Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 12359
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Fri Dec 31, 2021 11:18 am

Welcome to the New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022. Please continue to add your comments below

Link to last thread

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1467403
 
NZ516
Posts: 993
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Fri Dec 31, 2021 6:36 pm

Predictions for NZ aviation in 2022 anyone it is not easy with so much uncertainty. Hopefully this year is better than the last.
 
zkncj
Posts: 4511
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Fri Dec 31, 2021 7:20 pm

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.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4682
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Sat Jan 01, 2022 12:18 am

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.

Cloth and medical masks are generally more about preventing the wearer from spreading disease etc, while N95 are more about protecting the wearer themselves. That said all masks help.
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 1224
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Sat Jan 01, 2022 11:28 pm

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. :P
 
NZ6
Posts: 2127
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Sun Jan 02, 2022 10:14 am

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. :P


Don't forget to remove a larger number of freight only flights from those movements :-)
 
NZ516
Posts: 993
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Sun Jan 02, 2022 10:39 am

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
Posts: 4511
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Sun Jan 02, 2022 8:01 pm

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
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 5:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Sun Jan 02, 2022 8:31 pm

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).


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
Posts: 4511
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Sun Jan 02, 2022 9:00 pm

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.[/quote]


Stands 78-79 = Gate 19/20?

It does seem pretty rear to see an ATR parked at Stands 7-11, 75-77, is there an limitation with the additional length of the ATR's at these stands?

https://www.aip.net.nz/assets/AIP/Aerod ... 1_53.2.pdf

WLG really needs to do an project to re-align there stand / gate numbers, they are all over the place.
 
NPL8800
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 5:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Sun Jan 02, 2022 10:38 pm

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.



Stands 78-79 = Gate 19/20?

It does seem pretty rear to see an ATR parked at Stands 7-11, 75-77, is there an limitation with the additional length of the ATR's at these stands?

https://www.aip.net.nz/assets/AIP/Aerod ... 1_53.2.pdf

WLG really needs to do an project to re-align there stand / gate numbers, they are all over the place.[/quote]

Stand 78-79 = Gates 18-19
Stands 75-77 are used daily by ATRs, you'll often see a combo of nose in Q300s and ATRs facing North/South (75-77 stands) simultaneously, ultimately it depends on what time of the day it is as to what configuration is used.

Wind plays a massive part as well. ATRs won't be placed nose in if the wind is anything more than mild really. Where possible, nose in is preferred as as you will see from the AIP charts 1 North/South stand takes up the equivalent of 2 nose in stands. Hence why 78-79 are ATR central.

The stand designators are pretty straightforward, from a passenger perspective they may seem foreign but it doesn't really matter as all you'll see is the gate number, simply put 72-79 are all self exit north/south facing stands that you'll see heavily used during high winds, and everything else matches the gate numbers and is either self exit or nose in/pushback.
 
User avatar
Kiwings
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2020 1:01 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Sun Jan 02, 2022 10:47 pm

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).


Though through fares can have benefits ,they also complicate things for the smaller carrier. The fare has to be pro-rated out which will inevitably result in a lower yield than a sector fare. There will be additional cost - accountingwise having g to work out the billings and charge Air NZ, lose of cashflow as the ticket will be most likely issued on NZ ticketstock. Plus the cost of setting up IET (Interline Electronic Ticketing) And will this actually increase sales for Sounds Air or Air Chats - probably not significantly.
 
NZ516
Posts: 993
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Mon Jan 03, 2022 11:05 am

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
Posts: 4511
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Mon Jan 03, 2022 5:21 pm

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?
 
NZ6
Posts: 2127
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Mon Jan 03, 2022 8:57 pm

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.


To play devil's advocate here - this could be dangerous territory for these smaller airlines.

While it's easy to assume it'll generate "extra revenue" via interline ticketing and "extra passengers" it also means they need to put their product into GDS and moving their IT systems over or at least be integrated with one.

Some of these guys don't have the operating cashflow and pax numbers to warrant this.

A few hypotheticals. WTZ - CDG business class. Delayed ex WTZ, misconnects at AKL. Rebooking accommodation at the expense of Barrier Air. That's almost worst case but even regular domestic connections could add up.

NZ inbound delay to TRG. Pax bound for WTZ, GBZ, WRE on Sunair. Overnight for several days or another NZ flight, road and/or overnighting via AKL. Can NZ be bothered with this?
 
User avatar
Kiwings
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2020 1:01 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Mon Jan 03, 2022 9:23 pm

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.
 
User avatar
Kiwings
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2020 1:01 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Mon Jan 03, 2022 9:47 pm

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.
 
NZ6
Posts: 2127
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Mon Jan 03, 2022 11:03 pm

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.


Through check is different to passenger care obligations with regard to miss connections etc. For single ticketed journey which has had a disrupt. the disrupting carrier has obligations to care for the customer. More so if it's domestic fare sold in NZ under our consumer law. What they are required to offer such as accommodation is dependent on the airline policy and if it's controllable or not.

There are some cases where through check is not possible but the disrupting airline is still accountable.
 
User avatar
Kiwings
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2020 1:01 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Tue Jan 04, 2022 12:10 am

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.
 
NZ6
Posts: 2127
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Tue Jan 04, 2022 1:14 am

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.


That's not correct. There's a few possible scenarios which can create confusion.

NZ-D- to NZ-I - Same ticket. NZ must rebook/reaccommodate your onward journey. If weather they won't cover accommodation etc. If engineering they will but will likely try keep you in WLG if that's home.
NZ-D to NZ-I different tickets, NZ doesn't have to rebook anything but will based on good customer experience.
NZ-D to KE-I - Same ticket. NZ must rebook you. Again if weather etc they won't cover hotels etc.
UA-D to NZ-I (southbound to NZ) different tickets. You're on your own unless UA want to own it.
UA-D to NZ-I (same ticket) UA to own and rebook/accommodate

Can't think of a carrier where you can't through check off the top of my head but WS was one at one point and may still be.
 
User avatar
Kiwings
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2020 1:01 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Tue Jan 04, 2022 7:57 am

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.
 
NZ516
Posts: 993
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Tue Jan 04, 2022 9:43 am

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?


Indeed that would be very suitable aircraft for this route. Then there could be two flights each way daily which would suit business travel saving accommodation costs etc. But the challenge is you need other routes to make it work so not just one. It might have to be a 5 E190s wet lease deal minimum from Alliance. I think they got 9 planned for use for Qantas. So some more new E190 routes will have to be included to make an operation viable. AKL to NSN would be a strong candidate plus new routes to ZQN.
I see that Alliance will eventually have a fleet of 32 E190s. So they might be looking for somewhere to place a few non allocated frames into service.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_Airlines#Fleet
 
NZ516
Posts: 993
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Tue Jan 04, 2022 10:19 am

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
 
a7ala
Posts: 438
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Tue Jan 04, 2022 7:44 pm

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).


Hence the need for the airport to go into the golf course to the east. The issue is only going to get worse in the future with the potential downgauging (or at least not upgauing as much as they have over the past decade) of aircraft as airline look to meet their climate commitments.
 
NZ6
Posts: 2127
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Tue Jan 04, 2022 8:52 pm

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.


I'm not sure what you're saying. If you're journey is on one ticket. The disrupting carrier is responsible to rebook any onward disrupted journey. If it's different tickets you're on your own. Some non ticketable expenses like hotels, meals etc will depend on the cause of the disruption. Essentially Controllable vs Non-Controllable.

But you cannot be told mid journey - sorry that's caused by weather go rebook yourself or leave it up to the carrier on the next leg to uplift and rebook. Although of course, if they want they can.

Airline through check is airline to airline specific. NZ interlines with most if not all major carriers irrespective of alliance. In fact alliances almost play no part in it.

Going back to the original point - so while you may not be able to check-in at WTZ for your flight to AKL which connects with NZ to HKG then onto AF to CDG in Business Class, if it's on one ticket and Sun Air going UX due engineering. They would need to rebook the passenger to their final destination.

My 'devil's advocate' argument was does this complicate life to these small airlines. Of course you could make it domestic to domestic only. We'd need to look at what the benefits were to both parties.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 2004
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Tue Jan 04, 2022 9:52 pm

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?).
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 2004
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Tue Jan 04, 2022 9:58 pm

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
Posts: 4511
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Tue Jan 04, 2022 10:34 pm

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
Posts: 2127
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Tue Jan 04, 2022 10:47 pm

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.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1897
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Wed Jan 05, 2022 4:09 am

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.

Perhaps a new owner of the RNZAF's two 757's will be using the extended runway, unless NZ lobbying scuppers?
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 8422
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Wed Jan 05, 2022 6:59 am

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.


Curious, wrong in which sense?
 
zkncj
Posts: 4511
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Wed Jan 05, 2022 7:32 pm

Todays MIQ release for rooms in March/April is excluding people who are in Australia. Hopefully that the delayed resumption of MIQ travel on the Tasman is back from March….

Apparently it is because there is no red flights on the Tasman in March/April. Although I’m sure that the government would be the one telling NZ when they can provided red flights m.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/miq-room- ... 6QPH4VCLA/
 
NZ6
Posts: 2127
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Wed Jan 05, 2022 9:01 pm

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
 
zkncj
Posts: 4511
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Wed Jan 05, 2022 9:13 pm

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
Posts: 2127
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Wed Jan 05, 2022 9:51 pm

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.


I think you're right re the numbers ordered

We'll never know re price. There was strong interest in the 787 so I doubt Boeing was ever going to struggle finding an interested launch customer. I think at the time many were surprised NZ was the launch customer given how many other carriers were in the mix with larger wallets and needs.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 8422
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Wed Jan 05, 2022 11:12 pm

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


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.

When did airbus launch the A350? At the time NZ ordered the 787 AIrbus could offer A330s, the 332 may have done ok to Asia where the 333 then would have left freight behind on some longer Asian routes, neither could have done LAX/SFO.

The A340 was a quad which NZ didn’t seem to have any interest in at all.

Heck I remember people here saying NZ should get a fleet of 4 A380s for LAX-LHR. While that would have been ‘cool’ it would have been potentially disastrous, NZ would have had close to 550 seats and would have meant LAX at 1 daily, maybe 3 additional weekly in summer to use the 4th aircraft.
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4930
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Thu Jan 06, 2022 12:13 am

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. :lol:

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.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 8422
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Thu Jan 06, 2022 5:35 am

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. :lol:

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.


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.

The problem if it were with an A359/351 fleet for a carrier like NZ is the 359 in a code 1 type configuration could have upwards of 350 seats, a code 2 could be handy with 320 while a 35K would be good at around 330 for LAX/SFO, the biggest issue seems as ZK-OJQ points out is the 'code 1' with so many seats into some of the markets it would serve.

I could see 2 configurations on the 789, a code 1.5 with a few more premium seats than the existing code 1 say 21J, 26W, 236Y, and a code 3 for ULH or more premium routes, LAX/SFO/IAH/ORD/EWR/SIN with again a few more premium seats than the current code 2, 30J, 40W, 188Y. Pretty basic maths but an extra row of J and W at the expense of 3 rows of Y. Then you could have a 78J for LAX/SFO with 42J, 47W, 236Y, give or take but same number of Y as the code 1 789 with additional premium seats +-.
 
zkncj
Posts: 4511
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Thu Jan 06, 2022 5:51 am

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
Posts: 8422
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Thu Jan 06, 2022 6:27 am

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.


From what I gather they planned to have 3 in AKL as backup if needed, I am not sure if there are still current crews on SIMS?

I doubt space is much of an issue atm. They have always moved from time to time every few weeks usually to turn the tires and keep up general short storage maintenance.
 
Deepinsider
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:36 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Thu Jan 06, 2022 11:17 am

What I don't understand is why they don't just fly them now and again. Even instead of a 789 to OZ and back.
The fuel consumption difference can surely not be so much as to risk airworthiness damage due to storage.
Crewing not an issue, they are pretty near identical normal/non normal procedures to the 789, with many
of those pilots ex 777 anyway.
 
NZ6
Posts: 2127
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Thu Jan 06, 2022 9:20 pm

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
Posts: 8422
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Thu Jan 06, 2022 9:29 pm

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


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.

SGN was a 763 for a year from memory 3 weekly then a 789 for 2 years at 2 weekly?
 
NZ6
Posts: 2127
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:09 am

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.
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4930
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:14 am

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.
 
zkncj
Posts: 4511
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Fri Jan 07, 2022 2:41 am

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.


AKL-CHT is just over 1000km direct, with NPE being around 700km from CHT (probably the closest diversion port from CHT).

For years the CV580s were allowed to carry passengers to to NLK, take it they have an special exemption?
 
User avatar
SLCaviation
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2021 12:24 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Fri Jan 07, 2022 4:36 am

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.


SLC? You think that they could do Salt Lake City?
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4930
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Fri Jan 07, 2022 5:30 am

SLCaviation wrote:

SLC? You think that they could do Salt Lake City?


It's a hypothetical.
Last edited by zkojq on Fri Jan 07, 2022 5:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
SLCaviation
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2021 12:24 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Fri Jan 07, 2022 5:31 am

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.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 8422
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - January 2022

Fri Jan 07, 2022 5:33 am

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.


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.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

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

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

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

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

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

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

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos