Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
NTLDaz
Posts: 763
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 7:56 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Fri Jan 27, 2023 11:57 pm

planemanofnz wrote:
Gangurru wrote:
DRW ... The US would be key. It has a huge and growing presence in the Territory.

Very true. Note that going via AKL isn't that much longer than going via SYD:

DRW-SYD-LAX: 9,445 mi
DRW-AKL-LAX: 9,702 mi

DRW-SYD-IAH: 10,553 mi
DRW-AKL-IAH: 10,613 mi

DRW-SYD-JFK: 11,907 mi
DRW-AKL-JFK: 12,026 mi

Interestingly, going via SIN is quicker than via SYD or AKL for getting to NYC.


Right now the quickest trip from Darwin to LA is via SYD - despite via BNE being a fair bit shorter ( at least on most days - I didn't dig too hard ). I guess the issue is ( as raised earlier ) can NZ do a return DRW trip that meets the morning arrivals in AKL from the US and the evening departures ? Because even if this flight ever happens it won't be more than once a day ( at most ). But maybe US connections wouldn't matter.

In the AU thread there was something about Tim Clarke saying EK will look at DRW with the A350. In the unlikely event that ever occurs this could maybe go onward to AKL.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 2298
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Sat Jan 28, 2023 12:24 am

NTLDaz wrote:
Right now the quickest trip from Darwin to LA is via SYD - despite via BNE being a fair bit shorter ( at least on most days - I didn't dig too hard ). I guess the issue is ( as raised earlier ) can NZ do a return DRW trip that meets the morning arrivals in AKL from the US and the evening departures ? Because even if this flight ever happens it won't be more than once a day ( at most ). But maybe US connections wouldn't matter.

Short answer is "no" - DRW is almost as far from AKL as PER (just 100 nm or so shorter). Even CNS is marginal for connections in both directions. Though for the moment AKL-CNS is operating on a "back of the clock" basis, when it was a daytime flight it departed too early for some flights (eg JFK) to connect.
 
zkncj
Posts: 5065
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Sat Jan 28, 2023 2:36 am

Seems the International reopening has been delayed again.
​​​​​​​There would be no international passenger departures at Auckland Airport until 5am, Sunday 29 January and no international arrivals until 7am.

[url]https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/131089051/auckland-airport-cancels-all-international-flights-due-to-extraordinary-weather
[/url]
 
zkncj
Posts: 5065
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Sat Jan 28, 2023 3:10 am

Here is a Video from AKL last Night from the gate lounge of NZ24 to YVR being cancelled, if what the NZ gate agent is saying about Airport Company is true that is pretty shocking. AIAL does seem to have gone in near silent mode very little information has come out from them.
https://www.tiktok.com/@s.hill/video/7193299633584573698
 
mrkerr7474
Posts: 335
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:55 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Sat Jan 28, 2023 3:47 am

zkncj wrote:
Here is a Video from AKL last Night from the gate lounge of NZ24 to YVR being cancelled, if what the NZ gate agent is saying about Airport Company is true that is pretty shocking. AIAL does seem to have gone in near silent mode very little information has come out from them.
https://www.tiktok.com/@s.hill/video/7193299633584573698


I wouldn't be surprised. This seems to happen in all industries, management goes missing in time of need. Poor situation for those passengers and staff having to deal with it all last night
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 2298
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Sat Jan 28, 2023 10:57 pm

Just saw an article in the Canberra Times from November last year, which said that NZ would be making a decision as to whether to serve CBR in 18 months to two years - ie in the second half of 2024. So there's obviously some interest, though it's by no means clear that the decision will be positive.
 
NZ516
Posts: 2125
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:46 pm

ZK-NBT wrote:
tullamarine wrote:
zkncj wrote:

I think the AKL domestic terminal is limiting any more growth, until the new terminal opens in a few years time we can’t see much more growth ex-AKL.

What New Zealand really needs is a capital investment firm to come in with a new LCC startup. But until there is room in AKL that isn’t going to happen.

I’m going to say those claims that the New Zealand market is two small for a second airline are wrong. NZ fills a321NEO’s on the domestic main trunk, look at the size of there a320 fleet relative to the size of the country.

There is plenty of demand, it just needs some one with some serious captain to go up ahead for NZ.

Look at VA’s turn around since Bain took them over, I almost wish that Bain would look into the New Zealand market next.

VA seems to getting into purchasing second hand 737-700s for there all Y markets.

Imagine a Virgin New Zealand startup with, 8-10 second hand 737-700s. If it’s done right, it could work out very well for them.

Seriously, why would VA waste their money? New Zealanders and its government have let a situation develop where NZ has a virtual monopoly and is effectively nationalised. Who would bother losing millions trying to compete in this situation in what is a very small market anyway? There are much more lucrative markets that businesses such as Virgin/Bain can direct their capital.


Is it really NZ or the government fault though? NZ won’t be allowed to go under, but as you say it is a small market and just plain difficult for competition starting from scratch. It would be nice if JQ could grow slowly by adding 1-2 A320s initially for the AKL-WLG/CHC run.


JQ could grow domestically by just using their 320s more than they are and reduce down the long layovers.
 
NZ516
Posts: 2125
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Sun Jan 29, 2023 12:03 am

zkncj wrote:
a7ala wrote:
Interested in peoples thoughts around whats going to happen domestically to 2030. Air NZ's planes seem to be pretty full and fares are high. I understand Jetstar is not back to where they were before and I guess they will hopefully get to where they were again. But beyond that its hard to see where capacity is going to come from to cater for future growth.

Air NZ has some orders for more A321Neo domestics, but other than that, no other domestic aircraft coming with any opportunity to upgauge as part of the Q300 replacement now pushed out beyond 2030.

In the case of Jetstar, they are getting A321Neo's but I suspect New Zealand domestic wont be the first to get any and they might not happen this decade. There also doesnt seem to be much interest in bring aircraft from Australia across with more opportunties there.

So where is domestic growth going to come from over the next 8-10 years that will cater for the 3%pa growth we normally see?


I think the AKL domestic terminal is limiting any more growth, until the new terminal opens in a few years time we can’t see much more growth ex-AKL.

What New Zealand really needs is a capital investment firm to come in with a new LCC startup. But until there is room in AKL that isn’t going to happen.

I’m going to say those claims that the New Zealand market is two small for a second airline are wrong. NZ fills a321NEO’s on the domestic main trunk, look at the size of there a320 fleet relative to the size of the country.

There is plenty of demand, it just needs some one with some serious captain to go up ahead for NZ.

Look at VA’s turn around since Bain took them over, I almost wish that Bain would look into the New Zealand market next.

VA seems to getting into purchasing second hand 737-700s for there all Y markets.

Imagine a Virgin New Zealand startup with, 8-10 second hand 737-700s. If it’s done right, it could work out very well for them.


The proposed new domestic terminal in AKL will be more than a few years away it could be a decade or longer before it is open. No detailed designs have been released they did mention that they are waiting for it to be financially viable. So it still may never get built. We will be still limited by the capacity of the old terminal for a very long time yet unfortunately.
However they have got started on the new $300m Transport center at the international terminal which is a big project so some good news there.
 
NZ516
Posts: 2125
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Sun Jan 29, 2023 12:06 am

DavidByrne wrote:
Just saw an article in the Canberra Times from November last year, which said that NZ would be making a decision as to whether to serve CBR in 18 months to two years - ie in the second half of 2024. So there's obviously some interest, though it's by no means clear that the decision will be positive.


Yes I saw that CBR article it might be like Hobart's case so ten years of discussions before flights actually start.
 
zkncj
Posts: 5065
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Sun Jan 29, 2023 12:28 am

NZ516 wrote:
zkncj wrote:
a7ala wrote:
Interested in peoples thoughts around whats going to happen domestically to 2030. Air NZ's planes seem to be pretty full and fares are high. I understand Jetstar is not back to where they were before and I guess they will hopefully get to where they were again. But beyond that its hard to see where capacity is going to come from to cater for future growth.

Air NZ has some orders for more A321Neo domestics, but other than that, no other domestic aircraft coming with any opportunity to upgauge as part of the Q300 replacement now pushed out beyond 2030.

In the case of Jetstar, they are getting A321Neo's but I suspect New Zealand domestic wont be the first to get any and they might not happen this decade. There also doesnt seem to be much interest in bring aircraft from Australia across with more opportunties there.

So where is domestic growth going to come from over the next 8-10 years that will cater for the 3%pa growth we normally see?


I think the AKL domestic terminal is limiting any more growth, until the new terminal opens in a few years time we can’t see much more growth ex-AKL.

What New Zealand really needs is a capital investment firm to come in with a new LCC startup. But until there is room in AKL that isn’t going to happen.

I’m going to say those claims that the New Zealand market is two small for a second airline are wrong. NZ fills a321NEO’s on the domestic main trunk, look at the size of there a320 fleet relative to the size of the country.

There is plenty of demand, it just needs some one with some serious captain to go up ahead for NZ.

Look at VA’s turn around since Bain took them over, I almost wish that Bain would look into the New Zealand market next.

VA seems to getting into purchasing second hand 737-700s for there all Y markets.

Imagine a Virgin New Zealand startup with, 8-10 second hand 737-700s. If it’s done right, it could work out very well for them.


The proposed new domestic terminal in AKL will be more than a few years away it could be a decade or longer before it is open. No detailed designs have been released they did mention that they are waiting for it to be financially viable. So it still may never get built. We will be still limited by the capacity of the old terminal for a very long time yet unfortunately.
However they have got started on the new $300m Transport center at the international terminal which is a big project so some good news there.


They have started the ground works for the new domestic pier. A couple of months back they started todo some of the enabling works, and before Christmas you could see some of the steel beams sticking up for the start of the new pier.

The best place to see the plans for it, is walking from
The carpark to the current international terminal. They are on display along the walkway, they also show that some of the gates a swing gates that can that wide body international aircraft.
 
NZ516
Posts: 2125
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Sun Jan 29, 2023 2:46 am

zkncj wrote:
NZ516 wrote:
zkncj wrote:

I think the AKL domestic terminal is limiting any more growth, until the new terminal opens in a few years time we can’t see much more growth ex-AKL.

What New Zealand really needs is a capital investment firm to come in with a new LCC startup. But until there is room in AKL that isn’t going to happen.

I’m going to say those claims that the New Zealand market is two small for a second airline are wrong. NZ fills a321NEO’s on the domestic main trunk, look at the size of there a320 fleet relative to the size of the country.

There is plenty of demand, it just needs some one with some serious captain to go up ahead for NZ.

Look at VA’s turn around since Bain took them over, I almost wish that Bain would look into the New Zealand market next.

VA seems to getting into purchasing second hand 737-700s for there all Y markets.

Imagine a Virgin New Zealand startup with, 8-10 second hand 737-700s. If it’s done right, it could work out very well for them.


The proposed new domestic terminal in AKL will be more than a few years away it could be a decade or longer before it is open. No detailed designs have been released they did mention that they are waiting for it to be financially viable. So it still may never get built. We will be still limited by the capacity of the old terminal for a very long time yet unfortunately.
However they have got started on the new $300m Transport center at the international terminal which is a big project so some good news there.


They have started the ground works for the new domestic pier. A couple of months back they started todo some of the enabling works, and before Christmas you could see some of the steel beams sticking up for the start of the new pier.

The best place to see the plans for it, is walking from
The carpark to the current international terminal. They are on display along the walkway, they also show that some of the gates a swing gates that can that wide body international aircraft.


I thought that big project with the new beams and two cranes on it is the Transport center as it's over the road from the terminal.
 
Megatop747-412
Posts: 328
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2000 1:59 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Mon Jan 30, 2023 12:28 am

Bit of a late post but last night’s SQ285 departure from Singapore was upgauged to an A380, probably clear the backlog caused by the cancelled SQ285/SQ286 on Friday and Saturday. 9V-SKQ has just landed at AKL appartmently.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 10107
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Mon Jan 30, 2023 1:07 am

Megatop747-412 wrote:
Bit of a late post but last night’s SQ285 departure from Singapore was upgauged to an A380, probably clear the backlog caused by the cancelled SQ285/SQ286 on Friday and Saturday. 9V-SKQ has just landed at AKL appartmently.


Definitely to clear the backlog. Handy they had a spare and it seats 200 more than the other long haul aircraft in the fleet. Third A380 they have sent in the last 5 weeks, one was snow in Europe causing a lot of missed connections, not sure what the other was for.

I expect the SQ A380 will return to AKL scheduled in NW23/24 although someone said SQ don’t have any plans, things change and AKL seems an ideal route at least seasonally if another route can be swapped out or an increase in utilisation.
 
Koruman23
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2023 1:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Mon Jan 30, 2023 1:26 am

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
ZKNZR wrote:
Philippine333 wrote:
Qantas kept maintaining London despite the long distance between Oceania and Europe unlike ANZ, so why couldn't ANZ maintain London as well even if both of these airlines technically were doing well in there?


If I recall correctly NZ maintained a crew base in London to operate the LHR-LAX rtn sectors. This might have proven too costly in the long run to justify the route?


ding ding ding

We have a winner.

COULD Air NZ keep doing AKL-LHR? Sure. But it just didn't make economic sense when those aircraft could be utilized elsewhere for better return. With all the alliance and codeshare agreements today, operating such a route is a pride thing for an airline like Air NZ. We're long past the days where you only had two or three options to get from NZ to Europe.

mrkerr7474 wrote:
tealnz wrote:
Runway at current length seems perfectly adequate. Certainly supports large volume of domestic traffic and we're returning to higher frequency of 737/A320 services to Australian destinations. And it's now established it can support a modern widebody – SQ operated the A359 for some months before covid arrived. It appears that technically the 359 could do full pax to Singapore off the current runway which makes the original business case for a runway extension questionable.


You do make a good point there. I guess no one has fully confirmed the data that it could do it but I feel if they were to operate a direct flight, they'd want some form of cargo going and that's perhaps why they wouldn't have done direct (if the flight stayed post covid). Also if this worked, WLG would surely have wanted to entice other airlines to fly non-stop eventually, down the road the runway extension would have been needed I feel for those services.

But we live with what it is and currently make do with the current services


The boomer NIMBYs certiainly haven't helped grow the region in a way that gives people spare cash to spend on travel. Anyways, WLG is good for what it is with regular connections to AKL. I see WIAL focusing more on regional and electric flights in the medium term as that will be a major area of growth as they come online.

The argument against AKL-LAX-LHR never made economic sense and it makes still less economic sense in this world of inflated premium airfares.

It's a simple consequence of the smallness of the NZ market and the lack of corporate demand from the USA to NZ that yields on AKL-USA can never match yields on LAX-LHR. They never have and they never will.

If all markets had equal yield levels then yes, certainly point-to-point flights would be preferable to one-stop flights.

But firstly, that never applied to NZ 1/2 AKL-LAX-LHR precisely BECAUSE the airline had the rights to sell point-to-point LAX-LHR and vice versa. That's why AKL-LAX-LHR saw off AKL-HKG-LHR, to the shock of the planners who expected the converse to be the case. People like David Beckham and a host of Hollywood and TV industry-funded passengers ensured that for year after year after year, NZ1/2 LAX-LHR-LAX basically subsidised the failing Auckland to Shanghai route.

And secondly, somebody should try telling Singapore Airlines that one-stop tickets are not profitable. Or Emirates. Or every single US carrier that uses a hub-and-spoke model.

The spin was that China would somehow miraculously be a more profitable market than LHR, even though all four Japanese ports had been economic basket cases. And, surprise surprise, Beijing was a complete disaster for Air NZ and Shanghai only ever broke even once in a decade and a half.

It was good timing that the London route closed for the two and a half years of Covid related travel.

But the 77Ws could each do a AKL-SYD/MEL/BNE-AKL-LAX or a LHR-LAX return in 24 hours.

No such opportunities exist on the Houston let alone Newark or Chicago routes. The timetabling involved long periods of inactivity in between ULH sectors.

There is a certain woke hipness in imagining that New Zealand is somehow part of Asia, even though Auckland is further from Shanghai than London is from the Congo. Now that the Air NZ Shanghai delusion has failed we now hear the same arguments against London continuing to be trotted out, even though Air NZ is currently only maintaining yields to and from North America by throttling supply by using smaller aircraft with fewer premium seats.

One day, some day, fare levels will return to normal. And hopefully then somebody will be left to recall that Air NZ chose to surrender its one and only high-volume high-yield route - London to Los Angeles.
 
aerohottie
Posts: 891
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:52 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Mon Jan 30, 2023 3:16 am

Koruman23 wrote:
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
ZKNZR wrote:

If I recall correctly NZ maintained a crew base in London to operate the LHR-LAX rtn sectors. This might have proven too costly in the long run to justify the route?


ding ding ding

We have a winner.

COULD Air NZ keep doing AKL-LHR? Sure. But it just didn't make economic sense when those aircraft could be utilized elsewhere for better return. With all the alliance and codeshare agreements today, operating such a route is a pride thing for an airline like Air NZ. We're long past the days where you only had two or three options to get from NZ to Europe.

mrkerr7474 wrote:

You do make a good point there. I guess no one has fully confirmed the data that it could do it but I feel if they were to operate a direct flight, they'd want some form of cargo going and that's perhaps why they wouldn't have done direct (if the flight stayed post covid). Also if this worked, WLG would surely have wanted to entice other airlines to fly non-stop eventually, down the road the runway extension would have been needed I feel for those services.

But we live with what it is and currently make do with the current services


The boomer NIMBYs certiainly haven't helped grow the region in a way that gives people spare cash to spend on travel. Anyways, WLG is good for what it is with regular connections to AKL. I see WIAL focusing more on regional and electric flights in the medium term as that will be a major area of growth as they come online.

The argument against AKL-LAX-LHR never made economic sense and it makes still less economic sense in this world of inflated premium airfares.

It's a simple consequence of the smallness of the NZ market and the lack of corporate demand from the USA to NZ that yields on AKL-USA can never match yields on LAX-LHR. They never have and they never will.

If all markets had equal yield levels then yes, certainly point-to-point flights would be preferable to one-stop flights.

But firstly, that never applied to NZ 1/2 AKL-LAX-LHR precisely BECAUSE the airline had the rights to sell point-to-point LAX-LHR and vice versa. That's why AKL-LAX-LHR saw off AKL-HKG-LHR, to the shock of the planners who expected the converse to be the case. People like David Beckham and a host of Hollywood and TV industry-funded passengers ensured that for year after year after year, NZ1/2 LAX-LHR-LAX basically subsidised the failing Auckland to Shanghai route.

And secondly, somebody should try telling Singapore Airlines that one-stop tickets are not profitable. Or Emirates. Or every single US carrier that uses a hub-and-spoke model.

The spin was that China would somehow miraculously be a more profitable market than LHR, even though all four Japanese ports had been economic basket cases. And, surprise surprise, Beijing was a complete disaster for Air NZ and Shanghai only ever broke even once in a decade and a half.

It was good timing that the London route closed for the two and a half years of Covid related travel.

But the 77Ws could each do a AKL-SYD/MEL/BNE-AKL-LAX or a LHR-LAX return in 24 hours.

No such opportunities exist on the Houston let alone Newark or Chicago routes. The timetabling involved long periods of inactivity in between ULH sectors.

There is a certain woke hipness in imagining that New Zealand is somehow part of Asia, even though Auckland is further from Shanghai than London is from the Congo. Now that the Air NZ Shanghai delusion has failed we now hear the same arguments against London continuing to be trotted out, even though Air NZ is currently only maintaining yields to and from North America by throttling supply by using smaller aircraft with fewer premium seats.

One day, some day, fare levels will return to normal. And hopefully then somebody will be left to recall that Air NZ chose to surrender its one and only high-volume high-yield route - London to Los Angeles.

100%, all of this 100% absolutely correct.
But now Air NZ don't have slots at LHR, and would struggle to get any. And are wickedly short of aircraft due to discarding the 772ERs too hastily with COVID, and can't get 787's fast enough due to issues with Boeing.
Not to mention the far too late to market new business class product
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 10107
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Mon Jan 30, 2023 3:33 am

aerohottie wrote:
Koruman23 wrote:
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

ding ding ding

We have a winner.

COULD Air NZ keep doing AKL-LHR? Sure. But it just didn't make economic sense when those aircraft could be utilized elsewhere for better return. With all the alliance and codeshare agreements today, operating such a route is a pride thing for an airline like Air NZ. We're long past the days where you only had two or three options to get from NZ to Europe.



The boomer NIMBYs certiainly haven't helped grow the region in a way that gives people spare cash to spend on travel. Anyways, WLG is good for what it is with regular connections to AKL. I see WIAL focusing more on regional and electric flights in the medium term as that will be a major area of growth as they come online.

The argument against AKL-LAX-LHR never made economic sense and it makes still less economic sense in this world of inflated premium airfares.

It's a simple consequence of the smallness of the NZ market and the lack of corporate demand from the USA to NZ that yields on AKL-USA can never match yields on LAX-LHR. They never have and they never will.

If all markets had equal yield levels then yes, certainly point-to-point flights would be preferable to one-stop flights.

But firstly, that never applied to NZ 1/2 AKL-LAX-LHR precisely BECAUSE the airline had the rights to sell point-to-point LAX-LHR and vice versa. That's why AKL-LAX-LHR saw off AKL-HKG-LHR, to the shock of the planners who expected the converse to be the case. People like David Beckham and a host of Hollywood and TV industry-funded passengers ensured that for year after year after year, NZ1/2 LAX-LHR-LAX basically subsidised the failing Auckland to Shanghai route.

And secondly, somebody should try telling Singapore Airlines that one-stop tickets are not profitable. Or Emirates. Or every single US carrier that uses a hub-and-spoke model.

The spin was that China would somehow miraculously be a more profitable market than LHR, even though all four Japanese ports had been economic basket cases. And, surprise surprise, Beijing was a complete disaster for Air NZ and Shanghai only ever broke even once in a decade and a half.

It was good timing that the London route closed for the two and a half years of Covid related travel.

But the 77Ws could each do a AKL-SYD/MEL/BNE-AKL-LAX or a LHR-LAX return in 24 hours.

No such opportunities exist on the Houston let alone Newark or Chicago routes. The timetabling involved long periods of inactivity in between ULH sectors.

There is a certain woke hipness in imagining that New Zealand is somehow part of Asia, even though Auckland is further from Shanghai than London is from the Congo. Now that the Air NZ Shanghai delusion has failed we now hear the same arguments against London continuing to be trotted out, even though Air NZ is currently only maintaining yields to and from North America by throttling supply by using smaller aircraft with fewer premium seats.

One day, some day, fare levels will return to normal. And hopefully then somebody will be left to recall that Air NZ chose to surrender its one and only high-volume high-yield route - London to Los Angeles.

100%, all of this 100% absolutely correct.
But now Air NZ don't have slots at LHR, and would struggle to get any. And are wickedly short of aircraft due to discarding the 772ERs too hastily with COVID, and can't get 787's fast enough due to issues with Boeing.
Not to mention the far too late to market new business class product



The simple matter with LHR was it didn’t fit the business model anymore. You could add an additional daily AKL-US service with the 2 77Ws freed up.

HKG-LHR and AKL-PVG started in November 2006, PEK ran from 2008-12 while HKG-LHR was dropped in March 2013 having gone from a daily 744 to a 5 weekly 772, HKG-LHR ran as a day flight which wasn’t ideal. From what I gather LAX-LHR was close to being cut with HKG-LHR in 2013, that’s the same management that added HKG-LHR and dropped it.

I won’t comment on PVG, I don’t know enough about it other than the fact it was a long term investment. Failure or not they won’t drop it, I guess with more premium 789s coming PVG can’t be that bad.

As to the 772 for the 15000th time, who on earth would crew them, they would be sitting costing the airline money. The new 787s were pushed back by NZ initially, now possibly more delays due Boeing.

The product may be dated but most NZ long haul routes have little competition so while certainly in need of a refit, they have to wait for the suppliers to make the seats.

More interesting is the 77W replacement with smaller less capable 781 on the trunk routes to LAX/SFO, IAH will have to be a 789 unless the 781 becomes close to a 77W performance wise.
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Mon Jan 30, 2023 5:05 am

It’s also worth noting that for most of NZ any proper long haul trip out of the country will be one stop. One to Auckland, Christchurch, or Australia. Then one to your final destination. Only way I see two hop flights staying on NZ metal the whole way coming back is the disappearance of airline alliances or codeshares. I doubt most flyers care switching airlines as long as their luggage makes the connection.
 
aerohottie
Posts: 891
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:52 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Mon Jan 30, 2023 6:16 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
aerohottie wrote:
Koruman23 wrote:
The argument against AKL-LAX-LHR never made economic sense and it makes still less economic sense in this world of inflated premium airfares.

It's a simple consequence of the smallness of the NZ market and the lack of corporate demand from the USA to NZ that yields on AKL-USA can never match yields on LAX-LHR. They never have and they never will.

If all markets had equal yield levels then yes, certainly point-to-point flights would be preferable to one-stop flights.

But firstly, that never applied to NZ 1/2 AKL-LAX-LHR precisely BECAUSE the airline had the rights to sell point-to-point LAX-LHR and vice versa. That's why AKL-LAX-LHR saw off AKL-HKG-LHR, to the shock of the planners who expected the converse to be the case. People like David Beckham and a host of Hollywood and TV industry-funded passengers ensured that for year after year after year, NZ1/2 LAX-LHR-LAX basically subsidised the failing Auckland to Shanghai route.

And secondly, somebody should try telling Singapore Airlines that one-stop tickets are not profitable. Or Emirates. Or every single US carrier that uses a hub-and-spoke model.

The spin was that China would somehow miraculously be a more profitable market than LHR, even though all four Japanese ports had been economic basket cases. And, surprise surprise, Beijing was a complete disaster for Air NZ and Shanghai only ever broke even once in a decade and a half.

It was good timing that the London route closed for the two and a half years of Covid related travel.

But the 77Ws could each do a AKL-SYD/MEL/BNE-AKL-LAX or a LHR-LAX return in 24 hours.

No such opportunities exist on the Houston let alone Newark or Chicago routes. The timetabling involved long periods of inactivity in between ULH sectors.

There is a certain woke hipness in imagining that New Zealand is somehow part of Asia, even though Auckland is further from Shanghai than London is from the Congo. Now that the Air NZ Shanghai delusion has failed we now hear the same arguments against London continuing to be trotted out, even though Air NZ is currently only maintaining yields to and from North America by throttling supply by using smaller aircraft with fewer premium seats.

One day, some day, fare levels will return to normal. And hopefully then somebody will be left to recall that Air NZ chose to surrender its one and only high-volume high-yield route - London to Los Angeles.

100%, all of this 100% absolutely correct.
But now Air NZ don't have slots at LHR, and would struggle to get any. And are wickedly short of aircraft due to discarding the 772ERs too hastily with COVID, and can't get 787's fast enough due to issues with Boeing.
Not to mention the far too late to market new business class product



The simple matter with LHR was it didn’t fit the business model anymore. You could add an additional daily AKL-US service with the 2 77Ws freed up.

HKG-LHR and AKL-PVG started in November 2006, PEK ran from 2008-12 while HKG-LHR was dropped in March 2013 having gone from a daily 744 to a 5 weekly 772, HKG-LHR ran as a day flight which wasn’t ideal. From what I gather LAX-LHR was close to being cut with HKG-LHR in 2013, that’s the same management that added HKG-LHR and dropped it.

I won’t comment on PVG, I don’t know enough about it other than the fact it was a long term investment. Failure or not they won’t drop it, I guess with more premium 789s coming PVG can’t be that bad.

As to the 772 for the 15000th time, who on earth would crew them, they would be sitting costing the airline money. The new 787s were pushed back by NZ initially, now possibly more delays due Boeing.

The product may be dated but most NZ long haul routes have little competition so while certainly in need of a refit, they have to wait for the suppliers to make the seats.

More interesting is the 77W replacement with smaller less capable 781 on the trunk routes to LAX/SFO, IAH will have to be a 789 unless the 781 becomes close to a 77W performance wise.

Dropping LAX-LHR freed up 1 aircraft, not 2.
AKL-LAX takes 2 aircraft for a daily rotation
AKL-LAX-LHR took 3 aircraft for a daily rotation.

As to the 772 for the 15000th time, tell that to Malaysia Airlines. Had the 772 been retained for longer the crew and thus capability would have also been retained. And like MH could be been kept current with minimal rotations.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 10107
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Mon Jan 30, 2023 6:24 am

aerohottie wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
aerohottie wrote:
100%, all of this 100% absolutely correct.
But now Air NZ don't have slots at LHR, and would struggle to get any. And are wickedly short of aircraft due to discarding the 772ERs too hastily with COVID, and can't get 787's fast enough due to issues with Boeing.
Not to mention the far too late to market new business class product



The simple matter with LHR was it didn’t fit the business model anymore. You could add an additional daily AKL-US service with the 2 77Ws freed up.

HKG-LHR and AKL-PVG started in November 2006, PEK ran from 2008-12 while HKG-LHR was dropped in March 2013 having gone from a daily 744 to a 5 weekly 772, HKG-LHR ran as a day flight which wasn’t ideal. From what I gather LAX-LHR was close to being cut with HKG-LHR in 2013, that’s the same management that added HKG-LHR and dropped it.

I won’t comment on PVG, I don’t know enough about it other than the fact it was a long term investment. Failure or not they won’t drop it, I guess with more premium 789s coming PVG can’t be that bad.

As to the 772 for the 15000th time, who on earth would crew them, they would be sitting costing the airline money. The new 787s were pushed back by NZ initially, now possibly more delays due Boeing.

The product may be dated but most NZ long haul routes have little competition so while certainly in need of a refit, they have to wait for the suppliers to make the seats.

More interesting is the 77W replacement with smaller less capable 781 on the trunk routes to LAX/SFO, IAH will have to be a 789 unless the 781 becomes close to a 77W performance wise.

Dropping LAX-LHR freed up 1 aircraft, not 2.
AKL-LAX takes 2 aircraft for a daily rotation
AKL-LAX-LHR took 3 aircraft for a daily rotation.

As to the 772 for the 15000th time, tell that to Malaysia Airlines. Had the 772 been retained for longer the crew and thus capability would have also been retained. And like MH could be been kept current with minimal rotations.


AKL-LAX is currently 10x weekly, uses 3 aircraft compared to 5 for AKL-LAX and AKL-LAX-LHR.

Malaysia Airlines, sorry what did they have to do with this thread? MH retired the 772 and stopped flying to Europe bar LHR but they didn’t make money anyway.

It was better for NZ they decided to run just the 789 fleet, maybe hindsight would be different, I’m not sure it would have saved the 772 fleet even if the 77W fleet was flying.
 
mrkerr7474
Posts: 335
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:55 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Mon Jan 30, 2023 8:01 am

Looks like QF137/136 SYD-CHC-SYD was operated by A332 today, and a very late running service as well.

That to help with stranded passengers from the last few days or due to another reason?
 
Koruman23
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2023 1:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Mon Jan 30, 2023 8:31 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
aerohottie wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:


The simple matter with LHR was it didn’t fit the business model anymore. You could add an additional daily AKL-US service with the 2 77Ws freed up.

HKG-LHR and AKL-PVG started in November 2006, PEK ran from 2008-12 while HKG-LHR was dropped in March 2013 having gone from a daily 744 to a 5 weekly 772, HKG-LHR ran as a day flight which wasn’t ideal. From what I gather LAX-LHR was close to being cut with HKG-LHR in 2013, that’s the same management that added HKG-LHR and dropped it.

I won’t comment on PVG, I don’t know enough about it other than the fact it was a long term investment. Failure or not they won’t drop it, I guess with more premium 789s coming PVG can’t be that bad.

As to the 772 for the 15000th time, who on earth would crew them, they would be sitting costing the airline money. The new 787s were pushed back by NZ initially, now possibly more delays due Boeing.

The product may be dated but most NZ long haul routes have little competition so while certainly in need of a refit, they have to wait for the suppliers to make the seats.

More interesting is the 77W replacement with smaller less capable 781 on the trunk routes to LAX/SFO, IAH will have to be a 789 unless the 781 becomes close to a 77W performance wise.

Dropping LAX-LHR freed up 1 aircraft, not 2.
AKL-LAX takes 2 aircraft for a daily rotation
AKL-LAX-LHR took 3 aircraft for a daily rotation.

As to the 772 for the 15000th time, tell that to Malaysia Airlines. Had the 772 been retained for longer the crew and thus capability would have also been retained. And like MH could be been kept current with minimal rotations.


AKL-LAX is currently 10x weekly, uses 3 aircraft compared to 5 for AKL-LAX and AKL-LAX-LHR.

Malaysia Airlines, sorry what did they have to do with this thread? MH retired the 772 and stopped flying to Europe bar LHR but they didn’t make money anyway.

It was better for NZ they decided to run just the 789 fleet, maybe hindsight would be different, I’m not sure it would have saved the 772 fleet even if the 77W fleet was flying.

And that is precisely the problem.

ONE widebody could fly 7 return LAX-LHR sectors per week, and command higher yields than on sectors like AKL-EWR which is a 65% longer flight requiring TWO aircraft to operate a daily return flight.

We all know the problem, and it is an eternal one.

Running a failed British TV channel or being a soap salesman did not actually give Rob Fyfe or Christopher Luxon any particular understanding of the aviation industry or global geopolitics. Each wanted to make his individual mark and each fell into predictable traps based upon unfounded dogma about market development.

China can look like an amazing business opportunity but breaking into that market is a fool's errand because of its political and legal systems and tendency to use business access to reward or punish foreign countries and corporations. As many of us warned, there is no premium market, just a longhaul version of Ryanair bringing in package tourists. Which is why Air NZ configured its early 789s in a low-yield configuration.

Premium passengers fall into two categories: corporate travellers (for whom the existing LAX and SFO flights already saturated American demand) and highly-educated professionals on self-funded discretionary travel.

Probably 40% of that highly-educated highly-paid demographic in the UK could identify Christchurch as a city in NZ. Probably 5% could in California, 2% in Texas and 1% in New York, and well below 1% in China.

So Air New Zealand has condemned itself to chasing markets which don't exist, because of moronically oversimplified dogma about "one-stop" flying. By the same brainless logic, in a pre-ULH world Qantas' Kangaroo Route to London would terminate in Singapore!

Before Business Premier, Air NZ was operating 12 First Class and 64 Business Class seats on a 744 between LAX and London every day.

Currently they barely operate that many Business Class seats across the Pacific at all.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 10107
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:21 am

mrkerr7474 wrote:
Looks like QF137/136 SYD-CHC-SYD was operated by A332 today, and a very late running service as well.

That to help with stranded passengers from the last few days or due to another reason?


Not to sure. It could have been what was available if the 738 went U/S.
 
Koruman23
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2023 1:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:24 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
aerohottie wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:


The simple matter with LHR was it didn’t fit the business model anymore. You could add an additional daily AKL-US service with the 2 77Ws freed up.

HKG-LHR and AKL-PVG started in November 2006, PEK ran from 2008-12 while HKG-LHR was dropped in March 2013 having gone from a daily 744 to a 5 weekly 772, HKG-LHR ran as a day flight which wasn’t ideal. From what I gather LAX-LHR was close to being cut with HKG-LHR in 2013, that’s the same management that added HKG-LHR and dropped it.

I won’t comment on PVG, I don’t know enough about it other than the fact it was a long term investment. Failure or not they won’t drop it, I guess with more premium 789s coming PVG can’t be that bad.

As to the 772 for the 15000th time, who on earth would crew them, they would be sitting costing the airline money. The new 787s were pushed back by NZ initially, now possibly more delays due Boeing.

The product may be dated but most NZ long haul routes have little competition so while certainly in need of a refit, they have to wait for the suppliers to make the seats.

More interesting is the 77W replacement with smaller less capable 781 on the trunk routes to LAX/SFO, IAH will have to be a 789 unless the 781 becomes close to a 77W performance wise.

Dropping LAX-LHR freed up 1 aircraft, not 2.
AKL-LAX takes 2 aircraft for a daily rotation
AKL-LAX-LHR took 3 aircraft for a daily rotation.

As to the 772 for the 15000th time, tell that to Malaysia Airlines. Had the 772 been retained for longer the crew and thus capability would have also been retained. And like MH could be been kept current with minimal rotations.


AKL-LAX is currently 10x weekly, uses 3 aircraft compared to 5 for AKL-LAX and AKL-LAX-LHR.

Malaysia Airlines, sorry what did they have to do with this thread? MH retired the 772 and stopped flying to Europe bar LHR but they didn’t make money anyway.

It was better for NZ they decided to run just the 789 fleet, maybe hindsight would be different, I’m not sure it would have saved the 772 fleet even if the 77W fleet was flying.

Hold on.

5 aircraft were required to run NZ1/2/5/6 into LAX which delivered three daily return flights to LAX, so 15 return flights using 5 aircraft.

Now 3 aircraft are operating 10 return flights per week.

The utilisation is basically identical, especially when you factor in the Tasman side-trips. It’s not a black and white case at all.

And if you add in the inefficient sectors deeper into the USA, the argument for the new model is weaker still!
 
ZKNZR
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:37 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:37 am

NZ has a 789 heading up to LAX tonight as NZ6076 - assuming this is helping with stranded pax backlog.
 
Unclekoru
Posts: 384
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:53 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
mrkerr7474 wrote:
Looks like QF137/136 SYD-CHC-SYD was operated by A332 today, and a very late running service as well.

That to help with stranded passengers from the last few days or due to another reason?


Not to sure. It could have been what was available if the 738 went U/S.


Weather in CHC late last night resulted in a few diversions so probably related to that. QF135 ended up in WLG and QF139 diverted to AKL.
 
NZ516
Posts: 2125
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:00 pm

Koruman23 wrote:
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
ZKNZR wrote:

If I recall correctly NZ maintained a crew base in London to operate the LHR-LAX rtn sectors. This might have proven too costly in the long run to justify the route?


ding ding ding

We have a winner.

COULD Air NZ keep doing AKL-LHR? Sure. But it just didn't make economic sense when those aircraft could be utilized elsewhere for better return. With all the alliance and codeshare agreements today, operating such a route is a pride thing for an airline like Air NZ. We're long past the days where you only had two or three options to get from NZ to Europe.

mrkerr7474 wrote:

You do make a good point there. I guess no one has fully confirmed the data that it could do it but I feel if they were to operate a direct flight, they'd want some form of cargo going and that's perhaps why they wouldn't have done direct (if the flight stayed post covid). Also if this worked, WLG would surely have wanted to entice other airlines to fly non-stop eventually, down the road the runway extension would have been needed I feel for those services.

But we live with what it is and currently make do with the current services


The boomer NIMBYs certiainly haven't helped grow the region in a way that gives people spare cash to spend on travel. Anyways, WLG is good for what it is with regular connections to AKL. I see WIAL focusing more on regional and electric flights in the medium term as that will be a major area of growth as they come online.

The argument against AKL-LAX-LHR never made economic sense and it makes still less economic sense in this world of inflated premium airfares.

It's a simple consequence of the smallness of the NZ market and the lack of corporate demand from the USA to NZ that yields on AKL-USA can never match yields on LAX-LHR. They never have and they never will.

If all markets had equal yield levels then yes, certainly point-to-point flights would be preferable to one-stop flights.

But firstly, that never applied to NZ 1/2 AKL-LAX-LHR precisely BECAUSE the airline had the rights to sell point-to-point LAX-LHR and vice versa. That's why AKL-LAX-LHR saw off AKL-HKG-LHR, to the shock of the planners who expected the converse to be the case. People like David Beckham and a host of Hollywood and TV industry-funded passengers ensured that for year after year after year, NZ1/2 LAX-LHR-LAX basically subsidised the failing Auckland to Shanghai route.

And secondly, somebody should try telling Singapore Airlines that one-stop tickets are not profitable. Or Emirates. Or every single US carrier that uses a hub-and-spoke model.

The spin was that China would somehow miraculously be a more profitable market than LHR, even though all four Japanese ports had been economic basket cases. And, surprise surprise, Beijing was a complete disaster for Air NZ and Shanghai only ever broke even once in a decade and a half.

It was good timing that the London route closed for the two and a half years of Covid related travel.

But the 77Ws could each do a AKL-SYD/MEL/BNE-AKL-LAX or a LHR-LAX return in 24 hours.

No such opportunities exist on the Houston let alone Newark or Chicago routes. The timetabling involved long periods of inactivity in between ULH sectors.

There is a certain woke hipness in imagining that New Zealand is somehow part of Asia, even though Auckland is further from Shanghai than London is from the Congo. Now that the Air NZ Shanghai delusion has failed we now hear the same arguments against London continuing to be trotted out, even though Air NZ is currently only maintaining yields to and from North America by throttling supply by using smaller aircraft with fewer premium seats.

One day, some day, fare levels will return to normal. And hopefully then somebody will be left to recall that Air NZ chose to surrender its one and only high-volume high-yield route - London to Los Angeles.


Good analysis of the former NZ1 service. Another one is it use to be very full and difficult to obtain seats at times LHR to LAX even back when it was operated by the 747.
It's nice to have you back Koruman with your insight.
 
AMSAKL
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:58 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Mon Jan 30, 2023 7:05 pm

I have been looking at the volume of international flights into ZQN over the Summer and Winter peak periods and see QF often with 4 flights a day, VA with 2 - 3, JQ 2 - 3, then there is NZ with a scattering each day. I find it interesting that NZ doesn't have more international flights into and out of Queenstown than they do and the Australian based airlines all seem to have no problem maintaining there schedules into ZQN, at least at peak.
 
a7ala
Posts: 562
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Mon Jan 30, 2023 7:51 pm

AMSAKL wrote:
I have been looking at the volume of international flights into ZQN over the Summer and Winter peak periods and see QF often with 4 flights a day, VA with 2 - 3, JQ 2 - 3, then there is NZ with a scattering each day. I find it interesting that NZ doesn't have more international flights into and out of Queenstown than they do and the Australian based airlines all seem to have no problem maintaining there schedules into ZQN, at least at peak.


85%-90% will be Australians flying on the sector with strong OZ airline loyalty and maybe some credits to spend from Covid. ZQN is a leisure market which can stimulate strongly, but from the large Australian end not the tiny local population end. Also, for NZ ZQN provides no connecting opportunity with the rest of New Zealand (unlike AKL/WLG/CHC). Plus NZ is struggling to maintain their capacity at the other international ports.
 
aerohottie
Posts: 891
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:52 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Mon Jan 30, 2023 8:08 pm

ZK-NBT wrote:
aerohottie wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:


The simple matter with LHR was it didn’t fit the business model anymore. You could add an additional daily AKL-US service with the 2 77Ws freed up.

HKG-LHR and AKL-PVG started in November 2006, PEK ran from 2008-12 while HKG-LHR was dropped in March 2013 having gone from a daily 744 to a 5 weekly 772, HKG-LHR ran as a day flight which wasn’t ideal. From what I gather LAX-LHR was close to being cut with HKG-LHR in 2013, that’s the same management that added HKG-LHR and dropped it.

I won’t comment on PVG, I don’t know enough about it other than the fact it was a long term investment. Failure or not they won’t drop it, I guess with more premium 789s coming PVG can’t be that bad.

As to the 772 for the 15000th time, who on earth would crew them, they would be sitting costing the airline money. The new 787s were pushed back by NZ initially, now possibly more delays due Boeing.

The product may be dated but most NZ long haul routes have little competition so while certainly in need of a refit, they have to wait for the suppliers to make the seats.

More interesting is the 77W replacement with smaller less capable 781 on the trunk routes to LAX/SFO, IAH will have to be a 789 unless the 781 becomes close to a 77W performance wise.

Dropping LAX-LHR freed up 1 aircraft, not 2.
AKL-LAX takes 2 aircraft for a daily rotation
AKL-LAX-LHR took 3 aircraft for a daily rotation.

As to the 772 for the 15000th time, tell that to Malaysia Airlines. Had the 772 been retained for longer the crew and thus capability would have also been retained. And like MH could be been kept current with minimal rotations.


AKL-LAX is currently 10x weekly, uses 3 aircraft compared to 5 for AKL-LAX and AKL-LAX-LHR.

Malaysia Airlines, sorry what did they have to do with this thread? MH retired the 772 and stopped flying to Europe bar LHR but they didn’t make money anyway.

It was better for NZ they decided to run just the 789 fleet, maybe hindsight would be different, I’m not sure it would have saved the 772 fleet even if the 77W fleet was flying.

My point about MH is that they, unlike NZ, chose to keep their long haul fleet and crew minimally active during the covid period, so were able to reinstate their network very quickly. Unlike NZ who imho prematurely retired the 772ERs and their crew without a readily available replacement.
MH annual fleet composition.jpg
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 10107
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Mon Jan 30, 2023 8:29 pm

Koruman23 wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
aerohottie wrote:
Dropping LAX-LHR freed up 1 aircraft, not 2.
AKL-LAX takes 2 aircraft for a daily rotation
AKL-LAX-LHR took 3 aircraft for a daily rotation.

As to the 772 for the 15000th time, tell that to Malaysia Airlines. Had the 772 been retained for longer the crew and thus capability would have also been retained. And like MH could be been kept current with minimal rotations.


AKL-LAX is currently 10x weekly, uses 3 aircraft compared to 5 for AKL-LAX and AKL-LAX-LHR.

Malaysia Airlines, sorry what did they have to do with this thread? MH retired the 772 and stopped flying to Europe bar LHR but they didn’t make money anyway.

It was better for NZ they decided to run just the 789 fleet, maybe hindsight would be different, I’m not sure it would have saved the 772 fleet even if the 77W fleet was flying.

Hold on.

5 aircraft were required to run NZ1/2/5/6 into LAX which delivered three daily return flights to LAX, so 15 return flights using 5 aircraft.

Now 3 aircraft are operating 10 return flights per week.

The utilisation is basically identical, especially when you factor in the Tasman side-trips. It’s not a black and white case at all.

And if you add in the inefficient sectors deeper into the USA, the argument for the new model is weaker still!


Not sure how you get 15 return flights a week? I would make it 14 from AKL and 7 from LHR.

How are the longer US runs inefficient? Those aircraft spend less time on the ground at IAH/ORD/JFK and still do a Tasman sector in between.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 10107
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Mon Jan 30, 2023 8:37 pm

aerohottie wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
aerohottie wrote:
Dropping LAX-LHR freed up 1 aircraft, not 2.
AKL-LAX takes 2 aircraft for a daily rotation
AKL-LAX-LHR took 3 aircraft for a daily rotation.

As to the 772 for the 15000th time, tell that to Malaysia Airlines. Had the 772 been retained for longer the crew and thus capability would have also been retained. And like MH could be been kept current with minimal rotations.


AKL-LAX is currently 10x weekly, uses 3 aircraft compared to 5 for AKL-LAX and AKL-LAX-LHR.

Malaysia Airlines, sorry what did they have to do with this thread? MH retired the 772 and stopped flying to Europe bar LHR but they didn’t make money anyway.

It was better for NZ they decided to run just the 789 fleet, maybe hindsight would be different, I’m not sure it would have saved the 772 fleet even if the 77W fleet was flying.

My point about MH is that they, unlike NZ, chose to keep their long haul fleet and crew minimally active during the covid period, so were able to reinstate their network very quickly. Unlike NZ who imho prematurely retired the 772ERs and their crew without a readily available replacement.
MH annual fleet composition.jpg



Maybe they did, I don’t particularly blame NZ for taking the measures they did. QF are worse off Internationally, partly poor past fleet decisions there but no one would have planned for a pandemic. With the second lock down in August 2021 I and others didn’t think the 77W fleet would fly again either.

NZ have 787s on order but delayed them a year, now the problem is Boeing May delay them further. Hindsight is 20/20, maybe they should have kept the 777 fleet active in some capacity, initially the 3 77Ws stored at AKL had crew available didn’t they?
 
JJWess
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2022 12:30 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Mon Jan 30, 2023 11:03 pm

I think it’s much easier to source crew than source aircraft though, so I’m not sure if that argument of “not being able to crew the 772’s” is a strong one.

Can we expect any widebody aircraft orders from NZ this year or is that wishful thinking? Surely the 787’s on order aren’t enough to replace both the 772 & 77W’s?
 
NZ801
Posts: 235
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2020 9:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Mon Jan 30, 2023 11:37 pm

JJWess wrote:
I think it’s much easier to source crew than source aircraft though, so I’m not sure if that argument of “not being able to crew the 772’s” is a strong one.

Can we expect any widebody aircraft orders from NZ this year or is that wishful thinking? Surely the 787’s on order aren’t enough to replace both the 772 & 77W’s?


NZ have struggled to crew the aircraft they have for the last year but please do tell us how you’d crew the 772’s.
 
JJWess
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2022 12:30 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Mon Jan 30, 2023 11:54 pm

NZ801 wrote:
JJWess wrote:
I think it’s much easier to source crew than source aircraft though, so I’m not sure if that argument of “not being able to crew the 772’s” is a strong one.

Can we expect any widebody aircraft orders from NZ this year or is that wishful thinking? Surely the 787’s on order aren’t enough to replace both the 772 & 77W’s?


NZ have struggled to crew the aircraft they have for the last year but please do tell us how you’d crew the 772’s.


Were they struggling pre-covid?
And by crew I’m assuming you mean pilots…? Surely training FA’s up is a lot easier than acquiring pilots. The latter I can understand if it’s difficult to source due to the global shortage.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 10107
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:48 am

JJWess wrote:
I think it’s much easier to source crew than source aircraft though, so I’m not sure if that argument of “not being able to crew the 772’s” is a strong one.

Can we expect any widebody aircraft orders from NZ this year or is that wishful thinking? Surely the 787’s on order aren’t enough to replace both the 772 & 77W’s?


NZ said they would look at a fleet of 23-24 wide bodies long term with increased utilisation, I have heard that is wishful thinking, so maybe 25-26 is more reasonable?

When the 7 77Ws are all back in service that will bring the fleet up to 21, 14 789, 7 77W with 8 787s on order. I would see them looking at 1-2 77Ws for short to medium term lease, maybe 3 years. Unless they decide to replace the 77Ws with something other than 787s which still seems unlikely then I don’t see any wide body orders for some time certainly not this year.
 
GW54
Posts: 165
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 3:05 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Tue Jan 31, 2023 4:33 am

NZ801 wrote:
JJWess wrote:
I think it’s much easier to source crew than source aircraft though, so I’m not sure if that argument of “not being able to crew the 772’s” is a strong one.

Can we expect any widebody aircraft orders from NZ this year or is that wishful thinking? Surely the 787’s on order aren’t enough to replace both the 772 & 77W’s?


NZ have struggled to crew the aircraft they have for the last year but please do tell us how you’d crew the 772’s.


The reality is Air New Zealand made some very poor decisions but they weren't alone in that. Not only did they make junior jet pilots redundant they also allowed a not insignificant number of senior 777 Captains exit the Airline with leaving packages. Many of those Captains were not just line Captains but also Instructors, Check Captains and Training Captains, Some of these Captains were still sometime off retirement and even those approaching retirement on the 777 would in all probability have spent a few years on the A320/321 fleet. The problem they now have is there is a global shortage of Pilots, everybody is recruiting. Now we see further delays to the 787 deliveries and based on previous history the new projected delivery dates are nothing more than a best guess. I'm sur Foran is now wishing he had kept some of those crews but also 3 or 4 of the 772's
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 5265
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Tue Jan 31, 2023 4:51 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
NZ said they would look at a fleet of 23-24 wide bodies long term with increased utilisation, I have heard that is wishful thinking, so maybe 25-26 is more reasonable?


I really hope that increased utilization isn't code for QF's 'sweat the assets' approach whereby a single widebody going tech results in significant disruption throughout the airline's long haul network. One thing I've always respected about Air New Zealand is the way that they've always been fairly quick to recover when things go wrong.

I agree with you that widebody orders this year are unlikely.
 
zkncj
Posts: 5065
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Tue Jan 31, 2023 5:51 am

JJWess wrote:
I think it’s much easier to source crew than source aircraft though, so I’m not sure if that argument of “not being able to crew the 772’s” is a strong one.

Can we expect any widebody aircraft orders from NZ this year or is that wishful thinking? Surely the 787’s on order aren’t enough to replace both the 772 & 77W’s?


New Zealand is currently in a major labour shortage, you here stories of some Mc Donald’s outlets paying entry level staff $30/hr.
 
JJWess
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2022 12:30 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Tue Jan 31, 2023 6:09 am

zkncj wrote:
JJWess wrote:
I think it’s much easier to source crew than source aircraft though, so I’m not sure if that argument of “not being able to crew the 772’s” is a strong one.

Can we expect any widebody aircraft orders from NZ this year or is that wishful thinking? Surely the 787’s on order aren’t enough to replace both the 772 & 77W’s?


New Zealand is currently in a major labour shortage, you here stories of some Mc Donald’s outlets paying entry level staff $30/hr.



Yikes… i didn’t think it was that bad
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 10107
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Tue Jan 31, 2023 6:43 am

zkojq wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
NZ said they would look at a fleet of 23-24 wide bodies long term with increased utilisation, I have heard that is wishful thinking, so maybe 25-26 is more reasonable?


I really hope that increased utilization isn't code for QF's 'sweat the assets' approach whereby a single widebody going tech results in significant disruption throughout the airline's long haul network. One thing I've always respected about Air New Zealand is the way that they've always been fairly quick to recover when things go wrong.

I agree with you that widebody orders this year are unlikely.


I agree, for QF it has got really bad since Covid and the 744 retirement. Certainly pre covid when NZ were running 772s on the afternoon SYD/MEL flights returning at midnight NZ could turn one of those around if there was a delay earlier in the evening or the HKG flight would get delayed till the morning given it spent 12hrs in HKG.

They have 10-11 wide body long haul arrivals in the morning 0600-0730 LAX/SFO/IAH/ORD/YVR/JFK/PVG/PER/PPT, 0900-1030 NRT/SIN/HKG/TPE. The only other long haul arrivals are ICN at 1255 and HNL at 1745. They need to have some contingency plan to have a ‘spare’ to cover any short haul delays and same in the evening where any delays at least for 1 flight can be made up by having 1 ‘spare’ aircraft on the ground during the day, that can then depart in the evening.

Anyway I trust NZ know what they are doing.
 
Koruman23
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2023 1:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Tue Jan 31, 2023 7:07 am

NZ516 wrote:
Air NZ long haul flying for the week 9 Jan. Interesting to see that ICN is doing well but PVG is well down on the previous daily service. Only LAX, YVR and SIN has a daily service.

AKL- LAX 10pw
AKL -YVR 7pw
AKL- SFO 5pw
AKL- IAH 5pw
AKL- HNL 4pw
AKL - ORD 3pw
AKL - JFK 3pw
AKL - SIN 7pw
AKL- NRT 6pw
AKL - ICN 5pw
AKL-HKG 5pw
AKL- TPE 3pw
AKL-PVG 3pw

The Shanghai experiment was a complete fiasco, and I’m relieved that it is now completely discredited.

The idea of growth potential is a tempting siren, but it’s never a good idea to get into a situation that you can’t control.

The bottom line is that it is always a triumph of optimism over common sense to choose to deal with a one-party state which eschews democracy and exerts absolute control over all businesses while also bending the legal system to its will.

Australian farmers can vouch for how no amount of good business practice can offset arbitrary use of trade to punish an imagined adversary.

Air New Zealand’s China routes violated every tenet of good business practice. They served a market which had not previously existed, which was an ultra-low yield long-haul market, and which the foreign government in question could - and did - turn off like a tap.

I know that it’s graceless to say “I told you so”.

But I told you so!

A decade and a half on, and Air NZ is carrying a dead route from a dead market, and only ever broke even on the route once.

They gave up LAX-LHR for this? Good grief!
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 2298
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Tue Jan 31, 2023 8:42 am

Koruman23 wrote:
Air New Zealand’s China routes violated every tenet of good business practice. They served a market which had not previously existed, which was an ultra-low yield long-haul market, and which the foreign government in question could - and did - turn off like a tap.

A decade and a half on, and Air NZ is carrying a dead route from a dead market, and only ever broke even on the route once.

I see that K'man is just as expert in NZ business management as he was years ago before he abandoned us.

Apparently NZ management is still just as useless as it was before, and have learned nothing in the interim about running a real airline. I'm curious to know a couple of things:
1. Is there a source for LHR-LAX being hugely profitable before it was cut?
2. Is there a source for PVG being unprofitable every year bar one over the last decade or so?

The reason I ask is that I've never seen any breakdown of profitability at that level of granularity, and would welcome the possibility of looking at routes like this for myself.

K'man?
 
NZ801
Posts: 235
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2020 9:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Tue Jan 31, 2023 8:49 am

DavidByrne wrote:
Koruman23 wrote:
Air New Zealand’s China routes violated every tenet of good business practice. They served a market which had not previously existed, which was an ultra-low yield long-haul market, and which the foreign government in question could - and did - turn off like a tap.

A decade and a half on, and Air NZ is carrying a dead route from a dead market, and only ever broke even on the route once.

I see that K'man is just as expert in NZ business management as he was years ago before he abandoned us.

Apparently NZ management is still just as useless as it was before, and have learned nothing in the interim about running a real airline. I'm curious to know a couple of things:
1. Is there a source for LHR-LAX being hugely profitable before it was cut?
2. Is there a source for PVG being unprofitable every year bar one over the last decade or so?

The reason I ask is that I've never seen any breakdown of profitability at that level of granularity, and would welcome the possibility of looking at routes like this for myself.

K'man?


Is this the same Koruman who wanted NZ to have a hub at OOL I think it was, so that he and his whānau can fly premium on holiday? Something like that?

Why engage with someone who is so confident they are right and everyone else is wrong.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 10107
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Tue Jan 31, 2023 9:08 am

NZ801 wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
Koruman23 wrote:
Air New Zealand’s China routes violated every tenet of good business practice. They served a market which had not previously existed, which was an ultra-low yield long-haul market, and which the foreign government in question could - and did - turn off like a tap.

A decade and a half on, and Air NZ is carrying a dead route from a dead market, and only ever broke even on the route once.

I see that K'man is just as expert in NZ business management as he was years ago before he abandoned us.

Apparently NZ management is still just as useless as it was before, and have learned nothing in the interim about running a real airline. I'm curious to know a couple of things:
1. Is there a source for LHR-LAX being hugely profitable before it was cut?
2. Is there a source for PVG being unprofitable every year bar one over the last decade or so?

The reason I ask is that I've never seen any breakdown of profitability at that level of granularity, and would welcome the possibility of looking at routes like this for myself.

K'man?


Is this the same Koruman who wanted NZ to have a hub at OOL I think it was, so that he and his whānau can fly premium on holiday? Something like that?

Why engage with someone who is so confident they are right and everyone else is wrong.


Yes, and bring back PPT-LAX while we are at it plus the Koru hub in HKG feeding SYD/MEL/BNE.

I mean under Fyfe who introduced HKG-LHR and PVG there was talk of more Europe via SFO/YVR/PVG although I do wonder if that was more fantasy from those on here? Not sure, but the same management abandoned that plan and HKG-LHR was dropped after 6.5 years.

I don’t want to be or sound like a know it all, I don’t, however we aren’t in the 1980s or 90s anymore where 1 stop routes were common and in many places necessary due aircraft range pre 744. NZ have said for years now they wouldn’t operate anymore.

Weather those individual flights like the islands to LAX ever made money would be interesting to know, they served a purpose back then of feeding LHR/FRA and NZ were the carrier of choice in many cases back then because of the options they offered.
 
Koruman23
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2023 1:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Tue Jan 31, 2023 9:19 am

DavidByrne wrote:
Koruman23 wrote:
Air New Zealand’s China routes violated every tenet of good business practice. They served a market which had not previously existed, which was an ultra-low yield long-haul market, and which the foreign government in question could - and did - turn off like a tap.

A decade and a half on, and Air NZ is carrying a dead route from a dead market, and only ever broke even on the route once.

I see that K'man is just as expert in NZ business management as he was years ago before he abandoned us.

Apparently NZ management is still just as useless as it was before, and have learned nothing in the interim about running a real airline. I'm curious to know a couple of things:
1. Is there a source for LHR-LAX being hugely profitable before it was cut?
2. Is there a source for PVG being unprofitable every year bar one over the last decade or so?

The reason I ask is that I've never seen any breakdown of profitability at that level of granularity, and would welcome the possibility of looking at routes like this for myself.

K'man?

We finally deciphered the Shanghai fiasco in the airline’s own financial statement three or four years ago - that was when they revealed that it had only once broken even.

We know that LAX-LHR loads were high enough to switch from the 77E to the 744.

As for expertise, I don’t feel any need to defer to either a failed TV executive or a soap salesman. It’s a strange feature of the western business system that neither the executives nor the senior management generally have any expertise or training in the business that they are running. Having banked goodness knows how many years of Elite status I’m pretty confident that I understand the demographics and economics of the California and London routes better than the likes of Luxon or Fyfe ever did. I know that sounds immodest, but it’s a terrible flaw in our system based on the old British class system that we put faith in CEO’s to run an industry well because of their “talent” rather than any demonstration of meritorious leadership in the field in question.
 
Koruman23
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2023 1:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Tue Jan 31, 2023 9:49 am

NZ801 wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
Koruman23 wrote:
Air New Zealand’s China routes violated every tenet of good business practice. They served a market which had not previously existed, which was an ultra-low yield long-haul market, and which the foreign government in question could - and did - turn off like a tap.

A decade and a half on, and Air NZ is carrying a dead route from a dead market, and only ever broke even on the route once.

I see that K'man is just as expert in NZ business management as he was years ago before he abandoned us.

Apparently NZ management is still just as useless as it was before, and have learned nothing in the interim about running a real airline. I'm curious to know a couple of things:
1. Is there a source for LHR-LAX being hugely profitable before it was cut?
2. Is there a source for PVG being unprofitable every year bar one over the last decade or so?

The reason I ask is that I've never seen any breakdown of profitability at that level of granularity, and would welcome the possibility of looking at routes like this for myself.

K'man?


Is this the same Koruman who wanted NZ to have a hub at OOL I think it was, so that he and his whānau can fly premium on holiday? Something like that?

Why engage with someone who is so confident they are right and everyone else is wrong.

No, it’s the Koruman who wanted Air NZ to acquire V Australia and operate a Koruhub at LAX with daily flights from AKL, BNE, CHC, SYD and MEL, connecting onwards to LHR, FRA, YYZ, EWR, MAN and DUB.

I write in a polemical style but it’s just pantomime. But I genuinely do feel that Air NZ spending the decade leading up to Covid hiding internationally on monopoly routes and subsidised routes, and they gave up trying to compete.

It was just a lousy business model. Qantas is using AKL as a one-stop staging post deep into North America, but homespun dogma about eliminating one-stop routes led Air NZ to make terrible decisions.

But monopolies don’t last forever. Much better to actually compete.
 
Koruman23
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2023 1:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Tue Jan 31, 2023 9:54 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
NZ801 wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
I see that K'man is just as expert in NZ business management as he was years ago before he abandoned us.

Apparently NZ management is still just as useless as it was before, and have learned nothing in the interim about running a real airline. I'm curious to know a couple of things:
1. Is there a source for LHR-LAX being hugely profitable before it was cut?
2. Is there a source for PVG being unprofitable every year bar one over the last decade or so?

The reason I ask is that I've never seen any breakdown of profitability at that level of granularity, and would welcome the possibility of looking at routes like this for myself.

K'man?


Is this the same Koruman who wanted NZ to have a hub at OOL I think it was, so that he and his whānau can fly premium on holiday? Something like that?

Why engage with someone who is so confident they are right and everyone else is wrong.


Yes, and bring back PPT-LAX while we are at it plus the Koru hub in HKG feeding SYD/MEL/BNE.

I mean under Fyfe who introduced HKG-LHR and PVG there was talk of more Europe via SFO/YVR/PVG although I do wonder if that was more fantasy from those on here? Not sure, but the same management abandoned that plan and HKG-LHR was dropped after 6.5 years.

I don’t want to be or sound like a know it all, I don’t, however we aren’t in the 1980s or 90s anymore where 1 stop routes were common and in many places necessary due aircraft range pre 744. NZ have said for years now they wouldn’t operate anymore.

Weather those individual flights like the islands to LAX ever made money would be interesting to know, they served a purpose back then of feeding LHR/FRA and NZ were the carrier of choice in many cases back then because of the options they offered.

Fifteen years in, and Shanghai sells as many seats each week as LAX-LHR sold each day.

This point to point nonsense goes unchallenged but it shouldn’t.

PER-LHR and AKL-JFK are Qantas focusing its entire long-haul model on one-stop flying.

And it’s the SQ business model. And the EK one. And the UA one. And the AA one. And the DL one.

Air NZ had a hypothesis that a long-haul network should be point-to-point and that it should focus on monopoly routes.

Nobody else shared that model. And it was a predictable failure.
 
SpoonNZ
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2013 10:22 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Tue Jan 31, 2023 10:36 am

zkncj wrote:

New Zealand is currently in a major labour shortage, you here stories of some Mc Donald’s outlets paying entry level staff $30/hr.

That particular story was for a two week fixed contract over Christmas and new year. In Queenstown. Yes it’s bad, but that’s misleading.
 
NZ516
Posts: 2125
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Tue Jan 31, 2023 2:07 pm

Koruman23 wrote:
NZ516 wrote:
Air NZ long haul flying for the week 9 Jan. Interesting to see that ICN is doing well but PVG is well down on the previous daily service. Only LAX, YVR and SIN has a daily service.

AKL- LAX 10pw
AKL -YVR 7pw
AKL- SFO 5pw
AKL- IAH 5pw
AKL- HNL 4pw
AKL - ORD 3pw
AKL - JFK 3pw
AKL - SIN 7pw
AKL- NRT 6pw
AKL - ICN 5pw
AKL-HKG 5pw
AKL- TPE 3pw
AKL-PVG 3pw

The Shanghai experiment was a complete fiasco, and I’m relieved that it is now completely discredited.

The idea of growth potential is a tempting siren, but it’s never a good idea to get into a situation that you can’t control.

The bottom line is that it is always a triumph of optimism over common sense to choose to deal with a one-party state which eschews democracy and exerts absolute control over all businesses while also bending the legal system to its will.

Australian farmers can vouch for how no amount of good business practice can offset arbitrary use of trade to punish an imagined adversary.

Air New Zealand’s China routes violated every tenet of good business practice. They served a market which had not previously existed, which was an ultra-low yield long-haul market, and which the foreign government in question could - and did - turn off like a tap.

I know that it’s graceless to say “I told you so”.

But I told you so!

A decade and a half on, and Air NZ is carrying a dead route from a dead market, and only ever broke even on the route once.

They gave up LAX-LHR for this? Good grief!


I'm sure that Air NZ management knows what they are doing. Route specific profit will be a tight secret and the public won't have access to any real data. All what was said publicly that Shanghai took a long time to break even but it became profitable but obviously no numbers were released. They did service both cities but both less than daily. Once Beijing was cut and the frequency moved to one operating station that would have saved some money for them.
 
NZ516
Posts: 2125
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation - January 2023

Tue Jan 31, 2023 2:42 pm

The final goodbye for the Orions they did a low flyover the South Island in formation.

https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/01/31/watc ... th-island/

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 32Bit, af773atmsp, alanb976, Coma993, Google Adsense [Bot], hOMSaR, JackPott, mh124, n94504, PA515, potato380, Someone83, travelin man, trintocan, TurboJet707 and 180 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos