Welcome to the October edition of the New Zealand Aviation Thread.

Link to the September edition - viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1464367

Anyone have any information whether Emirates will continue the EK449 flight to Kuala Lumpur as a passenger service when borders start opening up?

I see Emirates as a much better alternative to MH when flying to KUL.

I understand Emirates currently services this route mainly due to the freight coming and going.

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

I missed that ZK-OJD and ZK-OJF have been scrapped. What a shame. Hope that someone can find a good use for ZK-OJB that isn't coke cans, though it's probably not a very bright future in this climate.

I was in Manchester a couple of years ago and ex ZK-OJG was parked just across the terminal from me. At the other end of the flight (at CPH) ex ZK-NCK or ZK-NCL (icelandair 767 nowadays) taxied passed, which was cool.

Unrelated, the RNZAF retired the first Orion last week (NZ4203).

Ex Air NZ ATR72-500 ZK-MCC (msn 714) as F-WKVK arrived Duluth, Minnesota (KDLH) about two hours ago on delivery to Coeur d'Alene, Idaho (KCOE) where it will be prepared for use as a freighter by Prime Air as N967AZ.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/f-wkvk

PA515

zkojq wrote:

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

I missed that ZK-OJD and ZK-OJF have been scrapped. What a shame. Hope that someone can find a good use for ZK-OJB that isn't coke cans, though it's probably not a very bright future in this climate.

I was in Manchester a couple of years ago and ex ZK-OJG was parked just across the terminal from me. At the other end of the flight (at CPH) ex ZK-NCK or ZK-NCL (icelandair 767 nowadays) taxied passed, which was cool.

Unrelated, the RNZAF retired the first Orion last week (NZ4203).

With the original ZK-OJ* a320s now being 17-18 years old, and the effect of Covid-19. Would hardly expect there would be much second demand for them? Also weren’t most of them leased? So the lease companies probably would of fully written off there value by now.

Ironically I think none of the 72-500s have been scrapped yet? Although some of the were 1999/2000 builds.

But the there is the 72-500 graveyard in CHC, so it’s possible some of them may never leave CHC.

zkncj wrote:

zkojq wrote:

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

I missed that ZK-OJD and ZK-OJF have been scrapped. What a shame. Hope that someone can find a good use for ZK-OJB that isn't coke cans, though it's probably not a very bright future in this climate.

I was in Manchester a couple of years ago and ex ZK-OJG was parked just across the terminal from me. At the other end of the flight (at CPH) ex ZK-NCK or ZK-NCL (icelandair 767 nowadays) taxied passed, which was cool.

Unrelated, the RNZAF retired the first Orion last week (NZ4203).

With the original ZK-OJ* a320s now being 17-18 years old, and the effect of Covid-19. Would hardly expect there would be much second demand for them? Also weren’t most of them leased? So the lease companies probably would of fully written off there value by now.

Ironically I think none of the 72-500s have been scrapped yet? Although some of the were 1999/2000 builds.

But the there is the 72-500 graveyard in CHC, so it’s possible some of them may never leave CHC.

Air NZ have got rid of their -500 sim, so the last two of their -500 pilots are unable to maintain currency any more. From what I've heard, one may go to Air Chathams and at least one being parted out.

NZ516 wrote:

Air NZ are making some changes to their domestic operation. One change is all extra bags will be charged at $45 each. This seems very fair compared to the old system where it went from $80 then higher for each extra bag added

https://i.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/12652 ... -different

The airline’s current domestic Covid-19 flexibility policy is in place for travel up until October 31, with its international flexibility policy extended to February 28, 2022

.

This part I find interesting… you would think with the current situation going in New Zealand. That they would be extending the flexibility on all domestic fares? To atleast the end of the year.

Or are hoping hag now everyone I going to now book once of the new flexibility’s fares?

With Australia reopening international travel without hotel quarantine on return (7 day home quarantine instead) from mid-November as states each reach the 80% 16+ target, have the NZ Government indicated when they will look at making a similar move? At this stage, it seems I'll be able to visit Perth in Scotland or Christ Church in Cambridge before I can visit their much closer namesakes.

tullamarine wrote:

With Australia reopening international travel without hotel quarantine on return (7 day home quarantine instead) from mid-November as states each reach the 80% 16+ target, have the NZ Government indicated when they will look at making a similar move? At this stage, it seems I'll be able to visit Perth in Scotland or Christ Church in Cambridge before I can visit their much closer namesakes.

NZ is struggling to contain it's current outbreak in both size and location, to keep it within the Auckland metro area.
What seems to be about to happen in Australia in a very short time if things go to the Federal plan, are very relevant to us here in NZ with our broadly similar national current vaccination levels.
There is the opening up of Sydney to the rest of NSW, and then onto to other states, most that are currently covid free.
A situation that replicates what we have to achieve here opening Auckland to the currently covid free rest of the country.
If this goes to plan, then it will be over a month ahead of us before we have even got to 80% double dosed plus the 2 weeks to mature the immunity and probably three months before we have given everbody reasonable opportunity to receive both doses plus the two weeks.
What a wonderful opportunity to observe the process and the outcomes in Australia, that we would be extremly foolish to pass up.
Even todays 1pm news conference reiterated that nothing substantive was going to happen reopening international borders until Q2 next year.
At the moment all I want is my internal flight departing Auckland, to the South Island, very late this year to be able to proceed and of course the return 20 days later.

Toenga wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

With Australia reopening international travel without hotel quarantine on return (7 day home quarantine instead) from mid-November as states each reach the 80% 16+ target, have the NZ Government indicated when they will look at making a similar move? At this stage, it seems I'll be able to visit Perth in Scotland or Christ Church in Cambridge before I can visit their much closer namesakes.

NZ is struggling to contain it's current outbreak in both size and location, to keep it within the Auckland metro area.
What seems to be about to happen in Australia in a very short time if things go to the Federal plan, are very relevant to us here in NZ with our broadly similar national current vaccination levels.
There is the opening up of Sydney to the rest of NSW, and then onto to other states, most that are currently covid free.
A situation that replicates what we have to achieve here opening Auckland to the currently covid free rest of the country.
If this goes to plan, then it will be over a month ahead of us before we have even got to 80% double dosed plus the 2 weeks to mature the immunity and probably three months before we have given everbody reasonable opportunity to receive both doses plus the two weeks.
What a wonderful opportunity to observe the process and the outcomes in Australia, that we would be extremly foolish to pass up.
Even todays 1pm news conference reiterated that nothing substantive was going to happen reopening international borders until Q2 next year.
At the moment all I want is my internal flight departing Auckland, to the South Island, very late this year to be able to proceed and of course the return 20 days later.

It's an interesting quandary isn't it? There will be pressure on the government politically to reopen before April or May. The same issue will occur in states like WA and Queensland. In some respects, politicians must kind of wish the Delta would creep in so they can't be accused on introducing it by reopening international borders.

tullamarine wrote:

Toenga wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

With Australia reopening international travel without hotel quarantine on return (7 day home quarantine instead) from mid-November as states each reach the 80% 16+ target, have the NZ Government indicated when they will look at making a similar move? At this stage, it seems I'll be able to visit Perth in Scotland or Christ Church in Cambridge before I can visit their much closer namesakes.

NZ is struggling to contain it's current outbreak in both size and location, to keep it within the Auckland metro area.
What seems to be about to happen in Australia in a very short time if things go to the Federal plan, are very relevant to us here in NZ with our broadly similar national current vaccination levels.
There is the opening up of Sydney to the rest of NSW, and then onto to other states, most that are currently covid free.
A situation that replicates what we have to achieve here opening Auckland to the currently covid free rest of the country.
If this goes to plan, then it will be over a month ahead of us before we have even got to 80% double dosed plus the 2 weeks to mature the immunity and probably three months before we have given everbody reasonable opportunity to receive both doses plus the two weeks.
What a wonderful opportunity to observe the process and the outcomes in Australia, that we would be extremly foolish to pass up.
Even todays 1pm news conference reiterated that nothing substantive was going to happen reopening international borders until Q2 next year.
At the moment all I want is my internal flight departing Auckland, to the South Island, very late this year to be able to proceed and of course the return 20 days later.

It's an interesting quandary isn't it? There will be pressure on the government politically to reopen before April or May. The same issue will occur in states like WA and Queensland. In some respects, politicians must kind of wish the Delta would creep in so they can't be accused on introducing it by reopening international borders.

On Thursday the PM stated if Auckland was go down to level 2 next week (we find out on Monday). Not to expect the Auckland domestic boarder to re-open at level 2, something in the past that was allowed at level 2.

It would almost seem that we are going backwards with boarder restrictions, if we won’t let Aucklanders travel to the rest of the country at Level 2.

Maybe the we could re-open Internationals boarders with just Auckland then.

As much as I love to be able to fly somewhere Internationally from New Zealand next year, and return without an stay in MIQ I can hardly see that happening right now.

Air NZ A320-271N ZK-NHE (msn 10569) with test registration F-WWDR has just had it's first flight.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/f-wwdr

PA515

NZ516 wrote:

Indeed they should extend flexibility till the point when people will be allowed to travel. When that occurs for Aucklanders who will know

Hopefully sooner than later... even if they brought in Rapid Pre-Departure testing at at AKL that could help with the situation.
Seems an little odd that 18months on and we still don't have the ability for Rapid testing at Countries main airport, even when that Tasman Bubble was open it should of been an thing.

The ability to rapidly test passengers leaving or arriving AKL, could help us out in "re-opening"

zkncj wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Indeed they should extend flexibility till the point when people will be allowed to travel. When that occurs for Aucklanders who will know

Hopefully sooner than later... even if they brought in Rapid Pre-Departure testing at at AKL that could help with the situation.
Seems an little odd that 18months on and we still don't have the ability for Rapid testing at Countries main airport, even when that Tasman Bubble was open it should of been an thing.

The ability to rapidly test passengers leaving or arriving AKL, could help us out in "re-opening"

Agree.
It seems to me a rapid antigen test taken at the airport is far superior to a "more reliable" PCR test but taken sometime in the previous 72 hours.
Again on arrival a rapid test, If a fail then take an immediate PCR test and compulsory isolation until the result comes through.
This protocol would considerably reduce the chance of infection transmission immediatly before or during flight.
Airlines, and airports should get together and provide terminal space for recognised approved providers and approve charges. Airlines could then simply make such provision mandatory as part of their pre boarding procedures.
I certainly would be a lot more likely to fly under such a regime then the hassle of finding a test provider in the last few hours before flying, waiting anxiously for the test result to turn up, and then sitting for hours in a crowded aircraft cabin worrying everytime sombodody coughed or spluttered.

Toenga wrote:

zkncj wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Indeed they should extend flexibility till the point when people will be allowed to travel. When that occurs for Aucklanders who will know

Hopefully sooner than later... even if they brought in Rapid Pre-Departure testing at at AKL that could help with the situation.
Seems an little odd that 18months on and we still don't have the ability for Rapid testing at Countries main airport, even when that Tasman Bubble was open it should of been an thing.

The ability to rapidly test passengers leaving or arriving AKL, could help us out in "re-opening"

Agree.
It seems to me a rapid antigen test taken at the airport is far superior to a "more reliable" PCR test but taken sometime in the previous 72 hours.
Again on arrival a rapid test, If a fail then take an immediate PCR test and compulsory isolation until the result comes through.
This protocol would considerably reduce the chance of infection transmission immediatly before or during flight.
Airlines, and airports should get together and provide terminal space for recognised approved providers and approve charges. Airlines could then simply make such provision mandatory as part of their pre boarding procedures.
I certainly would be a lot more likely to fly under such a regime then the hassle of finding a test provider in the last few hours before flying, waiting anxiously for the test result to turn up, and then sitting for hours in a crowded aircraft cabin worrying everytime sombodody coughed or spluttered.

AKL could come up with the space to make temporary testing Centre's pretty quickly if the Government allowed rapid testing to allow the freedom of domestic travel again ex-AKL.
You could simply turn the under cover carparks outside side the the domestic terminals into ADHOC rapid testing centres.

Route all passengers departing AKL via the carpark buildings, then once you past an rapid test your allow to move into the Terminal.

Interesting article in Luchvaartnieuws where Airbus' Chief Commercial Officer says that it's not a matter of "if" but "when" there will be an A220-500 built, and that the company sees it as the successor to the A320NEO (though with the A321NEO remaining part of the longer-term offering). I'd not seen anything quite so specific regarding the proposed -500 before. The article is in Dutch, but it should be able to be translated using Google Translate or similar. The link is: https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/ ... g-van-a220

It seems to me that if NZ were to follow this lead and build a short-medium haul fleet based on the A321NEO and the A220-500, then the barrier to operating smaller A220s (like the -100, able to serve Nelson, for example) would disappear, as would some (but not all) of the arguments raised against proliferation of Transtasman routes with smaller aircraft operating more point-to-point routes, avoiding hubbed connections.

One of the arguments raised against more point-to-point offerings in the domestic network is the need for the establishment of security etc, and that this cost might fall to the airline. That's indeed possible, but I think we ought not underestimate the powerful attraction that getting jet flights might represent to the parochial regions. I could see airport authorities in many situations being prepared to establish security themselves, not only in the hope of attracting NZ services, but also with the hope that they could persuade JQ to come to the party.

DavidByrne wrote:

It seems to me that if NZ were to follow this lead and build a short-medium haul fleet based on the A321NEO and the A220-500, then the barrier to operating smaller A220s (like the -100, able to serve Nelson, for example) would disappear, as would some (but not all) of the arguments raised against proliferation of Transtasman routes with smaller aircraft operating more point-to-point routes, avoiding hubbed connections.
[/url]

If the a220-500 was powered by an alternate fuel example Hydrogen, think I think it might have NZ’s interest.

Outside of the a321N’s don’t see NZ being interested in introducing any more domestic fleet types that operate on Jet1A in the next 10 years. They have already signed an MOM on airbuses hydrogen development. So an alternative powered a220 could have some scope in NZ’s feet replace the A320WL feet.

[/url]
One of the arguments raised against more point-to-point offerings in the domestic network is the need for the establishment of security etc, and that this cost might fall to the airline. That's indeed possible, but I think we ought not underestimate the powerful attraction that getting jet flights might represent to the parochial regions. I could see airport authorities in many situations being prepared to establish security themselves, not only in the hope of attracting NZ services, but also with the hope that they could persuade JQ to come to the party.

Surely sometime in the next 5-10 years security on regional flights would become an thing anyway? We Mia be the last country in the developed world that allow you to board an 50-70 seater prop with out sercuirty?

zkncj wrote:

AKL could come up with the space to make temporary testing Centre's pretty quickly if the Government allowed rapid testing to allow the freedom of domestic travel again ex-AKL.
You could simply turn the under cover carparks outside side the the domestic terminals into ADHOC rapid testing centres.

Route all passengers departing AKL via the carpark buildings, then once you past an rapid test your allow to move into the Terminal.

I had not actually thought about rapid antigen testing being used as an aid to achieve our most immediate task of reintegrating Auckland with the rest of the country. It seems all very doable if it is already working in our road transport industry.

I would still like to see more signs of our local aviation industry, the airport authorities, and the airlines, initially on both sides of the Tasman both pushing for, and importantly facilitating such an approach. By providing terminal space they could largely control the price and quality.
The medsafe authorities on both sides of the Tasman, as well as the various State and Federal Medical authorities and experts all seem to be fairly well in alignment and seem to keep close contact with each other. It would be so much better if the testing was just integrated with airport and airline operations.

Toenga wrote:

I had not actually thought about rapid antigen testing being used as an aid to achieve our most immediate task of reintegrating Auckland with the rest of the country. It seems all very doable if it is already working in our road transport industry.

I would still like to see more signs of our local aviation industry, the airport authorities, and the airlines, initially on both sides of the Tasman both pushing for, and importantly facilitating such an approach. By providing terminal space they could largely control the price and quality.
The medsafe authorities on both sides of the Tasman, as well as the various State and Federal Medical authorities and experts all seem to be fairly well in alignment and seem to keep close contact with each other. It would be so much better if the testing was just integrated with airport and airline operations.

Melbourne and Sydney airports all ready offer private rapid testing for travel.

https://www.histopath.com.au/traveltesting

Both airports have onsite RT-PCR one hour turn around, or Rapid Antigen tests with half an hour turn around times.

Yet AKL currently offers?

dhaliwal wrote:

Anyone have any information whether Emirates will continue the EK449 flight to Kuala Lumpur as a passenger service when borders start opening up?

I see Emirates as a much better alternative to MH when flying to KUL.

I understand Emirates currently services this route mainly due to the freight coming and going.

I think there is a really strong possibility of this continuing but this will heavily depend on getting approval from the M'sian government as it competes with their own carrier.

dhaliwal wrote:

dhaliwal wrote:

Anyone have any information whether Emirates will continue the EK449 flight to Kuala Lumpur as a passenger service when borders start opening up?

I see Emirates as a much better alternative to MH when flying to KUL.

I understand Emirates currently services this route mainly due to the freight coming and going.

I think there is a really strong possibility of this continuing but this will heavily depend on getting approval from the M'sian government as it competes with their own carrier.

Does it uplift passengers currently in KUL?

Pre-covid EK operated an 77W service via DPS.

zkncj wrote:

dhaliwal wrote:

dhaliwal wrote:

Anyone have any information whether Emirates will continue the EK449 flight to Kuala Lumpur as a passenger service when borders start opening up?

I see Emirates as a much better alternative to MH when flying to KUL.

I understand Emirates currently services this route mainly due to the freight coming and going.

I think there is a really strong possibility of this continuing but this will heavily depend on getting approval from the M'sian government as it competes with their own carrier.

Does it uplift passengers currently in KUL?

Pre-covid EK operated an 77W service via DPS.

Curious as to why You see EK as a better alternative to MH flying to KUL? They have never flown the route before.

Currently it is EK’s only regular AKL service, operates daily and mainly freight, pretty sure it’s a DXB-AKL only service pax wise.

As for DPS I would have personally have my doubts to it returning on EK from AKL, they originally hoped to fly through BKK I believe, they did have BKK-SYD and KUL-MEL, not sure why they couldn’t get BKK-AKL, and I suppose KUL-AKL could continue, I’m not expert though.

DavidByrne wrote:

Interesting article in Luchvaartnieuws where Airbus' Chief Commercial Officer says that it's not a matter of "if" but "when" there will be an A220-500 built, and that the company sees it as the successor to the A320NEO (though with the A321NEO remaining part of the longer-term offering). I'd not seen anything quite so specific regarding the proposed -500 before. The article is in Dutch, but it should be able to be translated using Google Translate or similar. The link is: https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/ ... g-van-a220

It seems to me that if NZ were to follow this lead and build a short-medium haul fleet based on the A321NEO and the A220-500, then the barrier to operating smaller A220s (like the -100, able to serve Nelson, for example) would disappear, as would some (but not all) of the arguments raised against proliferation of Transtasman routes with smaller aircraft operating more point-to-point routes, avoiding hubbed connections.

One of the arguments raised against more point-to-point offerings in the domestic network is the need for the establishment of security etc, and that this cost might fall to the airline. That's indeed possible, but I think we ought not underestimate the powerful attraction that getting jet flights might represent to the parochial regions. I could see airport authorities in many situations being prepared to establish security themselves, not only in the hope of attracting NZ services, but also with the hope that they could persuade JQ to come to the party.

Do the A320/220 have a common type rating? And then would the NZ CAA allow NZ pilots to fly both, the 777/787 are a single rating but NZ regulations don’t allow it.

NZ are heading towards and have been for some time an A320 series, 787, ATR, Q300 fleet with the latter to be replaced by something electric in a decade or so. Still have my doubts on the 77W returning despite Australia opening up and QF resuming long haul from next month.

I do agree that some of the regional ports if they see it as financially beneficial may put cases forward for jet service if they cover the costs of security, airport upgrades etc and the service has a bit of a subsidy or something for atleast 3 years.

You still end up with more configurations and subtypes should they add the 225, but then also the 223 and/or 221, how much more efficient would the 225 be than it’s smaller siblings to make the 221 a non starter? The A319 hasn’t sold well while the A321 has done really well. The 223 is the base model so would probably do reasonably well.

Obviously Air New Zealand is a big fan of the A321neo. I was just thinking that, hypothetically, if Air New Zealand was to go back in time a decade or so, would they have ordered A321ceoSLs instead of all or some of the ZK-OX# series A320ceoSLs?

zkojq wrote:

Obviously Air New Zealand is a big fan of the A321neo. I was just thinking that, hypothetically, if Air New Zealand was to go back in time a decade or so, would they have ordered A321ceoSLs instead of all or some of the ZK-OX# series A320ceoSLs?

Probably would depend on the operating cost of the a321CEO.

Apparently the NZ’s a321N operating costs are closer to the a320C.

What be interesting if the 7x a321N for domestic come as 240 seaters or are configured the same as the international fleet.

zkncj wrote:

zkojq wrote:

Obviously Air New Zealand is a big fan of the A321neo. I was just thinking that, hypothetically, if Air New Zealand was to go back in time a decade or so, would they have ordered A321ceoSLs instead of all or some of the ZK-OX# series A320ceoSLs?

Probably would depend on the operating cost of the a321CEO.

Apparently the NZ’s a321N operating costs are closer to the a320C.

What be interesting if the 7x a321N for domestic come as 240 seaters or are configured the same as the international fleet.

I’m not sure they would have gone with A321CEO a decade ago, they replaced the 136 seat 733 with a 171 seat A320, the fleet also increased from what 15 733s to 17 A320s and then up to 20. Places like ZQN are getting busy and need something larger as do AKL-WLG/CHC.

I would think the 7 domestic A321s will have some additional seats minus a lav and galley to reduce weight.

zkncj wrote:

zkojq wrote:

Obviously Air New Zealand is a big fan of the A321neo. I was just thinking that, hypothetically, if Air New Zealand was to go back in time a decade or so, would they have ordered A321ceoSLs instead of all or some of the ZK-OX# series A320ceoSLs?

Probably would depend on the operating cost of the a321CEO.

Apparently the NZ’s a321N operating costs are closer to the a320C.

What be interesting if the 7x a321N for domestic come as 240 seaters or are configured the same as the international fleet.

Certainly on shorter flights the A321N has a lower fuel burn than the A320C. The A321C though probably quite a bit more burn and also not as good takeoff performance.

https://edition.cnn.com/2002/BUSINESS/asia/07/04/nz.air.biz/index.html?related

Looking at the original 2002 a320 order, they ordered 15x a320CEO’s, additional 20 options over the following 10 years. Along with the right to interchange the order between a319/321 if required.

With NZ Government officially walking away from Covid-zero today, it will be interesting to see if they are a bit clearer in coming days on their plans for restarting international flights. Their strategy is now more close to that of NSW and Victoria; I wonder if we could see a recommencement around the Christmas/New Year period.

tullamarine wrote:

With NZ Government officially walking away from Covid-zero today, it will be interesting to see if they are a bit clearer in coming days on their plans for restarting international flights. Their strategy is now more close to that of NSW and Victoria; I wonder if we could see a recommencement around the Christmas/New Year period.

There almost seems like they could be more chance of Aucklanders getting to travel to NSW/VIC by the end of the year than there own country.

With elimination gone on Auckland, it would seem we would be on the same page as Sydney in 6 weeks time.

Feels like covid zero still applies outside of Auckland although. With the rest of the country being held at level 2.

With the new Alert Level 3 - Step 1, which allows travel anywhere within Auckland.

Does that cover Great Barrier Island? If so Barrier Air is about to maybe have it’s busiest week in history.

tullamarine wrote:

With NZ Government officially walking away from Covid-zero today, it will be interesting to see if they are a bit clearer in coming days on their plans for restarting international flights. Their strategy is now more close to that of NSW and Victoria; I wonder if we could see a recommencement around the Christmas/New Year period.

We move so incredibly slowly. I don't think international travel is even a realistic consideration in 2021 and it's definitely not in their thinking.

What we've been given is a roadmap to level 2. We all know that under the current system we need to stay in level 3 but they're relaxing things progressively because we have no idea how many weeks we'll be there but we do know it's going to be many, many weeks. At the end of this roadmap it wasn't 'normal life' and certainly not an open border.

We're not even close to being on track to have 90% double dose by 1 Dec. In fact at out current rate, 10,000 first doses daily, 450,000 people left to reach 90%. That's 45 days. Which takes us to 19 November. Add in some slowing as we get closer we may only hit 90% first dose on Dec 1... which flows into the new year with the 6 week gap.

On the upside, it does bode well for 90% double dose much earlier in Q1 for 2022 than I first expected which will enable border rules to be relaxed sooner. But even then, it won't be like what QF and NSW are doing next month.

There's been a lot of talk about the A320/A321 and the ATR in the last week. I've raised myself the difference between the two as a potential gap in the tools NZ has at it's disposal.

Something around a 100-120 seats would suit NZ's network nicely. It could offer increased number of seats without too much impact on frequency on some routes.

Just a couple of points to consider

• Don't under estimate the increased operating costs in mixed fleet types. Pilots, crew, tech, line MX, disruptions, compliance etc etc. There's a reason fleet simplification is something airlines strive for.
• Does the market want two, three flights merged into one or two?
• Does a 'jet' offer such an improved experience that customers will forgo their preferred time/frequency?
• Reduction in frequency can invite competition in so do we see this as a risk?
• What are the costs vs regional props?
• What's the future of alternative fuels? Does this swing the balance back towards regional prop and higher frequency?
• Do airfields need extra work overtime to handle ongoing use of heavier equipment?
• Other compliance things such as AVSEC Airways staff in towers etc?
• Are airports/lounges/baggage belts etc set up to manage larger aircraft? and more passengers
• What are the operating costs per seat mile vs the ATR or next generation aircraft 5-10 years away?

I'm not dismissing the idea. I just suspect, If you're more interested in economics and business and you're less interested in what toys are in the toybox. You soon see there are also huge benefits in operating a good ATR network outside the 'trunk' routes vs trying to blend the two together.

NZ516 wrote:

On another note one of the well regarded Air NZ execs is leaving the company to become the next chief executive at Auckland airport. Her move to the airport company may enhance the working relationship between the two on an operational level.
That could fast track the new terminal upgrade sooner rather than later.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/top ... GSTGBVIFI/

NZ and AIAL have always had a very strong working relationship? - Are you suggesting otherwise? - Probably went a long way towards Carries new appointment. NZ is AIAL's biggest customer and there are plans on moving the entire Head Office to a new AIAL campus.

The difference in priorities goes well beyond personalities and allegiances. Don't think Carrie is going to get onboard and wave the NZ flag and shift their infrastructure and strategic priorities to suit them. Don't forget, the new terminal plans were tabled a few months ago.

Carrie will be in charge or running a profitable business. She'll be answering to the board who represent all the shareholders.

NZ6 wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

On another note one of the well regarded Air NZ execs is leaving the company to become the next chief executive at Auckland airport. Her move to the airport company may enhance the working relationship between the two on an operational level.
That could fast track the new terminal upgrade sooner rather than later.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/top ... GSTGBVIFI/

NZ and AIAL have always had a very strong working relationship? - Are you suggesting otherwise? - Probably went a long way towards Carries new appointment. NZ is AIAL's biggest customer and there are plans on moving the entire Head Office to a new AIAL campus.

The difference in priorities goes well beyond personalities and allegiances. Don't think Carrie is going to get onboard and wave the NZ flag and shift their infrastructure and strategic priorities to suit them. Don't forget, the new terminal plans were tabled a few months ago.

Carrie will be in charge or running a profitable business. She'll be answering to the board who represent all the shareholders.

Airlines and airports have the ultimate symbiotic relationship. Both need the other hugely. AKL's biggest customer is NZ whilst AKL is one of NZ's most important suppliers as it is home to its main hub and maintenance base. Both rely on each other and neither could realistically replace the other even if they wanted to.

tullamarine wrote:

With NZ Government officially walking away from Covid-zero today, it will be interesting to see if they are a bit clearer in coming days on their plans for restarting international flights. Their strategy is now more close to that of NSW and Victoria; I wonder if we could see a recommencement around the Christmas/New Year period.

Whilst there is undoubtedly a social demand for a trans Tasman border reopening for the coming festive season, there is no economic imperative for one.
Hopefully the Auckland border will be reopened by then, and the pent up domestic demand for holidays is going to be insane, much more then a lot of the industry can cope with, without access to the large pool of transient international labour that has underpinned much of the operation over the last few years. I think Christmas here will be much about limiting covid exposure as much as possible and observing the effects. So any additional complications with international arrivals will be deferred until later in the year.

NZ516 wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

On another note one of the well regarded Air NZ execs is leaving the company to become the next chief executive at Auckland airport. Her move to the airport company may enhance the working relationship between the two on an operational level.
That could fast track the new terminal upgrade sooner rather than later.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/top ... GSTGBVIFI/

NZ and AIAL have always had a very strong working relationship? - Are you suggesting otherwise? - Probably went a long way towards Carries new appointment. NZ is AIAL's biggest customer and there are plans on moving the entire Head Office to a new AIAL campus.

The difference in priorities goes well beyond personalities and allegiances. Don't think Carrie is going to get onboard and wave the NZ flag and shift their infrastructure and strategic priorities to suit them. Don't forget, the new terminal plans were tabled a few months ago.

Carrie will be in charge or running a profitable business. She'll be answering to the board who represent all the shareholders.

I wasn't really suggesting the current relationship is bad. Just it could get even better going forward.

I dont know how "good" the relationship needs to be. AKL is Air NZ's main international hub and largest domestic market and so even if the relationship was to break down there's zero chance it would significantly impact the operation at the airport. Air NZ is captive to AKL even more so than Qantas is to SYD.

The airports relationships are probably more important with the foreign airlines that can easily pick up their planes and move them somewhere else.

a7ala wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

NZ and AIAL have always had a very strong working relationship? - Are you suggesting otherwise? - Probably went a long way towards Carries new appointment. NZ is AIAL's biggest customer and there are plans on moving the entire Head Office to a new AIAL campus.

The difference in priorities goes well beyond personalities and allegiances. Don't think Carrie is going to get onboard and wave the NZ flag and shift their infrastructure and strategic priorities to suit them. Don't forget, the new terminal plans were tabled a few months ago.

Carrie will be in charge or running a profitable business. She'll be answering to the board who represent all the shareholders.

I wasn't really suggesting the current relationship is bad. Just it could get even better going forward.

I dont know how "good" the relationship needs to be. AKL is Air NZ's main international hub and largest domestic market and so even if the relationship was to break down there's zero chance it would significantly impact the operation at the airport. Air NZ is captive to AKL even more so than Qantas is to SYD.

The airports relationship are probably more important with the airlines that can easility pick up their planes and move them somewhere else.

Yip and when you reach this point in your career it's purely business.

Two former and recent CEO's of ROT are both ex ANZ as well, that being Alastair Rhodes and Nicole Brewer. We didn't see any significant changes here....

Looks like Ardmore is set to face more developer pressure, with this development right near the end of the runway and submitted to government for fast-track approval.
https://www.facebook.com/150073775005366/photos/a.962624090416993/4805719402774090/?type=3&theater

ZKNCI wrote:

Looks like Ardmore is set to face more developer pressure, with this development right near the end of the runway and submitted to government for fast-track approval.
https://www.facebook.com/150073775005366/photos/a.962624090416993/4805719402774090/?type=3&theater

Sadly likely to become the end of Ardmore Airport, how long until it becomes an housing development?

Auckland is going to have a major issues in the next 10-50 years, if they every want another Airport. Both site that could of been expanded are now being rapidly built in with houses.

I guess HLZ will have to be come Aucklands second airport.

zkncj wrote:

Auckland is going to have a major issues in the next 10-50 years, if they every want another Airport. Both site that could of been expanded are now being rapidly built in with houses.

First, there's nothing that suggests Ardmore is slated for closure, just an emotive appeal on FB which is trying to get the neighbouring housing development canned. And there's never been a hint of a suggestion that Whenuapai should be (physically) expanded either, even though creating a second commercial airport has had its boosters (like Sir Bob Harvey as Mayor of the former Waitakere City).

But seriously, there's no need for another airport in Auckland, and no need to even think about one for the future. If AKL eventually proves too small for the traffic then there's always the long-planned second runway. And there's always the prospect of using HLZ for medium-haul flights if required.

zkncj wrote:

ZKNCI wrote:

Looks like Ardmore is set to face more developer pressure, with this development right near the end of the runway and submitted to government for fast-track approval.
https://www.facebook.com/150073775005366/photos/a.962624090416993/4805719402774090/?type=3&theater

Sadly likely to become the end of Ardmore Airport, how long until it becomes an housing development?

Auckland is going to have a major issues in the next 10-50 years, if they every want another Airport. Both site that could of been expanded are now being rapidly built in with houses.

I guess HLZ will have to be come Aucklands second airport.

Ardmore was never going to become more than a non-transport airport. Also AKL is too close by.
That said I think it is appalling that someone would a) try to develop the area next to the aerodrome for housing and b) it’s ridiculous that council is even touching it since there isn’t the infrastructure in place to support it, it will add to congestion, it will cost the council a lot of money (at current rates each dwelling costs the council net $100k+), and c) the safety aspect.
Industrial - fine, anything else? No.

DavidByrne wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Auckland is going to have a major issues in the next 10-50 years, if they every want another Airport. Both site that could of been expanded are now being rapidly built in with houses.

First, there's nothing that suggests Ardmore is slated for closure, just an emotive appeal on FB which is trying to get the neighbouring housing development canned. And there's never been a hint of a suggestion that Whenuapai should be (physically) expanded either, even though creating a second commercial airport has had its boosters (like Sir Bob Harvey as Mayor of the former Waitakere City).

But seriously, there's no need for another airport in Auckland, and no need to even think about one for the future. If AKL eventually proves too small for the traffic then there's always the long-planned second runway. And there's always the prospect of using HLZ for medium-haul flights if required.

On one hand, I think it's fair to suspect Ardmore could end up like like Whenuapai or worse, Hobsonville. The later is now notihng but high density urban housing with the only signs of it's aviation heritage being a few street names. Whenuapai is quickly becoming landlocked as well. With 5 Squadron being forced south to Ohakea and should 40 Squadron follow when the 757's are replaced it would almost certainly spell the end for this base as well.

On the other hand, we could look at Van Nuys in Los Angeles and argue is doesn't need to close even with urban development around it. This is one of the busiest General Aviation Airports in the world and while it has some industrial buildings directly surrounding it, you can see housing is very close - https://goo.gl/maps/y45zbH3v4QHbHgZ98

Auckland does need a second airport for all it's general aviation activity not for normal airlines. AKL can't pick that up and what's the alternative?

Parakai (NZPI), Dairy Flat (NZNE), Kaipara Flats (NZKF), Mercer (NZME) - technically in the Waikato.

Ardmore was once a race track so I doubt they'll get any type of heritage protection. The items at the airport would if that's possible. But one could argue to move Warbirds away from Auckland?!?

They should be working to protect their operation long term so we don't end up with another Western Springs or Eden park where locals move in and complain of noise.

NZ516 wrote:

That is very interesting you raise a lot of points NZ6. So there is so many things to consider before making a decision on getting a 100-120 seat jet.

On another note one of the well regarded Air NZ execs is leaving the company to become the next chief executive at Auckland airport. Her move to the airport company may enhance the working relationship between the two on an operational level.
That could fast track the new terminal upgrade sooner rather than later.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/top ... GSTGBVIFI/

More clueless management coming
PLS bring in people not based on local experience from a non airport business, but from running world-class airports. How hard is it to recruit from say SG or HK presently?
Those people know whats needed, an exec from NZ has no clue and will continue to have insular approaches. Saddens me.
We need the best people and the best people aren't found on these shores. Ah well another lost opportunity and more of old boys/girls network rather than recruiting on competence.

Ah well, its what it is. More of the same. So lets not expect anything besides what matters to Air NZ to happen.