Welcome to the New Zealand Aviation Thread - July 2021. Please continue to add your comments below

Link to last thread

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1461357&p=22856721#p22856721

Hi All,

Thought we could start the new month on a new topic.
Looks like Jetstar will postpone their return of flights from AKL to RAR.. Certainly not easy at the moment for them lucky their domestic NZ services can still operate.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-tro ... ok-islands

I agree with NZ6’s comment in the previous thread regarding the future use of the 77W. I’d actually go further and suggest that there may be advantages in going for a single-type 789 long-haul fleet. Even AKL-LAX could be operated by a single daily 789 unless the specific point-to-point traffic warrants more than that - in which case the carrier’s first recourse should be to reopen CHC-LAX. Only after that should more capacity go to AKL-LAX. There’s no strategic advantage in favouring AKL-LAX for a larger aircraft or more frequency unless that particular market specifically requires it. As has been mentioned previously, the global trend is toward point-to-point and NZ shouldn’t try to buck that trend.

I would have to agree, though the 77W is still a fine aircraft, some would say in other threads no longer efficient though that’s taking it to far IMO, just there are more efficient aircraft like the 35J which has had slow sales partly due to 77Ws being young still and others going smaller 789/359.

Anyway NZ the 77W is still good but only really ever fitted LAX/SFO, initially I think the plan was only 5 77Ws with the last 2 744s being replaced by 789s, SFO did well enough and they got 2 more 77Ws.

The 747 first the 742 then the 744 were the right plane for NZ, in some cases the only plane (AKL-LAX range) in the 1980s and 90s.

A well respected user before they ordered the 772 so a long time now said NZ were considering weather to go with a single type 300 seater for long haul back then, I guess they would have kept more 763s and retired the 744s earlier (glad they didn’t)

The way things are a fleet of just 789s would be good now, the 781 is very efficient though, I’m guessing NZ had atleast some plans to use them to LAX/SFO? weather they still do I don’t know, and do they just go all 789 long term as a single fleet type? Easy enough to add 781s if needed.

ZK-NBT wrote:

The way things are a fleet of just 789s would be good now, the 781 is very efficient though, I’m guessing NZ had atleast some plans to use them to LAX/SFO? weather they still do I don’t know, and do they just go all 789 long term as a single fleet type? Easy enough to add 781s if needed.

I believe they can change any of the 787-10 order for -9s so they can pretty much play it by ear.

The 77W was and remains too big for the NZ market.

They actually were a good fit for the company they often could carry full passenger loads when I flew on them. Plus the huge cargo capacity would be a big money earner for AIR NZ. They did operate 747s which seated more pax than the 77W for a long period as well. If they were too big they would not have ordered them and just got more 777-200s after the first 8 arrived. So the decision to get them was the right one.

Like VA, they were always too big for NZ but, at the time, it and A346 were the only real alternatives. The 77L and A345 were smaller but no cheaper to operate.

More broadly, the strategy has formed almost the entire business models of carriers like EK and SQ, where both countries have very small domestic markets by comparison with the transit market. Of course, NZ will never be in that league, but it’s clear that it sees the strategy as being worthwhile now and into the future.

SIN and DXB are brilliantly located hubs; Australia and New Zealand are at the bottom of the world so can never be compelling international hubs.

The 77W was misused/misinterpreted by NZ, they never used it to the aircraft potential because they foolishly opted to order the 772 very late in the production line when they already had the 787 delayed,. They should have standardised on the 77W

the 77W fleet should have been 1) better suited to cope with combined US/Asia/Shorthaul demand (let's say 12-15) in a flexible configuration with less U class rather than specifically targeted to the USA 3) the focus should have been about filling the belly cargo and the passenger loads.. The lack of seats in some cabins, and a glut of seats in others makes it hard to compete for fares and passengers rather than price yourself out of the market as NZ pre covid had a very real tendency to do.

The AC 77W has been hauling 54t in the hold AKL-YVR, That's the same as DHL does for a dedicated 76F freighter AKL-SYD. A Dreamliner lifts nothing like that, even as an empty freighter., let alone with a passenger load, and the positioning of consignments and trim window very much more limited.

I maintain the 77W in the right configuration is still an important aircraft for NZ, even if it is to be a short-haul higher-density flyer for SYD/BNE/MEL/RAR/PER to take pressure off the fragile and unreliable 787.fleet (as per the engineers anyway) which is taking a beating as the mainstay of the fleet. The country and our neighboring countries still scream for cargo capacity. If they really tried to stimulate demand with lots of seats at lower prices to Australia and Rarotonga they could be onto a winner that crushes the competition. Then the 787s can get on with the long-haul flying, increasing /restoring destinations, and build the passenger frequencies as and when required. I think even a 787 to OOL/CNS might be worth a punt with a now spare 787.

This talk of the 77W is an easy one in hindsight. I could be wrong with this, so I'd need to double check the timeline, but

The 772's and first 2 (or was it 4) 787's were ordered in the very early 2000's to replace the 767's. That's ultimately when the 77W decision was made.

The only other option at the time was the A330 and debatably the A350 combination, while we could include the A340 it never really stood a chance being a quad jet. We'd also need to go back and see what was known of the A350 at this moment in time, let's not forget NZ got in early with the Dreamliner so we could easily question what was known of the A350 at this time.

A quick google says the A350 program was launched in 2004 which was the same year NZ made their order if I'm not mistaken. Boeing was talking about the 7E7 before this.

The A330 vs the 772 is sort of a non event. The A330-200 is smaller in cargo and passenger space and would struggle performance wise on growth routes such a YVR, IAH. There was no point getting the A330 for thinner Asian routes as that was were the 787 was destined and obviously far more economical. When compared over those slightly larger mid/long/heavy routes such as LAX,SIN, HKG, TYO the economics and network fit better suited the slightly larger 772 overall. Rightly or wrongly.

So with the 772 and 787 ordered. When it came time to replace the 744's the only logical option for a fleet of 5 aircraft was the 77W.

Let's not forget the 787 was facing delay after delay at this time. More 772's could have been an option, but the 77W was to carry more passengers and more cargo and NZ still intended to use them into LAX, SFO which was still up to 3x daily in the NW so was easily sold.

Fast forward 15+ years since the first order and the worlds changed.

The airline has discovered it's better to fly directly into more places more often in the US than flying 3-4x daily into LAX.

At $320m USD each (list price) you can't just "change your mind" like you would with an everyday household item, you need to draw out every last cent out of it. Besides they still work for NZ (outside COVID). In some ways they work better than a 787 would but when their time is up. I don't expect a 77X order. More 787's will be on the cards sadly.

Hindsight is a powerful thing. I personally think the airline would have been far better off with the A350. "My grip" is that we didn't learn. The 772 and pending 77W replacement order was the opportunity to move. 15+ new aircraft with options to replace the likes of NZE from 2030 maybe (16 years old by then).

Outside of the 77X there's no talk of another widebody jet program. The Boeing NMA and surely 737 programs need urgent attention. Airbus is playing with that NMA space with the A321ULR and now with the A380 gone may consider something for that 400+ seat market above the A350-1000 but unlikely in my mind. Besides, what does the jet engine look like post 2030-2040.... my point being. You'll get another 20 years out of the A350 easily if they'd gone there.

Yep hindsight is wonderful. NZ ordered the 772 and first 2 787s (7E7s) in 2004 and gradually added additional frames, the initial ones were to be 788s originally.

Competition was 77L, it was described as a flying fuel tank my one of the Ex NZ CEOs, Fyfe? The 77E was deemed more efficient, it shows in the sales with other carriers getting the larger 77W instead unless 17-18hrs duration was needed.

Otherwise it was the A330, A332 probably to small and not enough range as NZ6 says, QFs struggled AKL-LAX while later build ones could have probably done LAX but to small for that route, A333 back then was a max 10hr aircraft so weight restrictions into Asia where it was required so again not a goer.

Or the A340 bit I think by then NZ were eyeing the long term and a twin engine fleet. The A343 had comparable fuel burn to a 77E, I guess more expensive on maintenance given 4 engines, But by 2004 not many 343s were still selling, the 77E had past its best years aswell sales wise by then. Or the 346 which was to big anyway for a 763 replacement but could have replaced the 744 earlier but the decision was made to keep the 744 fleet at the time.

The A350 is a fine aircraft and would suit NZ, but NZ had already effectively doubled down on going to a single type long haul fleet by the time the 77E replacement order happened in 2019.

I do recall a well respected user said NZ did look at the 748, this from memory would have been after the 77W order which was IIRC 2007. To big and again a quad. Some said they should have got the 380 for LAX-LHR.

Nice to see some critical thought about the 77W. I remember being repeatedly shot down in the past whenever I cast doubt on the assertion that it's god's gift to airline economics.

Here is a question that i want to ask. Should New Zealand open there borders to those who are fully vaccinated against Covid 19? I also see the travel bubble has been further extended to July 29. Only South Australia, Tasmania, Act, & Victoria will be allowed into NZ. Pre departure testing will be required as well.

For now I think that you could at least reduce the MIQ period for people who are double-vaccinated down to five days or so. But I'm sure that people more medically qualified than myself would be able to better understand the risks on that.

The EU is getting their Vaccine Passport scheme up and running now so hopefully the appropriate verification procedures will fall into place.

Far too much is at stake for very little potential reward to deviate from the, isolate from the infected rest of the world, and then inoculate everybody possible, before considering relaxing our controls. Far too much is yet unknown about onward transmission from vaccinated persons with all the available vaccines..Also to date, such a reciprocated relaxation would only advantage less then 10% of our population.

It's pretty clear that we absolutely should keep the Delta Variant out.

I can't imagine this being your ticket to global freedom. It wouldn't be hard to replicate at all. At the time I assumed it was simply a backup plan incase the dose wasn't recorded or recorded correctly for whatever reason with the MOH.

This is my concern too. Overseas (and maybe locally, but I'm not aware of that) there were a lot of anti-maskers getting fake mask exemption passes online to exempt them from having to follow the rules. I'm sure those same people will likely intend to do the same with regards to faking vaccination certificates.

NTL-AKL, seems like an good candidate for an QQ (Alliance) wet lease contract service with an e190.

Which might allow the route to become daily, which intern would help grow passenger numbers if is an stable daily service.

QQ just purchased an additional 2x e190s which will take there fleet up to 32 e190s. With an bunch already wet leased by QF, the rest of them will need to find an home somewhere.

But are they ETOPS qualified? And,if they aren't, would they want to go to the effort to get that certification? I'm really interested in what QQ will do with the E190s - as you say, they have bought quite a lot of them.

I'm really curious about the E190's economics: loads of carriers like JetBlue, Air Canada, COPA and (I think) VA complained about how it was hard to make money with them due to the high engine maintenance costs.

First of foremost. I'm not suggesting it's the wrong aircraft, or the aircraft doesn't work. At the time they were purchased it was the best aircraft in the market for how NZ intended to use them Hub flying AKL-LAX for example and replacing the 744's.

I'm just more inclined now to say, the 787 or A350 (if we'd gone there) are better sized aircraft with much allow better economics for NZ's network model these days.

The premium cabins are just far too big for the type of network NZ is building and while premium product is more appealing on some of the ULR routes NZ has been building, those thinner routes don't also need 240+ Y seats. Even then 44J and 54Y+ is still very big for EWR, ORD etc.

The 77W is really only suitable to AKL-LAX these days.

I made the point last year when the cargo charters to HKG begun with 77Ws that, up until that point, the aircraft had literally only flown revenue services to Asia three or four times. And two of those were charters for an All Blacks tour/visit. I think that speaks volumes in terms of the inflexibility of the capacity/seating configuration.

One factor not being mentioned here is the sunk cost/lease costs for the 77W which are a hell of a lot less than the 789 now since the floor has dropped out of the resale market. Sure it uses more fuel, but it also carries more pax and a lot more freight. NZ might lose 2 of them but I fully expect the other 5 to remain in the fleet for at least 5 more years.

Looks Like Cathay Pacific are planning passenger flights from next week July 8 to be exact. This is on the newshub website as well.
Cathay Pacific to resume passenger flights to New Zealand

zkojq wrote:

NTL-AKL, seems like an good candidate for an QQ (Alliance) wet lease contract service with an e190.

Which might allow the route to become daily, which intern would help grow passenger numbers if is an stable daily service.

QQ just purchased an additional 2x e190s which will take there fleet up to 32 e190s. With an bunch already wet leased by QF, the rest of them will need to find an home somewhere.

But are they ETOPS qualified? And,if they aren't, would they want to go to the effort to get that certification? I'm really interested in what QQ will do with the E190s - as you say, they have bought quite a lot of them.

I'm really curious about the E190's economics: loads of carriers like JetBlue, Air Canada, COPA and (I think) VA complained about how it was hard to make money with them due to the high engine maintenance costs.

I would assume that are planning to get ETOP’s at some point, there planned wet leases agreement with VA (if it ever happens). Was to take over some of VA routes ex BNE PNG.

I would suspect that they will get ETOPS for part of the fleet for charter work too, it would open up work to NLK, PNG, New Zealand charters etc.

Nice to see some critical thought about the 77W. I remember being repeatedly shot down in the past whenever I cast doubt on the assertion that it's god's gift to airline economics

I surpose sales don't matter, it outsold its nearest competition at the time the A346 8-1 and some went for it instead of more 77Es or 77Ls, the 744 was still avalible then to but why order that when you could get a 77W? It certainly wasn't right for all, a few got them that didn't need them, KQ, EY. And helped by the ME3, none of whom had 747 Pax aircraft, EK ordered 150 77Ws, someone like CX had 23 744s replaced by 53 77Ws. Lots have been retired now obviously because of Covid and the fact for many they are the largest least efficient aircraft in their fleets given there are hardly any pax, AC though and others have converted several to Preighters and put them to good use.

Anyway off topic for the NZ thread. I guess NZ could have got more 77Es instead, but the reality was imo they used the 744 initially for its range and capacity hubbing through LAX mainly and were used to an aircraft with a much larger premium configuration than the rest of the fleet, and you can fit a Tasman PI run in between same on the 77W which is 20% more efficient than the 744.

However as 787s and A350s come in the market you have more range for lower cost per seat and smaller aircraft which can fly longer more will by pass the hubs. But in their day the 747, 77W were very successful, things don't stay the same for ever though.

zkncj wrote:

zkojq wrote:

NTL-AKL, seems like an good candidate for an QQ (Alliance) wet lease contract service with an e190.

Which might allow the route to become daily, which intern would help grow passenger numbers if is an stable daily service.

QQ just purchased an additional 2x e190s which will take there fleet up to 32 e190s. With an bunch already wet leased by QF, the rest of them will need to find an home somewhere.

But are they ETOPS qualified? And,if they aren't, would they want to go to the effort to get that certification? I'm really interested in what QQ will do with the E190s - as you say, they have bought quite a lot of them.

I'm really curious about the E190's economics: loads of carriers like JetBlue, Air Canada, COPA and (I think) VA complained about how it was hard to make money with them due to the high engine maintenance costs.

I would assume that are planning to get ETOP’s at some point, there planned wet leases agreement with VA (if it ever happens). Was to take over some of VA routes ex BNE PNG.

I would suspect that they will get ETOPS for part of the fleet for charter work too, it would open up work to NLK, PNG, New Zealand charters etc.

Alliance are already operating a number of routes ex BNE for VA but generally using F100s. I haven’t heard that they are seeking ETOPS for the E190s which is not required if operations are limited to eastern Australia and PNG.

Air NZ ATR72-600 ZK-MZF (msn 1691) is in the Toulouse ATR hangar with the stenciled ID T31691NZ3028. No test registration mentioned, but it should be F-WWEN. It's the 29th ATR72-600 for Air NZ as ZK-MVO (msn 1299) was not ordered by NZ but purchased after the late cancellation of an order by another airline.

There's no mention of A320-271N ZK-NHE (msn 10569) F-WWDR, so assume that's in a hangar getting the engines attached etc.

https://digitalairliners.com/2021/07/03 ... 3-07-2021/

And ex Air NZ ATR72-500 ZK-MCY (msn 703), now M-ABOO, is in a paint hangar at Toulouse Francazal.

https://digitalairliners.com/2021/07/03 ... 3-07-2021/

PA515

ZK-NBT wrote:

I surpose sales don't matter, it outsold its nearest competition at the time the A346 8-1 and some went for it instead of more 77Es or 77Ls, the 744 was still avalible then to but why order that when you could get a 77W?

That's not my point, my point was the attitude that the 77W was the silver bullet for every problem (and that any dissenting opinion was automatically invalid) got a bit tiresome.

zkojq wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

I surpose sales don't matter, it outsold its nearest competition at the time the A346 8-1 and some went for it instead of more 77Es or 77Ls, the 744 was still avalible then to but why order that when you could get a 77W?

That's not my point, my point was the attitude that the 77W was the silver bullet for every problem (and that any dissenting opinion was automatically invalid) got a bit tiresome.

Again though it certainly did amazingly well replacing larger 744s when unless you went to the smaller 77L/77E or the A380 which few did. There were some that got it and it didn’t work sure but it was the “silver
Bullet” as you put it for many in the 2010s when fuel became expensive and 744s became less and in many cases inefficient.

zkojq wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

I surpose sales don't matter, it outsold its nearest competition at the time the A346 8-1 and some went for it instead of more 77Es or 77Ls, the 744 was still avalible then to but why order that when you could get a 77W?

That's not my point, my point was the attitude that the 77W was the silver bullet for every problem (and that any dissenting opinion was automatically invalid) got a bit tiresome.

To be honest and I'm not sure if this is what you're angling at. I don't think the airline nor the market was ready or mature enough to move from the network they had with the744's into what we're only moving into now.

Like I said last week, the airline went for the 772/787 in 2004, before anything substantial was known of the A350. It's very possible the deal was signed before Airbus even confirmed the A350 program. Besides that, all the 777 variants were in operation with NZ prior the A350's maiden flight.

So the only real Airbus option was the A330. Which when compared to the 772 is arguably a non event even more so into North America where even LAX is out it's outer limits.

Of course, the airline could have had more 772's or more 787's in lieu of the 77W. But without IAH, ORD, EWR, UA/SFO etc we may have seen an under supply, driving up prices and or welcoming competitors in? - but this could have been a option I agree. However, the trip cost of the 77W with the passengers and cargo into the likes of LAX sells itself over the 772.

I think the airline had the opportunity to have a mixed fleet type with the long term options to move either way (Boeing or Airbus) back when they set out to replace the 777's but they've opted for single type which does have it's benefits.

Truthfully, they want the -9 size (or even smaller) into Asia but the -10 size into America. The -10 doesn't have the size and legs and size combination so we'll likely end up with more if not all -9's. Good or bad? time will tell.

NZ6 wrote:

zkojq wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

I surpose sales don't matter, it outsold its nearest competition at the time the A346 8-1 and some went for it instead of more 77Es or 77Ls, the 744 was still avalible then to but why order that when you could get a 77W?

That's not my point, my point was the attitude that the 77W was the silver bullet for every problem (and that any dissenting opinion was automatically invalid) got a bit tiresome.

To be honest and I'm not sure if this is what you're angling at. I don't think the airline nor the market was ready or mature enough to move from the network they had with the744's into what we're only moving into now.

Like I said last week, the airline went for the 772/787 in 2004, before anything substantial was known of the A350. It's very possible the deal was signed before Airbus even confirmed the A350 program. Besides that, all the 777 variants were in operation with NZ prior the A350's maiden flight.

So the only real Airbus option was the A330. Which when compared to the 772 is arguably a non event even more so into North America where even LAX is out it's outer limits.

Of course, the airline could have had more 772's or more 787's in lieu of the 77W. But without IAH, ORD, EWR, UA/SFO etc we may have seen an under supply, driving up prices and or welcoming competitors in? - but this could have been a option I agree. However, the trip cost of the 77W with the passengers and cargo into the likes of LAX sells itself over the 772.

I think the airline had the opportunity to have a mixed fleet type with the long term options to move either way (Boeing or Airbus) back when they set out to replace the 777's but they've opted for single type which does have it's benefits.

Truthfully, they want the -9 size (or even smaller) into Asia but the -10 size into America. The -10 doesn't have the size and legs and size combination so we'll likely end up with more if not all -9's. Good or bad? time will tell.

Sure and I guess back in 2004 they said we are going to update the long haul fleet which was 744s into LAX/NRT mainly and 763s elsewhere. In 2003 SYD-LAX was dropped and UA also dropped AKL-LAX.

As you say really the A330 wasn’t an option neither the A340 being a quad while as you say the A350 wasn’t yet launched or just launched but a long way from ETS further than the 787 at the time, leaving the 777, interesting the 77W entered service in 2004 so that as Aerorobnz said earlier could have been an option certainly to replace the 744 fleet earlier, something would have needed to be done to the 763s if they were to continue Asian flying at the time though and those were I believe restricted on some of the longer flights HKG.

In terms of more 772s, I think it was Rob Fyfe from memory who described the 77L as a flying fuel tank, like carrying fuel to carry fuel to ultimately fly further while being the same size as the 77E, at a higher cost than a 77W which carries an extra 40-50 pax depending airline and configuration, that’s one reason why I believe VA went 77W over a smaller 77L, tbh they almost would have been better to get some well priced 744s in 2008/09 to carry them over to the 787/350 for 5/6 years.

NZ do use the extra space of the 77W pax and freight and I guess you could say like anything it’s a stepping stone to the next thing, the 787/350 in this case, more capable 787s in NZ’s case, that I think is why the 77W is so good for many given it replaced many 744s around the world 10% smaller 20% lower operating costs but carries more freight, in answer to ZK-OJQ, there isn’t really an argument, sure some kept 744s or went A346 or 772 but the 77W hit a spot for many NZ included.

I agree ideally you want the larger 781 into LAX, how will this go for NZ, UA did it to SFO though I believe fairly restricted ex SFO at times. The economics of the 781 are very good so in pre COVID times a good aircraft for NZ to Asia, NZ were looking at 2 daily in some of the main routes to connect to EZE which is no more, and that whole game Asia-South America has again been pushed out with COVID for several years so 2 daily into NRT etc isn’t pressing anytime soon.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Sure and I guess back in 2004 they said we are going to update the long haul fleet which was 744s into LAX/NRT mainly and 763s elsewhere. In 2003 SYD-LAX was dropped and UA also dropped AKL-LAX.

In 2004, the order was aimed at the aging 763 fleet - obviously consideration was given to 744's and the 77W would have been considered. But other than the A380 and A340 there was nothing else out there so may have help force the 777 hand.

ZK-NBT wrote:

As you say really the A330 wasn’t an option neither the A340 being a quad while as you say the A350 wasn’t yet launched or just launched but a long way from ETS further than the 787 at the time, leaving the 777, interesting the 77W entered service in 2004 so that as Aerorobnz said earlier could have been an option certainly to replace the 744 fleet earlier, something would have needed to be done to the 763s if they were to continue Asian flying at the time though and those were I believe restricted on some of the longer flights HKG.

I'm struggling to follow this, but in 2004 the 744's were only around 14 years old. Some of the premium carriers would likely offload their equipment around this age but NZ - who was coming out of near bankruptcy couldn't afford such a luxury. As for doing something with the 763's. With airline growth and 787 delays, the airline did equip them with winglets which gained something like 4% fuel efficiency. Wasn't there about a 5 year delay on the 787 from the original window. I don't think NZ ever expected the last 763 to leave in 2017 back in 2004.

ZK-NBT wrote:

In terms of more 772s, I think it was Rob Fyfe from memory who described the 77L as a flying fuel tank, like carrying fuel to carry fuel to ultimately fly further while being the same size as the 77E, at a higher cost than a 77W which carries an extra 40-50 pax depending airline and configuration, that’s one reason why I believe VA went 77W over a smaller 77L, tbh they almost would have been better to get some well priced 744s in 2008/09 to carry them over to the 787/350 for 5/6 years.

Yeah I believe it was Fyfe, NZ didn't and still doesn't need the 77L. There was all sorts of talk about wonder new routes such as New York and South America which came from Fyfe and the 787 order. I think this is where it all came from but I could be wrong. The 772 did EZE fine and NYC was always a long way away.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ do use the extra space of the 77W pax and freight and I guess you could say like anything it’s a stepping stone to the next thing, the 787/350 in this case, more capable 787s in NZ’s case, that I think is why the 77W is so good for many given it replaced many 744s around the world 10% smaller 20% lower operating costs but carries more freight, in answer to ZK-OJQ, there isn’t really an argument, sure some kept 744s or went A346 or 772 but the 77W hit a spot for many NZ included.

Yeah and now that the world is changing and the need for the 77W is disappearing, it doesn't mean it was the wrong aircraft choice.

ZK-NBT wrote:

I agree ideally you want the larger 781 into LAX, how will this go for NZ, UA did it to SFO though I believe fairly restricted ex SFO at times. The economics of the 781 are very good so in pre COVID times a good aircraft for NZ to Asia, NZ were looking at 2 daily in some of the main routes to connect to EZE which is no more, and that whole game Asia-South America has again been pushed out with COVID for several years so 2 daily into NRT etc isn’t pressing anytime soon.

I believe the original config is too lite in premium cabins for the likes of LAX/SFO in North America. The Economy load is fine. Code-2 is about right. This is where the -10 may come into play yet.

Correct me if I'm wrong here.

Back in 2004, the airlines other choice was to order the A330 and hope Airbus developed something that would compete with the 787. Or, wait until Airbus confirmed the A350 and then ordered the A330 & A350 combo.

With nothing between the A330 and 744's routes like YVR, SFO possibly BJS would never have been possible.

We'd still have 744's until 2016+ assuming they got near launch orders on the -1000 otherwise 2018ish

Just a quick thought.

NZ6 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Sure and I guess back in 2004 they said we are going to update the long haul fleet which was 744s into LAX/NRT mainly and 763s elsewhere. In 2003 SYD-LAX was dropped and UA also dropped AKL-LAX.

In 2004, the order was aimed at the aging 763 fleet - obviously consideration was given to 744's and the 77W would have been considered. But other than the A380 and A340 there was nothing else out there so may have help force the 777 hand.

ZK-NBT wrote:

As you say really the A330 wasn’t an option neither the A340 being a quad while as you say the A350 wasn’t yet launched or just launched but a long way from ETS further than the 787 at the time, leaving the 777, interesting the 77W entered service in 2004 so that as Aerorobnz said earlier could have been an option certainly to replace the 744 fleet earlier, something would have needed to be done to the 763s if they were to continue Asian flying at the time though and those were I believe restricted on some of the longer flights HKG.

I'm struggling to follow this, but in 2004 the 744's were only around 14 years old. Some of the premium carriers would likely offload their equipment around this age but NZ - who was coming out of near bankruptcy couldn't afford such a luxury. As for doing something with the 763's. With airline growth and 787 delays, the airline did equip them with winglets which gained something like 4% fuel efficiency. Wasn't there about a 5 year delay on the 787 from the original window. I don't think NZ ever expected the last 763 to leave in 2017 back in 2004.

ZK-NBT wrote:

In terms of more 772s, I think it was Rob Fyfe from memory who described the 77L as a flying fuel tank, like carrying fuel to carry fuel to ultimately fly further while being the same size as the 77E, at a higher cost than a 77W which carries an extra 40-50 pax depending airline and configuration, that’s one reason why I believe VA went 77W over a smaller 77L, tbh they almost would have been better to get some well priced 744s in 2008/09 to carry them over to the 787/350 for 5/6 years.

Yeah I believe it was Fyfe, NZ didn't and still doesn't need the 77L. There was all sorts of talk about wonder new routes such as New York and South America which came from Fyfe and the 787 order. I think this is where it all came from but I could be wrong. The 772 did EZE fine and NYC was always a long way away.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ do use the extra space of the 77W pax and freight and I guess you could say like anything it’s a stepping stone to the next thing, the 787/350 in this case, more capable 787s in NZ’s case, that I think is why the 77W is so good for many given it replaced many 744s around the world 10% smaller 20% lower operating costs but carries more freight, in answer to ZK-OJQ, there isn’t really an argument, sure some kept 744s or went A346 or 772 but the 77W hit a spot for many NZ included.

Yeah and now that the world is changing and the need for the 77W is disappearing, it doesn't mean it was the wrong aircraft choice.

ZK-NBT wrote:

I agree ideally you want the larger 781 into LAX, how will this go for NZ, UA did it to SFO though I believe fairly restricted ex SFO at times. The economics of the 781 are very good so in pre COVID times a good aircraft for NZ to Asia, NZ were looking at 2 daily in some of the main routes to connect to EZE which is no more, and that whole game Asia-South America has again been pushed out with COVID for several years so 2 daily into NRT etc isn’t pressing anytime soon.

I believe the original config is too lite in premium cabins for the likes of LAX/SFO in North America. The Economy load is fine. Code-2 is about right. This is where the -10 may come into play yet.

To be fair the 763 fleet delivered 1990/2000 and 744s delivered 1990/99 are the same vintage. Neither was aging more than the other, as you say the 744 was needed at the time for its capacity into LAX and also NRT. I believe they also offered CX the 3 oldest 744 RR powered as they were after additional RR frames, CX went elsewhere and Got several PW from SQ instead. A fleet of 5 GE 744s may have still stayed for NZ given the engines were interchangeable with the 763 and the 744s still would have been used to LAX/LHR.

NZ did put winglets on the 763 yes, more the interiors which were dated for long haul, I believe the floors weren’t strong enough without being reinforced for the Business Premier seats. NZ did order 772s, they also ordered A320s barely a year after being near bankrupt. I think the initial plan was probably the 763 leaving in 2010ish with the initial plan for the 787 to be delivered from 2008, the 744 was initially meant to leave by late 2012 from memory.

Under Fyfe NZ added HKG-LHR, YVR, PVG, BJS which was a bit of a disaster from memory. While ending SIN, NGO, TPE in 2006.

Sorry the quote function is not great May make it hard to follow me a bit.

NZ6 wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong here.

Back in 2004, the airlines other choice was to order the A330 and hope Airbus developed something that would compete with the 787. Or, wait until Airbus confirmed the A350 and then ordered the A330 & A350 combo.

With nothing between the A330 and 744's routes like YVR, SFO possibly BJS would never have been possible.

We'd still have 744's until 2016+ assuming they got near launch orders on the -1000 otherwise 2018ish

Just a quick thought.

A332 might have been ok for Asia, possibly a bit small, NZ would have got 260-280 seats in a code 1 type configuration say, higher operating costs than the A333 but more range. The A333 really wouldn’t have reached many places for NZ back then.

SFO did launch in 2004 with the 744 3x weekly but was the fist 772 route and went 6 weekly right away.

YVR was a 772 from NOV 2007 3 weekly, the 744 did appear between 2009/11 but more probably because there wasn’t anywhere else for them to go other than LA-LHR in NS. 772s built up to daily by 2015/16 or so.

PA515 wrote:

Air NZ ATR72-600 ZK-MZF (msn 1691) is in the Toulouse ATR hangar with the stenciled ID T31691NZ3028. No test registration mentioned, but it should be F-WWEN. It's the 29th ATR72-600 for Air NZ as ZK-MVO (msn 1299) was not ordered by NZ but purchased after the late cancellation of an order by another airline.

There's no mention of A320-271N ZK-NHE (msn 10569) F-WWDR, so assume that's in a hangar getting the engines attached etc.

https://digitalairliners.com/2021/07/03 ... 3-07-2021/

And ex Air NZ ATR72-500 ZK-MCY (msn 703), now M-ABOO, is in a paint hangar at Toulouse Francazal.

https://digitalairliners.com/2021/07/03 ... 3-07-2021/

PA515

Thanks PA515 so the 29TH and last ATR wont be far away from arriving home. Its a shame they could not get just one more and finish the fleet at 30. To have a fleet finish at 29 units seems so odd in my opinion.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19-coronavirus-pm-jacinda-ardern-on-australia-travel-bubble-stranded-kiwis/Q5KFF45UNNL2GU5Y4BMAYNXZZU/

From 11:59pm on Friday NT/WA will join VIC,TAS,ACT,SA in the Tasman Bubble with an negative covid test required within 72hours of departure.
Also from the same time New Zealanders stuck in QLD/NSW will be allowed to return home with an negative covid test, although travel for tourism will not be permitted at this stage.
QLD will be reviewed on Wednesday, if they can fully rejoin the bubble later on this week, with NSW being on hold for the foreseeable future.

NZ516 wrote:

Thanks PA515 so the 29TH and last ATR wont be far away from arriving home. Its a shame they could not get just one more and finish the fleet at 30. To have a fleet finish at 29 units seems so odd in my opinion.

I don't think ZK-MZF will be the last ATR72-600 for Air NZ. I suspect they have options. When the last order was announced the ATR website had a Press Release which said Air NZ also had 30 options, but about a day later that part was edited out. Don't know if it was a mistake or just a mistake to disclose it. I expect some Q300s will be replaced with ATR72-600s, but then some ATR72-600s may be replaced by A320s.

PA515

NZ6 wrote:

So the only real Airbus option was the A330. Which when compared to the 772 is arguably a non event even more so into North America where even LAX is out it's outer limits.

My recollection is the choice for Air NZ was between the 777-200ER and the A340-600, which had the range and was not ETOPS restricted.

PA515

PA515 wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

So the only real Airbus option was the A330. Which when compared to the 772 is arguably a non event even more so into North America where even LAX is out it's outer limits.

My recollection is the choice for Air NZ was between the 777-200ER and the A340-600, which had the range and was not ETOPS restricted.

PA515

Yeah, very correct. I dismissed it due to the economics of the quad jet.

In my mind the -600 was far too big for where they were intending on using the 772. That's more a 77W sized aircraft, the -500 has longer legs and better sized pax/cargo cabins. But the CASM of the A340-500 vs the 772 is not even comparable.

I think the sales rates on both variants speaks for itself. I also recall something about ETPOS range being extended or this being "all but rubber stamped" when the order was made so I believe this was known or at least expected with some level of confidence.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Sure and I guess back in 2004 they said we are going to update the long haul fleet which was 744s into LAX/NRT mainly and 763s elsewhere. In 2003 SYD-LAX was dropped and UA also dropped AKL-LAX.

In 2004, the order was aimed at the aging 763 fleet - obviously consideration was given to 744's and the 77W would have been considered. But other than the A380 and A340 there was nothing else out there so may have help force the 777 hand.

ZK-NBT wrote:

As you say really the A330 wasn’t an option neither the A340 being a quad while as you say the A350 wasn’t yet launched or just launched but a long way from ETS further than the 787 at the time, leaving the 777, interesting the 77W entered service in 2004 so that as Aerorobnz said earlier could have been an option certainly to replace the 744 fleet earlier, something would have needed to be done to the 763s if they were to continue Asian flying at the time though and those were I believe restricted on some of the longer flights HKG.

I'm struggling to follow this, but in 2004 the 744's were only around 14 years old. Some of the premium carriers would likely offload their equipment around this age but NZ - who was coming out of near bankruptcy couldn't afford such a luxury. As for doing something with the 763's. With airline growth and 787 delays, the airline did equip them with winglets which gained something like 4% fuel efficiency. Wasn't there about a 5 year delay on the 787 from the original window. I don't think NZ ever expected the last 763 to leave in 2017 back in 2004.

ZK-NBT wrote:

In terms of more 772s, I think it was Rob Fyfe from memory who described the 77L as a flying fuel tank, like carrying fuel to carry fuel to ultimately fly further while being the same size as the 77E, at a higher cost than a 77W which carries an extra 40-50 pax depending airline and configuration, that’s one reason why I believe VA went 77W over a smaller 77L, tbh they almost would have been better to get some well priced 744s in 2008/09 to carry them over to the 787/350 for 5/6 years.

Yeah I believe it was Fyfe, NZ didn't and still doesn't need the 77L. There was all sorts of talk about wonder new routes such as New York and South America which came from Fyfe and the 787 order. I think this is where it all came from but I could be wrong. The 772 did EZE fine and NYC was always a long way away.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ do use the extra space of the 77W pax and freight and I guess you could say like anything it’s a stepping stone to the next thing, the 787/350 in this case, more capable 787s in NZ’s case, that I think is why the 77W is so good for many given it replaced many 744s around the world 10% smaller 20% lower operating costs but carries more freight, in answer to ZK-OJQ, there isn’t really an argument, sure some kept 744s or went A346 or 772 but the 77W hit a spot for many NZ included.

Yeah and now that the world is changing and the need for the 77W is disappearing, it doesn't mean it was the wrong aircraft choice.

ZK-NBT wrote:

I agree ideally you want the larger 781 into LAX, how will this go for NZ, UA did it to SFO though I believe fairly restricted ex SFO at times. The economics of the 781 are very good so in pre COVID times a good aircraft for NZ to Asia, NZ were looking at 2 daily in some of the main routes to connect to EZE which is no more, and that whole game Asia-South America has again been pushed out with COVID for several years so 2 daily into NRT etc isn’t pressing anytime soon.

I believe the original config is too lite in premium cabins for the likes of LAX/SFO in North America. The Economy load is fine. Code-2 is about right. This is where the -10 may come into play yet.

To be fair the 763 fleet delivered 1990/2000 and 744s delivered 1990/99 are the same vintage. Neither was aging more than the other, as you say the 744 was needed at the time for its capacity into LAX and also NRT. I believe they also offered CX the 3 oldest 744 RR powered as they were after additional RR frames, CX went elsewhere and Got several PW from SQ instead. A fleet of 5 GE 744s may have still stayed for NZ given the engines were interchangeable with the 763 and the 744s still would have been used to LAX/LHR.

NZ did put winglets on the 763 yes, more the interiors which were dated for long haul, I believe the floors weren’t strong enough without being reinforced for the Business Premier seats. NZ did order 772s, they also ordered A320s barely a year after being near bankrupt. I think the initial plan was probably the 763 leaving in 2010ish with the initial plan for the 787 to be delivered from 2008, the 744 was initially meant to leave by late 2012 from memory.

Under Fyfe NZ added HKG-LHR, YVR, PVG, BJS which was a bit of a disaster from memory. While ending SIN, NGO, TPE in 2006.

Sorry the quote function is not great May make it hard to follow me a bit.

Yip, If I recall correctly the "763 replacement" occurred before the 744's due to this being a "strategic priority" for the airline at the time.

The 763's had some extreme limitations. Things like range and passenger options, there was this theory that the 763 couldn't support the new J product however this was true to an extent. The floor could have been strengthen but would have added further weight if I recall correctly. It's also very hard to open new markets such as SFO, YVR with the 744. Routes like IAH, EZE were also likely in the distant horizon but would again have the same issue.

BJS - wouldn't call it a disaster. They just grew China too quickly and arguably the wrong place with no partners. We've seen Air China do it under the alliance with NZ fine since.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong here.

Back in 2004, the airlines other choice was to order the A330 and hope Airbus developed something that would compete with the 787. Or, wait until Airbus confirmed the A350 and then ordered the A330 & A350 combo.

With nothing between the A330 and 744's routes like YVR, SFO possibly BJS would never have been possible.

We'd still have 744's until 2016+ assuming they got near launch orders on the -1000 otherwise 2018ish

Just a quick thought.

A332 might have been ok for Asia, possibly a bit small, NZ would have got 260-280 seats in a code 1 type configuration say, higher operating costs than the A333 but more range. The A333 really wouldn’t have reached many places for NZ back then.

SFO did launch in 2004 with the 744 3x weekly but was the fist 772 route and went 6 weekly right away.

YVR was a 772 from NOV 2007 3 weekly, the 744 did appear between 2009/11 but more probably because there wasn’t anywhere else for them to go other than LA-LHR in NS. 772s built up to daily by 2015/16 or so.

If you were buying a in production mid sized aircraft in 2004 for smaller Asian services the A330 was the golden ticket. In my opinion anyway.

Boeing didn't have anything in production in this market.

So it had to come down to; A) How do we grow into new longer markets & B) How do we also operate into thinner Asia routes.

If we go for A330, part B becomes impossible without the A340. (remember the A350 wasn't confirmed). If we go Boeing, the 772 serves A and the proposed 787/7E7 fits part A.

The first 772 route was SIN by memory.

Yes, NZ used the 744's in various places over the years. the only constant really was LAX/LHR, followed by SFO, TYO in it's prime.

A lot of good memories by many on here so makes great reading!! I remember the first 787 route was Perth. And the last 767 route was AKL to RAR I believe. The final 744 route was AKL to SFO using the last two in the fleet before full retirement.

The first day of the school holidays coming there will be 20 flights bringing 3000 tourists to Queenstown a new record.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/travel/destinatio ... l-holidays

BJS was launched before the Olympics in 2008, 2 weekly joining PVG which was -launched 3 weekly in November 2006, went 5 weekly in late 2007 then back to 3 weekly when BJS launched, the thing was PVG dropped to 2 weekly and BJS to 1 during northern summer periods. Maybe a 789 at the time might have helped? But as you say bad timing and growing to quickly, North Asia under Fyfe was a key area of expansion with HKG-LHR aswell and SIN was dropped.

SFO was first on the 772 late 2005 SIN was January 2006 then dropped completely in October 2006 sighting 95% of pax connect beyond, they didn’t have an SQ codeshare at the time.

NZ516 wrote:

A lot of good memories by many on here so makes great reading!! I remember the first 787 route was Perth. And the last 767 route was AKL to RAR I believe. The final 744 route was AKL to SFO using the last two in the fleet before full retirement.

RAR was one of the last 763 routes, AKL-SYD was the very last flight atleast.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health ... ay-closure

Raises an interesting set of questions around medical care centralization and transport.

NZ6 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong here.

Back in 2004, the airlines other choice was to order the A330 and hope Airbus developed something that would compete with the 787. Or, wait until Airbus confirmed the A350 and then ordered the A330 & A350 combo.

With nothing between the A330 and 744's routes like YVR, SFO possibly BJS would never have been possible.

We'd still have 744's until 2016+ assuming they got near launch orders on the -1000 otherwise 2018ish

Just a quick thought.

A332 might have been ok for Asia, possibly a bit small, NZ would have got 260-280 seats in a code 1 type configuration say, higher operating costs than the A333 but more range. The A333 really wouldn’t have reached many places for NZ back then.

SFO did launch in 2004 with the 744 3x weekly but was the fist 772 route and went 6 weekly right away.

YVR was a 772 from NOV 2007 3 weekly, the 744 did appear between 2009/11 but more probably because there wasn’t anywhere else for them to go other than LA-LHR in NS. 772s built up to daily by 2015/16 or so.

If you were buying a in production mid sized aircraft in 2004 for smaller Asian services the A330 was the golden ticket. In my opinion anyway.

Boeing didn't have anything in production in this market.

So it had to come down to; A) How do we grow into new longer markets & B) How do we also operate into thinner Asia routes.

If we go for A330, part B becomes impossible without the A340. (remember the A350 wasn't confirmed). If we go Boeing, the 772 serves A and the proposed 787/7E7 fits part A.

The first 772 route was SIN by memory.

Yes, NZ used the 744's in various places over the years. the only constant really was LAX/LHR, followed by SFO, TYO in it's prime.

I should have added, the other option was to wait and see what Airbus did to combat the 787. But if they had, most of the North American 772 flying we've seen wouldn't have been possible until the A350 arrived.

Unless of course they also got the A340 to fill that gap. But if they had, would we still have the expensive quad jets flying around now? Perhaps with slow sales Airbus may have been interested in something to switch them out at about 10-12 years old? Sounds like money down the drain though.

With this, we would have seen the A330 & A340 then A350 as the A340's left and maybe the original A330 would now be replaced with A330-800 or more A350's....

Oh, and what happened with the 744's here? With the -1000 not flying until late 2016. Will they years of between 2010(ish) and 2016(ish) had a fleet of 15(+/-) quad jets. 744 and A340?

It seems complicated and expensive.

NZ516 wrote:

The first day of the school holidays coming there will be 20 flights bringing 3000 tourists to Queenstown a new record.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/travel/destinatio ... l-holidays

I bet they still complain.

NZ6 wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

A332 might have been ok for Asia, possibly a bit small, NZ would have got 260-280 seats in a code 1 type configuration say, higher operating costs than the A333 but more range. The A333 really wouldn’t have reached many places for NZ back then.

SFO did launch in 2004 with the 744 3x weekly but was the fist 772 route and went 6 weekly right away.

YVR was a 772 from NOV 2007 3 weekly, the 744 did appear between 2009/11 but more probably because there wasn’t anywhere else for them to go other than LA-LHR in NS. 772s built up to daily by 2015/16 or so.

If you were buying a in production mid sized aircraft in 2004 for smaller Asian services the A330 was the golden ticket. In my opinion anyway.

Boeing didn't have anything in production in this market.

So it had to come down to; A) How do we grow into new longer markets & B) How do we also operate into thinner Asia routes.

If we go for A330, part B becomes impossible without the A340. (remember the A350 wasn't confirmed). If we go Boeing, the 772 serves A and the proposed 787/7E7 fits part A.

The first 772 route was SIN by memory.

Yes, NZ used the 744's in various places over the years. the only constant really was LAX/LHR, followed by SFO, TYO in it's prime.

I should have added, the other option was to wait and see what Airbus did to combat the 787. But if they had, most of the North American 772 flying we've seen wouldn't have been possible until the A350 arrived.

Unless of course they also got the A340 to fill that gap. But if they had, would we still have the expensive quad jets flying around now? Perhaps with slow sales Airbus may have been interested in something to switch them out at about 10-12 years old? Sounds like money down the drain though.

With this, we would have seen the A330 & A340 then A350 as the A340's left and maybe the original A330 would now be replaced with A330-800 or more A350's....

Oh, and what happened with the 744's here? With the -1000 not flying until late 2016. Will they years of between 2010(ish) and 2016(ish) had a fleet of 15(+/-) quad jets. 744 and A340?

It seems complicated and expensive.

The 343 would have been better but the last were delivered around 2005 iirc. Comparable fuel burn to a 77E, maybe a bit more expensive to maintain given its a quad, good range and for NZ probably between 270/290 pax.

I wonder what might have happened if SQ had brought AN, some of their 343s could have ended up at AN and possibly NZ?

Hind sight is great but I think NZ made the right choice in the 777/787 from a simplified view.

NZ6 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong here.

Back in 2004, the airlines other choice was to order the A330 and hope Airbus developed something that would compete with the 787. Or, wait until Airbus confirmed the A350 and then ordered the A330 & A350 combo.

With nothing between the A330 and 744's routes like YVR, SFO possibly BJS would never have been possible.

We'd still have 744's until 2016+ assuming they got near launch orders on the -1000 otherwise 2018ish

Just a quick thought.

A332 might have been ok for Asia, possibly a bit small, NZ would have got 260-280 seats in a code 1 type configuration say, higher operating costs than the A333 but more range. The A333 really wouldn’t have reached many places for NZ back then.

SFO did launch in 2004 with the 744 3x weekly but was the fist 772 route and went 6 weekly right away.

YVR was a 772 from NOV 2007 3 weekly, the 744 did appear between 2009/11 but more probably because there wasn’t anywhere else for them to go other than LA-LHR in NS. 772s built up to daily by 2015/16 or so.

If you were buying a in production mid sized aircraft in 2004 for smaller Asian services the A330 was the golden ticket. In my opinion anyway.

Boeing didn't have anything in production in this market.

So it had to come down to; A) How do we grow into new longer markets & B) How do we also operate into thinner Asia routes.

If we go for A330, part B becomes impossible without the A340. (remember the A350 wasn't confirmed). If we go Boeing, the 772 serves A and the proposed 787/7E7 fits part A.

The first 772 route was SIN by memory.

Yes, NZ used the 744's in various places over the years. the only constant really was LAX/LHR, followed by SFO, TYO in it's prime.

Long haul the 744s over the years flew from memory at various time on a regular basis,

AKL-LAX-LON
AKL-LAX-FRA
AKL-LAX
AKL-NAN-LAX-FRA
AKL-SFO
AKL-YVR
AKL-NRT
AKL-KIX
AKL-HKG-LHR
AKL-HKG (Briefly late 90s IIRC)
SYD-LAX
CHC-LAX

Also when they decided to retire the 747-419 fleet. It was not one for one with the 77W as they were very expensive to buy brand new at the time. So the 8 744s were replaced by 7 77Ws and so not all 744 routes were continued with the 77Ws.

NZ516 wrote:

Also when they decided to retire the 747-419 fleet. It was not one for one with the 77W as they were very expensive to buy brand new at the time. So the 8 744s were replaced by 7 77Ws and so not all 744 routes were continued with the 77Ws.

They initially ordered 4 77Ws then leased a 5th, I guess the initial plan was only for NZ1/2 LAX-LHR and NZ5/6 LAX to be 77Ws, the last 2 were ordered quite a bit later to replace the final 2 744s, the plan was I guess 772s to SFO once the first 789s arrived, SFO must have been doing ok and they got 2 extra 77Ws.

As NZ6 said the only real constant on the 744 was LAX-LHR which even went to a 772 when HKG-LHR came for a while.

NZ516 wrote:

Also when they decided to retire the 747-419 fleet. It was not one for one with the 77W as they were very expensive to buy brand new at the time. So the 8 744s were replaced by 7 77Ws and so not all 744 routes were continued with the 77Ws.

To be technically correct, not all were 419's either.

As for the one for one replacement. The initial announcement back in August 2007, was the airline converting 4 options into firm orders and took the opportunity not to place all "eggs in one basket" with a full order of 8.

When we look at it, the 744 was a very big aircraft for NZ and outside of LAX there was arguably mixed results in it.

So did the airline question if they needed 8 777W? Or were some better off as 772? When did they firm up additional 787 options? Would this free up existing 772's? How did growth preform over this period? .

It was never going to be as simple as I'll have 8 new planes please. Depending on what dates you compare, the widebody fleet has grown by around by nearly 40-50% over the last 20 years

At the end of the day the airline started the ball rolling with 4 firm, made it 5 reasonably quickly and then ended up with 7, in fact 8 if we consider OKT.

My comments and the conversation is nothing more than a very high level look back at the LH fleet evolution over the last 20 years and how it's played out vs what Airbus could've looked liked.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

If you were buying a in production mid sized aircraft in 2004 for smaller Asian services the A330 was the golden ticket. In my opinion anyway.

Boeing didn't have anything in production in this market.

So it had to come down to; A) How do we grow into new longer markets & B) How do we also operate into thinner Asia routes.

If we go for A330, part B becomes impossible without the A340. (remember the A350 wasn't confirmed). If we go Boeing, the 772 serves A and the proposed 787/7E7 fits part A.

The first 772 route was SIN by memory.

Yes, NZ used the 744's in various places over the years. the only constant really was LAX/LHR, followed by SFO, TYO in it's prime.

I should have added, the other option was to wait and see what Airbus did to combat the 787. But if they had, most of the North American 772 flying we've seen wouldn't have been possible until the A350 arrived.

Unless of course they also got the A340 to fill that gap. But if they had, would we still have the expensive quad jets flying around now? Perhaps with slow sales Airbus may have been interested in something to switch them out at about 10-12 years old? Sounds like money down the drain though.

With this, we would have seen the A330 & A340 then A350 as the A340's left and maybe the original A330 would now be replaced with A330-800 or more A350's....

Oh, and what happened with the 744's here? With the -1000 not flying until late 2016. Will they years of between 2010(ish) and 2016(ish) had a fleet of 15(+/-) quad jets. 744 and A340?

It seems complicated and expensive.

The 343 would have been better but the last were delivered around 2005 iirc. Comparable fuel burn to a 77E, maybe a bit more expensive to maintain given its a quad, good range and for NZ probably between 270/290 pax.

I wonder what might have happened if SQ had brought AN, some of their 343s could have ended up at AN and possibly NZ?

Hind sight is great but I think NZ made the right choice in the 777/787 from a simplified view.

Yeah probably, I've heard and read very mixed reports on it over longer sectors. Even hearing very mixed results from QF's time with it on AKL-LAX.

I could be very wrong however.

I'm more an Airbus fan than Boeing so trust me, I'd rather the A330/A350.

NZ6 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

I should have added, the other option was to wait and see what Airbus did to combat the 787. But if they had, most of the North American 772 flying we've seen wouldn't have been possible until the A350 arrived.

Unless of course they also got the A340 to fill that gap. But if they had, would we still have the expensive quad jets flying around now? Perhaps with slow sales Airbus may have been interested in something to switch them out at about 10-12 years old? Sounds like money down the drain though.

With this, we would have seen the A330 & A340 then A350 as the A340's left and maybe the original A330 would now be replaced with A330-800 or more A350's....

Oh, and what happened with the 744's here? With the -1000 not flying until late 2016. Will they years of between 2010(ish) and 2016(ish) had a fleet of 15(+/-) quad jets. 744 and A340?

It seems complicated and expensive.

The 343 would have been better but the last were delivered around 2005 iirc. Comparable fuel burn to a 77E, maybe a bit more expensive to maintain given its a quad, good range and for NZ probably between 270/290 pax.

I wonder what might have happened if SQ had brought AN, some of their 343s could have ended up at AN and possibly NZ?

Hind sight is great but I think NZ made the right choice in the 777/787 from a simplified view.

Yeah probably, I've heard and read very mixed reports on it over longer sectors. Even hearing very mixed results from QF's time with it on AKL-LAX.

I could be very wrong however.

I'm more an Airbus fan than Boeing so trust me, I'd rather the A330/A350.

You mean the QF 332s AKL-LAX? They were new at the time delivered 2007/08 the 4 they used AKL-LAX and only 235 seats. They were the most capable at the time but I’ve always heard they were pretty restricted particularly ex LAX where the block time was 13.5 hrs vs 12.5 AKL-LAX. The last built 332s probably could have done it reasonably well which JQ had some of, now with QF.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

The 343 would have been better but the last were delivered around 2005 iirc. Comparable fuel burn to a 77E, maybe a bit more expensive to maintain given its a quad, good range and for NZ probably between 270/290 pax.

I wonder what might have happened if SQ had brought AN, some of their 343s could have ended up at AN and possibly NZ?

Hind sight is great but I think NZ made the right choice in the 777/787 from a simplified view.

Yeah probably, I've heard and read very mixed reports on it over longer sectors. Even hearing very mixed results from QF's time with it on AKL-LAX.

I could be very wrong however.

I'm more an Airbus fan than Boeing so trust me, I'd rather the A330/A350.

You mean the QF 332s AKL-LAX? They were new at the time delivered 2007/08 the 4 they used AKL-LAX and only 235 seats. They were the most capable at the time but I’ve always heard they were pretty restricted particularly ex LAX where the block time was 13.5 hrs vs 12.5 AKL-LAX. The last built 332s probably could have done it reasonably well which JQ had some of, now with QF.

Later build A332s had a range of around 13500kms so could quite comfortably manage LAX-AKL at 10500kms even with moderate headwinds. In fact, later build A332s could probably do LAX-BNE 11500kms.

This may have been a better bet for VA rather than the 77Ws which were often emptier on LAX-BNE compared with LAX-SYD. VA's A332s were later builds so had the longer range compared with the early Citiflyer A332s QF originally received.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

The 343 would have been better but the last were delivered around 2005 iirc. Comparable fuel burn to a 77E, maybe a bit more expensive to maintain given its a quad, good range and for NZ probably between 270/290 pax.

I wonder what might have happened if SQ had brought AN, some of their 343s could have ended up at AN and possibly NZ?

Hind sight is great but I think NZ made the right choice in the 777/787 from a simplified view.

Yeah probably, I've heard and read very mixed reports on it over longer sectors. Even hearing very mixed results from QF's time with it on AKL-LAX.

I could be very wrong however.

I'm more an Airbus fan than Boeing so trust me, I'd rather the A330/A350.

You mean the QF 332s AKL-LAX? They were new at the time delivered 2007/08 the 4 they used AKL-LAX and only 235 seats. They were the most capable at the time but I’ve always heard they were pretty restricted particularly ex LAX where the block time was 13.5 hrs vs 12.5 AKL-LAX. The last built 332s probably could have done it reasonably well which JQ had some of, now with QF.

Did they use the 200? I thought it was the 300. Which will void that example well and truly. Completely different aircraft.

Long haul schedule is looking a bit better from 31 Oct if the vaccine roll out goes to plan.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/travel/2 ... er-31.html

NZ6 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Yeah probably, I've heard and read very mixed reports on it over longer sectors. Even hearing very mixed results from QF's time with it on AKL-LAX.

I could be very wrong however.

I'm more an Airbus fan than Boeing so trust me, I'd rather the A330/A350.

You mean the QF 332s AKL-LAX? They were new at the time delivered 2007/08 the 4 they used AKL-LAX and only 235 seats. They were the most capable at the time but I’ve always heard they were pretty restricted particularly ex LAX where the block time was 13.5 hrs vs 12.5 AKL-LAX. The last built 332s probably could have done it reasonably well which JQ had some of, now with QF.

Did they use the 200? I thought it was the 300. Which will void that example well and truly. Completely different aircraft.

They had a sub fleet of 4 200s which did AKL-LAX and 1-2 other routes. A 300 would have been in HNL or NAN every day.

tullamarine wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Yeah probably, I've heard and read very mixed reports on it over longer sectors. Even hearing very mixed results from QF's time with it on AKL-LAX.

I could be very wrong however.

I'm more an Airbus fan than Boeing so trust me, I'd rather the A330/A350.

You mean the QF 332s AKL-LAX? They were new at the time delivered 2007/08 the 4 they used AKL-LAX and only 235 seats. They were the most capable at the time but I’ve always heard they were pretty restricted particularly ex LAX where the block time was 13.5 hrs vs 12.5 AKL-LAX. The last built 332s probably could have done it reasonably well which JQ had some of, now with QF.

Later build A332s had a range of around 13500kms so could quite comfortably manage LAX-AKL at 10500kms even with moderate headwinds. In fact, later build A332s could probably do LAX-BNE 11500kms.

This may have been a better bet for VA rather than the 77Ws which were often emptier on LAX-BNE compared with LAX-SYD. VA's A332s were later builds so had the longer range compared with the early Citiflyer A332s QF originally received.

Did or do QF have any 242T A332s? I think the CityFlyer birds the first 4 and maybe a couple more were 233T? The ones used AKL-LAX were I think 235T and the last 6 delivered new to JQ now with QF were 238T? 238T May have been ok on AKL-LAX I think, and I do recall 6-7 years ago some talk of consideration of using the 200 on BNE-LAX? It would I guess have been the 6 newest ones in a different configuration.

Not sure what VA A332 fleet was like?