SelandiaBaru wrote:

I would expect so. Can't uplift fuel in WRE and tankering return fuel WLG is load restrictive.

What’s the issue uplifting fuel at WRE? Ironic given it’s the home to Marsden Point.

On ZB this afternoon, they did ask regarding a service from Hamilton with a sizable population servicing the central/north half of the North Island and they said that they did look into it but something about a couple of technical issues prevented it... Would be interesting to know what those technical issues were... Was it covid (proximity to Auckland) or aviation related?
Wonder with a sizeable population catchment of the Waikato and the BOP... Would the the likes of Origins four 19 seat J32, Sounds air five PC 12 (Hamilton not being a base for them) or Barrier Air (the Caravan would probably be a stretch to far for many...) be perfectly positioned with operating a albeit brief schedule with what I could imagine right now spare capacity in aircraft sitting around.
You think a smaller J32 or even a PC-12 could not only offer a service from Hamilton to Kaitaia, Kerikeri and Kaitaia but smaller aircraft could mean more frequency

a7ala wrote:

SelandiaBaru wrote:

I would expect so. Can't uplift fuel in WRE and tankering return fuel WLG is load restrictive.

What’s the issue uplifting fuel at WRE? Ironic given it’s the home to Marsden Point.

No pressure refuelling from the existing bowser I'd hazard a guess they possibly don't have the tank volume either. I'm sure a truck could be organised but that would come at a cost and then there's all the associated logistics.

fras444 wrote:

On ZB this afternoon, they did ask regarding a service from Hamilton with a sizable population servicing the central/north half of the North Island and they said that they did look into it but something about a couple of technical issues prevented it... Would be interesting to know what those technical issues were... Was it covid (proximity to Auckland) or aviation related?
Wonder with a sizeable population catchment of the Waikato and the BOP... Would the the likes of Origins four 19 seat J32, Sounds air five PC 12 (Hamilton not being a base for them) or Barrier Air (the Caravan would probably be a stretch to far for many...) be perfectly positioned with operating a albeit brief schedule with what I could imagine right now spare capacity in aircraft sitting around.
You think a smaller J32 or even a PC-12 could not only offer a service from Hamilton to Kaitaia, Kerikeri and Kaitaia but smaller aircraft could mean more frequency

I think you'll find the decision to connect with WLG rather than HLZ is down to the 1-stop connectivity you get with the rest of New Zealand. I understand all WLG domestic destinations are back up and running apart from PCN - albeit with reduced frequency. Also, doesnt Sunair fly to HLZ already?

a7ala wrote:

fras444 wrote:

On ZB this afternoon, they did ask regarding a service from Hamilton with a sizable population servicing the central/north half of the North Island and they said that they did look into it but something about a couple of technical issues prevented it... Would be interesting to know what those technical issues were... Was it covid (proximity to Auckland) or aviation related?
Wonder with a sizeable population catchment of the Waikato and the BOP... Would the the likes of Origins four 19 seat J32, Sounds air five PC 12 (Hamilton not being a base for them) or Barrier Air (the Caravan would probably be a stretch to far for many...) be perfectly positioned with operating a albeit brief schedule with what I could imagine right now spare capacity in aircraft sitting around.
You think a smaller J32 or even a PC-12 could not only offer a service from Hamilton to Kaitaia, Kerikeri and Kaitaia but smaller aircraft could mean more frequency

I think you'll find the decision to connect with WLG rather than HLZ is down to the 1-stop connectivity you get with the rest of New Zealand. I understand all WLG domestic destinations are back up and running apart from PCN - albeit with reduced frequency. Also, doesnt Sunair fly to HLZ already?

I guess that makes sense regarding one stop connections and Air NZ with almost every main center south of Auckland and most airports in the South Island connecting with Wellington.. That's what I thought initially maybe a reason for Air NZ not providing an option out of Hamilton...
I was thinking about the sizable population around Hamilton and extending areas, for those who have family up north but wanting to avoid a backtrack south as it were. I thought it could be a perfect opportunity for couple of those operators that might have spare capacity in the current covid climate to pick up some extra work.
Sounds Air with their PC-12s and or Origin with it's J32s could provide a short term alternative/direct flight for those around Hamilton and further afield extending to the BOP connecting direct with Northland, also with smaller aircraft, they could offer more frequency if there was demand for such a service..

It will be interesting to see the uptake especially regarding the much talked about direct connection to the Capital from Northland

Regarding Sunair, yip you are right, it flies to Hamilton but I think you may misread Sunair for Sounds air which doesn't operate into on any schedule flights Hamilton

a7ala wrote:

fras444 wrote:

On ZB this afternoon, they did ask regarding a service from Hamilton with a sizable population servicing the central/north half of the North Island and they said that they did look into it but something about a couple of technical issues prevented it... Would be interesting to know what those technical issues were... Was it covid (proximity to Auckland) or aviation related?
Wonder with a sizeable population catchment of the Waikato and the BOP... Would the the likes of Origins four 19 seat J32, Sounds air five PC 12 (Hamilton not being a base for them) or Barrier Air (the Caravan would probably be a stretch to far for many...) be perfectly positioned with operating a albeit brief schedule with what I could imagine right now spare capacity in aircraft sitting around.
You think a smaller J32 or even a PC-12 could not only offer a service from Hamilton to Kaitaia, Kerikeri and Kaitaia but smaller aircraft could mean more frequency

I think you'll find the decision to connect with WLG rather than HLZ is down to the 1-stop connectivity you get with the rest of New Zealand. I understand all WLG domestic destinations are back up and running apart from PCN - albeit with reduced frequency. Also, doesnt Sunair fly to HLZ already?

The best way to make HLZ work would be to make a HLZ-WLG-HLZ schedule into a KKE-HLZ-WLG-HLZ-KKE with a 25 minute turn in HLZ and if possible near a CHC flight or visa versa.

I just believe there'll be be O&D demand from WLG than there is HLZ. Remembering this is a flight for the whole of Northland.

Remember under the 1900D days, WLG-WRE was a sector.

Ex Air NZ ATR72-500 ZK-MCC (msn 714) as F-WKVK had a 1hr 20min test flight from Toulouse Francazal on 03 Sep and what appears to be a 50min acceptance flight from Toulouse Francazal on 08 Sep. F-WKVK will be an interim registration prior to delivery to the new operator. It now appears to have ADS-B.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/f-wkvk

PA515

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

a7ala wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Northland airports are still quiet under Alert Level 2 despite the rest of the country outside of Auckland seeing increased services.
They had this issue last time of feeling cut off from the rest of the country when AKL was in Level 4.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/travel/covid ... LBXAPCZOU/

I wonder if Air NZ would consider temporary reinstatement of WRE-WLG to better connect Northland with the rest of the country?

Well it isn't quite WRE. https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/126 ... ri-service

Looks like a second daily WLG-KKE-WLG flight has been added.

NZ is reported to be reviewing its current Seats to Suits model, and how the product could be improve in prep of the relaunch of travel to Australia.
https://www.executivetraveller.com/news/air-new-zealand-looks-to-revamp-seats-to-suit-economy-fares

Personally really like to see PE added to the a321N’s to replace ‘the works deluxe’.

Just 2x rows totally, 8’s seats would almost seem ideal and couldn’t see if hard to fill on the Tasman.

NZ’s Y on the Tasman is really nothing special, and would been great to have more options to fly an higher class of travel on narrow body services again. It’s hard always fitting to the schedule of the 787/77W services from BNE/MEL as you lose an day with there midday departures from BNE/MEL.

Now that the 77E’s aren’t coming back, there are plenty of double pairs of PE seats that could be repurposed.

zkncj wrote:

NZ is reported to be reviewing its current Seats to Suits model, and how the product could be improve in prep of the relaunch of travel to Australia.
https://www.executivetraveller.com/news/air-new-zealand-looks-to-revamp-seats-to-suit-economy-fares

Personally really like to see PE added to the a321N’s to replace ‘the works deluxe’.

Just 2x rows totally, 8’s seats would almost seem ideal and couldn’t see if hard to fill on the Tasman.

NZ’s Y on the Tasman is really nothing special, and would been great to have more options to fly an higher class of travel on narrow body services again. It’s hard always fitting to the schedule of the 787/77W services from BNE/MEL as you lose an day with there midday departures from BNE/MEL.

Now that the 77E’s aren’t coming back, there are plenty of double pairs of PE seats that could be repurposed.

Agree. Premium cabins are where airlines make $$, economy is typically just a bonus/underpinner. Not so much on the Tasman being a short flight but QF and others always had full business cabins. PE shouldn’t be hard to fill at all and worse case you put EP1/GE into there.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... -from-2030

Interesting possibilities.

ZK-NBT wrote:

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news/air-new-zealand-wants-zero-emission-regional-aircraft-from-2030

Interesting possibilities.

I’m sure they’ll be watching Sounds Air closely too. Zero emission, including battery electric, just make sense for regional NZ flying.

Toenga wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Air NZ to do Wellington to Kerikeri service but just a temporary schedule. It might do well with domestic connections to become a permanent offering.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/12633 ... app-iPhone

Is this because of runway limitations at Whangarei limiting the range of a Q300 to less then required for a flight to Wellington? or is it a non availability of fuel at Whangarei making a Wellington to Whangarei return just on the fuel uplifted from Wellington a non starter?

It could be the factor of the short runway at WRE which is only 1097m but the runway at KKE is not much longer at 1190m. Might be more tourist appeal with the Bay of Islands and other places nearby to Kerikeri. That could be behind the decision and with plenty of connection traffic fed through the Wellington hub as well.

NZ516 wrote:

Toenga wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Air NZ to do Wellington to Kerikeri service but just a temporary schedule. It might do well with domestic connections to become a permanent offering.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/12633 ... app-iPhone

Is this because of runway limitations at Whangarei limiting the range of a Q300 to less then required for a flight to Wellington? or is it a non availability of fuel at Whangarei making a Wellington to Whangarei return just on the fuel uplifted from Wellington a non starter?

It could be the factor of the short runway at WRE which is only 1097m but the runway at KKE is not much longer at 1190m. Might be more tourist appeal with the Bay of Islands and other places nearby to Kerikeri. That could be behind the decision and with plenty of connection traffic fed through the Wellington hub as well.

It comes down to fuel availability. But there are runway strip width issues which mean there is a restricted MTOW before even accounting for environmental factors. Another potential factor is the approach minimums which are less favourable at WRE vs KKE. So despite both stations producing good loads there are definitely more barriers at WRE.

What ever happen to WRE building an new airport? Did that idea go away or is not like AKL and building an new runway? Sort of project.

Hello/Kia Ora,

Any word about NZ1007 and NZ1008 from AKL <-> SFO?

Since the pandemic it consistently comes/departs Tuesday Thursday and Saturday (SF time). The schedule did shift recently, i think Tuesday slid back to Monday.

This week, I haven't seen it since... Shucks I want to say it was either Monday or Tuesday this week.

I recognize Auckland is still level 4 lockdown and that might make freight flights harder to manage.


What's up with the NZ1007/1008 flight?

Cheers

zkncj wrote:

What ever happen to WRE building an new airport? Did that idea go away or is not like AKL and building an new runway? Sort of project.

Various issues including cost and objections came up. It’s still on the plans.
I personally think it should be built near Marsden on enough land that it could eventually become Auckland’s second airport and also replace Whenuapai eventually (joint military
/civil).

SFwatchTower wrote:

Hello/Kia Ora,

Any word about NZ1007 and NZ1008 from AKL <-> SFO?

Since the pandemic it consistently comes/departs Tuesday Thursday and Saturday (SF time). The schedule did shift recently, i think Tuesday slid back to Monday.

This week, I haven't seen it since... Shucks I want to say it was either Monday or Tuesday this week.

I recognize Auckland is still level 4 lockdown and that might make freight flights harder to manage.


What's up with the NZ1007/1008 flight?

Cheers

NZ1008 went out on Thursday night. I fuelled it, it took 75 tonnes.

Zkpilot wrote:

zkncj wrote:

What ever happen to WRE building an new airport? Did that idea go away or is not like AKL and building an new runway? Sort of project.

Various issues including cost and objections came up. It’s still on the plans.
I personally think it should be built near Marsden on enough land that it could eventually become Auckland’s second airport and also replace Whenuapai eventually (joint military
/civil).

Would make to much sense for New Zealand

Couple that with an new high-speed rail from North Auckland, and you have an great secondary airport.

Its not as crazy as CHC trying to build an new International airport at Tarras which is in the middle of no where.

I notice that both the nonstop WLG-KKE flights have a turn around of 1h 5m at KKE. That seems somewhat excessive, or is there a reason for that?

zkncj wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

zkncj wrote:

What ever happen to WRE building an new airport? Did that idea go away or is not like AKL and building an new runway? Sort of project.

Various issues including cost and objections came up. It’s still on the plans.
I personally think it should be built near Marsden on enough land that it could eventually become Auckland’s second airport and also replace Whenuapai eventually (joint military
/civil).

Would make to much sense for New Zealand

Couple that with an new high-speed rail from North Auckland, and you have an great secondary airport.

Its not as crazy as CHC trying to build an new International airport at Tarras which is in the middle of no where.

I actually thought that Tarras was not at all a bad idea. Avoids the weather and physical limitations of ZQN, and also the somewhat problematic stalled development at WKA. And with the potential to take WB aircraft should the tourism industry ever recover and grow beyond 2020 levels (which would not necessarily be a good thing). It could potentially become the principal airport for the Central Otago region.

Avtur wrote:

SFwatchTower wrote:

Hello/Kia Ora,

Any word about NZ1007 and NZ1008 from AKL <-> SFO?

Since the pandemic it consistently comes/departs Tuesday Thursday and Saturday (SF time). The schedule did shift recently, i think Tuesday slid back to Monday.

This week, I haven't seen it since... Shucks I want to say it was either Monday or Tuesday this week.

I recognize Auckland is still level 4 lockdown and that might make freight flights harder to manage.


What's up with the NZ1007/1008 flight?

Cheers

NZ1008 went out on Thursday night. I fuelled it, it took 75 tonnes.

Oh wow! that's really cool! And yes i do see record of it now. shucks I missed zk-nzc. It's been fairly exciting lately to different 787 from the usuals to make the trip to SFO.

ZK-NBT wrote:

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news/air-new-zealand-wants-zero-emission-regional-aircraft-from-2030

Interesting possibilities.

Interestingly this seems to suggest that NZ may return to smaller aircraft on some routes in the future ("20-30 seats"). I wonder if they too might be interested in the groundbreaking (but a long way from being proven) all-electric Heart ES-19, as well as hydrogen-electric aircraft.

Icelandair were looking at hydrogen conversion kits which are being touted by someone for a 40-seat DH3. Does anyone know more about this project? The same company, led by a former Airbus clean tech manager, is also working on a reduced pax AT7 conversion.

SFwatchTower wrote:

Avtur wrote:

SFwatchTower wrote:

Hello/Kia Ora,

Any word about NZ1007 and NZ1008 from AKL <-> SFO?

Since the pandemic it consistently comes/departs Tuesday Thursday and Saturday (SF time). The schedule did shift recently, i think Tuesday slid back to Monday.

This week, I haven't seen it since... Shucks I want to say it was either Monday or Tuesday this week.

I recognize Auckland is still level 4 lockdown and that might make freight flights harder to manage.


What's up with the NZ1007/1008 flight?

Cheers

NZ1008 went out on Thursday night. I fuelled it, it took 75 tonnes.

Oh wow! that's really cool! And yes i do see record of it now. shucks I missed zk-nzc. It's been fairly exciting lately to different 787 from the usuals to make the trip to SFO.

NZ1008 is on its way back out to you tonight. NZM this time. Interestingly enough, I had NZC again tonight, and it’s on its way to LAX as NZ1002.

DavidByrne wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news/air-new-zealand-wants-zero-emission-regional-aircraft-from-2030

Interesting possibilities.

Interestingly this seems to suggest that NZ may return to smaller aircraft on some routes in the future ("20-30 seats"). I wonder if they too might be interested in the groundbreaking (but a long way from being proven) all-electric Heart ES-19, as well as hydrogen-electric aircraft.

Icelandair were looking at hydrogen conversion kits which are being touted by someone for a 40-seat DH3. Does anyone know more about this project? The same company, led by a former Airbus clean tech manager, is also working on a reduced pax AT7 conversion.

I certainly believe that Hydrogen is “the way forward-fuel of the future” but there are some very large obstacles to navigate right now, especially at AKL. Whilst the aircraft engines could quite easily run on Hydrogen right now….! The storage system required on the aircraft do not yet exist, neither do the storage tanks at the JUHI, and the hydrant pipeline would certainly not be rated for hydrogen use. Surface transport (tankers) would require quite a significant fleet of specialist vehicles, that also do not yet exist.

I’m still a fan of hydrogen though.

Avtur wrote:

SFwatchTower wrote:

Avtur wrote:

NZ1008 went out on Thursday night. I fuelled it, it took 75 tonnes.

Oh wow! that's really cool! And yes i do see record of it now. shucks I missed zk-nzc. It's been fairly exciting lately to different 787 from the usuals to make the trip to SFO.

NZ1008 is on its way back out to you tonight. NZM this time. Interestingly enough, I had NZC again tonight, and it’s on its way to LAX as NZ1002.

Thank you!

Demand is going exceptionally well and many flights have sold out on Air NZ's newest domestic route Wellington to Kerikeri. I can see it easily becoming a permanent service with a second daily flight already available.
https://i.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/12634 ... nally-well

NZ516 wrote:

Demand is going exceptionally well and many flights have sold out on Air NZ's newest domestic route Wellington to Kerikeri. I can see it easily becoming a permanent service with a second daily flight already available.
https://i.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/12634 ... nally-well

Are they Q300 or ATR services? If Q300 more capacity could be obtained by upgauging to an ATR surely.

Both flights are operated by the Q300. Which will give the public good options to connect both ways. Can an ATR take off from KKE?

DavidByrne wrote:

I notice that both the nonstop WLG-KKE flights have a turn around of 1h 5m at KKE. That seems somewhat excessive, or is there a reason for that?

Perhaps the crew are rostered to have their meal break during that time.

Avtur wrote:

I certainly believe that Hydrogen is “the way forward-fuel of the future” but there are some very large obstacles to navigate right now, especially at AKL. Whilst the aircraft engines could quite easily run on Hydrogen right now….! The storage system required on the aircraft do not yet exist, neither do the storage tanks at the JUHI, and the hydrant pipeline would certainly not be rated for hydrogen use. Surface transport (tankers) would require quite a significant fleet of specialist vehicles, that also do not yet exist.

I’m still a fan of hydrogen though.

The system proposed for the DH3 is to remove the last couple of rows of seating and to replace them with a system of hydrogen tanks which would be exchanged at every turn, so a pipeline is not required. It would require a significant amount of ground handling, though, at the turn. Not sure where the fuel cell itself is to be located. Fuel costs were estimated at being roughly the same per passenger in the 40-seat hydrogen-powered DH3 as with the larger capacity fossil fuel-powered DH3. That seems a bit glib, though - it's quite unclear whether that means overall costs including tank exchange/refuelling with JetA1, or just the costs of the fuel itself. And it's far from clear what the cost of hydrogen production would be given it's made using electricity and the costs of that are dependent on the way in which that electricity is produced.

Just as Ports of Auckland have already decided to build a hydrogen plant, I could see a local hydrogen plant being standard equipment for the airport of the future. Ideally that would be run from a solar or wind energy plant also located at or very near the airport.

Much though I would love to see hydrogen technology in place in the airline industry, the real "sustainable" aircraft will in my view be battery powered - when battery technology improves, though. In many parts of the world, to produce hydrogen right now would require extensive fossil fuel use, which defeats the purpose of a switch. Also, the efficiency of the process where of electricity needed to create hydrogen is then converted back to electricity is about 30%, from what I understand. Battery technology would provide 100% efficiency by eliminating the hydrogen step. Unfortunately, the energy density of current batteries makes the weight required prohibitive. But energy density is improving all the time, and there are new batteries in the wings which will have up to 70% more energy density than current batteries. That means about 60% of the weight for a similar range, or 70% more range for a similar weight. Then there are expectations that graphene will be a complete game-changer in battery technology - though that's a little way off. Hydrogen will however always be hydrogen, and will have the same weight and volume requirements long-term. and I can see that it will only be a short-term technology en route to a fully electric solution.

One thing is certain, however, and that is that unless the aviation industry is able to incorporate such technology, and soon, its long-term future is very, very gloomy.

Zkpilot wrote:

zkncj wrote:

What ever happen to WRE building an new airport? Did that idea go away or is not like AKL and building an new runway? Sort of project.

Various issues including cost and objections came up. It’s still on the plans.
I personally think it should be built near Marsden on enough land that it could eventually become Auckland’s second airport and also replace Whenuapai eventually (joint military
/civil).

Was going to say...
Having a combined airforce and civil base would be brilliant idea and more so for the forward location of an air force base I could imagine would be quite beneficial for the RNZAF, especially regarding the majority of our RNZAF deployment is northbound to the Pacific for cyclone relief as well as predominantly SAR and border patrol along the northern tip being the predominate inbound for boats as well as fishing patrols but I guess there is also major fishing grounds south, also.. Basically 100% of any likely threats from any rouge states are northbound/rapid deployment.... (If only we still had a strike capacity..) Northland is also that little bit closer to Australia but I guess that doesn't really account to much time saved vs Whenuapai or Ohakea.
When you look around that area on google maps.. Northland really seems to have alot of undulating terrain flanked by small ranges and with alot of that in native forest or agricultural land along with, I could imagine alot of that land is locked up in iwi. There isn't much options/connections for a large airport but looking at that Marsden point area... There seems to be some good flat land but even then, you would need to align the runway northwest/southeast due to those hills where the airport is currently situated.

DavidByrne wrote:

Avtur wrote:

I certainly believe that Hydrogen is “the way forward-fuel of the future” but there are some very large obstacles to navigate right now, especially at AKL. Whilst the aircraft engines could quite easily run on Hydrogen right now….! The storage system required on the aircraft do not yet exist, neither do the storage tanks at the JUHI, and the hydrant pipeline would certainly not be rated for hydrogen use. Surface transport (tankers) would require quite a significant fleet of specialist vehicles, that also do not yet exist.

I’m still a fan of hydrogen though.

The system proposed for the DH3 is to remove the last couple of rows of seating and to replace them with a system of hydrogen tanks which would be exchanged at every turn, so a pipeline is not required. It would require a significant amount of ground handling, though, at the turn. Not sure where the fuel cell itself is to be located. Fuel costs were estimated at being roughly the same per passenger in the 40-seat hydrogen-powered DH3 as with the larger capacity fossil fuel-powered DH3. That seems a bit glib, though - it's quite unclear whether that means overall costs including tank exchange/refuelling with JetA1, or just the costs of the fuel itself. And it's far from clear what the cost of hydrogen production would be given it's made using electricity and the costs of that are dependent on the way in which that electricity is produced.

Just as Ports of Auckland have already decided to build a hydrogen plant, I could see a local hydrogen plant being standard equipment for the airport of the future. Ideally that would be run from a solar or wind energy plant also located at or very near the airport.

Much though I would love to see hydrogen technology in place in the airline industry, the real "sustainable" aircraft will in my view be battery powered - when battery technology improves, though. In many parts of the world, to produce hydrogen right now would require extensive fossil fuel use, which defeats the purpose of a switch. Also, the efficiency of the process where of electricity needed to create hydrogen is then converted back to electricity is about 30%, from what I understand. Battery technology would provide 100% efficiency by eliminating the hydrogen step. Unfortunately, the energy density of current batteries makes the weight required prohibitive. But energy density is improving all the time, and there are new batteries in the wings which will have up to 70% more energy density than current batteries. That means about 60% of the weight for a similar range, or 70% more range for a similar weight. Then there are expectations that graphene will be a complete game-changer in battery technology - though that's a little way off. Hydrogen will however always be hydrogen, and will have the same weight and volume requirements long-term. and I can see that it will only be a short-term technology en route to a fully electric solution.

One thing is certain, however, and that is that unless the aviation industry is able to incorporate such technology, and soon, its long-term future is very, very gloomy.

I totally agree with you on almost every point. I think there is much uncertainty surrounding both options (battery/hydrogen). The idea of removing the last few rows on a dash8, or ATR, and having some kind swap-out cylinders seems feasible, but as usual, the solving of one problem invariably replaced by another. Most historians will remember the “Hindenburg” and despite many advanced theories from experts, it’s still only guesswork as to what actually caused the hydrogen leak on that….? I’m not saying that hydrogen is unstable, but I think there needs to be considerable research before the traveling public (of which are very few right now-especially up here in AKL…,) will trust the idea, of being in a tube, where they could be incinerated in an instant..

With regards to battery technology, I’ve heard mention of “solid state” with far better results than is currently offered in cars for example, to improve range and charging performance. But has anyone tested that in aircraft…? And what happens if that aircraft is flying along happily over a large stretch of water, and gets struck by lightning? What is likely to happen to the battery, and onboard components then?

I suspect that the immediate short term solution will be neither battery or hydrogen, and will involve blending to make the fuel “sustainable” and compatible with the current infrastructure, and to say that we’re doing the right thing by using renewable energy.

I think it’s unlikely that we’ll see any big ticket spending in aviation any time soon.

Zkpilot wrote:

zkncj wrote:

NZ is reported to be reviewing its current Seats to Suits model, and how the product could be improve in prep of the relaunch of travel to Australia.
https://www.executivetraveller.com/news/air-new-zealand-looks-to-revamp-seats-to-suit-economy-fares

Personally really like to see PE added to the a321N’s to replace ‘the works deluxe’.

Just 2x rows totally, 8’s seats would almost seem ideal and couldn’t see if hard to fill on the Tasman.

NZ’s Y on the Tasman is really nothing special, and would been great to have more options to fly an higher class of travel on narrow body services again. It’s hard always fitting to the schedule of the 787/77W services from BNE/MEL as you lose an day with there midday departures from BNE/MEL.

Now that the 77E’s aren’t coming back, there are plenty of double pairs of PE seats that could be repurposed.

Agree. Premium cabins are where airlines make $$, economy is typically just a bonus/underpinner. Not so much on the Tasman being a short flight but QF and others always had full business cabins. PE shouldn’t be hard to fill at all and worse case you put EP1/GE into there.

Back in the early 2000's very few businesses allowed J cabin travel on the Tasman largely due to it's cost so passenger numbers relied on a few wealthy industries, FQTV upgrades, international connections and those with enough disposable income and desire to travel J class on Holiday. That was low ex AKL but almost nothing ex WLG and CHC.

LCC model start ups up and airlines subsidiaries were circling so NZ needed to lower it's operating costs, market themselves as affordable and drive ancillary revenue via product add-on's and 'extras' etc

In 2022 and in a post COVID world what's changed?

Will a business lite be more appealing than an expensive full J product but also more than Works Deluxe. Is there network capacity and appetite to have more sub-fleets if needed...Y only Y&C for example.

Does the affordability of flights along with operational efficiencies and revenue generated by ancillary extras enable the opportunity for a revised product?

I'm not replying directly to you here but making a comment in general, it would be far to premature to start thinking the airline will go back to the blanket C & Y configs.

You may likely see a C Lite in lieu of Works Deluxe and a reduction and or rejig of the other 3 products.

In my mind. JQ and VA will be around on the Tasman in 12 months time. NZ can't sit back as 'full service' airline and likely can't afford for the Tasman to be expensive to run. They won't want to scale back their network and relinquish anything to the Australian carriers so their going to have to keep a presence in the bottom end of the market.

Imagine a 'Full Service' and 'Economy Lite' products. One is inclusive, the other is add-on. What if 'Full Service' excluded seat selection except HVC members.

In summary - expert them to keep the underlying principals but make it relevant to today's (tomorrow's) environment.

Zkpilot wrote:

zkncj wrote:

NZ is reported to be reviewing its current Seats to Suits model, and how the product could be improve in prep of the relaunch of travel to Australia.
https://www.executivetraveller.com/news/air-new-zealand-looks-to-revamp-seats-to-suit-economy-fares

Personally really like to see PE added to the a321N’s to replace ‘the works deluxe’.

Just 2x rows totally, 8’s seats would almost seem ideal and couldn’t see if hard to fill on the Tasman.

NZ’s Y on the Tasman is really nothing special, and would been great to have more options to fly an higher class of travel on narrow body services again. It’s hard always fitting to the schedule of the 787/77W services from BNE/MEL as you lose an day with there midday departures from BNE/MEL.

Now that the 77E’s aren’t coming back, there are plenty of double pairs of PE seats that could be repurposed.

Agree. Premium cabins are where airlines make $$, economy is typically just a bonus/underpinner. Not so much on the Tasman being a short flight but QF and others always had full business cabins. PE shouldn’t be hard to fill at all and worse case you put EP1/GE into there.

Add W to the A321, what then when you book it and it gets subbed for an A320? Reality is you probably in guessing you could configure it 3-2 and not lose a row so only a total of 2 seats lost.

I’m not sure what you expect in Y, more so on a short flight, you have 4 options now do we really need 6 or 8? At the end of the day the current set up seems to have done well for the airline, and that won’t suit all particularly airline “nerds”

It does mean with out the 772 that there will be less wide bodies but also less demand quite likely in higher classes for some time.

BNE/MEL will keep atleast 1 wide body a day in the morning for the US connections, Ideally MEL might have an evening service as well but maybe not enough aircraft to go around, they may not need as many total services as before for a while, maybe MEL/BNE 2 daily each, though QF are looking to increase but all 738s next year 4x MEL 3x BNE.

SYD maybe a little more, wide bodies in the morning x2 and an afternoon one weather they can fit a PM service in with no 772s? QF so far have loaded 1 A330 4 738 in April 2022, long way out and anything could happen.

NZ516 wrote:

Both flights are operated by the Q300. Which will give the public good options to connect both ways. Can an ATR take off from KKE?

Yes there were a couple charters last year or the year before. They've also handled Convairs in the past among other things.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

zkncj wrote:

NZ is reported to be reviewing its current Seats to Suits model, and how the product could be improve in prep of the relaunch of travel to Australia.
https://www.executivetraveller.com/news/air-new-zealand-looks-to-revamp-seats-to-suit-economy-fares

Personally really like to see PE added to the a321N’s to replace ‘the works deluxe’.

Just 2x rows totally, 8’s seats would almost seem ideal and couldn’t see if hard to fill on the Tasman.

NZ’s Y on the Tasman is really nothing special, and would been great to have more options to fly an higher class of travel on narrow body services again. It’s hard always fitting to the schedule of the 787/77W services from BNE/MEL as you lose an day with there midday departures from BNE/MEL.

Now that the 77E’s aren’t coming back, there are plenty of double pairs of PE seats that could be repurposed.

Agree. Premium cabins are where airlines make $$, economy is typically just a bonus/underpinner. Not so much on the Tasman being a short flight but QF and others always had full business cabins. PE shouldn’t be hard to fill at all and worse case you put EP1/GE into there.

Add W to the A321, what then when you book it and it gets subbed for an A320? Reality is you probably in guessing you could configure it 3-2 and not lose a row so only a total of 2 seats lost.

I’m not sure what you expect in Y, more so on a short flight, you have 4 options now do we really need 6 or 8? At the end of the day the current set up seems to have done well for the airline, and that won’t suit all particularly airline “nerds”

It does mean with out the 772 that there will be less wide bodies but also less demand quite likely in higher classes for some time.

BNE/MEL will keep atleast 1 wide body a day in the morning for the US connections, Ideally MEL might have an evening service as well but maybe not enough aircraft to go around, they may not need as many total services as before for a while, maybe MEL/BNE 2 daily each, though QF are looking to increase but all 738s next year 4x MEL 3x BNE.

SYD maybe a little more, wide bodies in the morning x2 and an afternoon one weather they can fit a PM service in with no 772s? QF so far have loaded 1 A330 4 738 in April 2022, long way out and anything could happen.

Subbing is going to be less and less common as most of the international short haul fleet will transition to the A321NEO (purchase price isn’t much more and operating costs are only about 10% more while you gain around 25% more seats). That said though, there is a significant market of both business travellers, frequent flyers, and wealthy leisure travellers that do want more than an economy seat. This is especially true out of places that don’t see many wide body flights (particularly WLG). Works deluxe for the most part wasn’t that popular due to it not really offering much (most people have their own headphones now, the water bottles were taken away for environmental reasons, newspapers too, meals were just standard etc). Premium economy actually offers physical comfort improvements, and more space to actually do work if desired. Depending on configuration, you lose 2 economy seats for each premium economy seat… but you gain 2.5x the revenue and save a bit of weight. So overall you come out ahead by quite a bit.
Eg economy seat is $500. Premium economy seat is $1250. You lose 2x economy seats ($1000) but gain $250.
Then the issue is what if it doesn’t sell? Well there are always people trying to upgrade ($ or Airpoints), you have frequent flyers to look after every so often too.

Zkpilot wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Agree. Premium cabins are where airlines make $$, economy is typically just a bonus/underpinner. Not so much on the Tasman being a short flight but QF and others always had full business cabins. PE shouldn’t be hard to fill at all and worse case you put EP1/GE into there.

Add W to the A321, what then when you book it and it gets subbed for an A320? Reality is you probably in guessing you could configure it 3-2 and not lose a row so only a total of 2 seats lost.

I’m not sure what you expect in Y, more so on a short flight, you have 4 options now do we really need 6 or 8? At the end of the day the current set up seems to have done well for the airline, and that won’t suit all particularly airline “nerds”

It does mean with out the 772 that there will be less wide bodies but also less demand quite likely in higher classes for some time.

BNE/MEL will keep atleast 1 wide body a day in the morning for the US connections, Ideally MEL might have an evening service as well but maybe not enough aircraft to go around, they may not need as many total services as before for a while, maybe MEL/BNE 2 daily each, though QF are looking to increase but all 738s next year 4x MEL 3x BNE.

SYD maybe a little more, wide bodies in the morning x2 and an afternoon one weather they can fit a PM service in with no 772s? QF so far have loaded 1 A330 4 738 in April 2022, long way out and anything could happen.

Subbing is going to be less and less common as most of the international short haul fleet will transition to the A321NEO (purchase price isn’t much more and operating costs are only about 10% more while you gain around 25% more seats). That said though, there is a significant market of both business travellers, frequent flyers, and wealthy leisure travellers that do want more than an economy seat. This is especially true out of places that don’t see many wide body flights (particularly WLG). Works deluxe for the most part wasn’t that popular due to it not really offering much (most people have their own headphones now, the water bottles were taken away for environmental reasons, newspapers too, meals were just standard etc). Premium economy actually offers physical comfort improvements, and more space to actually do work if desired. Depending on configuration, you lose 2 economy seats for each premium economy seat… but you gain 2.5x the revenue and save a bit of weight. So overall you come out ahead by quite a bit.
Eg economy seat is $500. Premium economy seat is $1250. You lose 2x economy seats ($1000) but gain $250.
Then the issue is what if it doesn’t sell? Well there are always people trying to upgrade ($ or Airpoints), you have frequent flyers to look after every so often too.

Ex AKL most routes can probably absorb the additional capacity of the A321 bar IUE which can't take it AFAIK. The split at this stage will be 7 A321NEO and 6 A320NEO in the international fleet, the A320 is still needed, not sure if the A321 can do ZQN-Australia? And WLG/CHC are better off with A320s with more frequency? I think it was NZ6 who said NZ used to on average sell 1 full J fare ex WLG when the A320 had a J cabin? I' am aware they may be able to sell more W seats on the same routes.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Ex AKL most routes can probably absorb the additional capacity of the A321 bar IUE which can't take it AFAIK. The split at this stage will be 7 A321NEO and 6 A320NEO in the international fleet, the A320 is still needed, not sure if the A321 can do ZQN-Australia? And WLG/CHC are better off with A320s with more frequency? I think it was NZ6 who said NZ used to on average sell 1 full J fare ex WLG when the A320 had a J cabin? I' am aware they may be able to sell more W seats on the same routes.

There is very little buisiness class traffic across the Tasman from any of the New Zealand ports - mainly as its difficult to justify paying the upgrade for such a short sector and most travel policies dont allow it. In the case of WLG, most of the business class travel is carried by QF (infact WLG-SYD and WLG-MEL flights always had completely full business class on the B738's and they were spilling J-Class on most days) who were WLG pax connecting to other long haul destinations via east coast Australia. The business traffic Air NZ carried out of WLG goes via AKL on domestic flights to long haul destinations. SQ also used to carry a fair amount of J-class on WLG-MEL-SIN, although many still preferred to fly via AKL due to the awkward sector lengths and the old product (although they had just upgraded to A350 prior to Covid).

No surprises here about Air NZ delaying QLD routes till March 22. Big error on this story though with little research done obviously, by stating that the Christchurch to Gold Coast is a new route for AIR NZ. How bad is that it's been going for 20 plus years already.

https://simpleflying.com/air-new-zealan ... suspended/

NZ516 wrote:

No surprises here about Air NZ delaying QLD routes till March 22. Big error on this story though with little research done obviously, by stating that the Christchurch to Gold Coast is a new route for AIR NZ. How bad is that it's been going for 20 plus years already.

https://simpleflying.com/air-new-zealan ... suspended/

This was announced on Monday and the credibility of this website has been questioned before. They just republish content from around the web and try make it their own. Often introducing errors. Take it all with a pinch of salt

ZK-NBT wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Add W to the A321, what then when you book it and it gets subbed for an A320? Reality is you probably in guessing you could configure it 3-2 and not lose a row so only a total of 2 seats lost.

I’m not sure what you expect in Y, more so on a short flight, you have 4 options now do we really need 6 or 8? At the end of the day the current set up seems to have done well for the airline, and that won’t suit all particularly airline “nerds”

It does mean with out the 772 that there will be less wide bodies but also less demand quite likely in higher classes for some time.

BNE/MEL will keep atleast 1 wide body a day in the morning for the US connections, Ideally MEL might have an evening service as well but maybe not enough aircraft to go around, they may not need as many total services as before for a while, maybe MEL/BNE 2 daily each, though QF are looking to increase but all 738s next year 4x MEL 3x BNE.

SYD maybe a little more, wide bodies in the morning x2 and an afternoon one weather they can fit a PM service in with no 772s? QF so far have loaded 1 A330 4 738 in April 2022, long way out and anything could happen.

Subbing is going to be less and less common as most of the international short haul fleet will transition to the A321NEO (purchase price isn’t much more and operating costs are only about 10% more while you gain around 25% more seats). That said though, there is a significant market of both business travellers, frequent flyers, and wealthy leisure travellers that do want more than an economy seat. This is especially true out of places that don’t see many wide body flights (particularly WLG). Works deluxe for the most part wasn’t that popular due to it not really offering much (most people have their own headphones now, the water bottles were taken away for environmental reasons, newspapers too, meals were just standard etc). Premium economy actually offers physical comfort improvements, and more space to actually do work if desired. Depending on configuration, you lose 2 economy seats for each premium economy seat… but you gain 2.5x the revenue and save a bit of weight. So overall you come out ahead by quite a bit.
Eg economy seat is $500. Premium economy seat is $1250. You lose 2x economy seats ($1000) but gain $250.
Then the issue is what if it doesn’t sell? Well there are always people trying to upgrade ($ or Airpoints), you have frequent flyers to look after every so often too.

Ex AKL most routes can probably absorb the additional capacity of the A321 bar IUE which can't take it AFAIK. The split at this stage will be 7 A321NEO and 6 A320NEO in the international fleet, the A320 is still needed, not sure if the A321 can do ZQN-Australia? And WLG/CHC are better off with A320s with more frequency? I think it was NZ6 who said NZ used to on average sell 1 full J fare ex WLG when the A320 had a J cabin? I' am aware they may be able to sell more W seats on the same routes.

Who said anything about IUE? Not exactly a high end market… or a large one at all.
You’re going to see a lot more NB services across the Tasman going forward especially with the 77E retirement.
Also comparing J to W is a big difference both in cost and product etc. premium economy offers that sweet spot of increased revenue for minimal cost while catering to the higher end market (and keeping them on your books etc rather than jumping to QF etc). You can’t just look at a single route/s in isolation when you have the overall network effect to consider.

a7ala wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Ex AKL most routes can probably absorb the additional capacity of the A321 bar IUE which can't take it AFAIK. The split at this stage will be 7 A321NEO and 6 A320NEO in the international fleet, the A320 is still needed, not sure if the A321 can do ZQN-Australia? And WLG/CHC are better off with A320s with more frequency? I think it was NZ6 who said NZ used to on average sell 1 full J fare ex WLG when the A320 had a J cabin? I' am aware they may be able to sell more W seats on the same routes.

There is very little buisiness class traffic across the Tasman from any of the New Zealand ports - mainly as its difficult to justify paying the upgrade for such a short sector and most travel policies dont allow it. In the case of WLG, most of the business class travel is carried by QF (infact WLG-SYD and WLG-MEL flights always had completely full business class on the B738's and they were spilling J-Class on most days) who were WLG pax connecting to other long haul destinations via east coast Australia. The business traffic Air NZ carried out of WLG goes via AKL on domestic flights to long haul destinations. SQ also used to carry a fair amount of J-class on WLG-MEL-SIN, although many still preferred to fly via AKL due to the awkward sector lengths and the old product (although they had just upgraded to A350 prior to Covid).

I guess QF are the only one who offered J ex WLG bar SQ on one route which isn't coming back. SQ is an interesting one ex WLG, certainly conflicting reports as to how it did.

Zkpilot wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Subbing is going to be less and less common as most of the international short haul fleet will transition to the A321NEO (purchase price isn’t much more and operating costs are only about 10% more while you gain around 25% more seats). That said though, there is a significant market of both business travellers, frequent flyers, and wealthy leisure travellers that do want more than an economy seat. This is especially true out of places that don’t see many wide body flights (particularly WLG). Works deluxe for the most part wasn’t that popular due to it not really offering much (most people have their own headphones now, the water bottles were taken away for environmental reasons, newspapers too, meals were just standard etc). Premium economy actually offers physical comfort improvements, and more space to actually do work if desired. Depending on configuration, you lose 2 economy seats for each premium economy seat… but you gain 2.5x the revenue and save a bit of weight. So overall you come out ahead by quite a bit.
Eg economy seat is $500. Premium economy seat is $1250. You lose 2x economy seats ($1000) but gain $250.
Then the issue is what if it doesn’t sell? Well there are always people trying to upgrade ($ or Airpoints), you have frequent flyers to look after every so often too.

Ex AKL most routes can probably absorb the additional capacity of the A321 bar IUE which can't take it AFAIK. The split at this stage will be 7 A321NEO and 6 A320NEO in the international fleet, the A320 is still needed, not sure if the A321 can do ZQN-Australia? And WLG/CHC are better off with A320s with more frequency? I think it was NZ6 who said NZ used to on average sell 1 full J fare ex WLG when the A320 had a J cabin? I' am aware they may be able to sell more W seats on the same routes.

Who said anything about IUE? Not exactly a high end market… or a large one at all.
You’re going to see a lot more NB services across the Tasman going forward especially with the 77E retirement.
Also comparing J to W is a big difference both in cost and product etc. premium economy offers that sweet spot of increased revenue for minimal cost while catering to the higher end market (and keeping them on your books etc rather than jumping to QF etc). You can’t just look at a single route/s in isolation when you have the overall network effect to consider.

If you read my post, I said most routes ex AKL can probably absorb the additional capacity of the A321, bar IUE which can't take it AFAIK, personally I can't see them adding W to the A321, happy to be proven wrong, but you would think then they will likely be AKL based only, obviously the odd route needs an A320 instead.

RE more narrowbodies across the tasman, thats a given as you say with the 772s gone but you would still in the peak season expect to see SYD/MEL/BNE get a daily 77W off LAX/SFO, then you have morning arrivals from ORD/IAH/YVR/PVG/PER, several of which can turn to SYD/NAN/RAR/APW/TBU, 1-2 of the early arrivals can turn onto the morning Asian bank, PER/SIN/HKG/NRT/PVG need 6 aircraft to run each daily then you have TPE/ICN etc. I think you could still have 6-7 widebodies on short haul in the peak season, 3x 77W, 3-4 789 where the highest demand is, some routes might be less frequency than before but more A320s to make up where demand is. This is all assuming no routes are dropped etc.

zkncj wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

zkncj wrote:

What ever happen to WRE building an new airport? Did that idea go away or is not like AKL and building an new runway? Sort of project.

Various issues including cost and objections came up. It’s still on the plans.
I personally think it should be built near Marsden on enough land that it could eventually become Auckland’s second airport and also replace Whenuapai eventually (joint military
/civil).

Would make to much sense for New Zealand

Couple that with an new high-speed rail from North Auckland, and you have an great secondary airport.

Its not as crazy as CHC trying to build an new International airport at Tarras which is in the middle of no where.

Have we leapt forward in time to 1st April? No way will there ever be high speed rail in NZ.

Kiwirob wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Various issues including cost and objections came up. It’s still on the plans.
I personally think it should be built near Marsden on enough land that it could eventually become Auckland’s second airport and also replace Whenuapai eventually (joint military
/civil).

Would make to much sense for New Zealand

Couple that with an new high-speed rail from North Auckland, and you have an great secondary airport.

Its not as crazy as CHC trying to build an new International airport at Tarras which is in the middle of no where.

Have we leapt forward in time to 1st April? No way will there ever be high speed rail in NZ.

As nice as HSR would be, it wouldn’t be necessary for this proposal as there will be a motorway all the way from Auckland to Whangarei by the time a new airport is built cutting the journey time down significantly - to the point that from the Upper North Shore, NW and Rodney would all be of similar journey times to travelling to AKL in peak times.

On 13 Sep Air NZ A320-232 ZK-OJB (msn 2090) had an AKL-AKL test flight as NZ6233. On 14 Sep it went AKL-RAR-HNL as NZ6096, then on 15 Sep HNL-LAX-TUS also as NZ6096. Arrived LAX about 40 mins ago. I expect it will be broken up in TUS as were ZK-OJD and ZK-OJF. So just two of the regional A320-232s left now, ZK-OJI and ZK-OJM.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zk-ojb

PA515

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5FzGlDLwog

NZ is announcing an MOU with Airbus today, on development of an Hydrogen / Electric hybrid aircraft today.

Zkpilot wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Would make to much sense for New Zealand

Couple that with an new high-speed rail from North Auckland, and you have an great secondary airport.

Its not as crazy as CHC trying to build an new International airport at Tarras which is in the middle of no where.

Have we leapt forward in time to 1st April? No way will there ever be high speed rail in NZ.

As nice as HSR would be, it wouldn’t be necessary for this proposal as there will be a motorway all the way from Auckland to Whangarei by the time a new airport is built cutting the journey time down significantly - to the point that from the Upper North Shore, NW and Rodney would all be of similar journey times to travelling to AKL in peak times.

Don't be too sure about that. We're probably on the cusp of having a serious reduction in spending on new roads (or even a moratorium) because of climate change considerations. And I'll wager anything you like that a secondary airport for Auckland just ain't gonna happen - and even if it did, it would be a redevelopment of Whenuapai or Ardmore for smaller (electric or hydrogen) aircraft. But seriously, once the second runway is built at AKL, and taking into account the serious implications of climate change on aviation, there will never be a need for more capacity. I have my doubts even as to whether the second runway will ever be built, anyway.

Correct as Passenger numbers at airports around the country have been decimated and will take years to recover perhaps a decade or more.. There is no opening up plan what so ever for NZ and international travel the borders could remain closed indefinitely to keep NZ at Covid Zero which is the current policy. Here is a recent article on the present situation of New Plymouth Airport.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-ne ... g-lockdown