Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
NZ516 wrote:Predictions for NZ aviation in 2022 anyone it is not easy with so much uncertainty. Hopefully this year is better than the last.
zkncj wrote:NZ516 wrote:Predictions for NZ aviation in 2022 anyone it is not easy with so much uncertainty. Hopefully this year is better than the last.
Well to celebrate the new year, looks like NZ has brought in wearing N95 masks for staff domesticity. Almost all of the staff around WLG today have N95s on, not sure what is different to yesterday when they all used either cloth or medical masks.
I’m assuming that Flight Attendant recently testing postive after an trip to SYD was wearing an cloth or medical mask.
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:Cheers to people for the suggestions. After a bunch of digging I was able to find this from Airways NZ.
https://www.airways.co.nz/about/perform ... -services/
https://www.airways.co.nz/assets/Docume ... -Stats.pdf
It's a bit simplistic as I'm assuming every international IFR movement is scheduled passenger. We went from 253 international movements a day in 2018 to 97 in 2020. 126 and 48 international arrivals a day respectively. Hardly a middle of nowhere island.
NZ516 wrote:There is an interesting summary of predictions for the year ahead. This is on the 3rd Level NZ website of what could happen in the domestic aviation landscape of New Zealand. The author covers 14 operators most will not expect any changes.
Ones to watch this year are Barrier Air and Origin Air.
http://3rdlevelnz.blogspot.com/2022/01/ ... 2.html?m=1
zkncj wrote:NZ516 wrote:There is an interesting summary of predictions for the year ahead. This is on the 3rd Level NZ website of what could happen in the domestic aviation landscape of New Zealand. The author covers 14 operators most will not expect any changes.
Ones to watch this year are Barrier Air and Origin Air.
http://3rdlevelnz.blogspot.com/2022/01/ ... 2.html?m=1
Would be nice to see NZ come to an wholesale agreement with some of the smaller operators e.g Air Chats or Sounds Air.
It would be nice to be able to purchase an single ticket to some of the smaller ports they connect. For example being able to purchase an AKL-WLG-PCN ticket, currently your left to risk it on your own connection planning.
Interesting once about WLG and prop capacity, I have witnessed that one an few times recently at WLG were there has been no room to park ATR’s with an third sitting on the taxiway waiting for an gate. Have also seen some props use the gates beyond AVSEC.
Are gates 19/20 the only two gates that are non screen that currently can park ATR’s (without being an remote stand).
NPL8800 wrote:
Are gates 19/20 the only two gates that are non screen that currently can park ATR’s (without being an remote stand).
zkncj wrote:NPL8800 wrote:
Are gates 19/20 the only two gates that are non screen that currently can park ATR’s (without being an remote stand).
Stands 7-11, 75-77 and 78-79 are all terminal contact stands which can accommodate ATRs without the need to go through AVSEC or have a bus transfer.
zkncj wrote:NZ516 wrote:There is an interesting summary of predictions for the year ahead. This is on the 3rd Level NZ website of what could happen in the domestic aviation landscape of New Zealand. The author covers 14 operators most will not expect any changes.
Ones to watch this year are Barrier Air and Origin Air.
http://3rdlevelnz.blogspot.com/2022/01/ ... 2.html?m=1
Would be nice to see NZ come to an wholesale agreement with some of the smaller operators e.g Air Chats or Sounds Air.
It would be nice to be able to purchase an single ticket to some of the smaller ports they connect. For example being able to purchase an AKL-WLG-PCN ticket, currently your left to risk it on your own connection planning.
Interesting once about WLG and prop capacity, I have witnessed that one an few times recently at WLG were there has been no room to park ATR’s with an third sitting on the taxiway waiting for an gate. Have also seen some props use the gates beyond AVSEC.
Are gates 19/20 the only two gates that are non screen that currently can park ATR’s (without being an remote stand).
NZ516 wrote:The AKL to IVC non stop route will be increasing to 5 flights a week. This will see more Aucklanders flying onto Stewart island which are timed to connect with the Jet flight at Invercargill. Hopefully this route will turn into a daily service eventually.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/127 ... n-new-year
zkncj wrote:Would be nice to see NZ come to an wholesale agreement with some of the smaller operators e.g Air Chats or Sounds Air.
It would be nice to be able to purchase an single ticket to some of the smaller ports they connect. For example being able to purchase an AKL-WLG-PCN ticket, currently your left to risk it on your own connection planning.
Kiwings wrote:An interline ticketing agreement does not mean that through check-in etc is also a given. This would be subject to a separate agreement between the airlines. The interline agreement just helps sales by having through fares but that really requires Special Prorate Agreements to make fares attractive and saleable.
Kiwings wrote:If the domestic sector is part of an international journey and the domestic sector is delayed cancelled, you're on your own. Air NZ tend to be helpful , depending on the situation, (if WLG is fogged in, dont expect too much help except call the international carrier. ) JQ walk away from it completely and tell the pax to call the connecting international carrier to sort out.
zkncj wrote:NZ516 wrote:The AKL to IVC non stop route will be increasing to 5 flights a week. This will see more Aucklanders flying onto Stewart island which are timed to connect with the Jet flight at Invercargill. Hopefully this route will turn into a daily service eventually.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/127 ... n-new-year
AKL-IVC would probably be an prefect route for an a220-100. Which might even allow it to become an double daily service long term if NZ had an 100 seater.
With Alliance Airlines buying up e190s and making the most of cheap pandemic pricing on used aircraft. I wonder if NZ would ever look at doing the same wet lease agreement that QF is doing with Alliance to operate some e190 on there behalf?
zkncj wrote:
Interesting once about WLG and prop capacity, I have witnessed that one an few times recently at WLG were there has been no room to park ATR’s with an third sitting on the taxiway waiting for an gate. Have also seen some props use the gates beyond AVSEC.
Are gates 19/20 the only two gates that are non screen that currently can park ATR’s (without being an remote stand).
Kiwings wrote:I can tell you , working for an international carrier that operates to AKL, that generally NZ is quite good when a through ticket is involved. But as I said, when there is a WX situation and staff have options they just push the pax away.
THrough checking is not a standard as depends if edifact gasbeen set up between carriers to allow this.
Generally through check between carriers of same alliance is no problem. Between alliances or non alliance airlines is not done unless the carriers have an agreement.
DavidByrne wrote:A bit of a non-story in more than one way, but a couple of hours ago I saw a story in the Dutch aviation website Luchtvaartnieuws quoting a Seattle newspaper interview with a top Boeing official in which he stated that Boeing was working on a HGW version of the 787-10. We knew this was happening (sort of) but had no details - and the article literally (despite the headline) gave no more information than this.
Unfortunately the story has been mysteriously taken down since then so I can't even post a link. But it good to have confirmation that the project is alive (and well?).
NZ516 wrote:Here is a good article with also a video about the development at Chathams Islands airport. Work is underway by Downer extending the runway 500m to 1800m enough for a 737 or 320 to land.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/travel/2 ... leted.html
DavidByrne wrote:DavidByrne wrote:A bit of a non-story in more than one way, but a couple of hours ago I saw a story in the Dutch aviation website Luchtvaartnieuws quoting a Seattle newspaper interview with a top Boeing official in which he stated that Boeing was working on a HGW version of the 787-10. We knew this was happening (sort of) but had no details - and the article literally (despite the headline) gave no more information than this.
Unfortunately the story has been mysteriously taken down since then so I can't even post a link. But it good to have confirmation that the project is alive (and well?).
Just saw the original in the Seattle Times - no new info. But there's now an A-net thread.
zkncj wrote:NZ516 wrote:Here is a good article with also a video about the development at Chathams Islands airport. Work is underway by Downer extending the runway 500m to 1800m enough for a 737 or 320 to land.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/travel/2 ... leted.html
Ironic that newshub thinks that the Chatham Islands will get a320/737 passenger flights once the runway is completed.
Can see some converted 737 freighters going in there, but passengers flights? Unless airchats is able to pickup one of the last remaining 737 classic combi aircraft that out still operational.
Can hardly see NZ rock up with an a320 to CHT.
NZ6 wrote:DavidByrne wrote:DavidByrne wrote:A bit of a non-story in more than one way, but a couple of hours ago I saw a story in the Dutch aviation website Luchtvaartnieuws quoting a Seattle newspaper interview with a top Boeing official in which he stated that Boeing was working on a HGW version of the 787-10. We knew this was happening (sort of) but had no details - and the article literally (despite the headline) gave no more information than this.
Unfortunately the story has been mysteriously taken down since then so I can't even post a link. But it good to have confirmation that the project is alive (and well?).
Just saw the original in the Seattle Times - no new info. But there's now an A-net thread.
It's scary to think we're almost 2 decades on from the 787 or 7E7 announcement and the plane is still facing problem after problem.
There's clearly a promise around an increased MTOW and range (highly likely a clause in NZ's contract for this too) but it's worrying that there's still very little public information on this.
As much as I support a lot of what NZ does I strongly believe they got this wrong and should've gone with the A350. I'm still so disappointed they didn't take the chance to correct it when they set out to replace the 777's.
ZK-NBT wrote:NZ6 wrote:It's scary to think we're almost 2 decades on from the 787 or 7E7 announcement and the plane is still facing problem after problem.
There's clearly a promise around an increased MTOW and range (highly likely a clause in NZ's contract for this too) but it's worrying that there's still very little public information on this.
As much as I support a lot of what NZ does I strongly believe they got this wrong and should've gone with the A350. I'm still so disappointed they didn't take the chance to correct it when they set out to replace the 777's.
Curious, wrong in which sense?
NZ6 wrote:Let's not forget NZ originally order the 787-8 which on paper looks like the perfect aircraft for it's Asian routes and to replace the 767's however correctly converted these to -9
zkncj wrote:NZ6 wrote:Let's not forget NZ originally order the 787-8 which on paper looks like the perfect aircraft for it's Asian routes and to replace the 767's however correctly converted these to -9
From memory the first two 787 orders were made at the same time the 77E’s were ordered back in 2004.
They got in extremely early on the 787 project, and assuming that Boeing gave them an price well below list price that they couldn’t refuse. The fact that the own the majority of there 789s apart from an couple of later deliveries that are leased. Shows how affordable the price that Boeing offered to NZ was, for an small airline that was an massive Capex outlay for the 787 fleet.
NZ6 wrote:ZK-NBT wrote:NZ6 wrote:It's scary to think we're almost 2 decades on from the 787 or 7E7 announcement and the plane is still facing problem after problem.
There's clearly a promise around an increased MTOW and range (highly likely a clause in NZ's contract for this too) but it's worrying that there's still very little public information on this.
As much as I support a lot of what NZ does I strongly believe they got this wrong and should've gone with the A350. I'm still so disappointed they didn't take the chance to correct it when they set out to replace the 777's.
Curious, wrong in which sense?
This is 100% opinion and not based on science or math and tbh some of it is based on hindsight.
Issues: NZ took their first 787-9 in July 2014 around 6 months earlier than the first delivery flight of the A350. Of course we'll never know if NZ could've been the launch customer for the A350 like they were the 789. We also shouldn't forget the 787 was originally due for a 2008ish delivery. Since then we've seen engine, corrosion and now paint issues and seen much of the fleet grounded for extended periods. Yes, there's an argument of who could've predicted this? - but to perhaps answer my own question. With a near 6 year delay was the writing on the wall?
Performance: NZ has several LOPA's for the 787's essentially to each some the destinations it wants with the 787 (ORD/EWR). I'm of the opinion NZ would need just 2 LOPA's to fly all routes including NYC and would have a higher config on Airbus. Put very, very simply. I believe Airbus could fly more people further for cheaper.
Airbus could have offered NZ the -1000 if they wanted to replace the 77W on LAX/SFO/IAH on routes which could work with a higher density aircraft.
Looking forward, it's seems NZ is limited to places like EWR with a highly 'stripped out' 787 so it can simply reach it where I suspect a A350 would comfortably make with more PAX onboard. Have they got all their eggs in one basket in hoping Boeing delivers a MTOW improvement on the -10. While the fall back will always be a the -9, I suspect flying undersized and/or infrequent services to the US West Coast just opens to the door to QF, DL, AA etc to take a strong stake in one of NZ critical markets.
The 787 is a good aircraft and does well for NZ. I just wish they'd gone Airbus. I think there'd be more flexibility in their business if they had.
Let's not forget NZ originally order the 787-8 which on paper looks like the perfect aircraft for it's Asian routes and to replace the 767's however correctly converted these to -9
NZ516 wrote:Here is a good article with also a video about the development at Chathams Islands airport. Work is underway by Downer extending the runway 500m to 1800m enough for a 737 or 320 to land.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/travel/2 ... leted.html
NZ6 wrote:
It's scary to think we're almost 2 decades on from the 787 or 7E7 announcement and the plane is still facing problem after problem.
NZ6 wrote:As much as I support a lot of what NZ does I strongly believe they got this wrong and should've gone with the A350. I'm still so disappointed they didn't take the chance to correct it when they set out to replace the 777's.
NZ6 wrote:Performance: NZ has several LOPA's for the 787's essentially to each some the destinations it wants with the 787 (ORD/EWR). I'm of the opinion NZ would need just 2 LOPA's to fly all routes including NYC and would have a higher config on Airbus. Put very, very simply. I believe Airbus could fly more people further for cheaper.
Airbus could have offered NZ the -1000 if they wanted to replace the 77W on LAX/SFO/IAH on routes which could work with a higher density aircraft.
zkojq wrote:Any truth to the rumors of severe corrosion issues on the 77Ws stored at Auckland?NZ516 wrote:Here is a good article with also a video about the development at Chathams Islands airport. Work is underway by Downer extending the runway 500m to 1800m enough for a 737 or 320 to land.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/travel/2 ... leted.html
This is fantastic news. I remember funding was approved for this in 2017ish but work was delayed for reasons I'm not quite clear on.
I remember a rumour from that time also about Air Chathams wanting 737 Freighters but being unable due to the runway situation. Wonder how they're positioned for that now.NZ6 wrote:
It's scary to think we're almost 2 decades on from the 787 or 7E7 announcement and the plane is still facing problem after problem.
Careful now, you'll be shot down if you suggest this in the other thread.NZ6 wrote:As much as I support a lot of what NZ does I strongly believe they got this wrong and should've gone with the A350. I'm still so disappointed they didn't take the chance to correct it when they set out to replace the 777's.
For the original order or the -10 order? I agree with you regarding the -10 order. For the original order I still think it's the right plane for the airline. I can't really see SGN, DPS, RAR-LAX etc having been operated with A350s. I do think that, ultimately, the A350-900 + A350-1000 would make for a better fleet for the airline but they wouldn't have been able to get early A350 delivery positions unless they'd ordered quite early on in the program.
Just my 2c though and I'm aware that there'll be plenty of folks in this thread whom are far more informed on this than I.NZ6 wrote:Performance: NZ has several LOPA's for the 787's essentially to each some the destinations it wants with the 787 (ORD/EWR). I'm of the opinion NZ would need just 2 LOPA's to fly all routes including NYC and would have a higher config on Airbus. Put very, very simply. I believe Airbus could fly more people further for cheaper.
Airbus could have offered NZ the -1000 if they wanted to replace the 77W on LAX/SFO/IAH on routes which could work with a higher density aircraft.
Fully agree.
zkojq wrote:Any truth to the rumors of severe corrosion issues on the 77Ws stored at Auckland?
zkncj wrote:zkojq wrote:Any truth to the rumors of severe corrosion issues on the 77Ws stored at Auckland?
Don’t have any info other than have been in/out of a couple of times over the last few weeks and have noticed there has been some movement with the 77W’s.
They seem to have been getting moved between the hangar, and the taxiway they have spent that last 18months parked at. One did have an engine removed, the week before Christmas sitting outside ANZES.
Does seem like there is some prep work going on then at the moment.
That or after 18months AIAL wants it’s taxi way back?
In some sense it does seem odd, that they left 3x 77Ws in AKL, maybe they were hopeful the boarder was going to open an lot sooner?
Especially when AKL, a) is right next to salt water and windy harbour, b) parking space at peak times is tight especially when most of the 789s are home.
ZK-NBT wrote:Interesting that its being reported in the 787 thread that the 78JIGW will have 744 range while the 789 will get a bump as well which changes quite a lot IMO, especially for an airline like NZ.
zkojq wrote:For the original order or the -10 order? I agree with you regarding the -10 order. For the original order I still think it's the right plane for the airline. I can't really see SGN, DPS, RAR-LAX etc having been operated with A350s. I do think that, ultimately, the A350-900 + A350-1000 would make for a better fleet for the airline but they wouldn't have been able to get early A350 delivery positions unless they'd ordered quite early on in the program.
NZ6 wrote:ZK-NBT wrote:Interesting that its being reported in the 787 thread that the 78JIGW will have 744 range while the 789 will get a bump as well which changes quite a lot IMO, especially for an airline like NZ.
If so, NZ will have had the jet nearly 10 years. Well the earlier frames will be assuming something like this comes out in 2024 when NZ's next 787's are due to arrive.
Arguably that's half their useable life with the airline gone. 20 years on since the original order.zkojq wrote:For the original order or the -10 order? I agree with you regarding the -10 order. For the original order I still think it's the right plane for the airline. I can't really see SGN, DPS, RAR-LAX etc having been operated with A350s. I do think that, ultimately, the A350-900 + A350-1000 would make for a better fleet for the airline but they wouldn't have been able to get early A350 delivery positions unless they'd ordered quite early on in the program.
Hard to consider SGN: Done during a time of incredible growth and with an aircraft in your fleet which owes you nothing along with otherwise idle crew. We may never have seen SGN without the 763 being in the fleet.
DPS: That went bloody well and was growing year on year. It was scheduled for the 772 before COVID hit so a A350 would've done fine.
RAR-LAX - doesn't really matter what you fly to be honest.
Are you suggesting the A350 is to big for NZ?
If so it's probably the one argument where the 787 may be better suited for NZ. We simply don't need 30-40 C class seats on top of 220-280 Y seats into Asia.
To closest LOPA I can (quickly) find is OZ with 28C, 36U and 247Y which still has 18 more C seats and 15 more U class so way over the top.
AF/LH both have 36/21/262 & 34/24/266. There are a lot of restrictions as far as where and how you physically divide cabins based around galley location, lavatories, doors etc and I have no idea what these are. With that in mind I look at those numbers and take 10-15 out of C class, and put 15 or so into U class. Playing with numbers on one hand perhaps something like 24/35/275 vs the 789-1 at 18/21/263
The length is 66.8m vs 62.81m so we're only talking a 3.99m difference. It's not huge but it is noticeable.
The obvious elephant in the room is economics over each LOPA and potential yield when trying fill the aircraft. People have often here complained about NZ's "over priced C product". Supply and Demand and would that be improved for those minds
ZK-NBT wrote:Re 787 range, it’s no different to early A333s which were considered regional aircraft particularly carriers in Asia who flew them within the continent, they could fly up to 9 hrs or so barely enough for HKG-SYD/MEL for eg. The A332 however was a more 11-12hr frame when it came out, now the A333 can fly those 11-12 hr sectors with more payload as later builds come out.
ZK-NBT wrote:SGN was a 763 for a year from memory 3 weekly then a 789 for 2 years at 2 weekly?
NZ6 wrote:Are you suggesting the A350 is to big for NZ?
NZ6 wrote:DPS: That went bloody well and was growing year on year. It was scheduled for the 772 before COVID hit so a A350 would've done fine.
ZK-NBT wrote:Re 787 range, it’s no different to early A333s which were considered regional aircraft particularly carriers in Asia who flew them within the continent, they could fly up to 9 hrs or so barely enough for HKG-SYD/MEL for eg. The A332 however was a more 11-12hr frame when it came out, now the A333 can fly those 11-12 hr sectors with more payload as later builds come out.
ZK-NBT wrote:Fair enough, I don’t think you are the only one here who has those thoughts.
I thought at the time the 788 was right sized, similar capacity to the 763 with more range, but the economics of the 789 and growth in NZs Asian routes make the 789 the correct fit imo.
zkncj wrote:Can see some converted 737 freighters going in there, but passengers flights? Unless airchats is able to pickup one of the last remaining 737 classic combi aircraft that out still operational.
Can hardly see NZ rock up with an a320 to CHT.
zkojq wrote:
Agreed. Speaking of which, I assume that CHT is just far enough out that A320s would require ETOPS to operate there? If there was to be jet service to the Chathams, they'd obviously have to have AvSec facilities there so that means they'd have to build a new terminal. Not cheap out there, just like the runway extension.
Even if service was viable for ANZ (with Jet or Regional), I like to think that they'd leave that market to Air Chathams - provided they don't extort customers for it. Possibly optimistic on my part.
zkojq wrote:NZ6 wrote:Are you suggesting the A350 is to big for NZ?
No, it's just that the aircraft have different benefits. 787-9; lower absolute operating costs. A350-900 greater payload/range and more cabin/cargo space (ie greater revenue potential).
As such, the planes play different roles:
787-9 is no doubt better in [re]opening routes like Nagoya, New Chitose, Phuket etc where you will initially probably be struggling to fill all the cabins (and the cargo hold); at least at decent yields, making the lowest absolute cost more important.
A350-900 would be better at handling more established routes where you can consistently fill all cabins (thus benefiting from the plane having more seats) and want to maximize the cargo uplift. (Marginally) higher absolute costs aren't an issue in these cases. Would probably have been better for launching routes like Houston and (theoretically) Seattle though?
The implication here being that the 787-9 is the better plane to replace the 767-300s and the A350-900 better for replacing the 777-200s. That said, the A350 that was available in the mid 2000s is obviously much closer in size to the 767-300 as compared to the A350-900 that we actually got.NZ6 wrote:DPS: That went bloody well and was growing year on year. It was scheduled for the 772 before COVID hit so a A350 would've done fine.
Interesting. Pleased to hear this.ZK-NBT wrote:Re 787 range, it’s no different to early A333s which were considered regional aircraft particularly carriers in Asia who flew them within the continent, they could fly up to 9 hrs or so barely enough for HKG-SYD/MEL for eg. The A332 however was a more 11-12hr frame when it came out, now the A333 can fly those 11-12 hr sectors with more payload as later builds come out.
I think what he's meaning is that if the 787-9 MTOW bump is available for existing 787-9s, it means that the early Air New Zealand ones will have essentially flown half their economic life being artificially constrained (albeit marginally so). Obviously there's nuance to this though; Boeing clearly needs some inservice data for calculating these things (and their effects on maintenance planning etc). Did they need ten years of data though....I'd suggest probably not.
IIRC when the A330 MTOW was raised from 233T to 235T, the MTOW bump was available for most (if not all) A330s that had been built to the 233T standard.ZK-NBT wrote:Fair enough, I don’t think you are the only one here who has those thoughts.
I thought at the time the 788 was right sized, similar capacity to the 763 with more range, but the economics of the 789 and growth in NZs Asian routes make the 789 the correct fit imo.
See that's my biggest issue with the 787; the 787-8 was supposed to be a 767-300 sized plane but with the range of the 777 and far better CASM. In my mind it was supposed to be the plane that was small enough to make much thinner routes like AKL-CGK, KUL, KHH, OGG, SLC, SCL and DAD viable to operate for a few frequencies a week. Instead it's a plane who's cash operating costs are so similar to the 787-9 that most airlines decide they might as well have the -9.zkncj wrote:Can see some converted 737 freighters going in there, but passengers flights? Unless airchats is able to pickup one of the last remaining 737 classic combi aircraft that out still operational.
Can hardly see NZ rock up with an a320 to CHT.
Agreed. Speaking of which, I assume that CHT is just far enough out that A320s would require ETOPS to operate there? If there was to be jet service to the Chathams, they'd obviously have to have AvSec facilities there so that means they'd have to build a new terminal. Not cheap out there, just like the runway extension.
Even if service was viable for ANZ (with Jet or Regional), I like to think that they'd leave that market to Air Chathams - provided they don't extort customers for it. Possibly optimistic on my part.
SLCaviation wrote:
SLC? You think that they could do Salt Lake City?
zkojq wrote:SLCaviation wrote:
SLC? You think that they could do Salt Lake City?
It's a hypothetical.
NZ6 wrote:ZK-NBT wrote:Re 787 range, it’s no different to early A333s which were considered regional aircraft particularly carriers in Asia who flew them within the continent, they could fly up to 9 hrs or so barely enough for HKG-SYD/MEL for eg. The A332 however was a more 11-12hr frame when it came out, now the A333 can fly those 11-12 hr sectors with more payload as later builds come out.
You've identified the A330 program found extra range, but that's not unique. I think most types have, all the Boeing ER's are just that 767-200/300, 747-400, 777-200/300 (plus LR) Airbus is the same, in addition to the A330 we've seen the A340-400,500,600, A320, A321 LR & XLR,
For me the issue is, we've been waiting almost 2 decades since the project was first announced to see a variant which can equal the 744 or 777 family with capacity and range. No we've not been actually waiting but there's always been mutter of such a thing yet we've never actually seen anything on paper. Meanwhile Airbus has this in production.
To use Wiki data: A350-900 vs 787-10
A350: Range: 15,000Km Exit limit 440
787-10: Range: 11,910km Exit Limit 440
Now of course we're never going to get 15,000km with 440 people on board. But NZ's clear goal has been growing deep into North America. That's where the money is. The A350 is so much better suited to this than the 787.
If we get a bump is MTOW it might compare better to the 777-200ER's but how's the code 2 or code 3 789 looking vs a code 2 A359?ZK-NBT wrote:SGN was a 763 for a year from memory 3 weekly then a 789 for 2 years at 2 weekly?
I can 100% assure you SGN would not have happened without the 763. It was a 'gamble' that would not have been taken without it. Did I pay off? Well it remained with the 789 for a while. Will we see it back? Very unlikely.