NZ801 wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

a7ala wrote:

Correct the requirement to connect isnt a barrier when that is the only option. I would argue that both ports can support profitably services to RAR, but the airline has decided they can make more money (reduce costs) by funneling through AKL in the absence of any competition. I can tell you now that if someone else had operated WLG/CHC-RAR then Air NZ would be there straight away, as they said they would when Mike Pero was looking at it. Other connecting markets are just not large enough.

Here’s a left-field idea. Allocate (say) three international A320s to be based in CHC, and two based in WLG, and have a local marketing team responsible for scheduling them and filling them on whatever routes local demand indicates. Capacity could still be “lent” to other centres during low periods. Maybe we’d then see other routes which SHOULD have some merit - like the WLG-TBU/APW route which was operated for many years by PH, as well as CHC/WLG-RAR. And based on the loads that SQ was actually carrying on WLG-CBR (and terminating there) I still maintain that there’s a case for that route 2-3 times a week (though I concede we don’t know how much of the customer demand was because of the WB novelty factor).

To those who say that these routes are adequately served by transits via AKL, I say that this is very much an airline-centric point of view, and certainly not a customer-centric point of view. NZ’s attitude shows clearly in this regard: would we have seen CHC/WLG-NAN even if it hadn’t been for FJ’s competition (others have also alluded to this)?

It’s more and more evident globally that point-to-point is the future - and I’d support that also for the environmental benefits of flying direct routes. Ask any traveller what THEY would prefer and you can guarantee almost all would prefer a nonstop route over a transit stop. If NZ doesn’t recognise this, it does risk erosion of its customer base by competitors who have a more progressive approach to their customers.

It’s perhaps unsurprising that, given so many posters here have close links to NZ, that they don’t question the carrier’s strategy in this regard. But the vast majority of the potential customer base are not so beholden. They just want to get where they want to go as quickly and comfortably as possible.

I’d like to see NZ as a proactive airline in terms of its (non-AKL) network, while in this respect it seems more reactive. And please don’t tell me that the carrier’s profits are threatened by a different strategy - heaps of carriers have embraced low-frequency point-to-point operations and are doing just fine. And many of them are LCCs whose operation is in many respects not dissimilar to NZ’s.

Then the issue becomes services are not daily. The CEO has said that daily is what pax what and they can’t simply offer daily CHC-RAR. So while yes, pax like direct, reality is they can’t have that and via AKL is the next best option - AKL is where the market is. Comparisons to other carriers are not always relevant given our location and low population.

In relation to being reactive, NZ are a business and they put their assets where there is best return. I’d suggest NZ have a better idea of that than we do. And that’s not drinking the NZ cool aid. They aren’t perfect sure but I’m pretty sure those choosing routes/destinations know their stuff.

I terms of competition, they are like any major market player. Pak ‘n Save and Countdown had to be drawn kicking and screaming to making changes, not saying NZ can’t be more creative, it’s just there isn’t the need to do so at the moment be that competitions or pax demand. They’ll be creative in other areas where the pressure to do so is i.e. onboard.

Sometimes I think people on here want NZ to be like a bus - fly when I want, preferably on an A380 with a lie flat bed in economy!

Interesting idea DavidByrne.

I’m not sure the CEO said short haul leisure routes need to daily, more long haul routes with large amounts of premium traffic. Daily AKL-RAR on a 789 could then in peak winter be topped up with 3 weekly ex WLG/CHC A320s and additional AKL services.

I’m not sure which other Pacific destinations other than maybe APW could support services ex WLG/CHC? Even APW was usually from memory 8 weekly ex AKL in winter, 4-5 789s and the rest A320s. So you could operate daily ex AKL but 789s only on the weekend with 2 weekly ex WLG/CHC, I feel like 1 weekly is hardly worth it meaning people have to stay a week or connect via AKL anyway.

I wondered pre covid with DPS/HNL being daily or more in winter weather they might have looked at 2 weekly ex CHC at some point.

PA515 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

The press release mentions 8 789s, no mention of 781 at all. I think the first 2 of these arrive second half 2023?

The first two GE 787s (789s) were due in FY2024, Sep 2023 and Oct/Nov 2023. However the Press Release says 2024. It could be that the person who prepared the Press Release does not appreciate the difference between Financial Year and Calendar Year, or the first two aircraft have been deferred since the April Investor Presentation. And it is unlikely Air NZ would convert all the eight 787-10s to 787-9s, unless the expected performance improvements of the 787-10 are not going to happen.

PA515

Mid-2024 for the aircraft with all new interiors being delivered. And I get the impression there is some doubt about the 10’s but that’s totally my interpretation of a comment.

NZ801 wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

a7ala wrote:

Correct the requirement to connect isnt a barrier when that is the only option. I would argue that both ports can support profitably services to RAR, but the airline has decided they can make more money (reduce costs) by funneling through AKL in the absence of any competition. I can tell you now that if someone else had operated WLG/CHC-RAR then Air NZ would be there straight away, as they said they would when Mike Pero was looking at it. Other connecting markets are just not large enough.

Here’s a left-field idea. Allocate (say) three international A320s to be based in CHC, and two based in WLG, and have a local marketing team responsible for scheduling them and filling them on whatever routes local demand indicates. Capacity could still be “lent” to other centres during low periods. Maybe we’d then see other routes which SHOULD have some merit - like the WLG-TBU/APW route which was operated for many years by PH, as well as CHC/WLG-RAR. And based on the loads that SQ was actually carrying on WLG-CBR (and terminating there) I still maintain that there’s a case for that route 2-3 times a week (though I concede we don’t know how much of the customer demand was because of the WB novelty factor).

To those who say that these routes are adequately served by transits via AKL, I say that this is very much an airline-centric point of view, and certainly not a customer-centric point of view. NZ’s attitude shows clearly in this regard: would we have seen CHC/WLG-NAN even if it hadn’t been for FJ’s competition (others have also alluded to this)?

It’s more and more evident globally that point-to-point is the future - and I’d support that also for the environmental benefits of flying direct routes. Ask any traveller what THEY would prefer and you can guarantee almost all would prefer a nonstop route over a transit stop. If NZ doesn’t recognise this, it does risk erosion of its customer base by competitors who have a more progressive approach to their customers.

It’s perhaps unsurprising that, given so many posters here have close links to NZ, that they don’t question the carrier’s strategy in this regard. But the vast majority of the potential customer base are not so beholden. They just want to get where they want to go as quickly and comfortably as possible.

I’d like to see NZ as a proactive airline in terms of its (non-AKL) network, while in this respect it seems more reactive. And please don’t tell me that the carrier’s profits are threatened by a different strategy - heaps of carriers have embraced low-frequency point-to-point operations and are doing just fine. And many of them are LCCs whose operation is in many respects not dissimilar to NZ’s.

Then the issue becomes services are not daily. The CEO has said that daily is what pax what and they can’t simply offer daily CHC-RAR. So while yes, pax like direct, reality is they can’t have that and via AKL is the next best option - AKL is where the market is. Comparisons to other carriers are not always relevant given our location and low population.

In relation to being reactive, NZ are a business and they put their assets where there is best return. I’d suggest NZ have a better idea of that than we do. And that’s not drinking the NZ cool aid. They aren’t perfect sure but I’m pretty sure those choosing routes/destinations know their stuff.

I terms of competition, they are like any major market player. Pak ‘n Save and Countdown had to be drawn kicking and screaming to making changes, not saying NZ can’t be more creative, it’s just there isn’t the need to do so at the moment be that competitions or pax demand. They’ll be creative in other areas where the pressure to do so is i.e. onboard.

Sometimes I think people on here want NZ to be like a bus - fly when I want, preferably on an A380 with a lie flat bed in economy!

I guess it comes down to whether NZ should be a passive airline, responding only to others' initiatives. or whether it could be bolder. Certainly, in other areas (especially sustainability) it seems to want to be a leader.

For business destinations, yes, NZ correctly identifies that daily is what passengers want. But I just don't accept that holidaymakers will spurn a CHC-RAR service because it's not daily and opt for CHC-AKL-RAR instead - that's just not the way most people view their holidays. Especially if (as is likely) the fare charged for the direct service reflects the savings afforded by cutting out the intermediate stop. And you only have to look at NZ's current network to see that there is already a raft of destinations that are (or hopefully will soon again be) served less than dally - some as infrequently as twice a week. Think AKL-CNS, AKL-MCY, AKL-HBA, CHC-OOL, CHC-PER, AKL-PPT, AKL-NOU, AKL-IUE. If the airline can "tolerate" these routes at low frequency, then why not other routes as well?

Interesting that the press release on NZ's own website refers to "the 8 787-9s arriving from 2024" . Does this mean they've switched the whole -10 order to 9s now ? Or just poor proofreading? https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/press-r ... in-the-sky

ZK-NBT wrote:

Interesting idea DavidByrne.

I’m not sure the CEO said short haul leisure routes need to daily, more long haul routes with large amounts of premium traffic. Daily AKL-RAR on a 789 could then in peak winter be topped up with 3 weekly ex WLG/CHC A320s and additional AKL services.

I’m not sure which other Pacific destinations other than maybe APW could support services ex WLG/CHC? Even APW was usually from memory 8 weekly ex AKL in winter, 4-5 789s and the rest A320s. So you could operate daily ex AKL but 789s only on the weekend with 2 weekly ex WLG/CHC, I feel like 1 weekly is hardly worth it meaning people have to stay a week or connect via AKL anyway.

I wondered pre covid with DPS/HNL being daily or more in winter weather they might have looked at 2 weekly ex CHC at some point.

I have had the same thoughts re DPS and HNL. For a leisure destination there is surely more benefit in trying to stimulate the market by offering direct services from CHC than by hoping that passengers will be prepared to make the transit stop in Auckland. It goes without saying that direct services stimulate market growth, and where you have a mature market there is surely more potential in adding a new departure point than adding extra capacity to AKL.

And again re long-haul: Does NZ really want to cede a significant portion of CHC-LAX traffic to AA (assuming it revives its plan, but operating way less than daily, but hey, what would they know about passenger preferences?) or would it prefer to keep that traffic to itself? I could see a similar allocation of a 789 aircraft (where there are enough in the fleet) to CHC to enable CHC-LAX in the summer, and CHC-DPS/HNL in the winter, for example. And then a second 789 in summer to operate CHC-SIN 5x and CHC-PER 2x weekly.

I look at QF, NZ's nearest significant competitor, and its attitude is completely different. It's just commenced DRW-DIL, PER-FCO, is starting PER-CGK, PER-JNB and others that I can't for the moment recall. That's on top of more than forty (yes, forty) new domestic routes, most offering nonstop service on routes that previously required a transfer. Yes, I appreciate that they are different carriers, in a different market with different pressures and so on, but it demonstrates a more creative mindset to me than NZ has shown. I've many times in the past discussed the possibility of more Transtasman connectivity as well (and been rubbished for it) - but this falls into the same category. In fact, I think there's an even stronger case on the Tasman - the suggestion that (say) AKL-SYD would be "cannibalised" by new nonstop routes just doesn't hold water - with 4-5 flights daily it's not even an issue if a couple of plane loads of pax a week are siphoned off to direct services on routes like AKL-CBR, especially if it allows for seamless connections to North America. And as I noted before, the loads SQ carried on the WLG-CBR alone were far from shabby. As an aside, I note that Adelaide Airport is currently seeking a carrier to operate CHC-ADL (IIRC it was identified pre-covid as the Tasman route with the highest number of one-stop pax that did not have a direct option). NZ is the market leader on the Tasman, and I believe it should aggressively seek to maintain that, rather than cede potential new routes to others.

Kiwiandrew wrote:

Interesting that the press release on NZ's own website refers to "the 8 787-9s arriving from 2024" . Does this mean they've switched the whole -10 order to 9s now ? Or just poor proofreading? https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/press-r ... in-the-sky

It was certainly worded that way ie all 789s, though I thought the order was interchangeable. I wonder if it is financial year 2024 so late 2023 delivery, reading this I would take it as calendar year 2024 so they have been pushed back a year.

Definitely postponed the 787 delivery dates by a year to preserve capital expenditure. They did the same for the domestic A321 delivery which is a year pushed back.

NZ516 wrote:

Definitely postponed the 787 delivery dates by a year to preserve capital expenditure. They did the same for the domestic A321 delivery which is a year pushed back.

The 787 was already pushed back a year from calendar year 2022.

It will be interesting to see how things go, things are ramping up, will NZ find themselves short of aircraft next year? Plenty of other airlines have reactivated retired aircraft including A380s.

They will eventually have a fleet of 20 wide bodies. Just to reactivate the 77Ws is an enormous undertaking and there is only so much engineering capacity with all the other existing requirements at the same time. So that leaves it likely that no more room to bring in more retired aircraft eg the 772s.

DavidByrne wrote:

As an aside, I note that Adelaide Airport is currently seeking a carrier to operate CHC-ADL (IIRC it was identified pre-covid as the Tasman route with the highest number of one-stop pax that did not have a direct option).

I note that Qantas has an E190 base in Adelaide. ADL-CHC is within range of this 94 seat regional jet. It’s 60km shorter than the Darwin-Melbourne E190 flights which QF will be starting in November.

QF is buying regional jets either directly or via Alliance. They’ve ordered the very capable A220. On paper it can reach ports as far away as Darwin from NZ. That range shows how much of Australia could be opened up with smaller jets.

I wonder what opportunities NZ may be forgoing on the Tasman and in the Pacific through not having a small jet in its forward fleet plans.

Gangurru wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

As an aside, I note that Adelaide Airport is currently seeking a carrier to operate CHC-ADL (IIRC it was identified pre-covid as the Tasman route with the highest number of one-stop pax that did not have a direct option).

I note that Qantas has an E190 base in Adelaide. ADL-CHC is within range of this 94 seat regional jet. It’s 60km shorter than the Darwin-Melbourne E190 flights which QF will be starting in November.

QF is buying regional jets either directly or via Alliance. They’ve ordered the very capable A220. On paper it can reach ports as far away as Darwin from NZ. That range shows how much of Australia could be opened up with smaller jets.

I wonder what opportunities NZ may be forgoing on the Tasman and in the Pacific through not having a small jet in its forward fleet plans.

I have always argued the A220 may have a role in the AirNZ fleet in future. Something like the A220-300 that could fill in some trunk domestic routes in between thinner regional sectors.

Air NZ proposing new interiors. Well done. (way too late but past is past....covid etc)
To me it all looks pretty good but it's sort of just catching up rather than jumping ahead,
which is their opportunity being this late to the game (Business Premier in particular).
Economy sleeping pods really is a jump ahead though. Not many, and their availability
not clear. So is it just a marketing stunt? Luxe is a fake 1st class, a good idea but just
in the wrong part of the cabin, how many of us would seat select into rows 1 or 2?
My suggestion would be to call the new business.. 'business class' and the front row
seats, 'Business Premier' which I think would best show their fit in the current market.

zkncj wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

NZ321 wrote:

https://paxex.aero/air-new-zealand-busi ... e-skynest/

There are some quite detailed images of the new product available at the above link. Quite big changes from the current product; would be interesting to see a seat map and the actual seat count.

I was expecting disappointment and criticism from some here. Apart from the Business Premier Luxe product which is a small move towards F class (but managed within the one cabin) the J product has the same basic design principals as the current one with regarding to being closer to that herringbone design to other options out there.

Skynest is yet to be approved and I'm still surprised SkyCouch lasted given the extra weight it adds.

Overall it's a very premium heavy LOPA which shows where the airline is heading on it's LH network.

SkyCouch has probably lasted on the ground if the additional range it would give the 789s on longer sectors? While recouping some of the cost of blocking of an seat.

I would think the the weight cost of SkyCouch, is still less than 1x adult passenger? Thus by selling SkyCouch for a additional fee, it off seats the weight / empty seat. While on short haul routes still giving them an additional seat to sell.

Much less weight than an additional passenger. It probably weighs in the region of 30kg per row of 3 compared to an average adult being around 80kg or so plus bags etc.

Deepinsider wrote:

Air NZ proposing new interiors. Well done. (way too late but past is past....covid etc)
To me it all looks pretty good but it's sort of just catching up rather than jumping ahead,
which is their opportunity being this late to the game (Business Premier in particular).
Economy sleeping pods really is a jump ahead though. Not many, and their availability
not clear. So is it just a marketing stunt? Luxe is a fake 1st class, a good idea but just
in the wrong part of the cabin, how many of us would seat select into rows 1 or 2?
My suggestion would be to call the new business.. 'business class' and the front row
seats, 'Business Premier' which I think would best show their fit in the current market.

The front rows are often the most popular on many different aircraft and airlines - often very hard to get.
Quieter for one thing, although that can be affected by lavs/galley usage nearby.

We need to remember Boeing has a huge backlog of 787s to clear once deliveries resume; no specifics on this yet. So precise delivery dates may not be realistic right now. If all orders are now for 787-9 that's an interesting development for sure, IMHO.

Why did QR drop nonstop DOH-AKL service? As of right now it's DOH-ADL-AKL.

Emirates will be resuming DXB-AKL nonstop later on. Quite amazing how AKL-DXB is 17 hours and the A380 has the range to fly that route, didn't think that was possible. But they seem to be doing well connecting AKL to a global connecting hub network at DXB.

NZ321 wrote:

We need to remember Boeing has a huge backlog of 787s to clear once deliveries resume; no specifics on this yet. So precise delivery dates may not be realistic right now. If all orders are now for 787-9 that's an interesting development for sure, IMHO.

I think it’s safe to assume they are.

NZ516 wrote:

They will eventually have a fleet of 20 wide bodies. Just to reactivate the 77Ws is an enormous undertaking and there is only so much engineering capacity with all the other existing requirements at the same time. So that leaves it likely that no more room to bring in more retired aircraft eg the 772s.

It will be more than 20 eventually. While a large undertaking to reactivate an aircraft it’s more rehiring thousands of crew that even bigger. Tbh I don’t see NZ bringing back 772s, it comes up every now and again, NZ is a small airline compared to LH, QR etc who are reactivating A380s.

3D101CA wrote:

Why did QR drop nonstop DOH-AKL service? As of right now it's DOH-ADL-AKL.

Emirates will be resuming DXB-AKL nonstop later on. Quite amazing how AKL-DXB is 17 hours and the A380 has the range to fly that route, didn't think that was possible. But they seem to be doing well connecting AKL to a global connecting hub network at DXB.

QR did BNE-AKL for quite a while.

They dropped it for the same reason EK dropped DXB-AKL, expensive to run when not many people could travel over the pandemic. Both along with SQ we’re about the only carriers flying pax into AKL throughout however. Making a stop meant they could also uplift more freight where space was at a premium.

As you say DXB is a global connecting hub, hence it can connect just about anywhere in the world.

Kiwiandrew wrote:

Interesting that the press release on NZ's own website refers to "the 8 787-9s arriving from 2024" . Does this mean they've switched the whole -10 order to 9s now ? Or just poor proofreading? https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/press-r ... in-the-sky

The Boeing website as of 31 May 2022 still says 2 x 787-9 and 6 x 787-10. From memory the updates are posted about a week after the end of the month, so I'll be checking to see if there's a change as of 30 June 2022.

PA515

PA515 wrote:

Kiwiandrew wrote:

Interesting that the press release on NZ's own website refers to "the 8 787-9s arriving from 2024" . Does this mean they've switched the whole -10 order to 9s now ? Or just poor proofreading? https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/press-r ... in-the-sky

The Boeing website as of 31 May 2022 still says 2 x 787-9 and 6 x 787-10. From memory the updates are posted about a week after the end of the month, so I'll be checking to see if there's a change as of 30 June 2022.

PA515

Thanks for that.

I'm on the fence as to whether their PR people just didn't fully check what they were writing or whether it is an indicator of a change to the current order.

Either way, I'm sure that the eventual fleet will certainly be larger than the 22 either in service already or on order, and I'm sure there will be some -10s at some point once the higher weight version is available

77west wrote:

I have always argued the A220 may have a role in the AirNZ fleet in future. Something like the A220-300 that could fill in some trunk domestic routes in between thinner regional sectors.

The A220 could also be useful for longer domestic routes. However, a problem is the runway length at NSN, and even the proposed lengthening would make minimal change to this. Where the A220-300 might be great for Tasman routes, it could not use NSN, which is probably the single most important regional port with the potential for jet services. However, the A220-100 apparently could use the field - and is probably better sized for most domestic provincial routes.

I could see a NB jet fleet comprising the A321 and the postulated A220-500 and A220-100 in the long term, allowing a good deal of “right-sizing” on domestic and Tasman routes.

Zkpilot wrote:

zkncj wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

I was expecting disappointment and criticism from some here. Apart from the Business Premier Luxe product which is a small move towards F class (but managed within the one cabin) the J product has the same basic design principals as the current one with regarding to being closer to that herringbone design to other options out there.

Skynest is yet to be approved and I'm still surprised SkyCouch lasted given the extra weight it adds.

Overall it's a very premium heavy LOPA which shows where the airline is heading on it's LH network.

SkyCouch has probably lasted on the ground if the additional range it would give the 789s on longer sectors? While recouping some of the cost of blocking of an seat.

I would think the the weight cost of SkyCouch, is still less than 1x adult passenger? Thus by selling SkyCouch for a additional fee, it off seats the weight / empty seat. While on short haul routes still giving them an additional seat to sell.

Much less weight than an additional passenger. It probably weighs in the region of 30kg per row of 3 compared to an average adult being around 80kg or so plus bags etc.

And this is the 50 million dollar question or gamble..

If you carry 3 unrelated passengers and have SkyCouch installed it's extra 'dead' weight as they're not going to use it. If you have 1,2 or 3 people on a skycoach row but they don't pay for it it's extra 'dead' weight. Regardless on if they use it or not.

If you have 2 passengers who pay for SkyCoach it's partial win.

I say partial because it's clear win if the airline was only going to sell that seat at a discounted price or not at all, but sometimes they airline could fill that seat in a B or Y class sale.

SkyCoach is at it's best when you have 3+ people who elect to pay for it. Ideally a family group with younger children. Not that common.

Obviously the analysts have determined the weight vs revenue is favorable to retain the product but I'm still surprised. especially with Skynest but perhaps the time limit on this would encourage some to opt for SkyCouch.

DavidByrne wrote:

77west wrote:

I have always argued the A220 may have a role in the AirNZ fleet in future. Something like the A220-300 that could fill in some trunk domestic routes in between thinner regional sectors.

The A220 could also be useful for longer domestic routes. However, a problem is the runway length at NSN, and even the proposed lengthening would make minimal change to this. Where the A220-300 might be great for Tasman routes, it could not use NSN, which is probably the single most important regional port with the potential for jet services. However, the A220-100 apparently could use the field - and is probably better sized for most domestic provincial routes.

I could see a NB jet fleet comprising the A321 and the postulated A220-500 and A220-100 in the long term, allowing a good deal of “right-sizing” on domestic and Tasman routes.

The A220 is interesting, the A225 is almost the size as the A320 but more efficient. It will be interesting to see how many airlines go to the A220 to replace existing A320s, not sure if it’s a single type rating? I would think long term that the A321 would be the main domestic aircraft on the trunk routes, maybe a few A320s or a larger fleet of A220s?

Airwork bought an Airbus A321 earlier this year. MSN1015 built in 1999. I assume they intend to convert it?

PA515 wrote:

I am guessing that OAB and OJQ will stay until FY2027 when the 6th and 7th domestic A321NEOs are due. Two of the leased A320ceos leave in FY2024 and two in FY2027. The two BOC leased aircraft (OJR and OJS) were delivered in Nov 2011 and Dec 2011 and, assuming a twelve year lease, that would match up. The ALC leased aircraft (OAB and OJQ) were delivered in Jan 2011 and Feb 2011 and, assuming a twelve year lease, that would equate to a four year lease extension if they go in FY2027.

PA515

Guess I can delay getting a new a.net account then.

aerokiwi wrote:

So, yeah, heard that "equivalent on the ground" argument before and it's largely corporate doublespeak to justify declining working conditions. And they're always declining, never improving, especially in a high inflation environment. Meanwhile airfares are elevated and competition reduced. Just suck it up and pay your people a decent salary. Need savings? Hot tip... Marketing and HR.

Exactly. The airline is charging absolutely extortionate fares at the moment, so the absolute least they can do is pay their staff a decent wage. More to the point I'm sick of management talking about customer facing employees as interchangeable or easily replaceable.

Zkpilot wrote:

I’ve had a lot of respect for you and your opinions over the many years, but frankly your views on your cabin crew colleagues is disgusting.

On to your points:
It is irrelevant whether crew are serving customers or “resting” (which isn’t really much of a rest - things like turbulence, noise etc). You are still at work, on duty and flying around in a pressurised tube with everything else that goes with that. Also there are many occasions where that rest is not possible for a variety of reasons.

Away from home - yes it is part of the role - and part of the reason for the pay! Again most job’s people get to be home most if not all nights. There aren’t too many jobs out there were people are away from home more than 50% of the time.

Zkpilot wrote:

Health & Safety - overall the science acknowledges the issue but hasn’t be confirmed per se. That said, it does confirm the radiation risk (which is why pregnant crew must stop flying fairly early on).
https://www.businessinsider.com/airplan ... 015-11?amp
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... nd-aircrew

There's also the matter of long term aircrew living something like eight years less on average than folks in regular jobs.

zkojq wrote:

Airwork bought an Airbus A321 earlier this. MSN1015 built in 1999. I assume they intend to convert it?

Perhaps that’s intended for the CHC-MEL route whic I saw on another site Airwork is going to operate for FedEx?

DavidByrne wrote:

zkojq wrote:

Airwork bought an Airbus A321 earlier this. MSN1015 built in 1999. I assume they intend to convert it?

Perhaps that’s intended for the CHC-MEL route whic I saw on another site Airwork is going to operate for FedEx?

Or Australian domestic freight runs, QF is converting a321 into freighters for there domestic contracts.

Airwork currently operates an bunch on 733/734s in Australia on behalf of toll.

DavidByrne wrote:

zkojq wrote:

Airwork bought an Airbus A321 earlier this. MSN1015 built in 1999. I assume they intend to convert it?

Perhaps that’s intended for the CHC-MEL route whic I saw on another site Airwork is going to operate for FedEx?

I must have missed them getting an A321, but just saw it somewhere else, didn’t they get 2 757s as well? Where are they going? Bit of a mixed fleet.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/travel/auckland-airport-hotel-wins-big-at-skytrax-awards-despite-miq-status/4B5GRO5Y3J3WF3D6T7XRWABVVA/?utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=nzh_fb&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR2QPJh17CdtQ-nPb6izGeYAUIOM0BIVIljfx3h9E-NVf_nt-lKM-_jJDyM#Echobox=1656383910

So the Novotel at AKL somehow won one of the best "airport hotels in the word" at 2022 SkyTrax Awards., yet it was an MIQ Hotel from 2020 to 2022....

Subs much how much SkyTrax awards are really worth.

zkncj wrote:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/travel/auckland-airport-hotel-wins-big-at-skytrax-awards-despite-miq-status/4B5GRO5Y3J3WF3D6T7XRWABVVA/?utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=nzh_fb&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR2QPJh17CdtQ-nPb6izGeYAUIOM0BIVIljfx3h9E-NVf_nt-lKM-_jJDyM#Echobox=1656383910

So the Novotel at AKL somehow won one of the best "airport hotels in the word" at 2022 SkyTrax Awards., yet it was an MIQ Hotel from 2020 to 2022....

Subs much how much SkyTrax awards are really worth.

Yes, I hear you. I was looking at booking a trip to Fiji, and found a resort that was “travellers choice 2021”. I thought that was quite odd, as due to COVID that no one could actually choose to travel there….!

I suspect someone in marketing might be telling porkies……?

NZ321 wrote:

zkncj wrote:

NZ801 wrote:

Hanger 22 opening Wednesday.

Must be the new J product launch? I do wonder if they are planning to have it onboard some of the 789s by the time JFK launches.

With the 789s going to the USA for repaints, could be a prefect down time to refit the J cabins at the same time picking up the new seats in the USA without having to ship them to AKL.

https://paxex.aero/air-new-zealand-busi ... e-skynest/

There are some quite detailed images of the new product available at the above link. Quite big changes from the current product; would be interesting to see a seat map and the actual seat count.

Quite underwhelming, after all the hype and "years" of customer engagement. Appreciate others may disagree.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ321 wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Must be the new J product launch? I do wonder if they are planning to have it onboard some of the 789s by the time JFK launches.

With the 789s going to the USA for repaints, could be a prefect down time to refit the J cabins at the same time picking up the new seats in the USA without having to ship them to AKL.

https://paxex.aero/air-new-zealand-busi ... e-skynest/

There are some quite detailed images of the new product available at the above link. Quite big changes from the current product; would be interesting to see a seat map and the actual seat count.

Quite underwhelming, after all the hype and "years" of customer engagement. Appreciate others may disagree.

What did you expect? Genuine question, NZ still have little competition on most routes, 1 other carrier at most on long haul. They no longer serve any 5th freedom routes where they need to compete on product even though they held their own and were a popular choice on LAX-LHR.

Kiwiandrew wrote:

Interesting that the press release on NZ's own website refers to "the 8 787-9s arriving from 2024" . Does this mean they've switched the whole -10 order to 9s now ? Or just poor proofreading? https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/press-r ... in-the-sky

Made an all-new thread saying almost the exact same thing, then immediately saw this thread, and then just as quickly deleted it. Thanks for speaking my mind.

I'd like to assume that they've switched over the orders, since the press release makes zero mention of the 787-10, nor any indication of 787-10 configuration.

This leaves room for the A350 (hopefully)! If they ever need extra capacity on these ultra-long-haul routes, as well as a proper 77W replacement, the A35K I believe will do so well. But adding an all new aircraft type would be expensive, so...

AdEd wrote:

Kiwiandrew wrote:

Interesting that the press release on NZ's own website refers to "the 8 787-9s arriving from 2024" . Does this mean they've switched the whole -10 order to 9s now ? Or just poor proofreading? https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/press-r ... in-the-sky

Made an all-new thread saying almost the exact same thing, then immediately saw this thread, and then just as quickly deleted it. Thanks for speaking my mind.

I'd like to assume that they've switched over the orders, since the press release makes zero mention of the 787-10, nor any indication of 787-10 configuration.

This leaves room for the A350 (hopefully)! If they ever need extra capacity on these ultra-long-haul routes, as well as a proper 77W replacement, the A35K I believe will do so well. But adding an all new aircraft type would be expensive, so...

One would think that any future 781 configuration would probably have a similar number of premium seats as the new 789, which would be used to LAX/SFO with an additional 5-6 rows of Y.

Re the A350, the 787 does leave you short of capacity if you need it, tbh I’ve been saying for a while NZ are after the premium leisure market which is what Nz have said themselves, some have said the 789 with a QF like configuration won’t work for NZ but here we go we have one with even less seats than QF. To me this shows what NZ have been saying for some time.

These were meant to replace the 77W although this may indicate otherwise? I think the market will dictate when they order more aircraft. A configuration like this almost makes an A35K order less likely than before to me given they are prepared to go with so few seats. So long as the 781 can do LAX/SFO with probably 280/300 pax I don’t see them going with anything larger. QF will replace A380s with 485 seats likely with A35Ks with 238, maybe a few more on another configuration but pretty much half the number while adding more destinations like NZ are doing.

ZK-NBT wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ321 wrote:

https://paxex.aero/air-new-zealand-busi ... e-skynest/

There are some quite detailed images of the new product available at the above link. Quite big changes from the current product; would be interesting to see a seat map and the actual seat count.

Quite underwhelming, after all the hype and "years" of customer engagement. Appreciate others may disagree.

What did you expect? Genuine question

Something more innovative, like AY's seat perhaps? It shouldn't take years of consultation to know people want more space and privacy. Appreciate it's an improvement on the current product though.

DavidByrne wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Interesting idea DavidByrne.

I’m not sure the CEO said short haul leisure routes need to daily, more long haul routes with large amounts of premium traffic. Daily AKL-RAR on a 789 could then in peak winter be topped up with 3 weekly ex WLG/CHC A320s and additional AKL services.

I’m not sure which other Pacific destinations other than maybe APW could support services ex WLG/CHC? Even APW was usually from memory 8 weekly ex AKL in winter, 4-5 789s and the rest A320s. So you could operate daily ex AKL but 789s only on the weekend with 2 weekly ex WLG/CHC, I feel like 1 weekly is hardly worth it meaning people have to stay a week or connect via AKL anyway.

I wondered pre covid with DPS/HNL being daily or more in winter weather they might have looked at 2 weekly ex CHC at some point.

I have had the same thoughts re DPS and HNL. For a leisure destination there is surely more benefit in trying to stimulate the market by offering direct services from CHC than by hoping that passengers will be prepared to make the transit stop in Auckland. It goes without saying that direct services stimulate market growth, and where you have a mature market there is surely more potential in adding a new departure point than adding extra capacity to AKL.

And again re long-haul: Does NZ really want to cede a significant portion of CHC-LAX traffic to AA (assuming it revives its plan, but operating way less than daily, but hey, what would they know about passenger preferences?) or would it prefer to keep that traffic to itself? I could see a similar allocation of a 789 aircraft (where there are enough in the fleet) to CHC to enable CHC-LAX in the summer, and CHC-DPS/HNL in the winter, for example. And then a second 789 in summer to operate CHC-SIN 5x and CHC-PER 2x weekly.

I look at QF, NZ's nearest significant competitor, and its attitude is completely different. It's just commenced DRW-DIL, PER-FCO, is starting PER-CGK, PER-JNB and others that I can't for the moment recall. That's on top of more than forty (yes, forty) new domestic routes, most offering nonstop service on routes that previously required a transfer. Yes, I appreciate that they are different carriers, in a different market with different pressures and so on, but it demonstrates a more creative mindset to me than NZ has shown. I've many times in the past discussed the possibility of more Transtasman connectivity as well (and been rubbished for it) - but this falls into the same category. In fact, I think there's an even stronger case on the Tasman - the suggestion that (say) AKL-SYD would be "cannibalised" by new nonstop routes just doesn't hold water - with 4-5 flights daily it's not even an issue if a couple of plane loads of pax a week are siphoned off to direct services on routes like AKL-CBR, especially if it allows for seamless connections to North America. And as I noted before, the loads SQ carried on the WLG-CBR alone were far from shabby. As an aside, I note that Adelaide Airport is currently seeking a carrier to operate CHC-ADL (IIRC it was identified pre-covid as the Tasman route with the highest number of one-stop pax that did not have a direct option). NZ is the market leader on the Tasman, and I believe it should aggressively seek to maintain that, rather than cede potential new routes to others.

Unfortunately I see Air NZ is stuck in it's own mind with no change to their Tasman operation. I can't see them ever going to CBR they can't see any market there for them. You are right that Qantas is very creative and opened up 45+ domestic routes in two years that is a huge achievement. Plus they are opening international up with 3 new routes to India along with the others you mentioned. NZ is a small market and I see Air NZ to just concentrate all long haul flying from AKL only. They are more risk adverse now than ever probably due to the high losses caused by the pandemic.

We are more likely to see QF start CBR-AKL one day with their E190s as they have the ambition to give it ago.

NZ516 wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Interesting idea DavidByrne.

I’m not sure the CEO said short haul leisure routes need to daily, more long haul routes with large amounts of premium traffic. Daily AKL-RAR on a 789 could then in peak winter be topped up with 3 weekly ex WLG/CHC A320s and additional AKL services.

I’m not sure which other Pacific destinations other than maybe APW could support services ex WLG/CHC? Even APW was usually from memory 8 weekly ex AKL in winter, 4-5 789s and the rest A320s. So you could operate daily ex AKL but 789s only on the weekend with 2 weekly ex WLG/CHC, I feel like 1 weekly is hardly worth it meaning people have to stay a week or connect via AKL anyway.

I wondered pre covid with DPS/HNL being daily or more in winter weather they might have looked at 2 weekly ex CHC at some point.

I have had the same thoughts re DPS and HNL. For a leisure destination there is surely more benefit in trying to stimulate the market by offering direct services from CHC than by hoping that passengers will be prepared to make the transit stop in Auckland. It goes without saying that direct services stimulate market growth, and where you have a mature market there is surely more potential in adding a new departure point than adding extra capacity to AKL.

And again re long-haul: Does NZ really want to cede a significant portion of CHC-LAX traffic to AA (assuming it revives its plan, but operating way less than daily, but hey, what would they know about passenger preferences?) or would it prefer to keep that traffic to itself? I could see a similar allocation of a 789 aircraft (where there are enough in the fleet) to CHC to enable CHC-LAX in the summer, and CHC-DPS/HNL in the winter, for example. And then a second 789 in summer to operate CHC-SIN 5x and CHC-PER 2x weekly.

I look at QF, NZ's nearest significant competitor, and its attitude is completely different. It's just commenced DRW-DIL, PER-FCO, is starting PER-CGK, PER-JNB and others that I can't for the moment recall. That's on top of more than forty (yes, forty) new domestic routes, most offering nonstop service on routes that previously required a transfer. Yes, I appreciate that they are different carriers, in a different market with different pressures and so on, but it demonstrates a more creative mindset to me than NZ has shown. I've many times in the past discussed the possibility of more Transtasman connectivity as well (and been rubbished for it) - but this falls into the same category. In fact, I think there's an even stronger case on the Tasman - the suggestion that (say) AKL-SYD would be "cannibalised" by new nonstop routes just doesn't hold water - with 4-5 flights daily it's not even an issue if a couple of plane loads of pax a week are siphoned off to direct services on routes like AKL-CBR, especially if it allows for seamless connections to North America. And as I noted before, the loads SQ carried on the WLG-CBR alone were far from shabby. As an aside, I note that Adelaide Airport is currently seeking a carrier to operate CHC-ADL (IIRC it was identified pre-covid as the Tasman route with the highest number of one-stop pax that did not have a direct option). NZ is the market leader on the Tasman, and I believe it should aggressively seek to maintain that, rather than cede potential new routes to others.

Unfortunately I see Air NZ is stuck in it's own mind with no change to their Tasman operation. I can't see them ever going to CBR they can't see any market there for them. You are right that Qantas is very creative and opened up 45+ domestic routes in two years that is a huge achievement. Plus they are opening international up with 3 new routes to India along with the others you mentioned. NZ is a small market and I see Air NZ to just concentrate all long haul flying from AKL only. They are more risk adverse now than ever probably due to the high losses caused by the pandemic.

We are more likely to see QF start CBR-AKL one day with their E190s as they have the ambition to give it ago.

QF creative? Sure with new routes, but their customer service is down the drain. NZ aren’t probably that much better however totally different markets, where should NZ fly? CBR sure. They added HBT during the pandemic, JFK is starting soon, they added SIN/IAH/ORD/TPE/ICN, yes there were a few cuts. CHC will likely get SIN/PER back once they have enough aircraft, LAX makes some sense.

QF to CBR? Not convinced by that tbh, will the A220s get ETOPS etc? Hopefully NZ will do it and not worry about losing a few pax off a SYD service.

ZK-NBT wrote:

CHC will likely get SIN/PER back once they have enough aircraft, LAX makes some sense.

Yes, now that LAX-LHR is gone, all LAX services are terminators. For such a long haul flight, any increase above daily with flights spaced just an hour or two from each other does nothing whatsoever to attract new passengers; it’s purely a capacity play. If 10x weekly is the allocated LAX capacity, it would make just as much sense to operate daily from AKL and 3x weekly from CHC. And the same could be argued for a seasonal SFO service if that ever reaches the capacity that it had some summers back. Again, if someone is to operate CHC-LAX, I’d rather it was NZ than AA.

DavidByrne wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

CHC will likely get SIN/PER back once they have enough aircraft, LAX makes some sense.

Yes, now that LAX-LHR is gone, all LAX services are terminators. For such a long haul flight, any increase above daily with flights spaced just an hour or two from each other does nothing whatsoever to attract new passengers; it’s purely a capacity play. If 10x weekly is the allocated LAX capacity, it would make just as much sense to operate daily from AKL and 3x weekly from CHC. And the same could be argued for a seasonal SFO service if that ever reaches the capacity that it had some summers back. Again, if someone is to operate CHC-LAX, I’d rather it was NZ than AA.

Crew is the issue with all long haul crew based in AKL. So it's much simpler to add extra long haul out of AKL. Which the airport also connects to the most domestic airports hence LAX going from daily to ten weekly. Plus they see AKL as the biggest market and where most of their business pax will fill the front of the planes from. It may be a while before NZ CHC long haul returns.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

They will eventually have a fleet of 20 wide bodies. Just to reactivate the 77Ws is an enormous undertaking and there is only so much engineering capacity with all the other existing requirements at the same time. So that leaves it likely that no more room to bring in more retired aircraft eg the 772s.

It will be more than 20 eventually. While a large undertaking to reactivate an aircraft it’s more rehiring thousands of crew that even bigger. Tbh I don’t see NZ bringing back 772s, it comes up every now and again, NZ is a small airline compared to LH, QR etc who are reactivating A380s.

It will stay at 20 for a while though.
What is interesting is that even in 2027 . Five years away from now there will be just 20 787s with all the 77Ws retired.
From the graph below on the link in green 2027 (4 aircraft types) . Also the combined A320 fleet will be 33 up two from now.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/travel/2 ... d-out.html

NZ516 wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

CHC will likely get SIN/PER back once they have enough aircraft, LAX makes some sense.

Yes, now that LAX-LHR is gone, all LAX services are terminators. For such a long haul flight, any increase above daily with flights spaced just an hour or two from each other does nothing whatsoever to attract new passengers; it’s purely a capacity play. If 10x weekly is the allocated LAX capacity, it would make just as much sense to operate daily from AKL and 3x weekly from CHC. And the same could be argued for a seasonal SFO service if that ever reaches the capacity that it had some summers back. Again, if someone is to operate CHC-LAX, I’d rather it was NZ than AA.

Crew is the issue with all long haul crew based in AKL. So it's much simpler to add extra long haul out of AKL. Which the airport also connects to the most domestic airports hence LAX going from daily to ten weekly. Plus they see AKL as the biggest market and where most of their business pax will fill the front of the planes from. It may be a while before NZ CHC long haul returns.

They might be based in AKL but some will live outside of AKL, as they grow crew numbers and aircraft return I think CHC-SIN/PER will return, it will be a year or 2. A possible LAX service would be further out imo.

NZ516 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

They will eventually have a fleet of 20 wide bodies. Just to reactivate the 77Ws is an enormous undertaking and there is only so much engineering capacity with all the other existing requirements at the same time. So that leaves it likely that no more room to bring in more retired aircraft eg the 772s.

It will be more than 20 eventually. While a large undertaking to reactivate an aircraft it’s more rehiring thousands of crew that even bigger. Tbh I don’t see NZ bringing back 772s, it comes up every now and again, NZ is a small airline compared to LH, QR etc who are reactivating A380s.

It will stay at 20 for a while though.
What is interesting is that even in 2027 . Five years away from now there will be just 20 787s with all the 77Ws retired.
From the graph below on the link in green 2027 (4 aircraft types) . Also the combined A320 fleet will be 33 up two from now.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/travel/2 ... d-out.html

There should be 22 787s by 2027ish, the way it looks to me and I could be wrong is they will let the market decide when the 77W retires and some could be replaced further out by additional 787s. I do think there will be more than 20-22 aircraft by 2027 myself.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

It will be more than 20 eventually. While a large undertaking to reactivate an aircraft it’s more rehiring thousands of crew that even bigger. Tbh I don’t see NZ bringing back 772s, it comes up every now and again, NZ is a small airline compared to LH, QR etc who are reactivating A380s.

It will stay at 20 for a while though.
What is interesting is that even in 2027 . Five years away from now there will be just 20 787s with all the 77Ws retired.
From the graph below on the link in green 2027 (4 aircraft types) . Also the combined A320 fleet will be 33 up two from now.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/travel/2 ... d-out.html

There should be 22 787s by 2027ish, the way it looks to me and I could be wrong is they will let the market decide when the 77W retires and some could be replaced further out by additional 787s. I do think there will be more than 20-22 aircraft by 2027 myself.

Don't forget that they have pushed back the delivery dates of the new 787s. So the last two could be 2028-29. I think they will stick with all the 77Ws gone by 2027 as it reduces fleet types to 4 as part of their business strategy to save costs.
Be good to see soon an update from the next annual report it might be July. To see if any changes from last year's future fleet plan.

NZ516 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

It will stay at 20 for a while though.
What is interesting is that even in 2027 . Five years away from now there will be just 20 787s with all the 77Ws retired.
From the graph below on the link in green 2027 (4 aircraft types) . Also the combined A320 fleet will be 33 up two from now.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/travel/2 ... d-out.html

There should be 22 787s by 2027ish, the way it looks to me and I could be wrong is they will let the market decide when the 77W retires and some could be replaced further out by additional 787s. I do think there will be more than 20-22 aircraft by 2027 myself.

Don't forget that they have pushed back the delivery dates of the new 787s. So the last two could be 2028-29. I think they will stick with all the 77Ws gone by 2027 as it reduces fleet types to 4 as part of their business strategy to save costs.
Be good to see soon an update from the next annual report it might be July. To see if any changes from last year's future fleet plan.

5x of the 77Ws are owned, so does give them flexibility to extend there use out by a couple of years if the market pickups.

zkncj wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

There should be 22 787s by 2027ish, the way it looks to me and I could be wrong is they will let the market decide when the 77W retires and some could be replaced further out by additional 787s. I do think there will be more than 20-22 aircraft by 2027 myself.

Don't forget that they have pushed back the delivery dates of the new 787s. So the last two could be 2028-29. I think they will stick with all the 77Ws gone by 2027 as it reduces fleet types to 4 as part of their business strategy to save costs.
Be good to see soon an update from the next annual report it might be July. To see if any changes from last year's future fleet plan.

5x of the 77Ws are owned, so does give them flexibility to extend there use out by a couple of years if the market pickups.

That's good to know they could extend as they won't get much when they do eventually sell them.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indust ... rs-by-2025

To change the topic slightly. Queenstown airport plans to exceed pre Covid flight numbers by 2025. That year they expect the airport will have 2.5 million passengers and total flights could reach 18,000 or 52 per day.
The last busiest year was 2019 when the airport reached 2.3 million annual passengers. I think the popularity with Tourism to ZQN will return.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politi ... r-aircraft

More airport news. Hokitika might see bigger aircraft such as the ATR72 with the noise boundary extension at 4 West Coast airports. I really like the comment that Hokitika is hardly like Heathrow regarding the changes. Very funny...

planemanofnz wrote:

Quite underwhelming, after all the hype and "years" of customer engagement. Appreciate others may disagree.

I'm actually surprised more people here aren't agreeing with you.

There's been so much criticism of the J product, the herringbone design, inward facing etc.

But I guess like I suggested over the years, although there's other designs out there, there wasn't a whole lot wrong with what NZ had and many liked what was on offer. Yes, it was getting dated and it needed a refreshed for the 787's which by in large is what this is.

The cool additions are J+ and Skynest.

NZ516 wrote:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/local-democracy-reporting/300626497/airport-noise-boundaries-extended-at-west-coast-airports-to-allow-more-planes-bigger-aircraft

More airport news. Hokitika might see bigger aircraft such as the ATR72 with the noise boundary extension at 4 West Coast airports.

Possibly on a charter basis, but I just can’t see a town of 3,000 supporting the AT7 on a regular basis. Even if it is serving Greymouth etc as well.

NZ516 wrote:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/129127337/queenstown-airports-plans-to-exceed-precovid-flight-numbers-by-2025

To change the topic slightly. Queenstown airport plans to exceed pre Covid flight numbers by 2025. That year they expect the airport will have 2.5 million passengers and total flights could reach 18,000 or 52 per day.
The last busiest year was 2019 when the airport reached 2.3 million annual passengers. I think the popularity with Tourism to ZQN will return.

Interesting that the article notes that the expectation conflicts with the Council’s goal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 44% in the next eight years. Expect to see more and more of these conflicts arise - and I don’t expect that aviation will always be the winner. I note that KLM is livid with the decision to reduce the allowable number of movements at AMS. Obviously this is a boost for the idea of electric and hydrogen fuel cell technology, but for the meantime it’s only turboprop aircraft that are in the wind for conversion.