Zkpilot wrote:

6x 77W from next year then down to 5 in 2025 then none in 2027 (I’d imagine that this is very flexible and that it should be pretty easy to keep them on if needed).
16x 787 from 2024 (but likely more).
Q300 to stay on until at least 2025.

Bang on, expected to be used but some could be kept slightly longer if needed.

Initially it was 8 GE 787-10s.
FY2023 -- 1
FY2024 -- 2
FY2025 -- 2
FY2026 -- 1
FY2027 -- 1
FY2028 -- 1

Now it's 2 GE 789s plus another 6 GE 787s.
FY2024 -- 2 x 789
FY2025 -- 0
FY2026 -- 2? (787-10?)
FY2027 -- 2? (787-10?)
FY2028 -- 2? (787-10?)

From page 32 of the 2021 Annual Financial Results

22. Commitments
In September 2020 and August 2021 the Group exercised its substitution rights to convert two firm orders of Boeing 787-10 aircraft to Boeing 787-9 aircraft. In June 2021 the Group agreed to defer the delivery of one aircraft from the 2023 financial year to the 2024 financial year, and in August 2021 to defer one aircraft from the 2024 financial year to the 2026 financial year.

In October 2020 the Group agreed to defer delivery of one ATR72-600 aircraft from May 2021 to September 2021. In February 2021 two Airbus A320 NEO aircraft deliveries were deferred from July 2021 and August 2021 to August 2021 and October 2021.

Capital commitments as at reporting date include eight Boeing 787 aircraft (planned delivery from 2024 to 2028 financial years), seven Airbus A321 NEOs and two Airbus A320 NEOs (delivery from 2022 to 2024 financial years) and one ATR72-600 (delivery in the 2022 financial year).

Further to this, in the 2021 Annual Analyst Presentation, two A321 NEOs have been deferred from FY2024 to FY2027

PA515

Zkpilot wrote:

6x 77W from next year then down to 5 in 2025 then none in 2027 (I’d imagine that this is very flexible and that it should be pretty easy to keep them on if needed).
16x 787 from 2024 (but likely more).
Q300 to stay on until at least 2025.

Which would make senses, they own 5x of the 77Ws so there exit date should be pretty flexible.

Wonder if the 4x owned 77E's have been sold yet? and coming to an coke can near you soon.

zkncj wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

6x 77W from next year then down to 5 in 2025 then none in 2027 (I’d imagine that this is very flexible and that it should be pretty easy to keep them on if needed).
16x 787 from 2024 (but likely more).
Q300 to stay on until at least 2025.

Which would make senses, they own 5x of the 77Ws so there exit date should be pretty flexible.

Wonder if the 4x owned 77E's have been sold yet? and coming to an coke can near you soon.

They own 4 77Ws I am pretty sure

PA515 wrote:

Initially it was 8 GE 787-10s.
FY2023 -- 1
FY2024 -- 2
FY2025 -- 2
FY2026 -- 1
FY2027 -- 1
FY2028 -- 1

Now it's 2 GE 789s plus another 6 GE 787s.
FY2024 -- 2 x 789
FY2025 -- 0
FY2026 -- 2? (787-10?)
FY2027 -- 2? (787-10?)
FY2028 -- 2? (787-10?)

From page 32 of the 2021 Annual Financial Results

22. Commitments
In September 2020 and August 2021 the Group exercised its substitution rights to convert two firm orders of Boeing 787-10 aircraft to Boeing 787-9 aircraft. In June 2021 the Group agreed to defer the delivery of one aircraft from the 2023 financial year to the 2024 financial year, and in August 2021 to defer one aircraft from the 2024 financial year to the 2026 financial year.

In October 2020 the Group agreed to defer delivery of one ATR72-600 aircraft from May 2021 to September 2021. In February 2021 two Airbus A320 NEO aircraft deliveries were deferred from July 2021 and August 2021 to August 2021 and October 2021.

Capital commitments as at reporting date include eight Boeing 787 aircraft (planned delivery from 2024 to 2028 financial years), seven Airbus A321 NEOs and two Airbus A320 NEOs (delivery from 2022 to 2024 financial years) and one ATR72-600 (delivery in the 2022 financial year).

Further to this, in the 2021 Annual Analyst Presentation, two A321 NEOs have been deferred from FY2024 to FY2027

PA515

Great info as usual PA515

Zkpilot wrote:

6x 77W from next year then down to 5 in 2025 then none in 2027 (I’d imagine that this is very flexible and that it should be pretty easy to keep them on if needed).
16x 787 from 2024 (but likely more).
Q300 to stay on until at least 2025.

2027 they still plan to have all 23 Q300

LamboAston wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

6x 77W from next year then down to 5 in 2025 then none in 2027 (I’d imagine that this is very flexible and that it should be pretty easy to keep them on if needed).
16x 787 from 2024 (but likely more).
Q300 to stay on until at least 2025.

2027 they still plan to have all 23 Q300

Fast becoming the new 767-300s of the fleet, if they are around for another 6-7 years hopefully they could upgrade the seats onboard to the newer ones that the ART's have.

Ironic that all the ATR 72-500s got new seats installed, yet they were gone before the Q300s.

I'm guessing that the two additional 789s will be configured specifically for ULH services such as AKL-EWR. Maybe higher gross weight, fewer seats?

DavidByrne wrote:

I'm guessing that the two additional 789s will be configured specifically for ULH services such as AKL-EWR. Maybe higher gross weight, fewer seats?

You would think so wouldn't you? The existing fleet will get refitted at some point beyond 2023 so will be interesting to see if some or any of those have the same configuration as the GE fleet and how many configurations they end up with. What are the chances the whole order ends up being 789s? Maybe a bit early to tell given there is time to convert.

NZ6 wrote:

It's very clear international border movements will depend on being vaccinated. Jet Park may potentially be used for several more years for those unvaccinated citizens returning, those from very high risk countries, or those who test positive on arrival etc.

My point being, Kiwis by in large are awesome people. We'll get ourselves vaccinated. The government will set border rules so the airline won't need to.

The fact that vaccination and mask wearing are not political here is incredibly helpful.

Toenga wrote:

Also going on, is continuing to monitor developments of the disease and all control methods developing and being employed overseas, so we can best tailor our ongoing responses when we get that far. One advantage of being slightly behind at this stage is the amount of real world experience ahead of us.
Both the disease and treatments are continuing to develop.

I think this is something worth considering to considering it's potential impacts. Once borders are opened early next year, it would be irresponsible not to have the ability to close them again at short notice if a vaccine-resistant strain appears somewhere abroad. Hopefully not going to be needed, but with most of the developing world not having more than a few percent of their populations vaccinated, more variants will emerge.

I haven't had a moan about this here for a couple of months, but....I really do think that the country does need a more permanent MIQ facility - a large one that's well outside of AKL/WLG/CHC so that a small outbreak won't shut down one of our cities so easily. One where MIQ workers are paid a certain additional monthly allowance to not leave a ~30km radius of the facility or to visit certain indoor tourist traps that are likely to be full of travelers visiting from out of town. Somewhere in the regions around Taupo, Napier/Hastings, Timaru, Invercargill etc

Obviously spending money on something that's likely going to be labelled a 'White Elephant' by the press isn't going to be popular since hopefully it won't have to be used post-CoronaVirus (but good to have in your back pocket for when the next pandemic rolls around - although I'm sure a future govt would love to sell it off).....but with Nationwide lockdown costing ~200 million a day, you could build a fairly solid MIQ facility with that I'd think.

darrellpearce wrote:

I like the idea of a phased approach to reopening our borders to international visitors. It will be interesting to see how the IATA travel pass works as well. any word on NHE undergoing her test flight?

IMO it has to be phased. Open a little, make sure hospitalization/ICU numbers don't spike, open a bit more, etc.

darrellpearce wrote:

I did a google search on the low risk, medium risk, & high risk countries for entering NZ. I note Singapore is a high risk country.

IIRC Singapore stopped trying to control the virus a month or so ago.

smartplane wrote:

Likely to be a moving target.

UK researchers report Pfizer and AZ efficacy erodes at between 4-6% per month, so 2 jabs will only be the starting point. A big factor will be how recently was a subsequent jab given. For international travel to re-start, we may need minimum 2 jabs, with the most recent no more than 6 months old, with frequent travellers requiring 2-3 doses per year, depending on the duration of their trips, and timing of returns.

And waiting for this kind of data to inform future decision making is exactly what's served the country so well.

NZ6 wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Don’t think New Zealand was taking Afghan refugees yet?

The first arrivals landed yesterday on a NZ cargo service.

Which flight number? I thought the only cargo services atm were to CAN?

zkojq wrote:

Which flight number? I thought the only cargo services atm were to CAN?

It was a MEL-AKL flight, didn't check the flight number. The cargo flights have a 1xxx flight number. There have been North America, Asia, or Trans Tasman cargo flights just about every day over the past 18 months.

Presently an AKL-MEL NZ1127, BNE-LAX NZ1198, LAX-AKL NZ1001, TPE-AKL NZ1078 in the air, and an NZ1975 AKL-PER which is probably positioning to PER for a return cargo flight.

PA515

NZ6 wrote:

There's all sorts of wrong with this, we're first in line we were told. While I didn't expect us to be and nor should we - but I do ask why are we in this position now?

Astrazenica delivering nothing (possibly a good thing in hindsight?) and Pfizer delivering slowly due to NZL having the pandemic under control. One thing that really grinds me gears was the way that Pfizer was suddenly able to deliver an extra million doses to Australia (a country that under-ordered Pfizer, substantially weighting their vaccine rollout in favor of another manufacturers vaccine) after a previous Prime Minister gave their CEO a phone call. Where do those one million doses come from? Presumably other countries that the company deems to be a lower priority (IE NZL - though I don't believe our Pfizer deliveries have been impacted thus far).

One thing I'm not clear on is what's the status of the vaccines the government ordered from other manufacturers. Vaccines from Moderna, Janssen, Novavax and AZ etc were ordered. I assume that the AZ ones will go to covax, presumably the others are intended as booster shots? We've got a lot more on order than what our Pacific Neighbours need.

NZ6 wrote:

Meanwhile I've got friends in Europe, holidaying offshore, going to large events, not living in fear of an outbreak and lockdown, doing business with more confidence.

A few weeks ago I was feeling jealous of a friend's IG photos from the beach in Cadiz. Then I remembered he had lost three grandparents in the last year or so due to corona and had a parent who seems to be suffering a lot from Long Covid.

NZ6 wrote:

Is it an unrealistic statement to say the border could still be closed in 12 months?

Probably depends on whether or not vaccine resistant strains pop up, no?

zkncj wrote:

In the UK some EssayJet cabin crew were trained to be vaccinations, could the NZDF personal be better used to speed up vaccinations. The. Once we open MIQ in an month or two we wouldn’t have to worry about MIQ out breaks as much.

In the Briefing yesterday or the day prior, Dr Bloomfield said that there were hundreds of sites (primarily GP's practices) that were being setup/trained ahead of coming online in the next fortnight or so. This should help capacity a lot, as with the decision to space the vaccinations out to an eight week gap.

The fact that we seem to be breaking vaccination records each day of the past week is a good sign that lots more capacity is coming online aswell as vaccines available. It was mentioned in today's briefing that NZL also has one of the lowest vaccine wastage rates in the world.

zkncj wrote:

Auckland’s Team of 1.5million, didn’t ask to be used as New Zealand primary MIQ hub. We have been put at risk more than any other part of the country, having the main international airport and the majority of the MIQ Hotels. I’m sure we spilt international arrivals 50/50 with CHC they wouldn’t like it.

Fully agree.

Toenga wrote:

Among claims that overseas tourism has had a much smaller effect on the NZ economy then economists had previously thought.

I think it's pretty clear that it is a much smaller part of the economy than what most people thought. We were repeatedly and loudly told last year that the universe would stop spinning and and that the country's economy would implode with the borders closed. Turns out that was emphatically wrong.

NZ6 wrote:

We decided to stick with a single Vaccine (which I think long term will pay off)

Why is a single vaccine better than multiple ones? Honest question. My understanding is that Pfizer is the most effective one one the market, but why does only using one yield benefits long term?

NZ6 wrote:

It's scary to suggest not all of these new daily cases are household contacts and some cases have been spread from person to person in the community since lockdown started. Dr Bloomfield also indicated we're in for another bigger day. Indications were the numbers would flatten and start to drop from mid week but it's potentially not doing that.

Having a look at the list, they're all basically supermarkets and service stations.

- Caltex Blockhouse Bay
- Countdown Westgate X2
- Wellesley Student Accommodation
- Auckland Domestic Airport (in the grace period)
- Pak N Save Kilbirnie
- PAK'nSAVE Westgate
- New World New Lynn

https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/dis ... s-interest

Bringing this back to aviation, I do wonder if the two day grace period allowing people to travel home was a good idea. Someone infected traveled on ZK-NNC from AKL-WLG and that appears to be the only reason for the sub-cluster in Wellington. I don't believe anyone was infected on the flight? On the other hand, forcing tourists/domestic travelers to stay in whatever town/city they're currently in for an indefinite period of time (racking up a big hotel/motel bill in many cases) would probably be an effective way to kill the domestic tourism industry.

I'll assume that the experts made a more informed decision about the tradeoff than my ponderings.

zkojq wrote:

One thing that really grinds me gears was the way that Pfizer was suddenly able to deliver an extra million doses to Australia

I believe the Australian government acquired some Pfizer vaccines from Poland, not directly from Pfizer.

PA515

PA515 wrote:

and an NZ1975 AKL-PER which is probably positioning to PER for a return cargo flight.

Tonight's NZ1975 (ZK-NZQ) is the All Blacks charter flight to PER. The return is not showing on FR24, so that could be a positioning flight.

PA515

PA515 wrote:

It was a MEL-AKL flight, didn't check the flight number. The cargo flights have a 1xxx flight number. There have been North America, Asia, or Trans Tasman cargo flights just about every day over the past 18 months.

Presently an AKL-MEL NZ1127, BNE-LAX NZ1198, LAX-AKL NZ1001, TPE-AKL NZ1078 in the air, and an NZ1975 AKL-PER which is probably positioning to PER for a return cargo flight.

PA515

Completely forgot that the regular AKL-SYD/MEL/BNE 787 flights have become cargo-only flights now that the bubble is paused. Thanks again.

PA515 wrote:

zkojq wrote:

One thing that really grinds me gears was the way that Pfizer was suddenly able to deliver an extra million doses to Australia

I believe the Australian government acquired some Pfizer vaccines from Poland, not directly from Pfizer.

[Note to the moderators - I am trying to avoid making this political than it has to be]
The Poland deal is a separate one more recent, no? Pfizer call was being reported on back in July. So why was Australia able to jump the queue ahead of us. Twice. Until then our vaccination program was outperforming theirs. NZ backed the Pfizer vaccine far earlier than Australia did and had contracts earlier too.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-11/ ... /100284902

tullamarine wrote:

At the moment, only Berejiklian and Morrison seem to be saying that Covid zero cannot then be considered a realistic goal. The remaining AU state premiers and the NZ government haven't yet admitted the obvious.

And they're only doing that to try and deflect from their fairly massive leadership failures (in Gladys' case said failure is costing ~3-5 deaths per day). COVID-Zero is working in NZ thus far.

PA515 wrote:

Where to begin. 'Covid zero' as you describe it was achieved and is a realistic goal. If Berejiklian had not opted for a half baked lockdown after the Fedex crew infected a 'limousine driver' it would have been achieved again. But Berejiklian gave into lobbying from the business community, her political base, who were concerned about how much money they might lose instead of how many lives will be lost or damaged. Now NSW has an extended and still inadequate lockdown and those very businesses have lost big time anyway. Stupidity beyond belief.

NZ6 wrote:

NSW was aiming to hit 6m jabs by the end of the month but they've achieve that today.

.....Using vaccines that were previously allocated to other states, no? Internally to Australia this is a zero-sum game with allocations moved to address the crisis in NSW.

NZ6 wrote:

But when Australia started to spiral out of control across many states and with the Delta variant seemingly working around lockdowns

Not entirely comparable though is it. NSW's initial lock-downs were a bit of a joke in comparison to NZ:'s Level Four. Especially since they initially only did a few suburbs. Gladys was even going to great lengths initially to claim that it wasn't a lockdown at all (because Gold Standard, Pro-Business NSW doesn't do lock-downs unlike overreacting Victoria/Queensland.....or however exactly she was trying to spin it).

NZ6 wrote:

what have we done to secure another 500,000 so we can maintain or build on 80,000 a day?

Indeed - a question that needs to be answered.

zkojq wrote:

I haven't had a moan about this here for a couple of months, but....I really do think that the country does need a more permanent MIQ facility - a large one that's well outside of AKL/WLG/CHC so that a small outbreak won't shut down one of our cities so easily. One where MIQ workers are paid a certain additional monthly allowance to not leave a ~30km radius of the facility or to visit certain indoor tourist traps that are likely to be full of travelers visiting from out of town. Somewhere in the regions around Taupo, Napier/Hastings, Timaru, Invercargill etc

Obviously spending money on something that's likely going to be labelled a 'White Elephant' by the press isn't going to be popular since hopefully it won't have to be used post-CoronaVirus (but good to have in your back pocket for when the next pandemic rolls around - although I'm sure a future govt would love to sell it off).....but with Nationwide lockdown costing ~200 million a day, you could build a fairly solid MIQ facility with that I'd think.

Quite by coincidence, I just came upon the news that the Queensland is building a dedicated regional quarantine facility adjacent to WTB airport.1000-beds. Exactly what we need in NZL. Admittedly in this case someone other than the government is paying for it which makes the decision to do it much easier, but I think the point still stands. Such facilities no-doubt take a few months to build - nodoubt more in NZL thanks to the RMA - but given that COVID will still be around next year it's surely prudent to proceed with something like this now.

https://www.9news.com.au/national/coron ... 1f3a2ccde1

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-26/ ... /100403692

zkncj wrote:

Fast becoming the new 767-300s of the fleet, if they are around for another 6-7 years hopefully they could upgrade the seats onboard to the newer ones that the ART's have.

Ironic that all the ATR 72-500s got new seats installed, yet they were gone before the Q300s.

Plus the fact that ZK-NEH still wears the Pacific teal livery, and hasn't been updated with the latest scheme.

Air NZ will be resuming Red Flights from several Australian cities in September. However Kiwis wanting to return home will have to book a spot in MIQ first, which will be like finding a gold nugget at your local beach i.e. very slim. More from the story below

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics ... ities.html

NZ516 wrote:

Air NZ will be resuming Red Flights from several Australian cities in September. However Kiwis wanting to return home will have to book a spot in MIQ first, which will be like finding a gold nugget at your local beach i.e. very slim. More from the story below

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics ... ities.html

Maybe dashes hope of any Tasman Bubble reopening this year?

zkojq wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

At the moment, only Berejiklian and Morrison seem to be saying that Covid zero cannot then be considered a realistic goal. The remaining AU state premiers and the NZ government haven't yet admitted the obvious.

And they're only doing that to try and deflect from their fairly massive leadership failures (in Gladys' case said failure is costing ~3-5 deaths per day). COVID-Zero is working in NZ thus far. /quote]

Yes it’s working thus far at saving lives, but is it saving business and the economy. Losing the Tasman Bubble, then now level 4 maybe be the last straw for allot of tourism operations in New Zealand. We are locked down and stuck at home, right in the peak of the winter tourism season. All over an poorly run MIQ and the slowest vaccinations scheme in the OECD. 500 people an year die from the Flu in New Zealand, yet we don’t lockdown everything there is N case of the flu.

You look to euro, everyone is travelling again like Covid never happen.

zkncj wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Air NZ will be resuming Red Flights from several Australian cities in September. However Kiwis wanting to return home will have to book a spot in MIQ first, which will be like finding a gold nugget at your local beach i.e. very slim. More from the story below

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics ... ities.html

Maybe dashes hope of any Tasman Bubble reopening this year?

Most likely unless more MIQ places can be brought online quickly.

NZ516 wrote:

zkncj wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Air NZ will be resuming Red Flights from several Australian cities in September. However Kiwis wanting to return home will have to book a spot in MIQ first, which will be like finding a gold nugget at your local beach i.e. very slim. More from the story below

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics ... ities.html

Maybe dashes hope of any Tasman Bubble reopening this year?

Most likely unless more MIQ places can be brought online quickly.

From an QF Email update yesterday…

• From mid-December 2021, between Australia and New Zealand in line with the anticipated restart of the trans-Tasman travel bubble.*

So with the Green Party dislike of the Wellington Airport runway extension I asked Genter what the party policy on battery electric aircraft is. Happily the party position is support of battery electric aircraft. Even if they're against the runway extension. https://twitter.com/JulieAnneGenter/sta ... 5120754692

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Decisions all along were made based on the characteristics of Covid 19 and the prevailing covid situation here at the time.
No one could have anticipated that the infectiousness of the virus itself would change so dramatically so quickly.
Sure we should have ordered more Pfizer with the first order and placed that order earlier well, before any vaccines had been ascertained to be both safe and effective. But on that basis we should have also done that to at least the other four vaccines we ordered as well.
We could have committed a lot lot more money for what would prove to be very little gain.
In March when we pivoted to all Pfizer, their deliveries were happening as scheduled, and Pfizer was showing up as the most effective and least problematic. At that time there was a major scrap about AZ supplies taking place in Europe which we would not have been immune from, and neither of the other vaccines were any where near ready, let alone approved. A single vaccine campaign massively simplified things.
And at that time our elimination campaign looked most likely to succeed.
The downside of that decision was that the success of Pfizer everywhere else in the world, delayed the bulk of deliveries until Q3.
Subsequently problems with AZ, in a small section of the population, nearly derailed the entire Australian vaccination program.
Apart from a slow vaccination rate things went well, for us, and Australia. We were both internally wide open, and covid incursions were normally quickly extinguished by local lockdowns and effective contact tracing. Year end for the completion of vaccination seemed quite tolerable once our border staff and most vulnerable people had received theirs.
Then came delta, with an R number several times larger.
The consequence of any minor slip ups in border procedures suddenly increased dramatically, as both the progression of the disease in NSW, and border incursions into other Australian States, and here in NZ demonstrate.
For those looking at envy to Europe.
Britain is running at about 100 covid deaths a day, corrected for population equivalent to about 8 a day in NZ. and this is with schools currently closed for holidays. Work absenteeism from sickness and isolation requirements is high.

planemanofnz wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Fast becoming the new 767-300s of the fleet, if they are around for another 6-7 years hopefully they could upgrade the seats onboard to the newer ones that the ART's have.

Ironic that all the ATR 72-500s got new seats installed, yet they were gone before the Q300s.

Plus the fact that ZK-NEH still wears the Pacific teal livery, and hasn't been updated with the latest scheme.

NED-NEO (with the exception of NEM) still wear the teal livery.

I've been thinking about the implications of having a fleet of just 20 787s, specifically, what operations it would allow. I'd suggest something along the following lines:

Summer
8 aircraft: AKL-LAX, AKL-SFO, AKL-IAH, AKL-YVR - all 1x daily
2 aircraft: AKL-ORD, AKL-EWR 3x weekly each
1 aircraft: AKL-HNL, AKL-PPT 3x weekly each
2 aircraft AKL-PVG daily
5 aircraft AKL-NRT, AKL-HKG, AKL-SIN daily, AKL-KIX, AKL-ICN, AKL-TPE 3x weekly
1 aircraft CHC-SIN 5x weekly, CHC-PER 2x weekly
1 aircraft AKL-PER daily

The North American flights could also operate AKL-SYD, AKL-MEL, AKL-BNE daily, and AKL-NAN/RAR/APW/TBU as needed (five arrivals every morning)

Total: 20 aircraft

Winter
6 aircraft: AKL-LAX, AKL-SFO, AKL-IAH, AKL-YVR - all 3-7x weekly
2 aircraft: AKL-ORD, AKL-EWR 3x weekly each
1 aircraft: AKL-HNL daily
2 aircraft: AKL-RAR 2x daily, AKL-PPT 3x weekly, AKL-APW/TBU as needed
2 aircraft AKL-PVG daily
5 aircraft AKL-NRT, AKL-HKG, AKL-SIN daily, AKL-ICN, AKL-TPE 3x weekly,
1 aircraft AKL-DPS 5x weekly
1 aircraft AKL-PER daily

The North American flights could also operate AKL-SYD, AKL-MEL, AKL-BNE, AKL-NAN daily (four arrivals every morning)

Total: 20 aircraft

We could debate frequencies and whether some routes are likely to come back, but this is a back-of-the-envelope analysis. Obviously the carrier will make its own call on what they actually do, but it's do-able, probably with a few tweaks, and allows NZ to serve all of its previous ports with some level of offering that would stand adequately in the market. It's a significant reduction (obviously) on the pre-pandemic offering, and even this level of activity doesn't allow very much at all for maintenance, etc. Significant changes to the pre-pandemic offering would include a downgrade from 2x daily to 1x daily on AKL-LAX, and the replacement of all bar one daily rotation on AKL-SYD with A321s, removal of the B789 longer-term from ADL etc. Taking an aircraft out of service for maintenance would result in lower frequencies, but it's probably manageable.

DavidByrne wrote:

I've been thinking about the implications of having a fleet of just 20 787s, specifically, what operations it would allow. I'd suggest something along the following lines:

Summer
8 aircraft: AKL-LAX, AKL-SFO, AKL-IAH, AKL-YVR - all 1x daily
2 aircraft: AKL-ORD, AKL-EWR 3x weekly each
1 aircraft: AKL-HNL, AKL-PPT 3x weekly each
2 aircraft AKL-PVG daily
5 aircraft AKL-NRT, AKL-HKG, AKL-SIN daily, AKL-KIX, AKL-ICN, AKL-TPE 3x weekly
1 aircraft CHC-SIN 5x weekly, CHC-PER 2x weekly
1 aircraft AKL-PER daily

The North American flights could also operate AKL-SYD, AKL-MEL, AKL-BNE daily, and AKL-NAN/RAR/APW/TBU as needed (five arrivals every morning)

Total: 20 aircraft

Winter
6 aircraft: AKL-LAX, AKL-SFO, AKL-IAH, AKL-YVR - all 3-7x weekly
2 aircraft: AKL-ORD, AKL-EWR 3x weekly each
1 aircraft: AKL-HNL daily
2 aircraft: AKL-RAR 2x daily, AKL-PPT 3x weekly, AKL-APW/TBU as needed
2 aircraft AKL-PVG daily
5 aircraft AKL-NRT, AKL-HKG, AKL-SIN daily, AKL-ICN, AKL-TPE 3x weekly,
1 aircraft AKL-DPS 5x weekly
1 aircraft AKL-PER daily

The North American flights could also operate AKL-SYD, AKL-MEL, AKL-BNE, AKL-NAN daily (four arrivals every morning)

Total: 20 aircraft

We could debate frequencies and whether some routes are likely to come back, but this is a back-of-the-envelope analysis. Obviously the carrier will make its own call on what they actually do, but it's do-able, probably with a few tweaks, and allows NZ to serve all of its previous ports with some level of offering that would stand adequately in the market. It's a significant reduction (obviously) on the pre-pandemic offering, and even this level of activity doesn't allow very much at all for maintenance, etc. Significant changes to the pre-pandemic offering would include a downgrade from 2x daily to 1x daily on AKL-LAX, and the replacement of all bar one daily rotation on AKL-SYD with A321s, removal of the B789 longer-term from ADL etc. Taking an aircraft out of service for maintenance would result in lower frequencies, but it's probably manageable.

Production slots for more aircraft should be fairly easy to get so it’s probably just a case of NZ waiting to see how the world bounces back. If it bounces back strongly then expect a few more 787 in the fleet. LAX in particular has had more demand than a single daily 787-10. Sure there are more destinations now and no LHR but LA is a huge O&D market and the 787-10 is considerably smaller than the 77W.

Zkpilot wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

I've been thinking about the implications of having a fleet of just 20 787s, specifically, what operations it would allow. I'd suggest something along the following lines:

Summer
8 aircraft: AKL-LAX, AKL-SFO, AKL-IAH, AKL-YVR - all 1x daily
2 aircraft: AKL-ORD, AKL-EWR 3x weekly each
1 aircraft: AKL-HNL, AKL-PPT 3x weekly each
2 aircraft AKL-PVG daily
5 aircraft AKL-NRT, AKL-HKG, AKL-SIN daily, AKL-KIX, AKL-ICN, AKL-TPE 3x weekly
1 aircraft CHC-SIN 5x weekly, CHC-PER 2x weekly
1 aircraft AKL-PER daily

The North American flights could also operate AKL-SYD, AKL-MEL, AKL-BNE daily, and AKL-NAN/RAR/APW/TBU as needed (five arrivals every morning)

Total: 20 aircraft

Winter
6 aircraft: AKL-LAX, AKL-SFO, AKL-IAH, AKL-YVR - all 3-7x weekly
2 aircraft: AKL-ORD, AKL-EWR 3x weekly each
1 aircraft: AKL-HNL daily
2 aircraft: AKL-RAR 2x daily, AKL-PPT 3x weekly, AKL-APW/TBU as needed
2 aircraft AKL-PVG daily
5 aircraft AKL-NRT, AKL-HKG, AKL-SIN daily, AKL-ICN, AKL-TPE 3x weekly,
1 aircraft AKL-DPS 5x weekly
1 aircraft AKL-PER daily

The North American flights could also operate AKL-SYD, AKL-MEL, AKL-BNE, AKL-NAN daily (four arrivals every morning)

Total: 20 aircraft

We could debate frequencies and whether some routes are likely to come back, but this is a back-of-the-envelope analysis. Obviously the carrier will make its own call on what they actually do, but it's do-able, probably with a few tweaks, and allows NZ to serve all of its previous ports with some level of offering that would stand adequately in the market. It's a significant reduction (obviously) on the pre-pandemic offering, and even this level of activity doesn't allow very much at all for maintenance, etc. Significant changes to the pre-pandemic offering would include a downgrade from 2x daily to 1x daily on AKL-LAX, and the replacement of all bar one daily rotation on AKL-SYD with A321s, removal of the B789 longer-term from ADL etc. Taking an aircraft out of service for maintenance would result in lower frequencies, but it's probably manageable.

Production slots for more aircraft should be fairly easy to get so it’s probably just a case of NZ waiting to see how the world bounces back. If it bounces back strongly then expect a few more 787 in the fleet. LAX in particular has had more demand than a single daily 787-10. Sure there are more destinations now and no LHR but LA is a huge O&D market and the 787-10 is considerably smaller than the 77W.

It will be 22 frames in 2028 or so, 14 current +8, currently i wouldn't be surprised to see all 789s, while there are plenty of variables at play I would see LAX as 2x daily and could see a code 3 configuration of 35J 40W180Y or so and then a code 1.5 compared to the current code 1, say 21J 28W 235Y. Also routes like DPS, what happens to it? What happens to routes like SIN, a large hub, the A380 will be around for maybe 10 years, does AKL see it again?
Code 3 in summer
AKL-LAX 2 daily 4 aircraft
AKL-SFO daily 2
AKL-IAH daily 2
AKL-ORD 5 weekly 1.5
AKL-EWR 5 weekly 1.5

Code 1.5
AKL-YVR daily 2 aircraft
AKL-HNL 4 weekly .5
AKL-PPT 3 weekly .5
AKL-NRT daily 1
AKL-PVG daily 1.5 (hopefully new slots to offer a morning departure like the other Asian destinations) saves some aircraft time if it can be done
AKL-SIN daily 1
AKL-HKG daily 1
AKL-KIX 3 weekly .5
AKL-TPE 3 weekly .5
AKL-ICN 3 weekly .5
CHC-SIN 5 weekly CHC-PER 2 weekly 1 aircraft

Winter code 3
AKL-LAX 2 daily 4
AKL-SFO daily 2
AKL-IAH 5 weekly 1.5
AKL-ORD/EWR 3 weekly each 1
AKL-SIN daily 1 (plus a daily code 1.5)

Code 1.5
AKL-YVR daily 2 (5 weekly off peak months 1.5)
AKL-HNL daily 1
AKL-PPT 3 weekly .5
AKL-NRT daily 1
AKL-PVG daily 1.5
AKL-SIN daily 1 (plus daily code 3)
AKL-HKG daily 1
AKL-DPS daily 1
AKL-ICN/TPE 3 weekly each 1

Bit of slack and not perfect and as I say variable. Would be 11 of each configuration. Routes like SYD-RAR and RAR-LAX not included.

zkojq wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

There's all sorts of wrong with this, we're first in line we were told. While I didn't expect us to be and nor should we - but I do ask why are we in this position now?

Astrazenica delivering nothing (possibly a good thing in hindsight?) and Pfizer delivering slowly due to NZL having the pandemic under control. One thing that really grinds me gears was the way that Pfizer was suddenly able to deliver an extra million doses to Australia (a country that under-ordered Pfizer, substantially weighting their vaccine rollout in favor of another manufacturers vaccine) after a previous Prime Minister gave their CEO a phone call. Where do those one million doses come from? Presumably other countries that the company deems to be a lower priority (IE NZL - though I don't believe our Pfizer deliveries have been impacted thus far).

One thing I'm not clear on is what's the status of the vaccines the government ordered from other manufacturers. Vaccines from Moderna, Janssen, Novavax and AZ etc were ordered. I assume that the AZ ones will go to covax, presumably the others are intended as booster shots? We've got a lot more on order than what our Pacific Neighbours need.

NZ6 wrote:

Meanwhile I've got friends in Europe, holidaying offshore, going to large events, not living in fear of an outbreak and lockdown, doing business with more confidence.

A few weeks ago I was feeling jealous of a friend's IG photos from the beach in Cadiz. Then I remembered he had lost three grandparents in the last year or so due to corona and had a parent who seems to be suffering a lot from Long Covid.

NZ6 wrote:

Is it an unrealistic statement to say the border could still be closed in 12 months?

Probably depends on whether or not vaccine resistant strains pop up, no?

zkncj wrote:

In the UK some EssayJet cabin crew were trained to be vaccinations, could the NZDF personal be better used to speed up vaccinations. The. Once we open MIQ in an month or two we wouldn’t have to worry about MIQ out breaks as much.

In the Briefing yesterday or the day prior, Dr Bloomfield said that there were hundreds of sites (primarily GP's practices) that were being setup/trained ahead of coming online in the next fortnight or so. This should help capacity a lot, as with the decision to space the vaccinations out to an eight week gap.

The fact that we seem to be breaking vaccination records each day of the past week is a good sign that lots more capacity is coming online aswell as vaccines available. It was mentioned in today's briefing that NZL also has one of the lowest vaccine wastage rates in the world.

zkncj wrote:

Auckland’s Team of 1.5million, didn’t ask to be used as New Zealand primary MIQ hub. We have been put at risk more than any other part of the country, having the main international airport and the majority of the MIQ Hotels. I’m sure we spilt international arrivals 50/50 with CHC they wouldn’t like it.

Fully agree.

Toenga wrote:

Among claims that overseas tourism has had a much smaller effect on the NZ economy then economists had previously thought.

I think it's pretty clear that it is a much smaller part of the economy than what most people thought. We were repeatedly and loudly told last year that the universe would stop spinning and and that the country's economy would implode with the borders closed. Turns out that was emphatically wrong.

NZ6 wrote:

We decided to stick with a single Vaccine (which I think long term will pay off)

Why is a single vaccine better than multiple ones? Honest question. My understanding is that Pfizer is the most effective one one the market, but why does only using one yield benefits long term?

NZ6 wrote:

It's scary to suggest not all of these new daily cases are household contacts and some cases have been spread from person to person in the community since lockdown started. Dr Bloomfield also indicated we're in for another bigger day. Indications were the numbers would flatten and start to drop from mid week but it's potentially not doing that.

Having a look at the list, they're all basically supermarkets and service stations.

- Caltex Blockhouse Bay
- Countdown Westgate X2
- Wellesley Student Accommodation
- Auckland Domestic Airport (in the grace period)
- Pak N Save Kilbirnie
- PAK'nSAVE Westgate
- New World New Lynn

https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/dis ... s-interest

Bringing this back to aviation, I do wonder if the two day grace period allowing people to travel home was a good idea. Someone infected traveled on ZK-NNC from AKL-WLG and that appears to be the only reason for the sub-cluster in Wellington. I don't believe anyone was infected on the flight? On the other hand, forcing tourists/domestic travelers to stay in whatever town/city they're currently in for an indefinite period of time (racking up a big hotel/motel bill in many cases) would probably be an effective way to kill the domestic tourism industry.

I'll assume that the experts made a more informed decision about the tradeoff than my ponderings.

Re the IG posts. I feel for the millions of people affected by deaths overseas. I really do. I wasn't suggesting we should've gone down a different path from the start of the pandemic. What we've done without doubt has saved lives. But in the same sentence, a slow rollout has us sitting in strict level 4 lockdown for who knows how long. A range of 'experts' are predicting anywhere between 4-10 weeks - depending on who you listen to. One 'expert' (sorry I can't quote the name) stated NZ would likely not see level 1 again until Xmas or the New Year.

My beef is with Delta circling and watching Australia loose control what did we do? We kept stock piling the vaccine. We had 750,000 doses in the freezer as of lockdown. We didn't scale up vaccinations or enter negotiations with anyone to secure additional supply so the ramp up didn't see the stocks run dry. I often ask myself, if the this was a commercial business would we see more risk mitigation?

As for single vaccine... Logistics and supply of a multi vaccine approach are far superior but that's about the extend of the benefits. We've seen elsewhere in the world issues around vaccine hesitancy based around what vaccine you're offered which undoes many of the efficiency gains. Then there's issues like the demographic equality debate which all really stems from the underlying opinion and debate on what's the best vaccine in terms of safety and protection. Apart from a very slow delivery and very slow rollout it's really simple, we're ALL getting pfizer and pfizer appears to most to be the leading vaccine.

zkncj wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Air NZ will be resuming Red Flights from several Australian cities in September. However Kiwis wanting to return home will have to book a spot in MIQ first, which will be like finding a gold nugget at your local beach i.e. very slim. More from the story below

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics ... ities.html

Maybe dashes hope of any Tasman Bubble reopening this year?

The bubble framework might as well be placed in the trash. We won't see it again and we can't.

ScoMo has changed the Australia approach from elimination to living with the virus. I doubt we'll ever see a COVID free Australia again and we've stated when it was closed it was not designed to be a state by state approach.

We'll have to revisit it once we have X number of vaccinations and finally given in and change our view from elimination to contain/control

NZ6 wrote:

zkncj wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Air NZ will be resuming Red Flights from several Australian cities in September. However Kiwis wanting to return home will have to book a spot in MIQ first, which will be like finding a gold nugget at your local beach i.e. very slim. More from the story below

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics ... ities.html

Maybe dashes hope of any Tasman Bubble reopening this year?

The bubble framework might as well be placed in the trash. We won't see it again and we can't.

ScoMo has changed the Australia approach from elimination to living with the virus. I doubt we'll ever see a COVID free Australia again and we've stated when it was closed it was not designed to be a state by state approach.

We'll have to revisit it once we have X number of vaccinations and finally given in and change our view from elimination to contain/control

Take what Scummo has to say with a grain of salt, he has virtually nothing to do with domestic Covid policies, as he said so himself that it was the state premier's job, and Gladys is the only Premier to suggest moving away from the elimination approach in the short term, so I wouldn't be surprised to see everywhere outside of NSW Covid free once again around Xmas, bar the occasional bit of leakage.

YMHBSpotting wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Maybe dashes hope of any Tasman Bubble reopening this year?

The bubble framework might as well be placed in the trash. We won't see it again and we can't.

ScoMo has changed the Australia approach from elimination to living with the virus. I doubt we'll ever see a COVID free Australia again and we've stated when it was closed it was not designed to be a state by state approach.

We'll have to revisit it once we have X number of vaccinations and finally given in and change our view from elimination to contain/control

Take what Scummo has to say with a grain of salt, he has virtually nothing to do with domestic Covid policies, as he said so himself that it was the state premier's job, and Gladys is the only Premier to suggest moving away from the elimination approach in the short term, so I wouldn't be surprised to see everywhere outside of NSW Covid free once again around Xmas, bar the occasional bit of leakage.

Yeah but the second issue will be, NSW won't eliminate the virus. So if we won't do a non state by state bubble then we won't have a bubble.

Of course travel will resume. It'll be 2022 and Australia may be a 'low risk zone' based on vaccination rates by then. But it won't be in the form of bubble

NZ6 wrote:

Yeah but the second issue will be, NSW won't eliminate the virus. So if we won't do a non state by state bubble then we won't have a bubble.

Of course travel will resume. It'll be 2022 and Australia may be a 'low risk zone' based on vaccination rates by then. But it won't be in the form of bubble

Agree the old bubble is dead.
When international travel resumes it should not be until everybody here, who is eligible to be vaccinated, has had reasonable opportunity to be vaccinated. Probably early 2022.

And I would expect travel from Australia to be risk evaluated using the same criteria as travel from anywhere else in the world.
Firstly a process to evaluate the disease risk that travel from the region left or recently travelled through represents.
Vaccination level is just far too simplistic.
The main determinate of risk must surely be the current levels of community transmission actually being achieved in those countries recently visited
Obviously vaccination levels influence in this, but so do other factors.
Vaccination is not even available to those below certain ages.
And corresponding to the various levels of risk, they should set any requirements for various levels of testing, and even for travel from high risk areas, a continuation of a period of isolation.
I actually think Australia has a far bigger problem resolving internal border processes. I cannot detect any enthusiasm from elsewhere in Australia for letting the poor NSW covid response dictate the whole country's response.
Here we should stand back watch how the situation with WA and others is resolved before getting too enthusiastic ourselves.

Toenga wrote:

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Decisions all along were made based on the characteristics of Covid 19 and the prevailing covid situation here at the time.
No one could have anticipated that the infectiousness of the virus itself would change so dramatically so quickly.
Sure we should have ordered more Pfizer with the first order and placed that order earlier well, before any vaccines had been ascertained to be both safe and effective. But on that basis we should have also done that to at least the other four vaccines we ordered as well.
We could have committed a lot lot more money for what would prove to be very little gain.
In March when we pivoted to all Pfizer, their deliveries were happening as scheduled, and Pfizer was showing up as the most effective and least problematic. At that time there was a major scrap about AZ supplies taking place in Europe which we would not have been immune from, and neither of the other vaccines were any where near ready, let alone approved. A single vaccine campaign massively simplified things.
And at that time our elimination campaign looked most likely to succeed.
The downside of that decision was that the success of Pfizer everywhere else in the world, delayed the bulk of deliveries until Q3.
Subsequently problems with AZ, in a small section of the population, nearly derailed the entire Australian vaccination program.

Very level headed post.

Toenga wrote:

Apart from a slow vaccination rate things went well, for us, and Australia. We were both internally wide open, and covid incursions were normally quickly extinguished by local lockdowns and effective contact tracing. Year end for the completion of vaccination seemed quite tolerable once our border staff and most vulnerable people had received theirs.

I'd also respectfully point out that a lot of people here probably need to get a little perspective when it comes to the borders being closed. Whilst most of us who read or participate in these threads did travel overseas regularly prior to COVID (and often long-haul), the same is certainly not the case for the majority of the population. Most Kiwi families don't go overseas on a regular basis and thus are unlikely to have felt much difference in their travel plans due to the borders being closed. As such, the amount of people I see complaining about the border/MIQ situation impacting their plans for overseas holidays does seem a little out of place. At the end of the day missing out on overseas holidays two years in a row really isn't such a big deal.

Obviously my comment isn't aimed at people whom the border policy has separated from their families or those who's employment/livelihoods it has compromised (though I'd point out that the career prospects of people working for European/Australian airlines + carriers such as CX, SQ, EK, EY etc hasn't been particularly cheerful through the covid period).

Toenga wrote:

For those looking at envy to Europe. Britain is running at about 100 covid deaths a day, corrected for population equivalent to about 8 a day in NZ. and this is with schools currently closed for holidays. Work absenteeism from sickness and isolation requirements is high.

Their population has largely been desensitized to large numbers of COVID deaths and is largely now accepting of them. Their COVID fatigue is much greater than ours. I note the significant number of their media/political "commentators" sneering at NZL's current outbreak.

With the UK comparison, I'd also make the point that they also have somewhat of a MIQ program (albeit a very loose one) for high and medium risk countries. IE their borders are now also somewhat shut (countries on their red-list and amber-list change all the time making it difficult to book an overseas trip with certainty - just like our situation with Tasman Bubble). I'd also make the point that travel lists work in both directions; just because the UK government will let you come home from Greece/Spain/Croatia without having to quarantine doesn't mean that the Greek/Spanish/Croatian government will let you arrive from the UK and not have to quarantine. All of this whilst having lots of COVID deaths.

Toenga wrote:

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Decisions all along were made based on the characteristics of Covid 19 and the prevailing covid situation here at the time.
No one could have anticipated that the infectiousness of the virus itself would change so dramatically so quickly.
Sure we should have ordered more Pfizer with the first order and placed that order earlier well, before any vaccines had been ascertained to be both safe and effective. But on that basis we should have also done that to at least the other four vaccines we ordered as well.
We could have committed a lot lot more money for what would prove to be very little gain.
In March when we pivoted to all Pfizer, their deliveries were happening as scheduled, and Pfizer was showing up as the most effective and least problematic. At that time there was a major scrap about AZ supplies taking place in Europe which we would not have been immune from, and neither of the other vaccines were any where near ready, let alone approved. A single vaccine campaign massively simplified things.
And at that time our elimination campaign looked most likely to succeed.
The downside of that decision was that the success of Pfizer everywhere else in the world, delayed the bulk of deliveries until Q3.
Subsequently problems with AZ, in a small section of the population, nearly derailed the entire Australian vaccination program.
Apart from a slow vaccination rate things went well, for us, and Australia. We were both internally wide open, and covid incursions were normally quickly extinguished by local lockdowns and effective contact tracing. Year end for the completion of vaccination seemed quite tolerable once our border staff and most vulnerable people had received theirs.
Then came delta, with an R number several times larger.
The consequence of any minor slip ups in border procedures suddenly increased dramatically, as both the progression of the disease in NSW, and border incursions into other Australian States, and here in NZ demonstrate.
For those looking at envy to Europe.
Britain is running at about 100 covid deaths a day, corrected for population equivalent to about 8 a day in NZ. and this is with schools currently closed for holidays. Work absenteeism from sickness and isolation requirements is high.

Many said from the beginning viruses mutate, it's what they do and it's what we should expect. So it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

We opted for a single type and got a Q3 & Q4 delivery for the vast bulk of our supply. We cannot understand WHY or HOW this delivery schedule was set as it's likely confidential. Presumably price played some part. Likewise our 'COVID free' status did. But many nations have received significantly more vaccine per head of population and sooner did, to date. There are also supply out there away from the manufacturer which could be utilized (yes at a price). Look to Australia as an example of that.

Like I've said before, we had nearly 750,000 doses in the freezer with more arriving each week as Delta broke loose. Did we get arrogant and complacent with our ability to remain COVID free?

It seems since the outbreak we've gone from 40,000 doses a day as 'a record' to over 90,000 a day. We've gone from having an enclosed with returnees separated by a partial wall and relying on air circulation to keep us COVID free to mandatory mask wearing and contact tracing. Reactive?

We're now in a position where the entire nation is in strict level 4, a true lockdown. Don't go outside unless it's local for exercise or essential travel. Our economic hub Auckland, will likely be here for a month. Perhaps longer and that's not including level 3.

As for offshore COVID rates. The statistics speak for themselves. The vast majority of hospitalizations and deaths are from those unvaccinated. The same applies to the US.

Perhaps the upside in all of this is it will force our hand to vaccinate quicker which could see the border open early next year vs mid next year as per our previous snails pace.

DavidByrne wrote:

I've been thinking about the implications of having a fleet of just 20 787s, specifically, what operations it would allow. I'd suggest something along the following lines:

Summer
8 aircraft: AKL-LAX, AKL-SFO, AKL-IAH, AKL-YVR - all 1x daily
2 aircraft: AKL-ORD, AKL-EWR 3x weekly each
1 aircraft: AKL-HNL, AKL-PPT 3x weekly each
2 aircraft AKL-PVG daily
5 aircraft AKL-NRT, AKL-HKG, AKL-SIN daily, AKL-KIX, AKL-ICN, AKL-TPE 3x weekly
1 aircraft CHC-SIN 5x weekly, CHC-PER 2x weekly
1 aircraft AKL-PER daily

The North American flights could also operate AKL-SYD, AKL-MEL, AKL-BNE daily, and AKL-NAN/RAR/APW/TBU as needed (five arrivals every morning)

Total: 20 aircraft

Winter
6 aircraft: AKL-LAX, AKL-SFO, AKL-IAH, AKL-YVR - all 3-7x weekly
2 aircraft: AKL-ORD, AKL-EWR 3x weekly each
1 aircraft: AKL-HNL daily
2 aircraft: AKL-RAR 2x daily, AKL-PPT 3x weekly, AKL-APW/TBU as needed
2 aircraft AKL-PVG daily
5 aircraft AKL-NRT, AKL-HKG, AKL-SIN daily, AKL-ICN, AKL-TPE 3x weekly,
1 aircraft AKL-DPS 5x weekly
1 aircraft AKL-PER daily

The North American flights could also operate AKL-SYD, AKL-MEL, AKL-BNE, AKL-NAN daily (four arrivals every morning)

Total: 20 aircraft

We could debate frequencies and whether some routes are likely to come back, but this is a back-of-the-envelope analysis. Obviously the carrier will make its own call on what they actually do, but it's do-able, probably with a few tweaks, and allows NZ to serve all of its previous ports with some level of offering that would stand adequately in the market. It's a significant reduction (obviously) on the pre-pandemic offering, and even this level of activity doesn't allow very much at all for maintenance, etc. Significant changes to the pre-pandemic offering would include a downgrade from 2x daily to 1x daily on AKL-LAX, and the replacement of all bar one daily rotation on AKL-SYD with A321s, removal of the B789 longer-term from ADL etc. Taking an aircraft out of service for maintenance would result in lower frequencies, but it's probably manageable.

Interesting, did you consider some routes being axed?

Christchurch Airport still managed to post a healthy profit of $38m during Covid lucky for them they have multiple income sources.
Unlike an airline for example.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/the-press/busines ... -lockdowns

Regarding the bubble Qantas and Air NZ have different view on the future of Trans Tasman travel. Not sure if we will make a return by December though. Will both countries be open for travel by then it's hard to tell.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/industri ... les-future

NZ6 wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

I've been thinking about the implications of having a fleet of just 20 787s, specifically, what operations it would allow. I'd suggest something along the following lines:

Summer
8 aircraft: AKL-LAX, AKL-SFO, AKL-IAH, AKL-YVR - all 1x daily
2 aircraft: AKL-ORD, AKL-EWR 3x weekly each
1 aircraft: AKL-HNL, AKL-PPT 3x weekly each
2 aircraft AKL-PVG daily
5 aircraft AKL-NRT, AKL-HKG, AKL-SIN daily, AKL-KIX, AKL-ICN, AKL-TPE 3x weekly
1 aircraft CHC-SIN 5x weekly, CHC-PER 2x weekly
1 aircraft AKL-PER daily

The North American flights could also operate AKL-SYD, AKL-MEL, AKL-BNE daily, and AKL-NAN/RAR/APW/TBU as needed (five arrivals every morning)

Total: 20 aircraft

Winter
6 aircraft: AKL-LAX, AKL-SFO, AKL-IAH, AKL-YVR - all 3-7x weekly
2 aircraft: AKL-ORD, AKL-EWR 3x weekly each
1 aircraft: AKL-HNL daily
2 aircraft: AKL-RAR 2x daily, AKL-PPT 3x weekly, AKL-APW/TBU as needed
2 aircraft AKL-PVG daily
5 aircraft AKL-NRT, AKL-HKG, AKL-SIN daily, AKL-ICN, AKL-TPE 3x weekly,
1 aircraft AKL-DPS 5x weekly
1 aircraft AKL-PER daily

The North American flights could also operate AKL-SYD, AKL-MEL, AKL-BNE, AKL-NAN daily (four arrivals every morning)

Total: 20 aircraft

We could debate frequencies and whether some routes are likely to come back, but this is a back-of-the-envelope analysis. Obviously the carrier will make its own call on what they actually do, but it's do-able, probably with a few tweaks, and allows NZ to serve all of its previous ports with some level of offering that would stand adequately in the market. It's a significant reduction (obviously) on the pre-pandemic offering, and even this level of activity doesn't allow very much at all for maintenance, etc. Significant changes to the pre-pandemic offering would include a downgrade from 2x daily to 1x daily on AKL-LAX, and the replacement of all bar one daily rotation on AKL-SYD with A321s, removal of the B789 longer-term from ADL etc. Taking an aircraft out of service for maintenance would result in lower frequencies, but it's probably manageable.

Interesting, did you consider some routes being axed?

No I didn't because forward timetables show all routes returning (not sure about DPS or CHC-PER, though). Of course that's only an indication because to some extent these timetables are just placeholders. But for the moment, that's all we have.

Furthermore to the supply of Pfizer and the speed of the rollout - it looks like we've finally picked up the phone and started to make enquires.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/ ... BWRHFZYXE/

DavidByrne wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

I've been thinking about the implications of having a fleet of just 20 787s, specifically, what operations it would allow. I'd suggest something along the following lines:

Summer
8 aircraft: AKL-LAX, AKL-SFO, AKL-IAH, AKL-YVR - all 1x daily
2 aircraft: AKL-ORD, AKL-EWR 3x weekly each
1 aircraft: AKL-HNL, AKL-PPT 3x weekly each
2 aircraft AKL-PVG daily
5 aircraft AKL-NRT, AKL-HKG, AKL-SIN daily, AKL-KIX, AKL-ICN, AKL-TPE 3x weekly
1 aircraft CHC-SIN 5x weekly, CHC-PER 2x weekly
1 aircraft AKL-PER daily

The North American flights could also operate AKL-SYD, AKL-MEL, AKL-BNE daily, and AKL-NAN/RAR/APW/TBU as needed (five arrivals every morning)

Total: 20 aircraft

Winter
6 aircraft: AKL-LAX, AKL-SFO, AKL-IAH, AKL-YVR - all 3-7x weekly
2 aircraft: AKL-ORD, AKL-EWR 3x weekly each
1 aircraft: AKL-HNL daily
2 aircraft: AKL-RAR 2x daily, AKL-PPT 3x weekly, AKL-APW/TBU as needed
2 aircraft AKL-PVG daily
5 aircraft AKL-NRT, AKL-HKG, AKL-SIN daily, AKL-ICN, AKL-TPE 3x weekly,
1 aircraft AKL-DPS 5x weekly
1 aircraft AKL-PER daily

The North American flights could also operate AKL-SYD, AKL-MEL, AKL-BNE, AKL-NAN daily (four arrivals every morning)

Total: 20 aircraft

We could debate frequencies and whether some routes are likely to come back, but this is a back-of-the-envelope analysis. Obviously the carrier will make its own call on what they actually do, but it's do-able, probably with a few tweaks, and allows NZ to serve all of its previous ports with some level of offering that would stand adequately in the market. It's a significant reduction (obviously) on the pre-pandemic offering, and even this level of activity doesn't allow very much at all for maintenance, etc. Significant changes to the pre-pandemic offering would include a downgrade from 2x daily to 1x daily on AKL-LAX, and the replacement of all bar one daily rotation on AKL-SYD with A321s, removal of the B789 longer-term from ADL etc. Taking an aircraft out of service for maintenance would result in lower frequencies, but it's probably manageable.

Interesting, did you consider some routes being axed?

No I didn't because forward timetables show all routes returning (not sure about DPS or CHC-PER, though). Of course that's only an indication because to some extent these timetables are just placeholders. But for the moment, that's all we have.

Fair enough, there are a couple of routes which are touch and go. Fingers crossed we see a full return except EZE/LH of course.

NZ6 wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Interesting, did you consider some routes being axed?

No I didn't because forward timetables show all routes returning (not sure about DPS or CHC-PER, though). Of course that's only an indication because to some extent these timetables are just placeholders. But for the moment, that's all we have.

Fair enough, there are a couple of routes which are touch and go. Fingers crossed we see a full return except EZE/LH of course.

Some of the seasonal routes maybe ex CHC and AKL-KIX/DPS? HKG isn't in good shape economically, do NZ have to operate some of the HKG/SIN frequencies under the CX/SQ JV's? EWR probably isn't likely to start anytime soon, maybe ORD? Although the US will be a key part of the recovery assuming it is considered safe.

zkncj wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

6x 77W from next year then down to 5 in 2025 then none in 2027 (I’d imagine that this is very flexible and that it should be pretty easy to keep them on if needed).
16x 787 from 2024 (but likely more).
Q300 to stay on until at least 2025.

Which would make senses, they own 5x of the 77Ws so there exit date should be pretty flexible.

Wonder if the 4x owned 77E's have been sold yet? and coming to an coke can near you soon.

I haven't been following this but out of curiosity is the 777-200 still part of their fleet at this current stage?

VHVXB wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

6x 77W from next year then down to 5 in 2025 then none in 2027 (I’d imagine that this is very flexible and that it should be pretty easy to keep them on if needed).
16x 787 from 2024 (but likely more).
Q300 to stay on until at least 2025.

Which would make senses, they own 5x of the 77Ws so there exit date should be pretty flexible.

Wonder if the 4x owned 77E's have been sold yet? and coming to an coke can near you soon.

I haven't been following this but out of curiosity is the 777-200 still part of their fleet at this current stage?

Nope, the -200s are already history. All are in the desert in the US (I believe 4 at Roswell and the other 4 in the Mojave ?)

VHVXB wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

6x 77W from next year then down to 5 in 2025 then none in 2027 (I’d imagine that this is very flexible and that it should be pretty easy to keep them on if needed).
16x 787 from 2024 (but likely more).
Q300 to stay on until at least 2025.

Which would make senses, they own 5x of the 77Ws so there exit date should be pretty flexible.

Wonder if the 4x owned 77E's have been sold yet? and coming to an coke can near you soon.

I haven't been following this but out of curiosity is the 777-200 still part of their fleet at this current stage?

Air NZ use the term "Impaired" for the 777-200 fleet. It might be for asset right off in accounting terminology so they won't be flying again for Air NZ.

PA515 wrote:

Initially it was 8 GE 787-10s.
FY2023 -- 1
FY2024 -- 2
FY2025 -- 2
FY2026 -- 1
FY2027 -- 1
FY2028 -- 1

Now it's 2 GE 789s plus another 6 GE 787s.
FY2024 -- 2 x 789
FY2025 -- 0
FY2026 -- 2? (787-10?)
FY2027 -- 2? (787-10?)
FY2028 -- 2? (787-10?)

From page 32 of the 2021 Annual Financial Results

22. Commitments
In September 2020 and August 2021 the Group exercised its substitution rights to convert two firm orders of Boeing 787-10 aircraft to Boeing 787-9 aircraft. In June 2021 the Group agreed to defer the delivery of one aircraft from the 2023 financial year to the 2024 financial year, and in August 2021 to defer one aircraft from the 2024 financial year to the 2026 financial year.

In October 2020 the Group agreed to defer delivery of one ATR72-600 aircraft from May 2021 to September 2021. In February 2021 two Airbus A320 NEO aircraft deliveries were deferred from July 2021 and August 2021 to August 2021 and October 2021.

Capital commitments as at reporting date include eight Boeing 787 aircraft (planned delivery from 2024 to 2028 financial years), seven Airbus A321 NEOs and two Airbus A320 NEOs (delivery from 2022 to 2024 financial years) and one ATR72-600 (delivery in the 2022 financial year).

Further to this, in the 2021 Annual Analyst Presentation, two A321 NEOs have been deferred from FY2024 to FY2027

PA515

There is another thread going about NZ using the 781 to replace the 77W, it only shows 6 787s or a total of 20 by 2027 when the 77W retires. Is this correct, or
-Have NZ cancelled 2 orders?
-Is their own slide incorrect? possible
-Are we confused on calender years vs financial years again and they there are 8 in there somewhere to be delivered?
-No CAPEX commited beyond 2028, have these been pushed out beyond 2028 and they don't need to commit CAPEX yet?

Or something else?

NZ516 wrote:

VHVXB wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Which would make senses, they own 5x of the 77Ws so there exit date should be pretty flexible.

Wonder if the 4x owned 77E's have been sold yet? and coming to an coke can near you soon.

I haven't been following this but out of curiosity is the 777-200 still part of their fleet at this current stage?

Air NZ use the term "Impaired" for the 777-200 fleet. It might be for asset right off in accounting terminology so they won't be flying again for Air NZ.

Changed in their statement a couple of days ago to Retired.

ZK-NBT wrote:

PA515 wrote:

Initially it was 8 GE 787-10s.
FY2023 -- 1
FY2024 -- 2
FY2025 -- 2
FY2026 -- 1
FY2027 -- 1
FY2028 -- 1

Now it's 2 GE 789s plus another 6 GE 787s.
FY2024 -- 2 x 789
FY2025 -- 0
FY2026 -- 2? (787-10?)
FY2027 -- 2? (787-10?)
FY2028 -- 2? (787-10?)

From page 32 of the 2021 Annual Financial Results

22. Commitments
In September 2020 and August 2021 the Group exercised its substitution rights to convert two firm orders of Boeing 787-10 aircraft to Boeing 787-9 aircraft. In June 2021 the Group agreed to defer the delivery of one aircraft from the 2023 financial year to the 2024 financial year, and in August 2021 to defer one aircraft from the 2024 financial year to the 2026 financial year.

In October 2020 the Group agreed to defer delivery of one ATR72-600 aircraft from May 2021 to September 2021. In February 2021 two Airbus A320 NEO aircraft deliveries were deferred from July 2021 and August 2021 to August 2021 and October 2021.

Capital commitments as at reporting date include eight Boeing 787 aircraft (planned delivery from 2024 to 2028 financial years), seven Airbus A321 NEOs and two Airbus A320 NEOs (delivery from 2022 to 2024 financial years) and one ATR72-600 (delivery in the 2022 financial year).

Further to this, in the 2021 Annual Analyst Presentation, two A321 NEOs have been deferred from FY2024 to FY2027

PA515

There is another thread going about NZ using the 781 to replace the 77W, it only shows 6 787s or a total of 20 by 2027 when the 77W retires. Is this correct, or
-Have NZ cancelled 2 orders?
-Is their own slide incorrect? possible
-Are we confused on calender years vs financial years again and they there are 8 in there somewhere to be delivered?
-No CAPEX commited beyond 2028, have these been pushed out beyond 2028 and they don't need to commit CAPEX yet?

Or something else?

The table is out to FY27, the financial reports go to FY28. You need to examine the footnote attached to the table which indicates this is the forecast state at the end of FY27. You can likely expect, as Air New Zealand has often done, deliveries to possible occur immediately after FY28 year has started. The drop back to 20 widebodies could literally be only for a few months before frames seven and eight of the current order arrive. The FY28 CAPEX are these 787s. All current Airbuses on order are here by end of FY27.

Mr AirNZ wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

PA515 wrote:

Initially it was 8 GE 787-10s.
FY2023 -- 1
FY2024 -- 2
FY2025 -- 2
FY2026 -- 1
FY2027 -- 1
FY2028 -- 1

Now it's 2 GE 789s plus another 6 GE 787s.
FY2024 -- 2 x 789
FY2025 -- 0
FY2026 -- 2? (787-10?)
FY2027 -- 2? (787-10?)
FY2028 -- 2? (787-10?)

From page 32 of the 2021 Annual Financial Results


Further to this, in the 2021 Annual Analyst Presentation, two A321 NEOs have been deferred from FY2024 to FY2027

PA515

There is another thread going about NZ using the 781 to replace the 77W, it only shows 6 787s or a total of 20 by 2027 when the 77W retires. Is this correct, or
-Have NZ cancelled 2 orders?
-Is their own slide incorrect? possible
-Are we confused on calender years vs financial years again and they there are 8 in there somewhere to be delivered?
-No CAPEX commited beyond 2028, have these been pushed out beyond 2028 and they don't need to commit CAPEX yet?

Or something else?

The table is out to FY27, the financial reports go to FY28. You need to examine the footnote attached to the table which indicates this is the forecast state at the end of FY27. You can likely expect, as Air New Zealand has often done, deliveries to possible occur immediately after FY28 year has started. The drop back to 20 widebodies could literally be only for a few months before frames seven and eight of the current order arrive. The FY28 CAPEX are these 787s. All current Airbuses on order are here by end of FY27.

Right oh thank you for that, and the situation is fluid so NZ would have the ability to change I would think, yes it said somewhere no aircraft finance was committed "beyond 2028" and as you say the 77Ws at this stage projected to be gone by 2027, I get what you are saying and its actually as I expected.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... rk-flights

Maybe AKL-EWR could start sooner than though still?