Welcome to the New Zealand Aviation Thread November 2022. Please continue your discussion and to post your news here.

Link to previous thread:

New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2022

NZ321 wrote:

ANA does not have a lot of onward connections from HND for NZ

I would've thought AKL-TYO would've been heavily skewed towards TYO, with maybe some domestic connections to/from the likes of KIX supporting, and that other connections like Europe weren't needed.

With a significant business travel component on this route, time-sensitive corporates would prefer HND?

But obviously not the end of the world if HND doesn't return - main thing is that they're expanding Japan.

Fiji Airways looking to swap out two of their A330s with two A350s.
https://samchui.com/2022/10/20/fiji-air ... 2Bp-nZBzct

The Air NZ CEO explains why domestic fares are 20% higher than pre Covid. It's really only keeping up with the inflation which has been nearly 10% per year for the last two years so really Air NZ is just keeping it's head above water.

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

This is interesting segment on Bali it's selling very well. I can definitely see it becoming a year round service:

We launched Bali yesterday and we sold about 3600 seats in the first 24 hours. That compares to about 800 for New York over the same time frame," he said.

NZ516 wrote:

The Air NZ CEO explains why domestic fares are 20% higher than pre Covid. It's really only keeping up with the inflation which has been nearly 10% per year for the last two years so really Air NZ is just keeping it's head above water.

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

This is interesting segment on Bali it's selling very well. I can definitely see it becoming a year round service:

We launched Bali yesterday and we sold about 3600 seats in the first 24 hours. That compares to about 800 for New York over the same time frame," he said.

Interesting the he kept mentioning fuel. Yes I think we all understand the geo-political issues going on in the world right now, but Air New Zealand recently made a high profile decision (broadcast across the news networks) to use 1% SAF (sustainable aviation fuel). That itself is a huge cost, to produce, import and store

The closure of Marsden point, has made New Zealand even more exposed to market fragility, when it comes to fuel.

ZKaviation wrote:

Fiji Airways looking to swap out two of their A330s with two A350s.
https://samchui.com/2022/10/20/fiji-air ... 2Bp-nZBzct

Not sure what to make of that, one source a few months ago reported something similar which FJ denied shortly after.

I believe the A332s are leased? Not sure for how long, 2013 deliveries and the A333 2016 I believe, the A332 is good for new routes for FJ, though possibly might need a cabin upgrade at some point.

ZK-NBT wrote:

ZKaviation wrote:

Fiji Airways looking to swap out two of their A330s with two A350s.
https://samchui.com/2022/10/20/fiji-air ... 2Bp-nZBzct

Not sure what to make of that, one source a few months ago reported something similar which FJ denied shortly after.

I believe the A332s are leased? Not sure for how long, 2013 deliveries and the A333 2016 I believe, the A332 is good for new routes for FJ, though possibly might need a cabin upgrade at some point.

Would FJ not just be better with A350 for WB, A320NEO/A321XLR for NB. Would seem much simpler (And I am not a A/B Fanboy, just looking at the obvious)

77west wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

ZKaviation wrote:

Fiji Airways looking to swap out two of their A330s with two A350s.
https://samchui.com/2022/10/20/fiji-air ... 2Bp-nZBzct

Not sure what to make of that, one source a few months ago reported something similar which FJ denied shortly after.

I believe the A332s are leased? Not sure for how long, 2013 deliveries and the A333 2016 I believe, the A332 is good for new routes for FJ, though possibly might need a cabin upgrade at some point.

Would FJ not just be better with A350 for WB, A320NEO/A321XLR for NB. Would seem much simpler (And I am not a A/B Fanboy, just looking at the obvious)

A359 is a lot of aircraft, I would have thought the A330 was fine in the first place, I don’t see them flying further than YVR. Well they got the 737 Max so it’s not as obvious as you think.

ZK-NBT wrote:

77west wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Not sure what to make of that, one source a few months ago reported something similar which FJ denied shortly after.

I believe the A332s are leased? Not sure for how long, 2013 deliveries and the A333 2016 I believe, the A332 is good for new routes for FJ, though possibly might need a cabin upgrade at some point.

Would FJ not just be better with A350 for WB, A320NEO/A321XLR for NB. Would seem much simpler (And I am not a A/B Fanboy, just looking at the obvious)

A359 is a lot of aircraft, I would have thought the A330 was fine in the first place, I don’t see them flying further than YVR. Well they got the 737 Max so it’s not as obvious as you think.

Speaking of FJ, I wonder if they would ever expand to regional New Zealand? Even seasonally. They're in the unique position of being the only non AU/NZ carrier to already serve three ports here. And IIRC, SJ had previously flown from the likes of HLZ to NAN (albeit yonks ago). I'm thinking the likes of HLZ or DUD.

ZK-NBT wrote:

77west wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Not sure what to make of that, one source a few months ago reported something similar which FJ denied shortly after.

I believe the A332s are leased? Not sure for how long, 2013 deliveries and the A333 2016 I believe, the A332 is good for new routes for FJ, though possibly might need a cabin upgrade at some point.

Would FJ not just be better with A350 for WB, A320NEO/A321XLR for NB. Would seem much simpler (And I am not a A/B Fanboy, just looking at the obvious)

A359 is a lot of aircraft, I would have thought the A330 was fine in the first place, I don’t see them flying further than YVR. Well they got the 737 Max so it’s not as obvious as you think.

OK so maybe B789 / 737MAX then?

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

77west wrote:

Would FJ not just be better with A350 for WB, A320NEO/A321XLR for NB. Would seem much simpler (And I am not a A/B Fanboy, just looking at the obvious)

A359 is a lot of aircraft, I would have thought the A330 was fine in the first place, I don’t see them flying further than YVR. Well they got the 737 Max so it’s not as obvious as you think.

Speaking of FJ, I wonder if they would ever expand to regional New Zealand? Even seasonally. They're in the unique position of being the only non AU/NZ carrier to already serve three ports here. And IIRC, SJ had previously flown from the likes of HLZ to NAN (albeit yonks ago). I'm thinking the likes of HLZ or DUD.

I guess you never know.

Looking ahead to NS23 they have 5 weekly morning departures ex AKL up fro 2-3 so you get an extra half day in Fiji, it is an evening departure on the return giving an extra day effectively.

77west wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

77west wrote:

Would FJ not just be better with A350 for WB, A320NEO/A321XLR for NB. Would seem much simpler (And I am not a A/B Fanboy, just looking at the obvious)

A359 is a lot of aircraft, I would have thought the A330 was fine in the first place, I don’t see them flying further than YVR. Well they got the 737 Max so it’s not as obvious as you think.

OK so maybe B789 / 737MAX then?

I’m not sure how important it is for a small operator to have 1 manufacturer for both wide and narrow body?

I mean they say they like the A359, I would have thought for the overall network the A330 would be fine, with additional LAX in peak or more SFO etc. freight does play a key role for them however and the A359 is a good freight hauler.

Virgin Australia returning to Queenstown tomorrow 2 November with daily service to BNE and SYD. And 5 per week to MEL starts on Nov 3. No mention if they will go to other ports yet.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/130 ... queenstown

ZK-NBT wrote:

77west wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

A359 is a lot of aircraft, I would have thought the A330 was fine in the first place, I don’t see them flying further than YVR. Well they got the 737 Max so it’s not as obvious as you think.

OK so maybe B789 / 737MAX then?

I’m not sure how important it is for a small operator to have 1 manufacturer for both wide and narrow body?

I mean they say they like the A359, I would have thought for the overall network the A330 would be fine, with additional LAX in peak or more SFO etc. freight does play a key role for them however and the A359 is a good freight hauler.

From a freight perspective the A350 I think is the better choice for FJ. Certainly, a lot of aircraft, but no different to NZ using 77W on 3hr Tasman runs. I get why they went where they did - having A330 for WB ops made A350 simpler to bring online, and the same for 737NG to 737MAX. I just wonder if an A350 / A32X NEO mix would have been that much more efficient from a crew training perspective.

From the previous thread - NZ hiring ex-PVG crew due to crew shortages in NZ…. Yet they haven’t rehired a lot of former NZ based crew.

Also there was a post about 787 crew change in NAN.
How this works is a 787 crew is paxed up to NAN on an A320 (operated by A320 crew). They then swap with the inbound diverted 787 crew (who then pax home on the A320 operated by A320 crew still - or in some cases potentially rest in NAN).
It certainly isn’t ideal but better than having to overnight a whole plane load of passengers in Fiji.

77west wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

77west wrote:

OK so maybe B789 / 737MAX then?

I’m not sure how important it is for a small operator to have 1 manufacturer for both wide and narrow body?

I mean they say they like the A359, I would have thought for the overall network the A330 would be fine, with additional LAX in peak or more SFO etc. freight does play a key role for them however and the A359 is a good freight hauler.

From a freight perspective the A350 I think is the better choice for FJ. Certainly, a lot of aircraft, but no different to NZ using 77W on 3hr Tasman runs. I get why they went where they did - having A330 for WB ops made A350 simpler to bring online, and the same for 737NG to 737MAX. I just wonder if an A350 / A32X NEO mix would have been that much more efficient from a crew training perspective.

I mean more for FJ overall, LAX to me is the only route where they need a bigger aircraft than the A332. NZ have 77Ws for LAX/SFO and have always used wide body aircraft on short haul.

Zkpilot wrote:

From the previous thread - NZ hiring ex-PVG crew due to crew shortages in NZ…. Yet they haven’t rehired a lot of former NZ based crew.

Also there was a post about 787 crew change in NAN.
How this works is a 787 crew is paxed up to NAN on an A320 (operated by A320 crew). They then swap with the inbound diverted 787 crew (who then pax home on the A320 operated by A320 crew still - or in some cases potentially rest in NAN).
It certainly isn’t ideal but better than having to overnight a whole plane load of passengers in Fiji.

Yes. The replacement crew paxing to NAN can just carry on home as pax on the 787 given they have plenty of blocked seats. The A320 positioning flight of possible operates the previous day and returns straight away.

Interestingly, ZK-OYA on delivery flight NZ6091 CNS-AKL is holding at the fix point TABAL off the coast from Brisbane.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ZKO ... /YBCS/NZAA

ZKNHF wrote:

Interestingly, ZK-OYA on delivery flight NZ6091 CNS-AKL is holding at the fix point TABAL off the coast from Brisbane.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ZKO ... /YBCS/NZAA

That is weird, its way out over the Tasman. Keeping close to BNE? Although it looks to be exiting the hold now and continuing to AKL.

ZKNHF wrote:

Interestingly, ZK-OYA on delivery flight NZ6091 CNS-AKL is holding at the fix point TABAL off the coast from Brisbane.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ZKO ... /YBCS/NZAA

No transponder, it will be waiting for NZ148 BNE-AKL to follow home.

ZK-NBT wrote:

ZKNHF wrote:

Interestingly, ZK-OYA on delivery flight NZ6091 CNS-AKL is holding at the fix point TABAL off the coast from Brisbane.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ZKO ... /YBCS/NZAA

No transponder, it will be waiting for NZ148 BNE-AKL to follow home.

Oh yeah good point. Though I’d guess no HF radio for the domestic config. Therefore relaying through 148? Hopefully neither one needs to turn around haha.

The Muscat to Kuala Lumpur leg stayed quite far north towards Myanmar and I guess they were still in VHF range across the Timor straight at FL390.

ZKNHF wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

ZKNHF wrote:

Interestingly, ZK-OYA on delivery flight NZ6091 CNS-AKL is holding at the fix point TABAL off the coast from Brisbane.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ZKO ... /YBCS/NZAA

No transponder, it will be waiting for NZ148 BNE-AKL to follow home.

Oh yeah good point. Though I’d guess no HF radio for the domestic config. Therefore relaying through 148? Hopefully neither one needs to turn around haha.

The Muscat to Kuala Lumpur leg stayed quite far north towards Myanmar and I guess they were still in VHF range across the Timor straight at FL390.

Pretty common, all the domestic a320’s did the same for the same reason.

What is the most impressive, is that they are able to get them all the way from Europe. Then get stuck on the last leg across the Tasman.

The International a321N’s delivered via the Pacific.

zkncj wrote:

ZKNHF wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

No transponder, it will be waiting for NZ148 BNE-AKL to follow home.

Oh yeah good point. Though I’d guess no HF radio for the domestic config. Therefore relaying through 148? Hopefully neither one needs to turn around haha.

The Muscat to Kuala Lumpur leg stayed quite far north towards Myanmar and I guess they were still in VHF range across the Timor straight at FL390.

Pretty common, all the domestic a320’s did the same for the same reason.

What is the most impressive, is that they are able to get them all the way from Europe. Then get stuck on the last leg across the Tasman.

The International a321N’s delivered via the Pacific.

Oh so no HF rather than no transponder. Interesting. Does this mean that the domestic birds can't ever sub for an international service if need be? I guess the lack of overwater provisions affects this as well.

77west wrote:

zkncj wrote:

ZKNHF wrote:

Oh yeah good point. Though I’d guess no HF radio for the domestic config. Therefore relaying through 148? Hopefully neither one needs to turn around haha.

The Muscat to Kuala Lumpur leg stayed quite far north towards Myanmar and I guess they were still in VHF range across the Timor straight at FL390.

Pretty common, all the domestic a320’s did the same for the same reason.

What is the most impressive, is that they are able to get them all the way from Europe. Then get stuck on the last leg across the Tasman.

The International a321N’s delivered via the Pacific.

Oh so no HF rather than no transponder. Interesting. Does this mean that the domestic birds can't ever sub for an international service if need be? I guess the lack of overwater provisions affects this as well.

Sorry HF not transponder. Domestic aircraft are domestic only, no subs.

77west wrote:

zkncj wrote:

ZKNHF wrote:

Oh yeah good point. Though I’d guess no HF radio for the domestic config. Therefore relaying through 148? Hopefully neither one needs to turn around haha.

The Muscat to Kuala Lumpur leg stayed quite far north towards Myanmar and I guess they were still in VHF range across the Timor straight at FL390.

Pretty common, all the domestic a320’s did the same for the same reason.

What is the most impressive, is that they are able to get them all the way from Europe. Then get stuck on the last leg across the Tasman.

The International a321N’s delivered via the Pacific.

Oh so no HF rather than no transponder. Interesting. Does this mean that the domestic birds can't ever sub for an international service if need be? I guess the lack of overwater provisions affects this as well.

HF is one thing amongst a few. But so less equipment on the Domestic birds for the cabin making it not suited to overwater flying (Survival kits, life rafts etc...). Of course, most importantly no WIFI

PS, they all have transponders!

ZKSUJ wrote:

77west wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Pretty common, all the domestic a320’s did the same for the same reason.

What is the most impressive, is that they are able to get them all the way from Europe. Then get stuck on the last leg across the Tasman.

The International a321N’s delivered via the Pacific.

Oh so no HF rather than no transponder. Interesting. Does this mean that the domestic birds can't ever sub for an international service if need be? I guess the lack of overwater provisions affects this as well.

HF is one thing amongst a few. But so less equipment on the Domestic birds for the cabin making it not suited to overwater flying (Survival kits, life rafts etc...). Of course, most importantly no WIFI

How far overwater does it become a requirement to have this equipment? I would guess anywhere further than gliding distance from an alternate... So maybe 1hr or so?

77west wrote:

ZKSUJ wrote:

77west wrote:

Oh so no HF rather than no transponder. Interesting. Does this mean that the domestic birds can't ever sub for an international service if need be? I guess the lack of overwater provisions affects this as well.

HF is one thing amongst a few. But so less equipment on the Domestic birds for the cabin making it not suited to overwater flying (Survival kits, life rafts etc...). Of course, most importantly no WIFI

How far overwater does it become a requirement to have this equipment? I would guess anywhere further than gliding distance from an alternate... So maybe 1hr or so?

Sorry but I'm of no help there, that's an answer for someone above my paygrade and much smarter than I.

However I don't think the gliding distance is a thing that's used. I know it's a thing for singles under part 91 (That's a lifejacket requirement not a life raft requirement), but these are all high performance multis under part 121. It would be more about sustained single engine performance (Or loss of performance for Quads) & redundancies rather than gliding. Practically speaking, a Q300/ATR from say NPL-CHC or an airbus from AKL-IVC/ZQN wont be able to glide to a suitable aerodrome over the south Taranaki Bight for example

Hopefully someone with more knowledge than me will share

ZKSUJ wrote:

77west wrote:

ZKSUJ wrote:

HF is one thing amongst a few. But so less equipment on the Domestic birds for the cabin making it not suited to overwater flying (Survival kits, life rafts etc...). Of course, most importantly no WIFI

How far overwater does it become a requirement to have this equipment? I would guess anywhere further than gliding distance from an alternate... So maybe 1hr or so?

Sorry but I'm of no help there, that's an answer for someone above my paygrade and much smarter than I.

However I don't think the gliding distance is a thing that's used. I know it's a thing for singles under part 91 (That's a lifejacket requirement not a life raft requirement), but these are all high performance multis under part 121. It would be more about sustained single engine performance (Or loss of performance for Quads) & redundancies rather than gliding. Practically speaking, a Q300/ATR from say NPL-CHC or an airbus from AKL-IVC/ZQN wont be able to glide to a suitable aerodrome over the south Taranaki Bight for example

Hopefully someone with more knowledge than me will share

The Air Canada 767 glided about 66nm from 41,000ft, so you are correct, an A320 losing all power on AKL-IVC would have about 100nm glide to WLG or Ohakea. And they are generally about 5,000ft lower than the Gimli Glider was. Interesting.

Weather must be a little windy in the capital just now, as I note NZ272 BNE-WLG attempted landing once and then diverted straight to AKL, with NZ360 CHC-WLG doing some nice holding before heading back to CHC, but not long after NZ246 SYD-WLG made it in first attempt.

Would NZ272 not have enough fuel to hold before trying again and that's why it diverted straight away or would that just be a safety thing to go up to AKL?

mrkerr7474 wrote:

Weather must be a little windy in the capital just now, as I note NZ272 BNE-WLG attempted landing once and then diverted straight to AKL, with NZ360 CHC-WLG doing some nice holding before heading back to CHC, but not long after NZ246 SYD-WLG made it in first attempt.

Would NZ272 not have enough fuel to hold before trying again and that's why it diverted straight away or would that just be a safety thing to go up to AKL?

NZ272 may have got the information that conditions were not due to ease for a while and proactively decided to divert. NZ246 may have just got a lucky break/lull of a few minutes. Thats WLG for you...

mrkerr7474 wrote:

Weather must be a little windy in the capital just now, as I note NZ272 BNE-WLG attempted landing once and then diverted straight to AKL, with NZ360 CHC-WLG doing some nice holding before heading back to CHC, but not long after NZ246 SYD-WLG made it in first attempt.

Would NZ272 not have enough fuel to hold before trying again and that's why it diverted straight away or would that just be a safety thing to go up to AKL?

One of their alternates might’ve been CHC, but with the Nor’west wind they might not have wanted to go there. Therefore used the hold fuel to get that slightly further distance to AKL (with reserves obviously).

ZKNHF wrote:

mrkerr7474 wrote:

Weather must be a little windy in the capital just now, as I note NZ272 BNE-WLG attempted landing once and then diverted straight to AKL, with NZ360 CHC-WLG doing some nice holding before heading back to CHC, but not long after NZ246 SYD-WLG made it in first attempt.

Would NZ272 not have enough fuel to hold before trying again and that's why it diverted straight away or would that just be a safety thing to go up to AKL?

One of their alternates might’ve been CHC, but with the Nor’west wind they might not have wanted to go there. Therefore used the hold fuel to get that slightly further distance to AKL (with reserves obviously).

Surely the cross runway at CHC could have been used for a diversion during NW wind conditions - that's precisely what it is for. Or was the wind there so extreme that that was unadvisable?

DavidByrne wrote:

ZKNHF wrote:

One of their alternates might’ve been CHC, but with the Nor’west wind they might not have wanted to go there. Therefore used the hold fuel to get that slightly further distance to AKL (with reserves obviously).

Surely the cross runway at CHC could have been used for a diversion during NW wind conditions - that's precisely what it is for. Or was the wind there so extreme that that was unadvisable?

Yeah it absolutely can be used for it. But you’re more likely to have another unstable approach in those gusty conditions, or a go around if they can’t get it down quickly on the relatively short runway.
A second divert from CHC would be to Palmy or Dunedin. Whereas AKL has Hamilton or Tauranga much closer if needed.

Air NZ celebrate their first A321 for the domestic fleet it did a 19,352 km journey from Hamburg via Muscat, Kuala Lumpur and Cairns. First flight will be AKL-WLG on Nov 8.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/travel/2 ... 21neo.html

I've been giving some thought to two strategic issues which NZ has spoken of recently, namely the focus they are putting on Australia-North America connection traffic, and second the plan to keep the wide-body fleet smaller than pre-covid and work it harder. For both strategies, AKL-PER poses some issues. Timetabling AKL-PER to provide connections to and from North America is very difficult to do efficiently, and long layovers at PER are also somewhat problematic.

The most utilisation-efficient way of providing AKL-PER service would be to operate (winter hours) something like (connecting from North America, then) AKL 0845 - 1210 PER 1330 - 2340 AKL 0130 - 0455 PER 0800 - 1810 AKL (then connecting to North America). The downside of this, though, is that one of the AKL-PER flights operates at quite anti-social hours (0130/0455), which is presumably why NZ has not done this in the past. Instead, they have used CHC-PER flights to feed the morning flight from PER-AKL

An alternative way of doing this with fewer antisocial hours flights would be to link the PER flights to flights to PPT and/or RAR, thus:
Day1: AKL-RAR-AKL daytime, AKL-PER evening
Day 2: PER-AKL daytime, AKL-PPT evening
Day 3: PPT-AKL early morning, AKL-PER morning, PER-AKL overnight (arr Day 4)

Four cycles could be achieved in 12 days, with two aircraft, allowing 8x weekly AKL-PER (with 4 flights connecting to and from North America each week each way). This also allows daily services (plus one day double daily) on AKL-PER, and daily except one day (but with two days double daily) on PER-AKL. The downside is that it still requires a long layover at PER.

I considered whether the use of the A321 would assist - it would certainly allow an increased frequency to support North American operations,. but the aircraft would be at the very limits of its range, especially if cargo was to be carried as well as pax. And the BITRE stats suggest that cargo on AKL-PER is a very significant factor, almost certainly requiring a wide-bodied aircraft.

Has anyone else thought about how to square this particular circle? Having devoted some time to analysing it and trying various options, it's not at all easy to maintain daily flights in each direction at the same time as having at least half of them connecting to and from North America. And PER-North America must surely be a significant market to capture, and a great objective for NZ.

DavidByrne wrote:

I've been giving some thought to two strategic issues which NZ has spoken of recently, namely the focus they are putting on Australia-North America connection traffic, and second the plan to keep the wide-body fleet smaller than pre-covid and work it harder. For both strategies, AKL-PER poses some issues. Timetabling AKL-PER to provide connections to and from North America is very difficult to do efficiently, and long layovers at PER are also somewhat problematic.

The most utilisation-efficient way of providing AKL-PER service would be to operate (winter hours) something like (connecting from North America, then) AKL 0845 - 1210 PER 1330 - 2340 AKL 0130 - 0455 PER 0800 - 1810 AKL (then connecting to North America). The downside of this, though, is that one of the AKL-PER flights operates at quite anti-social hours (0130/0455), which is presumably why NZ has not done this in the past. Instead, they have used CHC-PER flights to feed the morning flight from PER-AKL

An alternative way of doing this with fewer antisocial hours flights would be to link the PER flights to flights to PPT and/or RAR, thus:
Day1: AKL-RAR-AKL daytime, AKL-PER evening
Day 2: PER-AKL daytime, AKL-PPT evening
Day 3: PPT-AKL early morning, AKL-PER morning, PER-AKL overnight (arr Day 4)

Four cycles could be achieved in 12 days, with two aircraft, allowing 8x weekly AKL-PER (with 4 flights connecting to and from North America each week each way). This also allows daily services (plus one day double daily) on AKL-PER, and daily except one day (but with two days double daily) on PER-AKL. The downside is that it still requires a long layover at PER.

I considered whether the use of the A321 would assist - it would certainly allow an increased frequency to support North American operations,. but the aircraft would be at the very limits of its range, especially if cargo was to be carried as well as pax. And the BITRE stats suggest that cargo on AKL-PER is a very significant factor, almost certainly requiring a wide-bodied aircraft.

Has anyone else thought about how to square this particular circle? Having devoted some time to analysing it and trying various options, it's not at all easy to maintain daily flights in each direction at the same time as having at least half of them connecting to and from North America. And PER-North America must surely be a significant market to capture, and a great objective for NZ.

Are you sure it is a realistic target market? If you are heading to the east cost of USA from PER, it is basically the same distance whether you go via AKL or DXB, so you get the choice of an EK A380 or an NZ 787; I know which one I'd go for.

tullamarine wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

I've been giving some thought to two strategic issues which NZ has spoken of recently, namely the focus they are putting on Australia-North America connection traffic, and second the plan to keep the wide-body fleet smaller than pre-covid and work it harder. For both strategies, AKL-PER poses some issues. Timetabling AKL-PER to provide connections to and from North America is very difficult to do efficiently, and long layovers at PER are also somewhat problematic.

The most utilisation-efficient way of providing AKL-PER service would be to operate (winter hours) something like (connecting from North America, then) AKL 0845 - 1210 PER 1330 - 2340 AKL 0130 - 0455 PER 0800 - 1810 AKL (then connecting to North America). The downside of this, though, is that one of the AKL-PER flights operates at quite anti-social hours (0130/0455), which is presumably why NZ has not done this in the past. Instead, they have used CHC-PER flights to feed the morning flight from PER-AKL

An alternative way of doing this with fewer antisocial hours flights would be to link the PER flights to flights to PPT and/or RAR, thus:
Day1: AKL-RAR-AKL daytime, AKL-PER evening
Day 2: PER-AKL daytime, AKL-PPT evening
Day 3: PPT-AKL early morning, AKL-PER morning, PER-AKL overnight (arr Day 4)

Four cycles could be achieved in 12 days, with two aircraft, allowing 8x weekly AKL-PER (with 4 flights connecting to and from North America each week each way). This also allows daily services (plus one day double daily) on AKL-PER, and daily except one day (but with two days double daily) on PER-AKL. The downside is that it still requires a long layover at PER.

I considered whether the use of the A321 would assist - it would certainly allow an increased frequency to support North American operations,. but the aircraft would be at the very limits of its range, especially if cargo was to be carried as well as pax. And the BITRE stats suggest that cargo on AKL-PER is a very significant factor, almost certainly requiring a wide-bodied aircraft.

Has anyone else thought about how to square this particular circle? Having devoted some time to analysing it and trying various options, it's not at all easy to maintain daily flights in each direction at the same time as having at least half of them connecting to and from North America. And PER-North America must surely be a significant market to capture, and a great objective for NZ.

Are you sure it is a realistic target market? If you are heading to the east cost of USA from PER, it is basically the same distance whether you go via AKL or DXB, so you get the choice of an EK A380 or an NZ 787; I know which one I'd go for.

Sure there are other ways of getting to North America. But North America isn't only the East Coast. And check it out on GC mapper and you'll find that PER to anywhere at all in North America (perhaps excluding Canada's maritime states) is shorter via AKL than via DXB - even JFK is some 300 miles shorter. The West Coast is more than 4000 miles shorter via AKL. Yes, you could fly Emirates and have an 8 hour longer flight, but you'd have to be pretty keen on the A380 and probably pay significantly more for the privilege.

DavidByrne wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

I've been giving some thought to two strategic issues which NZ has spoken of recently, namely the focus they are putting on Australia-North America connection traffic, and second the plan to keep the wide-body fleet smaller than pre-covid and work it harder. For both strategies, AKL-PER poses some issues. Timetabling AKL-PER to provide connections to and from North America is very difficult to do efficiently, and long layovers at PER are also somewhat problematic.

The most utilisation-efficient way of providing AKL-PER service would be to operate (winter hours) something like (connecting from North America, then) AKL 0845 - 1210 PER 1330 - 2340 AKL 0130 - 0455 PER 0800 - 1810 AKL (then connecting to North America). The downside of this, though, is that one of the AKL-PER flights operates at quite anti-social hours (0130/0455), which is presumably why NZ has not done this in the past. Instead, they have used CHC-PER flights to feed the morning flight from PER-AKL

An alternative way of doing this with fewer antisocial hours flights would be to link the PER flights to flights to PPT and/or RAR, thus:
Day1: AKL-RAR-AKL daytime, AKL-PER evening
Day 2: PER-AKL daytime, AKL-PPT evening
Day 3: PPT-AKL early morning, AKL-PER morning, PER-AKL overnight (arr Day 4)

Four cycles could be achieved in 12 days, with two aircraft, allowing 8x weekly AKL-PER (with 4 flights connecting to and from North America each week each way). This also allows daily services (plus one day double daily) on AKL-PER, and daily except one day (but with two days double daily) on PER-AKL. The downside is that it still requires a long layover at PER.

I considered whether the use of the A321 would assist - it would certainly allow an increased frequency to support North American operations,. but the aircraft would be at the very limits of its range, especially if cargo was to be carried as well as pax. And the BITRE stats suggest that cargo on AKL-PER is a very significant factor, almost certainly requiring a wide-bodied aircraft.

Has anyone else thought about how to square this particular circle? Having devoted some time to analysing it and trying various options, it's not at all easy to maintain daily flights in each direction at the same time as having at least half of them connecting to and from North America. And PER-North America must surely be a significant market to capture, and a great objective for NZ.

Are you sure it is a realistic target market? If you are heading to the east cost of USA from PER, it is basically the same distance whether you go via AKL or DXB, so you get the choice of an EK A380 or an NZ 787; I know which one I'd go for.

Sure there are other ways of getting to North America. But North America isn't only the East Coast. And check it out on GC mapper and you'll find that PER to anywhere at all in North America (perhaps excluding Canada's maritime states) is shorter via AKL than via DXB - even JFK is some 300 miles shorter. The West Coast is more than 4000 miles shorter via AKL. Yes, you could fly Emirates and have an 8 hour longer flight, but you'd have to be pretty keen on the A380 and probably pay significantly more for the privilege.

Yes, but AKL isn't any more compelling for PER residents than MEL, SYD or BNE if you are heading to the west coast or Midwest with many more options available by using the Australian east coast ports. Once again, NZ is forced to compete solely on price with no other obvious advantage unless you are heading to ORD. It is not likely to attract many J class pax and will really only be targetting "back of the bus" discount passengers.

tullamarine wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

Are you sure it is a realistic target market? If you are heading to the east cost of USA from PER, it is basically the same distance whether you go via AKL or DXB, so you get the choice of an EK A380 or an NZ 787; I know which one I'd go for.

Sure there are other ways of getting to North America. But North America isn't only the East Coast. And check it out on GC mapper and you'll find that PER to anywhere at all in North America (perhaps excluding Canada's maritime states) is shorter via AKL than via DXB - even JFK is some 300 miles shorter. The West Coast is more than 4000 miles shorter via AKL. Yes, you could fly Emirates and have an 8 hour longer flight, but you'd have to be pretty keen on the A380 and probably pay significantly more for the privilege.

Yes, but AKL isn't any more compelling for PER residents than MEL, SYD or BNE if you are heading to the west coast or Midwest with many more options available by using the Australian east coast ports. Once again, NZ is forced to compete solely on price with no other obvious advantage unless you are heading to ORD. It is not likely to attract many J class pax and will really only be targetting "back of the bus" discount passengers.

One significant advantage NZ has is that there's no need to change terminals or handle your baggage at an intermediate point. Some argue that that's no inconvenience at all, but I just don't find that argument remotely credible. A quick, slick change from one gate to another via a security check vs claiming your baggage, going through customs and immigration and then taking a bus to another terminal - is there even an argument?

But the bottom line is that this is already NZ's strategy, and it has been for many years, very successfully. It was a few years ago that NZ claimed that these connecting pax accounted for an additional 77W worth of traffic a day. With several new North American destinations and also new Australian connecting destinations, there's no reason why the strategy shouldn't in future be even more productive for the carrier. If it wasn't any value to them, they'd hardly be talking it up, would they?

DavidByrne wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

Sure there are other ways of getting to North America. But North America isn't only the East Coast. And check it out on GC mapper and you'll find that PER to anywhere at all in North America (perhaps excluding Canada's maritime states) is shorter via AKL than via DXB - even JFK is some 300 miles shorter. The West Coast is more than 4000 miles shorter via AKL. Yes, you could fly Emirates and have an 8 hour longer flight, but you'd have to be pretty keen on the A380 and probably pay significantly more for the privilege.

Yes, but AKL isn't any more compelling for PER residents than MEL, SYD or BNE if you are heading to the west coast or Midwest with many more options available by using the Australian east coast ports. Once again, NZ is forced to compete solely on price with no other obvious advantage unless you are heading to ORD. It is not likely to attract many J class pax and will really only be targetting "back of the bus" discount passengers.

One significant advantage NZ has is that there's no need to change terminals or handle your baggage at an intermediate point. Some argue that that's no inconvenience at all, but I just don't find that argument remotely credible. A quick, slick change from one gate to another via a security check vs claiming your baggage, going through customs and immigration and then taking a bus to another terminal - is there even an argument?

But the bottom line is that this is already NZ's strategy, and it has been for many years, very successfully. It was a few years ago that NZ claimed that these connecting pax accounted for an additional 77W worth of traffic a day. With several new North American destinations and also new Australian connecting destinations, there's no reason why the strategy shouldn't in future be even more productive for the carrier. If it wasn't any value to them, they'd hardly be talking it up, would they?

Australian residents will remain a valuable source of transpac passengers for NZ. There is the best part of 600k NZ'ers in Oz - some of which will choose the airline of the Motherland. There is also the fairly seamless connections from multiple ports which also helps - as does the fact NZ fares are usually competitively prices.

However, Perth is interesting compared to the eastern states. Apart from via NZ or eastern Australia ports you also have via the Middle East and East Asia as, relatively, viable options for Perth residents. An option which is, in most cases, absurd from the east. Trying to time Perth flights from NZ to connect might just not be worth the trouble.

DavidByrne wrote:

I've been giving some thought to two strategic issues which NZ has spoken of recently, namely the focus they are putting on Australia-North America connection traffic, and second the plan to keep the wide-body fleet smaller than pre-covid and work it harder. For both strategies, AKL-PER poses some issues. Timetabling AKL-PER to provide connections to and from North America is very difficult to do efficiently, and long layovers at PER are also somewhat problematic.

The most utilisation-efficient way of providing AKL-PER service would be to operate (winter hours) something like (connecting from North America, then) AKL 0845 - 1210 PER 1330 - 2340 AKL 0130 - 0455 PER 0800 - 1810 AKL (then connecting to North America). The downside of this, though, is that one of the AKL-PER flights operates at quite anti-social hours (0130/0455), which is presumably why NZ has not done this in the past. Instead, they have used CHC-PER flights to feed the morning flight from PER-AKL

An alternative way of doing this with fewer antisocial hours flights would be to link the PER flights to flights to PPT and/or RAR, thus:
Day1: AKL-RAR-AKL daytime, AKL-PER evening
Day 2: PER-AKL daytime, AKL-PPT evening
Day 3: PPT-AKL early morning, AKL-PER morning, PER-AKL overnight (arr Day 4)

Four cycles could be achieved in 12 days, with two aircraft, allowing 8x weekly AKL-PER (with 4 flights connecting to and from North America each week each way). This also allows daily services (plus one day double daily) on AKL-PER, and daily except one day (but with two days double daily) on PER-AKL. The downside is that it still requires a long layover at PER.

I considered whether the use of the A321 would assist - it would certainly allow an increased frequency to support North American operations,. but the aircraft would be at the very limits of its range, especially if cargo was to be carried as well as pax. And the BITRE stats suggest that cargo on AKL-PER is a very significant factor, almost certainly requiring a wide-bodied aircraft.

Has anyone else thought about how to square this particular circle? Having devoted some time to analysing it and trying various options, it's not at all easy to maintain daily flights in each direction at the same time as having at least half of them connecting to and from North America. And PER-North America must surely be a significant market to capture, and a great objective for NZ.

Interesting thoughts. I agree PER isn’t the easiest given the sector length and time difference. I kind of lump PER/PVG/NRT/HKG/SIN which generally use code 1 789s and say you need 6 aircraft to run those 5 routes daily, the early PER/PVG arrivals can do the earlier NRT/HKG departures, SIN can be done with 1 aircraft but generally SIN/NRT/HKG mid morning arrivals can turn to PER/SIN, PVG departs late evening so a SYD service at departure 1245 return 2030 is possible here. You also have PPT/ICN/TPE less frequently, not sure there is any general pattern? I haven’t paid to much attention recently.

I often thought something like an 0200 departure ex AKL 0530 arrival in PER with the 0800 ex PER 1810 arrival in AKL, pre covid they could have used the aircraft off the late evening SYD/MEL services, those are A321s for now and will likely stay that way most of the time given the smaller wide body fleet.

As for PER I would think wide body service would be beneficial to those connections from North America also who might fly in the premium cabins. Though the A321 would likely struggle ex AKL, maybe ok on the return.

ZK-NBT wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

I've been giving some thought to two strategic issues which NZ has spoken of recently, namely the focus they are putting on Australia-North America connection traffic, and second the plan to keep the wide-body fleet smaller than pre-covid and work it harder. For both strategies, AKL-PER poses some issues. Timetabling AKL-PER to provide connections to and from North America is very difficult to do efficiently, and long layovers at PER are also somewhat problematic.

The most utilisation-efficient way of providing AKL-PER service would be to operate (winter hours) something like (connecting from North America, then) AKL 0845 - 1210 PER 1330 - 2340 AKL 0130 - 0455 PER 0800 - 1810 AKL (then connecting to North America). The downside of this, though, is that one of the AKL-PER flights operates at quite anti-social hours (0130/0455), which is presumably why NZ has not done this in the past. Instead, they have used CHC-PER flights to feed the morning flight from PER-AKL

An alternative way of doing this with fewer antisocial hours flights would be to link the PER flights to flights to PPT and/or RAR, thus:
Day1: AKL-RAR-AKL daytime, AKL-PER evening
Day 2: PER-AKL daytime, AKL-PPT evening
Day 3: PPT-AKL early morning, AKL-PER morning, PER-AKL overnight (arr Day 4)

Four cycles could be achieved in 12 days, with two aircraft, allowing 8x weekly AKL-PER (with 4 flights connecting to and from North America each week each way). This also allows daily services (plus one day double daily) on AKL-PER, and daily except one day (but with two days double daily) on PER-AKL. The downside is that it still requires a long layover at PER.

I considered whether the use of the A321 would assist - it would certainly allow an increased frequency to support North American operations,. but the aircraft would be at the very limits of its range, especially if cargo was to be carried as well as pax. And the BITRE stats suggest that cargo on AKL-PER is a very significant factor, almost certainly requiring a wide-bodied aircraft.

Has anyone else thought about how to square this particular circle? Having devoted some time to analysing it and trying various options, it's not at all easy to maintain daily flights in each direction at the same time as having at least half of them connecting to and from North America. And PER-North America must surely be a significant market to capture, and a great objective for NZ.

Interesting thoughts. I agree PER isn’t the easiest given the sector length and time difference. I kind of lump PER/PVG/NRT/HKG/SIN which generally use code 1 789s and say you need 6 aircraft to run those 5 routes daily, the early PER/PVG arrivals can do the earlier NRT/HKG departures, SIN can be done with 1 aircraft but generally SIN/NRT/HKG mid morning arrivals can turn to PER/SIN, PVG departs late evening so a SYD service at departure 1245 return 2030 is possible here. You also have PPT/ICN/TPE less frequently, not sure there is any general pattern? I haven’t paid to much attention recently.

I often thought something like an 0200 departure ex AKL 0530 arrival in PER with the 0800 ex PER 1810 arrival in AKL, pre covid they could have used the aircraft off the late evening SYD/MEL services, those are A321s for now and will likely stay that way most of the time given the smaller wide body fleet.

As for PER I would think wide body service would be beneficial to those connections from North America also who might fly in the premium cabins. Though the A321 would likely struggle ex AKL, maybe ok on the return.

The current A321 will not really be viable on PER. It would need the XLR which NZ does not have on order. And even then it would be borderline if freight is taken into account.

Could we see the 787-10 order brought forward a bit to free up some 789? I still believe deferring the 787-10 order as long as they did was a mistake.

NTLDaz wrote:

However, Perth is interesting compared to the eastern states. Apart from via NZ or eastern Australia ports you also have via the Middle East and East Asia as, relatively, viable options for Perth residents. An option which is, in most cases, absurd from the east. Trying to time Perth flights from NZ to connect might just not be worth the trouble.

I'm a bit bemused by some of the arguments bring followed in some of the recent contributions from posters with Australian-sounding usernames.

* First, travelling from PER via the Middle East to the West Coast of NA is significantly longer (about 4000 miles or eight hours-ish travel time longer than via AKL. Why would you voluntarily submit yourself to that?
* A quick search on a travel website suggests that right now, travelling from PER via the East Coast to LAX is at least an hour longer for the fastest connection currently available on any other carrier (in this case via BNE) than travelling by NZ via AKL on the schedule I propose. Many of the connections offered are significantly longer.
* The schedule I propose ex PER is not new, it's exactly the schedule that NZ already operated three days a week for the two (or three?) summers prior to lockdown, when they flew 10x weekly ex PER. I'm just suggesting a mechanism to return to those timings and make seamless connections 4x weekly each way in winter - possibly 5x in summer to boost NZ's market position;
* Surely the idea of travelling across Australia by NB, changing terminals and then only onto a WB for the transpacific leg has to be trumped by a WB option all the way with a very simple and speedy transfer
* The implication that the natural market for the route would primarily be NZers in Australia also bemuses me. Lots of Aussies fly NZ long-haul - just as Kiwis fly QF. And why would they baulk at flying NZ, given it was several years recently voted the most trusted brand in Australia?

All I'm suggesting I'd that if NZ, as it has hinted it plans to, wants to get more out of its existing successful strategy carrying Australians transpacific, then PER can be a part of that strategy by reverting to timings that were in use pre-Covid and I've proposed a very tidy way it can be done quite efficiently. Why that should be controversial I'm unclear, as none of the counter arguments put forward so far are logical or even take account of recent actual operational history. Could there be a bit of Australian jingoism at play here?

77west wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

I've been giving some thought to two strategic issues which NZ has spoken of recently, namely the focus they are putting on Australia-North America connection traffic, and second the plan to keep the wide-body fleet smaller than pre-covid and work it harder. For both strategies, AKL-PER poses some issues. Timetabling AKL-PER to provide connections to and from North America is very difficult to do efficiently, and long layovers at PER are also somewhat problematic.

The most utilisation-efficient way of providing AKL-PER service would be to operate (winter hours) something like (connecting from North America, then) AKL 0845 - 1210 PER 1330 - 2340 AKL 0130 - 0455 PER 0800 - 1810 AKL (then connecting to North America). The downside of this, though, is that one of the AKL-PER flights operates at quite anti-social hours (0130/0455), which is presumably why NZ has not done this in the past. Instead, they have used CHC-PER flights to feed the morning flight from PER-AKL

An alternative way of doing this with fewer antisocial hours flights would be to link the PER flights to flights to PPT and/or RAR, thus:
Day1: AKL-RAR-AKL daytime, AKL-PER evening
Day 2: PER-AKL daytime, AKL-PPT evening
Day 3: PPT-AKL early morning, AKL-PER morning, PER-AKL overnight (arr Day 4)

Four cycles could be achieved in 12 days, with two aircraft, allowing 8x weekly AKL-PER (with 4 flights connecting to and from North America each week each way). This also allows daily services (plus one day double daily) on AKL-PER, and daily except one day (but with two days double daily) on PER-AKL. The downside is that it still requires a long layover at PER.

I considered whether the use of the A321 would assist - it would certainly allow an increased frequency to support North American operations,. but the aircraft would be at the very limits of its range, especially if cargo was to be carried as well as pax. And the BITRE stats suggest that cargo on AKL-PER is a very significant factor, almost certainly requiring a wide-bodied aircraft.

Has anyone else thought about how to square this particular circle? Having devoted some time to analysing it and trying various options, it's not at all easy to maintain daily flights in each direction at the same time as having at least half of them connecting to and from North America. And PER-North America must surely be a significant market to capture, and a great objective for NZ.

Interesting thoughts. I agree PER isn’t the easiest given the sector length and time difference. I kind of lump PER/PVG/NRT/HKG/SIN which generally use code 1 789s and say you need 6 aircraft to run those 5 routes daily, the early PER/PVG arrivals can do the earlier NRT/HKG departures, SIN can be done with 1 aircraft but generally SIN/NRT/HKG mid morning arrivals can turn to PER/SIN, PVG departs late evening so a SYD service at departure 1245 return 2030 is possible here. You also have PPT/ICN/TPE less frequently, not sure there is any general pattern? I haven’t paid to much attention recently.

I often thought something like an 0200 departure ex AKL 0530 arrival in PER with the 0800 ex PER 1810 arrival in AKL, pre covid they could have used the aircraft off the late evening SYD/MEL services, those are A321s for now and will likely stay that way most of the time given the smaller wide body fleet.

As for PER I would think wide body service would be beneficial to those connections from North America also who might fly in the premium cabins. Though the A321 would likely struggle ex AKL, maybe ok on the return.

The current A321 will not really be viable on PER. It would need the XLR which NZ does not have on order. And even then it would be borderline if freight is taken into account.

Could we see the 787-10 order brought forward a bit to free up some 789? I still believe deferring the 787-10 order as long as they did was a mistake.

The 787 order was deferred because they didn’t think demand would pick up as quickly as it has, it was deferred another year, I believe Boeing need more time to work on the MTOW increase, also new product will be fitted to new aircraft. What are we trying to free 789s up for?

DavidByrne wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

However, Perth is interesting compared to the eastern states. Apart from via NZ or eastern Australia ports you also have via the Middle East and East Asia as, relatively, viable options for Perth residents. An option which is, in most cases, absurd from the east. Trying to time Perth flights from NZ to connect might just not be worth the trouble.

I'm a bit bemused by some of the arguments bring followed in some of the recent contributions from posters with Australian-sounding usernames.

* First, travelling from PER via the Middle East to the West Coast of NA is significantly longer (about 4000 miles or eight hours-ish travel time longer than via AKL. Why would you voluntarily submit yourself to that?
* A quick search on a travel website suggests that right now, travelling from PER via the East Coast to LAX is at least an hour longer for the fastest connection currently available on any other carrier (in this case via BNE) than travelling by NZ via AKL on the schedule I propose. Many of the connections offered are significantly longer.
* The schedule I propose ex PER is not new, it's exactly the schedule that NZ already operated three days a week for the two (or three?) summers prior to lockdown, when they flew 10x weekly ex PER. I'm just suggesting a mechanism to return to those timings and make seamless connections 4x weekly each way in winter - possibly 5x in summer to boost NZ's market position;
* Surely the idea of travelling across Australia by NB, changing terminals and then only onto a WB for the transpacific leg has to be trumped by a WB option all the way with a very simple and speedy transfer
* The implication that the natural market for the route would primarily be NZers in Australia also bemuses me. Lots of Aussies fly NZ long-haul - just as Kiwis fly QF. And why would they baulk at flying NZ, given it was several years recently voted the most trusted brand in Australia?

All I'm suggesting I'd that if NZ, as it has hinted it plans to, wants to get more out of its existing successful strategy carrying Australians transpacific, then PER can be a part of that strategy by reverting to timings that were in use pre-Covid and I've proposed a very tidy way it can be done quite efficiently. Why that should be controversial I'm unclear, as none of the counter arguments put forward so far are logical or even take account of recent actual operational history. Could there be a bit of Australian jingoism at play here?

I think you read too much in to my statement about the 600k NZ'ers in Australia. That is just a potential market for NZ.

Jingoism - yeah, nah. I'm flying to the US on Saturday and I'm not flying an Australian airline. I've flown NZ before and would again. If NZ flew to Newcastle I'd likely fly them to the US.

DavidByrne wrote:

Has anyone else thought about how to square this particular circle? Having devoted some time to analysing it and trying various options, it's not at all easy to maintain daily flights in each direction at the same time as having at least half of them connecting to and from North America. And PER-North America must surely be a significant market to capture, and a great objective for NZ.

I shared my thoughts on this a few years ago. I saved my calculations which were for a Northern Winter schedule. They are similar to yours, but there are some differences.
The PER schedule then was:
AKL-PER 1040/1305 (7h 25m) 789 Daily, PER-AKL 1855/0600 (6h 05m) 789 Daily
AKL-PER 1855/2120 (7h 25m) 789 Tu Th Fr, PER-AKL 0700/1805 (6h 05m) 789 We Fr Su

And there was the SYD schedule of:
AKL-SYD 0700/0835 (3h 35m) 789, SYD-AKL 0945/1455 (3h 10m) 789 Daily
AKL-SYD 1605/1740 (3h 35m) 789, SYD-AKL 1850/2359 (3h 10m) 789 ex Sa

My thoughts were to also have an AKL-PER 0130/0355 (7h 25m) which would use the SYD-AKL 1850/2359 789. It would also be able to rotate with the AKL-SIN 0115/etc NZ281/NZ282 flights.

An AKL-PER 0130/0355 (0130/0855 AKL time) is not any more anti-social than the reverse direction of PER-AKL 1855/0600 (1855/0100 PER time) In fact you have an extra 1h 20m from AKL to attempt sleep. And the AKL-PER 1855/2120 (1855/0220 AKL time) is even more anti-social. Also, one of the considerations for PER flights is domestic connections, so I ruled out a late evening arrival in AKL from PER.

My schedule was as follows:
AKL-PER 1040/1305 Daily, PER-AKL 1840/0545 Daily
AKL-PER 0130/0355 Mo We Fr Su, PER-AKL 0700/1805 Mo We Fr Su

I also considered the possibility of a daylight LAX-AKL connecting to PER.

Something that would help AKL-PER is more International connecting pax, maybe PER-MUC on LH (or NZ).

PA515

NTLDaz wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

However, Perth is interesting compared to the eastern states. Apart from via NZ or eastern Australia ports you also have via the Middle East and East Asia as, relatively, viable options for Perth residents. An option which is, in most cases, absurd from the east. Trying to time Perth flights from NZ to connect might just not be worth the trouble.

I'm a bit bemused by some of the arguments bring followed in some of the recent contributions from posters with Australian-sounding usernames.

* First, travelling from PER via the Middle East to the West Coast of NA is significantly longer (about 4000 miles or eight hours-ish travel time longer than via AKL. Why would you voluntarily submit yourself to that?
* A quick search on a travel website suggests that right now, travelling from PER via the East Coast to LAX is at least an hour longer for the fastest connection currently available on any other carrier (in this case via BNE) than travelling by NZ via AKL on the schedule I propose. Many of the connections offered are significantly longer.
* The schedule I propose ex PER is not new, it's exactly the schedule that NZ already operated three days a week for the two (or three?) summers prior to lockdown, when they flew 10x weekly ex PER. I'm just suggesting a mechanism to return to those timings and make seamless connections 4x weekly each way in winter - possibly 5x in summer to boost NZ's market position;
* Surely the idea of travelling across Australia by NB, changing terminals and then only onto a WB for the transpacific leg has to be trumped by a WB option all the way with a very simple and speedy transfer
* The implication that the natural market for the route would primarily be NZers in Australia also bemuses me. Lots of Aussies fly NZ long-haul - just as Kiwis fly QF. And why would they baulk at flying NZ, given it was several years recently voted the most trusted brand in Australia?

All I'm suggesting I'd that if NZ, as it has hinted it plans to, wants to get more out of its existing successful strategy carrying Australians transpacific, then PER can be a part of that strategy by reverting to timings that were in use pre-Covid and I've proposed a very tidy way it can be done quite efficiently. Why that should be controversial I'm unclear, as none of the counter arguments put forward so far are logical or even take account of recent actual operational history. Could there be a bit of Australian jingoism at play here?

I think you read too much in to my statement about the 600k NZ'ers in Australia. That is just a potential market for NZ.

Jingoism - yeah, nah. I'm flying to the US on Saturday and I'm not flying an Australian airline. I've flown NZ before and would again. If NZ flew to Newcastle I'd likely fly them to the US.

Sorry - maybe I did read too much as you say. No offense intended.

As to flying from NTL, I think it won't happen unless there's a smaller jet in the fleet. One day, though?

DavidByrne wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

I'm a bit bemused by some of the arguments bring followed in some of the recent contributions from posters with Australian-sounding usernames.

* First, travelling from PER via the Middle East to the West Coast of NA is significantly longer (about 4000 miles or eight hours-ish travel time longer than via AKL. Why would you voluntarily submit yourself to that?
* A quick search on a travel website suggests that right now, travelling from PER via the East Coast to LAX is at least an hour longer for the fastest connection currently available on any other carrier (in this case via BNE) than travelling by NZ via AKL on the schedule I propose. Many of the connections offered are significantly longer.
* The schedule I propose ex PER is not new, it's exactly the schedule that NZ already operated three days a week for the two (or three?) summers prior to lockdown, when they flew 10x weekly ex PER. I'm just suggesting a mechanism to return to those timings and make seamless connections 4x weekly each way in winter - possibly 5x in summer to boost NZ's market position;
* Surely the idea of travelling across Australia by NB, changing terminals and then only onto a WB for the transpacific leg has to be trumped by a WB option all the way with a very simple and speedy transfer
* The implication that the natural market for the route would primarily be NZers in Australia also bemuses me. Lots of Aussies fly NZ long-haul - just as Kiwis fly QF. And why would they baulk at flying NZ, given it was several years recently voted the most trusted brand in Australia?

All I'm suggesting I'd that if NZ, as it has hinted it plans to, wants to get more out of its existing successful strategy carrying Australians transpacific, then PER can be a part of that strategy by reverting to timings that were in use pre-Covid and I've proposed a very tidy way it can be done quite efficiently. Why that should be controversial I'm unclear, as none of the counter arguments put forward so far are logical or even take account of recent actual operational history. Could there be a bit of Australian jingoism at play here?

I think you read too much in to my statement about the 600k NZ'ers in Australia. That is just a potential market for NZ.

Jingoism - yeah, nah. I'm flying to the US on Saturday and I'm not flying an Australian airline. I've flown NZ before and would again. If NZ flew to Newcastle I'd likely fly them to the US.

Sorry - maybe I did read too much as you say. No offense intended.

As to flying from NTL, I think it won't happen unless there's a smaller jet in the fleet. One day, though?

All good - no offence taken.

Agree with you on Newcastle and NZ. If Newcastle was another 100kms from Sydney it would likely see international service. It is a large market and there are major works happening on the airfield and terminal expansion to be able to handle widebody planes.

There are several things working against NZ in its desire to attract more customers from Australia including being seen as a prime choice for PER based customers heading to US.

Over half of Australia's population live within 2 hours drive of SYD, BNE or MEL; airports that have non-stop services to numerous US ports on a range of carriers.
NZ struggles to attract premium pax with easily the worst J class on the Pacific, a situation at least 3 years away from being rectified.
Australians love frequent flyer programs with QF having nearly 13M members and Velocity 11M. NZ is unable to offer status to these huge cohorts, a situation unlikely to change unless VA were to enter Star. NZ Airpoints has very little cut-through in Australia.
As well as the option of heading to the East Coast on an ME3 airline, many WA residents use the regular services offered by SQ to get to US west & east coasts via SIN. This route is targetted at premium travellers with only J & W services available. My cousin is a senior executive with a Perth based mining company and travels this way at least 4 times a year.
NZ does have the ability to attract travellers on the basis of price where it is typically very competitive. My daughter used them pre-COVID to Washington via Houston pre-COVID and they were much cheaper than VA, UA, or QF. The issue is whether these low-yield pax are those NZ are seeking to build a strategy around.

PA515 wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

Has anyone else thought about how to square this particular circle? Having devoted some time to analysing it and trying various options, it's not at all easy to maintain daily flights in each direction at the same time as having at least half of them connecting to and from North America. And PER-North America must surely be a significant market to capture, and a great objective for NZ.

An AKL-PER 0130/0355 (0130/0855 AKL time) is not any more anti-social than the reverse direction of PER-AKL 1855/0600 (1855/0100 PER time) In fact you have an extra 1h 20m from AKL to attempt sleep. And the AKL-PER 1855/2120 (1855/0220 AKL time) is even more anti-social. Also, one of the considerations for PER flights is domestic connections, so I ruled out a late evening arrival in AKL from PER.

Actually, there are heaps of connecting flights out of PER from about 0500 onwards, with which a "small hours" AKL-PER would connect. In the other direction, a PER-AKL flight operating 1330/2340 would also connect with heaps of inbound flights. I assume that most of these (in both directions) are FIFO flights.

PA515 wrote:

I also considered the possibility of a daylight LAX-AKL connecting to PER.

Yes I looked at that too, but it would effectively add another westbound bank of flights right in the middle of the existing quite large eastbound bank. To get value from it it would need to have connections to SYD, MEL, BNE as well - and that means three aircraft overnighting in Australia - inefficient and expensive.

PA515 wrote:

Something that would help AKL-PER is more International connecting pax, maybe PER-MUC on LH (or NZ).

Dare I say it, but PER would be an excellent hub for NZ to operate toward Europe or India if it ever did abandon its "no new one-stops" approach. And it would "solve" the problem of efficiently timetabling PER connections to and from North America. But I doubt that will ever happen. (It might also stimulate CHC-PER to become year-round.)

All in all, I could now see a (winter) timetable which might look like this:

.2.4.6. AKL 0130-0455 PER
1.3.5.7 AKL 0845-1220 PER

.2.4.6. PER 0800-1810 AKL
1.3.5.7 PER 1330-2340 AKL

And filling in . . .
.2.4.6. AKL 2000-0150 RAR
.2.4.6. RAR 0310-0530 AKL

Outcome:
Daily operation AKL-PER in both directions
North America-PER 4 days a week
PER-North America 3 days a week
plus AKL-RAR 3 days a week filling in - also creating connections to and from other Aussie ports to and from RAR.
All achieved with one 787 aircraft, utilisation 17h 05 per day

Both the original objectives mentioned by NZ (supporting transpacific services with Australian feed and increasing 787 utilisation) achieved. The operation could be scaled up with a second aircraft in summer as required.