NZ6 wrote:

I was actually thinking a few weeks back, I wish they'd moved Domestic over to International for the two years, would've given a much better customer experience. Obviously not that practical as people were still departing as well as all the customers and biosecurity considerations for arrivals.

Gates 1-10 would work nicely for domestic for the next 12-18months, hard to really see them getting that much use before then.

Even if when we had the short lived Tasman Bubble the were mainly only used for 2x banks an day then would sit empty for the rest of the day.

Does NZ currently have an Issue with there ATR 72-600 fleet?

My CHC-ZQN flight this afternoon has been canceled, and rebooked onto an new flight operated by an A320NEO. Reason being was 'engineering requirements' sitting in the CHC lounge there seems to been an few other ATR flights cancelled for the same 'engineering requirements'.

e.g. NZ5655, NZ5628, NZ5786 etc

I would have though it was now related to the current weather in the South Island....

Originair are adding Napier:

We are delighted to announce the commencement of services to Napier from Nelson, Hamilton and Palmerston North, from Friday 17 September.
https://www.facebook.com/Originair/phot ... 61/?type=3

A quick squizz at their timetables from 17 Sept shows these weekly direct flights (https://originair.co.nz/booking-and-schedule/):
NSN/PMR: 9-10
PMR/HLZ: 7
PMR/NPE: 2
NPE/HLZ: 3
NSN/NPE: 2
NSN/HLZ: 1
NSN/WLG: 2
There are also a lot more indirect routings. For instance NSN/HLZ is typically via PMR, and the new PMR/NPE services continue to HLZ.

axio wrote:

Originair are adding Napier:

We are delighted to announce the commencement of services to Napier from Nelson, Hamilton and Palmerston North, from Friday 17 September.
https://www.facebook.com/Originair/phot ... 61/?type=3

A quick squizz at their timetables from 17 Sept shows these weekly direct flights (https://originair.co.nz/booking-and-schedule/):
NSN/PMR: 9-10
PMR/HLZ: 7
PMR/NPE: 2
NPE/HLZ: 3
NSN/NPE: 2
NSN/HLZ: 1
NSN/WLG: 2
There are also a lot more indirect routings. For instance NSN/HLZ is typically via PMR, and the new PMR/NPE services continue to HLZ.

Must be an very small speciality market that requires these city pairs so infrequently. Great to have some more routes in the market, but wonder how long they will last.

Origin Air is expanding again with 3 new routes from September 17.
Napier to Hamilton
Napier to Nelson
Napier to Palmerston North

https://i.stuff.co.nz/travel/126012969/ ... hawkes-bay

ZK-MZF is our last ATR 72-600. But more could be ordered depending on whether Air New Zealand decides to sell the Q300's. I also have a photo of ZK-MCP as well in Toulouse.

zkncj wrote:

https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/126010838/auckland-airport-lays-out-plan-to-merge-domestic-jet-operations-with-international-terminal

Did someone just get confused at AIAL an push go on this project by mistake? AKL new domestic terminal works to start early next year!

I'm shocked! We've only been waiting 55 years for this - 60 years until it's complete. I'm hoping there will be some swing gates so that aircraft can do domestic peak services and then a Tasman crossing during the middle of the day with a minimum of hassle. And I'm hoping that domestic to international passenger transfers will be made super-easy as well.

DavidByrne wrote:

zkncj wrote:

https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/126010838/auckland-airport-lays-out-plan-to-merge-domestic-jet-operations-with-international-terminal

Did someone just get confused at AIAL an push go on this project by mistake? AKL new domestic terminal works to start early next year!

I'm shocked! We've only been waiting 55 years for this - 60 years until it's complete. I'm hoping there will be some swing gates so that aircraft can do domestic peak services and then a Tasman crossing during the middle of the day with a minimum of hassle. And I'm hoping that domestic to international passenger transfers will be made super-easy as well.

Three story pier with, an International Arrivals Mezzanine would be ideal for AKL but probably unlikely to happen.
.

darrellpearce wrote:

ZK-MZF is our last ATR 72-600. But more could be ordered depending on whether Air New Zealand decides to sell the Q300's. I also have a photo of ZK-MCP as well in Toulouse.

Management have been fairly clear they expect to use the Q300 until at least 2030. It's unlikely there would be more ATRs ordered. Whatever comes next will have to be new technology and more sustainably minded.

zkncj wrote:

Does NZ currently have an Issue with there ATR 72-600 fleet?

My CHC-ZQN flight this afternoon has been canceled, and rebooked onto an new flight operated by an A320NEO. Reason being was 'engineering requirements' sitting in the CHC lounge there seems to been an few other ATR flights cancelled for the same 'engineering requirements'.

e.g. NZ5655, NZ5628, NZ5786 etc

I would have though it was now related to the current weather in the South Island....

Probably due to the aircraft in Dunedin this morning with trim issues.

Does anyone agree with this?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/300 ... -terminals

I get the "fresh air" and "stretch your legs" argument. But how awful is the dash across the carpark at 0700 on a July morning after getting off NZ5 or NZ7? The wind fowling off the Manukau and a fast approaching band of freezing cold rain to contend with? The alternative a inconvenient and slow bus. You're often still waiting outside in the cold and wind. Wondering, if I'd walked, would I be there by now?

I get the flipside of the argument is the domestic inbound arrival to AKL on a late summers afternoon, taking a casual stroll in the sunshine before your evening international departure trying not to walk into any lampposts as your gaze out to the apron.

Irrespective of that debate.. connections will be improved, customer experienced will be improved, there'll be a vast improvement for those with mobility issues. NZ logistics will be improved reducing costs so it's win win win really.

I'd love to see an outside garden zone so departing or transiting passengers could soak in some clean fresh air. We used to call them smoking decks, some observations decks were like this too but we could make it a "fern garden" or similar, something Kiwiana.

Another note on the AKL improvements. If this going to help or hinder passengers ex CHC?

They'll be able to connect to RAR/NAN (plus many other places) under one roof in AKL. That experience will be significantly improved over the terminal transfer they currently have. So a huge win for them. But will that make direct flights ex CHC an even harder sell?

NZ6 wrote:

Another note on the AKL improvements. If this going to help or hinder passengers ex CHC?

They'll be able to connect to RAR/NAN (plus many other places) under one roof in AKL. That experience will be significantly improved over the terminal transfer they currently have. So a huge win for them. But will that make direct flights ex CHC an even harder sell?

Nope - for these short haul sectors a 1-2hour saving getting to NAN/RAR by flying non-stop, plus the incovience of packing up the family on one flight to move to the next, not having to clear the border in AKL partway through your journey, and avoiding the risk of missing connections is surely more attractive than an integrated terminal experience in AKL. While people outside of AKL bleat about the terminal-terminal transfer, its not actually that bad and I wouldnt have thought a big consideration in peoples decision-making.

NZ6 wrote:

Does anyone agree with this?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/300 ... -terminals

No, not at all. The status quo is an embarrassment.

But yes, I do think it will make the case for nonstop flights from WLG or CHC to the Pacific or North America more difficult, but only very slightly.

a7ala wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Another note on the AKL improvements. If this going to help or hinder passengers ex CHC?

They'll be able to connect to RAR/NAN (plus many other places) under one roof in AKL. That experience will be significantly improved over the terminal transfer they currently have. So a huge win for them. But will that make direct flights ex CHC an even harder sell?

Nope - for these short haul sectors a 1-2hour saving getting to NAN/RAR by flying non-stop, plus the incovience of packing up the family on one flight to move to the next, not having to clear the border in AKL partway through your journey, and avoiding the risk of missing connections is surely more attractive than an integrated terminal experience in AKL. While people outside of AKL bleat about the terminal-terminal transfer, its not actually that bad and I wouldnt have thought a big consideration in peoples decision-making.

Hmmm interesting.

I completely agree that the uncertainty of missing a connection is a big factor when looking at direct vs a stopover.

I also agree with direct being preferred if we're comparing two identically options on all other elements (price, product etc).

My thinking was more along the lines of.... AKL will always be an option in addition to any direct flights. Will the idea of an easier transit, that being under one roof, not having to move terminals, get wet, rely on a bus etc make this option less unattractive? - not to go as far as suggesting it being the preferred option.

If people do elect via AKL and have a good experience and save money... does this make direct flights more difficult to sell?

Remembering we need enough people willing to pay a premium for a direct as the excess supply ex AKL gives the market loads of seats at cheaper prices. Put simply into an example, we need people to ignore the $200 seat via AKL and buy the $280 direct seat.

DavidByrne wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Does anyone agree with this?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/300 ... -terminals

No, not at all. The status quo is an embarrassment.

But yes, I do think it will make the case for nonstop flights from WLG or CHC to the Pacific or North America more difficult, but only very slightly.

I think AKLD is an embarrassment as a whole. The walk is nice on a fine day and it suits as an alternative option but it's scary to think it's till one of the recommended options.

NZ6 wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Does anyone agree with this?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/300 ... -terminals

No, not at all. The status quo is an embarrassment.

But yes, I do think it will make the case for nonstop flights from WLG or CHC to the Pacific or North America more difficult, but only very slightly.

I think AKLD is an embarrassment as a whole. The walk is nice on a fine day and it suits as an alternative option but it's scary to think it's till one of the recommended options.

The other question to ask is if they bring the domestic jet services over to the international terminal will they leave the link services behind? That could create new challenges with DOM to DOM transfers not being so simple. For instance it's easy to now do CHC AKL WRE but if it's a long walk it won't be so easy. What really needs to be done is a complete move over of all domestic services to be brought over together.
This will be a game changer for AKL if it could happen. The old domestic gates could then be used for cargo.

NZ516 wrote:

The other question to ask is if they bring the domestic jet services over to the international terminal will they leave the link services behind? That could create new challenges with DOM to DOM transfers not being so simple. For instance it's easy to now do CHC AKL WRE but if it's a long walk it won't be so easy. What really needs to be done is a complete move over of all domestic services to be brought over together.
This will be a game changer for AKL if it could happen. The old domestic gates could then be used for cargo.

Prop move is planned for stage 2, stage one is to move NZ/JQ jet services into the new terminal space. Then building new gates for the props becomes the next stage.

Although knowing AIAL I wouldn't be holding my breath on the props getting anything fancy built, and like it will have an budget cut by then.

Since the new pier for Jets is going to be between the current JQ Gates and Gates 1-10 in International, I'm half expecting AIAL to turn the current NZ Jet gates into prop gates with an link between the two buildings.

zkncj wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

The other question to ask is if they bring the domestic jet services over to the international terminal will they leave the link services behind? That could create new challenges with DOM to DOM transfers not being so simple. For instance it's easy to now do CHC AKL WRE but if it's a long walk it won't be so easy. What really needs to be done is a complete move over of all domestic services to be brought over together.
This will be a game changer for AKL if it could happen. The old domestic gates could then be used for cargo.

Prop move is planned for stage 2, stage one is to move NZ/JQ jet services into the new terminal space. Then building new gates for the props becomes the next stage.

Although knowing AIAL I wouldn't be holding my breath on the props getting anything fancy built, and like it will have an budget cut by then.

Since the new pier for Jets is going to be between the current JQ Gates and Gates 1-10 in International, I'm half expecting AIAL to turn the current NZ Jet gates into prop gates with an link between the two buildings.

So it must be a big scale proposal to fill all that empty space currently between the domestic and international terminals. Would the new domestic jet pier be built with gates on both sides then? Enough to park 6 A320s each side perhaps. This would be a huge project and allow for future growth and even some new E jets maybe hint hint.
Plus as you say the prop flights moving along to the current domestic jet gates. If this would all be under the same roof it will still be a long walk hopefully they will get more travelators to make the journey quicker.

NZ516 wrote:

The other question to ask is if they bring the domestic jet services over to the international terminal will they leave the link services behind? That could create new challenges with DOM to DOM transfers not being so simple. For instance it's easy to now do CHC AKL WRE but if it's a long walk it won't be so easy. What really needs to be done is a complete move over of all domestic services to be brought over together.
This will be a game changer for AKL if it could happen. The old domestic gates could then be used for cargo.

I could definitely see recommencement of WRE-WLG Q300 non-stops under the scenario where turbo<>jets would have to change terminals. You may also see more turbo<>jets happening in WLG and CHC eg. TRG-AKL-ZQN might switch to via WLG or CHC.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politi ... n-strategy

I'm not sure if it's publicly available yet or just given to the media. But this article will give you a taste of what the report says.

Most noticeable points for me

• Good sign, they believe we can start opening the border early 2022
• There is no vaccine target: Personally I think we'll get well into 90%, setting a lower target may sway people into the no or delay camp. Not suggesting this is the reason for no target.

There's still a requirement on negative tests and arrival testing etc. Also only Kiwis to low and medium risk?

It very much seems the elimination strategy remains in place. So one does wonder how many years it will be before we start to even look at normal travel again?. I'm not suggesting the COVID posters were going to be pulled down on 1st Jan, far from it. But if we keep elimination at the forefront of our approach it's going to be a long restrictive road.

I was hoping to see a restrict or control approach.

The PM will respond tomorrow.

I wonder if NSW would be deemed low / medium risk as it stands today? They've very much moved into slow it down and vaccinate as fast as you can phase. So I don't think they'll ever be COVID free again.

Once we reach 80% and everyone has been offered the vaccine and a chance to get it then we’ll have to open the borders to vaccinated travellers to be part of the world again. Covid will still make it in, but thankfully as has been seen elsewhere it is 90%+ unvaccinated people that are ending up in hospital and 99%+ that are dying from it - Darwin Award nominees in other words.

Zkpilot wrote:

Once we reach 80% and everyone has been offered the vaccine and a chance to get it then we’ll have to open the borders to vaccinated travellers to be part of the world again. Covid will still make it in, but thankfully as has been seen elsewhere it is 90%+ unvaccinated people that are ending up in hospital and 99%+ that are dying from it - Darwin Award nominees in other words.

I completely agree with your comments. This is exactly what we should be doing.

Having been listening to a few interviews this morning and reading several articles. It still very much seems like we're sticking with elimination going forward. Scary because that means things like lockdowns, alert level systems etc all remain in place because....when we get an case, we eliminate it as we've done several time before.

Reading between the lines, any travel in early 2022 will be for vaccinated Kiwis only (we expected the vaccinated part) - to low risk countries, on the basis that with a negative test on their return we shouldn't have any 'outbreaks'.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. But if I'm a tourism operator. I shouldn't be expecting international arrivals in the first half of next year either?

NZ516 wrote:

So it must be a big scale proposal to fill all that empty space currently between the domestic and international terminals. Would the new domestic jet pier be built with gates on both sides then? Enough to park 6 A320s each side perhaps. This would be a huge project and allow for future growth and even some new E jets maybe hint hint.
Plus as you say the prop flights moving along to the current domestic jet gates. If this would all be under the same roof it will still be a long walk hopefully they will get more travelators to make the journey quicker.

12 airbridges would seem reasonable, although maybe not much more increase the current terminal NZ has 6x airbridges and JQ has 3x along with one A320 stair gate that seems to be shared by NZ/JQ.

CHC has 5x airbridges for domestic, plus an further two swing airbridges that are shared with International. Plus gate 15 was design for a 737/A320 but never had an air bridge fitted, gate 15/16 has been taken over by the ATRs in CHC.

Would 12 gates in Auckland be enough?

zkncj wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

So it must be a big scale proposal to fill all that empty space currently between the domestic and international terminals. Would the new domestic jet pier be built with gates on both sides then? Enough to park 6 A320s each side perhaps. This would be a huge project and allow for future growth and even some new E jets maybe hint hint.
Plus as you say the prop flights moving along to the current domestic jet gates. If this would all be under the same roof it will still be a long walk hopefully they will get more travelators to make the journey quicker.

12 airbridges would seem reasonable, although maybe not much more increase the current terminal NZ has 6x airbridges and JQ has 3x along with one A320 stair gate that seems to be shared by NZ/JQ.

CHC has 5x airbridges for domestic, plus an further two swing airbridges that are shared with International. Plus gate 15 was design for a 737/A320 but never had an air bridge fitted, gate 15/16 has been taken over by the ATRs in CHC.

Would 12 gates in Auckland be enough?

I'd say 12 would be a reasonable amount (a 33% increase on current) , with ideally 2 being wide body capable and with one of those 2 being dual bridged would be a good amount of future proofing.

At the end of the day however, its how flights are sequenced and allocated to them than the total number that will determine how efficiently it will operate. Travelling through the big 3 airports in NZ there is a notable difference in how smoothly the stands/aprons flow between the 3.

Today I noticed that Air NZ put on a 320 flying CHC to IVC. NZ6161 operated by ZK-OXL might be for peak demand. This also can free up the ATRs that normally do this route. To start a new one eg CHC to Oban perhaps. Stewart Island could become the next tropical island getaway destination lol.
Plus another bonus you won't need to bring your passport to travel.

I think I saw a discussion somewhere (reddit? can't find it.) about an ATR having a trim issue somewhere down south (might be IVC), messing up the sceduling. A320 might be filling in for that.

NPL8800 wrote:

zkncj wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

So it must be a big scale proposal to fill all that empty space currently between the domestic and international terminals. Would the new domestic jet pier be built with gates on both sides then? Enough to park 6 A320s each side perhaps. This would be a huge project and allow for future growth and even some new E jets maybe hint hint.
Plus as you say the prop flights moving along to the current domestic jet gates. If this would all be under the same roof it will still be a long walk hopefully they will get more travelators to make the journey quicker.

12 airbridges would seem reasonable, although maybe not much more increase the current terminal NZ has 6x airbridges and JQ has 3x along with one A320 stair gate that seems to be shared by NZ/JQ.

CHC has 5x airbridges for domestic, plus an further two swing airbridges that are shared with International. Plus gate 15 was design for a 737/A320 but never had an air bridge fitted, gate 15/16 has been taken over by the ATRs in CHC.

Would 12 gates in Auckland be enough?

I'd say 12 would be a reasonable amount (a 33% increase on current) , with ideally 2 being wide body capable and with one of those 2 being dual bridged would be a good amount of future proofing.

At the end of the day however, its how flights are sequenced and allocated to them than the total number that will determine how efficiently it will operate. Travelling through the big 3 airports in NZ there is a notable difference in how smoothly the stands/aprons flow between the 3.

Pre-Covid AKL was getting pretty tight on the NZ stands at peak. When they are operating every 30minutes to AKL-CHC/WLG at peak pre Covid. I’m 5 years time it’s probably likely to see an return to that frequency on those city pairs.
With 7x 321N on order for domestic, that could change things up if they choose to go for 240 seats on the domestic configuration.

NZ516 wrote:

Today I noticed that Air NZ put on a 320 flying CHC to IVC. NZ6161 operated by ZK-OXL might be for peak demand. This also can free up the ATRs that normally do this route. To start a new one eg CHC to Oban perhaps. Stewart Island could become the next tropical island getaway destination lol.
Plus another bonus you won't need to bring your passport to travel.

There was an lot of weather related delays / cancellations on Monday they maybe be still playing catch-up from that.

According to NZ 3 X ATR are out of service due to maintenance issues as per the stuff news article

https://i.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-tro ... p-problems

NPL8800 wrote:

zkncj wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

So it must be a big scale proposal to fill all that empty space currently between the domestic and international terminals. Would the new domestic jet pier be built with gates on both sides then? Enough to park 6 A320s each side perhaps. This would be a huge project and allow for future growth and even some new E jets maybe hint hint.
Plus as you say the prop flights moving along to the current domestic jet gates. If this would all be under the same roof it will still be a long walk hopefully they will get more travelators to make the journey quicker.

12 airbridges would seem reasonable, although maybe not much more increase the current terminal NZ has 6x airbridges and JQ has 3x along with one A320 stair gate that seems to be shared by NZ/JQ.

CHC has 5x airbridges for domestic, plus an further two swing airbridges that are shared with International. Plus gate 15 was design for a 737/A320 but never had an air bridge fitted, gate 15/16 has been taken over by the ATRs in CHC.

Would 12 gates in Auckland be enough?

I'd say 12 would be a reasonable amount (a 33% increase on current) , with ideally 2 being wide body capable and with one of those 2 being dual bridged would be a good amount of future proofing.

At the end of the day however, its how flights are sequenced and allocated to them than the total number that will determine how efficiently it will operate. Travelling through the big 3 airports in NZ there is a notable difference in how smoothly the stands/aprons flow between the 3.

Yup 12 will do for the next decade especially with somewhat permanent reductions in international visitors likely and with NZ getting a domestic fleet of A321 that offer a sizeable capacity boost.
The existing terminal apron didn’t help matters with delays caused by aircraft movements as well as being more exposed (rear stairs often not used due to wind).
Eventually however the new domestic terminal is going to have the ability to double the number of gates as it’s built out and eventually spreading almost to the current domestic terminal!

dhcomet wrote:

According to NZ 3 X ATR are out of service due to maintenance issues as per the stuff news article

https://i.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-tro ... p-problems

Thanks for the link. Yesterday there were a lot of CHC WLG 320 services with special flight numbers and recently seen 320s on CHC DUD.

Zkpilot wrote:

NPL8800 wrote:

zkncj wrote:

12 airbridges would seem reasonable, although maybe not much more increase the current terminal NZ has 6x airbridges and JQ has 3x along with one A320 stair gate that seems to be shared by NZ/JQ.

CHC has 5x airbridges for domestic, plus an further two swing airbridges that are shared with International. Plus gate 15 was design for a 737/A320 but never had an air bridge fitted, gate 15/16 has been taken over by the ATRs in CHC.

Would 12 gates in Auckland be enough?

I'd say 12 would be a reasonable amount (a 33% increase on current) , with ideally 2 being wide body capable and with one of those 2 being dual bridged would be a good amount of future proofing.

At the end of the day however, its how flights are sequenced and allocated to them than the total number that will determine how efficiently it will operate. Travelling through the big 3 airports in NZ there is a notable difference in how smoothly the stands/aprons flow between the 3.

Yup 12 will do for the next decade especially with somewhat permanent reductions in international visitors likely and with NZ getting a domestic fleet of A321 that offer a sizeable capacity boost.
The existing terminal apron didn’t help matters with delays caused by aircraft movements as well as being more exposed (rear stairs often not used due to wind).
Eventually however the new domestic terminal is going to have the ability to double the number of gates as it’s built out and eventually spreading almost to the current domestic terminal!

It will be a great asset to have for the future and be quite exciting to see it get built. It's such a large site that it will take up and knowing that we have been waiting for it so long.

I hardly see the rear stairs used in AKL on the 320s when I'm up there so that is why. While in CHC they are nearly always used even when it's rainy and of course colder than AKL.

NZ516 wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

NPL8800 wrote:

I hardly see the rear stairs used in AKL on the 320s when I'm up there so that is why. While in CHC they are nearly always used even when it's rainy and of course colder than AKL.

AKL they seem to no use the rear stairs at the first sign of rain or wind. Also if the aircraft doesn’t seem to have an right turn e.g got more than an hour at the gate.

I flew AKL-CHC-ZQN on Monday both flights on a320s and the rear stairs were used even when it was snowing at the airport.

zkncj wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

AKL they seem to no use the rear stairs at the first sign of rain or wind. Also if the aircraft doesn’t seem to have an right turn e.g got more than an hour at the gate.

I flew AKL-CHC-ZQN on Monday both flights on a320s and the rear stairs were used even when it was snowing at the airport.

There’s all that plus because the gates are so tight at AKL with so many movements, they don’t often use them because they have to pause all the time an aircraft is moving nearby for safety reasons. Also they are often short of staff on the ground.

An new domestic terminal, and now an plan for reopening the boarder. Probably one of the more more event full weeks in New Zealand avation in an while.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/covid-19-coronavirus-the-plan-to-re-open-nz-home-isolation-shorter-miq-for-vaccinated-travellers/MPEMUWBNFGXQHDG7QJFV7GMMEU/

A pilot program will start from October allowing New Zealand workers who are fully vaccinated to visit low/med risk counties without MIQ on return.
On return for med risk countries home isolation is required.

But what is a low or medium risk country......the genie is our of the bottle in Australia and it will only get worse ascrime goes on there.

Is Uk/Europe or USA now medium risk ?

The devil will be in the detail !

Kiwings wrote:

But what is a low or medium risk country......the genie is our of the bottle in Australia and it will only get worse ascrime goes on there.

Is Uk/Europe or USA now medium risk ?

The devil will be in the detail !

And does it go by state within an country? e.g. for would WA be low risk, VIC/QLD medium risk and NSW high risk?

zkncj wrote:

An new domestic terminal, and now an plan for reopening the boarder. Probably one of the more more event full weeks in New Zealand avation in an while.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/covid-19-coronavirus-the-plan-to-re-open-nz-home-isolation-shorter-miq-for-vaccinated-travellers/MPEMUWBNFGXQHDG7QJFV7GMMEU/

A pilot program will start from October allowing New Zealand workers who are fully vaccinated to visit low/med risk counties without MIQ on return.
On return for med risk countries home isolation is required.

Couldn't have put it better myself. Probably one of the best weeks we've had since the border shut over a year ago .

To quote a friend of mine. "It's another plan about a plan" - quoting things like it lacks in specific detail such as what is a low risk country, suggesting we may find that this is simply RAR and a few other pacific countries. with medium risk being SIN, TPE etc and with not timeframes on when the second stage will commence. Their "conspiracy" is this is just bubble 2.0 to buy a few more months, we'll open in early 2021 with the likes of IUE, APW, RAR and it could be several months before we see 'risk' countries being included or home MIQ for risk countries. There is no timeframe.

I don't completely agree but I also admit t's not that far fetched. It certainly took the wind out of my sails.

a7ala wrote:

I could definitely see recommencement of WRE-WLG Q300 non-stops under the scenario where turbo<>jets would have to change terminals.

Has that route been flown previously?
I’d expect that the Q300 would take a pretty big payload penalty out of WRE on that route which would likely make it uneconomical.

SXI899 wrote:

a7ala wrote:

I could definitely see recommencement of WRE-WLG Q300 non-stops under the scenario where turbo<>jets would have to change terminals.

Has that route been flown previously?
I’d expect that the Q300 would take a pretty big payload penalty out of WRE on that route which would likely make it uneconomical.

Back in the days of Eagle operating the Beech for NZ there was a WLG-WRE service. I knew a corporate agent who told me it was specifically operated for one of her big clients. I'm not sure that she was entirely joking because I believe at least 50% of the regular travellers on the route were hers .

SXI899 wrote:

a7ala wrote:

I could definitely see recommencement of WRE-WLG Q300 non-stops under the scenario where turbo<>jets would have to change terminals.

Has that route been flown previously?
I’d expect that the Q300 would take a pretty big payload penalty out of WRE on that route which would likely make it uneconomical.

WRE-WLG is an route were an partnership could come into play with Sounds Air with one of there Heart AeroSpace ES-19 could come into play.

NZ exited the 19 seater market an while back, but with 19 seater electrics coming into the market that could change things.

The ES-19 only needed a 750m runway, so places like WRE shouldn't be an issue for it.

zkncj wrote:

SXI899 wrote:

a7ala wrote:

I could definitely see recommencement of WRE-WLG Q300 non-stops under the scenario where turbo<>jets would have to change terminals.

Has that route been flown previously?
I’d expect that the Q300 would take a pretty big payload penalty out of WRE on that route which would likely make it uneconomical.

WRE-WLG is an route were an partnership could come into play with Sounds Air with one of there Heart AeroSpace ES-19 could come into play.

NZ exited the 19 seater market an while back, but with 19 seater electrics coming into the market that could change things.

The ES-19 only needed a 750m runway, so places like WRE shouldn't be an issue for it.

Only a 400km range though. 650km distance, plus back to Auckland or further for an alternate.

LamboAston wrote:

zkncj wrote:

SXI899 wrote:

Has that route been flown previously?
I’d expect that the Q300 would take a pretty big payload penalty out of WRE on that route which would likely make it uneconomical.

WRE-WLG is an route were an partnership could come into play with Sounds Air with one of there Heart AeroSpace ES-19 could come into play.

NZ exited the 19 seater market an while back, but with 19 seater electrics coming into the market that could change things.

The ES-19 only needed a 750m runway, so places like WRE shouldn't be an issue for it.

Only a 400km range though. 650km distance, plus back to Auckland or further for an alternate.

I was told recently by a local that a replacement for Onerahi had been decided and it was only a matter of now getting on and building the new airport. I knew there had been multiple studies of possible sites but had not heard of any decision. Does anyone have up-to-date information on the status of the replacement?

Video of the recent terminal expansion of Dunedin Airport from last year. But still a job very well done and a great asset for the city.

https://youtu.be/ijRHMxcRkGg

Zkpilot wrote:

zkncj wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

AKL they seem to no use the rear stairs at the first sign of rain or wind. Also if the aircraft doesn’t seem to have an right turn e.g got more than an hour at the gate.

I flew AKL-CHC-ZQN on Monday both flights on a320s and the rear stairs were used even when it was snowing at the airport.

There’s all that plus because the gates are so tight at AKL with so many movements, they don’t often use them because they have to pause all the time an aircraft is moving nearby for safety reasons. Also they are often short of staff on the ground.

That makes sense then why stairs are often not used. One time I arrived at my gate in AKL think it was 32 well before my 320 so I got to watch it's arrival. It was a 35 min turnaround without using stairs just the bridge on. Ten mins to unload 100 plus pax then I saw 8 cleaners go in to blitz it at the same time the new cans were loaded on only took them 5 mins and another ten mins since landing the boarding was called for and we were all done a full load of pax and the bridge was off and we pushed back 3 mins early from scheduled dep time a fantastic job by all involved. So without using stairs on a short turnaround they still got it back out early!

Looks like from October AKL-RAR on Friday/Saturday/Sunday will now be 3x 789s.

NZ944 dept 0715
NZ940 dept 0930
NZ942 dept 1145

800-950 passengers in an day seems like an look for RAR to handle.

Two years ago who would of ever though that AKL-RAR would become NZ's busiest International City pair.

Totally unexpected even a month ago would not have seen this kind of increase on the AKL RAR route. As it was mentioned on here many times that the hotels are virtually all full on the Cooks so no place to stay if you try and book last minute etc.

What do we think about this:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1447161&start=400

New Embraer turboprop. Would give pretty nice growth on trunk ATR routes that cant quite justify an A320 just yet.