NZ516 wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

The Herald is reporting that it's $125 more to fly Auckland to Timaru than it is to fly to Honolulu.

I wonder if Rex would ever give New Zealand a go, and bring back some competition to regional Kiwi centres. They're well experienced with prop-flying (which JQ wasn't), and in expansion mode with their move to jet services in Australia, and purchase of NJE this week. It would also be great to get a third key carrier onto the Tasman again, in light of VA not appearing to be interested in returning to New Zealand beyond ZQN.

I don't think NZ will be ever in REX's focus they will keep expanding on the 737 capital city routes in Australia.
However Bonza might give NZ ago down the track in a year from now.

Interesting suggestion re: Bonza. Is there ( and where) would be secondary markets for them to fly to NZ ? Newcastle potentially. Interested in thoughts if where else from a NZ perspective.

NTLDaz wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

I wonder if Rex would ever give New Zealand a go, and bring back some competition to regional Kiwi centres. They're well experienced with prop-flying (which JQ wasn't), and in expansion mode with their move to jet services in Australia, and purchase of NJE this week. It would also be great to get a third key carrier onto the Tasman again, in light of VA not appearing to be interested in returning to New Zealand beyond ZQN.

I don't think NZ will be ever in REX's focus they will keep expanding on the 737 capital city routes in Australia.
However Bonza might give NZ ago down the track in a year from now.

Interesting suggestion re: Bonza. Is there ( and where) would be secondary markets for them to fly to NZ ? Newcastle potentially. Interested in thoughts if where else from a NZ perspective.

From a regional New Zealand POV, there have been Australian flights in the past from HLZ, PMR, ROT and DUD. Flights were also announced from TRG (on K2000), but never eventuated. And IVC has previously pitched to have trans-Tasman flights there, but to no avail.

Of these, DUD might be a good one to test. VA flew BNE-DUD until before Covid, and reportedly had good loads. But it would be heavily New Zealand-originating traffic. ROT or TRG would have stronger tourism appeal, if Bonza wanted to focus on Australian-originating traffic.

NZ516 wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

Surely, if it's ICAO, it's collaboration etc on technical aspects of the system in the Pacific that are expected, not commercial?

Yes, you're right. But I believe technical factors like safety have impacted NZ's (commercial) risk appetite in the region in the past - e.g. pulling out of VLI amid the well-publicized runway safety issues there.

Port Vila's runway can't be too bad now as Virgin Australia is returning soon from both SYD and BNE.

VLI also takes the Air Van 738 which is registered in Aus so yeah I think its fixed.

planemanofnz wrote:

77west wrote:

So code 3 787s layout will be 42J, 52W and only 120Y (214 Total). Should make NYC more palatable from a performance point of view.

And ORD?

Well they did say any of the deep-East coast routes so I guess ORD and any others that might launch, ATL being the only one that jumps out.

77west wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

Yes, you're right. But I believe technical factors like safety have impacted NZ's (commercial) risk appetite in the region in the past - e.g. pulling out of VLI amid the well-publicized runway safety issues there.

Port Vila's runway can't be too bad now as Virgin Australia is returning soon from both SYD and BNE.

VLI also takes the Air Van 738 which is registered in Aus so yeah I think its fixed.

It's fixed now, but was an issue at the time NZ decided to withdraw (2016).

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/air ... VCJ6P2ST4/

77west wrote:

Well they did say any of the deep-East coast routes so I guess ORD and any others that might launch, ATL being the only one that jumps out.

I see YYZ and IAD - two key Star hubs, and larger metro areas - with better prospects for NZ flights than ATL.

ATL-AKL would be on DL. It may work - NZ is a gap in DL's network, and US-NZ trade and tourism are growing.

planemanofnz wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

I don't think NZ will be ever in REX's focus they will keep expanding on the 737 capital city routes in Australia.
However Bonza might give NZ ago down the track in a year from now.

Interesting suggestion re: Bonza. Is there ( and where) would be secondary markets for them to fly to NZ ? Newcastle potentially. Interested in thoughts if where else from a NZ perspective.

From a regional New Zealand POV, there have been Australian flights in the past from HLZ, PMR, ROT and DUD. Flights were also announced from TRG (on K2000), but never eventuated. And IVC has previously pitched to have trans-Tasman flights there, but to no avail.

Of these, DUD might be a good one to test. VA flew BNE-DUD until before Covid, and reportedly had good loads. But it would be heavily New Zealand-originating traffic. ROT or TRG would have stronger tourism appeal, if Bonza wanted to focus on Australian-originating traffic.

Cheers. The way I'm looking at this is what Australian ( secondary ) ports would best serve AKL or CHC ? Conversely what Australian secondary ports ( if any ) would pick up NZ originating traffic from AKL etc. I could see them potentially doing MCY to AKL despite NZ being on the route.

NTLDaz wrote:

The way I'm looking at this is what Australian ( secondary ) ports would best serve AKL or CHC ? Conversely what Australian secondary ports ( if any ) would pick up NZ originating traffic from AKL etc. I could see them potentially doing MCY to AKL despite NZ being on the route.

Queensland makes sense - it has more Kiwis than any other state in Australia (and by a lot), and has strong tourism appeal (aligning with Bonza's low-cost image). In terms of flights from AKL, places like ROK, TSV, and WTB might capture VFR traffic, while places like HTI, MCY and PPP might capture some Kiwi holidaymakers. However, I think there would be a bigger market flying from the likes of OOL or BNE to regional New Zealand centres.

Beyond Queensland, AVV-AKL and NTL-AKL might work?

planemanofnz wrote:

77west wrote:

Well they did say any of the deep-East coast routes so I guess ORD and any others that might launch, ATL being the only one that jumps out.

I see YYZ and IAD - two key Star hubs, and larger metro areas - with better prospects for NZ flights than ATL.

ATL-AKL would be on DL. It may work - NZ is a gap in DL's network, and US-NZ trade and tourism are growing.

True actually I hadn't though of that. MIA? To leisure? But lots of wealthy retirees.

77west wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

77west wrote:

Well they did say any of the deep-East coast routes so I guess ORD and any others that might launch, ATL being the only one that jumps out.

I see YYZ and IAD - two key Star hubs, and larger metro areas - with better prospects for NZ flights than ATL.

ATL-AKL would be on DL. It may work - NZ is a gap in DL's network, and US-NZ trade and tourism are growing.

True actually I hadn't though of that. MIA? To leisure? But lots of wealthy retirees.

Joyce mentioned Miami as a potential Sunrise market. Can't see it personally but it does have a massive cruise ship market.

With such easy transfer through Houston I'm not sure it would make sense.

NTLDaz wrote:

77west wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

I see YYZ and IAD - two key Star hubs, and larger metro areas - with better prospects for NZ flights than ATL.

ATL-AKL would be on DL. It may work - NZ is a gap in DL's network, and US-NZ trade and tourism are growing.

True actually I hadn't though of that. MIA? To leisure? But lots of wealthy retirees.

Joyce mentioned Miami as a potential Sunrise market. Can't see it personally but it does have a massive cruise ship market.

With such easy transfer through Houston I'm not sure it would make sense.

True. With I think only 4 of the Code 3 aircraft coming by 2026 I guess they will be kept busy on the New York and Chicago runs. NYC initially.

77west wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

77west wrote:

True actually I hadn't though of that. MIA? To leisure? But lots of wealthy retirees.

Joyce mentioned Miami as a potential Sunrise market. Can't see it personally but it does have a massive cruise ship market.

With such easy transfer through Houston I'm not sure it would make sense.

True. With I think only 4 of the Code 3 aircraft coming by 2026 I guess they will be kept busy on the New York and Chicago runs. NYC initially.

I wouldn't be surprised if when they retrofit the new product to the existing fleet if they make at least one or two of them Code 3.

ORD was daily or close to it pre-covid and Greg Foran has expressed his confidence, teething issues notwithstanding, that JFK can be expected to go daily fairly quickly. If both go daily that's 4 frames without allowing for maintenance or the unexpected

77west wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

Yes, you're right. But I believe technical factors like safety have impacted NZ's (commercial) risk appetite in the region in the past - e.g. pulling out of VLI amid the well-publicized runway safety issues there.

Port Vila's runway can't be too bad now as Virgin Australia is returning soon from both SYD and BNE.

VLI also takes the Air Van 738 which is registered in Aus so yeah I think its fixed.

The NF 738 is Vanuatu registered YJ-AV1.

planemanofnz wrote:

77west wrote:

Well they did say any of the deep-East coast routes so I guess ORD and any others that might launch, ATL being the only one that jumps out.

I see YYZ and IAD - two key Star hubs, and larger metro areas - with better prospects for NZ flights than ATL.

ATL-AKL would be on DL. It may work - NZ is a gap in DL's network, and US-NZ trade and tourism are growing.

ATL-AKL would I’ll say never happen on NZ metal, massive DL hub with I would think not much local demand AKL-ATL. Who knows if DL would try it with all the connections they have there?

Kiwiandrew wrote:

77west wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

Joyce mentioned Miami as a potential Sunrise market. Can't see it personally but it does have a massive cruise ship market.

With such easy transfer through Houston I'm not sure it would make sense.

True. With I think only 4 of the Code 3 aircraft coming by 2026 I guess they will be kept busy on the New York and Chicago runs. NYC initially.

I wouldn't be surprised if when they retrofit the new product to the existing fleet if they make at least one or two of them Code 3.

ORD was daily or close to it pre-covid and Greg Foran has expressed his confidence, teething issues notwithstanding, that JFK can be expected to go daily fairly quickly. If both go daily that's 4 frames without allowing for maintenance or the unexpected

I don’t think they will make any of the existing fleet code 3, Different engine type with GE said to be more efficient, and if they get the MTOW increase then they come up with a sub fleet within a sub fleet type thing. It may possibly be easier to fit skynest etc to the new build aircraft as well than refitting it to existing frames.

ORD went 5 weekly pre covid, it only ran from Nov 2018 so had 2 summers, was 3 weekly to start. They would run ORD/JFK daily in the peak months but reduce slightly in the other months if the fleet is stretched that much which is pretty common practice for NZ.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Kiwiandrew wrote:

77west wrote:

True. With I think only 4 of the Code 3 aircraft coming by 2026 I guess they will be kept busy on the New York and Chicago runs. NYC initially.

I wouldn't be surprised if when they retrofit the new product to the existing fleet if they make at least one or two of them Code 3.

ORD was daily or close to it pre-covid and Greg Foran has expressed his confidence, teething issues notwithstanding, that JFK can be expected to go daily fairly quickly. If both go daily that's 4 frames without allowing for maintenance or the unexpected

I don’t think they will make any of the existing fleet code 3, Different engine type with GE said to be more efficient, and if they get the MTOW increase then they come up with a sub fleet within a sub fleet type thing. It may possibly be easier to fit skynest etc to the new build aircraft as well than refitting it to existing frames.

ORD went 5 weekly pre covid, it only ran from Nov 2018 so had 2 summers, was 3 weekly to start. They would run ORD/JFK daily in the peak months but reduce slightly in the other months if the fleet is stretched that much which is pretty common practice for NZ.

You could very well be right. On the other hand, at the moment, I believe only two of the 8 GE powered aircraft on firm order are -9s, or has that ( officially) changed to 4 x -9s ? I wouldn't be surprised if more orders are converted to -9s ( or indeed if all 8 were to be delivered as -9s, with a follow up order , assuming the increased weight version goes to plan, of -10s for later in the decade)

ZK-NBT wrote:

77west wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Port Vila's runway can't be too bad now as Virgin Australia is returning soon from both SYD and BNE.

VLI also takes the Air Van 738 which is registered in Aus so yeah I think its fixed.

The NF 738 is Vanuatu registered YJ-AV1.

Apologies of course it is, I am getting confused with the Air Nauru planes it used to operate as Air Nauru is Aus reg I believe.

Kiwiandrew wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Kiwiandrew wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if when they retrofit the new product to the existing fleet if they make at least one or two of them Code 3.

ORD was daily or close to it pre-covid and Greg Foran has expressed his confidence, teething issues notwithstanding, that JFK can be expected to go daily fairly quickly. If both go daily that's 4 frames without allowing for maintenance or the unexpected

I don’t think they will make any of the existing fleet code 3, Different engine type with GE said to be more efficient, and if they get the MTOW increase then they come up with a sub fleet within a sub fleet type thing. It may possibly be easier to fit skynest etc to the new build aircraft as well than refitting it to existing frames.

ORD went 5 weekly pre covid, it only ran from Nov 2018 so had 2 summers, was 3 weekly to start. They would run ORD/JFK daily in the peak months but reduce slightly in the other months if the fleet is stretched that much which is pretty common practice for NZ.

You could very well be right. On the other hand, at the moment, I believe only two of the 8 GE powered aircraft on firm order are -9s, or has that ( officially) changed to 4 x -9s ? I wouldn't be surprised if more orders are converted to -9s ( or indeed if all 8 were to be delivered as -9s, with a follow up order , assuming the increased weight version goes to plan, of -10s for later in the decade)

Would this possibly lead to the 77W sticking around a bit longer than expected?

Kiwiandrew wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Kiwiandrew wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if when they retrofit the new product to the existing fleet if they make at least one or two of them Code 3.

ORD was daily or close to it pre-covid and Greg Foran has expressed his confidence, teething issues notwithstanding, that JFK can be expected to go daily fairly quickly. If both go daily that's 4 frames without allowing for maintenance or the unexpected

I don’t think they will make any of the existing fleet code 3, Different engine type with GE said to be more efficient, and if they get the MTOW increase then they come up with a sub fleet within a sub fleet type thing. It may possibly be easier to fit skynest etc to the new build aircraft as well than refitting it to existing frames.

ORD went 5 weekly pre covid, it only ran from Nov 2018 so had 2 summers, was 3 weekly to start. They would run ORD/JFK daily in the peak months but reduce slightly in the other months if the fleet is stretched that much which is pretty common practice for NZ.

You could very well be right. On the other hand, at the moment, I believe only two of the 8 GE powered aircraft on firm order are -9s, or has that ( officially) changed to 4 x -9s ? I wouldn't be surprised if more orders are converted to -9s ( or indeed if all 8 were to be delivered as -9s, with a follow up order , assuming the increased weight version goes to plan, of -10s for later in the decade)

I don’t think we know, nothing has been said about the 781 at all. You may well be right that only 2 have officially been converted to 789, I would probably expect at least 4 to cover JFK first then ORD and allow daily at least in peak, I’m not convinced that we will see anymore destinations for some time but I may be wrong.

They have said this order will replace the 77W, however things have rebounded pretty well so far, depends how much Capex NZ are willing to commit to additional aircraft?

77west wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

77west wrote:

VLI also takes the Air Van 738 which is registered in Aus so yeah I think its fixed.

The NF 738 is Vanuatu registered YJ-AV1.

Apologies of course it is, I am getting confused with the Air Nauru planes it used to operate as Air Nauru is Aus reg I believe.

Correct, NF do or did use ON aircraft pre covid.

77west wrote:

Kiwiandrew wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

I don’t think they will make any of the existing fleet code 3, Different engine type with GE said to be more efficient, and if they get the MTOW increase then they come up with a sub fleet within a sub fleet type thing. It may possibly be easier to fit skynest etc to the new build aircraft as well than refitting it to existing frames.

ORD went 5 weekly pre covid, it only ran from Nov 2018 so had 2 summers, was 3 weekly to start. They would run ORD/JFK daily in the peak months but reduce slightly in the other months if the fleet is stretched that much which is pretty common practice for NZ.

You could very well be right. On the other hand, at the moment, I believe only two of the 8 GE powered aircraft on firm order are -9s, or has that ( officially) changed to 4 x -9s ? I wouldn't be surprised if more orders are converted to -9s ( or indeed if all 8 were to be delivered as -9s, with a follow up order , assuming the increased weight version goes to plan, of -10s for later in the decade)

Would this possibly lead to the 77W sticking around a bit longer than expected?

That would be 1 option, things have rebounded well so far. The 77W product will be getting on by 2027 when they are due to retire, 4 are owned however which probably gives them some flexibility on when to retire them, maintenance checks to consider as well.

ZK-NBT wrote:

77west wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

The NF 738 is Vanuatu registered YJ-AV1.

Apologies of course it is, I am getting confused with the Air Nauru planes it used to operate as Air Nauru is Aus reg I believe.

Correct, NF do or did use ON aircraft pre covid.

Yes I flew on a B733 to VLI and back in October 2019. Ex NZ, now converted to freighter. Great flights with good food and service even on the tired old 1998 vintage 733.

ZK-NBT wrote:

77west wrote:

Kiwiandrew wrote:

You could very well be right. On the other hand, at the moment, I believe only two of the 8 GE powered aircraft on firm order are -9s, or has that ( officially) changed to 4 x -9s ? I wouldn't be surprised if more orders are converted to -9s ( or indeed if all 8 were to be delivered as -9s, with a follow up order , assuming the increased weight version goes to plan, of -10s for later in the decade)

Would this possibly lead to the 77W sticking around a bit longer than expected?

That would be 1 option, things have rebounded well so far. The 77W product will be getting on by 2027 when they are due to retire, 4 are owned however which probably gives them some flexibility on when to retire them, maintenance checks to consider as well.

The 77W product is getting on a bit even now, arguably. I reckon if they do stay longer than 2024 we will see a cabin refresh, and that may well see them stay until 2030ish when 787-10 come online, hopefully with upgraded MTOW and maybe even an engine PIP. They have only just hit 11 years old with 2 years of zero flights, so arguably only 9 years old. They could soldier on another 7-10 no problem.

77west wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

77west wrote:

Would this possibly lead to the 77W sticking around a bit longer than expected?

That would be 1 option, things have rebounded well so far. The 77W product will be getting on by 2027 when they are due to retire, 4 are owned however which probably gives them some flexibility on when to retire them, maintenance checks to consider as well.

The 77W product is getting on a bit even now, arguably. I reckon if they do stay longer than 2024 we will see a cabin refresh, and that may well see them stay until 2030ish when 787-10 come online, hopefully with upgraded MTOW and maybe even an engine PIP. They have only just hit 11 years old with 2 years of zero flights, so arguably only 9 years old. They could soldier on another 7-10 no problem.

They are here till 2027 currently. I wouldn’t be sure that they will commit much to the cabin, a refresh sure but nothing more. I agree they are young still and could fly for another 10 years easily if required. Why do you say 2030 ish for the 787-10?

ZK-NBT wrote:

77west wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

That would be 1 option, things have rebounded well so far. The 77W product will be getting on by 2027 when they are due to retire, 4 are owned however which probably gives them some flexibility on when to retire them, maintenance checks to consider as well.

The 77W product is getting on a bit even now, arguably. I reckon if they do stay longer than 2024 we will see a cabin refresh, and that may well see them stay until 2030ish when 787-10 come online, hopefully with upgraded MTOW and maybe even an engine PIP. They have only just hit 11 years old with 2 years of zero flights, so arguably only 9 years old. They could soldier on another 7-10 no problem.

They are here till 2027 currently. I wouldn’t be sure that they will commit much to the cabin, a refresh sure but nothing more. I agree they are young still and could fly for another 10 years easily if required. Why do you say 2030 ish for the 787-10?

In line with the comments above thread about more -10 being converted to -9. Seems like it would push the -10 out closer to the end of the decade.

77west wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

77west wrote:

The 77W product is getting on a bit even now, arguably. I reckon if they do stay longer than 2024 we will see a cabin refresh, and that may well see them stay until 2030ish when 787-10 come online, hopefully with upgraded MTOW and maybe even an engine PIP. They have only just hit 11 years old with 2 years of zero flights, so arguably only 9 years old. They could soldier on another 7-10 no problem.

They are here till 2027 currently. I wouldn’t be sure that they will commit much to the cabin, a refresh sure but nothing more. I agree they are young still and could fly for another 10 years easily if required. Why do you say 2030 ish for the 787-10?

In line with the comments above thread about more -10 being converted to -9. Seems like it would push the -10 out closer to the end of the decade.

We don’t know how many of the current order will be converted to 789s though? Some could be 781 still, maybe they won’t take any 781 at all, though with the MTOW increase it would be a very likely candidate on the LAX/SFO routes with more capacity than the 789s.

Avtur wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

77west wrote:

VLI also takes the Air Van 738 which is registered in Aus so yeah I think its fixed.

The NF 738 is Vanuatu registered YJ-AV1.

It’s actually YJ-AV8.

Thank you, I can’t even remember them getting that 1, looks like 2016 that replaced YJ-AV1.

Just a curious question regarding NZ services out of WLG to Aussie. I can't remember pre covid what it was like, but I've noticed the afternoon departure only heads to BNE.

Is there any reason as to why it's always BNE in the afternoon and not a second MEL or SYD service for example to follow the morning departures to those two cities?

ZK-NBT wrote:

77west wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

They are here till 2027 currently. I wouldn’t be sure that they will commit much to the cabin, a refresh sure but nothing more. I agree they are young still and could fly for another 10 years easily if required. Why do you say 2030 ish for the 787-10?

In line with the comments above thread about more -10 being converted to -9. Seems like it would push the -10 out closer to the end of the decade.

We don’t know how many of the current order will be converted to 789s though? Some could be 781 still, maybe they won’t take any 781 at all, though with the MTOW increase it would be a very likely candidate on the LAX/SFO routes with more capacity than the 789s.

The current -10 would do nicely to upgauge Asian routes and be a cracker on the Tasman/Per, but be a bit more limited on USA West Coast. A future HGW -10 might do nicely on USA WC but be overkill for the shorter sectors. Do we know if the current -10 can do most Asia routes with full payload? If so, its probably perfect.

A HGW -10 with the range of the 'enhanced' -9, well that opens up some interesting possibilities.

mrkerr7474 wrote:

Just a curious question regarding NZ services out of WLG to Aussie. I can't remember pre covid what it was like, but I've noticed the afternoon departure only heads to BNE.

Is there any reason as to why it's always BNE in the afternoon and not a second MEL or SYD service for example to follow the morning departures to those two cities?

SYD was 11-12 weekly pre covid IIRC, did MEL ever have an afternoon service? I recall a daily 0600 ex WLG, possibly operated 8-9 weekly at one time with the additional flights in the afternoon? BNE only resumed when the VA deal ended.

Demand or possibly fleet mean just a single daily SYD service in the morning, MEL hasn’t been much more than 1 daily and looks to be 4-5 weekly now with 4-5 weekly BNE.

77west wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

77west wrote:

In line with the comments above thread about more -10 being converted to -9. Seems like it would push the -10 out closer to the end of the decade.

We don’t know how many of the current order will be converted to 789s though? Some could be 781 still, maybe they won’t take any 781 at all, though with the MTOW increase it would be a very likely candidate on the LAX/SFO routes with more capacity than the 789s.

The current -10 would do nicely to upgauge Asian routes and be a cracker on the Tasman/Per, but be a bit more limited on USA West Coast. A future HGW -10 might do nicely on USA WC but be overkill for the shorter sectors. Do we know if the current -10 can do most Asia routes with full payload? If so, its probably perfect.

A HGW -10 with the range of the 'enhanced' -9, well that opens up some interesting possibilities.

It’s just a case of how soon Asian routes need more capacity? Outside of SIN which will see 77W service in DEC-JAN. I am not sure if the current -10 can do Asia routes with a full payload. Which shorter routes would a HGW -10 be overkill? It would carry more payload into Asia or if you mean the Tasman, it would fly the Tasman Pacific islands for utilisation.

An HGW -10 with the range of the enhanced -9? I’m not sure there are plans for such an aircraft? It will be interesting to see however though how far a -10 can go with an MTOW increase, I don’t expect it to become like the 77W vs 773.

ZK-NBT wrote:

77west wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

That would be 1 option, things have rebounded well so far. The 77W product will be getting on by 2027 when they are due to retire, 4 are owned however which probably gives them some flexibility on when to retire them, maintenance checks to consider as well.

The 77W product is getting on a bit even now, arguably. I reckon if they do stay longer than 2024 we will see a cabin refresh, and that may well see them stay until 2030ish when 787-10 come online, hopefully with upgraded MTOW and maybe even an engine PIP. They have only just hit 11 years old with 2 years of zero flights, so arguably only 9 years old. They could soldier on another 7-10 no problem.

They are here till 2027 currently. I wouldn’t be sure that they will commit much to the cabin, a refresh sure but nothing more. I agree they are young still and could fly for another 10 years easily if required. Why do you say 2030 ish for the 787-10?

Who knows - maybe the 77W will be the new 763 at the end of its life and open/re-open BKK, DPS, MNL, SGN and the like! It could even be reconfigured into a high-density layout.

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

77west wrote:

The 77W product is getting on a bit even now, arguably. I reckon if they do stay longer than 2024 we will see a cabin refresh, and that may well see them stay until 2030ish when 787-10 come online, hopefully with upgraded MTOW and maybe even an engine PIP. They have only just hit 11 years old with 2 years of zero flights, so arguably only 9 years old. They could soldier on another 7-10 no problem.

They are here till 2027 currently. I wouldn’t be sure that they will commit much to the cabin, a refresh sure but nothing more. I agree they are young still and could fly for another 10 years easily if required. Why do you say 2030 ish for the 787-10?

Who knows - maybe the 77W will be the new 763 at the end of its life and open/re-open BKK, DPS, MNL, SGN and the like! It could even be reconfigured into a high-density layout.

Could form the basis of a new long haul LCC with a high density layout (small J class with recliners with a Y heavy config) on the 77W
Could go 'Scoot' style with extra legroom rows (for an extra fee) in Y which would suit the budget/tourist beach markets in Asia.

Hey guys sorry this is not on topic of current topics, last question about the Air New Zealand Regional flights, can I ask about the callsign/flight numbers;

For ATC do they use Eg New Zealand 8300 or does it become New Zealand, looking at Flightradar24 thought it might be the later, if only liveatc had NZ Feeds could have answered by own question, but do they have the same laws as England,

Thanks again team

QF108 wrote:

Hey guys sorry this is not on topic of current topics, last question about the Air New Zealand Regional flights, can I ask about the callsign/flight numbers;

For ATC do they use Eg New Zealand 8300 or does it become New Zealand, looking at Flightradar24 thought it might be the later, if only liveatc had NZ Feeds could have answered by own question, but do they have the same laws as England,

Thanks again team

Ticketed flight numbers are NZ8xxx and NZ5xxx for DH3 and ATR respectively. For ATC that translates to ANZxxxL and ANZxxxM which is spoken as "New Zealand xxx Lima/Mike".

ZK-NBT wrote:

77west wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

That would be 1 option, things have rebounded well so far. The 77W product will be getting on by 2027 when they are due to retire, 4 are owned however which probably gives them some flexibility on when to retire them, maintenance checks to consider as well.

The 77W product is getting on a bit even now, arguably. I reckon if they do stay longer than 2024 we will see a cabin refresh, and that may well see them stay until 2030ish when 787-10 come online, hopefully with upgraded MTOW and maybe even an engine PIP. They have only just hit 11 years old with 2 years of zero flights, so arguably only 9 years old. They could soldier on another 7-10 no problem.

They are here till 2027 currently. I wouldn’t be sure that they will commit much to the cabin, a refresh sure but nothing more. I agree they are young still and could fly for another 10 years easily if required. Why do you say 2030 ish for the 787-10?

Payback for a cabin refresh is typically around 5-7 years…. Unless significant money is needed to be spent to maintain the existing cabin (which is likely the case since those seats are getting on a bit). It’s usually a lot more cost effective to do a refresh than to replace an aircraft prematurely (which arguably would be the case with the 77Ws - especially given COVID grounding).
More 789, push back the 781 keep the 77W for 5-7 years would be my pick.

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

77west wrote:

The 77W product is getting on a bit even now, arguably. I reckon if they do stay longer than 2024 we will see a cabin refresh, and that may well see them stay until 2030ish when 787-10 come online, hopefully with upgraded MTOW and maybe even an engine PIP. They have only just hit 11 years old with 2 years of zero flights, so arguably only 9 years old. They could soldier on another 7-10 no problem.

They are here till 2027 currently. I wouldn’t be sure that they will commit much to the cabin, a refresh sure but nothing more. I agree they are young still and could fly for another 10 years easily if required. Why do you say 2030 ish for the 787-10?

Who knows - maybe the 77W will be the new 763 at the end of its life and open/re-open BKK, DPS, MNL, SGN and the like! It could even be reconfigured into a high-density layout.

A couple of 450 seater 77W’s would do AKL-SYD,MEL,BNE,RAR nicely with the current demand levels.

zkncj wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

They are here till 2027 currently. I wouldn’t be sure that they will commit much to the cabin, a refresh sure but nothing more. I agree they are young still and could fly for another 10 years easily if required. Why do you say 2030 ish for the 787-10?

Who knows - maybe the 77W will be the new 763 at the end of its life and open/re-open BKK, DPS, MNL, SGN and the like! It could even be reconfigured into a high-density layout.

A couple of 450 seater 77W’s would do AKL-SYD,MEL,BNE,RAR nicely with the current demand levels.

Similar to Air Canada who configures their high-density 773ERs with 28C, 24Y+, 398Y (450 seats)

zkncj wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

They are here till 2027 currently. I wouldn’t be sure that they will commit much to the cabin, a refresh sure but nothing more. I agree they are young still and could fly for another 10 years easily if required. Why do you say 2030 ish for the 787-10?

Who knows - maybe the 77W will be the new 763 at the end of its life and open/re-open BKK, DPS, MNL, SGN and the like! It could even be reconfigured into a high-density layout.

A couple of 450 seater 77W’s would do AKL-SYD,MEL,BNE,RAR nicely with the current demand levels.

Yikes can you imagine the queue at RAR arrivals with 450 people at once Its bad enough with a full 787.

77west wrote:

zkncj wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

Who knows - maybe the 77W will be the new 763 at the end of its life and open/re-open BKK, DPS, MNL, SGN and the like! It could even be reconfigured into a high-density layout.

A couple of 450 seater 77W’s would do AKL-SYD,MEL,BNE,RAR nicely with the current demand levels.

Yikes can you imagine the queue at RAR arrivals with 450 people at once Its bad enough with a full 787.

It would still make DPS look like a breeze.

x1234 wrote:

I'm NOT taking JFK-AKL west-bound until we as the public know if NZ has fixed the payload problems. Maybe they need to block more Y seats. I want my checked luggage to arrive in SYD via AKL.

Thanks for letting airliners.net community know. It's made a big difference

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

The Herald is reporting that it's $125 more to fly Auckland to Timaru than it is to fly to Honolulu.

I wonder if Rex would ever give New Zealand a go, and bring back some competition to regional Kiwi centres. They're well experienced with prop-flying (which JQ wasn't), and in expansion mode with their move to jet services in Australia, and purchase of NJE this week. It would also be great to get a third key carrier onto the Tasman again, in light of VA not appearing to be interested in returning to New Zealand beyond ZQN.

So a new network which isn't connected to their current business model in anyway. No completely uncommon but how deep are their pockets and how big is the risk?

Time and time again people think NZ rip the regions off. Flying isn't cheap. Bigger planes equal lower CASM.

Norris, Fyfe, Luxon and now Foran have all made big commitments to regional NZ. None have been able to kill this perception. I'd be keen to know how rex will achieve this?

77west wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

77west wrote:

So code 3 787s layout will be 42J, 52W and only 120Y (214 Total). Should make NYC more palatable from a performance point of view.

And ORD?

Well they did say any of the deep-East coast routes so I guess ORD and any others that might launch, ATL being the only one that jumps out.

Yes, skynest will only be available to JFK and ORD which is on the code 3.

77west wrote:

zkncj wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

Who knows - maybe the 77W will be the new 763 at the end of its life and open/re-open BKK, DPS, MNL, SGN and the like! It could even be reconfigured into a high-density layout.

A couple of 450 seater 77W’s would do AKL-SYD,MEL,BNE,RAR nicely with the current demand levels.

Yikes can you imagine the queue at RAR arrivals with 450 people at once Its bad enough with a full 787.

The NZ 744 originally had 436 seats, the 742 with 418 IIRC was more frequent to RAR back then, going to PPT or HNL-LAX so probably not all entering RAR at once, less flights back then mind you, 3 weekly from AKL with 742/762, in the 1990s.

LY-NVV (ex ZK-OJA) looks like it could be about to meet the Scrapman at LDE:


LDE 29/09/22 by DigitalAirliners.com, on Flickr

NTLDaz wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

Interesting suggestion re: Bonza. Is there ( and where) would be secondary markets for them to fly to NZ ? Newcastle potentially. Interested in thoughts if where else from a NZ perspective.

From a regional New Zealand POV, there have been Australian flights in the past from HLZ, PMR, ROT and DUD. Flights were also announced from TRG (on K2000), but never eventuated. And IVC has previously pitched to have trans-Tasman flights there, but to no avail.

Of these, DUD might be a good one to test. VA flew BNE-DUD until before Covid, and reportedly had good loads. But it would be heavily New Zealand-originating traffic. ROT or TRG would have stronger tourism appeal, if Bonza wanted to focus on Australian-originating traffic.

Cheers. The way I'm looking at this is what Australian ( secondary ) ports would best serve AKL or CHC ? Conversely what Australian secondary ports ( if any ) would pick up NZ originating traffic from AKL etc. I could see them potentially doing MCY to AKL despite NZ being on the route.

That is highly possible eg 2-3 per week as Air NZ only does a short season around 3 months on Sunshine Coast to Auckland. Plus that's Bonza main operational base so can see them launching additional routes in the years ahead. In the first phase they have 27 routes to 16 destinations lined up.

Air NZ A320-232 ZK-OJM (msn 2533) had a test flight yesterday as NZ6231. I expect it will depart soon, probably AKL-RAR-HNL-LAX-TUS like the last four.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zk-ojm

PA515

NTLDaz wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

Interesting suggestion re: Bonza. Is there ( and where) would be secondary markets for them to fly to NZ ? Newcastle potentially. Interested in thoughts if where else from a NZ perspective.

From a regional New Zealand POV, there have been Australian flights in the past from HLZ, PMR, ROT and DUD. Flights were also announced from TRG (on K2000), but never eventuated. And IVC has previously pitched to have trans-Tasman flights there, but to no avail.

Of these, DUD might be a good one to test. VA flew BNE-DUD until before Covid, and reportedly had good loads. But it would be heavily New Zealand-originating traffic. ROT or TRG would have stronger tourism appeal, if Bonza wanted to focus on Australian-originating traffic.

Cheers. The way I'm looking at this is what Australian ( secondary ) ports would best serve AKL or CHC ? Conversely what Australian secondary ports ( if any ) would pick up NZ originating traffic from AKL etc. I could see them potentially doing MCY to AKL despite NZ being on the route.

There's not a huge list of possibilities here. It also depends if we're looking at new airports or new routes.

In Australia: CBR, NTL, AVV are the obvious contenders but outside options could be CFS, LST, MKY, PPP, TSV.

In New Zealand: You're only options are HLZ, PMR, DUD, IVC... I'll add ROT but they've got massive issues in their tourism sector right now.

Next up who is the target market and which directly is stronger?

Kiwis going to northern NSW / QLD to find warmer temps.. that's seasonal. Aussies coming to NZ for holiday or VFR - that relies on larger catchments in Oz.

New city pairs are more likely. ADL-CHC for example.

Opening ex NZ from PMR/DUD comes with the risk of NZ launching the route in competition. Opening a new gateway within Australia coming to an existing NZ airport holds much lower risk of NZ doing this but how many Kiwis will buy on this...

ZK-NBT wrote:

77west wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

We don’t know how many of the current order will be converted to 789s though? Some could be 781 still, maybe they won’t take any 781 at all, though with the MTOW increase it would be a very likely candidate on the LAX/SFO routes with more capacity than the 789s.

The current -10 would do nicely to upgauge Asian routes and be a cracker on the Tasman/Per, but be a bit more limited on USA West Coast. A future HGW -10 might do nicely on USA WC but be overkill for the shorter sectors. Do we know if the current -10 can do most Asia routes with full payload? If so, its probably perfect.

A HGW -10 with the range of the 'enhanced' -9, well that opens up some interesting possibilities.

It’s just a case of how soon Asian routes need more capacity? Outside of SIN which will see 77W service in DEC-JAN. I am not sure if the current -10 can do Asia routes with a full payload. Which shorter routes would a HGW -10 be overkill? It would carry more payload into Asia or if you mean the Tasman, it would fly the Tasman Pacific islands for utilisation.

An HGW -10 with the range of the enhanced -9? I’m not sure there are plans for such an aircraft? It will be interesting to see however though how far a -10 can go with an MTOW increase, I don’t expect it to become like the 77W vs 773.

I can understand the accountants being mesmerised by the simplicity of an all-787 long-haul fleet. But running a profitable airline is ultimately as much about maximising revenue as it is about managing costs. Even if we assume 260t -10s comfortably do LAX-AKL with full pax all year round we don't know whether a HGW -10 will also have the legs to carry a serious cargo load westbound in all seasons. Yet freight has been and will remain a large share of NZ's revenue base – and belly freight revenue is essentially pure profit.

So let's wait and see. Crunch time will be the moment NZ needs to decide on disposal of the 77Ws and replacement with HGW -10s vs cabin refresh and deferral of a decision on replacement.