ZK-NBT wrote:

a7ala wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

Agreed.

I guess that there's always the possibility of a fifth freedom tag from Australia, like SQ's, coming back.

We might also see advances in aircraft tech which render a long haul narrowbody flight an option with a shorter runway. The 321XLR already has the range (8,700km) to do WLG-SIN (8,527km) - albeit not factoring in runway elements, weather and wind conditions, etc.

Unfortunately the runway is no where near long enough for MCTOW 321XLR not to mention as you say the aircraft couldnt make it once you factor in headwinds etc.

Most likely options will be Code E tags or future improved widebody performance for closer range hubs such as SIN. Its a shame it looks like the B777-8 program isnt going to happen now (looks like only a freighter version) - that would have been a fantastic aircraft for WLG.

The 778 fantastic for WLG? In what way?

It would have been smaller than the B777-9 but with the same engines. Think of it as being the B777-200LR version of the B777-300ER but more fuel efficient. Great short runway performance.

a7ala wrote:

Most likely options will be Code E tags or future improved widebody performance for closer range hubs such as SIN.

On paper the A359 such as the one SQ operated into Wellington can already do Singapore and similar destinations non-stop with full pax.

a7ala wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

a7ala wrote:

Unfortunately the runway is no where near long enough for MCTOW 321XLR not to mention as you say the aircraft couldnt make it once you factor in headwinds etc.

Most likely options will be Code E tags or future improved widebody performance for closer range hubs such as SIN. Its a shame it looks like the B777-8 program isnt going to happen now (looks like only a freighter version) - that would have been a fantastic aircraft for WLG.

The 778 fantastic for WLG? In what way?

It would have been smaller than the B777-9 but with the same engines. Think of it as being the B777-200LR version of the B777-300ER but more fuel efficient. Great short runway performance.

It’s a lot of seats to fill ex WLG, who would have ordered it and operated it to WLG? I think only EK, QR, EY had orders for it.

ZK-NBT wrote:

a7ala wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

The 778 fantastic for WLG? In what way?

It would have been smaller than the B777-9 but with the same engines. Think of it as being the B777-200LR version of the B777-300ER but more fuel efficient. Great short runway performance.

It’s a lot of seats to fill ex WLG, who would have ordered it and operated it to WLG? I think only EK, QR, EY had orders for it.

Yes generally hot/high airport operators would have ordered it. I think QR is still getting some as the B777-8F?

tealnz wrote:

a7ala wrote:

Most likely options will be Code E tags or future improved widebody performance for closer range hubs such as SIN.

On paper the A359 such as the one SQ operated into Wellington can already do Singapore and similar destinations non-stop with full pax.

I still have my doubts about this. While dry runway performance might be OK, wet takeoff will be well short. Plus is 100% pax enough of a commercial case? Dunno...

Anyway, with the continuous improvement in aircraft tech to reduce fuel use, the capability for WLG improves. I think Airbus are continually improving the A359 with extended sharklets, changed wing twist, and there is talk of an A350neo version as well.

NZ321 wrote:

Avtur wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

QF do have significant experience in operating ULH now. PER-LHR doesn’t face the same winds as JFK-AKL. NZ know the issue is the configuration, which they have to make do with for 2 years.

So purely because I respect you, and value your opinion, do you you agree with the statements that I’m hearing? That the J class layout on the Wamos A330 (despite being a slightly narrower cabin/fuselage width) is actually superior to “B.premier on Air New Zealand? I wonder if Air NZ would follow British Airways example, and have a couple of “super J” configured planes that they used to exclusively deploy on the JFK route?

Just putting it out there……

J class Wamos A332 does indeed look ok, but do note there are only 6 toilets to 280 passengers (compared to NZ's standard 9 toilets for 275 passengers). Might be a bit of a queue...

One would hope that the quality of the food served on board would be good enough, to not require a mass simultaneous queue for the toilets!

Agreed though, certainly not ideal.

a7ala wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

a7ala wrote:

It would have been smaller than the B777-9 but with the same engines. Think of it as being the B777-200LR version of the B777-300ER but more fuel efficient. Great short runway performance.

It’s a lot of seats to fill ex WLG, who would have ordered it and operated it to WLG? I think only EK, QR, EY had orders for it.

Yes generally hot/high airport operators would have ordered it. I think QR is still getting some as the B777-8F?

Which shows that the 778 is a very niche aircraft, and a 789/359 can do 95% of the routes, albeit with less payload. I think QR are getting the 778F.

tealnz wrote:

a7ala wrote:

Most likely options will be Code E tags or future improved widebody performance for closer range hubs such as SIN.

On paper the A359 such as the one SQ operated into Wellington can already do Singapore and similar destinations non-stop with full pax.

On paper perhaps but not in real life conditions hence why SQ has not returned to SIN - WLG - SIN as a non stop offering.

NZ516 wrote:

tealnz wrote:

a7ala wrote:

Most likely options will be Code E tags or future improved widebody performance for closer range hubs such as SIN.

On paper the A359 such as the one SQ operated into Wellington can already do Singapore and similar destinations non-stop with full pax.

On paper perhaps but not in real life conditions hence why SQ has not returned to SIN - WLG - SIN as a non stop offering.

Either that, or the route is technically possible but the business case for SQ to run it simply isn't there

NZ516 wrote:

tealnz wrote:

a7ala wrote:

Most likely options will be Code E tags or future improved widebody performance for closer range hubs such as SIN.

On paper the A359 such as the one SQ operated into Wellington can already do Singapore and similar destinations non-stop with full pax.

On paper perhaps but not in real life conditions hence why SQ has not returned to SIN - WLG - SIN as a non stop offering.

There are bigger fish to fry than SIN-WLG, if they had spare A350 capacity they would increase AKl/CHC if not other destinations. They dropped WLG as a destination, that’s not to say they won’t fly there again one day but not anytime soon.

We hear an A359 in SQ configuration could do WLG-SIN non stop, I’m not sure we will ever get to find out in real life however.

NZ516 wrote:

Foran also mentions of getting 9 seat electric planes and are likely to fly them from Hamilton to Auckland. Well I never thought they would bring this domestic route back, good news there.

I wonder what other routes might be looked at, including taking on Barrier Air to the likes of Great Barrier.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Foran also mentions of getting 9 seat electric planes and are likely to fly them from Hamilton to Auckland. Well I never thought they would bring this domestic route back, good news there.

I wonder what other routes might be looked at, including taking on Barrier Air to the likes of Great Barrier.

Great Barrier is an absolutely minuscule market. Kaitaia would be bigger.

Zkpilot wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Foran also mentions of getting 9 seat electric planes and are likely to fly them from Hamilton to Auckland. Well I never thought they would bring this domestic route back, good news there.

I wonder what other routes might be looked at, including taking on Barrier Air to the likes of Great Barrier.

Great Barrier is an absolutely minuscule market. Kaitaia would be bigger.

As much as I would love to see HLZ to AKL, with the new motorway its real quick to drive now (assuming no traffic jams) I managed 1hr21m yesterday. If HLZ can manage affordable parking it might work, but if they pull what they did last time we had intl flights with super expensive parking people will just drive to AKL. Kaitaia would be welcome. Hamilton and Kaitaia in fact, then I could visit family up north without having to drive the wagon tracks that are the far north roads

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Foran also mentions of getting 9 seat electric planes and are likely to fly them from Hamilton to Auckland. Well I never thought they would bring this domestic route back, good news there.

I wonder what other routes might be looked at, including taking on Barrier Air to the likes of Great Barrier.

Perhaps they could give AKL to MRO another attempt it might be viable with a electric plane.

Zkpilot wrote:

Great Barrier is an absolutely minuscule market.

It's small, but they would be flying a small plane (9 seats, smaller than Barrier Air's 13 seater Cessna Grand Caravans).

Until last year, the island sustained competition for the best part of two decades (through Fly My Sky and Mountain Air).

The island's population has grown by a third over the pandemic (from 900 to 1,200), and tourism continues to grow there.

NZ516 wrote:

Perhaps they could give AKL to MRO another attempt it might be viable with a electric plane.

Depends on range. S8's ES-19 aircraft on order can fly 400km. AKL to MRO would be in excess of that, at about 600km.

AKL-KAT (330km), AKL-WHK (310 km), and AKL-WTZ (84km) could all work, subject to runway requirements being met.

a7ala wrote:

tealnz wrote:

a7ala wrote:

Most likely options will be Code E tags or future improved widebody performance for closer range hubs such as SIN.

On paper the A359 such as the one SQ operated into Wellington can already do Singapore and similar destinations non-stop with full pax.

I still have my doubts about this. While dry runway performance might be OK, wet takeoff will be well short. Plus is 100% pax enough of a commercial case? Dunno...

The original question was whether a 359 could operate into Wellington at all – the 2016 Astral report basically ruled it out saying "landing not practical on existing runway nil wind when wet" and, for takeoff, "takeoff not practical on existing runway nil wind when wet". Astral were clearly wrong: SQ replaced the 77E with the 359 for routine service in/out of Wellington in late 2019 so they and NZ authorities clearly had no qualms about the ability of the 359 to operate off the existing runway in both directions and a range of weather conditions.

Then there's the question of whether the 359 can lift a commercially viable payload out of Wellington for a service to nearer Asian destinations such as Singapore. Full pax is a good indicator. Can the 359 lift full pax out of Wellington on the current runways? The most authoritative answer came from Zeke's post five years ago:
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1351457#p19268419

So if the airport authorities still say they need a runway extension it looks as if there's a prior question they need to answer about technical limits of A359 operations for non-stop service to SIN, CAN, HKG etc.

planemanofnz wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Great Barrier is an absolutely minuscule market.

It's small, but they would be flying a small plane (9 seats, smaller than Barrier Air's 13 seater Cessna Grand Caravans).

Until last year, the island sustained competition for the best part of two decades (through Fly My Sky and Mountain Air).

The island's population has grown by a third over the pandemic (from 900 to 1,200), and tourism continues to grow there.

NZ516 wrote:

Perhaps they could give AKL to MRO another attempt it might be viable with a electric plane.

Depends on range. S8's ES-19 aircraft on order can fly 400km. AKL to MRO would be in excess of that, at about 600km.

AKL-KAT (330km), AKL-WHK (310 km), and AKL-WTZ (84km) could all work, subject to runway requirements being met.

The larger one the ES-30 has better range 800km but not at full capacity so may be a better option.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Foran also mentions of getting 9 seat electric planes and are likely to fly them from Hamilton to Auckland. Well I never thought they would bring this domestic route back, good news there.

I wonder what other routes might be looked at, including taking on Barrier Air to the likes of Great Barrier.

Surely that would be the end of Barrier Air?

ex-WLG maybe we could see some short hops across the straight added? eg could WLG-BHE increase frequency and use a EV instead?

Is PCN owned by Sounds Air?

NZ516 wrote:

The larger one the ES-30 has better range 800km but not at full capacity so may be a better option.

Interesting. That could even open up the likes of WLG-CHT (770km), WLG-WKA (595km), CHC-SZS (540km), or CHC-TEU (450km).

zkncj wrote:

Surely that would be the end of Barrier Air?

Perhaps. But the island supported two carriers for two decades, until Covid - and since then, has continued to grow (population, tourism, etc).

If only one carrier survived, at least NZ flying the routes on electric aircraft would be more sustainable for the environment? Pros and cons.

zkncj wrote:

ex-WLG maybe we could see some short hops across the straight added?

Yes - we may even see old ports re-introduced, like WSZ or MZP. But unlike Barrier Air, S8 will also have electric planes to compete with.

tealnz wrote:

a7ala wrote:

tealnz wrote:

On paper the A359 such as the one SQ operated into Wellington can already do Singapore and similar destinations non-stop with full pax.

I still have my doubts about this. While dry runway performance might be OK, wet takeoff will be well short. Plus is 100% pax enough of a commercial case? Dunno...

The original question was whether a 359 could operate into Wellington at all – the 2016 Astral report basically ruled it out saying "landing not practical on existing runway nil wind when wet" and, for takeoff, "takeoff not practical on existing runway nil wind when wet". Astral were clearly wrong: SQ replaced the 77E with the 359 for routine service in/out of Wellington in late 2019 so they and NZ authorities clearly had no qualms about the ability of the 359 to operate off the existing runway in both directions and a range of weather conditions.

Then there's the question of whether the 359 can lift a commercially viable payload out of Wellington for a service to nearer Asian destinations such as Singapore. Full pax is a good indicator. Can the 359 lift full pax out of Wellington on the current runways? The most authoritative answer came from Zeke's post five years ago:
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1351457#p19268419

So if the airport authorities still say they need a runway extension it looks as if there's a prior question they need to answer about technical limits of A359 operations for non-stop service to SIN, CAN, HKG etc.

Also a lot of what ifs since covid came along which is unfortunate.

The SQ service into WLG obviously was doing well for them to upgauge to long haul configured A359 along with going from 3 services to 5 per week pretty quickly.

I do wonder if covid hadn't came along, we probably would have seen a daily service sometime in 2020 and who is to know, the business case and feasibility may have had them flying directly WLG to SIN even if that was 3/4 times a week to begin with and the rest via MEL.

Can all dream that something like the SQ service to WLG will happen again but it's highly unlikely for a few years at least

mrkerr7474 wrote:

tealnz wrote:

a7ala wrote:

I still have my doubts about this. While dry runway performance might be OK, wet takeoff will be well short. Plus is 100% pax enough of a commercial case? Dunno...

The original question was whether a 359 could operate into Wellington at all – the 2016 Astral report basically ruled it out saying "landing not practical on existing runway nil wind when wet" and, for takeoff, "takeoff not practical on existing runway nil wind when wet". Astral were clearly wrong: SQ replaced the 77E with the 359 for routine service in/out of Wellington in late 2019 so they and NZ authorities clearly had no qualms about the ability of the 359 to operate off the existing runway in both directions and a range of weather conditions.

Then there's the question of whether the 359 can lift a commercially viable payload out of Wellington for a service to nearer Asian destinations such as Singapore. Full pax is a good indicator. Can the 359 lift full pax out of Wellington on the current runways? The most authoritative answer came from Zeke's post five years ago:
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1351457#p19268419

So if the airport authorities still say they need a runway extension it looks as if there's a prior question they need to answer about technical limits of A359 operations for non-stop service to SIN, CAN, HKG etc.

Also a lot of what ifs since covid came along which is unfortunate.

The SQ service into WLG obviously was doing well for them to upgauge to long haul configured A359 along with going from 3 services to 5 per week pretty quickly.

I do wonder if covid hadn't came along, we probably would have seen a daily service sometime in 2020 and who is to know, the business case and feasibility may have had them flying directly WLG to SIN even if that was 3/4 times a week to begin with and the rest via MEL.

Can all dream that something like the SQ service to WLG will happen again but it's highly unlikely for a few years at least

I tend to think the A359 could do WLG-SIN in SQ long haul 253 seat configuration the more I think about it, weather it is viable in a few years time, who knows?

Remember WLG was linked with MEL which got 4x daily 77Ws on its other services all 4 class long haul product, so using a long haul A359 made some sense there.

WLG-CBR started 4x weekly in what mid 2016? It switched to MEL what early 2018 or so was it? Still 4x weekly and went 5 weekly late 2019.

Zkpilot wrote:

Great Barrier is an absolutely minuscule market. Kaitaia would be bigger.

Not sure that's correct. GBZ can get many flights a day, especially at peak periods. Was it yesterday they were reporting that Barrier Air was flying 22 flights there? Before FlyMySky pulled out there would by 8 daily flights as a matter of course - 4 by each carrier.

mrkerr7474 wrote:

The SQ service into WLG obviously was doing well for them to upgauge to long haul configured A359 along with going from 3 services to 5 per week pretty quickly.

I do wonder if covid hadn't came along, we probably would have seen a daily service sometime in 2020 and who is to know, the business case and feasibility may have had them flying directly WLG to SIN even if that was 3/4 times a week to begin with and the rest via MEL.

Can all dream that something like the SQ service to WLG will happen again but it's highly unlikely for a few years at least

The fact SQ came into the market in the first place, then upgraded to the long-haul variant of the 359 and lifted frequency, tells you they could see potential in the market. Between the movie set, bureaucracy, health sector and other business there's plenty of $$ in Wellington these days, so you can imagine where the yield would have been coming from. So yeah it wouldn't be a complete surprise if they return at some point.

Point about a non-stop service, if SQ ever launch it, is that they will take long-haul premium traffic away from NZ (via Auckland) and QF (via Australia) just to let pax avoid the pain-in-the-butt Auckland and Sydney transfers.

Touching on the election again. The councils elected around the Wellington region have tended towards supporting intensification of housing to help address the living cost issue. That will not only help attract more people to the region but also free up income of existing residents to spend on other things.

If an A359 was marginal on range a few years ago for non-stop. Another couple of generations with another few percent improvement in fuel burn (though that's getting harder every day)?

I'm thinking that Singapore would take another serious look with those two things working together. It wouldn't surprise me if Singapore run some basic number every 6 or 12 months to see if it's improved enough for a big think. The sort of running the numbers you have the new junior analyst do as part of training and practice.

tealnz wrote:

a7ala wrote:

tealnz wrote:

On paper the A359 such as the one SQ operated into Wellington can already do Singapore and similar destinations non-stop with full pax.

I still have my doubts about this. While dry runway performance might be OK, wet takeoff will be well short. Plus is 100% pax enough of a commercial case? Dunno...

The original question was whether a 359 could operate into Wellington at all – the 2016 Astral report basically ruled it out saying "landing not practical on existing runway nil wind when wet" and, for takeoff, "takeoff not practical on existing runway nil wind when wet". Astral were clearly wrong: SQ replaced the 77E with the 359 for routine service in/out of Wellington in late 2019 so they and NZ authorities clearly had no qualms about the ability of the 359 to operate off the existing runway in both directions and a range of weather conditions.

Then there's the question of whether the 359 can lift a commercially viable payload out of Wellington for a service to nearer Asian destinations such as Singapore. Full pax is a good indicator. Can the 359 lift full pax out of Wellington on the current runways? The most authoritative answer came from Zeke's post five years ago:
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1351457#p19268419

So if the airport authorities still say they need a runway extension it looks as if there's a prior question they need to answer about technical limits of A359 operations for non-stop service to SIN, CAN, HKG etc.

The issue of the Astral report has already been discussed to death here. 2016 report concluded wet landing an issue for A359 at WLG. This was based on Airbus not taking into account WLG's grooved runway in their performance calcs. Thats why Airbus brought down the A359 to WLG just before SQ introduced it to test the runway in wet conditions where they concluded it was close to dry for landing, and so SQ was able to bring the aircraft in. So Astral wasnt wrong, they were correct based on the info available at the time.

Airports, airlines and manufacturers do have the ability to work together to improve performance but at the end of the day there is still going to be a payload hit against other 3km runway airports which makes the WLG option less commercially viable unless the front of the plane/less competition provides enough of a yield premium to offset the loss of cargo.

tealnz wrote:

mrkerr7474 wrote:

The SQ service into WLG obviously was doing well for them to upgauge to long haul configured A359 along with going from 3 services to 5 per week pretty quickly.

I do wonder if covid hadn't came along, we probably would have seen a daily service sometime in 2020 and who is to know, the business case and feasibility may have had them flying directly WLG to SIN even if that was 3/4 times a week to begin with and the rest via MEL.

Can all dream that something like the SQ service to WLG will happen again but it's highly unlikely for a few years at least

The fact SQ came into the market in the first place, then upgraded to the long-haul variant of the 359 and lifted frequency, tells you they could see potential in the market. Between the movie set, bureaucracy, health sector and other business there's plenty of $$ in Wellington these days, so you can imagine where the yield would have been coming from. So yeah it wouldn't be a complete surprise if they return at some point.

Point about a non-stop service, if SQ ever launch it, is that they will take long-haul premium traffic away from NZ (via Auckland) and QF (via Australia) just to let pax avoid the pain-in-the-butt Auckland and Sydney transfers.

How much traffic and I am sure we have covered this before, how many pax were WLG-SIN vs WLG-MEL? MEL had long haul product on all other 4 daily services so like I said before it made sense to use the long haul product for MEL-SIN weather WLG-MEL needed it or not. I do agree there is money in WLG but enough for SQ to return? Remember at this stage they dropped the market with know ‘immediate’plans to return at least.

SQ have a JV with NZ anyway so would be in collaboration with them. Maybe in a few years when SQ retire the A380, it’s not flying to AKL this year at least anyway then more capacity to NZ could be absorbed through a WLG service.

ZK-NBT wrote:

tealnz wrote:

mrkerr7474 wrote:

The SQ service into WLG obviously was doing well for them to upgauge to long haul configured A359 along with going from 3 services to 5 per week pretty quickly.

I do wonder if covid hadn't came along, we probably would have seen a daily service sometime in 2020 and who is to know, the business case and feasibility may have had them flying directly WLG to SIN even if that was 3/4 times a week to begin with and the rest via MEL.

Can all dream that something like the SQ service to WLG will happen again but it's highly unlikely for a few years at least

The fact SQ came into the market in the first place, then upgraded to the long-haul variant of the 359 and lifted frequency, tells you they could see potential in the market. Between the movie set, bureaucracy, health sector and other business there's plenty of $$ in Wellington these days, so you can imagine where the yield would have been coming from. So yeah it wouldn't be a complete surprise if they return at some point.

Point about a non-stop service, if SQ ever launch it, is that they will take long-haul premium traffic away from NZ (via Auckland) and QF (via Australia) just to let pax avoid the pain-in-the-butt Auckland and Sydney transfers.

How much traffic and I am sure we have covered this before, how many pax were WLG-SIN vs WLG-MEL? MEL had long haul product on all other 4 daily services so like I said before it made sense to use the long haul product for MEL-SIN weather WLG-MEL needed it or not. I do agree there is money in WLG but enough for SQ to return? Remember at this stage they dropped the market with know ‘immediate’plans to return at least.

SQ have a JV with NZ anyway so would be in collaboration with them. Maybe in a few years when SQ retire the A380, it’s not flying to AKL this year at least anyway then more capacity to NZ could be absorbed through a WLG service.

I'm not entirely too sure on the numbers between WLG-SIN and WLG-MEL, but you're right that it made sense to put a long haul 359 on this route. The previous aircraft was SQs Regional 777 with only business and economy, so the 359 was a major step up. As for the reasoning, would have to ask SQ. At the time the SQ flight to CHC was only a regional 359, so WLG got it first before CHC was upgraded to long haul version also.

Indeed SQ may look at the options in future especially if the 380 doesn't return to AKL. I'm certain SQ would only come back to WLG if they do a direct flight, otherwise they'd continue to funnel everyone on NZ connections, and with no chance of carrying cargo, they probably wouldn't see it as worthwhile

mrkerr7474 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

tealnz wrote:

The fact SQ came into the market in the first place, then upgraded to the long-haul variant of the 359 and lifted frequency, tells you they could see potential in the market. Between the movie set, bureaucracy, health sector and other business there's plenty of $$ in Wellington these days, so you can imagine where the yield would have been coming from. So yeah it wouldn't be a complete surprise if they return at some point.

Point about a non-stop service, if SQ ever launch it, is that they will take long-haul premium traffic away from NZ (via Auckland) and QF (via Australia) just to let pax avoid the pain-in-the-butt Auckland and Sydney transfers.

How much traffic and I am sure we have covered this before, how many pax were WLG-SIN vs WLG-MEL? MEL had long haul product on all other 4 daily services so like I said before it made sense to use the long haul product for MEL-SIN weather WLG-MEL needed it or not. I do agree there is money in WLG but enough for SQ to return? Remember at this stage they dropped the market with know ‘immediate’plans to return at least.

SQ have a JV with NZ anyway so would be in collaboration with them. Maybe in a few years when SQ retire the A380, it’s not flying to AKL this year at least anyway then more capacity to NZ could be absorbed through a WLG service.

I'm not entirely too sure on the numbers between WLG-SIN and WLG-MEL, but you're right that it made sense to put a long haul 359 on this route. The previous aircraft was SQs Regional 777 with only business and economy, so the 359 was a major step up. As for the reasoning, would have to ask SQ. At the time the SQ flight to CHC was only a regional 359, so WLG got it first before CHC was upgraded to long haul version also.

Indeed SQ may look at the options in future especially if the 380 doesn't return to AKL. I'm certain SQ would only come back to WLG if they do a direct flight, otherwise they'd continue to funnel everyone on NZ connections, and with no chance of carrying cargo, they probably wouldn't see it as worthwhile

CHC always had the long haul A359, bar a handful of subs, same for AKL. There were briefly at one stage a pair of SQ 772 regionals that were upgraded for AKL/CHC, I believe a paper work thing. Didn’t last to long.

Personally I think the SQ A380 will return to AKL at some stage, the extra 200 seats over the 77W in NW is needed, just weather there is another route that they can swap with. They may have ended up year round to AKL if it wasn’t for covid.

Not sure there would be a lot of freight demand ex WLG anyway?

mrkerr7474 wrote:

SQ may look at the options in future especially if the 380 doesn't return to AKL.

ZK-NBT wrote:

... more capacity to NZ could be absorbed through a WLG service.

Surely there's still scope to grow at AKL, before re-directing growth to the likes of WLG - for example, SQ flew up to 4x daily to BNE and 5x daily to SYD and PER, pre-pandemic (versus 2x daily to AKL) and those were routes with competition (something AKL-SIN doesn't have, given the NZ-SQ JV), and additional SQ Group capacity from TR (albeit to OOL, not BNE) (again, something AKL-SIN doesn't have).

DavidByrne wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Great Barrier is an absolutely minuscule market. Kaitaia would be bigger.

Not sure that's correct. GBZ can get many flights a day, especially at peak periods. Was it yesterday they were reporting that Barrier Air was flying 22 flights there? Before FlyMySky pulled out there would by 8 daily flights as a matter of course - 4 by each carrier.

GBZ is way bigger than KAT for daily flights. KAT has around 2 per day to AKL a third service on Fridays. But as David pointed out for GBZ 22 on Barrier Air for yesterday on multiple routes Auckland, North Shore and soon Tauranga plus there is Sun Air which service the Island from 4 airports including Hamilton and Air Auckland from Ardmore and Whitianga. You can also fly from Waiheke to Claris airport.

http://3rdlevelnz.blogspot.com/2022/10/ ... e.html?m=0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrier_Aerodrome

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

... hopefully NZ will have the capacity to return to DPS next NS

Yes, Air New Zealand said it "is looking to resume seasonal services to Bali in 2023". But, that was over 6 months ago - hopefully they'll have the capacity.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/travel/bali- ... LR7BDQ4FU/

Bali is still set for a return. At this stage announcement by the end of the calendar year but could be much sooner.

QFA35K wrote:

Why should we claim the airlines responses are always 100% up front? Look at Boeing’s responses to questions raised with it over recent years. I’ve had an MBA for a long time and would prefer my aviation info to all be in the form of up to date peer reviewed scholarly journals but it never will be. We have to rely on our own discerning judgment sometimes.

I hope ANZ is issue free with high demand on the route. Can’t stay annoyed at our dear cousins for too long and besides after skiing in Queenstown, I can’t give NZ anything but high praise!

Well you can listen to the airline and make you own judgment or you can watch youtube. With an MBA it shouldn't be hard.

planemanofnz wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

With the way WCC and GWRC have gone I would expect the chance of a runway extension to be slim to none for the next few years.

Agreed.

I guess that there's always the possibility of a fifth freedom tag from Australia, like SQ's, coming back.

We might also see advances in aircraft tech which render a long haul narrowbody flight an option with a shorter runway. The 321XLR already has the range (8,700km) to do WLG-SIN (8,527km) - albeit not factoring in runway elements, weather and wind conditions, etc.

Even with a financial incentive, SQ didn't stay. Someone needs to put this argument to bed for life.

WLG needs to suck it up and focus on getting more SH flights.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Foran also mentions of getting 9 seat electric planes and are likely to fly them from Hamilton to Auckland. Well I never thought they would bring this domestic route back, good news there.

I wonder what other routes might be looked at, including taking on Barrier Air to the likes of Great Barrier.

Great Barrier & NZ should never be used in the same sentence. NZ would likely kill Barrier air as the market is so tiny...

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

The larger one the ES-30 has better range 800km but not at full capacity so may be a better option.

Interesting. That could even open up the likes of WLG-CHT (770km), WLG-WKA (595km), CHC-SZS (540km), or CHC-TEU (450km).

zkncj wrote:

Surely that would be the end of Barrier Air?

Perhaps. But the island supported two carriers for two decades, until Covid - and since then, has continued to grow (population, tourism, etc).

If only one carrier survived, at least NZ flying the routes on electric aircraft would be more sustainable for the environment? Pros and cons.

zkncj wrote:

ex-WLG maybe we could see some short hops across the straight added?

Yes - we may even see old ports re-introduced, like WSZ or MZP. But unlike Barrier Air, S8 will also have electric planes to compete with.

With a range of 800km you're not going to fly WLG-CHT at 770km... what do you if you can't land?

NZ is not buying eclectic planes to open new routes and market. It's the future of regional flying. My guess is we'll seem them added into the Cook Straight network. As the aircraft get larger and more reliatable we'll see longer thinner services AKL-TUO, PMR-NSN, AKL-WRE etc

planemanofnz wrote:

mrkerr7474 wrote:

SQ may look at the options in future especially if the 380 doesn't return to AKL.

ZK-NBT wrote:

... more capacity to NZ could be absorbed through a WLG service.

Surely there's still scope to grow at AKL, before re-directing growth to the likes of WLG - for example, SQ flew up to 4x daily to BNE and 5x daily to SYD and PER, pre-pandemic (versus 2x daily to AKL) and those were routes with competition (something AKL-SIN doesn't have, given the NZ-SQ JV), and additional SQ Group capacity from TR (albeit to OOL, not BNE) (again, something AKL-SIN doesn't have).

Maybe, remember there is a JV with NZ so 3 daily AKL-SIN pre covid, back to 18 weekly for NW22/23, significantly less seats with no A380, NZ will use a 77W in DEC JAN.

They could add more flights when capacity is available or required, they would have to space out existing flights and for something in between, does doing this add anything new for SQ at SIN? Currently
0845, 1840, 2245 ex SIN with arrivals at 0645, 1645, 2100.

They could go for something with a shorter connection to the later evening 0100/0200 European departures with a 2300 arrival. Would leave AKL at 1700.

Australia is a huge market for SQ, QF use SIN to get to LHR but would still have at least a daily A330 from SYD/MEL/BNE without the LHR connection.

When the NZ/SQ joint venture is up for renewal, should they be forced to include TR into the deal/capacity?.

New Zealand to Singapore post covid capacity is down, would seem hard to argue in the current state that they benefiting the consumers.

AKL-SIN is only around 9hrs, much shorter than TR’s routers to Europe.

zkncj wrote:

When the NZ/SQ joint venture is up for renewal, should they be forced to include TR into the deal/capacity?.

New Zealand to Singapore post covid capacity is down, would seem hard to argue in the current state that they benefiting the consumers.

AKL-SIN is only around 9hrs, much shorter than TR’s routers to Europe.

2024 rings a bell for renewal, it started in 2014. Forced to include TR, not if the current offering works, why should they change it?

Capacity to just about anywhere is down post covid, SIN is the most served long haul route ex NZ so I am quite sure they will be trying to increase where required as soon as they can, or NZ using 77W.

AKL-SIN is 10.5hrs, NZ is not a huge market, low cost long haul hasn’t taken off in the market, D7 are back for their 3rd go soon, 2nd time via Australia.

I doubt very much that NZ would use electric aircraft to compete with the now-established carriers on tertiary routes they previously served. But it's hard to see very many routes they could use them on without encroaching on other carriers' territory. And it's also hard to see a big uptake of electric aircraft by third-level carriers because of the big capital and infrastructure costs involved.

However, there's an opportunity for a collaborative approach where NZ takes a shareholding in one or more of these carriers and provides them with the wherewithal to make the transition. The aircraft might then operate under NZ colours with NZ flight numbers and integrated into the rest of the NZ network - but owned and operated by the smaller carriers. NZ gets to broaden its network to take in smaller centres, the third-level carriers get to be at the cutting edge of the industry, and the public gets a much more diverse network to connect them to others. Back to the future in a real sense. All sorts of potential new routes also become possible.

Didn't I read a few months back that NZ and S8 had been collaborating in some way to evaluate the ES-19 aircraft? Or was it just wishful thinking on my part?

By the way, I understand that the 19-seat ES-19 is not proceeding now - that it has been replaced (not supplemented) by the larger ES-30. This might be good for a carrier like 3C, but less helpful for one like S8 or GBA. I'm unsure what implications this change has for those carriers which have already signalled an intention or placed some kind of preliminary "order" for the ES-19 - like UA (100 "ordered" or S8).

ZK-NBT wrote:

zkncj wrote:

When the NZ/SQ joint venture is up for renewal, should they be forced to include TR into the deal/capacity?.

New Zealand to Singapore post covid capacity is down, would seem hard to argue in the current state that they benefiting the consumers.

AKL-SIN is only around 9hrs, much shorter than TR’s routers to Europe.

2024 rings a bell for renewal, it started in 2014. Forced to include TR, not if the current offering works, why should they change it?

Capacity to just about anywhere is down post covid, SIN is the most served long haul route ex NZ so I am quite sure they will be trying to increase where required as soon as they can, or NZ using 77W.

AKL-SIN is 10.5hrs, NZ is not a huge market, low cost long haul hasn’t taken off in the market, D7 are back for their 3rd go soon, 2nd time via Australia.

The current option, works for NZ/SQ as the company. But does it work for the customer? That is meant to an apart of the alliance approvals that it benefits the customer too.

NZ/SQ basically have fixed NZ-SIN with zero competition.

Maybe TR into CHC could work better? Picking up some for he Asian budget tourism market? While taking some local loads.

Just as an addendum: I think the hybrid ES-30 with both extended range and larger capacity over the ES-19 would be perfect for 3C to operate (say) 4x daily AKL-WAG, 2-3x daily AKL-WHK and AKL-PPQ, and even to introduce WAG-CHC, which has to be one of the most significant "missing links" in the national network. Less sure about S8 now, but maybe it could find a place on WKA-CHC-BHE-WLG sectors (not necessarily as a "bus-stop" operation, though).

zkncj wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

zkncj wrote:

When the NZ/SQ joint venture is up for renewal, should they be forced to include TR into the deal/capacity?.

New Zealand to Singapore post covid capacity is down, would seem hard to argue in the current state that they benefiting the consumers.

AKL-SIN is only around 9hrs, much shorter than TR’s routers to Europe.

2024 rings a bell for renewal, it started in 2014. Forced to include TR, not if the current offering works, why should they change it?

Capacity to just about anywhere is down post covid, SIN is the most served long haul route ex NZ so I am quite sure they will be trying to increase where required as soon as they can, or NZ using 77W.

AKL-SIN is 10.5hrs, NZ is not a huge market, low cost long haul hasn’t taken off in the market, D7 are back for their 3rd go soon, 2nd time via Australia.

The current option, works for NZ/SQ as the company. But does it work for the customer? That is meant to an apart of the alliance approvals that it benefits the customer too.

NZ/SQ basically have fixed NZ-SIN with zero competition.

Maybe TR into CHC could work better? Picking up some for he Asian budget tourism market? While taking some local loads.

Other airlines could choose SIN-NZ if they wanted. The fact there’s isn’t probably tells you there isn’t the market. Yep SQ/NZ does not have competition but it’s not like there aren’t other options to fly. Sometimes consumers just have to suck it up and accept the realities of living in a small country at the bottom of the world. If the NZ/SQ JV was scuppered we’d definitely be worse off.

There was an interview with Greg Foran in the Herald last Monday (paywalled) where he notes that precovid the wide body fleet was 29 aircraft but he’s not planning on getting back to that number and will keep wide body fleet at 23/24 while increasing aircraft utilisation.

That’s definitely going to limit route frequency and options for new routes.

NZ6 wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

... hopefully NZ will have the capacity to return to DPS next NS

Yes, Air New Zealand said it "is looking to resume seasonal services to Bali in 2023". But, that was over 6 months ago - hopefully they'll have the capacity.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/travel/bali- ... LR7BDQ4FU/

Bali is still set for a return. At this stage announcement by the end of the calendar year but could be much sooner.

How goods your source NZ6? From the horses mouth as it were (CEO), just a couple of months ago, he was not keen on Bali coming back next year.

NZ801 wrote:

Other airlines could choose SIN-NZ if they wanted.

Some might say the choice depends on the NZ-SQ JV - if it were to go, a new entrant might be more incentivised. If not, it would be too hard to compete (look at HX on AKL-HKG).

NZ6 wrote:

WLG needs to suck it up and focus on getting more SH flights.

Agreed. A QF service to BNE, JQ services to SYD and MEL, and NZ service to RAR could be good for them to focus on. Otherwise, another 5th freedom tag (D7, EK, QR, TR, etc).

NZ801 wrote:

How goods your source NZ6? From the horses mouth as it were (CEO), just a couple of months ago, he was not keen on Bali coming back next year.

What was the reason for Foran not being keen on DPS, NZ801?

One interesting thing - in this month's Kia Ora inflight magazine, in Greg Foran's intro, he says: October is special for Air New Zealand. By the end of the month, we'll be back to flying to all our international ports ... That means New Zealand is connected to 29 international ports. Does that imply that DPS (and KIX) has had the chop? Later in the magazine - in the destination map section - both DPS and KIX (and NLK!) are showing. So, it's all a bit unclear.

DavidByrne wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Great Barrier is an absolutely minuscule market. Kaitaia would be bigger.

Not sure that's correct. GBZ can get many flights a day, especially at peak periods. Was it yesterday they were reporting that Barrier Air was flying 22 flights there? Before FlyMySky pulled out there would by 8 daily flights as a matter of course - 4 by each carrier.

Kaitaia population ~6300 plus probably another 1000 nearby. Great Barrier population ~1300.
Tourists (pre-COVID) to Far North were in the thousands each day. Great Barrier in the dozens.
The difference is that Barrier Air is established there and it’s a good little operation. NZ doesn’t fly to Kaitaia anymore preferring Kerikeri instead.
So yes as it stands there are more air pax to Great Barrier, but the market for Kaitaia is much greater (just not enough to justify NZ flying there with current aircraft).

[twoid][/twoid]

NZ801 wrote:

There was an interview with Greg Foran in the Herald last Monday (paywalled) where he notes that precovid the wide body fleet was 29 aircraft but he’s not planning on getting back to that number and will keep wide body fleet at 23/24 while increasing aircraft utilisation.

That’s definitely going to limit route frequency and options for new routes.

Well removing the LHR tag frees up 1.5 aircraft each day.
Using the A321 on the Tasman also frees up WB aircraft (although if they’re going to seriously do this in a bigger way they might have to add in business seats).

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

WLG needs to suck it up and focus on getting more SH flights.

Agreed. A QF service to BNE, JQ services to SYD and MEL, and NZ service to RAR could be good for them to focus on. Otherwise, another 5th freedom tag (D7, EK, QR, TR, etc).

Im sure QF to BNE wiill happen at some stage although thats just replacing lost VA. JQ SYD/MEL unlikely - QF has shown in WLG that they dont want to compete with themselves. NZ RAR again wont happen - only interested if someone else does it like Mike Pero was going to. Leaves 5th freedom which will be the most likely (noting TR wont do it because of SQ, and D7 probably not the right fit for WLG).

zkncj wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

zkncj wrote:

When the NZ/SQ joint venture is up for renewal, should they be forced to include TR into the deal/capacity?.

New Zealand to Singapore post covid capacity is down, would seem hard to argue in the current state that they benefiting the consumers.

AKL-SIN is only around 9hrs, much shorter than TR’s routers to Europe.

2024 rings a bell for renewal, it started in 2014. Forced to include TR, not if the current offering works, why should they change it?

Capacity to just about anywhere is down post covid, SIN is the most served long haul route ex NZ so I am quite sure they will be trying to increase where required as soon as they can, or NZ using 77W.

AKL-SIN is 10.5hrs, NZ is not a huge market, low cost long haul hasn’t taken off in the market, D7 are back for their 3rd go soon, 2nd time via Australia.

The current option, works for NZ/SQ as the company. But does it work for the customer? That is meant to an apart of the alliance approvals that it benefits the customer too.

NZ/SQ basically have fixed NZ-SIN with zero competition.

Maybe TR into CHC could work better? Picking up some for he Asian budget tourism market? While taking some local loads.

The NZ SIN market while not tiny is not overly large, when NZ pulled out in 2006 they sited 95% of traffic was connecting beyond SIN, I think NZ/SQ had a basic codeshare back then? Not sure what the mix of local vs connections is now, however given it is the main way pretty much to Europe and India there are plenty of other options to do that.

The thing is I don’t think either NZ/SQ are in it for the lower yielding budget conscious traveller, NZ have sighted the premium leisure market for several years now and will add more premium seats to their aircraft as a result.

AKL-SIN grew from 2 to 3 daily and NZ did re enter seasonally CHC-SIN pre covid plus SQ added WLG.

Zkpilot wrote:

[twoid][/twoid]

NZ801 wrote:

There was an interview with Greg Foran in the Herald last Monday (paywalled) where he notes that precovid the wide body fleet was 29 aircraft but he’s not planning on getting back to that number and will keep wide body fleet at 23/24 while increasing aircraft utilisation.

That’s definitely going to limit route frequency and options for new routes.

Well removing the LHR tag frees up 1.5 aircraft each day.
Using the A321 on the Tasman also frees up WB aircraft (although if they’re going to seriously do this in a bigger way they might have to add in business seats).

Yes LAX is 10 weekly now but saves 2 aircraft without the LHR tag, EZE was 3-5 weekly depending on the season so another 1-1.5 aircraft freed up there. Some Asian flying HKG was moved to a morning departure ex AKL and turned on HKG rather than sitting all day. PVG ideally would do similar but slots even now maybe an issue changing?