Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
SLCaviation wrote:zkojq wrote:SLCaviation wrote:
SLC? You think that they could do Salt Lake City?
It's a hypothetical.
Would they do SLC over DEN? United is a Star member so I thought that DEN would be the more obvious choice.
SLCaviation wrote:zkojq wrote:SLCaviation wrote:
SLC? You think that they could do Salt Lake City?
It's a hypothetical.
Would they do SLC over DEN? United is a Star member so I thought that DEN would be the more obvious choice.
zkojq wrote:SLCaviation wrote:zkojq wrote:
It's a hypothetical.
Would they do SLC over DEN? United is a Star member so I thought that DEN would be the more obvious choice.
They wouldn't do it instead of Denver.
Denver's has performance issues though due to altitude. If this wasn't an issue, I do think that the airline could make a success out of flying there. Maybe not as successful as Houston, but I don't think they would have much issue filling a 787-9 at decent yields four or five times a week. Probably even more if it wasn't for the launch of Chicago.
SLCaviation wrote:zkojq wrote:SLCaviation wrote:
SLC? You think that they could do Salt Lake City?
It's a hypothetical.
Would they do SLC over DEN? United is a Star member so I thought that DEN would be the more obvious choice.
SLCaviation wrote:zkojq wrote:SLCaviation wrote:
SLC? You think that they could do Salt Lake City?
It's a hypothetical.
Would they do SLC over DEN? United is a Star member so I thought that DEN would be the more obvious choice.
zkncj wrote:SLCaviation wrote:zkojq wrote:
It's a hypothetical.
Would they do SLC over DEN? United is a Star member so I thought that DEN would be the more obvious choice.
While NZ is in *A, it doesn’t stop them from mingling with non *A friends or where they want to go.
For example NZ has partnerships currently with QF, CX, VS…
For years there Japan partner was JL, and even didn’t operate out of the *A terminal in Tokyo.
ZK-NBT wrote:Why do we need something with 744 or 777 capacity? Range absolutely or am I misunderstanding you? NZ certainly I don't think at least need even 77W capacity, the 77W is an incredible aircraft where NZ probably only need it for LAX a lot like the 744, however SFO and also IAH which has obviously done very well for them to use a 77W. Some airlines bought the 77W for the range given the operating costs were a lot lower than the 77L where the capacity of the 77L would have been better, the 77L was described by Rob Fyfe as a flying fuel tank, pretty sure it was Fyfe. The sweet spot now has gotten a little smaller again to me, 789/78J/359 around 250/300 seats instead of 350/400 so P2P rather than the hub model with smaller frames. It remains to be seen how the 35K/779 will do but certainly not for NZ, I personally wonder how much they considered the 77X/35K given the 787 can do everything they want, possibly with some restrictions on the longest routes, EWR.
NZ as far back as 2002 if I recall were looking at one type with 300 seats for long haul, guess the 77E although some say NZ could have skipped that and gone to the 77W, I guess the 744s would have left and the 763s stay initially and we still end up with a 77W/789 fleet though so 2 types.
Re SGN sure, all I am saying is the 763 ran for the first season and then retired so leaving the 789 for 2 years. Pity it won't come back Vietnam is beautiful.
NZ6 wrote:zkncj wrote:SLCaviation wrote:Would they do SLC over DEN? United is a Star member so I thought that DEN would be the more obvious choice.
While NZ is in *A, it doesn’t stop them from mingling with non *A friends or where they want to go.
For example NZ has partnerships currently with QF, CX, VS…
For years there Japan partner was JL, and even didn’t operate out of the *A terminal in Tokyo.
I was just going to say, I think there's a strong misconception around the importance Star Alliance plays here.
DEN would likely be the more attractive option with or without UA. For starters it's significantly busier than SLC but that's partly due to UA transiting passengers through it.
Sort of begs the question - with EWR/ORD/IAH does NZ need another 'gateway' single transit in the US? Probably not!
DEN is arguably the winter sports capital of the US does that equal year round services or a a season service?
If NZ is looking to grow North America, would YYZ, IAD, SEA, ATL, MIA, BOS open new year round markets?
NZ6 wrote:ZK-NBT wrote:Why do we need something with 744 or 777 capacity? Range absolutely or am I misunderstanding you? NZ certainly I don't think at least need even 77W capacity, the 77W is an incredible aircraft where NZ probably only need it for LAX a lot like the 744, however SFO and also IAH which has obviously done very well for them to use a 77W. Some airlines bought the 77W for the range given the operating costs were a lot lower than the 77L where the capacity of the 77L would have been better, the 77L was described by Rob Fyfe as a flying fuel tank, pretty sure it was Fyfe. The sweet spot now has gotten a little smaller again to me, 789/78J/359 around 250/300 seats instead of 350/400 so P2P rather than the hub model with smaller frames. It remains to be seen how the 35K/779 will do but certainly not for NZ, I personally wonder how much they considered the 77X/35K given the 787 can do everything they want, possibly with some restrictions on the longest routes, EWR.
NZ as far back as 2002 if I recall were looking at one type with 300 seats for long haul, guess the 77E although some say NZ could have skipped that and gone to the 77W, I guess the 744s would have left and the 763s stay initially and we still end up with a 77W/789 fleet though so 2 types.
Re SGN sure, all I am saying is the 763 ran for the first season and then retired so leaving the 789 for 2 years. Pity it won't come back Vietnam is beautiful.
I don't want this to become something it's not.
Regarding my comment on the 744/777: Putting into perspective - NZ flew 744's to North America and then the 777's. We've been waiting (not literally) for a MTOW boost on the 787 which would see this type comparably operate on North America. Yes the -9 can compete on range but it lacks capacity. The -10 can reach LAX just but little else. I'm not suggesting we need a like for like replacement.
Connecting it to my original comment around wishing we'd gone A350. The -900 and -1000 which both clearly give NZ what it needs into North America and would give it with a single type and no issues to date.
Is it too big for developing Asian markets. Potentially.
But to challenge that point, has the airline ordered the best aircraft for developing markets vs the best aircraft for it's profitable ones and don't forget the A350 isn't the completely wrong aircraft for developing markets, it's just more level with the 787.
I can't believe we're still quoting Fyfe's comment on the flying fuel tank a decade on. NZ didn't need the 77L and at the time had it's eyes on North American and had ordered a much more fuel efficient aircraft which was only "years away" and capable of reaching NYC.
Re SGN: You've lost context of the point ZKOJQ raised. To recap in post 37 they said "I can't really see SGN, DPS, RAR-LAX etc having been operated with A350s.". In my reply on post 42 I said it was done at a time of incredible growth with an aircraft that owes you nothing. The whole point is the route only came about due to NZ having the equipment essentially sitting around unused during a period of intense growth. If the 763's had or if there was another plan we may never have seen SGN. The fact that it switched to a 789 is a mute point.
NZ6 wrote: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.
NZ6 wrote:zkncj wrote:SLCaviation wrote:Would they do SLC over DEN? United is a Star member so I thought that DEN would be the more obvious choice.
While NZ is in *A, it doesn’t stop them from mingling with non *A friends or where they want to go.
For example NZ has partnerships currently with QF, CX, VS…
For years there Japan partner was JL, and even didn’t operate out of the *A terminal in Tokyo.
I was just going to say, I think there's a strong misconception around the importance Star Alliance plays here.
DEN would likely be the more attractive option with or without UA. For starters it's significantly busier than SLC but that's partly due to UA transiting passengers through it.
Sort of begs the question - with EWR/ORD/IAH does NZ need another 'gateway' single transit in the US? Probably not!
DEN is arguably the winter sports capital of the US does that equal year round services or a a season service?
If NZ is looking to grow North America, would YYZ, IAD, SEA, ATL, MIA, BOS open new year round markets?
zkncj wrote:Looks like JQ259 had some issues this morning on departure and had to return to AKL after take off.
Jetstar spokes person, is just labeling it as an “engineering issue”
[url]
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/auckland- ... 7YXKG6A5M/[/url]
Zkpilot wrote:NZ6 wrote:zkncj wrote:
While NZ is in *A, it doesn’t stop them from mingling with non *A friends or where they want to go.
For example NZ has partnerships currently with QF, CX, VS…
For years there Japan partner was JL, and even didn’t operate out of the *A terminal in Tokyo.
I was just going to say, I think there's a strong misconception around the importance Star Alliance plays here.
DEN would likely be the more attractive option with or without UA. For starters it's significantly busier than SLC but that's partly due to UA transiting passengers through it.
Sort of begs the question - with EWR/ORD/IAH does NZ need another 'gateway' single transit in the US? Probably not!
DEN is arguably the winter sports capital of the US does that equal year round services or a a season service?
If NZ is looking to grow North America, would YYZ, IAD, SEA, ATL, MIA, BOS open new year round markets?
YYZ - maybe.
IAD/BOS - no - too far and not enough market that isn’t easily covered by other routes.
ATL/MIA - unlikely.
SEA - likely - much shorter than the other destinations. Is a relatively underserved market and is quite wealthy with a lot of big corporates. It also would take some pressure off YVR (2 hours or so drive).
zkncj wrote:NZ6 wrote: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.
The A321XLR's will be interesting to watch over the next coupe of years, and see if Airbus can push any more range out of them although at an current typically range of 8500km I don't think they would be able to push much more out of it.
An A321XLR with an typical range of 10,000km in an 20PE / 160Y config, could an ideal fit for NZ's more leisure based routes that used to be operated by the 763ER.
Based on direct routing:
AKL-DPS 6,743km
AKL-SGN 8,854 km
AKL-HNL 7,063 km
AKL-MNL 8,012 km
RAR-LAX 7,516 km
CHC-PER 5,049 km (Probably could be done by current A321NEO's which have 7400km typical range)
NZ6 wrote:zkncj wrote:NZ6 wrote: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.
The A321XLR's will be interesting to watch over the next coupe of years, and see if Airbus can push any more range out of them although at an current typically range of 8500km I don't think they would be able to push much more out of it.
An A321XLR with an typical range of 10,000km in an 20PE / 160Y config, could an ideal fit for NZ's more leisure based routes that used to be operated by the 763ER.
Based on direct routing:
AKL-DPS 6,743km
AKL-SGN 8,854 km
AKL-HNL 7,063 km
AKL-MNL 8,012 km
RAR-LAX 7,516 km
CHC-PER 5,049 km (Probably could be done by current A321NEO's which have 7400km typical range)
I've often found myself thinking the XLR is perfect for NZ. But I keep coming back to - they're all long thin developing routes. If they don't last where do you redeploy.
AKL-DPS: I really hope it comes back post COVID. It'll depend how and when Indonesian recovers. Like I said earlier in this thread it was being switched to a 772 for 2020 and that's with EK doing it daily. My opinion A321XLR would be too small.
AKL-SGN: Perhaps, but very much developing market. will interest 'dry up'? it's largely one directional travel i.e. NZ outbound
AKL-HNL: It's already a two airline route so clearly demand there. Do you want to give an inch to HA ? Perhaps if we looked at alternative Hawaiian Islands (which has been very closely looked at before).
AKL-MNL: I'd agree here
RAR-LAX: It's contract route. Don't go buying equipment just for that unless you have a 20 year deal with a large cancellation fee.
CHC-PER: PER is where I would see this aircraft most suited to NZ.
Dear I say it, does WLG get a look in here, or CHC-HNL etc.
I'm keen to see how it works for QF and where they deploy them.
ZK-NBT wrote:Re SGN, I get what you mean, I think all I was saying was the 789 did go there for 2 years after the 763 retired, the route was dropped it seems as the 789 wasn't considered the right aircraft.
NZ6 wrote:
Dear I say it, does WLG get a look in here
DavidByrne wrote:ZK-NBT wrote:Re SGN, I get what you mean, I think all I was saying was the 789 did go there for 2 years after the 763 retired, the route was dropped it seems as the 789 wasn't considered the right aircraft.
Wasn’t the death of the SGN route principally a direct casualty of the serious problems with the 787 that saw so many of them out of service simultaneously?
Qantas59 wrote:Has there been any update or discussion regarding the future of 777s ZK-OKN, OKO and OKQ recently. Apologies if this has been discussed elsewhere.
Cheers.
DavidByrne wrote:ZK-NBT wrote:Re SGN, I get what you mean, I think all I was saying was the 789 did go there for 2 years after the 763 retired, the route was dropped it seems as the 789 wasn't considered the right aircraft.
Wasn’t the death of the SGN route principally a direct casualty of the serious problems with the 787 that saw so many of them out of service simultaneously?
LamboAston wrote:NZ6 wrote:zkncj wrote:
The A321XLR's will be interesting to watch over the next coupe of years, and see if Airbus can push any more range out of them although at an current typically range of 8500km I don't think they would be able to push much more out of it.
An A321XLR with an typical range of 10,000km in an 20PE / 160Y config, could an ideal fit for NZ's more leisure based routes that used to be operated by the 763ER.
Based on direct routing:
AKL-DPS 6,743km
AKL-SGN 8,854 km
AKL-HNL 7,063 km
AKL-MNL 8,012 km
RAR-LAX 7,516 km
CHC-PER 5,049 km (Probably could be done by current A321NEO's which have 7400km typical range)
I've often found myself thinking the XLR is perfect for NZ. But I keep coming back to - they're all long thin developing routes. If they don't last where do you redeploy.
AKL-DPS: I really hope it comes back post COVID. It'll depend how and when Indonesian recovers. Like I said earlier in this thread it was being switched to a 772 for 2020 and that's with EK doing it daily. My opinion A321XLR would be too small.
AKL-SGN: Perhaps, but very much developing market. will interest 'dry up'? it's largely one directional travel i.e. NZ outbound
AKL-HNL: It's already a two airline route so clearly demand there. Do you want to give an inch to HA ? Perhaps if we looked at alternative Hawaiian Islands (which has been very closely looked at before).
AKL-MNL: I'd agree here
RAR-LAX: It's contract route. Don't go buying equipment just for that unless you have a 20 year deal with a large cancellation fee.
CHC-PER: PER is where I would see this aircraft most suited to NZ.
Dear I say it, does WLG get a look in here, or CHC-HNL etc.
I'm keen to see how it works for QF and where they deploy them.
An XLR could still do regular 321 routes if needed as well, its not restricted to routes over 4500km
NZ6 wrote:LamboAston wrote:NZ6 wrote:
I've often found myself thinking the XLR is perfect for NZ. But I keep coming back to - they're all long thin developing routes. If they don't last where do you redeploy.
AKL-DPS: I really hope it comes back post COVID. It'll depend how and when Indonesian recovers. Like I said earlier in this thread it was being switched to a 772 for 2020 and that's with EK doing it daily. My opinion A321XLR would be too small.
AKL-SGN: Perhaps, but very much developing market. will interest 'dry up'? it's largely one directional travel i.e. NZ outbound
AKL-HNL: It's already a two airline route so clearly demand there. Do you want to give an inch to HA ? Perhaps if we looked at alternative Hawaiian Islands (which has been very closely looked at before).
AKL-MNL: I'd agree here
RAR-LAX: It's contract route. Don't go buying equipment just for that unless you have a 20 year deal with a large cancellation fee.
CHC-PER: PER is where I would see this aircraft most suited to NZ.
Dear I say it, does WLG get a look in here, or CHC-HNL etc.
I'm keen to see how it works for QF and where they deploy them.
An XLR could still do regular 321 routes if needed as well, its not restricted to routes over 4500km
Surely you would need to utilise the aircraft on the longer sectors more often than not to justify the extra weight and maintenance associated with extra fuel tanks fuel lines fuel pumps etc
NZ6 wrote:LamboAston wrote:NZ6 wrote:
I've often found myself thinking the XLR is perfect for NZ. But I keep coming back to - they're all long thin developing routes. If they don't last where do you redeploy.
AKL-DPS: I really hope it comes back post COVID. It'll depend how and when Indonesian recovers. Like I said earlier in this thread it was being switched to a 772 for 2020 and that's with EK doing it daily. My opinion A321XLR would be too small.
AKL-SGN: Perhaps, but very much developing market. will interest 'dry up'? it's largely one directional travel i.e. NZ outbound
AKL-HNL: It's already a two airline route so clearly demand there. Do you want to give an inch to HA ? Perhaps if we looked at alternative Hawaiian Islands (which has been very closely looked at before).
AKL-MNL: I'd agree here
RAR-LAX: It's contract route. Don't go buying equipment just for that unless you have a 20 year deal with a large cancellation fee.
CHC-PER: PER is where I would see this aircraft most suited to NZ.
Dear I say it, does WLG get a look in here, or CHC-HNL etc.
I'm keen to see how it works for QF and where they deploy them.
An XLR could still do regular 321 routes if needed as well, its not restricted to routes over 4500km
Surely you would need to utilise the aircraft on the longer sectors more often than not to justify the extra weight and maintenance associated with extra fuel tanks fuel lines fuel pumps etc
ZK-NBT wrote:NZ6 wrote:LamboAston wrote:An XLR could still do regular 321 routes if needed as well, its not restricted to routes over 4500km
Surely you would need to utilise the aircraft on the longer sectors more often than not to justify the extra weight and maintenance associated with extra fuel tanks fuel lines fuel pumps etc
You would think so wouldn’t you re using an A321LR fleet mainly on longer routes.
Not a great lot of routes for such an aircraft for NZ imo, ex AKL mainly wide bodies can be used while WLG has a short runway as mentioned so may not be a great use while CHC could do PER but where else? CHC-HNL is getting quite long as is CHC-DPS.
Zkpilot wrote:NZ6 wrote:zkncj wrote:
While NZ is in *A, it doesn’t stop them from mingling with non *A friends or where they want to go.
For example NZ has partnerships currently with QF, CX, VS…
For years there Japan partner was JL, and even didn’t operate out of the *A terminal in Tokyo.
I was just going to say, I think there's a strong misconception around the importance Star Alliance plays here.
DEN would likely be the more attractive option with or without UA. For starters it's significantly busier than SLC but that's partly due to UA transiting passengers through it.
Sort of begs the question - with EWR/ORD/IAH does NZ need another 'gateway' single transit in the US? Probably not!
DEN is arguably the winter sports capital of the US does that equal year round services or a a season service?
If NZ is looking to grow North America, would YYZ, IAD, SEA, ATL, MIA, BOS open new year round markets?
YYZ - maybe.
IAD/BOS - no - too far and not enough market that isn’t easily covered by other routes.
ATL/MIA - unlikely.
SEA - likely - much shorter than the other destinations. Is a relatively underserved market and is quite wealthy with a lot of big corporates. It also would take some pressure off YVR (2 hours or so drive).
LamboAston wrote:ZK-NBT wrote:NZ6 wrote:
Surely you would need to utilise the aircraft on the longer sectors more often than not to justify the extra weight and maintenance associated with extra fuel tanks fuel lines fuel pumps etc
You would think so wouldn’t you re using an A321LR fleet mainly on longer routes.
Not a great lot of routes for such an aircraft for NZ imo, ex AKL mainly wide bodies can be used while WLG has a short runway as mentioned so may not be a great use while CHC could do PER but where else? CHC-HNL is getting quite long as is CHC-DPS.
I'm not saying to use it like a regular 321, just that if needed it could operate a few shorter sectors between long ones.
SFwatchTower wrote:What's with ZK-NZC on NZ6004 AKL-SFO for (American Time) Friday Jan 7 2022?
It's out of sync with the usual NZ1008/NZ1007 flights on (American Time) Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday. I see ZK-NZL is slated for the usual NZ1008 flight for Jan 8 2022.
SFwatchTower wrote:SFwatchTower wrote:What's with ZK-NZC on NZ6004 AKL-SFO for (American Time) Friday Jan 7 2022?
It's out of sync with the usual NZ1008/NZ1007 flights on (American Time) Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday. I see ZK-NZL is slated for the usual NZ1008 flight for Jan 8 2022.
Alright so maybe this was for an Antarctica charter like last time in September viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1464367&hilit=new+zealand+September+2021&start=100#p22968941
It looks like the planes swapped routes. ZK-NZC flew NZ1007 and ZK-NZL is NZ1949 SFO-CHC. Neat!
NZ516 wrote:SFwatchTower wrote:SFwatchTower wrote:What's with ZK-NZC on NZ6004 AKL-SFO for (American Time) Friday Jan 7 2022?
It's out of sync with the usual NZ1008/NZ1007 flights on (American Time) Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday. I see ZK-NZL is slated for the usual NZ1008 flight for Jan 8 2022.
Alright so maybe this was for an Antarctica charter like last time in September viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1464367&hilit=new+zealand+September+2021&start=100#p22968941
It looks like the planes swapped routes. ZK-NZC flew NZ1007 and ZK-NZL is NZ1949 SFO-CHC. Neat!
Yes I noticed that flight too. Unusual to see SFO CHC flying in might be Antarctic bound pax. There was surprisingly a lot of NZ 789 flights in the early hours this morning ten all up.
On flight radar I counted 6 flying between NZ and North America and another 4 flying to and from Asia.
NZ321 wrote:Zkpilot wrote:NZ6 wrote:
I was just going to say, I think there's a strong misconception around the importance Star Alliance plays here.
DEN would likely be the more attractive option with or without UA. For starters it's significantly busier than SLC but that's partly due to UA transiting passengers through it.
Sort of begs the question - with EWR/ORD/IAH does NZ need another 'gateway' single transit in the US? Probably not!
DEN is arguably the winter sports capital of the US does that equal year round services or a a season service?
If NZ is looking to grow North America, would YYZ, IAD, SEA, ATL, MIA, BOS open new year round markets?
YYZ - maybe.
IAD/BOS - no - too far and not enough market that isn’t easily covered by other routes.
ATL/MIA - unlikely.
SEA - likely - much shorter than the other destinations. Is a relatively underserved market and is quite wealthy with a lot of big corporates. It also would take some pressure off YVR (2 hours or so drive).
In sync with my thoughts too; YYZ is potentially more attractive than IAD/BOS if EWR launches; not sure NZ needs another destination so far East in North America, but if it does, YYZ would be my pick.
SEA is the other stand out opportunity from my p.o.v; it may well be that it's close to YVR but they are, of course, in different countries and that presents additional logistics.
That's assuming there is a case for further expansion / diversification of routes to North America.
NZ6 wrote:It amazes me, how a throw away comment on a semi unrelated point turns into a realistic debate over new routes given we've not even commenced the one we announced 3 years ago yet and still have a closed border lol.
zkncj wrote:NZ516 wrote:SFwatchTower wrote:
Alright so maybe this was for an Antarctica charter like last time in September viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1464367&hilit=new+zealand+September+2021&start=100#p22968941
It looks like the planes swapped routes. ZK-NZC flew NZ1007 and ZK-NZL is NZ1949 SFO-CHC. Neat!
Yes I noticed that flight too. Unusual to see SFO CHC flying in might be Antarctic bound pax. There was surprisingly a lot of NZ 789 flights in the early hours this morning ten all up.
On flight radar I counted 6 flying between NZ and North America and another 4 flying to and from Asia.
NZ has done an regular cargo flights to the USA from CHC over the past year too.
Somedays NZ must really wish that an cheap BCF option for the 789 would come to the market, they seem to be the dreamliner cargo professionals at the moment.
zkncj wrote:NZ has done an regular cargo flights to the USA from CHC over the past year too.
Somedays NZ must really wish that an cheap BCF option for the 789 would come to the market, they seem to be the dreamliner cargo professionals at the moment.
SFwatchTower wrote:zkncj wrote:NZ516 wrote:
Yes I noticed that flight too. Unusual to see SFO CHC flying in might be Antarctic bound pax. There was surprisingly a lot of NZ 789 flights in the early hours this morning ten all up.
On flight radar I counted 6 flying between NZ and North America and another 4 flying to and from Asia.
NZ has done an regular cargo flights to the USA from CHC over the past year too.
Somedays NZ must really wish that an cheap BCF option for the 789 would come to the market, they seem to be the dreamliner cargo professionals at the moment.
Perhaps! I took a look at the air tonnage imported/exported on the transport ministry's website [1]. While the numbers for 2021 aren't published yet, the notable markets with biggest impact from the pandemic are Asia and Australia/Pacific markets from before the pandemic to now. It's just one data point to go by and not nearly enough information (e.g. economic conditions, monetary value of goods by tonnage/volume, is this loss partly attributed to the need for more cargo capacity on Aus/Pac/Asia routes) to go off of but perhaps a BCF - not necessarily 747, but even something smaller - might be adequate to recoup the lost tonnage.
I think the 2020 numbers from [1] might suggest that the MIAC has served NZ well (ANZ + other air carriers), especially the Americas, Europe, and the rest of the world markets. Hindsight is 2020 but would it have been helpful if the MIAC helped accelerate 1 or 2 ANZ 787 orders to facilitate cargo ops or even lease 1 or 2 to serve these markets? I'm sure the lease market was dirt cheap a for 2020-21.
[1] - https://www.transport.govt.nz/statistic ... lement-470
DavidByrne wrote:NZ6 wrote:It amazes me, how a throw away comment on a semi unrelated point turns into a realistic debate over new routes given we've not even commenced the one we announced 3 years ago yet and still have a closed border lol.
Not only that but people are proposing myriad new routes when we still have no idea at all what the demand level will be post-pandemic. While avgeeks and airlines are boosting the future prospects, the read I get from my friends, colleagues and family is that there is a LOT of caution about travel still very prevalent - even travel to Australia (though that’s understandable given the current covid situation there). When I mention my own future travel aspirations I get very negative feedback, suggesting I’m foolhardy or worse to even be thinking about it. I’d love to see some of these ideas come to fruition but I’m absolutely not holding my breath!
NZ516 wrote:News is out now on suggesting Boeing may increase the range of the 787-9 by 750-800NM and the 787-10 by 1000NM.
https://leehamnews.com/2022/01/05/hotr- ... the-787-9/
This will be a huge benefit for Air NZ operations based on a all 787 fleet. As with the planned retirement of the 77W in 5 years time.
NZ6 wrote:Travel will return and eventually it'll return to higher levels than before but how and when that happen is the real question.
GW54 wrote:With the number of domestic sectors being operated by NEO's currently it is highly likely that you will have WIFI available, Is anyone aware if there is a plan to equip the CEO's with WIFI?
ZK-NBT wrote:LamboAston wrote:ZK-NBT wrote:
You would think so wouldn’t you re using an A321LR fleet mainly on longer routes.
Not a great lot of routes for such an aircraft for NZ imo, ex AKL mainly wide bodies can be used while WLG has a short runway as mentioned so may not be a great use while CHC could do PER but where else? CHC-HNL is getting quite long as is CHC-DPS.
I'm not saying to use it like a regular 321, just that if needed it could operate a few shorter sectors between long ones.
Sure, my opinion and it is just that is that NZ don’t have many routes that need an A321LR or XLR to make it worth them purchasing a sub fleet of them.
aerojoe wrote:ZK-NBT wrote:LamboAston wrote:I'm not saying to use it like a regular 321, just that if needed it could operate a few shorter sectors between long ones.
Sure, my opinion and it is just that is that NZ don’t have many routes that need an A321LR or XLR to make it worth them purchasing a sub fleet of them.
My own view is similar. From what others have reported over time NZ has a strong reliance on belly cargo and so how would the A321 LR/XLR fir with this model on a route like CHC/PER?
DavidByrne wrote:NZ6 wrote:It amazes me, how a throw away comment on a semi unrelated point turns into a realistic debate over new routes given we've not even commenced the one we announced 3 years ago yet and still have a closed border lol.
Not only that but people are proposing myriad new routes when we still have no idea at all what the demand level will be post-pandemic. While avgeeks and airlines are boosting the future prospects, the read I get from my friends, colleagues and family is that there is a LOT of caution about travel still very prevalent - even travel to Australia (though that’s understandable given the current covid situation there). When I mention my own future travel aspirations I get very negative feedback, suggesting I’m foolhardy or worse to even be thinking about it. I’d love to see some of these ideas come to fruition but I’m absolutely not holding my breath!
NZ6 wrote:
Like I said last week, we're feed images of eye watering numbers out of Australia and have epidemiologists telling us nightly that we should almost be living in a level 4 type state of caution so it's understandable people feel the way they do. I wouldn't head over the Tasman right now, not just because of their current situation but also because I have no confidence that the border will remain open for me to return should the situation change. How much does that play in peoples minds.
Zkpilot wrote:Oh stop being such a negative Nancy as always David! We are talking about potential future routes once demand comes back - whenever that may be. Nobody is suggesting that they look at these routes before resuming previous North America routes…
anstar wrote:NZ6 wrote:
Like I said last week, we're feed images of eye watering numbers out of Australia and have epidemiologists telling us nightly that we should almost be living in a level 4 type state of caution so it's understandable people feel the way they do. I wouldn't head over the Tasman right now, not just because of their current situation but also because I have no confidence that the border will remain open for me to return should the situation change. How much does that play in peoples minds.
Sure case numbers are high and there are some supply chain issues due to the excessive requirement for close contacts to isolate causing staff shortages, but the bulk of infections are asymptomatic (ie they don't even realise they have it) or are mild. Things are open and life is going on. Its not this big scary place to visit.
Borders will remain open and lockdowns are over. Same can't be said for NZ... I'd be more scared going to NZ and having the rules change than vis versa.
