Welcome to the October edition of the New Zealand Aviation Thread.

Link to September thread viewtopic.php?p=23481859#p23481859

Good to see KE upgrading ICN-AKL to a 77W for periods over summer - must be seeing a stronger than expected recovery on the route, despite competition from NZ?

https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/220930-kenw22lh

Seoul Incheon – Auckland
03NOV22 – 26NOV22 3 weekly 777-300ER, replacing A330-200/787-9
29NOV22 – 26FEB23 5 weekly 777-300ER, replacing A330-200/787-9
28FEB23 – 25MAR23 3 weekly A330-200, replacing 787-9

ZK-NBT wrote:

Yes it is. I gotta admit I think talk of an A350 is dribble as well, especially when the 1 route that is the issue already has an aircraft on order for it.

The A350 is a fine aircraft and I’ll admit would have probably been a good fit and allowed flexibility for NZ to change some ULH routes between A359/35K seasonally, though the 35K maybe a little large for JFK etc.

You contradict yourself, you say the A350 talk is dribble but also say it's a fine aircraft and would have had a great fit?

No one has ever suggested the A350-1000 would be used to JFK. The suggestion has always been a A350-900 in a ULR configuration. This would allow more cargo/pax over this distance.

As for the cost, the 787 is substantially cheaper, NZ got a deal it cannot refuse with the 787 but the difference in RFP price for the Airbus option was not the reason they didn't go wit this option.

ZK-NBT wrote:

The potential 787-10 routes can use 789s at least, or the current 787-10 can do Asia if they still need it to, though we aren’t sure are we what they mix of 789, 781 is planned to be with the GE order? With NZ targeting the premium leisure market the additional floor space will be filled with more premium seats, a 789 will have a slightly different mix or maybe just less Y.

NZ ‘can’t’ just walk away, there would be some hefty implications, on future fleet make up etc, and probably some financial implications as well It is on Boeing here to deliver or they will risk losing customers. I’ll say I can’t see NZ walking away.

How have we determined this, it's not public knowledge how these aircraft will be configured or where they'll be deployed.

It's just an assumption they'll use them into Asia.

How's it stacking up into IAH, SFO, YVR with a higher density Y class?

NZ6 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Yes it is. I gotta admit I think talk of an A350 is dribble as well, especially when the 1 route that is the issue already has an aircraft on order for it.

The A350 is a fine aircraft and I’ll admit would have probably been a good fit and allowed flexibility for NZ to change some ULH routes between A359/35K seasonally, though the 35K maybe a little large for JFK etc.

You contradict yourself, you say the A350 talk is dribble but also say it's a fine aircraft and would have had a great fit?

No one has ever suggested the A350-1000 would be used to JFK. The suggestion has always been a A350-900 in a ULR configuration. This would allow more cargo/pax over this distance.

As for the cost, the 787 is substantially cheaper, NZ got a deal it cannot refuse with the 787 but the difference in RFP price for the Airbus option was not the reason they didn't go wit this option.

I’m not sure how saying it is dribble and would have been a great fit is contradicting? It’s a fine aircraft but wasn’t chosen. It seems the topic has come up this time because of 1 route.

No an hypothetical A350-1000 probably wouldn’t be used to JFK, though it possibly could if required,

NZ6 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

The potential 787-10 routes can use 789s at least, or the current 787-10 can do Asia if they still need it to, though we aren’t sure are we what they mix of 789, 781 is planned to be with the GE order? With NZ targeting the premium leisure market the additional floor space will be filled with more premium seats, a 789 will have a slightly different mix or maybe just less Y.

NZ ‘can’t’ just walk away, there would be some hefty implications, on future fleet make up etc, and probably some financial implications as well It is on Boeing here to deliver or they will risk losing customers. I’ll say I can’t see NZ walking away.

How have we determined this, it's not public knowledge how these aircraft will be configured or where they'll be deployed.

It's just an assumption they'll use them into Asia.

How's it stacking up into IAH, SFO, YVR with a higher density Y class?

We don’t know how many 781s NZ will get, initially this order was to replace the 77E but now will replace the 77W,

Initially the plan was to use the 781 mainly into Asia with more premium seats than the code 1 789.

How is what stacking up with more Y into IAH, SFO, YVR?

UA ran a 318 seat 781 SFO-AKL which is understood to have carried no cargo. They will run a 77E when they return this week.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Yes it is. I gotta admit I think talk of an A350 is dribble as well, especially when the 1 route that is the issue already has an aircraft on order for it.

The A350 is a fine aircraft and I’ll admit would have probably been a good fit and allowed flexibility for NZ to change some ULH routes between A359/35K seasonally, though the 35K maybe a little large for JFK etc.

You contradict yourself, you say the A350 talk is dribble but also say it's a fine aircraft and would have had a great fit?

No one has ever suggested the A350-1000 would be used to JFK. The suggestion has always been a A350-900 in a ULR configuration. This would allow more cargo/pax over this distance.

As for the cost, the 787 is substantially cheaper, NZ got a deal it cannot refuse with the 787 but the difference in RFP price for the Airbus option was not the reason they didn't go wit this option.

I’m not sure how saying it is dribble and would have been a great fit is contradicting? It’s a fine aircraft but wasn’t chosen. It seems the topic has come up this time because of 1 route.

No an hypothetical A350-1000 probably wouldn’t be used to JFK, though it possibly could if required,

We all need to remember that the A350 in the current form was only announced well after the initial 787 orders had been placed. Back then the A350 was effectively what the A330NEO has become today.

I don't think NZ would have been able to pull out of the 787 deal without significant penalties. And without COVID the B772 may well have still been in service as well, so even a couple of years ago any A350 decision would have been far down the road, possibly as far as an A350NEO

77west wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

You contradict yourself, you say the A350 talk is dribble but also say it's a fine aircraft and would have had a great fit?

No one has ever suggested the A350-1000 would be used to JFK. The suggestion has always been a A350-900 in a ULR configuration. This would allow more cargo/pax over this distance.

As for the cost, the 787 is substantially cheaper, NZ got a deal it cannot refuse with the 787 but the difference in RFP price for the Airbus option was not the reason they didn't go wit this option.

I’m not sure how saying it is dribble and would have been a great fit is contradicting? It’s a fine aircraft but wasn’t chosen. It seems the topic has come up this time because of 1 route.

No an hypothetical A350-1000 probably wouldn’t be used to JFK, though it possibly could if required,

We all need to remember that the A350 in the current form was only announced well after the initial 787 orders had been placed. Back then the A350 was effectively what the A330NEO has become today.

I don't think NZ would have been able to pull out of the 787 deal without significant penalties. And without COVID the B772 may well have still been in service as well, so even a couple of years ago any A350 decision would have been far down the road, possibly as far as an A350NEO

Yes the 787 (7E7) was originally ordered with the 77E in 2004. The 77E gave NZ a 300 seater with 744 range at the time so allowed new routes like YVR, IAH, the 744 did go to YVR for a while and it opened SFO. Later the 77W/77E was obviously a single type rating and gave the ability to easily sub to the likes of LAX/SFO.

The A330 back then as much as it was improving could have done Asia but not the US so imo didn’t offer NZ a lot. The 4 engine A340 probably wasn’t an option by then for NZ and the A350 was years away, as it turned out it took 10 years to get the 789 but at least they had the 777 to cover long haul in the mean time and some dates 763s.

The 772 would still be in service without Covid for sure and the first 781 would be due about now.

ZK-NBT wrote:

UA ran a 318 seat 781 SFO-AKL which is understood to have carried no cargo.

I think it would be a problem for NZ to try the same. It relies on air-freight (and the context is that air-freight is important for New Zealand's export-dependent economy).

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

UA ran a 318 seat 781 SFO-AKL which is understood to have carried no cargo.

I think it would be a problem for NZ to try the same. It relies on air-freight (and the context is that air-freight is important for New Zealand's export-dependent economy).

Depends on the upcoming MTOW and performance improvements, but agreed its unlikely to carry as much as the beastly 77W can. The only real replacement for the 77W freight wise would be 777X or A3510

77west wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

You contradict yourself, you say the A350 talk is dribble but also say it's a fine aircraft and would have had a great fit?

No one has ever suggested the A350-1000 would be used to JFK. The suggestion has always been a A350-900 in a ULR configuration. This would allow more cargo/pax over this distance.

As for the cost, the 787 is substantially cheaper, NZ got a deal it cannot refuse with the 787 but the difference in RFP price for the Airbus option was not the reason they didn't go wit this option.

I’m not sure how saying it is dribble and would have been a great fit is contradicting? It’s a fine aircraft but wasn’t chosen. It seems the topic has come up this time because of 1 route.

No an hypothetical A350-1000 probably wouldn’t be used to JFK, though it possibly could if required,

We all need to remember that the A350 in the current form was only announced well after the initial 787 orders had been placed. Back then the A350 was effectively what the A330NEO has become today.

I don't think NZ would have been able to pull out of the 787 deal without significant penalties. And without COVID the B772 may well have still been in service as well, so even a couple of years ago any A350 decision would have been far down the road, possibly as far as an A350NEO

With all of the delays to the 787 (788 initially then 789 later) NZ most likely could have indeed walked away if desired.
But it probably was the right decision at the time given the A350 was supposed to be an A330NEO as you said, and given the bargain price NZ got them for.
You better believe though that Airbus would’ve offered NZ a sweet deal to ditch the 787 back then or even now.
The only real issue with this that I see is that it would again push everything into one basket to an extent (A320 fam, A350 fam, potentially A220 fam and ATR is also part of Airbus). But not necessarily the end of the world.

ZK-NBT wrote:

The 772 would still be in service without Covid for sure and the first 781 would be due about now.

The 77E’s capacity seems to be greatly missed from the NZ network, now that routes are starting to reopen.

The Tasman lost approx 4x 77E’s capacity per day, now look at trying to get a seat on the Tasman. It flights are full over 6 weeks in advance ex AKL, and seat only fares are reaching $1000 Oneway!

I do wonder if NZ regrets, the early retirement of all the 77E’s? And if the should of held onto the owned 77E’s.

Pre-covid on busy days of the weeks you would often have 2x 77E do double daily reruns on AKL-SYD.

The 214 seat a321N’s are great, but they already had 7x of them pretty fully scheduled pre-covid.

NZ seems to be lacking the capacity in the 300-350seat short-mid haul capacity now.

zkncj wrote:

I do wonder if NZ regrets, the early retirement of all the 77E’s? And if the should of held onto the owned 77Es.

if they had kept how would they crew them ?

Kiwiandrew wrote:

zkncj wrote:

I do wonder if NZ regrets, the early retirement of all the 77E’s? And if the should of held onto the owned 77Es.

if they had kept how would they crew them ?

They could crew them with off-shore contract crew, e.g. open a crew base in Asia. They have had an PVG crew base in the past, but that caused engough ethics issues.

That’s the probably with New Zealand, if you tired todo anything like that it would be seen as non ethical todo so. JQ’s 788s are crewed by Asian based cabin crew.

zkncj wrote:

Kiwiandrew wrote:

zkncj wrote:

I do wonder if NZ regrets, the early retirement of all the 77E’s? And if the should of held onto the owned 77Es.

if they had kept how would they crew them ?

They could crew them with off-shore contract crew, e.g. open a crew base in Asia. They have had an PVG crew base in the past, but that caused engough ethics issues.

That’s the probably with New Zealand, if you tired todo anything like that it would be seen as non ethical todo so. JQ’s 788s are crewed by Asian based cabin crew.

How quickly would they have been able to bring them back anyway? Look how long it has taken the 77Ws to return, the 772 may well have come back after the 77W in which case by then they would be another year older and the new 787s close, the new 787s will arrive from 2024 now.

77west wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

UA ran a 318 seat 781 SFO-AKL which is understood to have carried no cargo.

I think it would be a problem for NZ to try the same. It relies on air-freight (and the context is that air-freight is important for New Zealand's export-dependent economy).

Depends on the upcoming MTOW and performance improvements, but agreed its unlikely to carry as much as the beastly 77W can. The only real replacement for the 77W freight wise would be 777X or A3510

Were there issues with freight space pre covid on NZ? We keep hearing how important freight is, and it is, but how important is it actually? NZ could use 789s which while not a 77W would probably uplift more than a 781? And saves the need for an additional type which NZ has been vocal about the single type long haul fleet, I can’t see what has changed?

Flew OOL-AKL today on NZ188, check-in was chaos (and I had access to premium check-in).

There was no kiosks enabled for NZ anymore, I flew ex BNE a couple of weeks back and the kiosks were enable. Has NZ disabled the kiosks across the AU network now? Or was that just an OOL thing?

Doing online check-in this time didn’t ask me to upload the QR code from my New Zealand travel Declaration.

The counters were being held up with people filling paper copies of the New Zealand Travel Declarations. Surely you shouldn’t even be allowed in the line without having one already completed?

The person that checked me in did ask too see mine, so take it they can now look them up via passport on there system?

Yet then on the flight, they announced if your didn’t have a New Zealand Travel Declaration to make use of the free wifi on the flight to complete it. Which then raises the question, how did people even get on the aircraft without one? (Even though they now seem pointless).

Great to have dual boarding on a a321N for International flights, speeds up the boarding. Would be really nice if AKL would add this functionality to some of the gates at AKL international.

Any word on the wet leasing NZ was planning for summer?

zkncj wrote:

Flew OOL-AKL today on NZ188, check-in was chaos (and I had access to premium check-in).

There was no kiosks enabled for NZ anymore, I flew ex BNE a couple of weeks back and the kiosks were enable. Has NZ disabled the kiosks across the AU network now? Or was that just an OOL thing?

Doing online check-in this time didn’t ask me to upload the QR code from my New Zealand travel Declaration.

The counters were being held up with people filling paper copies of the New Zealand Travel Declarations. Surely you shouldn’t even be allowed in the line without having one already completed?

The person that checked me in did ask too see mine, so take it they can now look them up via passport on there system?

Yet then on the flight, they announced if your didn’t have a New Zealand Travel Declaration to make use of the free wifi on the flight to complete it. Which then raises the question, how did people even get on the aircraft without one? (Even though they now seem pointless).

Great to have dual boarding on a a321N for International flights, speeds up the boarding. Would be really nice if AKL would add this functionality to some of the gates at AKL international.

I landed in early Sep off NZ 281 SIN-AKL.

Went through all the rigmarole with the travel declaration, checks by SQ on check-in at KUL, and reminders about the RAT tests and guidelines to be given out in customs at AKL. Then, after arrival in AKL there was nothing. None to be found. No staff on duty - only a reminder phone message at 3pm the next day, once I'd arrived at my hotel in Wellington, hounding me for my test result. Just lucky I had spares in my luggage. The RAT test reporting is the next debacle. No upload of test result or QR code required. Just an honesty system. I could have answered the survey without doing any test at all... So the messaging / implementation is far out of alignment with what happens in practice.

ZK-NBT wrote:

We keep hearing how important freight is, and it is, but how important is it actually?

Interesting question.

Pre-Covid, the cargo side was bringing in about $400 million out of total airline revenue of about $5.5-6 billion (2018 and 2019). So, say, 7% ish of revenue?

Over Covid, its importance increased. In the 2022 financial year (announced in August), cargo revenue reached about $1 billion - 50% or so of total revenue.

Going forward, there are indications NZ wants to grow its cargo business further - Mr Foran also argues Air New Zealand has used the pandemic to refocus on the role of cargo operations ... "There are opportunities we can and are taking," Greg Foran said. "We can ensure that cargo continues to be a good addition to the business.

But NZ seems happy with the 789 for achieving this - "The 777 is great for cargo, but is it good enough for cargo versus taking a fleet to a single fleet? We see our business being a mix of passengers and cargo, and the benefit of heading towards a single (Dreamliner) fleet outweighs the benefit that you get out of a 777 just on its own in terms of cargo."

(Source: https://simpleflying.com/air-new-zealan ... -strategy/)

I guess this means that inability to carry significant freight on some of the longer routes, like to JFK, will not be a key factor in favour of reconsidering the 359.

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

We keep hearing how important freight is, and it is, but how important is it actually?

Interesting question.

Pre-Covid, the cargo side was bringing in about $400 million out of total airline revenue of about $5.5-6 billion (2018 and 2019). So, say, 7% ish of revenue?

Over Covid, its importance increased. In the 2022 financial year (announced in August), cargo revenue reached about $1 billion - 50% or so of total revenue.

Going forward, there are indications NZ wants to grow its cargo business further - Mr Foran also argues Air New Zealand has used the pandemic to refocus on the role of cargo operations ... "There are opportunities we can and are taking," Greg Foran said. "We can ensure that cargo continues to be a good addition to the business.

But NZ seems happy with the 789 for achieving this - "The 777 is great for cargo, but is it good enough for cargo versus taking a fleet to a single fleet? We see our business being a mix of passengers and cargo, and the benefit of heading towards a single (Dreamliner) fleet outweighs the benefit that you get out of a 777 just on its own in terms of cargo."

(Source: https://simpleflying.com/air-new-zealan ... -strategy/)

I guess this means that inability to carry significant freight on some of the longer routes, like to JFK, will not be a key factor in favour of reconsidering the 359.

Thanks for your detailed reply regarding cargo, so the benefit of a single 787 fleet is overwhelmingly strong. I think we can put the idea of Air NZ replacing the entire 787 and 777 fleets with A350s to bed firmly now.

NZ516 wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

We keep hearing how important freight is, and it is, but how important is it actually?

Interesting question.

Pre-Covid, the cargo side was bringing in about $400 million out of total airline revenue of about $5.5-6 billion (2018 and 2019). So, say, 7% ish of revenue?

Over Covid, its importance increased. In the 2022 financial year (announced in August), cargo revenue reached about $1 billion - 50% or so of total revenue.

Going forward, there are indications NZ wants to grow its cargo business further - Mr Foran also argues Air New Zealand has used the pandemic to refocus on the role of cargo operations ... "There are opportunities we can and are taking," Greg Foran said. "We can ensure that cargo continues to be a good addition to the business.

But NZ seems happy with the 789 for achieving this - "The 777 is great for cargo, but is it good enough for cargo versus taking a fleet to a single fleet? We see our business being a mix of passengers and cargo, and the benefit of heading towards a single (Dreamliner) fleet outweighs the benefit that you get out of a 777 just on its own in terms of cargo."

(Source: https://simpleflying.com/air-new-zealan ... -strategy/)

I guess this means that inability to carry significant freight on some of the longer routes, like to JFK, will not be a key factor in favour of reconsidering the 359.

Thanks for your detailed reply regarding cargo, so the benefit of a single 787 fleet is overwhelmingly strong. I think we can put the idea of Air NZ replacing the entire 787 and 777 fleets with A350s to bed firmly now.

No not exactly. What that means is if taken at face value we won’t see both 787 and A350. It certainly doesn’t preclude the entire 787 fleet being reply with A350 at some point (particularly if Boeing doesn’t improve the 787 and if Airbus comes up with a sharp deal - which could include taking the 787 off NZ hands - a trade in if you will that does happen).

NZ516 wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

We keep hearing how important freight is, and it is, but how important is it actually?

Interesting question.

Pre-Covid, the cargo side was bringing in about $400 million out of total airline revenue of about $5.5-6 billion (2018 and 2019). So, say, 7% ish of revenue?

Over Covid, its importance increased. In the 2022 financial year (announced in August), cargo revenue reached about $1 billion - 50% or so of total revenue.

Going forward, there are indications NZ wants to grow its cargo business further - Mr Foran also argues Air New Zealand has used the pandemic to refocus on the role of cargo operations ... "There are opportunities we can and are taking," Greg Foran said. "We can ensure that cargo continues to be a good addition to the business.

But NZ seems happy with the 789 for achieving this - "The 777 is great for cargo, but is it good enough for cargo versus taking a fleet to a single fleet? We see our business being a mix of passengers and cargo, and the benefit of heading towards a single (Dreamliner) fleet outweighs the benefit that you get out of a 777 just on its own in terms of cargo."

(Source: https://simpleflying.com/air-new-zealan ... -strategy/)

I guess this means that inability to carry significant freight on some of the longer routes, like to JFK, will not be a key factor in favour of reconsidering the 359.

Thanks for your detailed reply regarding cargo, so the benefit of a single 787 fleet is overwhelmingly strong. I think we can put the idea of Air NZ replacing the entire 787 and 777 fleets with A350s to bed firmly now.

Laughing at the idea that NZ fleet decisions are decided on here. I’ll let Greg know.

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.

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.

Well they have blocked it to only 180 passengers, so that's fixed it for now...

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.

Well plenty of others will take your place.

777ER wrote:

Any word on the wet leasing NZ was planning for summer?

Still being worked on. Possibly late November for a few months.

NZ801 wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

Interesting question.

Pre-Covid, the cargo side was bringing in about $400 million out of total airline revenue of about $5.5-6 billion (2018 and 2019). So, say, 7% ish of revenue?

Over Covid, its importance increased. In the 2022 financial year (announced in August), cargo revenue reached about $1 billion - 50% or so of total revenue.

Going forward, there are indications NZ wants to grow its cargo business further - Mr Foran also argues Air New Zealand has used the pandemic to refocus on the role of cargo operations ... "There are opportunities we can and are taking," Greg Foran said. "We can ensure that cargo continues to be a good addition to the business.

But NZ seems happy with the 789 for achieving this - "The 777 is great for cargo, but is it good enough for cargo versus taking a fleet to a single fleet? We see our business being a mix of passengers and cargo, and the benefit of heading towards a single (Dreamliner) fleet outweighs the benefit that you get out of a 777 just on its own in terms of cargo."

(Source: https://simpleflying.com/air-new-zealan ... -strategy/)

I guess this means that inability to carry significant freight on some of the longer routes, like to JFK, will not be a key factor in favour of reconsidering the 359.

Thanks for your detailed reply regarding cargo, so the benefit of a single 787 fleet is overwhelmingly strong. I think we can put the idea of Air NZ replacing the entire 787 and 777 fleets with A350s to bed firmly now.

Laughing at the idea that NZ fleet decisions are decided on here. I’ll let Greg know.

I'm just going by what Greg Foran said in the interview and not suggesting anything else. Unlike others on here.

ZKOKS (773) is in SIN for repaint and heavy check. Will be in service again later this year.

And in other news, United returned today with a 772. N78013. Departs tomorrow.

Avtur wrote:

And in other news, United returned today with a 772. N78013. Departs tomorrow.

Great to see UA back. This is just a seasonal service, right?

planemanofnz wrote:

Avtur wrote:

And in other news, United returned today with a 772. N78013. Departs tomorrow.

Great to see UA back. This is just a seasonal service, right?

It is year round AFAIK, or planned to be. it used an ex CO GE powered 772 interesting.

Zkpilot wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

Interesting question.

Pre-Covid, the cargo side was bringing in about $400 million out of total airline revenue of about $5.5-6 billion (2018 and 2019). So, say, 7% ish of revenue?

Over Covid, its importance increased. In the 2022 financial year (announced in August), cargo revenue reached about $1 billion - 50% or so of total revenue.

Going forward, there are indications NZ wants to grow its cargo business further - Mr Foran also argues Air New Zealand has used the pandemic to refocus on the role of cargo operations ... "There are opportunities we can and are taking," Greg Foran said. "We can ensure that cargo continues to be a good addition to the business.

But NZ seems happy with the 789 for achieving this - "The 777 is great for cargo, but is it good enough for cargo versus taking a fleet to a single fleet? We see our business being a mix of passengers and cargo, and the benefit of heading towards a single (Dreamliner) fleet outweighs the benefit that you get out of a 777 just on its own in terms of cargo."

(Source: https://simpleflying.com/air-new-zealan ... -strategy/)

I guess this means that inability to carry significant freight on some of the longer routes, like to JFK, will not be a key factor in favour of reconsidering the 359.

Thanks for your detailed reply regarding cargo, so the benefit of a single 787 fleet is overwhelmingly strong. I think we can put the idea of Air NZ replacing the entire 787 and 777 fleets with A350s to bed firmly now.

No not exactly. What that means is if taken at face value we won’t see both 787 and A350. It certainly doesn’t preclude the entire 787 fleet being reply with A350 at some point (particularly if Boeing doesn’t improve the 787 and if Airbus comes up with a sharp deal - which could include taking the 787 off NZ hands - a trade in if you will that does happen).

Gotta be honest here, while stranger things have happened, the amount of investment NZ have made in the 787 they would want a decent ROI. Reading something between the lines up thread or possibly in the last thread that indicated Airbus may have given NZ a good deal but NZ didn’t take the bait so to speak, I may have misread that completely. Even without an MTOW increase a GE powered code 3 789 at 227 seats would seem to be a huge improvement over the current code 2.

That is certainly a very good improvement. As with 227 seats on the GE 789 is earning more revenue per service than a 180 available seats RR 789 on the JFK -AKL sector.

NZ516 wrote:

That is certainly a very good improvement. As with 227 seats on the GE 789 is earning more revenue per service than a 180 available seats RR 789 on the JFK -AKL sector.

Is the GE sufficiently better than the RR to enable 47 extra seats to be offered, or will they still be working with a westbound limit greater than 180 but less than 227?

V/F

VirginFlyer wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

That is certainly a very good improvement. As with 227 seats on the GE 789 is earning more revenue per service than a 180 available seats RR 789 on the JFK -AKL sector.

Is the GE sufficiently better than the RR to enable 47 extra seats to be offered, or will they still be working with a westbound limit greater than 180 but less than 227?

V/F

General word out there is approximately 2% difference on ULH for GE. Seating configuration is anyones guess

Zkpilot wrote:

General word out there is approximately 2% difference on ULH for GE. Seating configuration is anyones guess

Back of the envelope: represents about 20 min flying or about 160 miles range. Quite significant on JFK-AKL I would have thought. Not sure how many kg of fuel could be swapped for pax and bags - can anyone offer an estimate?

DavidByrne wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

General word out there is approximately 2% difference on ULH for GE. Seating configuration is anyones guess

Back of the envelope: represents about 20 min flying or about 160 miles range. Quite significant on JFK-AKL I would have thought. Not sure how many kg of fuel could be swapped for pax and bags - can anyone offer an estimate?

1000kg. That's 40+ bags not left behind. That's over the whole flight and an educated guess. It is probably less though.

The Herald is reporting that it's $125 more to fly Auckland to Timaru than it is to fly to Honolulu. But they are comparing a monopoly route to one that has competition.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/car ... 3IA4Q3TEY/

https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/221004-nznw2232q

Air NZ will now deploy their 217 seat domestic A321s on the 5th NOV. Mainly on the AKL to ZQN route twice daily.

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.

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.

REX loves government subsidies for its regional ops so it is unlikely to head to New Zealand unless the NZ Government "tipped in" which is unlikely given it is a majority owner of Air NZ.

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.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... 1664801262

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.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... 1664801262

Yes, that has been known since they announced the new product back in July was it. It should surely make a difference even without a MTOW increase, hopefully the MTOW increase goes ahead however.

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?

Interesting to see this launched last week:

Pacific Aviation Ministers have launched what they are calling a ground-breaking 10-year Pacific Regional Aviation Strategy at the International Civil Aviation Organization Assembly in Montreal. The Pacific Regional Aviation Strategy 2022-2032 is a plan for a harmonised, collaborative, and connected Pacific aviation system that supports safe, secure, and sustainable air travel across the region. (See: https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pac ... w-strategy)

It seems the next step is to develop an implementation plan for presentation in 2023.

Anything to support a strengthened Pacific aviation system should benefit NZ, and I wonder if it might lead to NZ considering new services to the region?

planemanofnz wrote:

Interesting to see this launched last week:

Pacific Aviation Ministers have launched what they are calling a ground-breaking 10-year Pacific Regional Aviation Strategy at the International Civil Aviation Organization Assembly in Montreal. The Pacific Regional Aviation Strategy 2022-2032 is a plan for a harmonised, collaborative, and connected Pacific aviation system that supports safe, secure, and sustainable air travel across the region. (See: https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pac ... w-strategy)

It seems the next step is to develop an implementation plan for presentation in 2023.

Anything to support a strengthened Pacific aviation system should benefit NZ, and I wonder if it might lead to NZ considering new services to the region?

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

DavidByrne wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

Interesting to see this launched last week:

Pacific Aviation Ministers have launched what they are calling a ground-breaking 10-year Pacific Regional Aviation Strategy at the International Civil Aviation Organization Assembly in Montreal. The Pacific Regional Aviation Strategy 2022-2032 is a plan for a harmonised, collaborative, and connected Pacific aviation system that supports safe, secure, and sustainable air travel across the region. (See: https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pac ... w-strategy)

It seems the next step is to develop an implementation plan for presentation in 2023.

Anything to support a strengthened Pacific aviation system should benefit NZ, and I wonder if it might lead to NZ considering new services to the region?

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.

planemanofnz wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

Interesting to see this launched last week:

Pacific Aviation Ministers have launched what they are calling a ground-breaking 10-year Pacific Regional Aviation Strategy at the International Civil Aviation Organization Assembly in Montreal. The Pacific Regional Aviation Strategy 2022-2032 is a plan for a harmonised, collaborative, and connected Pacific aviation system that supports safe, secure, and sustainable air travel across the region. (See: https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pac ... w-strategy)

It seems the next step is to develop an implementation plan for presentation in 2023.

Anything to support a strengthened Pacific aviation system should benefit NZ, and I wonder if it might lead to NZ considering new services to the region?

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.

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.