Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Toenga
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 2:55 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:10 am

More difficult for people coming in by air , a longer transfer.
 
User avatar
Kiwings
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2020 1:01 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:15 am

It will interesting to see if this project will come to fruition. Building a new airport that can handle widebodies and not face capacity restrictions does seem to fly in the face of the current Govt.s idea that we need tourism quality than numbers. Is this just a play by CIAL due to AIAL interests in ZQN ? I can't see AIAL giving up its ZQN interests quickly ?
 
NZ516
Posts: 1005
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:06 am

zkncj wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

I do hope something can be achieved and I'd personally like to see WKA restricted from future development, they elected not to expand so you can't have it both ways and I'd like both WKA & ZQN to be limited to aircraft under 10 passengers and charter services only (example)

I know reducing ZQN won't happen and there's massive benefits in ZQN from the passenger perspective but the increase in noise pollution over the last 20 years in the Wakatipu basin is actually really sad. That's coming from an avid aviation geek who loves plane spotting.


ZQN going to be an hard one to fix at moment 10-15minutes from the airport and your Hotel in Queenstown, move all the jet traffic to Taras your not 60-75minutes drive away from your Hotel. If Jet services are removed from ZQN I wonder how much of an impact that would have on Queenstown being an base town e.g. would we see Wanaka start to grow being closer to Taras.

Yet to be see what the environmental impacts Airbus new hybrid range, will have and how much noise they will put out. NZ has now signalled they interested in these new hybrid jets/props from Airbus.
So could be that ZQN got limited to new generational aircraft.


That is a very valid point. People on holiday mostly want to get to their destination fairly quickly after their long flight. Arriving in Tarras after a 3 hour flight from Australia then tourists will be faced with a long 90 min drive on a windy mountain road just to get to Queenstown will really put people off from coming. Tarras has to be a destination in its own right which it's not at the moment it's just farmland. The proximity of ZQN Airport at 8 km away from the center of town is very hard to beat.
 
PA515
Posts: 1720
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:48 pm

There's a 12 Sep 2021 photo of ZK-NZN (L/N 749) at SYD with a Wifi radome. No radome in a 24 Jul 2021 photo at AKL, so quite recent.

ZK-NZQ (L/N 751) has been in SIN since 09 Sep 2021, so will probably return Wifi equipped as well.

PA515
 
User avatar
Kiwings
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2020 1:01 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:14 pm

This has not been noted... Skybus suspends Auckland services indefinitely. Obviously reflects the very low pax numbers through AKL. An indefinite suspension seems it may be for quite some time.

https://www.skybus.co.nz/
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 2009
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Sun Sep 26, 2021 11:59 pm

Kiwings wrote:
This has not been noted... Skybus suspends Auckland services indefinitely. Obviously reflects the very low pax numbers through AKL. An indefinite suspension seems it may be for quite some time.

https://www.skybus.co.nz/


Skybus flagged this as a possibility a couple of weeks ago. I think that they did themselves a disservice by changing the route to have only two city stops and then run nonstop from the city to the airport, meaning that many passengers who previously boarded from midtown and uptown points, not to mention Mount Eden and Mt Roskill, were unable to catch it conveniently. They did it in the interests of speed, but unfortunately, even when life was at Level 2 and the Transtasman bubble was open they did not seem to attract many passengers.

IMO the best public transport option, and by far the cheapest, way of getting from the airport to the city, remains the Airport Link electric bus to the very flash new Puhinui station, connecting there with the Southern or Eastern Line trains to the city. Depending on the route, the journey takes between 58 min and 1h 02m, and the journey costs $4.86 with a HOP card (much, much cheaper than the Skybus at $18-ish). And it has the advantage of allowing you to connect to virtually anywhere else on the network, often at no extra charge whatsoever.

Yes, I know some people find the journey time of an hour or so to be outrageous, but for most people I know the loss of 15 mins is neither here nor there. And for $4.86 . . . If time is really critical for you, take a cab - and spend many, many multiples of $4.86.
 
zkncj
Posts: 4519
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Mon Sep 27, 2021 1:57 am

DavidByrne wrote:
Kiwings wrote:
This has not been noted... Skybus suspends Auckland services indefinitely. Obviously reflects the very low pax numbers through AKL. An indefinite suspension seems it may be for quite some time.

https://www.skybus.co.nz/


Skybus flagged this as a possibility a couple of weeks ago. I think that they did themselves a disservice by changing the route to have only two city stops and then run nonstop from the city to the airport, meaning that many passengers who previously boarded from midtown and uptown points, not to mention Mount Eden and Mt Roskill, were unable to catch it conveniently. They did it in the interests of speed, but unfortunately, even when life was at Level 2 and the Transtasman bubble was open they did not seem to attract many passengers.

IMO the best public transport option, and by far the cheapest, way of getting from the airport to the city, remains the Airport Link electric bus to the very flash new Puhinui station, connecting there with the Southern or Eastern Line trains to the city. Depending on the route, the journey takes between 58 min and 1h 02m, and the journey costs $4.86 with a HOP card (much, much cheaper than the Skybus at $18-ish). And it has the advantage of allowing you to connect to virtually anywhere else on the network, often at no extra charge whatsoever.

Yes, I know some people find the journey time of an hour or so to be outrageous, but for most people I know the loss of 15 mins is neither here nor there. And for $4.86 . . . If time is really critical for you, take a cab - and spend many, many multiples of $4.86.


Living Mount Eden I used to use the service allot, even though its price was up there at peak hour if you only had carry-on it wasn't an bad option (subject to the weather).

Hopefully it might now open the door for AT to operate some public services from the inner suburbs on to AKL, once we are back to level 1.

An twice hourly service by AT via Manukau, Mt Eden and Dominion Roads doesn't seem to hard for AT to full up even with they charged say $7.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 2009
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Mon Sep 27, 2021 2:14 am

zkncj wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
Kiwings wrote:
This has not been noted... Skybus suspends Auckland services indefinitely. Obviously reflects the very low pax numbers through AKL. An indefinite suspension seems it may be for quite some time.

https://www.skybus.co.nz/


Skybus flagged this as a possibility a couple of weeks ago. I think that they did themselves a disservice by changing the route to have only two city stops and then run nonstop from the city to the airport, meaning that many passengers who previously boarded from midtown and uptown points, not to mention Mount Eden and Mt Roskill, were unable to catch it conveniently. They did it in the interests of speed, but unfortunately, even when life was at Level 2 and the Transtasman bubble was open they did not seem to attract many passengers.

IMO the best public transport option, and by far the cheapest, way of getting from the airport to the city, remains the Airport Link electric bus to the very flash new Puhinui station, connecting there with the Southern or Eastern Line trains to the city. Depending on the route, the journey takes between 58 min and 1h 02m, and the journey costs $4.86 with a HOP card (much, much cheaper than the Skybus at $18-ish). And it has the advantage of allowing you to connect to virtually anywhere else on the network, often at no extra charge whatsoever.

Yes, I know some people find the journey time of an hour or so to be outrageous, but for most people I know the loss of 15 mins is neither here nor there. And for $4.86 . . . If time is really critical for you, take a cab - and spend many, many multiples of $4.86.


Living Mount Eden I used to use the service allot, even though its price was up there at peak hour if you only had carry-on it wasn't an bad option (subject to the weather).

Hopefully it might now open the door for AT to operate some public services from the inner suburbs on to AKL, once we are back to level 1.

An twice hourly service by AT via Manukau, Mt Eden and Dominion Roads doesn't seem to hard for AT to full up even with they charged say $7.

The other public transport option is AT Route 38 (replaced Route 380) every 15 min from the Airport to Onehunga, though it's primarily aimed at local users, not travellers, and it's a bit of a tortuous journey through the Airport industrial area and Mangere. However, it does allow you to transfer at Onehunga to services elsewhere through the isthmus. And all at an extremely reasonable cost.

AT also have a proposed new route in their Regional Passenger Transport Plan (RPTP) - from New Lynn to the Airport. However, not much sign of that for the moment, and given covid it may not be a high priority right now. But I'm sure we will see it at some point in the future.
 
NZ516
Posts: 1005
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Mon Sep 27, 2021 3:07 am

Does anyone think that Air NZ will keep the Whangarei to Wellington non stop service ? It's by far the largest city without a service to the capital. They could run it along side their Auckland services now that it can actually be done. A city of this size could easy support multiple daily services to Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch it seems really under served for it's size compared to other NZ cities.
The city of Whangarei is growing very fast and is expected to pass 100,000 residents next year. Plus in another 30 years it is projected to get to 150,000. It could even overtake Dunedin by then.!!!
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/452 ... -districts
 
GW54
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 3:05 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Mon Sep 27, 2021 4:32 am

There used to be B1900 service in the past,allowed for a full day in Wellington. Problem now is transiting Auckland is very hit and miss. Slightest delay leaving WRE or any delays landing in Auckland inevtably mean a missed connection and delay into Wellington.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 2009
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Mon Sep 27, 2021 4:38 am

NZ516 wrote:
Does anyone think that Air NZ will keep the Whangarei to Wellington non stop service ? It's by far the largest city without a service to the capital. They could run it along side their Auckland services now that it can actually be done. A city of this size could easy support multiple daily services to Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch it seems really under served for it's size compared to other NZ cities.
The city of Whangarei is growing very fast and is expected to pass 100,000 residents next year. Plus in another 30 years it is projected to get to 150,000. It could even overtake Dunedin by then.!!!
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/452 ... -districts

Just a slight correction from the pedant in me: Whangarei urban area has a population of 54,400 as of 12 months ago (est). It's Whangarei District that has a population of 98,000-plus as of now. The Whangarei District extends from Waipu Cove almost as far as Russell Forest, and a lot of the future growth will be outside the urban area. But I'm splitting hairs - yes, those people will still probably want to fly places.

As for retaining the flights longer term: yes, I think it makes perfect sense, as long as there aren't payload penalties which might make break-even problematic. I was vey disappointed when they dropped the BEH flights to and from Wellington. There are few other potential connections in the domestic network that aren't already in place. Maybe HLZ-DUD, PMR-DUD, NPE-DUD or NSN-DUD - but that's about it. One summer many years back Mount Cook ran TUO-CHC with an HS7, and I'm still hopeful of a ROT-ZQN connection, but I can't see either of those happening without significant inbound tourism.
 
NZ6
Posts: 2135
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Mon Sep 27, 2021 4:54 am

NZ516 wrote:
zkncj wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

I do hope something can be achieved and I'd personally like to see WKA restricted from future development, they elected not to expand so you can't have it both ways and I'd like both WKA & ZQN to be limited to aircraft under 10 passengers and charter services only (example)

I know reducing ZQN won't happen and there's massive benefits in ZQN from the passenger perspective but the increase in noise pollution over the last 20 years in the Wakatipu basin is actually really sad. That's coming from an avid aviation geek who loves plane spotting.


ZQN going to be an hard one to fix at moment 10-15minutes from the airport and your Hotel in Queenstown, move all the jet traffic to Taras your not 60-75minutes drive away from your Hotel. If Jet services are removed from ZQN I wonder how much of an impact that would have on Queenstown being an base town e.g. would we see Wanaka start to grow being closer to Taras.

Yet to be see what the environmental impacts Airbus new hybrid range, will have and how much noise they will put out. NZ has now signalled they interested in these new hybrid jets/props from Airbus.
So could be that ZQN got limited to new generational aircraft.


That is a very valid point. People on holiday mostly want to get to their destination fairly quickly after their long flight. Arriving in Tarras after a 3 hour flight from Australia then tourists will be faced with a long 90 min drive on a windy mountain road just to get to Queenstown will really put people off from coming. Tarras has to be a destination in its own right which it's not at the moment it's just farmland. The proximity of ZQN Airport at 8 km away from the center of town is very hard to beat.


Whenever you compare a 10 minute commute vs a 60-90 trip it's going to look awful. However 60mins isn't unheard of.

Coach transfers won't go over the crown range by design, not that the road is wind prone but because of the heavy vehicle and general vehicle restrictions it faces in winter. They'll likely go via Wanaka. But then there's those who'll look to do car hire/camper hire and so forth.

I'm sure with a several hundred million dollar airport being built, we'll also see some highway improvements which may reduce some of this travel time. Maybe not in line with the airports development but post it's development.

Tarras may also offer greater operational certainty during winter and may enable carriers to carry more ski equipment. Likewise it'll offer connections to both WKA area and ZQN.

I'm sure ZQN airport will remain in place - but if Tarras does get built, I suspect pressure will come in future years to return the Wakatipu basin to the tranquil eco-friendly place it is. That might not be in the way of closure, but there may become strict curfew, size limits or movement limits etc.
 
NZ516
Posts: 1005
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Mon Sep 27, 2021 6:40 am

DavidByrne wrote:
NZ516 wrote:
Does anyone think that Air NZ will keep the Whangarei to Wellington non stop service ? It's by far the largest city without a service to the capital. They could run it along side their Auckland services now that it can actually be done. A city of this size could easy support multiple daily services to Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch it seems really under served for it's size compared to other NZ cities.
The city of Whangarei is growing very fast and is expected to pass 100,000 residents next year. Plus in another 30 years it is projected to get to 150,000. It could even overtake Dunedin by then.!!!
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/452 ... -districts

Just a slight correction from the pedant in me: Whangarei urban area has a population of 54,400 as of 12 months ago (est). It's Whangarei District that has a population of 98,000-plus as of now. The Whangarei District extends from Waipu Cove almost as far as Russell Forest, and a lot of the future growth will be outside the urban area. But I'm splitting hairs - yes, those people will still probably want to fly places.

As for retaining the flights longer term: yes, I think it makes perfect sense, as long as there aren't payload penalties which might make break-even problematic. I was vey disappointed when they dropped the BEH flights to and from Wellington. There are few other potential connections in the domestic network that aren't already in place. Maybe HLZ-DUD, PMR-DUD, NPE-DUD or NSN-DUD - but that's about it. One summer many years back Mount Cook ran TUO-CHC with an HS7, and I'm still hopeful of a ROT-ZQN connection, but I can't see either of those happening without significant inbound tourism.


Lots of suggestions for Dunedin in your reply I would add in HLZ to ZQN. Another former domestic route yet to return is AKL to MRO. This most likely will return when the new Masterton runway is completed in 2025ish. A new route perhaps Gisborne to Christchurch one out of the box. Te Anau has been trying to get a air service as well.

Interesting about Whangarei district same has happened with Rotorua before a city it's now a district. Dunedin city also has a large territory but not much population on the outskirts.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 2009
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Mon Sep 27, 2021 7:31 am

NZ516 wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
Just a slight correction from the pedant in me: Whangarei urban area has a population of 54,400 as of 12 months ago (est). It's Whangarei District that has a population of 98,000-plus as of now. The Whangarei District extends from Waipu Cove almost as far as Russell Forest, and a lot of the future growth will be outside the urban area. But I'm splitting hairs - yes, those people will still probably want to fly places.

As for retaining the flights longer term: yes, I think it makes perfect sense, as long as there aren't payload penalties which might make break-even problematic. I was vey disappointed when they dropped the BEH flights to and from Wellington. There are few other potential connections in the domestic network that aren't already in place. Maybe HLZ-DUD, PMR-DUD, NPE-DUD or NSN-DUD - but that's about it. One summer many years back Mount Cook ran TUO-CHC with an HS7, and I'm still hopeful of a ROT-ZQN connection, but I can't see either of those happening without significant inbound tourism.


Lots of suggestions for Dunedin in your reply I would add in HLZ to ZQN. Another former domestic route yet to return is AKL to MRO. This most likely will return when the new Masterton runway is completed in 2025ish. A new route perhaps Gisborne to Christchurch one out of the box. Te Anau has been trying to get a air service as well.

Interesting about Whangarei district same has happened with Rotorua before a city it's now a district. Dunedin city also has a large territory but not much population on the outskirts.

Almost all NZ's smaller cities were demoted to Districts a few decades ago. Even Tauranga was a district until after it reached 100,000, while the new threshold for city status is 50,000. New Plymouth, Rotorua, Hastings and Whangarei also technically qualify but haven't been given that status.

As for AKL-MRO, I can't see NZ going back there - much more likely to be 3C IMO with the Saab or Metroliner. GIS-CHC: would be quite a thin route for NZ considering the small size of GIS. More chance to get WAG-CHC with 3C or S8 I think, WAG being larger than GIS by about 10,000 or so.
 
a7ala
Posts: 440
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Mon Sep 27, 2021 8:05 pm

All of these long thin routes being suggested which would only realistically be operated by props (eg. HLZ-ZQN, HLZ-DUD, KKE/WRE-WLG) are a huge waste of resources for Air NZ.

My understanding is that the airline does not have a lot of spare aircraft time in the Q300 and ATR fleets outside of lockdowns, and so why would they use a Q300 or ATR to fly HLZ-ZQN-HLZ presumably taking at least 2 hours in each direction plus 30min turn (so 4.5-5 hours of aircraft time), when they could instead operate the same aircraft HLZ-WLG-HLZ-WLG-HLZ with the same time connecting HLZ not only to WLG but to ZQN and many other destinations.

Long thin turboprop sectors are a huge waste of aircraft resources, and are better served by hubbing.through gateway airports.
 
NZ516
Posts: 1005
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Mon Sep 27, 2021 8:56 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
NZ516 wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
Just a slight correction from the pedant in me: Whangarei urban area has a population of 54,400 as of 12 months ago (est). It's Whangarei District that has a population of 98,000-plus as of now. The Whangarei District extends from Waipu Cove almost as far as Russell Forest, and a lot of the future growth will be outside the urban area. But I'm splitting hairs - yes, those people will still probably want to fly places.

As for retaining the flights longer term: yes, I think it makes perfect sense, as long as there aren't payload penalties which might make break-even problematic. I was vey disappointed when they dropped the BEH flights to and from Wellington. There are few other potential connections in the domestic network that aren't already in place. Maybe HLZ-DUD, PMR-DUD, NPE-DUD or NSN-DUD - but that's about it. One summer many years back Mount Cook ran TUO-CHC with an HS7, and I'm still hopeful of a ROT-ZQN connection, but I can't see either of those happening without significant inbound tourism.


Lots of suggestions for Dunedin in your reply I would add in HLZ to ZQN. Another former domestic route yet to return is AKL to MRO. This most likely will return when the new Masterton runway is completed in 2025ish. A new route perhaps Gisborne to Christchurch one out of the box. Te Anau has been trying to get a air service as well.

Interesting about Whangarei district same has happened with Rotorua before a city it's now a district. Dunedin city also has a large territory but not much population on the outskirts.

Almost all NZ's smaller cities were demoted to Districts a few decades ago. Even Tauranga was a district until after it reached 100,000, while the new threshold for city status is 50,000. New Plymouth, Rotorua, Hastings and Whangarei also technically qualify but haven't been given that status.

As for AKL-MRO, I can't see NZ going back there - much more likely to be 3C IMO with the Saab or Metroliner. GIS-CHC: would be quite a thin route for NZ considering the small size of GIS. More chance to get WAG-CHC with 3C or S8 I think, WAG being larger than GIS by about 10,000 or so.


Yes I can't see AIR NZ returning AKL to MRO either. But 3C with a Saab on the new runway would be well received by all of the Wairarapa.
3C or Air Chatham's could open up a few new routes like WAG-CHC, GIS -CHC and PPQ-CHC. Sounds Air S8 could expand to CHC-TEU say 3 per week to begin with once international tourists are allowed back in.
 
NZ6
Posts: 2135
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Mon Sep 27, 2021 9:13 pm

a7ala wrote:
All of these long thin routes being suggested which would only realistically be operated by props (eg. HLZ-ZQN, HLZ-DUD, KKE/WRE-WLG) are a huge waste of resources for Air NZ.

My understanding is that the airline does not have a lot of spare aircraft time in the Q300 and ATR fleets outside of lockdowns, and so why would they use a Q300 or ATR to fly HLZ-ZQN-HLZ presumably taking at least 2 hours in each direction plus 30min turn (so 4.5-5 hours of aircraft time), when they could instead operate the same aircraft HLZ-WLG-HLZ-WLG-HLZ with the same time connecting HLZ not only to WLG but to ZQN and many other destinations.

Long thin turboprop sectors are a huge waste of aircraft resources, and are better served by hubbing.through gateway airports.


Under the same logic - how does TRG-CHC, NPE-CHC, NPL-CHC, PMR-CHC work?

I don't think HLZ-ZQN would work well because AKL is up the road with 10+ jet services largely being cheaper as well.

WRE/KKE-WLG is working well and better than expected. There's talk of extension but it'll be interesting to see how it goes when AKL's not in lockdown and there's more services ex AKL and you can easily drive into AKL for any reason.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 2009
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Mon Sep 27, 2021 11:10 pm

NZ6 wrote:
I don't think HLZ-ZQN would work well because AKL is up the road with 10+ jet services largely being cheaper as well.

WRE/KKE-WLG is working well and better than expected. There's talk of extension but it'll be interesting to see how it goes when AKL's not in lockdown and there's more services ex AKL and you can easily drive into AKL for any reason.

Not pointing at you, but I note that for many the expansion of services from HLZ or WRE is often met with calls that people can "easily" drive to AKL (1.5-2.5 hours away), and that the service should not proceed on that basis. However, suggestions that Tarras should become the "new" ZQN is met by complaints that it's too far from Queenstown at 1h 10m. Incidentally, you'd never drive from Tarras to Queenstown via Wanaka, as it's 20 min longer and also (as others have noted) has the Crown Range road to contend with, not great for buses etc.

I don't subscribe at all to the view that new services should not be started if people can drive a couple of hours to an alternate airport. If you're in the airline business, then to consistently take an attitude like that risks ceding market share to your competitors. As regards HLZ-ZQN: I recall that when WLG-ZQN started it was a meagre offering with a few AT7s a week, but has now grown massively to support 2x daily A320s on NZ plus 3x weekly on JQ. I'm not saying that HLZ-ZQN would be the same, by any means, but for me the takeaway is that you shouldn't underestimate a route's potential before it's started (which I certainly did in the case of WLG-ZQN - I was very cynical).
 
NZ6
Posts: 2135
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Mon Sep 27, 2021 11:23 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
I don't think HLZ-ZQN would work well because AKL is up the road with 10+ jet services largely being cheaper as well.

WRE/KKE-WLG is working well and better than expected. There's talk of extension but it'll be interesting to see how it goes when AKL's not in lockdown and there's more services ex AKL and you can easily drive into AKL for any reason.

Not pointing at you, but I note that for many the expansion of services from HLZ or WRE is often met with calls that people can "easily" drive to AKL (1.5-2.5 hours away), and that the service should not proceed on that basis. However, suggestions that Tarras should become the "new" ZQN is met by complaints that it's too far from Queenstown at 1h 10m. Incidentally, you'd never drive from Tarras to Queenstown via Wanaka, as it's 20 min longer and also (as others have noted) has the Crown Range road to contend with, not great for buses etc.

I don't subscribe at all to the view that new services should not be started if people can drive a couple of hours to an alternate airport. If you're in the airline business, then to consistently take an attitude like that risks ceding market share to your competitors. As regards HLZ-ZQN: I recall that when WLG-ZQN started it was a meagre offering with a few AT7s a week, but has now grown massively to support 2x daily A320s on NZ plus 3x weekly on JQ. I'm not saying that HLZ-ZQN would be the same, by any means, but for me the takeaway is that you shouldn't underestimate a route's potential before it's started (which I certainly did in the case of WLG-ZQN - I was very cynical).


All I'm really saying is once you've sold the small handful of lower end seats HLZ-ZQN other leisure travelers will look at AKL as an option. $179 AKL-ZQN vs $249 from HLZ. Two people return, that's $280 in that made up scenario and the price gap isn't that significant. That's the customers choice not the airlines attitude. There's also another option called JQ sitting in AKL.

The same logic has been proven with PPQ. Simple operating costs and volume makes WLG cheaper and locals opted by their own choice to drive to WLG and save money.

I'm sure people would prefer to fly ex HLZ. I'm not suggesting they wouldn't or shouldn't. Customers vote with bums on seats and what they're prepared to pay or not pay for convivence.

For me Tarras is more about the noise pollution in ZQN as it continues to grow.
 
a7ala
Posts: 440
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Mon Sep 27, 2021 11:25 pm

NZ6 wrote:
Under the same logic - how does TRG-CHC, NPE-CHC, NPL-CHC, PMR-CHC work?


Presumably there is enough demand to make them work. HLZ-ZQN (for example) would require the airline to redistribute 5 hours of aircraft from somewhere else, or to put it another way if the airline had 5 hours of aircraft time im sure they could find much better things to do with the aircraft than a really long turboprop sector which will be expensive to run and note acheive the same revenue as two shorter sectors would provide.

NZ6 wrote:
WRE/KKE-WLG is working well and better than expected. There's talk of extension but it'll be interesting to see how it goes when AKL's not in lockdown and there's more services ex AKL and you can easily drive into AKL for any reason.


I would be surprised if it was extended. If they dont have the aircraft they will have to reallocate aircraft from somewhere else which would be hard given it would need to replace a similar long turbo sector (such as WLG-IVC) or two short sectors. They have said publically that it was only going to be running while AKL was in Level 3 or higher, and would only be extended if Level 3 was extended.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4683
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Mon Sep 27, 2021 11:40 pm

Toenga wrote:
With Tarras available, no jets into Queenstown and a curfew would would make getting to Queenstown more difficult, but being there a lot more pleasant. With Tarras being relitively close to Wanaka it would balance the demand between the two centres more.

No jet ZQN basically means no ZQN as the land is much too valuable. The road to Tarras would need significant upgrades to handle the extra traffic, improve safety and improve journey times.
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 1227
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Tue Sep 28, 2021 12:17 am

People keep saying build more roads. We know there'd be a fair amount of traffic between Queenstown and a Tarras airport. Especially to Christchurch too if you close down Christchurch airport to fold them in into one. That would be enough to be worth putting in a proper rail link between all the locations. Sure, it'd cost a ton. But so would building a new motorway to connect these points. Especially considering the greenhouse gas emissions of vehicles and road construction.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 2009
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Tue Sep 28, 2021 12:26 am

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
People keep saying build more roads. We know there'd be a fair amount of traffic between Queenstown and a Tarras airport. Especially to Christchurch too if you close down Christchurch airport to fold them in into one. That would be enough to be worth putting in a proper rail link between all the locations. Sure, it'd cost a ton. But so would building a new motorway to connect these points. Especially considering the greenhouse gas emissions of vehicles and road construction.

There's never been even a hint of a suggestion that Tarras would replace CHC! And the chances of a rail link to CHC - fantasy . . .
 
NZ6
Posts: 2135
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Tue Sep 28, 2021 12:55 am

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
People keep saying build more roads. We know there'd be a fair amount of traffic between Queenstown and a Tarras airport. Especially to Christchurch too if you close down Christchurch airport to fold them in into one. That would be enough to be worth putting in a proper rail link between all the locations. Sure, it'd cost a ton. But so would building a new motorway to connect these points. Especially considering the greenhouse gas emissions of vehicles and road construction.


Tarras is a proposal by CIAL to claim a stake in a different market not one to close themselves down and move themselves 400+ km away into a mountainous valley.
 
Toenga
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 2:55 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Tue Sep 28, 2021 3:07 am

I think that ZQN faces the very real prospect of at best a cap on movements and no more curfew reduction, but more threateningly possibly sinking lid and and increased curfew.
This would certainly make it Queenstown a more pleasant place for residents and those staying longer, especially under the flight paths and at the end of the Franklin Arm, at the expense of just being harder to access. But Tarras may make that air/road access more reliable.
 
zkncj
Posts: 4519
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Tue Sep 28, 2021 6:46 am

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
People keep saying build more roads. We know there'd be a fair amount of traffic between Queenstown and a Tarras airport. Especially to Christchurch too if you close down Christchurch airport to fold them in into one. That would be enough to be worth putting in a proper rail link between all the locations. Sure, it'd cost a ton. But so would building a new motorway to connect these points. Especially considering the greenhouse gas emissions of vehicles and road construction.


Building high speed rail or an new motorway between Queenstown-Tarras-Christchurch would far out weight the benefits of the new airport.

With Tarras being in between the Alpine ranges, any new transport link is going to cost billions of dollars to establish.
 
NZ516
Posts: 1005
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Tue Sep 28, 2021 7:26 am

A new direct Hamilton to Queenstown service would suit Jetstar's low cost model best with opening up new leisure routes. Say a 3 per week 320 service for Waikato Holidaymakers to access. It could be added in with extra AKL flights eg. a AKL-ZQN-HLZ-ZQN-AKL rotation. There will be the naysayers of course I think It will happen eventually. As Hamilton continues to grow as a city, the same with its catchment region of 500,000 residents its arguably a large enough market already. I think the Jetstar price model has the advantage over Air NZ to attract locals to use their local airport than driving up the road. It would be way too long using a ATR to be really worthwhile same was for the new AKL to IVC route.
 
NZ6
Posts: 2135
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Tue Sep 28, 2021 7:17 pm

NZ516 wrote:
A new direct Hamilton to Queenstown service would suit Jetstar's low cost model best with opening up new leisure routes. Say a 3 per week 320 service for Waikato Holidaymakers to access. It could be added in with extra AKL flights eg. a AKL-ZQN-HLZ-ZQN-AKL rotation. There will be the naysayers of course I think It will happen eventually. As Hamilton continues to grow as a city, the same with its catchment region of 500,000 residents its arguably a large enough market already. I think the Jetstar price model has the advantage over Air NZ to attract locals to use their local airport than driving up the road. It would be way too long using a ATR to be really worthwhile same was for the new AKL to IVC route.


There will be the naysayers of course.. I think It will happen eventually

Fair enough, I would be interested in hearing why?

catchment region of 500,000 residents its arguably a large enough market already

Or is this why, are you looking at share size and basing that a minimum portion of people will be willing to travel and that would equate to a new direct flight?

Say a 3 per week 320 service for Waikato Holidaymakers to access

Why 3 per week? An infrequent service can sometimes be it's own failure. Especially on a domestic network.

It could be added in with extra AKL flights eg. a AKL-ZQN-HLZ-ZQN-AKL rotation

Well you'd need to position an aircraft in HLZ somehow. Given they already service ZQN the logical thing to do would be to add a ZQN-HLZ-ZQN into the cycle. But it could be between CHC-ZQN or WLG-ZQN. It really depends where and how they decide to fit it in.

A new direct Hamilton to Queenstown service would suit Jetstar's low cost model best

I'm not sure if being the only jet service ex HLZ speaks to "being suitable to low cost".

I'm not suggesting it's insurmountable, but you've still got AKL to deal with, you've got competition with NZ indirect... But also once borders reopen next year, will domestic tourism slow? how many repeat trips will Kiwis make to ZQN? The catchment is much closer to the central plateau ski area than say AKL for the winter sports fans.

HLZ city size is about 160,000 - have we considered the demographic of this city and the surrounding catchments?

HLZ is also 'end-of-line' whereas AKL for example has feeder traffic on top of it's almost 1.7m locals/
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 1227
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Tue Sep 28, 2021 9:44 pm

zkncj wrote:
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
People keep saying build more roads. We know there'd be a fair amount of traffic between Queenstown and a Tarras airport. Especially to Christchurch too if you close down Christchurch airport to fold them in into one. That would be enough to be worth putting in a proper rail link between all the locations. Sure, it'd cost a ton. But so would building a new motorway to connect these points. Especially considering the greenhouse gas emissions of vehicles and road construction.


Building high speed rail or an new motorway between Queenstown-Tarras-Christchurch would far out weight the benefits of the new airport.

With Tarras being in between the Alpine ranges, any new transport link is going to cost billions of dollars to establish.


Yup, which is a big part of why I think Tarras is a crap idea as it is currently pushed. We need to be reducing our use of hydrocarbon based transport. Not increasing it. Tarras as a replacement for both Queenstown and Christchurch airports would be much more sensible as a multi generational investment. Or expanding Christchurch and building a proper higher speed electric rail network to connect to the regions. Yes it'd be eye wateringly expensive. But it's a multi generational investment so the costs and benefits need to be considered over that sort of time period. Not the 30 year blocks we've been convinced things exist for.m
 
NZ516
Posts: 1005
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:12 am

Here are some replies to your questions NZ6:

Fair enough, I would be interested in hearing why?


Hamilton is one of the fastest growing cities and being the fourth largest market behind AKL, WLG and CHC. It is the next one in line to open up to have a ZQN direct service.

Or is this why, are you looking at share size and basing that a minimum portion of people will be willing to travel and that would equate to a new direct flight?


Yes its the 4th biggest city in NZ. Similar to the reply above.

Why 3 per week? An infrequent service can sometimes be it's own failure. Especially on a domestic network.


A 3 per week offering would be a lot of seats to begin with. It would grow with the convivence of the non stop option over time.
The route would be suited for Hamilton and Waikato holidaymakers to visit ZQN and set up on that market.
Jetstar recently started a 3 weekly Newcastle to Cairns 320 service so a similar model of that basis could work for them here. Not all routes have to start out at daily.
 
User avatar
LamboAston
Posts: 680
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:46 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:28 am

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
zkncj wrote:
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
People keep saying build more roads. We know there'd be a fair amount of traffic between Queenstown and a Tarras airport. Especially to Christchurch too if you close down Christchurch airport to fold them in into one. That would be enough to be worth putting in a proper rail link between all the locations. Sure, it'd cost a ton. But so would building a new motorway to connect these points. Especially considering the greenhouse gas emissions of vehicles and road construction.


Building high speed rail or an new motorway between Queenstown-Tarras-Christchurch would far out weight the benefits of the new airport.

With Tarras being in between the Alpine ranges, any new transport link is going to cost billions of dollars to establish.


Yup, which is a big part of why I think Tarras is a crap idea as it is currently pushed. We need to be reducing our use of hydrocarbon based transport. Not increasing it. Tarras as a replacement for both Queenstown and Christchurch airports would be much more sensible as a multi generational investment. Or expanding Christchurch and building a proper higher speed electric rail network to connect to the regions. Yes it'd be eye wateringly expensive. But it's a multi generational investment so the costs and benefits need to be considered over that sort of time period. Not the 30 year blocks we've been convinced things exist for.m

You realise its a 7 hour drive from Christchurch to Tarras? Tarras airport will never, ever, replace Christchurch airport. The terrain around there is not suitable for high speed rail, and rail has never previously operated in the region. The old Central Otago branch line ended at Cromwell, before the Clyde dam was built. Road and air are the only sensible ways to get around the region
 
NZ6
Posts: 2135
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:47 am

NZ516 wrote:
Here are some replies to your questions NZ6:

Fair enough, I would be interested in hearing why?


Hamilton is one of the fastest growing cities and being the fourth largest market behind AKL, WLG and CHC. It is the next one in line to open up to have a ZQN direct service.

Or is this why, are you looking at share size and basing that a minimum portion of people will be willing to travel and that would equate to a new direct flight?


Yes its the 4th biggest city in NZ. Similar to the reply above.

Why 3 per week? An infrequent service can sometimes be it's own failure. Especially on a domestic network.


A 3 per week offering would be a lot of seats to begin with. It would grow with the convivence of the non stop option over time.
The route would be suited for Hamilton and Waikato holidaymakers to visit ZQN and set up on that market.
Jetstar recently started a 3 weekly Newcastle to Cairns 320 service so a similar model of that basis could work for them here. Not all routes have to start out at daily.


So from this, it's solely based on population size. You're literally drawing routes on a map between larger centers. If only it was that simple, then it would've happened by now. There are many other factors that form part of any route. The fastest growing region is actually the Bay of Plenty, so throw in some tourism and ROT-ZQN is more likely with this line of thinking.

Debating the reasons why seems to frustrate people so I'll leave it at that.
 
NZ6
Posts: 2135
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:48 am

LamboAston wrote:
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
zkncj wrote:

Building high speed rail or an new motorway between Queenstown-Tarras-Christchurch would far out weight the benefits of the new airport.

With Tarras being in between the Alpine ranges, any new transport link is going to cost billions of dollars to establish.


Yup, which is a big part of why I think Tarras is a crap idea as it is currently pushed. We need to be reducing our use of hydrocarbon based transport. Not increasing it. Tarras as a replacement for both Queenstown and Christchurch airports would be much more sensible as a multi generational investment. Or expanding Christchurch and building a proper higher speed electric rail network to connect to the regions. Yes it'd be eye wateringly expensive. But it's a multi generational investment so the costs and benefits need to be considered over that sort of time period. Not the 30 year blocks we've been convinced things exist for.m

You realise its a 7 hour drive from Christchurch to Tarras? Tarras airport will never, ever, replace Christchurch airport. The terrain around there is not suitable for high speed rail, and rail has never previously operated in the region. The old Central Otago branch line ended at Cromwell, before the Clyde dam was built. Road and air are the only sensible ways to get around the region


Other than ownership, I'm not sure why Tarras and CHC are in the same topic?
 
NZ516
Posts: 1005
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Wed Sep 29, 2021 11:26 am

NZ6 wrote:
NZ516 wrote:
Here are some replies to your questions NZ6:

Fair enough, I would be interested in hearing why?


Hamilton is one of the fastest growing cities and being the fourth largest market behind AKL, WLG and CHC. It is the next one in line to open up to have a ZQN direct service.

Or is this why, are you looking at share size and basing that a minimum portion of people will be willing to travel and that would equate to a new direct flight?


Yes its the 4th biggest city in NZ. Similar to the reply above.

Why 3 per week? An infrequent service can sometimes be it's own failure. Especially on a domestic network.


A 3 per week offering would be a lot of seats to begin with. It would grow with the convivence of the non stop option over time.
The route would be suited for Hamilton and Waikato holidaymakers to visit ZQN and set up on that market.
Jetstar recently started a 3 weekly Newcastle to Cairns 320 service so a similar model of that basis could work for them here. Not all routes have to start out at daily.


So from this, it's solely based on population size. You're literally drawing routes on a map between larger centers. If only it was that simple, then it would've happened by now. There are many other factors that form part of any route. The fastest growing region is actually the Bay of Plenty, so throw in some tourism and ROT-ZQN is more likely with this line of thinking.

Debating the reasons why seems to frustrate people so I'll leave it at that.


My original suggestion of HLZ ZQN flights wasn't solely based on population size. With Rotorua it's a lot smaller at present than Hamilton is now. But I will leave this discussion and move on.
 
NZ6
Posts: 2135
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Wed Sep 29, 2021 7:06 pm

NZ516 wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
NZ516 wrote:
Here are some replies to your questions NZ6:



Hamilton is one of the fastest growing cities and being the fourth largest market behind AKL, WLG and CHC. It is the next one in line to open up to have a ZQN direct service.



Yes its the 4th biggest city in NZ. Similar to the reply above.



A 3 per week offering would be a lot of seats to begin with. It would grow with the convivence of the non stop option over time.
The route would be suited for Hamilton and Waikato holidaymakers to visit ZQN and set up on that market.
Jetstar recently started a 3 weekly Newcastle to Cairns 320 service so a similar model of that basis could work for them here. Not all routes have to start out at daily.


So from this, it's solely based on population size. You're literally drawing routes on a map between larger centers. If only it was that simple, then it would've happened by now. There are many other factors that form part of any route. The fastest growing region is actually the Bay of Plenty, so throw in some tourism and ROT-ZQN is more likely with this line of thinking.

Debating the reasons why seems to frustrate people so I'll leave it at that.


My original suggestion of HLZ ZQN flights wasn't solely based on population size. With Rotorua it's a lot smaller at present than Hamilton is now. But I will leave this discussion and move on.


Sorry it seems all the weight placed behind the suggestion was on the population size.

By all means, I'm happy to debate the pros and cons to it, a discussion is what a forum is about after all. But I'm keen to hear more substance to why?

You've quoted the population catchment of 500,000. The city of Hamilton is more around 160,000 with the wider Waikato population being 500,000 (google search for population of Waikato shows 496,000 so this may be the source).Hamilton is at the very southern end of this region. Many in the upper Waikato area may in-fact see themselves as Aucklanders and live and work in Auckland as a result of living on the southern side of the Auckland boundary. Besides that, weigh in the dual lane highway and the dozen or more direct jet services from AKL and it presents a real challenge. Then there's the fact the airport in HLZ is 25 mins south of the city.

As I've previously said, a case study of this could be PPQ. It's not airline arrogance - it's customer behavior.

Something like 3 per week proves challenging and lack in frequency can actually cannibalize a route more than help it. If the day you need isn't available, you revert to AKL and you then forgo the other leg as well given you're transport isn't at you departing/arriving airport anymore. Furthermore, are you aware of the average length for a domestic 'vacation'? How does this effect the ability for people to be flexible?

HLZ currently has no jet services and therefore no AVSEC screening, employees etc (I'm not sure if the assets to do this are available in HLZ) . There will be associated cost around this. I'll come back to this in a moment.

To simplify airline management - you first need to generate passenger revenue. Looking after your customers and providing a trusted well liked product helps you achieve this.

Have we been able to establish that a HLZ-ZQN would in-fact grow passenger revenue, either via lost revenue. Are current customers sabotaging other routes HLZ-WLG, HLZ-CHC, AKL-ZQN. This being passenger occupying seats to CHC which cannot be sold but would in fact be freed up and sold with a direct? Or grow revenue via new patronage?

Is there enough ZQN bound passengers which could enable a little from column A and a little from column B on top of growth or market appeal via a direct route?

Once you've established what revenue you can generate (money in) you need to look at your operating costs (money out). who's paying for the AvSec 3 times a week? who's paying for the development, training and maintenance of staff and equipment for them? - What's the cost to position a flight? Is there room in the current schedule or what's being sacrificed for it?

Is the airline in a better position? either economically or even via customer reputation?

Like I've said, it's not insurmountable.. but I'm not convinced we're there yet.

Just as a final side comment, if we compare HLZ-WLG (with HLZ having this 500,000 catchment) against say WLG-CHC, the latter has 12+ services a week day with a mix of ATR and A320 whereas HLZ-WLG is still 7x daily, HLZ-CHC, 5x daily. While there's no science in this. It helps point out population size means nothing on it's own.

--

The only reason I suggested ROT-ZQN was because you mentioned HLZ was one of the fastest growing regions, I believe 'The Bay of Plenty' is growing faster and with tourism being such a key part in ROT linking it to the southern tourism capital (post border reopening) could be more logical.
 
a7ala
Posts: 440
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Wed Sep 29, 2021 8:20 pm

NZ6 wrote:
[
Just as a final side comment, if we compare HLZ-WLG (with HLZ having this 500,000 catchment) against say WLG-CHC, the latter has 12+ services a week day with a mix of ATR and A320 whereas HLZ-WLG is still 7x daily, HLZ-CHC, 5x daily. While there's no science in this. It helps point out population size means nothing on it's own.



Agree - population is only one part of the equation and there are many other factors as you highlight. To illustrate the point, for WLG the largest domestic routes are in the following order: AKL, CHC, NSN, DUD, ZQN and then HLZ...which isnt too far ahead of BHE, NPE, TRG...

Or if you look at airport rankings by pax numbers (2020) HLZ ranks 11th behind AKL, CHC, WLG, ZQN, DUD, NSN, NPE, PMR, NPL, TRG - highlighting the number of compeiting airports in that Auckland/Waikato catchment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ew_Zealand
 
User avatar
Kiwings
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2020 1:01 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Wed Sep 29, 2021 9:37 pm

HLZ-ZQN may be/have been a marginal operation during covid due to ZQNs popularity for kiwi travellers but looking forward when the border reopens the domestic NZL market to ZQN will decline.
The ROT- ZQN flight must be tempting on a seasonal basis but the type of tourist who comes to NZL has changed alot since NM's ROT MON ZQN and ROT CHC ZQN flights operated with way less Japanese/American groups coming through and alot more FIT self drive.
 
zkncj
Posts: 4519
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Thu Sep 30, 2021 12:36 am

With the PM now saying today that the Auckland boarder would remain closed at Alert Level 2. That has to be an major blow to NZ and JQ's New Zealand Domestic Operation, for the next month or so.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19-delta-outbreak-19-cases-today-including-miq-worker/6VHX5TPWAH42GTWXXEK2UBK5UI/
 
NZ6
Posts: 2135
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Thu Sep 30, 2021 12:42 am

zkncj wrote:
With the PM now saying today that the Auckland boarder would remain closed at Alert Level 2. That has to be an major blow to NZ and JQ's New Zealand Domestic Operation, for the next month or so.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19-delta-outbreak-19-cases-today-including-miq-worker/6VHX5TPWAH42GTWXXEK2UBK5UI/


Yeah, I just watched that. I can't help suspect it's got a lot to do with school holidays. So maybe only another 2 weeks but that'll depend what happens with case numbers etc of course.
 
zkncj
Posts: 4519
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Thu Sep 30, 2021 5:34 am

NZ6 wrote:
zkncj wrote:
With the PM now saying today that the Auckland boarder would remain closed at Alert Level 2. That has to be an major blow to NZ and JQ's New Zealand Domestic Operation, for the next month or so.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19-delta-outbreak-19-cases-today-including-miq-worker/6VHX5TPWAH42GTWXXEK2UBK5UI/


Yeah, I just watched that. I can't help suspect it's got a lot to do with school holidays. So maybe only another 2 weeks but that'll depend what happens with case numbers etc of course.


Forgot about the upcoming school holidays, could understand they wouldn’t want Aucklanders travelling around during the school holidays.

Doing to be a very empty ZQN this September unless NZ, puts one some last minute direct flights from other parts of the country for the school holidays.
 
NZ516
Posts: 1005
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Thu Sep 30, 2021 6:05 am

NZ6 wrote:
NZ516 wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

So from this, it's solely based on population size. You're literally drawing routes on a map between larger centers. If only it was that simple, then it would've happened by now. There are many other factors that form part of any route. The fastest growing region is actually the Bay of Plenty, so throw in some tourism and ROT-ZQN is more likely with this line of thinking.

Debating the reasons why seems to frustrate people so I'll leave it at that.


My original suggestion of HLZ ZQN flights wasn't solely based on population size. With Rotorua it's a lot smaller at present than Hamilton is now. But I will leave this discussion and move on.


Sorry it seems all the weight placed behind the suggestion was on the population size.

By all means, I'm happy to debate the pros and cons to it, a discussion is what a forum is about after all. But I'm keen to hear more substance to why?

You've quoted the population catchment of 500,000. The city of Hamilton is more around 160,000 with the wider Waikato population being 500,000 (google search for population of Waikato shows 496,000 so this may be the source).Hamilton is at the very southern end of this region. Many in the upper Waikato area may in-fact see themselves as Aucklanders and live and work in Auckland as a result of living on the southern side of the Auckland boundary. Besides that, weigh in the dual lane highway and the dozen or more direct jet services from AKL and it presents a real challenge. Then there's the fact the airport in HLZ is 25 mins south of the city.

As I've previously said, a case study of this could be PPQ. It's not airline arrogance - it's customer behavior.

Something like 3 per week proves challenging and lack in frequency can actually cannibalize a route more than help it. If the day you need isn't available, you revert to AKL and you then forgo the other leg as well given you're transport isn't at you departing/arriving airport anymore. Furthermore, are you aware of the average length for a domestic 'vacation'? How does this effect the ability for people to be flexible?

HLZ currently has no jet services and therefore no AVSEC screening, employees etc (I'm not sure if the assets to do this are available in HLZ) . There will be associated cost around this. I'll come back to this in a moment.

To simplify airline management - you first need to generate passenger revenue. Looking after your customers and providing a trusted well liked product helps you achieve this.

Have we been able to establish that a HLZ-ZQN would in-fact grow passenger revenue, either via lost revenue. Are current customers sabotaging other routes HLZ-WLG, HLZ-CHC, AKL-ZQN. This being passenger occupying seats to CHC which cannot be sold but would in fact be freed up and sold with a direct? Or grow revenue via new patronage?

Is there enough ZQN bound passengers which could enable a little from column A and a little from column B on top of growth or market appeal via a direct route?

Once you've established what revenue you can generate (money in) you need to look at your operating costs (money out). who's paying for the AvSec 3 times a week? who's paying for the development, training and maintenance of staff and equipment for them? - What's the cost to position a flight? Is there room in the current schedule or what's being sacrificed for it?

Is the airline in a better position? either economically or even via customer reputation?

Like I've said, it's not insurmountable.. but I'm not convinced we're there yet.

Just as a final side comment, if we compare HLZ-WLG (with HLZ having this 500,000 catchment) against say WLG-CHC, the latter has 12+ services a week day with a mix of ATR and A320 whereas HLZ-WLG is still 7x daily, HLZ-CHC, 5x daily. While there's no science in this. It helps point out population size means nothing on it's own.

--

The only reason I suggested ROT-ZQN was because you mentioned HLZ was one of the fastest growing regions, I believe 'The Bay of Plenty' is growing faster and with tourism being such a key part in ROT linking it to the southern tourism capital (post border reopening) could be more logical.


Very valid points you raise NZ6. Yes I totally over looked the fact that there will be huge set up and ongoing costs to bring 320s to Hamilton. That would be way too expensive cost wise for just as an example 3 flights per week new route. The baggage system would have to be expanded and x rays installed, security staff hired etc. That would be a no go on this proposal A new route could only really be added to a airport with existing jet services in place to share the ongoing costs.
 
NZ516
Posts: 1005
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Thu Sep 30, 2021 6:12 am

a7ala wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
[
Just as a final side comment, if we compare HLZ-WLG (with HLZ having this 500,000 catchment) against say WLG-CHC, the latter has 12+ services a week day with a mix of ATR and A320 whereas HLZ-WLG is still 7x daily, HLZ-CHC, 5x daily. While there's no science in this. It helps point out population size means nothing on it's own.



Agree - population is only one part of the equation and there are many other factors as you highlight. To illustrate the point, for WLG the largest domestic routes are in the following order: AKL, CHC, NSN, DUD, ZQN and then HLZ...which isnt too far ahead of BHE, NPE, TRG...

Or if you look at airport rankings by pax numbers (2020) HLZ ranks 11th behind AKL, CHC, WLG, ZQN, DUD, NSN, NPE, PMR, NPL, TRG - highlighting the number of compeiting airports in that Auckland/Waikato catchment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ew_Zealand


Hamilton Airport has low pax numbers partly by it being close to Auckland an easy drive. Nearly all other NZ airports get most of their passengers to and from AKL plus they have the benefit of daily WLG and CHC services.
 
zkncj
Posts: 4519
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Thu Sep 30, 2021 7:28 am

NZ516 wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
NZ516 wrote:

My original suggestion of HLZ ZQN flights wasn't solely based on population size. With Rotorua it's a lot smaller at present than Hamilton is now. But I will leave this discussion and move on.


Sorry it seems all the weight placed behind the suggestion was on the population size.

By all means, I'm happy to debate the pros and cons to it, a discussion is what a forum is about after all. But I'm keen to hear more substance to why?

You've quoted the population catchment of 500,000. The city of Hamilton is more around 160,000 with the wider Waikato population being 500,000 (google search for population of Waikato shows 496,000 so this may be the source).Hamilton is at the very southern end of this region. Many in the upper Waikato area may in-fact see themselves as Aucklanders and live and work in Auckland as a result of living on the southern side of the Auckland boundary. Besides that, weigh in the dual lane highway and the dozen or more direct jet services from AKL and it presents a real challenge. Then there's the fact the airport in HLZ is 25 mins south of the city.

As I've previously said, a case study of this could be PPQ. It's not airline arrogance - it's customer behavior.

Something like 3 per week proves challenging and lack in frequency can actually cannibalize a route more than help it. If the day you need isn't available, you revert to AKL and you then forgo the other leg as well given you're transport isn't at you departing/arriving airport anymore. Furthermore, are you aware of the average length for a domestic 'vacation'? How does this effect the ability for people to be flexible?

HLZ currently has no jet services and therefore no AVSEC screening, employees etc (I'm not sure if the assets to do this are available in HLZ) . There will be associated cost around this. I'll come back to this in a moment.

To simplify airline management - you first need to generate passenger revenue. Looking after your customers and providing a trusted well liked product helps you achieve this.

Have we been able to establish that a HLZ-ZQN would in-fact grow passenger revenue, either via lost revenue. Are current customers sabotaging other routes HLZ-WLG, HLZ-CHC, AKL-ZQN. This being passenger occupying seats to CHC which cannot be sold but would in fact be freed up and sold with a direct? Or grow revenue via new patronage?

Is there enough ZQN bound passengers which could enable a little from column A and a little from column B on top of growth or market appeal via a direct route?

Once you've established what revenue you can generate (money in) you need to look at your operating costs (money out). who's paying for the AvSec 3 times a week? who's paying for the development, training and maintenance of staff and equipment for them? - What's the cost to position a flight? Is there room in the current schedule or what's being sacrificed for it?

Is the airline in a better position? either economically or even via customer reputation?

Like I've said, it's not insurmountable.. but I'm not convinced we're there yet.

Just as a final side comment, if we compare HLZ-WLG (with HLZ having this 500,000 catchment) against say WLG-CHC, the latter has 12+ services a week day with a mix of ATR and A320 whereas HLZ-WLG is still 7x daily, HLZ-CHC, 5x daily. While there's no science in this. It helps point out population size means nothing on it's own.

--

The only reason I suggested ROT-ZQN was because you mentioned HLZ was one of the fastest growing regions, I believe 'The Bay of Plenty' is growing faster and with tourism being such a key part in ROT linking it to the southern tourism capital (post border reopening) could be more logical.


Very valid points you raise NZ6. Yes I totally over looked the fact that there will be huge set up and ongoing costs to bring 320s to Hamilton. That would be way too expensive cost wise for just as an example 3 flights per week new route. The baggage system would have to be expanded and x rays installed, security staff hired etc. That would be a no go on this proposal A new route could only really be added to a airport with existing jet services in place to share the ongoing costs.


It where New Zealand’s second airline really needs to have something different to a320 as it aircraft of choice. NZ/JQ both fly a320s up and down the country both with low cost bases and leaving much more room for anyone else.

JQ’s regional failure probably put them off, expanding outside of a320 services within New Zealand again. The Q300 was probably the wrong choice e.g it really wasn’t anything different than what NZ was already offering.

If say JQ had come into the regional market e190s or a220s I’m sure the end result would be different.

AKL-NSN 2-3x daily with an JQ e190 would of been game changing. An morning, then early evening service would of made an dent on NZ’s loadings.

AN used to fly the Bae146 into regional ports, but then they did go broke.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 8443
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Thu Sep 30, 2021 8:08 am

zkncj wrote:
NZ516 wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

Sorry it seems all the weight placed behind the suggestion was on the population size.

By all means, I'm happy to debate the pros and cons to it, a discussion is what a forum is about after all. But I'm keen to hear more substance to why?

You've quoted the population catchment of 500,000. The city of Hamilton is more around 160,000 with the wider Waikato population being 500,000 (google search for population of Waikato shows 496,000 so this may be the source).Hamilton is at the very southern end of this region. Many in the upper Waikato area may in-fact see themselves as Aucklanders and live and work in Auckland as a result of living on the southern side of the Auckland boundary. Besides that, weigh in the dual lane highway and the dozen or more direct jet services from AKL and it presents a real challenge. Then there's the fact the airport in HLZ is 25 mins south of the city.

As I've previously said, a case study of this could be PPQ. It's not airline arrogance - it's customer behavior.

Something like 3 per week proves challenging and lack in frequency can actually cannibalize a route more than help it. If the day you need isn't available, you revert to AKL and you then forgo the other leg as well given you're transport isn't at you departing/arriving airport anymore. Furthermore, are you aware of the average length for a domestic 'vacation'? How does this effect the ability for people to be flexible?

HLZ currently has no jet services and therefore no AVSEC screening, employees etc (I'm not sure if the assets to do this are available in HLZ) . There will be associated cost around this. I'll come back to this in a moment.

To simplify airline management - you first need to generate passenger revenue. Looking after your customers and providing a trusted well liked product helps you achieve this.

Have we been able to establish that a HLZ-ZQN would in-fact grow passenger revenue, either via lost revenue. Are current customers sabotaging other routes HLZ-WLG, HLZ-CHC, AKL-ZQN. This being passenger occupying seats to CHC which cannot be sold but would in fact be freed up and sold with a direct? Or grow revenue via new patronage?

Is there enough ZQN bound passengers which could enable a little from column A and a little from column B on top of growth or market appeal via a direct route?

Once you've established what revenue you can generate (money in) you need to look at your operating costs (money out). who's paying for the AvSec 3 times a week? who's paying for the development, training and maintenance of staff and equipment for them? - What's the cost to position a flight? Is there room in the current schedule or what's being sacrificed for it?

Is the airline in a better position? either economically or even via customer reputation?

Like I've said, it's not insurmountable.. but I'm not convinced we're there yet.

Just as a final side comment, if we compare HLZ-WLG (with HLZ having this 500,000 catchment) against say WLG-CHC, the latter has 12+ services a week day with a mix of ATR and A320 whereas HLZ-WLG is still 7x daily, HLZ-CHC, 5x daily. While there's no science in this. It helps point out population size means nothing on it's own.

--

The only reason I suggested ROT-ZQN was because you mentioned HLZ was one of the fastest growing regions, I believe 'The Bay of Plenty' is growing faster and with tourism being such a key part in ROT linking it to the southern tourism capital (post border reopening) could be more logical.


Very valid points you raise NZ6. Yes I totally over looked the fact that there will be huge set up and ongoing costs to bring 320s to Hamilton. That would be way too expensive cost wise for just as an example 3 flights per week new route. The baggage system would have to be expanded and x rays installed, security staff hired etc. That would be a no go on this proposal A new route could only really be added to a airport with existing jet services in place to share the ongoing costs.


It where New Zealand’s second airline really needs to have something different to a320 as it aircraft of choice. NZ/JQ both fly a320s up and down the country both with low cost bases and leaving much more room for anyone else.

JQ’s regional failure probably put them off, expanding outside of a320 services within New Zealand again. The Q300 was probably the wrong choice e.g it really wasn’t anything different than what NZ was already offering.

If say JQ had come into the regional market e190s or a220s I’m sure the end result would be different.

AKL-NSN 2-3x daily with an JQ e190 would of been game changing. An morning, then early evening service would of made an dent on NZ’s loadings.

AN used to fly the Bae146 into regional ports, but then they did go broke.



How much runway do RJ’s require? NSN has a short runway 1300m. Sure only a 1.5hr flight to AKL. Hypothetically speaking of course.

NZ have a pretty loyal following, JQ may done ok but I really don’t think running a few services would dent NZ that much.

NZ and JQ do fine with A320s on the main trunk, there wouldn’t be room for a third carrier even if they both ran ATRs.

Where did AN fly the 146 regionally? ROT, IVC?
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 2009
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Thu Sep 30, 2021 8:23 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
zkncj wrote:
NZ516 wrote:

Very valid points you raise NZ6. Yes I totally over looked the fact that there will be huge set up and ongoing costs to bring 320s to Hamilton. That would be way too expensive cost wise for just as an example 3 flights per week new route. The baggage system would have to be expanded and x rays installed, security staff hired etc. That would be a no go on this proposal A new route could only really be added to a airport with existing jet services in place to share the ongoing costs.


It where New Zealand’s second airline really needs to have something different to a320 as it aircraft of choice. NZ/JQ both fly a320s up and down the country both with low cost bases and leaving much more room for anyone else.

JQ’s regional failure probably put them off, expanding outside of a320 services within New Zealand again. The Q300 was probably the wrong choice e.g it really wasn’t anything different than what NZ was already offering.

If say JQ had come into the regional market e190s or a220s I’m sure the end result would be different.

AKL-NSN 2-3x daily with an JQ e190 would of been game changing. An morning, then early evening service would of made an dent on NZ’s loadings.

AN used to fly the Bae146 into regional ports, but then they did go broke.



How much runway do RJ’s require? NSN has a short runway 1300m. Sure only a 1.5hr flight to AKL. Hypothetically speaking of course.

NZ have a pretty loyal following, JQ may done ok but I really don’t think running a few services would dent NZ that much.

NZ and JQ do fine with A320s on the main trunk, there wouldn’t be room for a third carrier even if they both ran ATRs.

Where did AN fly the 146 regionally? ROT, IVC?

IIRC the A220-100 could operate from NSN. At (say) 110 seats could be a good next step up from the AT7. I know that it's not a popular view here on A-net, but just saying . . . The debate just goes round and round!
 
NZ516
Posts: 1005
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Thu Sep 30, 2021 8:23 am

I think we discussed this before a while back.
The 190s were able to use the NSN runway.
Problem will be the extra screening requirements and the set up costs are prohibitive.
Regarding the 146 it did indeed served ROT and IVC.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 8443
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Thu Sep 30, 2021 8:43 am

DavidByrne wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
zkncj wrote:

It where New Zealand’s second airline really needs to have something different to a320 as it aircraft of choice. NZ/JQ both fly a320s up and down the country both with low cost bases and leaving much more room for anyone else.

JQ’s regional failure probably put them off, expanding outside of a320 services within New Zealand again. The Q300 was probably the wrong choice e.g it really wasn’t anything different than what NZ was already offering.

If say JQ had come into the regional market e190s or a220s I’m sure the end result would be different.

AKL-NSN 2-3x daily with an JQ e190 would of been game changing. An morning, then early evening service would of made an dent on NZ’s loadings.

AN used to fly the Bae146 into regional ports, but then they did go broke.



How much runway do RJ’s require? NSN has a short runway 1300m. Sure only a 1.5hr flight to AKL. Hypothetically speaking of course.

NZ have a pretty loyal following, JQ may done ok but I really don’t think running a few services would dent NZ that much.

NZ and JQ do fine with A320s on the main trunk, there wouldn’t be room for a third carrier even if they both ran ATRs.

Where did AN fly the 146 regionally? ROT, IVC?

IIRC the A220-100 could operate from NSN. At (say) 110 seats could be a good next step up from the AT7. I know that it's not a popular view here on A-net, but just saying . . . The debate just goes round and round!


I wonder how many of the A220-100 will sell compared to the larger variants? Generally the smaller versions aren’t as efficient as larger ones on a per seat cost.

Not a popular view sure but a reasonable one. I’m certainly not debating it, it was mentioned more hypothetically by another user, sure it maybe able to operate from NSN, I was just looking at some runway lengths and did notice the 221 could potentially operate from NSN.
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10149
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - September 2021

Thu Sep 30, 2021 10:07 am

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos