Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
NZ516 wrote:Jetstar has once again postponed the relaunch of NZ to Rarotonga flights to March 2022. Passengers booked with them have 3 options it will be hard to get seats on Air NZ at short notice I reckon.
https://www.odt.co.nz/business/jetstar- ... ok-islands
NZ6 wrote:NZ516 wrote:Jetstar has once again postponed the relaunch of NZ to Rarotonga flights to March 2022. Passengers booked with them have 3 options it will be hard to get seats on Air NZ at short notice I reckon.
https://www.odt.co.nz/business/jetstar- ... ok-islands
I suspect a lot of this has to do with their share of the market and public confidence around a pause etc.
It's very hard to get accommodation in Raro for the majority of the rest of this year. So to put very simply - if JQ started services again their passengers might not find anywhere to stay.
I've been saying this for months now.
I suspect JQ will wait for the Tasman to open outside of a temperamental bubble situation, that'll take the heat away from Raro and free up space across more than one carrier.
DavidByrne wrote:NZ6 wrote:NZ516 wrote:Jetstar has once again postponed the relaunch of NZ to Rarotonga flights to March 2022. Passengers booked with them have 3 options it will be hard to get seats on Air NZ at short notice I reckon.
https://www.odt.co.nz/business/jetstar- ... ok-islands
I suspect a lot of this has to do with their share of the market and public confidence around a pause etc.
It's very hard to get accommodation in Raro for the majority of the rest of this year. So to put very simply - if JQ started services again their passengers might not find anywhere to stay.
I've been saying this for months now.
I suspect JQ will wait for the Tasman to open outside of a temperamental bubble situation, that'll take the heat away from Raro and free up space across more than one carrier.
I suspect it has more to do with the Australia-Cook Islands bilateral. I assume it allows fifth freedom flights from NZ only as part of a journey commencing in Australia. The SAM is not relevant to that.
NZ6 wrote:DavidByrne wrote:NZ6 wrote:
I suspect it has more to do with the Australia-Cook Islands bilateral. I assume it allows fifth freedom flights from NZ only as part of a journey commencing in Australia. The SAM is not relevant to that.
Do you know if this is in fact the case? or just suspect so....
I understood JetStar was able to fly NZ-CI under normal 5th freedom rights and a lot of their patronage was ex NZ vs ex AU.
Kiwiandrew wrote:NZ6 wrote:DavidByrne wrote:
Do you know if this is in fact the case? or just suspect so....
I understood JetStar was able to fly NZ-CI under normal 5th freedom rights and a lot of their patronage was ex NZ vs ex AU.
My understanding of 'normal' 5th freedom is that a service originating in country A can pick up pax in country B and transport them to country C . Without the leg from country A it does not fit into 5th freedom rights
The pax themselves don't have to come from country A, but the flight does ( in the same way that NZ's RAR-SYD flight when it operated was an AKL-RAR-SYD service even though absolutely nobody got on in AKL to go to SYD.
Kiwiandrew wrote:NZ6 wrote:DavidByrne wrote:
Do you know if this is in fact the case? or just suspect so....
I understood JetStar was able to fly NZ-CI under normal 5th freedom rights and a lot of their patronage was ex NZ vs ex AU.
My understanding of 'normal' 5th freedom is that a service originating in country A can pick up pax in country B and transport them to country C . Without the leg from country A it does not fit into 5th freedom rights
The pax themselves don't have to come from country A, but the flight does ( in the same way that NZ's RAR-SYD flight when it operated was an AKL-RAR-SYD service even though absolutely nobody got on in AKL to go to SYD.
Kiwiandrew wrote:NZ6 wrote:DavidByrne wrote:
Do you know if this is in fact the case? or just suspect so....
I understood JetStar was able to fly NZ-CI under normal 5th freedom rights and a lot of their patronage was ex NZ vs ex AU.
My understanding of 'normal' 5th freedom is that a service originating in country A can pick up pax in country B and transport them to country C . Without the leg from country A it does not fit into 5th freedom rights
The pax themselves don't have to come from country A, but the flight does ( in the same way that NZ's RAR-SYD flight when it operated was an AKL-RAR-SYD service even though absolutely nobody got on in AKL to go to SYD.
ZK-NBT wrote:
What is stopping JQ running the flight SYD-AKL or where ever to AKL as freight only then running AKL-RAR with the same flight number?
Kiwiandrew wrote:ZK-NBT wrote:
What is stopping JQ running the flight SYD-AKL or where ever to AKL as freight only then running AKL-RAR with the same flight number?
While I don't claim to know the specifics of this particular arrangement, I can say that often cargo traffic rights and passenger traffic rights fall under different sections of an agreement and are not necessarily interchangeable.
I spent a number of years working on the periphery of the travel industry a long time ago, and what I did learn is that while there can be a broad similarity between different agreements, some of them can have incredibly detailed and specific requirements 'baked in'. If one seemingly minor requirement is not met, the rights may no longer apply. While I haven't tried searching for the exact terms of JQ's rights to operate Australia-New Zealand-Rarotonga ( and the finer points are not always published for public consumption) I will say that in my experience it is rarely a simple matter to change how they work ( and of course, it could also be a matter that JQ could get a workaround, but they'd rather deploy their aircraft in another market)
Unclekoru wrote:Kiwiandrew wrote:NZ6 wrote:
My understanding of 'normal' 5th freedom is that a service originating in country A can pick up pax in country B and transport them to country C . Without the leg from country A it does not fit into 5th freedom rights
The pax themselves don't have to come from country A, but the flight does ( in the same way that NZ's RAR-SYD flight when it operated was an AKL-RAR-SYD service even though absolutely nobody got on in AKL to go to SYD.
Yes, given Jetstar is an Australian carrier, they would require 7th freedom rights to operate NZ-RAR without it being an extension of an Australian service.
zkncj wrote:Unclekoru wrote:Kiwiandrew wrote:
My understanding of 'normal' 5th freedom is that a service originating in country A can pick up pax in country B and transport them to country C . Without the leg from country A it does not fit into 5th freedom rights
The pax themselves don't have to come from country A, but the flight does ( in the same way that NZ's RAR-SYD flight when it operated was an AKL-RAR-SYD service even though absolutely nobody got on in AKL to go to SYD.
Yes, given Jetstar is an Australian carrier, they would require 7th freedom rights to operate NZ-RAR without it being an extension of an Australian service.
You would think all it would take would be an simple sit-down (Zoom Style) with Officials from New Zealand, Australia and the Cook Islands and this could be sorted by an very simple piece of paper signed by the three parties. Approving temporary 7th freedom rights to JQ to opperate NZ-CI, surely the Cook Islands wouldn't be against it after it would help there economy.
After all we have 'crown law' team, that would have more than enough resources to draft an agreement.
Kiwiandrew wrote:[While I haven't tried searching for the exact terms of JQ's rights to operate Australia-New Zealand-Rarotonga ( and the finer points are not always published for public consumption) I will say that in my experience it is rarely a simple matter to change how they work)
zkncj wrote:You would think all it would take would be an simple sit-down (Zoom Style) with Officials from New Zealand, Australia and the Cook Islands and this could be sorted by an very simple piece of paper signed by the three parties. Approving temporary 7th freedom rights to JQ to opperate NZ-CI, surely the Cook Islands wouldn't be against it after it would help there economy.
After all we have 'crown law' team, that would have more than enough resources to draft an agreement.
a7ala wrote:zkncj wrote:You would think all it would take would be an simple sit-down (Zoom Style) with Officials from New Zealand, Australia and the Cook Islands and this could be sorted by an very simple piece of paper signed by the three parties. Approving temporary 7th freedom rights to JQ to opperate NZ-CI, surely the Cook Islands wouldn't be against it after it would help there economy.
After all we have 'crown law' team, that would have more than enough resources to draft an agreement.
Given Mike Pero's recent comments regarding the unhelpfulness of the Cook Islands govt with regards to Pasifika, something tells me they arent particularly fussed about more airlines operatings. When you have an airline like Air NZ which is so dominant in a market, they can place a lot of pressure on governments to not support other operators.
Toenga wrote:It appears that the Cook Islands are now operating at maximum sustainable inbound tourism capacity.
So there is absolutely no advantage to them in having more operators providing in bound air services. Air NZ with it's operational base at one end of the flight, and choice of aircraft type, can provide a lot more flexibility in providing the absolutely essential air freight capacity, and the variable passenger capacity, in the event of any disruption.
There is also the question of loyalty. Tourism in the Cook islands and locals access to NZ has been almost totally dependant on Air NZ for decades now, in good times and not so good times. For Air NZ the Cook islands have also provided them with a loyal stable market for both passengers and air freight.
Toenga wrote:It appears that the Cook Islands are now operating at maximum sustainable inbound tourism capacity.
So there is absolutely no advantage to them in having more operators providing in bound air services. Air NZ with it's operational base at one end of the flight, and choice of aircraft type, can provide a lot more flexibility in providing the absolutely essential air freight capacity, and the variable passenger capacity, in the event of any disruption.
There is also the question of loyalty. Tourism in the Cook islands and locals access to NZ has been almost totally dependant on Air NZ for decades now, in good times and not so good times. For Air NZ the Cook islands have also provided them with a loyal stable market for both passengers and air freight.
zkncj wrote:Would nice to see maybe an twice weekly a321/320Neo service from either WLG or CHC into the mix.
Surely they would be demand for an Friday/Saturday service ex WLG/CHC
Time to complete that never completed hotel in Rarotonga.
a7ala wrote:zkncj wrote:Would nice to see maybe an twice weekly a321/320Neo service from either WLG or CHC into the mix.
Surely they would be demand for an Friday/Saturday service ex WLG/CHC
Time to complete that never completed hotel in Rarotonga.
Plenty of demand - prior to Covid at this time of the year over 140 passengers travelling each way per day between WLG and NAN/RAR with CHC around the same amount. Each port would easily be able to support 3pw with A320Neo.
ZK-NBT wrote:Yep and as it seems to keep being said demand isn't the problem, or lack there of, but rather NZ not wanting to take away from AKL, the difference between NAN/RAR FROM CHC/WLG is that RAR can be filled ex AKL and you run out of hotel rooms and you can fill a daily 789 with PAX and freight ex AKL plus some without needed to do WLG/CHC flights..
zkncj wrote:ZK-NBT wrote:Yep and as it seems to keep being said demand isn't the problem, or lack there of, but rather NZ not wanting to take away from AKL, the difference between NAN/RAR FROM CHC/WLG is that RAR can be filled ex AKL and you run out of hotel rooms and you can fill a daily 789 with PAX and freight ex AKL plus some without needed to do WLG/CHC flights..
Which does ask the question, in an post covid world is NZ in its current form. In the interest of the entire country or just Auckland?
Going forward it’s like the next 2-5 years could be an very ‘short-haul’ centric market.
Should the Government being splitting NZ off into two competing airlines?
Has NZ been allowed (and to some level - to protected) than no else has been able to break into the short-haul market and made an major impact of the entire country.
NZ516 wrote:Looking like the financial situation of Air NZ is getting worse for next year. With a $530m loss expected for 2022. The Tasman closing is having a huge impact on the business.
https://www.interest.co.nz/business/111 ... ncial-year
a7ala wrote:zkncj wrote:Would nice to see maybe an twice weekly a321/320Neo service from either WLG or CHC into the mix.
Surely they would be demand for an Friday/Saturday service ex WLG/CHC
Time to complete that never completed hotel in Rarotonga.
Plenty of demand - prior to Covid at this time of the year over 140 passengers travelling each way per day between WLG and NAN/RAR with CHC around the same amount. Each port would easily be able to support 3pw with A320Neo.
at this time of year
zkncj wrote:ZK-NBT wrote:Yep and as it seems to keep being said demand isn't the problem, or lack there of, but rather NZ not wanting to take away from AKL, the difference between NAN/RAR FROM CHC/WLG is that RAR can be filled ex AKL and you run out of hotel rooms and you can fill a daily 789 with PAX and freight ex AKL plus some without needed to do WLG/CHC flights..
Which does ask the question, in an post covid world is NZ in its current form. In the interest of the entire country or just Auckland?
Going forward it’s like the next 2-5 years could be an very ‘short-haul’ centric market.
Should the Government being splitting NZ off into two competing airlines?
Has NZ been allowed (and to some level - to protected) than no else has been able to break into the short-haul market and made an major impact of the entire country.
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:Welly airport continuing to whinge that a road crossing will destroy access to the airport. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/125971 ... ton-moving
If they want an overpass to grade separate the road from a crossing then they can pay for it. Otherwise be useful and put pressure on doing a proper mass transit link between Wellington station and the airport.
bevan7 wrote:Anybody know why this flight from Wellington to Blenheim flew a strange S shaped flight?
https://www.flightradar24.com/ANZ739L/28ab995f
SelandiaBaru wrote:bevan7 wrote:Anybody know why this flight from Wellington to Blenheim flew a strange S shaped flight?
https://www.flightradar24.com/ANZ739L/28ab995f
Most likely ATC vectoring to sequence with the arrival of NZ8205 from AKL
bevan7 wrote:SelandiaBaru wrote:bevan7 wrote:Anybody know why this flight from Wellington to Blenheim flew a strange S shaped flight?
https://www.flightradar24.com/ANZ739L/28ab995f
Most likely ATC vectoring to sequence with the arrival of NZ8205 from AKL
Interesting. The Auckland flight came in just behind. Do they want the 2 flights coming in close together?
NZ516 wrote:New airport terminal opens for passengers in Napier. I like the seat with the propellor behind your head.
There has been a lot of new terminals around the country in recent years eg IVC, NPL, NSN, TRG, KKE plus extensions to others.
Toenga wrote:There were some very durable first generation terminals that way outlasted their sell by dates.
The most obvious example being the pre war de haivlland saw tooth roof factory that survived first as the pink shed domestic terminal and then as a combined international and domestic terminal before being relegated for far too many more years as the domestic terminal.
The very basic weatherboard structure at Nelson was replaced in about 1970 by a flash new terminal, that later had a mezzanine added before bring recently replaced by an entire new terminal again. In Blenheim the tiny weatherboard shack survived until about 1990.
zkncj wrote:Toenga wrote:There were some very durable first generation terminals that way outlasted their sell by dates.
The most obvious example being the pre war de haivlland saw tooth roof factory that survived first as the pink shed domestic terminal and then as a combined international and domestic terminal before being relegated for far too many more years as the domestic terminal.
The very basic weatherboard structure at Nelson was replaced in about 1970 by a flash new terminal, that later had a mezzanine added before bring recently replaced by an entire new terminal again. In Blenheim the tiny weatherboard shack survived until about 1990.
CHC domestic latest along time in an pretty poor state, before there new terminal opened an few years back. It used to be arriving back into the 1960/70s.
NZ321 wrote:What thoughts do you all have re how things will be for vaccinated NZ citizens inbound to NZ next year? How do you see it working? I think this is an important topic, in so far as travellers and the economy are concerned. What is the likelihood of the 2 week quarantine continuing? What differentiation of conditions could emerge?
NZ321 wrote:What thoughts do you all have re how things will be for vaccinated NZ citizens inbound to NZ next year? How do you see it working? I think this is an important topic, in so far as travellers and the economy are concerned. What is the likelihood of the 2 week quarantine continuing? What differentiation of conditions could emerge?
NZ6 wrote:NZ321 wrote:What thoughts do you all have re how things will be for vaccinated NZ citizens inbound to NZ next year? How do you see it working? I think this is an important topic, in so far as travellers and the economy are concerned. What is the likelihood of the 2 week quarantine continuing? What differentiation of conditions could emerge?
As Toenga said, the Sir David Skegg lead advisory group are providing the government advice on how to safely reopen the border. We'll get some insights into that on Thursday. I can't wait!!
As for my personal predictions re your question...
We'll do nothing until we complete all stages of vaccination program, there's been a lot of talk around meeting a magical mark (80% for example). I think we'll get some insights into what we believe we need to achieve but I also think we won't make any changes as we hit that mark. I think as we get towards the latter stage of the main vaccine program we'll push those yet to get one to get one irrespective of what percentage of the population has had it.
I suspect come the new year we will start looking at rolling it out to 16-18year old's and likely commence boosters shots for the high risk groups.
But at some stage we'll progress away from MIQ and allow vaccinated Kiwis can self isolate at home. I'm hopeful negative test at day 3 could end that.
We'll allow travel from "safe zones" including foreign nationals who can prove a negative test and vaccination. While high risk countries will remain in MIQ
Hopefully we move to saliva testing to make this quick and easy.
As for how long we bother with MIQ for Kiwis who aren't vaccinated and when we allow inbound travel from high risk countries who knows, I don't think we'll know that yet either.
Ultimately we need to remember, one of our biggest issues all along is that we have an appallingly low number of ICU beds in our hospitals. So we'll continue to be restrictive until we get a very high level of vaccination uptake including booster shots which look more and more likely.
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!
NZ321 wrote:Enough la la land already. Don't you think? Where is the transparent info around preparing NZ's medical system for a border relaxation and their ability scale up to cope with Delta and subsequent mutations, for instance? Even with 80% vaccinated individuals, Covid will continue do its thing.. although it does appear that the severity of symptoms in individuals seems to be less but the overall infection rate higher. Sure looking forward to hearing about this soon.