ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

Sprite8806 wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

As a Wellingtonian who’d love to see more airlines coming to WLG? A non zero chance, but I’d hardly be holding my breath. I just don’t see WLG getting much more direct service than it has already. If you did a major runway lengthening that would change. The chances of that happening are increasingly slim though. Trans Tasman direct and high frequency connections to AKL with battery electric aircraft are the future I see.

Why do people on this forum keep saying Wellington is useless as an International airport because you can just connect with CHC and AKL? Has the past few years not proven that direct/point to point is the future? People don't want to transit through AKL or CHC, they want to go direct to WLG.
I still think the whole 2040 Expansion and the runway expansion will happen, WIAL and the Government knows if they don't do it they will never evolve into anything more than what it already is.

Because without the runway extension there's no way to support larger aircraft. And unless you want to cut the top off of Newlands you have to extend into the Cook Strait. Upping the cost even more. Wellington also has bigger things to deal with than better flight options. Housing and regional public transport are what people here give a damn about. Not having non stop flight to Singapore or the US.

Do I want it emotionally as an avgeek? Of course. Have I been convinced it's a high enough priority that we should spend money and time on doing it instead of other things? No. It just does not make logical sense when put alongside other demands of time and resource in the region.

There’s still the unanswered question of whether the current runway could support non-stop A350 service to Asian hubs such as Singapore. The study commissioned by the airport company said not – landing distance was the problem from what I recall. But SQ subsequently launched A350 service (via Melbourne) which didn’t seem to have any problems. In an earlier thread Zeke – who should know – quoted operational data suggesting the A350 could comfortably carry full pax out of Wellington to a number of Asian destinations. I’ve never seen a satisfactory answer to why the airport company still says it needs more runway length.

tealnz wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

Sprite8806 wrote:

Why do people on this forum keep saying Wellington is useless as an International airport because you can just connect with CHC and AKL? Has the past few years not proven that direct/point to point is the future? People don't want to transit through AKL or CHC, they want to go direct to WLG.
I still think the whole 2040 Expansion and the runway expansion will happen, WIAL and the Government knows if they don't do it they will never evolve into anything more than what it already is.

Because without the runway extension there's no way to support larger aircraft. And unless you want to cut the top off of Newlands you have to extend into the Cook Strait. Upping the cost even more. Wellington also has bigger things to deal with than better flight options. Housing and regional public transport are what people here give a damn about. Not having non stop flight to Singapore or the US.

Do I want it emotionally as an avgeek? Of course. Have I been convinced it's a high enough priority that we should spend money and time on doing it instead of other things? No. It just does not make logical sense when put alongside other demands of time and resource in the region.

There’s still the unanswered question of whether the current runway could support non-stop A350 service to Asian hubs such as Singapore. The study commissioned by the airport company said not – landing distance was the problem from what I recall. But SQ subsequently launched A350 service (via Melbourne) which didn’t seem to have any problems. In an earlier thread Zeke – who should know – quoted operational data suggesting the A350 could comfortably carry full pax out of Wellington to a number of Asian destinations. I’ve never seen a satisfactory answer to why the airport company still says it needs more runway length.

If the runway is extended it will be horrendously expensive.
A huge expense that will require to be recouped.
And if the additional flights to far off destinations do not generate enough income to offset these costs then these costs will have to be recouped elsewhere, like more expensive charges for the Q300 flights to Blenheim, or Sounds Air Caravans, to Picton just so they can take off fully loaded and then land again all on the same run down the runway.

Air Canada’s YVR—AKL initially planned to start 1 Dec 22 with 4 weekly 787-8 will now start on 10 Nov 2, 3 weekly 787-9 and will increase to 5 weekly 787-9 from 1 Dec 22

https://aeroroutes.com/eng/220514-acnw22auoz

tealnz wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

Sprite8806 wrote:

Why do people on this forum keep saying Wellington is useless as an International airport because you can just connect with CHC and AKL? Has the past few years not proven that direct/point to point is the future? People don't want to transit through AKL or CHC, they want to go direct to WLG.
I still think the whole 2040 Expansion and the runway expansion will happen, WIAL and the Government knows if they don't do it they will never evolve into anything more than what it already is.

Because without the runway extension there's no way to support larger aircraft. And unless you want to cut the top off of Newlands you have to extend into the Cook Strait. Upping the cost even more. Wellington also has bigger things to deal with than better flight options. Housing and regional public transport are what people here give a damn about. Not having non stop flight to Singapore or the US.

Do I want it emotionally as an avgeek? Of course. Have I been convinced it's a high enough priority that we should spend money and time on doing it instead of other things? No. It just does not make logical sense when put alongside other demands of time and resource in the region.

There’s still the unanswered question of whether the current runway could support non-stop A350 service to Asian hubs such as Singapore. The study commissioned by the airport company said not – landing distance was the problem from what I recall. But SQ subsequently launched A350 service (via Melbourne) which didn’t seem to have any problems. In an earlier thread Zeke – who should know – quoted operational data suggesting the A350 could comfortably carry full pax out of Wellington to a number of Asian destinations. I’ve never seen a satisfactory answer to why the airport company still says it needs more runway length.

The problem isn’t landing. The problem is taking off with enough fuel for a non stop. From memory, that study had the current runway just long enough to do a non stop for an A350 if the conditions were ok. If conditions were not ok then you’d need a tech stop.

And as noted by Tonega, a runway extension would only be of use for longer range planes which will not want to pay for major extra fees if they don’t have to. Also any extension will have to address the runway overrun limitations that Wellington has. The pilot’s association has already taken WIAL to court preemptively on any extension having to include the full runway overrun. Not the minimum allowed that they currently have. That means any extension will not increase the usable runway length by the same amount.

12 May 2022 XFW-Spotter photo of ZK-OYA (msn 10963), Air NZ's first Domestic A321-271NX. No Wifi radome.

https://aibfamily.flights/A320/10963

PA515

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

tealnz wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

Because without the runway extension there's no way to support larger aircraft. And unless you want to cut the top off of Newlands you have to extend into the Cook Strait. Upping the cost even more. Wellington also has bigger things to deal with than better flight options. Housing and regional public transport are what people here give a damn about. Not having non stop flight to Singapore or the US.

Do I want it emotionally as an avgeek? Of course. Have I been convinced it's a high enough priority that we should spend money and time on doing it instead of other things? No. It just does not make logical sense when put alongside other demands of time and resource in the region.

There’s still the unanswered question of whether the current runway could support non-stop A350 service to Asian hubs such as Singapore. The study commissioned by the airport company said not – landing distance was the problem from what I recall. But SQ subsequently launched A350 service (via Melbourne) which didn’t seem to have any problems. In an earlier thread Zeke – who should know – quoted operational data suggesting the A350 could comfortably carry full pax out of Wellington to a number of Asian destinations. I’ve never seen a satisfactory answer to why the airport company still says it needs more runway length.

The problem isn’t landing. The problem is taking off with enough fuel for a non stop. From memory, that study had the current runway just long enough to do a non stop for an A350 if the conditions were ok. If conditions were not ok then you’d need a tech stop.

And as noted by Tonega, a runway extension would only be of use for longer range planes which will not want to pay for major extra fees if they don’t have to. Also any extension will have to address the runway overrun limitations that Wellington has. The pilot’s association has already taken WIAL to court preemptively on any extension having to include the full runway overrun. Not the minimum allowed that they currently have. That means any extension will not increase the usable runway length by the same amount.

Just checked the original comment from Zeke:

I ran some numbers on the Airbus performance database, off the current 16 it will takeoff with 255.5 tonnes dry and 245.0 wet. Off a dry runway 16 it will do PEK with 315 pax and 9.1 tonnes of payload, flight time of 12.43 (assumed 6000 air nautical miles).

I ran the landing distance calculations, the A350-900 will be able to land on 16 at MLW in 5418 ft.

So I dont put too much value into the report.

By contrast the Astral report claimed “Takeoff not practical existing runway nil wind when wet” for both 16 and 34.

I haven’t seen Zeke’s data contradicted. And SQ subsequently operated the A350 out of Wellington, albeit on the relatively short hop to Melbourne which to say the least undercuts Astral’s original claim. So to go back to where I started, we’re still left with the question (taking account of Zeke’s data) why an A350 couldn’t operate to Singapore and comparable Asian destinations non-stop from Wellington with viable payload off the existing runway.

NPL8800 wrote:

Since I can't recall seeing it posted here. New baggage and transport centre underway. $100+m on the baggage system alone will get them some decent kit, nice to see them going for a tried and tested product vs some of the gimmicky options out there that are trying to get a foothold in the market. The high speed and extensive storage ability will be a real asset for those who arrive early but don't depart for quite a few hours.

https://corporate.aucklandairport.co.nz ... s-up-again

This will be a huge improvement on the old AKL baggage handling facility. Plus the other projects like the new domestic jet pier can't come soon enough still 5 years away. The second runway is still on hold unfortunately though.

NZ516 wrote:

NPL8800 wrote:

Since I can't recall seeing it posted here. New baggage and transport centre underway. $100+m on the baggage system alone will get them some decent kit, nice to see them going for a tried and tested product vs some of the gimmicky options out there that are trying to get a foothold in the market. The high speed and extensive storage ability will be a real asset for those who arrive early but don't depart for quite a few hours.

https://corporate.aucklandairport.co.nz ... s-up-again

This will be a huge improvement on the old AKL baggage handling facility. Plus the other projects like the new domestic jet pier can't come soon enough still 5 years away. The second runway is still on hold unfortunately though.

Here's my prediction...

We'll recover faster than expected from COVID and we'll be caught with our pants down in 24 months time. There's some estimates now that demand could be that of pre COVID levels as early as next year.

The second runway and domestic pier should be a priority. There's a lot of turbo prob movements at AKL which are effected by the larger jets and the domestic terminal as we know has been over capacity for the last 10+ years.

I've always wondered if it'll get to the point where NZ takes over the JQ gates at AKL and JQ move to hard stands with bus connections.

NZ6 wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

NPL8800 wrote:

Since I can't recall seeing it posted here. New baggage and transport centre underway. $100+m on the baggage system alone will get them some decent kit, nice to see them going for a tried and tested product vs some of the gimmicky options out there that are trying to get a foothold in the market. The high speed and extensive storage ability will be a real asset for those who arrive early but don't depart for quite a few hours.

https://corporate.aucklandairport.co.nz ... s-up-again

This will be a huge improvement on the old AKL baggage handling facility. Plus the other projects like the new domestic jet pier can't come soon enough still 5 years away. The second runway is still on hold unfortunately though.

Here's my prediction...

We'll recover faster than expected from COVID and we'll be caught with our pants down in 24 months time. There's some estimates now that demand could be that of pre COVID levels as early as next year.

The second runway and domestic pier should be a priority. There's a lot of turbo prob movements at AKL which are effected by the larger jets and the domestic terminal as we know has been over capacity for the last 10+ years.

I've always wondered if it'll get to the point where NZ takes over the JQ gates at AKL and JQ move to hard stands with bus connections.

I don’t think it’ll reach pre-COVID levels that fast (simply because globally so much capacity has been retired), but I agree it will bounce back strongly and NZ will be needing those new 787s pronto with the 77E fleet gone and 1x 77W gone.

Zkpilot wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

This will be a huge improvement on the old AKL baggage handling facility. Plus the other projects like the new domestic jet pier can't come soon enough still 5 years away. The second runway is still on hold unfortunately though.

Here's my prediction...

We'll recover faster than expected from COVID and we'll be caught with our pants down in 24 months time. There's some estimates now that demand could be that of pre COVID levels as early as next year.

The second runway and domestic pier should be a priority. There's a lot of turbo prob movements at AKL which are effected by the larger jets and the domestic terminal as we know has been over capacity for the last 10+ years.

I've always wondered if it'll get to the point where NZ takes over the JQ gates at AKL and JQ move to hard stands with bus connections.

I don’t think it’ll reach pre-COVID levels that fast (simply because globally so much capacity has been retired), but I agree it will bounce back strongly and NZ will be needing those new 787s pronto with the 77E fleet gone and 1x 77W gone.

Yeah I choose the word "demand" carefully because NZ won't be able to meet that for a while, so watch prices go up is my prediction.

It's yet to be seen where some other carriers sit with regard to our region. EK and AC haven't shown the market is perhaps better than anticipated.

Just flew into CHC from BNE and the flight was very expensive and full. Apparently the demand is high and supply doesn’t seem to catch up at the moment. Hopefully things improve when there’s more flights from June.

Immigration was easy and not stressed at all as long as you sort all the declaration pre-departure on your app.

NZ6 wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

NPL8800 wrote:

Since I can't recall seeing it posted here. New baggage and transport centre underway. $100+m on the baggage system alone will get them some decent kit, nice to see them going for a tried and tested product vs some of the gimmicky options out there that are trying to get a foothold in the market. The high speed and extensive storage ability will be a real asset for those who arrive early but don't depart for quite a few hours.

https://corporate.aucklandairport.co.nz ... s-up-again

This will be a huge improvement on the old AKL baggage handling facility. Plus the other projects like the new domestic jet pier can't come soon enough still 5 years away. The second runway is still on hold unfortunately though.

Here's my prediction...

We'll recover faster than expected from COVID and we'll be caught with our pants down in 24 months time. There's some estimates now that demand could be that of pre COVID levels as early as next year.

The second runway and domestic pier should be a priority. There's a lot of turbo prob movements at AKL which are effected by the larger jets and the domestic terminal as we know has been over capacity for the last 10+ years.

I've always wondered if it'll get to the point where NZ takes over the JQ gates at AKL and JQ move to hard stands with bus connections.

Curious to know where the logic comes from that it should be JQ who would have to/should move to a vastly inferior operational/passenger experience.

Having been heavily involved in apron management in the past I have no doubt there is still plenty of capacity at the aerobridge stands at AKL domestic, its a matter of how they're been allocated. For example parking a 3-7hr turn (which is very common) on an aerobridge stand is not great use of a resource at all, it's those kind of flights that should be getting towed off to hard stands and brought back when ready.

Towing is standard practice overseas yet intriguingly in NZ it seems to get relegated to the too hard basket more often than not.

NPL8800 wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

This will be a huge improvement on the old AKL baggage handling facility. Plus the other projects like the new domestic jet pier can't come soon enough still 5 years away. The second runway is still on hold unfortunately though.

Here's my prediction...

We'll recover faster than expected from COVID and we'll be caught with our pants down in 24 months time. There's some estimates now that demand could be that of pre COVID levels as early as next year.

The second runway and domestic pier should be a priority. There's a lot of turbo prob movements at AKL which are effected by the larger jets and the domestic terminal as we know has been over capacity for the last 10+ years.

I've always wondered if it'll get to the point where NZ takes over the JQ gates at AKL and JQ move to hard stands with bus connections.

Curious to know where the logic comes from that it should be JQ who would have to/should move to a vastly inferior operational/passenger experience.

Having been heavily involved in apron management in the past I have no doubt there is still plenty of capacity at the aerobridge stands at AKL domestic, its a matter of how they're been allocated. For example parking a 3-7hr turn (which is very common) on an aerobridge stand is not great use of a resource at all, it's those kind of flights that should be getting towed off to hard stands and brought back when ready.

Towing is standard practice overseas yet intriguingly in NZ it seems to get relegated to the too hard basket more often than not.

Peak can be different though, lack of gates or aircraft sitting on taxi-ways waiting for a gate to be clear was very common.

Why JQ - well I'm sure NZ has deeper pockets in NZ and more say with AIAL.

Let's not over think this too much - all I'm saying is NZ is the biggest carrier and gate availability was a mess prior to COVID and we're not far of being back there. Belts reaching over capacity and shutting down due to this, early check-in was closed so bags weren't stored earlier than needed... the list goes on.

Could/Would or Should NZ cough up more money and use these gates which are otherwise used by a "LCC" to improve OTP and improve their network?

if a new terminal is 5+ years away... were will we be with another 5 years?

If the need arises - would NZ be happy with hard stands and buses? Perhaps they will. But I'd imagine a few fingers and eyes would be pointed towards the JQ gates. They don't own them after all.

Zkpilot wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

This will be a huge improvement on the old AKL baggage handling facility. Plus the other projects like the new domestic jet pier can't come soon enough still 5 years away. The second runway is still on hold unfortunately though.

Here's my prediction...

We'll recover faster than expected from COVID and we'll be caught with our pants down in 24 months time. There's some estimates now that demand could be that of pre COVID levels as early as next year.

The second runway and domestic pier should be a priority. There's a lot of turbo prob movements at AKL which are effected by the larger jets and the domestic terminal as we know has been over capacity for the last 10+ years.

I've always wondered if it'll get to the point where NZ takes over the JQ gates at AKL and JQ move to hard stands with bus connections.

I don’t think it’ll reach pre-COVID levels that fast (simply because globally so much capacity has been retired), but I agree it will bounce back strongly and NZ will be needing those new 787s pronto with the 77E fleet gone and 1x 77W gone.

Last year when I caught domestic flights in Norway they would be at best half empty, today those same flights will be almost full. I believe we'll be back to pre covid levels sometime next year, if not earlier.

NZ6 wrote:

NPL8800 wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Here's my prediction...

We'll recover faster than expected from COVID and we'll be caught with our pants down in 24 months time. There's some estimates now that demand could be that of pre COVID levels as early as next year.

The second runway and domestic pier should be a priority. There's a lot of turbo prob movements at AKL which are effected by the larger jets and the domestic terminal as we know has been over capacity for the last 10+ years.

I've always wondered if it'll get to the point where NZ takes over the JQ gates at AKL and JQ move to hard stands with bus connections.

Curious to know where the logic comes from that it should be JQ who would have to/should move to a vastly inferior operational/passenger experience.

Having been heavily involved in apron management in the past I have no doubt there is still plenty of capacity at the aerobridge stands at AKL domestic, its a matter of how they're been allocated. For example parking a 3-7hr turn (which is very common) on an aerobridge stand is not great use of a resource at all, it's those kind of flights that should be getting towed off to hard stands and brought back when ready.

Towing is standard practice overseas yet intriguingly in NZ it seems to get relegated to the too hard basket more often than not.

Peak can be different though, lack of gates or aircraft sitting on taxi-ways waiting for a gate to be clear was very common.

Why JQ - well I'm sure NZ has deeper pockets in NZ and more say with AIAL.

Let's not over think this too much - all I'm saying is NZ is the biggest carrier and gate availability was a mess prior to COVID and we're not far of being back there. Belts reaching over capacity and shutting down due to this, early check-in was closed so bags weren't stored earlier than needed... the list goes on.

Could/Would or Should NZ cough up more money and use these gates which are otherwise used by a "LCC" to improve OTP and improve their network?

if a new terminal is 5+ years away... were will we be with another 5 years?

If the need arises - would NZ be happy with hard stands and buses? Perhaps they will. But I'd imagine a few fingers and eyes would be pointed towards the JQ gates. They don't own them after all.

I’ve previously said that with its smaller and simpler operation, it would make sense for JQ to move over to the new terminal as it starts to near completion for stage 1. They only need a few gates to be ready.
That would free up more space for NZ in the interim (and make more use out of assets such as the new regional lounge etc), then NZ can move over when the terminal is ready for a bigger operation.

Has anyone here actually travelled since MIQ was abolished? Just done AKL-DXB, DXB-GLA, EDI-MXP and MXP-AKL. Every flight and airport was packed....ok maybe not AKL. We'll be back to pre Covid levels in no time, the problem being New Zealand's inability to get a move on like the rest of the world already has.

NPL8800 wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

This will be a huge improvement on the old AKL baggage handling facility. Plus the other projects like the new domestic jet pier can't come soon enough still 5 years away. The second runway is still on hold unfortunately though.

Here's my prediction...

We'll recover faster than expected from COVID and we'll be caught with our pants down in 24 months time. There's some estimates now that demand could be that of pre COVID levels as early as next year.

The second runway and domestic pier should be a priority. There's a lot of turbo prob movements at AKL which are effected by the larger jets and the domestic terminal as we know has been over capacity for the last 10+ years.

I've always wondered if it'll get to the point where NZ takes over the JQ gates at AKL and JQ move to hard stands with bus connections.

Curious to know where the logic comes from that it should be JQ who would have to/should move to a vastly inferior operational/passenger experience.

Having been heavily involved in apron management in the past I have no doubt there is still plenty of capacity at the aerobridge stands at AKL domestic, its a matter of how they're been allocated. For example parking a 3-7hr turn (which is very common) on an aerobridge stand is not great use of a resource at all, it's those kind of flights that should be getting towed off to hard stands and brought back when ready.

Towing is standard practice overseas yet intriguingly in NZ it seems to get relegated to the too hard basket more often than not.

I think it will be like any company/group. It will remain in the too hard basket until it becomes the easiest way to address capacity. As you mention, it's done commonly overseas so there's nothing stopping AIAL from doing it beyond implementing the processes and training people up. I don't think it's some inherent hate against it, just that other options are viewed as being easier with less overhead in the meantime. I'm sure ATC and insurers would prefer fewer apron movements for example. But at some point the demands will become high enough that the extra risk and overhead will become acceptable to introduce.

Hi, does anyone here know the history of New Zealand's RESA requirements? I was interested to see that in the US the FAA stipulates a 1,000 foot (circa 300m) RESA, and in New Zealand it seems to be a 60m strip plus 240m RESA (total 300m).

Is the 60m strip just the same as RESA, or does it have another purpose? I was wondering if the CAA originally put in the requirement for the 60m strip when RESA's werent required, but when globally the requirement for 300m was introduced the CAA just decided to add 240m to the existing 60m to meet the 300m.

Thanks

The minimum is 90m but recommended is 300m. Hence why places like WLG can have such short ones without land reclamation or shrinking of usable runway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway_safety_area

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

The minimum is 90m but recommended is 300m. Hence why places like WLG can have such short ones without land reclamation or shrinking of usable runway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway_safety_area

I thought it worked like this:

Minimum 90m (150m including 60m strip), Recommended 240m (300m including 60m strip).

So in effect WLG has 150m safety area of the 300m (90m RESA + 60m strip).

Qatar to increase DOH-ADL-AKL to 5 weekly from 1 July 22

https://aeroroutes.com/eng/220516-qrjul22adlakl

a7ala wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

The minimum is 90m but recommended is 300m. Hence why places like WLG can have such short ones without land reclamation or shrinking of usable runway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway_safety_area

I thought it worked like this:

Minimum 90m (150m including 60m strip), Recommended 240m (300m including 60m strip).

So in effect WLG has 150m safety area of the 300m (90m RESA + 60m strip).

Didn't the pilots union say if any extension went ahead, they would hold the airport to the 300m requirement; negating much of the benefit of the extension?

a7ala wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

The minimum is 90m but recommended is 300m. Hence why places like WLG can have such short ones without land reclamation or shrinking of usable runway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway_safety_area

I thought it worked like this:

Minimum 90m (150m including 60m strip), Recommended 240m (300m including 60m strip).

So in effect WLG has 150m safety area of the 300m (90m RESA + 60m strip).

Sorry reading that WIKI site suggests:

- FAA says RESA 300m
- ICAO says RESA 240m + 60m Strip=300m

So in WLG's case its 150m of the FAA's 300m, or its 90m+60m of the ICAO's (and CAA's) 240m+60m.

77west wrote:

a7ala wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

The minimum is 90m but recommended is 300m. Hence why places like WLG can have such short ones without land reclamation or shrinking of usable runway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway_safety_area

I thought it worked like this:

Minimum 90m (150m including 60m strip), Recommended 240m (300m including 60m strip).

So in effect WLG has 150m safety area of the 300m (90m RESA + 60m strip).

Didn't the pilots union say if any extension went ahead, they would hold the airport to the 300m requirement; negating much of the benefit of the extension?

Yeah so in the case of WLG its an additional 150m of RESA at each end given they already have 90+60=150m

a7ala wrote:

77west wrote:

a7ala wrote:

I thought it worked like this:

Minimum 90m (150m including 60m strip), Recommended 240m (300m including 60m strip).

So in effect WLG has 150m safety area of the 300m (90m RESA + 60m strip).

Didn't the pilots union say if any extension went ahead, they would hold the airport to the 300m requirement; negating much of the benefit of the extension?

Yeah so in the case of WLG its an additional 150m of RESA at each end given they already have 90+60=150m

So really to get 300m usable runway, they would have had to extend 600m out into the bay at the southern end, and bring the northern end threshold back 150m?

77west wrote:

a7ala wrote:

77west wrote:

Didn't the pilots union say if any extension went ahead, they would hold the airport to the 300m requirement; negating much of the benefit of the extension?

Yeah so in the case of WLG its an additional 150m of RESA at each end given they already have 90+60=150m

So really to get 300m usable runway, they would have had to extend 600m out into the bay at the southern end, and bring the northern end threshold back 150m?

Bingo. Meaning the cost goes up even further that would only be recouped by long haul flights. The Pilot's Association went to the High Court for a pre-emptive ruling that the 90m could only be used for existing runways. That any extension would be required to extend to the full length.

Edit: Memory was a bit off. The Supreme Court only said that the CAA had to take safety into account. The actual length would be up to them. However it still clearly indicates WIAL wouldn't get away with just keeping the 90m. https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indust ... way-ruling

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

77west wrote:

a7ala wrote:

Yeah so in the case of WLG its an additional 150m of RESA at each end given they already have 90+60=150m

So really to get 300m usable runway, they would have had to extend 600m out into the bay at the southern end, and bring the northern end threshold back 150m?

Bingo. Meaning the cost goes up even further that would only be recouped by long haul flights. The Pilot's Association went to the High Court for a pre-emptive ruling that the 90m could only be used for existing runways. That any extension would be required to extend to the full length.

Edit: Memory was a bit off. The Supreme Court only said that the CAA had to take safety into account. The actual length would be up to them. However it still clearly indicates WIAL wouldn't get away with just keeping the 90m. https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indust ... way-ruling

It does really make the whole thing a bit questionable. And telling the opponents that 300m has become 600m would be a tough one to pull off.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

NPL8800 wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Here's my prediction...

We'll recover faster than expected from COVID and we'll be caught with our pants down in 24 months time. There's some estimates now that demand could be that of pre COVID levels as early as next year.

The second runway and domestic pier should be a priority. There's a lot of turbo prob movements at AKL which are effected by the larger jets and the domestic terminal as we know has been over capacity for the last 10+ years.

I've always wondered if it'll get to the point where NZ takes over the JQ gates at AKL and JQ move to hard stands with bus connections.

Curious to know where the logic comes from that it should be JQ who would have to/should move to a vastly inferior operational/passenger experience.

Having been heavily involved in apron management in the past I have no doubt there is still plenty of capacity at the aerobridge stands at AKL domestic, its a matter of how they're been allocated. For example parking a 3-7hr turn (which is very common) on an aerobridge stand is not great use of a resource at all, it's those kind of flights that should be getting towed off to hard stands and brought back when ready.

Towing is standard practice overseas yet intriguingly in NZ it seems to get relegated to the too hard basket more often than not.

I think it will be like any company/group. It will remain in the too hard basket until it becomes the easiest way to address capacity. As you mention, it's done commonly overseas so there's nothing stopping AIAL from doing it beyond implementing the processes and training people up. I don't think it's some inherent hate against it, just that other options are viewed as being easier with less overhead in the meantime. I'm sure ATC and insurers would prefer fewer apron movements for example. But at some point the demands will become high enough that the extra risk and overhead will become acceptable to introduce.

Towing is generally the responsibility of the airline engineers vs the airport company (if the airport company had a ground handling firm which is sometimes the case and then won the contract with an airline this would be a different matter) itself so would be on them to allocate resources accordingly which is where I suspect there may be some reluctance, as you say its likely seen as easier to leave an aircraft on a stand than move it elsewhere temporarily to return later on in the day.

However if that's the case it's certainly fair of the airport itself to in turn be reluctant to invest in more costly infrastructure to deal with a peak period whose length (whilst regular) could well be short in nature, which could be remedied via improved operations and practices than simply spending more money, public transport faces a similar dilemma where money and resources get poured into peak periods yet lie underutilised throughout the remaining 20hrs of the day in some cases, it's a fascinating and tricky balancing act.

Same goes for other systems such as baggage, you could invest in the world's most sophisticated system but if there's not enough staff to load the cans or barrows at the other end, your system will still back up and stop.

Anybody know any more about this https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-t ... n-auckland ?
From flightaware it appears that 2 QR flights landed on Sunday but instead of leaving they are both in Auckland and scheduled to leave on Wednesday.

wstakl wrote:

Has anyone here actually travelled since MIQ was abolished? Just done AKL-DXB, DXB-GLA, EDI-MXP and MXP-AKL. Every flight and airport was packed....ok maybe not AKL. We'll be back to pre Covid levels in no time, the problem being New Zealand's inability to get a move on like the rest of the world already has.

Isn’t there an international pilot/crew shortage? It’s little wonder flights are full if they can’t provide sufficient capacity because there’s nobody to fly the planes. Even if they had plenty of crew, it’s not like they’re going to schedule a bunch of extra flights and have them half empty…

Trying to book some Tasman flights (ex AKL) in the next 4-6 weeks on NZ seems near impossible.

Hopefully they get the 77W’s back into service soon for the AKL-BNE/SYD/MEL AM runs. The 789 seem to keep getting sold out, on a these routes.

https://aeroroutes.com/eng/220516-nzjul22lax

77W now loaded 3x weekly to LAX from July, daily from August. Not sure on short haul yet.

Seems once bonus on covid, NZ has reviewed the meals on the post 9am departures to Australia.

On NZ141 (AKL-BNE) is now an lunch flight, for years these were breakfast based on you left AKL. Lunch does seem to be a much better fit, as your arriving into the East Coast states just before lunch time. Like you had already had breakfast being an 9:30am departure.

zkncj wrote:

Seems once bonus on covid, NZ has reviewed the meals on the post 9am departures to Australia.

On NZ141 (AKL-BNE) is now an lunch flight, for years these were breakfast based on you left AKL. Lunch does seem to be a much better fit, as your arriving into the East Coast states just before lunch time. Like you had already had breakfast being an 9:30am departure.

I flew AKL/BNE in PE 2 weeks ago and we had breakfast. Eggs were pretty bad and with feta mixed through making them white, it was not visually appealing. The potato cake was burnt outside and raw / floury in the middle, very disappointing and largely inedible. Biz on the way home was much better being lunch, the beef cheeks were great!

Went to SIN last week in PE, same beef cheeks on the12.15am departure, but still tasted good. Again biz on the way home, very good food all round including the return of the nice club sandwiches - very good! Must say SIN terminal was quite empty at 7am but typically it always was pre-covid. AKL was a ghost town on the way home arriving about 10pm

I agree with others here, all flights were full in every class, just booked to MEL for the Bledisloe in Sept, no PE/Biz available in either direction so demand is certainly there

bevan7 wrote:

Anybody know any more about this https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-t ... n-auckland ?
From flightaware it appears that 2 QR flights landed on Sunday but instead of leaving they are both in Auckland and scheduled to leave on Wednesday.

Just read this, sounds dodgy to me like there may have been an issue in Doha but they flew on anyhow, then realized the issue was bigger than they thought?

77west wrote:

bevan7 wrote:

Anybody know any more about this https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-t ... n-auckland ?
From flightaware it appears that 2 QR flights landed on Sunday but instead of leaving they are both in Auckland and scheduled to leave on Wednesday.

Just read this, sounds dodgy to me like there may have been an issue in Doha but they flew on anyhow, then realized the issue was bigger than they thought?

There was two 77W’s in AKL today, one was down at the hangar having its wing worked on.

ZK-NBT wrote:

https://aeroroutes.com/eng/220516-nzjul22lax

77W now loaded 3x weekly to LAX from July, daily from August. Not sure on short haul yet.

Seems like it the 77W is loaded for AKL to MEL daily from 20th of June

NZ6 wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

NPL8800 wrote:

Since I can't recall seeing it posted here. New baggage and transport centre underway. $100+m on the baggage system alone will get them some decent kit, nice to see them going for a tried and tested product vs some of the gimmicky options out there that are trying to get a foothold in the market. The high speed and extensive storage ability will be a real asset for those who arrive early but don't depart for quite a few hours.

https://corporate.aucklandairport.co.nz ... s-up-again

This will be a huge improvement on the old AKL baggage handling facility. Plus the other projects like the new domestic jet pier can't come soon enough still 5 years away. The second runway is still on hold unfortunately though.

Here's my prediction...

We'll recover faster than expected from COVID and we'll be caught with our pants down in 24 months time. There's some estimates now that demand could be that of pre COVID levels as early as next year.

The second runway and domestic pier should be a priority. There's a lot of turbo prob movements at AKL which are effected by the larger jets and the domestic terminal as we know has been over capacity for the last 10+ years.

I've always wondered if it'll get to the point where NZ takes over the JQ gates at AKL and JQ move to hard stands with bus connections.

Indeed and even we could say we have been caught out already as many flights to the USA have sold out already. Plus there are very limited seats available to Australia ex CHC for the July school holidays. There has not been the fleet capacity to restore enough frequency to meet demand. Partly by the reduction in overall fleet with 7 less international 320s since 2020. Plus a pilot shortage doesn't help either.

NZ516 wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

This will be a huge improvement on the old AKL baggage handling facility. Plus the other projects like the new domestic jet pier can't come soon enough still 5 years away. The second runway is still on hold unfortunately though.

Here's my prediction...

We'll recover faster than expected from COVID and we'll be caught with our pants down in 24 months time. There's some estimates now that demand could be that of pre COVID levels as early as next year.

The second runway and domestic pier should be a priority. There's a lot of turbo prob movements at AKL which are effected by the larger jets and the domestic terminal as we know has been over capacity for the last 10+ years.

I've always wondered if it'll get to the point where NZ takes over the JQ gates at AKL and JQ move to hard stands with bus connections.

Indeed and even we could say we have been caught out already as many flights to the USA have sold out already. Plus there are very limited seats available to Australia ex CHC for the July school holidays. There has not been the fleet capacity to restore enough frequency to meet demand. Partly by the reduction in overall fleet with 7 less international 320s since 2020. Plus a pilot shortage doesn't help either.

7 less international 320s? Not sure is 7, currently 1 older CEO remains in the old international configuration. But most of those that were still flying had moved to domestic to increase capacity there.

ZK-NBT wrote:

https://aeroroutes.com/eng/220516-nzjul22lax

77W now loaded 3x weekly to LAX from July, daily from August. Not sure on short haul yet.

So this will be when two 77Ws are operational. When we have 6 returned to service they will most likely use them on daily AKL-LAX,SFO and IAH. This will free up 789s for increased flying to Asian markets. Perhaps increased frequencies to ORD and JFK as well.

ZK-NBT wrote:

7 less international 320s? Not sure is 7, currently 1 older CEO remains in the old international configuration. But most of those that were still flying had moved to domestic to increase capacity there.

Would be good to check back on the exact retirement dates for the 320s. OJB, OJD, OJF, OJH, OJI, OJK, OJN recently, the earlier retirements were OJA,OJC, OJE, OJG,OJO.

NZ516 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

https://aeroroutes.com/eng/220516-nzjul22lax

77W now loaded 3x weekly to LAX from July, daily from August. Not sure on short haul yet.

So this will be when two 77Ws are operational. When we have 6 returned to service they will most likely use them on daily AKL-LAX,SFO and IAH. This will free up 789s for increased flying to Asian markets. Perhaps increased frequencies to ORD and JFK as well.

I think the second is due back later next week or it was, just getting cabin crew up and going I think before long haul. I do recall MEL was to go daily 77W towards the end of June.

NZ516 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

7 less international 320s? Not sure is 7, currently 1 older CEO remains in the old international configuration. But most of those that were still flying had moved to domestic to increase capacity there.

Would be good to check back on the exact retirement dates for the 320s. OJB, OJD, OJF, OJH, OJI, OJK, OJN recently, the earlier retirements were OJA,OJC, OJE, OJG,OJO.

There was some planned overlap in the retirements to increase domestic flying with new capacity to be delivered during 2020/21, this is where it can work in your favour to have a mix of owner/leased and some older frames that can be easily withdrawn., which NZ did withdraw without replacing in 2020, there was 2-3 new international NEO deliveries from memory after that.

So there may have been 7 international CEOs still around of which 3 were effectively moved to domestic and the rest still flew international, not any 1 aircraft though they all rotated.

SpoonNZ wrote:

wstakl wrote:

Has anyone here actually travelled since MIQ was abolished? Just done AKL-DXB, DXB-GLA, EDI-MXP and MXP-AKL. Every flight and airport was packed....ok maybe not AKL. We'll be back to pre Covid levels in no time, the problem being New Zealand's inability to get a move on like the rest of the world already has.

Isn’t there an international pilot/crew shortage? It’s little wonder flights are full if they can’t provide sufficient capacity because there’s nobody to fly the planes. Even if they had plenty of crew, it’s not like they’re going to schedule a bunch of extra flights and have them half empty…

Can't speak for cabin crew, but NZ don't have a pilot shortage.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

7 less international 320s? Not sure is 7, currently 1 older CEO remains in the old international configuration. But most of those that were still flying had moved to domestic to increase capacity there.

Would be good to check back on the exact retirement dates for the 320s. OJB, OJD, OJF, OJH, OJI, OJK, OJN recently, the earlier retirements were OJA,OJC, OJE, OJG,OJO.

There was some planned overlap in the retirements to increase domestic flying with new capacity to be delivered during 2020/21, this is where it can work in your favour to have a mix of owner/leased and some older frames that can be easily withdrawn., which NZ did withdraw without replacing in 2020, there was 2-3 new international NEO deliveries from memory after that.

So there may have been 7 international CEOs still around of which 3 were effectively moved to domestic and the rest still flew international, not any 1 aircraft though they all rotated.

Didn’t the final two a320N’s arrive late last year/early this year? Completing the International fleet replacement.

While they maybe be 7x less a320CEO’s, there 7x a321N that were introduced right before covid hit.

Leaving AKL on Wednesday morning there was 5x a321N sitting around on hard stands parked up.

Cabin crew resourcing is a major issue, many have chosen not to return to the industry after finding new careers.

Lack of cabin crew is not surprising and will be an on going problem due to the contract the returning crew have had to accept. Minimum wage is not exactly an attractive wage and certainly doesn't encourage people to stay. I can see problems going forward in retaining cabin crew.

Kiwings wrote:

Lack of cabin crew is not surprising and will be an on going problem due to the contract the returning crew have had to accept. Minimum wage is not exactly an attractive wage and certainly doesn't encourage people to stay. I can see problems going forward in retaining cabin crew.

Couple that with a tight labour market in New Zealand, with the offical in employment rate only being 3%. It seems that finding crew is going to be extremely difficult on there new contract.

I wonder if they would look to using offshore crew?

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Here's my prediction...

We'll recover faster than expected from COVID and we'll be caught with our pants down in 24 months time. There's some estimates now that demand could be that of pre COVID levels as early as next year.

The second runway and domestic pier should be a priority. There's a lot of turbo prob movements at AKL which are effected by the larger jets and the domestic terminal as we know has been over capacity for the last 10+ years.

I've always wondered if it'll get to the point where NZ takes over the JQ gates at AKL and JQ move to hard stands with bus connections.

Indeed and even we could say we have been caught out already as many flights to the USA have sold out already. Plus there are very limited seats available to Australia ex CHC for the July school holidays. There has not been the fleet capacity to restore enough frequency to meet demand. Partly by the reduction in overall fleet with 7 less international 320s since 2020. Plus a pilot shortage doesn't help either.

7 less international 320s? Not sure is 7, currently 1 older CEO remains in the old international configuration. But most of those that were still flying had moved to domestic to increase capacity there.

The seven A320CEO's were replaced by 7 A321NEO's and 4 A320NEO's.

GW54 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Indeed and even we could say we have been caught out already as many flights to the USA have sold out already. Plus there are very limited seats available to Australia ex CHC for the July school holidays. There has not been the fleet capacity to restore enough frequency to meet demand. Partly by the reduction in overall fleet with 7 less international 320s since 2020. Plus a pilot shortage doesn't help either.

7 less international 320s? Not sure is 7, currently 1 older CEO remains in the old international configuration. But most of those that were still flying had moved to domestic to increase capacity there.

The seven A320CEO's were replaced by 7 A321NEO's and 4 A320NEO's.

Every a320N was a additional 46 seats over the a320CEO’s they replaced, so effectively was an 322 seat increase (or 1.9 a320 increase).

GW54 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Indeed and even we could say we have been caught out already as many flights to the USA have sold out already. Plus there are very limited seats available to Australia ex CHC for the July school holidays. There has not been the fleet capacity to restore enough frequency to meet demand. Partly by the reduction in overall fleet with 7 less international 320s since 2020. Plus a pilot shortage doesn't help either.

7 less international 320s? Not sure is 7, currently 1 older CEO remains in the old international configuration. But most of those that were still flying had moved to domestic to increase capacity there.

The seven A320CEO's were replaced by 7 A321NEO's and 4 A320NEO's.

Yes mostly pre Covid bar the last 2-3, but there was an overlap of 3 additional A320s for the domestic fleet. Plus still 1-2 in the international fleet.