes.
Though such a setup might require the government to step in and tell them to do it.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 2004
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Sun Jul 18, 2021 2:20 am

NZ6 wrote:
Depending how early August you're talking and where in Victoria you were going. If you're flying into MEL on the first week, it'd personally pull the pin and play it safe. I can't see it clearing up in the next few days and I can't see NZ opening the bubble until they've had 14 days without community transmission given the volumes and that it's the Delta strain. That's my two cents worth.

Yeah, it's looking increasingly murky. I'm committed to being in Hobart and Launceston 8-15 Aug, part business and part family stuff. I've a booking to MEL on 15 Aug and was planning around some commitments in Melbourne, Geelong and Ballarat during the next week or so. If I do make it that far I'll either come home from there around 24 Aug or head for OOL for more family stuff. But at this stage I think I may be on the NZ flight HBA-AKL on 15 Aug. There are still seats available but there's a risk that by the time I make my mind up I'll be stuck in HBA for another half week, or week, or two weeks or . . .

The vagaries and logistical risks of travel, even within a bubble! Now if only HBA-AKL was daily . . . :)
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 2004
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Sun Jul 18, 2021 2:42 am

NZ6 wrote:
So this week UA has ordered 200 Heart Aerospace ES-19 electric aircraft, a 19 seat aircraft with a range of 400km which is miles under the capabilities of the old 1900D's

But being electric, NZ's longstanding troubles with the regions and all routes this sized aircraft would be used on being under this length - does anyone think NZ would or should go there?

I'm still unsure if the range performance is there. It doesn't have the ability to do CHC-WKA then turn back to CHC or AKL-TUO and would also require recharge or battery change after each leg, not sure if the latter is possible or how long it takes to recharge?

It would be exciting if they did go there however.

I did a quick analysis of the routes that NZ flies now and which of them would be suitable for the ES-19. Very few, alas. Perhaps CHC-HKK, AKL-TUO, AKL-WRE, WLG-BHE; possibly some morning /evening feeders on AKL-HLZ for Tasman and NA connections. But mostly the shorter routes have been abandoned to smaller carriers.

Sounds Air is interested, and I can see why. Most of its network would be perfect for the ES-19. Also Barrier Air potentially, especially for their AKL-KAT route. Air Chats: not so much. Great for AKL-WHK, but AKL-WAG is at the limit of possibilities. And AKL-PPQ - if the airport survives - a bridge too far.

Re charging, I suspect each out station will require charging facilities, and these may not come cheap. A battery swap may be possible but it's around half the weight of the aircraft I believe, so that would be potentially complex and time consuming (and difficult).

For NZ I'd be looking at the retrofit kits which will enable AT7s and DH3s to run on a hydrogen fuel cell. These are under development, with Iberia and Icelandair set to be early adopters, but may be some years away yet in practice.
 
NZ6
Posts: 2127
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Sun Jul 18, 2021 2:50 am

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
What I'd honestly prefer is Air NZ making arrangements and deals with the smaller operators so that they can book onto or from Air NZ flights. Maybe not full on code sharing or even opening it to general consumers. But at least for business or travel agent organised travel. That then leaves Air NZ to focus on the stuff that can handle ATR72 and up sized routes.
Though such a setup might require the government to step in and tell them to do it.


Sounds like Mt Cook, Air Nelson and Eagle Airways mark 2 to me.

Eventually go full circle, end up in their colors, flight numbers and finally operating certificates.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 2004
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Sun Jul 18, 2021 2:52 am

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
I stumbled across this neat little home video from 1981 of the Qantas 747SP operating from WLG. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHZEh7zVJcA

Thanks for posting this. A bit nostalgic for me - I took the SP twice out of WLG - once to MEL and once to SYD. Such a weird looking aircraft!
 
NZ6
Posts: 2127
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Sun Jul 18, 2021 2:52 am

DavidByrne wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Depending how early August you're talking and where in Victoria you were going. If you're flying into MEL on the first week, it'd personally pull the pin and play it safe. I can't see it clearing up in the next few days and I can't see NZ opening the bubble until they've had 14 days without community transmission given the volumes and that it's the Delta strain. That's my two cents worth.

Yeah, it's looking increasingly murky. I'm committed to being in Hobart and Launceston 8-15 Aug, part business and part family stuff. I've a booking to MEL on 15 Aug and was planning around some commitments in Melbourne, Geelong and Ballarat during the next week or so. If I do make it that far I'll either come home from there around 24 Aug or head for OOL for more family stuff. But at this stage I think I may be on the NZ flight HBA-AKL on 15 Aug. There are still seats available but there's a risk that by the time I make my mind up I'll be stuck in HBA for another half week, or week, or two weeks or . . .

The vagaries and logistical risks of travel, even within a bubble! Now if only HBA-AKL was daily . . . :)


Can you rearrange it? go into MEL (fingers crossed no lock down by the 8th) finish up in HBA with 14 days away from a place of interest. Although there's a list of them in TAS just not HBA.

https://www.coronavirus.tas.gov.au/fami ... n-tasmania
 
NZ6
Posts: 2127
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Sun Jul 18, 2021 3:00 am

DavidByrne wrote:
I did a quick analysis of the routes that NZ flies now and which of them would be suitable for the ES-19. Very few, alas. Perhaps CHC-HKK, AKL-TUO, AKL-WRE, WLG-BHE; possibly some morning /evening feeders on AKL-HLZ for Tasman and NA connections. But mostly the shorter routes have been abandoned to smaller carriers.

Sounds Air is interested, and I can see why. Most of its network would be perfect for the ES-19. Also Barrier Air potentially, especially for their AKL-KAT route. Air Chats: not so much. Great for AKL-WHK, but AKL-WAG is at the limit of possibilities. And AKL-PPQ - if the airport survives - a bridge too far.

Re charging, I suspect each out station will require charging facilities, and these may not come cheap. A battery swap may be possible but it's around half the weight of the aircraft I believe, so that would be potentially complex and time consuming (and difficult).

For NZ I'd be looking at the retrofit kits which will enable AT7s and DH3s to run on a hydrogen fuel cell. These are under development, with Iberia and Icelandair set to be early adopters, but may be some years away yet in practice.


It was more if they had interest in TUO, WHK, WAG, KAT OAM, MRO, MON, TIU again?

Logical option will be recharging, even if there was a battery swap they'd still need recharge facilities and the man hours required to swap them wouldn't be cumbersome I'd assume.

I'm not sure what way the ATR will go, they'll be last to be replaced and over a decade away. I don't know enough about what's out there for the Q300's - are you suggesting a Regine? when will that be available and will the aircraft have the years required to make it worth while?
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 2004
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Sun Jul 18, 2021 8:13 am

NZ6 wrote:
I'm not sure what way the ATR will go, they'll be last to be replaced and over a decade away. I don't know enough about what's out there for the Q300's - are you suggesting a Regine? when will that be available and will the aircraft have the years required to make it worth while?

The idea is that the ATRs' turboprop engines would be replaced by a hydrogen fuel cell generating electricity to power electric motors, so it really is a matter of reengining the aircraft. The article doesn't say when ("not yet known" when the aircraft will enter service) but I'm sure I've read elsewhere that the target is around 2025. I'm sure there are many, many hurdles before they even get to the point of certification, though. The same company (United Hydrogen) is also working on a Dash-8 conversion. Others are also looking at Dornier 228 and 328 conversions.

As far as NZ is concerned, I suspect they would like to be seen to be at the forefront of "green" aviation. However, the economics of a conversion will be paramount - and not least whether it's worthwhile reengining an airframe which will be (in the case of the Dash 8s) getting on a bit by the mid-2020s. I'd expect, though, new-build aircraft to be offered with this technology if it proves successful (which it should). Perhaps ATR itself will get in on the act - a fourth fleet of AT7s for NZ perhaps, a "-700" to follow the -200, -500 and -600?
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 2004
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Sun Jul 18, 2021 8:22 am

NZ6 wrote:
Can you rearrange it? go into MEL (fingers crossed no lock down by the 8th) finish up in HBA with 14 days away from a place of interest. Although there's a list of them in TAS just not HBA.

Alas no - I only have a week in Tasmania and a week in Victoria, and I've spent enough time in Tasmania over many years to know that I'd rather be somewhere else as soon as I've finished my obligations there. Nothing against Tasmania - but it's very small. As for a covid-test prior to my return: it is what it is. Better than 14 days quarantine. A saliva test would be great, but I'm not holding my breath.
 
PA515
Posts: 1710
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Mon Jul 19, 2021 9:59 pm

Air NZ 77W ZK-OKO has been intermittently registering on flightradar24 in front of the hangars this morning.

PA515
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 8417
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Mon Jul 19, 2021 10:23 pm

PA515 wrote:
Air NZ 77W ZK-OKO has been intermittently registering on flightradar24 in front of the hangars this morning.

PA515


I think this happens when they move around the airport from time to time.

My question is what is now the latest on this fleet given the latest situation in Australia particularly?
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 1220
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Tue Jul 20, 2021 1:43 am

Something that popped into mind when thinking about extending the runway at WLG. We know doing so will be massively expensive. It is unlikely to massively unlock travel for long haul. And we can't just move it up to Param. But do we know if any thought has been put into effectively closing down WLG, PPQ, and PMR, and then turning Ohakea into a mixed use airport for the lower North Island? We know there are efforts to continue improving connections into central Welly from then north, including rail.
Yes it'll be a bit of a pain for business travellers, especially those in the Hutt or next to the current airport.
Coupling such a move with a proper higher speed rail connection stopping at a couple points and also acts as an intercity rail connection. As well as replacing much of the existing airports with increased density housing. Putting the airport further away from the impacts of sea rise. And making the distance to AKL more attractive to battery electric planes. It seems to make sense on the surface. Yes, I know such a move would be hell politically and the cost wouldn't be fun either unless selling the land to pay for it worked. But it seems like something worth exploring.
 
zkncj
Posts: 4504
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Tue Jul 20, 2021 8:47 am

https://covid19.govt.nz/alert-levels-and-updates/latest-updates/pause-to-quarantine-free-travel-from-south-australia-to-new-zealand/

From Midnight tonight the travel bubble with South Australia, will close for the next 7 days.

Although people currently in SA, that normally live in New Zealand will still be allowed to return home from SA provided they have an negative covid test.
 
zkncj
Posts: 4504
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Tue Jul 20, 2021 8:50 am

With the Tasman Bubble, well being more pause, stop go pause stop bubble.... over recent weeks.

Is it time we look beyond Australia with for an travel bubble? maybe it's time to review an bubble with Singapore?
Australia's COVID management has been less than great over the last two to three months.
 
bevan7
Posts: 144
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:44 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Tue Jul 20, 2021 2:28 pm

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
Something that popped into mind when thinking about extending the runway at WLG. We know doing so will be massively expensive. It is unlikely to massively unlock travel for long haul. And we can't just move it up to Param. But do we know if any thought has been put into effectively closing down WLG, PPQ, and PMR, and then turning Ohakea into a mixed use airport for the lower North Island? We know there are efforts to continue improving connections into central Welly from then north, including rail.
Yes it'll be a bit of a pain for business travellers, especially those in the Hutt or next to the current airport.
Coupling such a move with a proper higher speed rail connection stopping at a couple points and also acts as an intercity rail connection. As well as replacing much of the existing airports with increased density housing. Putting the airport further away from the impacts of sea rise. And making the distance to AKL more attractive to battery electric planes. It seems to make sense on the surface. Yes, I know such a move would be hell politically and the cost wouldn't be fun either unless selling the land to pay for it worked. But it seems like something worth exploring.


This is a great idea for anybody living near Ohakea. A horrible idea for the rest of the lower North Island
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4681
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Tue Jul 20, 2021 8:34 pm

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
Something that popped into mind when thinking about extending the runway at WLG. We know doing so will be massively expensive. It is unlikely to massively unlock travel for long haul. And we can't just move it up to Param. But do we know if any thought has been put into effectively closing down WLG, PPQ, and PMR, and then turning Ohakea into a mixed use airport for the lower North Island? We know there are efforts to continue improving connections into central Welly from then north, including rail.
Yes it'll be a bit of a pain for business travellers, especially those in the Hutt or next to the current airport.
Coupling such a move with a proper higher speed rail connection stopping at a couple points and also acts as an intercity rail connection. As well as replacing much of the existing airports with increased density housing. Putting the airport further away from the impacts of sea rise. And making the distance to AKL more attractive to battery electric planes. It seems to make sense on the surface. Yes, I know such a move would be hell politically and the cost wouldn't be fun either unless selling the land to pay for it worked. But it seems like something worth exploring.

Nice thinking but Not. Going. To. Happen.
End of the day it will be hours faster for people to fly from WLG to AKL/CHC and go from there than it would to drive to Ohakea.
On top of that Ohakea is being upgraded with most of the RNZAF relocating there (using Whenuapai as more of a backup/forward base). This will include aircraft equiped with missiles, torpedo’s and mines. None of those really work well in a mixed use situation.

As much as I’d love to see WLG with a longer runway, it just isn’t viable in the current climate and for a country of 5 million there is no need to have it as anything more than a short haul airport.
 
PA515
Posts: 1710
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Tue Jul 20, 2021 9:22 pm

ZK-NBT wrote:
PA515 wrote:
Air NZ 77W ZK-OKO has been intermittently registering on flightradar24 in front of the hangars this morning.

PA515


I think this happens when they move around the airport from time to time.

My question is what is now the latest on this fleet given the latest situation in Australia particularly?


More activity this morning at the same location. Looks to me like the avionics are being worked prior to a return to service.

PA515
 
NZ6
Posts: 2127
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Tue Jul 20, 2021 10:05 pm

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
Something that popped into mind when thinking about extending the runway at WLG. We know doing so will be massively expensive. It is unlikely to massively unlock travel for long haul. And we can't just move it up to Param. But do we know if any thought has been put into effectively closing down WLG, PPQ, and PMR, and then turning Ohakea into a mixed use airport for the lower North Island? We know there are efforts to continue improving connections into central Welly from then north, including rail.
Yes it'll be a bit of a pain for business travellers, especially those in the Hutt or next to the current airport.
Coupling such a move with a proper higher speed rail connection stopping at a couple points and also acts as an intercity rail connection. As well as replacing much of the existing airports with increased density housing. Putting the airport further away from the impacts of sea rise. And making the distance to AKL more attractive to battery electric planes. It seems to make sense on the surface. Yes, I know such a move would be hell politically and the cost wouldn't be fun either unless selling the land to pay for it worked. But it seems like something worth exploring.


So not extending WLG due to cost but instead building a 150km high speed rail line that'll likely cost billions more? - Do I have that right?

I mean sure there'll be some limited multi use on that rail line but heck we can't even justify it between HLZ and AKL so would have question how & why it would work down there.

The question and issue is (if there is one). Does WLG really need long haul flights? and what happens in 50 or so years when WLG finally reaches capacity. There's still a lot of passenger and aircraft movement in this airport yet. What will we need then and where?
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 2004
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Tue Jul 20, 2021 10:23 pm

zkncj wrote:
Is it time we look beyond Australia with for an travel bubble? maybe it's time to review an bubble with Singapore?

Check the number of new cases in Singapore over the last few days and you'll see why not. Nearly twice as many new cases as Australia, all crammed into an island that's smaller than Auckland. I don't think so!
 
NZ6
Posts: 2127
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Tue Jul 20, 2021 10:32 pm

zkncj wrote:
With the Tasman Bubble, well being more pause, stop go pause stop bubble.... over recent weeks.

Is it time we look beyond Australia with for an travel bubble? maybe it's time to review an bubble with Singapore?
Australia's COVID management has been less than great over the last two to three months.


That'd be on pause also... "182 cases of locally transmitted COVID-19 infection of which 142 are linked to the Jurong Fishery Port cluster and 14 belong to the KTV cluster"

https://www.moh.gov.sg/news-highlights/ ... _July_2021

The dam virus just keeps popping up, no large country with frequent border movements has kept it out..... Not even us, Australia or Singapore. We just need to keep vaccinations up and make a plan.

I'm starting to think we'll go for booster shots before we open up too which will take us well into 2022. My biggest concern right now is the lack of planning or transparency a plan forward. I don't even think there's been a formal admission that at some point we need to accept the virus will get in.
 
axio
Posts: 273
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:44 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Tue Jul 20, 2021 11:01 pm

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
Something that popped into mind when thinking about extending the runway at WLG. We know doing so will be massively expensive. It is unlikely to massively unlock travel for long haul. And we can't just move it up to Param. But do we know if any thought has been put into effectively closing down WLG, PPQ, and PMR, and then turning Ohakea into a mixed use airport for the lower North Island? We know there are efforts to continue improving connections into central Welly from then north, including rail.
Yes it'll be a bit of a pain for business travellers, especially those in the Hutt or next to the current airport.
Coupling such a move with a proper higher speed rail connection stopping at a couple points and also acts as an intercity rail connection. As well as replacing much of the existing airports with increased density housing. Putting the airport further away from the impacts of sea rise. And making the distance to AKL more attractive to battery electric planes. It seems to make sense on the surface. Yes, I know such a move would be hell politically and the cost wouldn't be fun either unless selling the land to pay for it worked. But it seems like something worth exploring.


I'd wondered about building a green-fields airport in the middle. I think the southern most 'flat empty space' is between Peka Peka and Te Horo. It's an area that will soon have an expressway connection all the way to Wellington. It is also near the existing train-line so easy to create a spur or shuttle, although I think that whole line to PMR still needs plenty of improvements to enable higher speed/shorter times including a straight tunnel from Paekakariri to Plimmerton (sorry Pukerua Bay). You could fund the airport by the sale of land/improvements from redeveloping the existing WLG airport land, which could be made at a good density and well served by light rail.

But in reality, it's an awful lot of effort just to enable the runway to be a kilometer longer.
 
NZ6
Posts: 2127
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Wed Jul 21, 2021 12:21 am

axio wrote:
I'd wondered about building a green-fields airport in the middle. I think the southern most 'flat empty space' is between Peka Peka and Te Horo. It's an area that will soon have an expressway connection all the way to Wellington. It is also near the existing train-line so easy to create a spur or shuttle, although I think that whole line to PMR still needs plenty of improvements to enable higher speed/shorter times including a straight tunnel from Paekakariri to Plimmerton (sorry Pukerua Bay). You could fund the airport by the sale of land/improvements from redeveloping the existing WLG airport land, which could be made at a good density and well served by light rail.

But in reality, it's an awful lot of effort just to enable the runway to be a kilometer longer.


A "central coast" airport would suit this area nicely. A huge question is, is this a 'instead of' or 'in addition to' WLG and do we see it as a regional airport or "main center" airport?

Personally, It would be nice to see land secured and PPQ moved. That's currently landlocked, largely by residential housing so will always struggle. Then grow regional operations at this airport as the demand grows (long term).

Otherwise ..the issue is, it's half way between WLG and PMR so can't see it pulling passengers from either catchment area.

Also, the area you suggesting is around 70-80km from downtown WLG and I can't see if being sold or accepted as the primary airport. It'd be like driving from the CBD in AKL out to Hampton Downs to catch a flight or to Wellsford if you went north. It'd be far too restrictive and burdensome for domestic business travel.

The cost associated with rapid fast transit wouldn't be 'affordable', we can barely complete transmission gully.

The sad truth in my mind is. There's no other large flat area of land in the region. Therefore WLG will slowly chew up more and more of the golf course. It'll become a very busy single runway airport and the runway will get extended. I just hope they do something to bypass the Vic tunnel on public transport.

A mid coast airfield will hopefully get built but how it's utilized I'm not sure.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 2004
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread- July 2021

Wed Jul 21, 2021 1:00 am

axio wrote:
I'd wondered about building a green-fields airport in the middle. I think the southern most 'flat empty space' is between Peka Peka and Te Horo. It's an area that will soon have an expressway connection all the way to Wellington. It is also near the existing train-line so easy to create a spur or shuttle, although I think that whole line to PMR still needs plenty of improvements to enable higher speed/shorter times including a straight tunnel from Paekakariri to Plimmerton (sorry Pukerua Bay). You could fund the airport by the sale of land/improvements from redeveloping the existing WLG airport land, which could be made at a good density and well served by light rail.

But in reality, it's an awful lot of effort just to enable the runway to be a kilometer longer.

Te Horo was seriously propsed for an airport decades ago and some studies done, but nothing eventuated. I frankly can't see private enterprise taking the risk for a new airport investment on that scale. Central and local government also have many, many higher investment priorities - and it would be political dynamite to build a facility like this when WLG, PPQ and PMR function just fine, not least at a time when air travel has started to become a dirty word and will continue to be until "green" aviation is commonplace. I think the chances of this happening are less than zero.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

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

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

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

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

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

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

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos