NZ516 wrote:

As for the Nelson runway. NZ must be the world's slowest country at building infrastructure this project will take 10-15 years and this is a tiny 150m extension. For what is really needed today!

I don't think the timeframe is the required time to build it but instead a timeframe for completion on a future project. Essentially saying, although an immediate extension would remove any current weight limitations it's more a long term project than an immediate one, the first part being part of the reason why it's needed.

This is a guess, but reading it all as a PR sales pitch, they're emphasizing today's issues as part of the argument for this development based on it not being a forecasted need which may or may not eventuate but a real & current limitation of today.

In fact the first line is saying that they're just opening the door to community conversation.. I guess they know or at least predict this will frag on for years.

Nelson Airport is beginning a community conversation as we plan for a runway extension needed to better cater for existing aircraft, improve safety, and provide for future low-emission flights.

150m might be tiny but I guess they need re-align approach and departure paths. This has potential noise issues for local residents which may need to be resolved first. I'd imagine there'd also be a concern from locals that this will be the introduction of jets, or opening of the door to them at least. Us 'av-geeks' love jets and 'plane spotting' but the average punter down the road doesn't want the extra noise at 6am etc.

I also assume the extension is towards the northern end, which will eat into the golf course? If I'm wrong and it's towards the south there'll likely have wetland issues to resolve. It's not abundantly clear from the information available where the extra 150m will go, of course this could be an extension at both ends.

It goes back to the debate of last month, airports being landlocked in the inner cities. I listed NSN as one of the issue airports.

Someone last month was asking what airports had master plans, NSN does too it seems;
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... 02l%29.pdf

NZ6 wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

As for the Nelson runway. NZ must be the world's slowest country at building infrastructure this project will take 10-15 years and this is a tiny 150m extension. For what is really needed today!

I don't think the timeframe is the required time to build it but instead a timeframe for completion on a future project. Essentially saying, although an immediate extension would remove any current weight limitations it's more a long term project than an immediate one, the first part being part of the reason why it's needed.

This is a guess, but reading it all as a PR sales pitch, they're emphasizing today's issues as part of the argument for this development based on it not being a forecasted need which may or may not eventuate but a real & current limitation of today.

In fact the first line is saying that they're just opening the door to community conversation.. I guess they know or at least predict this will frag on for years.

Nelson Airport is beginning a community conversation as we plan for a runway extension needed to better cater for existing aircraft, improve safety, and provide for future low-emission flights.

150m might be tiny but I guess they need re-align approach and departure paths. This has potential noise issues for local residents which may need to be resolved first. I'd imagine there'd also be a concern from locals that this will be the introduction of jets, or opening of the door to them at least. Us 'av-geeks' love jets and 'plane spotting' but the average punter down the road doesn't want the extra noise at 6am etc.

I also assume the extension is towards the northern end, which will eat into the golf course? If I'm wrong and it's towards the south there'll likely have wetland issues to resolve. It's not abundantly clear from the information available where the extra 150m will go, of course this could be an extension at both ends.

It goes back to the debate of last month, airports being landlocked in the inner cities. I listed NSN as one of the issue airports.

Someone last month was asking what airports had master plans, NSN does too it seems;
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... 02l%29.pdf

Slide 17 in the presentation you attached shows the location of the extension - into the golf course. It's actually a 370m extension, but some runway length is lost by the requirement to provide RESAs at each end of the runway.

DavidByrne wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

As for the Nelson runway. NZ must be the world's slowest country at building infrastructure this project will take 10-15 years and this is a tiny 150m extension. For what is really needed today!

I don't think the timeframe is the required time to build it but instead a timeframe for completion on a future project. Essentially saying, although an immediate extension would remove any current weight limitations it's more a long term project than an immediate one, the first part being part of the reason why it's needed.

This is a guess, but reading it all as a PR sales pitch, they're emphasizing today's issues as part of the argument for this development based on it not being a forecasted need which may or may not eventuate but a real & current limitation of today.

In fact the first line is saying that they're just opening the door to community conversation.. I guess they know or at least predict this will frag on for years.

Nelson Airport is beginning a community conversation as we plan for a runway extension needed to better cater for existing aircraft, improve safety, and provide for future low-emission flights.

150m might be tiny but I guess they need re-align approach and departure paths. This has potential noise issues for local residents which may need to be resolved first. I'd imagine there'd also be a concern from locals that this will be the introduction of jets, or opening of the door to them at least. Us 'av-geeks' love jets and 'plane spotting' but the average punter down the road doesn't want the extra noise at 6am etc.

I also assume the extension is towards the northern end, which will eat into the golf course? If I'm wrong and it's towards the south there'll likely have wetland issues to resolve. It's not abundantly clear from the information available where the extra 150m will go, of course this could be an extension at both ends.

It goes back to the debate of last month, airports being landlocked in the inner cities. I listed NSN as one of the issue airports.

Someone last month was asking what airports had master plans, NSN does too it seems;
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... 02l%29.pdf

Slide 17 in the presentation you attached shows the location of the extension - into the golf course. It's actually a 370m extension, but some runway length is lost by the requirement to provide RESAs at each end of the runway.

Good spotting, tbh I didn't even read the document.

DavidByrne wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

As for the Nelson runway. NZ must be the world's slowest country at building infrastructure this project will take 10-15 years and this is a tiny 150m extension. For what is really needed today!

I don't think the timeframe is the required time to build it but instead a timeframe for completion on a future project. Essentially saying, although an immediate extension would remove any current weight limitations it's more a long term project than an immediate one, the first part being part of the reason why it's needed.

This is a guess, but reading it all as a PR sales pitch, they're emphasizing today's issues as part of the argument for this development based on it not being a forecasted need which may or may not eventuate but a real & current limitation of today.

In fact the first line is saying that they're just opening the door to community conversation.. I guess they know or at least predict this will frag on for years.

Nelson Airport is beginning a community conversation as we plan for a runway extension needed to better cater for existing aircraft, improve safety, and provide for future low-emission flights.

150m might be tiny but I guess they need re-align approach and departure paths. This has potential noise issues for local residents which may need to be resolved first. I'd imagine there'd also be a concern from locals that this will be the introduction of jets, or opening of the door to them at least. Us 'av-geeks' love jets and 'plane spotting' but the average punter down the road doesn't want the extra noise at 6am etc.

I also assume the extension is towards the northern end, which will eat into the golf course? If I'm wrong and it's towards the south there'll likely have wetland issues to resolve. It's not abundantly clear from the information available where the extra 150m will go, of course this could be an extension at both ends.

It goes back to the debate of last month, airports being landlocked in the inner cities. I listed NSN as one of the issue airports.

Someone last month was asking what airports had master plans, NSN does too it seems;
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... 02l%29.pdf

Slide 17 in the presentation you attached shows the location of the extension - into the golf course. It's actually a 370m extension, but some runway length is lost by the requirement to provide RESAs at each end of the runway.

Looking a little deeper at google maps, this extension essentially cuts off the club house from most of the holes, in fact it seems to effect 3 or 4 if not 5 holes.

I wonder what will happen with that golf course? I'm not sure who the owner is, but they may relocate (sounds drastic but I've seen several move lately), otherwise a redesign of the course to either fit in 18 holes or a downgrade to a 9 hole course.

Does anyone know if the grass runways are ever used? I wonder if they'll be decommissioned which could allow for a relocation of some holes on a land lease arrangement?

Can we expect to hear an official announcement on NZ’s new product this month? When it was leaked a few weeks ago the US DOT were to sign off on it by the end of April from memory. Obviously there are a lot of other factors as well.

If was said there would be 42J, 38W which would leave room for around 170Y +-.

A large increase in J, I probably expected 33-36 with a few more W. Some uses have said NZ can’t make money with so few seats in the NZ market compared to say QF in Australia.

The domestic a321N seatmap, seems to be online already.

https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/seat-map-airbus-a321neo-217d

Not the mid toilet, is moved into the rear of the domestic version, adding a couple of extra seats.

Did they move the domestic a321N deliveries forward? It thought they had been delayed?

zkncj wrote:

The domestic a321N seatmap, seems to be online already.

https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/seat-map-airbus-a321neo-217d

Not the mid toilet, is moved into the rear of the domestic version, adding a couple of extra seats.

Did they move the domestic a321N deliveries forward? It thought they had been delayed?

Due second half 2023 aren’t they? Were originally due 2021 I think?

3 extra seats compared to the international aircraft, same as the Domestic A320 vs the International ones.

ZK-NBT wrote:

zkncj wrote:

The domestic a321N seatmap, seems to be online already.

https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/seat-map-airbus-a321neo-217d

Not the mid toilet, is moved into the rear of the domestic version, adding a couple of extra seats.

Did they move the domestic a321N deliveries forward? It thought they had been delayed?

Due second half 2023 aren’t they? Were originally due 2021 I think?

3 extra seats compared to the international aircraft, same as the Domestic A320 vs the International ones.

That’s what I was thinking, just seems odd to have an seatmap up this early for an 2023 delivery?

zkncj wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

zkncj wrote:

The domestic a321N seatmap, seems to be online already.

https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/seat-map-airbus-a321neo-217d

Not the mid toilet, is moved into the rear of the domestic version, adding a couple of extra seats.

Did they move the domestic a321N deliveries forward? It thought they had been delayed?

Due second half 2023 aren’t they? Were originally due 2021 I think?

3 extra seats compared to the international aircraft, same as the Domestic A320 vs the International ones.

That’s what I was thinking, just seems odd to have an seatmap up this early for an 2023 delivery?

Agreed

zkncj wrote:

The domestic a321N seatmap, seems to be online already.

https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/seat-map-airbus-a321neo-217d

Not the mid toilet, is moved into the rear of the domestic version, adding a couple of extra seats.

Did they move the domestic a321N deliveries forward? It thought they had been delayed?

So toilet moves to the back and a smaller galley? Almost does not seem worth it for 3 extra seats.

zkncj wrote:

Did they move the domestic a321N deliveries forward? It thought they had been delayed?

ZK-NBT wrote:

Due second half 2023 aren’t they? Were originally due 2021 I think?

The first four Domestic A321NEOs are due in FY2023, three of them in 2022. The first is msn 10963 and must be close to roll out.

1. Jul 2022 (4th Qtr FY2022) but delayed a month to Jul 2022 as per 2022 Interim Results
2. Aug-Sep 2022 (1st Qtr FY2023) but delayed a month as per 2022 Interim Results
3. Sep-Oct 2022 (1st Qtr FY2023) but delayed a month as per 2022 Interim Results
4. Apr-Jun 2023 (4th Qtr FY2023)
5. Oct-Dec 2023 (2nd Qtr FY2024)
6. Jul-Dec 2026 (my guess for FY2027)
7. Jul-Dec 2026 (my guess for FY2027)

Slide 19, 2021 Interim Analyst Presentation
https://p-airnz.com/cms/assets/PDFs/air ... tation.pdf

PA515

DavidByrne wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

As for the Nelson runway. NZ must be the world's slowest country at building infrastructure this project will take 10-15 years and this is a tiny 150m extension. For what is really needed today!

I don't think the timeframe is the required time to build it but instead a timeframe for completion on a future project. Essentially saying, although an immediate extension would remove any current weight limitations it's more a long term project than an immediate one, the first part being part of the reason why it's needed.

This is a guess, but reading it all as a PR sales pitch, they're emphasizing today's issues as part of the argument for this development based on it not being a forecasted need which may or may not eventuate but a real & current limitation of today.

In fact the first line is saying that they're just opening the door to community conversation.. I guess they know or at least predict this will frag on for years.

Nelson Airport is beginning a community conversation as we plan for a runway extension needed to better cater for existing aircraft, improve safety, and provide for future low-emission flights.

150m might be tiny but I guess they need re-align approach and departure paths. This has potential noise issues for local residents which may need to be resolved first. I'd imagine there'd also be a concern from locals that this will be the introduction of jets, or opening of the door to them at least. Us 'av-geeks' love jets and 'plane spotting' but the average punter down the road doesn't want the extra noise at 6am etc.

I also assume the extension is towards the northern end, which will eat into the golf course? If I'm wrong and it's towards the south there'll likely have wetland issues to resolve. It's not abundantly clear from the information available where the extra 150m will go, of course this could be an extension at both ends.

It goes back to the debate of last month, airports being landlocked in the inner cities. I listed NSN as one of the issue airports.

Someone last month was asking what airports had master plans, NSN does too it seems;
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... 02l%29.pdf

Slide 17 in the presentation you attached shows the location of the extension - into the golf course. It's actually a 370m extension, but some runway length is lost by the requirement to provide RESAs at each end of the runway.

My local airport Molde added 379m, it took 12 months, it’s building required reclaiming land from the fiord.

Kiwirob wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

I don't think the timeframe is the required time to build it but instead a timeframe for completion on a future project. Essentially saying, although an immediate extension would remove any current weight limitations it's more a long term project than an immediate one, the first part being part of the reason why it's needed.

This is a guess, but reading it all as a PR sales pitch, they're emphasizing today's issues as part of the argument for this development based on it not being a forecasted need which may or may not eventuate but a real & current limitation of today.

In fact the first line is saying that they're just opening the door to community conversation.. I guess they know or at least predict this will frag on for years.



150m might be tiny but I guess they need re-align approach and departure paths. This has potential noise issues for local residents which may need to be resolved first. I'd imagine there'd also be a concern from locals that this will be the introduction of jets, or opening of the door to them at least. Us 'av-geeks' love jets and 'plane spotting' but the average punter down the road doesn't want the extra noise at 6am etc.

I also assume the extension is towards the northern end, which will eat into the golf course? If I'm wrong and it's towards the south there'll likely have wetland issues to resolve. It's not abundantly clear from the information available where the extra 150m will go, of course this could be an extension at both ends.

It goes back to the debate of last month, airports being landlocked in the inner cities. I listed NSN as one of the issue airports.

Someone last month was asking what airports had master plans, NSN does too it seems;
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... 02l%29.pdf

Slide 17 in the presentation you attached shows the location of the extension - into the golf course. It's actually a 370m extension, but some runway length is lost by the requirement to provide RESAs at each end of the runway.

My local airport Molde added 379m, it took 12 months, it’s building required reclaiming land from the fiord.

Norway is very efficient at getting infrastructure done even in extreme locations. They fortunately have the will and the means to build a runway extension fast unlike NZ.

NZ6 wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

As for the Nelson runway. NZ must be the world's slowest country at building infrastructure this project will take 10-15 years and this is a tiny 150m extension. For what is really needed today!

I don't think the timeframe is the required time to build it but instead a timeframe for completion on a future project. Essentially saying, although an immediate extension would remove any current weight limitations it's more a long term project than an immediate one, the first part being part of the reason why it's needed.

This is a guess, but reading it all as a PR sales pitch, they're emphasizing today's issues as part of the argument for this development based on it not being a forecasted need which may or may not eventuate but a real & current limitation of today.

In fact the first line is saying that they're just opening the door to community conversation.. I guess they know or at least predict this will frag on for years.

Nelson Airport is beginning a community conversation as we plan for a runway extension needed to better cater for existing aircraft, improve safety, and provide for future low-emission flights.

150m might be tiny but I guess they need re-align approach and departure paths. This has potential noise issues for local residents which may need to be resolved first. I'd imagine there'd also be a concern from locals that this will be the introduction of jets, or opening of the door to them at least. Us 'av-geeks' love jets and 'plane spotting' but the average punter down the road doesn't want the extra noise at 6am etc.

I also assume the extension is towards the northern end, which will eat into the golf course? If I'm wrong and it's towards the south there'll likely have wetland issues to resolve. It's not abundantly clear from the information available where the extra 150m will go, of course this could be an extension at both ends.

It goes back to the debate of last month, airports being landlocked in the inner cities. I listed NSN as one of the issue airports.

Someone last month was asking what airports had master plans, NSN does too it seems;
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... 02l%29.pdf

Very long term indeed. NSN airport might expect a bit of push back from local residents and environmentalists which may lead to court challenges that would drag on for years. They might be factoring in this for the 10-15 year timeframe.
Thanks for finding the airport master plan to share. Looks like both ends of the runway will be extended.
CHC airport many years back was going to extend their NW runway 11/29 into the Harewood golf course. But it never happened there was a road diversion done for it as well.

PA515 wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Did they move the domestic a321N deliveries forward? It thought they had been delayed?

ZK-NBT wrote:

Due second half 2023 aren’t they? Were originally due 2021 I think?

The first four Domestic A321NEOs are due in FY2023, three of them in 2022. The first is msn 10963 and must be close to roll out.

1. Jul 2022 (4th Qtr FY2022) but delayed a month to Jul 2022 as per 2022 Interim Results
2. Aug-Sep 2022 (1st Qtr FY2023) but delayed a month as per 2022 Interim Results
3. Sep-Oct 2022 (1st Qtr FY2023) but delayed a month as per 2022 Interim Results
4. Apr-Jun 2023 (4th Qtr FY2023)
5. Oct-Dec 2023 (2nd Qtr FY2024)
6. Jul-Dec 2026 (my guess for FY2027)
7. Jul-Dec 2026 (my guess for FY2027)

Slide 19, 2021 Interim Analyst Presentation
https://p-airnz.com/cms/assets/PDFs/air ... tation.pdf

PA515

Thank you PA515. I had 2023 calendar year in my head.

77west wrote:

zkncj wrote:

The domestic a321N seatmap, seems to be online already.

https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/seat-map-airbus-a321neo-217d

Not the mid toilet, is moved into the rear of the domestic version, adding a couple of extra seats.

Did they move the domestic a321N deliveries forward? It thought they had been delayed?

So toilet moves to the back and a smaller galley? Almost does not seem worth it for 3 extra seats.

Probably also sans WIFi and IFE? The seat map doesn’t mention instead power etc, IFE.

Although would be really nice if they did install WIFI on them, the domestic coverage isn’t great but it was still good for clearing emails.

77west wrote:

zkncj wrote:

The domestic a321N seatmap, seems to be online already.

https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/seat-map-airbus-a321neo-217d

Not the mid toilet, is moved into the rear of the domestic version, adding a couple of extra seats.

Did they move the domestic a321N deliveries forward? It thought they had been delayed?

So toilet moves to the back and a smaller galley? Almost does not seem worth it for 3 extra seats.

Agree, it does seem odd… I would’ve thought 6-9 extra seats due to the smaller galleys and moved lavs.

Something that needs to be taken into account with any plans to expand lower lying airports like Nelson and Wellington. https://interactives.stuff.co.nz/2022/0 ... evel-rise/

As the effective sea level changes due to a combination of global warming and standard plate tectonics, some of these airports will be more and more expensive to maintain just current operations. Let alone any expansions. Government only has so much funds available for trying to hold back the ocean so I'd honestly expect low lying areas to find investment gradually reduced as part of a managed retreat. This will impact many NZ airports.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

Something that needs to be taken into account with any plans to expand lower lying airports like Nelson and Wellington. https://interactives.stuff.co.nz/2022/0 ... evel-rise/

As the effective sea level changes due to a combination of global warming and standard plate tectonics, some of these airports will be more and more expensive to maintain just current operations. Let alone any expansions. Government only has so much funds available for trying to hold back the ocean so I'd honestly expect low lying areas to find investment gradually reduced as part of a managed retreat. This will impact many NZ airports.

In Wellington's case its unlikely to affect the airport. The runway is already 23ft above sea level at the southern end, and 42 feet above at the northern end, so it might be a good plan to raise the height at the southern end to even out the slope.

There are also plans currently being worked on to renew the seawall which is coming to the end of its life, which will be future proofed to anticipated sea level rise.

The issue for Wellington will be more around access to the airport...

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/air ... WEIJOPREQ/

Some interesting observations in that article. He does not like the sideways facing J seats either.

77west wrote:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/air-new-zealand-boss-greg-foran-reveals-what-he-thinks-singapore-airlines-does-better/P6G7IZXRIBOK5G4TVWEIJOPREQ/

Some interesting observations in that article. He does not like the sideways facing J seats either.

Since that's a subscriber only article can you please provide a fair use summary ?

Kiwiandrew wrote:

77west wrote:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/air-new-zealand-boss-greg-foran-reveals-what-he-thinks-singapore-airlines-does-better/P6G7IZXRIBOK5G4TVWEIJOPREQ/

Some interesting observations in that article. He does not like the sideways facing J seats either.

Since that's a subscriber only article can you please provide a fair use summary ?

Hi my apologies I only just realized that, he says: (What does SIA do better than NZ)

"The answer is quite a lot to be honest," he said. "The product on our wide-bodied planes is now the best part of 20 years old."

"Over the last few years I'd be travelling out of the US - and I'd be sitting up the front [business class] and I'd go this was pretty good seven years ago, 10 years ago. It's not so good today," he said.

"I've done three international trips in the last week and it's definitely outdated," he said of Air NZ's Business Class product.

"We've got to do something with that seating configuration, with the space that's available.

"I feel a bit too side-on when it takes off. I can't look out the window ... there's a whole bunch of things around that."

He then talks about the next batch of 787's will come with a new "world leading" J product. But from what I have seen, the seat map still seems to imply inward-facing herringbone of some sort.

I hope thats fair-use enough and not breaking any rules :/

77west wrote:

Kiwiandrew wrote:

77west wrote:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/air-new-zealand-boss-greg-foran-reveals-what-he-thinks-singapore-airlines-does-better/P6G7IZXRIBOK5G4TVWEIJOPREQ/

Some interesting observations in that article. He does not like the sideways facing J seats either.

Since that's a subscriber only article can you please provide a fair use summary ?

Hi my apologies I only just realized that, he says: (What does SIA do better than NZ)

"The answer is quite a lot to be honest," he said. "The product on our wide-bodied planes is now the best part of 20 years old."

"Over the last few years I'd be travelling out of the US - and I'd be sitting up the front [business class] and I'd go this was pretty good seven years ago, 10 years ago. It's not so good today," he said.

"I've done three international trips in the last week and it's definitely outdated," he said of Air NZ's Business Class product.

"We've got to do something with that seating configuration, with the space that's available.

"I feel a bit too side-on when it takes off. I can't look out the window ... there's a whole bunch of things around that."

He then talks about the next batch of 787's will come with a new "world leading" J product. But from what I have seen, the seat map still seems to imply inward-facing herringbone of some sort.

I hope thats fair-use enough and not breaking any rules :/

What do you mean in the last paragraph?

I asked earlier if we can expect an announcement re NZ’s new product soon, when it was leaked a few weeks ago the US DOT were meant to sign off on it by the end of April. Not sure what else they need to do though.

Another words it will be a while before any new seats, how long it will be who knows? There isn’t a new seat map.

77west wrote:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/air-new-zealand-boss-greg-foran-reveals-what-he-thinks-singapore-airlines-does-better/P6G7IZXRIBOK5G4TVWEIJOPREQ/

Some interesting observations in that article. He does not like the sideways facing J seats either.

Thanks for providing a summary, much appreciated

ZK-NBT wrote:

77west wrote:

Kiwiandrew wrote:

Since that's a subscriber only article can you please provide a fair use summary ?

Hi my apologies I only just realized that, he says: (What does SIA do better than NZ)

"The answer is quite a lot to be honest," he said. "The product on our wide-bodied planes is now the best part of 20 years old."

"Over the last few years I'd be travelling out of the US - and I'd be sitting up the front [business class] and I'd go this was pretty good seven years ago, 10 years ago. It's not so good today," he said.

"I've done three international trips in the last week and it's definitely outdated," he said of Air NZ's Business Class product.

"We've got to do something with that seating configuration, with the space that's available.

"I feel a bit too side-on when it takes off. I can't look out the window ... there's a whole bunch of things around that."

He then talks about the next batch of 787's will come with a new "world leading" J product. But from what I have seen, the seat map still seems to imply inward-facing herringbone of some sort.

I hope thats fair-use enough and not breaking any rules :/

What do you mean in the last paragraph?

I asked earlier if we can expect an announcement re NZ’s new product soon, when it was leaked a few weeks ago the US DOT were meant to sign off on it by the end of April. Not sure what else they need to do though.

Another words it will be a while before any new seats, how long it will be who knows? There isn’t a new seat map.

The DOT leak seemed to have a seat map attached that showed inward facing herringbone. But then someone else did say that looked more like the existing layout so perhaps it is incorrect.

The article I referenced said the new layout will seat around 220 total - a not insignificant reduction if this is the total seats all up.

Fair use excerpt:

Air New Zealand recently revealed that, over the next two years, it will start taking delivery of a new tranche of Dreamliners which will come especially fitted for ultra-long-range flights.

They will have around 220 seats and be fitted with what Foran said will be world-leading new business class seats.

So I am thinking a variation of something along the lines of the QF layout with 236 seats

https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Qanta ... ng_789.php

77west wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

77west wrote:

Hi my apologies I only just realized that, he says: (What does SIA do better than NZ)

"The answer is quite a lot to be honest," he said. "The product on our wide-bodied planes is now the best part of 20 years old."

"Over the last few years I'd be travelling out of the US - and I'd be sitting up the front [business class] and I'd go this was pretty good seven years ago, 10 years ago. It's not so good today," he said.

"I've done three international trips in the last week and it's definitely outdated," he said of Air NZ's Business Class product.

"We've got to do something with that seating configuration, with the space that's available.

"I feel a bit too side-on when it takes off. I can't look out the window ... there's a whole bunch of things around that."

He then talks about the next batch of 787's will come with a new "world leading" J product. But from what I have seen, the seat map still seems to imply inward-facing herringbone of some sort.

I hope thats fair-use enough and not breaking any rules :/

What do you mean in the last paragraph?

I asked earlier if we can expect an announcement re NZ’s new product soon, when it was leaked a few weeks ago the US DOT were meant to sign off on it by the end of April. Not sure what else they need to do though.

Another words it will be a while before any new seats, how long it will be who knows? There isn’t a new seat map.

The DOT leak seemed to have a seat map attached that showed inward facing herringbone. But then someone else did say that looked more like the existing layout so perhaps it is incorrect.

The article I referenced said the new layout will seat around 220 total - a not insignificant reduction if this is the total seats all up.

Fair use excerpt:

Air New Zealand recently revealed that, over the next two years, it will start taking delivery of a new tranche of Dreamliners which will come especially fitted for ultra-long-range flights.

They will have around 220 seats and be fitted with what Foran said will be world-leading new business class seats.

So I am thinking a variation of something along the lines of the QF layout with 236 seats

https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Qanta ... ng_789.php

Was that article removed? 220 seems to low, far to low tbh, I do recall hearing 42J including 1 row of Deluxe or whatever they decide to call it and 38W, you wouldn’t lose 75Y on the code 2 aircraft which have 215Y.

The next 773 for NZ isn’t far away from return to service with a third by September.

77west wrote:

Kiwiandrew wrote:

77west wrote:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/air-new-zealand-boss-greg-foran-reveals-what-he-thinks-singapore-airlines-does-better/P6G7IZXRIBOK5G4TVWEIJOPREQ/

Some interesting observations in that article. He does not like the sideways facing J seats either.

Since that's a subscriber only article can you please provide a fair use summary ?

Hi my apologies I only just realized that, he says: (What does SIA do better than NZ)

"The answer is quite a lot to be honest," he said. "The product on our wide-bodied planes is now the best part of 20 years old."

"Over the last few years I'd be travelling out of the US - and I'd be sitting up the front [business class] and I'd go this was pretty good seven years ago, 10 years ago. It's not so good today," he said.

"I've done three international trips in the last week and it's definitely outdated," he said of Air NZ's Business Class product.

"We've got to do something with that seating configuration, with the space that's available.

"I feel a bit too side-on when it takes off. I can't look out the window ... there's a whole bunch of things around that."

He then talks about the next batch of 787's will come with a new "world leading" J product. But from what I have seen, the seat map still seems to imply inward-facing herringbone of some sort.

I hope thats fair-use enough and not breaking any rules :/

Take those comments with a pinch of salt, I'd say he's drumming up some interest & support post COVID and sending the message the airline isn't going to be 'the same airline it was pre-COVID'.

It's a tactic used in the Walmart trick of books, so I'm not convinced it's 100% genuine.

We all know the product which he's chosen to use as his example is dated and if it wasn't for COVID the airline would be phasing these out already.... let's see what other substance comes from this.

NZ801 wrote:

The next 773 for NZ isn’t far away from return to service with a third by September.

Any plans for the other 3 or even 4 to return yet?

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ801 wrote:

The next 773 for NZ isn’t far away from return to service with a third by September.

Any plans for the other 3 or even 4 to return yet?

The 7th isn't expected to return, there are a few rumors floating around but it all comes back to medium term uncertainty.

The opening of the border has seen an expected acceleration in passenger numbers, the old 'pent up demand' as we called it. The short-haul holiday market is also picking up now, helped by Fiji dropping some of their requirements.

There's longer term questions around Eastern Europe and the stability there, the cost of living crisis to name the obvious.

Things are expected to continue to grow but where it settles is a big unknown. There's a still a strong perception offshore with the inbound market that NZ still has strict and strong COVID protocols which is making some either postpone travelling here or opting for an Australia only holiday down-under.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ801 wrote:

The next 773 for NZ isn’t far away from return to service with a third by September.

Any plans for the other 3 or even 4 to return yet?

2 more are under consideration.

NZ801 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ801 wrote:

The next 773 for NZ isn’t far away from return to service with a third by September.

Any plans for the other 3 or even 4 to return yet?

2 more are under consideration.

“OKN” is just waiting for engines, so I’m told.

ZK-NBT wrote:

77west wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

What do you mean in the last paragraph?

I asked earlier if we can expect an announcement re NZ’s new product soon, when it was leaked a few weeks ago the US DOT were meant to sign off on it by the end of April. Not sure what else they need to do though.

Another words it will be a while before any new seats, how long it will be who knows? There isn’t a new seat map.

The DOT leak seemed to have a seat map attached that showed inward facing herringbone. But then someone else did say that looked more like the existing layout so perhaps it is incorrect.

The article I referenced said the new layout will seat around 220 total - a not insignificant reduction if this is the total seats all up.

Fair use excerpt:

Air New Zealand recently revealed that, over the next two years, it will start taking delivery of a new tranche of Dreamliners which will come especially fitted for ultra-long-range flights.

They will have around 220 seats and be fitted with what Foran said will be world-leading new business class seats.

So I am thinking a variation of something along the lines of the QF layout with 236 seats

https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Qanta ... ng_789.php

Was that article removed? 220 seems to low, far to low tbh, I do recall hearing 42J including 1 row of Deluxe or whatever they decide to call it and 38W, you wouldn’t lose 75Y on the code 2 aircraft which have 215Y.

Still up but premium only. I also think 220 is a bit on the low side, something around 240-250 would be more like it.

re; 773s - Crewing will be what slows the return of 4 and 5 which the airline wants back ahead of original plans

duff wrote:

re; 773s - Crewing will be what slows the return of 4 and 5 which the airline wants back ahead of original plans

Good point re crew, easy to forget. I am guessing it maybe just the 3 flying for the ‘peak’ summer months next year? What shall we call it ‘ a light peak’?

duff wrote:

re; 773s - Crewing will be what slows the return of 4 and 5 which the airline wants back ahead of original plans

Anybody have any idea which two are likely to come out of storage next. Did all the 300's have WIFI

GW54 wrote:

duff wrote:

re; 773s - Crewing will be what slows the return of 4 and 5 which the airline wants back ahead of original plans

Anybody have any idea which two are likely to come out of storage next. Did all the 300's have WIFI

I think all but one had WIFI installed.

Wasn’t there 3x 77W In storage in AKL? And they are the first 3 for return.

Would there be any chance of Air NZ ordering the 777X? I think it would be a great replacement for the 777-300ERs that will be retired soon. 787-10s can't replace the 777-300ERs, so unless they order the A350-1000, the 777X is the only other option. Is there any chance of this happening?

zkncj wrote:

GW54 wrote:

duff wrote:

re; 773s - Crewing will be what slows the return of 4 and 5 which the airline wants back ahead of original plans

Anybody have any idea which two are likely to come out of storage next. Did all the 300's have WIFI

I think all but one had WIFI installed.

Wasn’t there 3x 77W In storage in AKL? And they are the first 3 for return.

Yes 3 in AKL will be the first to return. OKQ already flying, OKN almost ready, OKO next.

From what I can find 5 have wifi, not sure which ones don’t.

Sprite8806 wrote:

Would there be any chance of Air NZ ordering the 777X? I think it would be a great replacement for the 777-300ERs that will be retired soon. 787-10s can't replace the 777-300ERs, so unless they order the A350-1000, the 777X is the only other option. Is there any chance of this happening?

No 77X, it is to big. It will be 789/781 replacing the 77W, A350 won’t happen either.

Has ZK-OKQ flown passenger services since resuming flying?

GW54 wrote:

Did all the 300's have WIFI

ZK-NBT wrote:

From what I can find 5 have wifi, not sure which ones don’t.

ZK-OKM and ZK-OKR don't have WIFI.

The 2022 Interim Result confirmed a 77W will be leaving the fleet by 30 Jun 2022, presumably one of the three leased aircraft (ZK-OKO, ZK-OKR and ZK-OKS). If ZK-OKO is returning to service, then ZK-OKR is most likely the one to be leaving.

PA515

Qantas59 wrote:

Has ZK-OKQ flown passenger services since resuming flying?

No, I think June sometime.

https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/world ... w-zealand/

NZ is at alert level 3 for Americans due to Covid related restrictions. While Australia and Fiji are level 1 so until it changes we may not see a rush of American tourists coming to NZ.

Latest 'safety video' is out.

Might bring back some memories of what was debated pre COVID.. it's also one of the longer ones.

https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/safety-videos

ZK-NBT wrote:

Sprite8806 wrote:

Would there be any chance of Air NZ ordering the 777X? I think it would be a great replacement for the 777-300ERs that will be retired soon. 787-10s can't replace the 777-300ERs, so unless they order the A350-1000, the 777X is the only other option. Is there any chance of this happening?

No 77X, it is to big. It will be 789/781 replacing the 77W, A350 won’t happen either.

But 787-10s are much smaller than 777-300ERs and they have lots less range. What about the 777-8?

Sprite8806 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Sprite8806 wrote:

Would there be any chance of Air NZ ordering the 777X? I think it would be a great replacement for the 777-300ERs that will be retired soon. 787-10s can't replace the 777-300ERs, so unless they order the A350-1000, the 777X is the only other option. Is there any chance of this happening?

No 77X, it is to big. It will be 789/781 replacing the 77W, A350 won’t happen either.

But 787-10s are much smaller than 777-300ERs and they have lots less range. What about the 777-8?

This has been discussed ad nauseum previously - see previous threads. Despite what some of us may prefer (777x / A350), recent messaging from NZ seems to point towards standardization of the long haul fleet around the 787; that's assuming Boeing is able to deliver on the PIP promised for the 787-9 and 787-10.

Sprite8806 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Sprite8806 wrote:

Would there be any chance of Air NZ ordering the 777X? I think it would be a great replacement for the 777-300ERs that will be retired soon. 787-10s can't replace the 777-300ERs, so unless they order the A350-1000, the 777X is the only other option. Is there any chance of this happening?

No 77X, it is to big. It will be 789/781 replacing the 77W, A350 won’t happen either.

But 787-10s are much smaller than 777-300ERs and they have lots less range. What about the 777-8?

How many routes need a 77W size aircraft? 781 routes won’t need range of longer 77W routes so long as they can make LAX/SFO at least. 777-8, will it even be built? it is for very long routes if built and Carries a lot of weight meaning it isn’t the most efficient on shorter routes and a 789 will do what NZ need.

77west wrote:

Kiwiandrew wrote:

77west wrote:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/air-new-zealand-boss-greg-foran-reveals-what-he-thinks-singapore-airlines-does-better/P6G7IZXRIBOK5G4TVWEIJOPREQ/

Some interesting observations in that article. He does not like the sideways facing J seats either.

Since that's a subscriber only article can you please provide a fair use summary ?

Hi my apologies I only just realized that, he says: (What does SIA do better than NZ)

"The answer is quite a lot to be honest," he said. "The product on our wide-bodied planes is now the best part of 20 years old."

"Over the last few years I'd be travelling out of the US - and I'd be sitting up the front [business class] and I'd go this was pretty good seven years ago, 10 years ago. It's not so good today," he said.

"I've done three international trips in the last week and it's definitely outdated," he said of Air NZ's Business Class product.

"We've got to do something with that seating configuration, with the space that's available.

"I feel a bit too side-on when it takes off. I can't look out the window ... there's a whole bunch of things around that."

He then talks about the next batch of 787's will come with a new "world leading" J product. But from what I have seen, the seat map still seems to imply inward-facing herringbone of some sort.

I hope thats fair-use enough and not breaking any rules :/

Really interesting! We just flew AKL-SIN-FRA in J (A350 and A380), and both were uncomfortable flights. The new SQ seats are horrible, and not worth the money. The sideway position due to the foot cubby is uncomfortable, and so are the "beds". Never again! NZ's herringbone is grades above that in terms of comfort. And even in the seating position the SQ seat wasn't great. And lastly, service was pretty poor as well. Not even pre-departure drink, no amenity kits, and food was mediocre at best (even the lobster was bad). Not the SQ I expected. Funny enough, my partner just flew back on SQ in Y (same routing), and had a much better flight in Y!

So, while NZ has indeed an outdated seat, with little to no privacy, these are still miles better than SQ's new seats. At least that was my experience. Can't wait to see what NZ has in store for the 787s...