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.