Last Friday ZK-OKN was involved in the landing incident at Auckland when it left the centreline and took out runway edge lighting. At the time it was said a tyre deflated but it taxied to the gate.. it was scheduled to go to MEL and back on the Sunday but that got cancelled and it hasn't flown since the Friday night incident. Is the damage far more serious than a deflated tyre ?

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

UA won’t run ORD-AKL LAX I could see and maybe IAH longer term.

I thought SFO is UA largest hub?

Chicago O'Hare is their largest hub by number of departures, passengers carried and destinations served.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/f ... /96983530/

Wow, huge numbers there aye. SFO is a bit down though that was 2017.

Amazing indeed! SFO in 5th place behind ORD, IAH, EWR and DEN.

ZK-NBT wrote:

zkncj wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

I'm not sure if they will change the plan of having a total domestic A321 fleet of 7. So OYA to OYG will come as planned. But they certainly could do with a top up order for the international 320/321 fleet eg NNH or NHF or more but might be a long wait.

I don’t see any more a320NEO’s being purchased, I feel any more future orders will be for a321NEO’s.

They seemed to have proved them self very well, the fact that they are now buying them for domestic shows they work well for NZ.

NZ just 10 years ago, they were flying around 133 seater 733s on domestic.

Agree, no more A320s, the operating costs if the A321 outweighs buying more A320s.

Long term I see an all A321 domestic fleet.

Not so much operating costs for the A321 but revenue potential higher than the A320. I still see a A320 having a good future long term with domestic CHC-WLG, CHC-ZQN, WLG-ZQN etc and CHC&WLG -Tasman flying.

NZ516 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

zkncj wrote:

I don’t see any more a320NEO’s being purchased, I feel any more future orders will be for a321NEO’s.

They seemed to have proved them self very well, the fact that they are now buying them for domestic shows they work well for NZ.

NZ just 10 years ago, they were flying around 133 seater 733s on domestic.

Agree, no more A320s, the operating costs if the A321 outweighs buying more A320s.

Long term I see an all A321 domestic fleet.

Not so much operating costs for the A321 but revenue potential higher than the A320. I still see a A320 having a good future long term with domestic CHC-WLG, CHC-ZQN, WLG-ZQN etc and CHC&WLG -Tasman flying.

In 2019 CHC-Australia was getting A321N's with NZ, now NZ doesn't have the 77E fleet allot more of the short-haul flying ex-AKL has had to be picked by the A321N fleet e.g. AKL-SYD/MEL.

I'm not really sure how committed NZ is to International ex-WLG? it seems to be a after though of what ever resource is left over.

WLG International NZ lounge is pretty poor and has had very little attention over the last 20 years.

zkncj wrote:

I'm not really sure how committed NZ is to International ex-WLG? it seems to be a after though of what ever resource is left over.

WLG International NZ lounge is pretty poor and has had very little attention over the last 20 years.

Same as CHC - will do the minimum they need to keep relevant and not allow QF to have a monopoly. Its the curse of the non-hub airports unfortunately. Everything is designed around the AKL hub and then WLG/CHC get the dregs. I note that NZ arent flying their seasonal WLG/CHC-NAN services in NS23 I presume because the hub needs the aircraft more. I hope FJ does more in both ports and offers a decent year round service (I think they are only doing 2pw at the moment).

tullamarine wrote:

The lack of a meaningful domestic feed in Australia makes any thought of a PER hub unlikely. QF has no interest in providing feed in competition to itself and the VA partnership was terminated. It is unlikely to be ever able to set itself up as a domestic airline in Australia; both QF and VA would immediately move to crush it and it would be a major distraction from its core business particularly as it is now effectively a nationalised business again.

NZ is only a relatively small airline from a small country. Its greatest strength is providing feed from New Zealand into hubs of its Star Alliance partners be that SFO, HND or SIN. It cannot be all things to all people and shouldn't bother trying.

It's only a few years ago that NZ was offering around 5,600 seats/week to LHR, and 1,600 seats/week to FRA. The idea I'm floating is a new offering of around 1,500 seats/week to LHR and 700 seats/week to FRA - arguably quite conservative as an offering. This isn't trying to be all things to all people, but to cater to markets which are known to exist, and which are in fact served by multiple other airlines via their international hubs. I'm also by no means suggesting that NZ should compete for Australian domestic traffic - let's get rid of that idea altogether. Indeed, when the carrier operated European routes previously, it wasn't by any means predicated on there being Australian feed - in fact it's unlikely that they ever had more than a handful of Australia-originating passengers travelling to Europe. Having said that, my idea also suggested that a limited feed to PER could be provided via SYD, MEL and/or BNE from other NZ ports such as WLG. (Noting also that WLG-PER is one of the top Tasman sectors that are currently unserved.)

SCFlyer wrote:

Can't see NZ setting up PER-LHR (or any European port) just to compete with QF. It would be expensive from crew costs plus the other reasons mentioned in the previous posts (e.g lack of Australian feed, reliance on Perth O&D, etc).

The crew costs argument has always been stated on the basis of crew being away from home for excessive periods. However, if services from PER were flown by PER-based crew, then the situation is no different from (say) QF maintaining an AKL-based pool of crew and crewing many Tasman (and now New York) services from there. Likewise PER O&D would be a top-up also to through traffic - and anecdotally PER-LHR nonstop has proven extremely successful for QF. Given the extraordinary brand approval of NZ in Australia this should at least top up a through service to Europe via PER.

Philosophically, look on this idea as the exact inverse of what QF is scheduling, to widespread acclaim, on SYD/BNE/MEL-AKL-JFK with a crew base at AKL to reduce costs. If it's a terrible idea for NZ to offer AKL/WLG(via, say SYD)/CHC-PER-LHR with a crew base at PER to reduce costs, and re-entering an established market that it already knows well, how is the QF initiative that much more viable? Especially given that in the past NZ has been a significant player in what was then a smaller market from AKL to LHR and FRA?

To those others on this thread who have also been postulating a resumption of one-stop services to Europe - why not via PER? Seems to me it has real advantages over almost every other intermediate stop, including the relative ease of establishing a crew base there compared with some other jurisdictions. And it also offers the potential to make CHC-PER year-round as a feeder.

I'm more than a bit wary of the idea that NZ should go for a domestic jet fleet of A321s only in the longer term. To have a fleet composed of 217 seaters with the next size down being 68-seaters seems very short-sighted to me. Routes like AKL-DUD and AKL-IVC would be unlikely ever to get improved frequencies in that scenario. Bigger, after all, is not always better.

The same issue exists on the Tasman, where already some existing and postulated routes suffer from the A320 being too large for the market. Moving to all-A321 on the Tasman seems similarly short-sighted - and for what real gain if it makes some routes less viable?

Having said that, I could see a future where the A320 disappears from the NZ fleet and is replaced by the A220 (say both the -100 and the -500, production of which is now a matter of "when", not "if", apparently). Yes, I know the argument about keeping the number of types in a fleet to the minimum. But it becomes somewhat ridiculous if it limits the airline's ability to compete effectively. In a market where frequency is king, having a range of aircraft sizes seems a no-brainer.

It's only a few years ago that NZ was offering around 5,600 seats/week to LHR, and 1,600 seats/week to FRA. The idea I'm floating is a new offering of around 1,500 seats/week to LHR and 700 seats/week to FRA - arguably quite conservative as an offering. This isn't trying to be all things to all people, but to cater to markets which are known to exist, and which are in fact served by multiple other airlines via their international hubs.

but why? NZ customers already have plenty of one-stop services to both LHR and FRA using Star partners where NZ provides the service from AKL to the partner's hub. NZ doesn't need to embark on these ULH routes on its own and it wouldn't provide anything to its customers that they don't already have. Embarking on this sort of strategy reeks of vanity over sanity.

DavidByrne wrote:

Having said that, I could see a future where the A320 disappears from the NZ fleet and is replaced by the A220 (say both the -100 and the -500, production of which is now a matter of "when", not "if", apparently). Yes, I know the argument about keeping the number of types in a fleet to the minimum. But it becomes somewhat ridiculous if it limits the airline's ability to compete effectively. In a market where frequency is king, having a range of aircraft sizes seems a no-brainer.

Compete against who? There is no competition domestically off the trunk and as discussed previously JQ isnt going to do much, and I dont envisage anyone else significant coming in. On the Tasman cosy duopoly with QF. Competition only really comes from long haul and even then as discussed previously much of the competition has been negated through alliances.

They will just do what makes sense for them, not what the market wants.

a7ala wrote:

zkncj wrote:

I'm not really sure how committed NZ is to International ex-WLG? it seems to be a after though of what ever resource is left over.

WLG International NZ lounge is pretty poor and has had very little attention over the last 20 years.

Same as CHC - will do the minimum they need to keep relevant and not allow QF to have a monopoly. Its the curse of the non-hub airports unfortunately. Everything is designed around the AKL hub and then WLG/CHC get the dregs. I note that NZ arent flying their seasonal WLG/CHC-NAN services in NS23 I presume because the hub needs the aircraft more. I hope FJ does more in both ports and offers a decent year round service (I think they are only doing 2pw at the moment).

I don't believe FJ have enough aircraft to increase flights more than 2 weekly to CHC/WLG

mrkerr7474 wrote:

a7ala wrote:

zkncj wrote:

I'm not really sure how committed NZ is to International ex-WLG? it seems to be a after though of what ever resource is left over.

WLG International NZ lounge is pretty poor and has had very little attention over the last 20 years.

Same as CHC - will do the minimum they need to keep relevant and not allow QF to have a monopoly. Its the curse of the non-hub airports unfortunately. Everything is designed around the AKL hub and then WLG/CHC get the dregs. I note that NZ arent flying their seasonal WLG/CHC-NAN services in NS23 I presume because the hub needs the aircraft more. I hope FJ does more in both ports and offers a decent year round service (I think they are only doing 2pw at the moment).

I don't believe FJ have enough aircraft to increase flights more than 2 weekly to CHC/WLG

Prior to getting the maxs they had from memory 3xB738 and 1xB737. Now they have 1xB738 and 5xB737 max 8's so two more narrowbody jets and I dont think they have opened any new narrowbody destinations they werent flying previously?

Question for someone with technical expertise re the capabilities of the A320NEO out of WLG:

Airbus technical manuals (NOT marketing material) quote the range of the A320NEO as 3,500nm with 165 pax aboard. They also show that at sea level it requires 6,400 ft of runway at its MTOW of 79 tonnes.

Given WLG has a runway length of 6,900 ft plus a little, how should we read this? Presumably, the Airbus figures provide no margins, and in practice an airline would insist on some level of margin for its ops? Would a 500ft runway length margin over Airbus's figures be sufficient? Airbus manuals suggest that for landing field length, you divide the actual required length by 0.6 to give the "real-world" figure - a margin of 33%. But landing field length requirement is a more inexact science than take-off as it depends on exactly where the aircraft touches down.

Likewise with range, and thinking specifically about WLG-PER, a distance of 2,842nm: The A320NEO's range of 3,500nm with 165 pax gives a margin of 658 nm "surplus" on a route like WLG-PER. Obviously, with headwinds westbound you can kiss goodbye to about 30min (see below)* of that at cruise speed - say 240nm range equivalent. Would the remaining 418 nm of available range be an adequate margin for holding and diversion, given the alternate for PER (BQB), is just 109nm distant?

I know this has been discussed before, but it's always been dismissed without any technical argument in my recollection. On the basis of this info, from Airbus's own technical publications, what are the real limitations of the A320NEO out of WLG? Could it operate WLG-PER with full pax load (but no freight)? Not that I'm saying it should, but could it? And could the A320 be used to provide more frequency on AKL- or CHC-PER (the long distances in a narrow fuselage notwithstanding - but noting there are many who are proposing that QF should open AKL-PER with an even narrower A220).

Obviously I'm no tech expert, but I'm wondering if someone who is more knowledgeable than I can comment?

* Back-of-the envelope: Comparing AKL-PER 7h 10m westbound, and 6h 15m eastbound, the average of both is around 6h 40m. suggests that the wind "costs" about 30 min westbound, and "saves" about 30 min eastbound

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20190422150 ... C-A320.pdf

DavidByrne wrote:

Question for someone with technical expertise re the capabilities of the A320NEO out of WLG:

Airbus technical manuals (NOT marketing material) quote the range of the A320NEO as 3,500nm with 165 pax aboard. They also show that at sea level it requires 6,400 ft of runway at its MTOW of 79 tonnes.

Given WLG has a runway length of 6,900 ft plus a little, how should we read this? Presumably, the Airbus figures provide no margins, and in practice an airline would insist on some level of margin for its ops? Would a 500ft runway length margin over Airbus's figures be sufficient? Airbus manuals suggest that for landing field length, you divide the actual required length by 0.6 to give the "real-world" figure - a margin of 33%. But landing field length requirement is a more inexact science than take-off as it depends on exactly where the aircraft touches down.

Likewise with range, and thinking specifically about WLG-PER, a distance of 2,842nm: The A320NEO's range of 3,500nm with 165 pax gives a margin of 658 nm "surplus" on a route like WLG-PER. Obviously, with headwinds westbound you can kiss goodbye to about 30min (see below)* of that at cruise speed - say 240nm range equivalent. Would the remaining 418 nm of available range be an adequate margin for holding and diversion, given the alternate for PER (BQB), is just 109nm distant?

I know this has been discussed before, but it's always been dismissed without any technical argument in my recollection. On the basis of this info, from Airbus's own technical publications, what are the real limitations of the A320NEO out of WLG? Could it operate WLG-PER with full pax load (but no freight)? Not that I'm saying it should, but could it? And could the A320 be used to provide more frequency on AKL- or CHC-PER (the long distances in a narrow fuselage notwithstanding - but noting there are many who are proposing that QF should open AKL-PER with an even narrower A220).

Obviously I'm no tech expert, but I'm wondering if someone who is more knowledgeable than I can comment?

* Back-of-the envelope: Comparing AKL-PER 7h 10m westbound, and 6h 15m eastbound, the average of both is around 6h 40m. suggests that the wind "costs" about 30 min westbound, and "saves" about 30 min eastbound

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20190422150 ... C-A320.pdf

Without getting into WLG's runway specifics, I seriously doubt the A320Neo can do any New Zealand-PER. Yes its 2835Nm GC distance, but then you have to factor winds which will probably add on +12-15% and then distance alternates which might add on another few hundred Nm (I understand mainly Learmonth (Exmouth) is used), plus another couple of % for enroute deviation. So its more like 3500-3600Nm still air distance than 2835.

Aside from that I would have thought the aircraft would have no problem MCTOW from WLG. Particularly when you factor in a consistent 5-10kts headwind on takeoff. It does bring ADL, CNS, APW and RAR into the mix for WLG.

tullamarine wrote:

NZ customers already have plenty of one-stop services to both LHR and FRA using Star partners where NZ provides the service from AKL to the partner's hub. NZ doesn't need to embark on these ULH routes on its own and it wouldn't provide anything to its customers that they don't already have. Embarking on this sort of strategy reeks of vanity over sanity.

This I don't get at all. Why start ANY new long-haul route on that basis? Specifically, why would QF start SYD-AKL-JFK when the route from SYD to JFK is already served by it with AA, its partner airline? That route is albeit a little shorter, but it includes an ULH sector of equivalent length. And is it really "vanity" for NZ to restart a destination to which it previously operated for 30+ years and for which there is an established and acknowledged significant market? And to serve it via a country in which it has extremely high brand confidence? As for not providing pax with something they don't already have, I'd argue that a through-plane service is always preferable from a pax point of view than a service where you have to change planes, change gates, change airlines midstream.

Sorry, but I need argument that's rather more sophisticated. I'm not going to die in a ditch over this, but none of the arguments advanced so far against the idea stand up IMO. Someone please tell me why QF operating SYD-AKL-JFK is a fantastic idea, but NZ operating AKL-PER-LHR is an appalling one!

a7ala wrote:

Without getting into WLG's runway specifics, I seriously doubt the A320Neo can do any New Zealand-PER. Yes its 2835Nm GC distance, but then you have to factor winds which will probably add on +12-15% and then distance alternates which might add on another few hundred Nm (I understand mainly Learmonth (Exmouth) is used), plus another couple of % for enroute deviation. So its more like 3500-3600Nm still air distance than 2835.

Since 2019, BQB has been a designated alternate for international services to PER. In my original "back-of-envelope" calculation I assumed 240 nm for wind, around 9% to your 12-15%, based on actual times on AKL-PER-AKL. Not saying that's correct, but it's not out of the ballpark. And if BQB is only 109nm from PER, then Learmonth isn't relevant any more. Or is it? And if the equivalent still-air distance is indeed 3,500 nm, then that is still within the A320NEO's capabilities (though at the limit).

DavidByrne wrote:

I'm more than a bit wary of the idea that NZ should go for a domestic jet fleet of A321s only in the longer term. To have a fleet composed of 217 seaters with the next size down being 68-seaters seems very short-sighted to me. Routes like AKL-DUD and AKL-IVC would be unlikely ever to get improved frequencies in that scenario. Bigger, after all, is not always better.

The same issue exists on the Tasman, where already some existing and postulated routes suffer from the A320 being too large for the market. Moving to all-A321 on the Tasman seems similarly short-sighted - and for what real gain if it makes some routes less viable?

Having said that, I could see a future where the A320 disappears from the NZ fleet and is replaced by the A220 (say both the -100 and the -500, production of which is now a matter of "when", not "if", apparently). Yes, I know the argument about keeping the number of types in a fleet to the minimum. But it becomes somewhat ridiculous if it limits the airline's ability to compete effectively. In a market where frequency is king, having a range of aircraft sizes seems a no-brainer.

Does AKL-DUD need more than say 3x daily 321’s? A morning, midday, evening departure would probably fit the profile of that route?

Going all a321, could give NZ a excuses to axe international ex-WLG. To focus more on International ex AKL/ZQN.

ZQN is getting busier and busier every year (excluding covid years). Slots at ZQN are getting tight at peak hours, adding a321s to the routes ex ZQN helps NZ increase capacity out of ZQN.

DavidByrne wrote:

a7ala wrote:

Without getting into WLG's runway specifics, I seriously doubt the A320Neo can do any New Zealand-PER. Yes its 2835Nm GC distance, but then you have to factor winds which will probably add on +12-15% and then distance alternates which might add on another few hundred Nm (I understand mainly Learmonth (Exmouth) is used), plus another couple of % for enroute deviation. So its more like 3500-3600Nm still air distance than 2835.

Since 2019, BQB has been a designated alternate for international services to PER. In my original "back-of-envelope" calculation I assumed 240 nm for wind, around 9% to your 12-15%, based on actual times on AKL-PER-AKL. Not saying that's correct, but it's not out of the ballpark. And if BQB is only 109nm from PER, then Learmonth isn't relevant any more. Or is it?

You cant use the schedule as a guide for headwinds. What about the days when the service doesnt run to schedule. They would be planning for around 70knots which is 15% of a 450knot cruise speed.

In terms of alternates they need one that isnt so close that it would have the same weather as PER (HLZ isnt an alternate for AKL for example). If you do a search on Airliners.net typically Exmouth is used apart from Widebodies from the east who go back to ADL.

a7ala wrote:

You cant use the schedule as a guide for headwinds. What about the days when the service doesnt run to schedule. They would be planning for around 70knots which is 15% of a 450knot cruise speed.

In terms of alternates they need one that isnt so close that it would have the same weather as PER (HLZ isnt an alternate for AKL for example). If you do a search on Airliners.net typically Exmouth is used apart from Widebodies from the east who go back to ADL.

Cheers, that's helpful. But why then would BQB have been designated as an international alternate for PER? HLZ is only 58 nm from AKL, so I take the point why that might not be a good alternate for AKL. But surely, the weather at 109 nm from AKL (think ROT or TUO) is often very different indeed to that in AKL. Or is the weather at BQB known to emulate that at PER?

zkncj wrote:

Going all a321, could give NZ a excuses to axe international ex-WLG. To focus more on International ex AKL/ZQN..

And that would be a good idea?

DavidByrne wrote:

a7ala wrote:

You cant use the schedule as a guide for headwinds. What about the days when the service doesnt run to schedule. They would be planning for around 70knots which is 15% of a 450knot cruise speed.

In terms of alternates they need one that isnt so close that it would have the same weather as PER (HLZ isnt an alternate for AKL for example). If you do a search on Airliners.net typically Exmouth is used apart from Widebodies from the east who go back to ADL.

Cheers, that's helpful. But why then would BQB have been designated as an international alternate for PER? HLZ is only 58 nm from AKL, so I take the point why that might not be a good alternate for AKL. But surely, the weather at 109 nm from AKL (think ROT or TUO) is often very different indeed to that in AKL. Or is the weather at BQB known to emulate that at PER?

Given airlines are very risk adverse when it comes to safety I would imagine having a couple of feasible alternate options would be preferable. I just reckon no airline would want to take the risk on something that is so close to the operating edge. There are better suited aircraft anyway such as the A321NeoXLR....

DavidByrne wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Going all a321, could give NZ a excuses to axe international ex-WLG. To focus more on International ex AKL/ZQN..

And that would be a good idea?

Also it doesnt make sense. Why would an all A321Neo fleet mean no WLG international services? The aircraft isnt payload restricted to BNE/SYD/MEL.

a7ala wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Going all a321, could give NZ a excuses to axe international ex-WLG. To focus more on International ex AKL/ZQN..

And that would be a good idea?

Also it doesnt make sense. Why would an all A321Neo fleet mean no WLG international services? The aircraft isnt payload restricted to BNE/SYD/MEL.

It would make zero sense to remove international services ex-WLG

mrkerr7474 wrote:

a7ala wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

And that would be a good idea?

Also it doesnt make sense. Why would an all A321Neo fleet mean no WLG international services? The aircraft isnt payload restricted to BNE/SYD/MEL.

It would make zero sense to remove international services ex-WLG

If the concern is that the market cant support the upgauge then thats complete rubbish:

- Did NZ pull out of WLG when they upgauged from B733's to A320s?
- Absence of VA means probably around 20-25% of WLG's international capacity is missing
- Cost of operating A321neo is around the same as the A320Neo - sell 30% more seats at minimal cost
- WLG's international traffic over the 10years prior to covid was growing at 4.5%pa - only takes 6 years to fill the 30% additional capacity if VA comes back and airfares dont reduce to stimuate demand

a7ala wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

Question for someone with technical expertise re the capabilities of the A320NEO out of WLG:

Airbus technical manuals (NOT marketing material) quote the range of the A320NEO as 3,500nm with 165 pax aboard. They also show that at sea level it requires 6,400 ft of runway at its MTOW of 79 tonnes.

Given WLG has a runway length of 6,900 ft plus a little, how should we read this? Presumably, the Airbus figures provide no margins, and in practice an airline would insist on some level of margin for its ops? Would a 500ft runway length margin over Airbus's figures be sufficient? Airbus manuals suggest that for landing field length, you divide the actual required length by 0.6 to give the "real-world" figure - a margin of 33%. But landing field length requirement is a more inexact science than take-off as it depends on exactly where the aircraft touches down.

Likewise with range, and thinking specifically about WLG-PER, a distance of 2,842nm: The A320NEO's range of 3,500nm with 165 pax gives a margin of 658 nm "surplus" on a route like WLG-PER. Obviously, with headwinds westbound you can kiss goodbye to about 30min (see below)* of that at cruise speed - say 240nm range equivalent. Would the remaining 418 nm of available range be an adequate margin for holding and diversion, given the alternate for PER (BQB), is just 109nm distant?

I know this has been discussed before, but it's always been dismissed without any technical argument in my recollection. On the basis of this info, from Airbus's own technical publications, what are the real limitations of the A320NEO out of WLG? Could it operate WLG-PER with full pax load (but no freight)? Not that I'm saying it should, but could it? And could the A320 be used to provide more frequency on AKL- or CHC-PER (the long distances in a narrow fuselage notwithstanding - but noting there are many who are proposing that QF should open AKL-PER with an even narrower A220).

Obviously I'm no tech expert, but I'm wondering if someone who is more knowledgeable than I can comment?

* Back-of-the envelope: Comparing AKL-PER 7h 10m westbound, and 6h 15m eastbound, the average of both is around 6h 40m. suggests that the wind "costs" about 30 min westbound, and "saves" about 30 min eastbound

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20190422150 ... C-A320.pdf

Without getting into WLG's runway specifics, I seriously doubt the A320Neo can do any New Zealand-PER. Yes its 2835Nm GC distance, but then you have to factor winds which will probably add on +12-15% and then distance alternates which might add on another few hundred Nm (I understand mainly Learmonth (Exmouth) is used), plus another couple of % for enroute deviation. So its more like 3500-3600Nm still air distance than 2835.

Aside from that I would have thought the aircraft would have no problem MCTOW from WLG. Particularly when you factor in a consistent 5-10kts headwind on takeoff. It does bring ADL, CNS, APW and RAR into the mix for WLG.

All a little academic given Air New Zealand has little interest in the Wellington market. The scheduling is a dogs breakfast and if as we saw recently an aircraft is late ex maintenance the first servicse chopped are Wellington. Christchurch also suffers but to a slightly lesser extent. Having had along involvement in the Wellington operation it has always been better served by Qantas. First with the SP then 767 and laterly the 737. If Qantas upped their game with a decent aircraft they would dominate the market. New markets ex Wellington do work and this was the case when Singapore dropped Canberra for Melbourne and introduced the A350. I know SQ at this stage have shown no interest in returning which is a little surprising in that pre Covid it was five days a week. It may be a resourcing issue. Maybe WLG-PER-SIN would work for either Singapore, Emirates or Qatar. The reality is NZ aren't the favorite of those south of Auckland.

DavidByrne wrote:

Sorry, but I need argument that's rather more sophisticated. I'm not going to die in a ditch over this, but none of the arguments advanced so far against the idea stand up IMO. Someone please tell me why QF operating SYD-AKL-JFK is a fantastic idea, but NZ operating AKL-PER-LHR is an appalling one!

Firstly, I think QF doing SYD-AKL-LAX is a deliberate spoiling tactic so customers aren't tempted to migrate to NZ in advance of Sunrise. I'm not sure it is a brilliant idea and it definitely wasn't strategic but was tactical. Despite what AJ may say, I'd expect SYD-AKL-JFK to go away once the direct services from SYD and MEL are operating. If MEL-JFK doesn't happen, maybe it could survive as MEL-AKL-JFK; who knows?

And is it really "vanity" for NZ to restart a destination to which it previously operated for 30+ years and for which there is an established and acknowledged significant market? And to serve it via a country in which it has extremely high brand confidence?

It would be restarting a route that it admitted didn't make economic sense compared with directing passengers onto partner services via hubs such as SFO or SIN. Yes, there is established demand but that demand is already well served. There is no logical indication that the market would expand any further if NZ re-entered so NZ would be competing against EK and Star partners like UA and SQ on one-stop services to Europe with no real USP apart from maybe some vague appeal to nationalism. I'm not sure anyone is scared off using EK or SQ because of an aircraft change in DXB or SIN.

You seem to think that NZ brand confidence would give it some sway in the market from Australia, which even you admit is really just PER given NZ wouldn't have any AU domestic feed. NZ is a respected airline and well-liked just as Australians like all things Kiwi (apart from their sporting teams) but I don't think Australians are seeking them out. As an airline, they are probably behind EK and SQ in Australians minds of good airlines and the lack of a link to the 2 dominant loyalty schemes with QF or VA would definitely hinder their prospects.

a7ala wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Going all a321, could give NZ a excuses to axe international ex-WLG. To focus more on International ex AKL/ZQN..

And that would be a good idea?

Also it doesnt make sense. Why would an all A321Neo fleet mean no WLG international services? The aircraft isnt payload restricted to BNE/SYD/MEL.

NZ likes to thing they are Air Auckland, it would fit perfectly in there model of Air Auckland.

If they really cared about the WLG market, they would have invested more into it e.g. aircraft they could do WLG-SYD/BNE/MEL double daily.

Before the A220 come on the market, there was the E190s that could of been a better fit.

NZ516 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

zkncj wrote:

I don’t see any more a320NEO’s being purchased, I feel any more future orders will be for a321NEO’s.

They seemed to have proved them self very well, the fact that they are now buying them for domestic shows they work well for NZ.

NZ just 10 years ago, they were flying around 133 seater 733s on domestic.

Agree, no more A320s, the operating costs if the A321 outweighs buying more A320s.

Long term I see an all A321 domestic fleet.

Not so much operating costs for the A321 but revenue potential higher than the A320. I still see a A320 having a good future long term with domestic CHC-WLG, CHC-ZQN, WLG-ZQN etc and CHC&WLG -Tasman flying.

Operating costs are pretty similar, you don’t need to fill that many more seats on the A321 vs the A320 to cover the additional costs of the A321.

I personally don’t see NZ adding anymore A320s, the ones they have now will be around for sometime, the NEOs are only 3-4 years old, the Domestic SL aircraft will be around another decade or so I would think, just the 4 older domestic non SL will leave although only 2 for now leaving.

a7ala wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

Question for someone with technical expertise re the capabilities of the A320NEO out of WLG:

Airbus technical manuals (NOT marketing material) quote the range of the A320NEO as 3,500nm with 165 pax aboard. They also show that at sea level it requires 6,400 ft of runway at its MTOW of 79 tonnes.

Given WLG has a runway length of 6,900 ft plus a little, how should we read this? Presumably, the Airbus figures provide no margins, and in practice an airline would insist on some level of margin for its ops? Would a 500ft runway length margin over Airbus's figures be sufficient? Airbus manuals suggest that for landing field length, you divide the actual required length by 0.6 to give the "real-world" figure - a margin of 33%. But landing field length requirement is a more inexact science than take-off as it depends on exactly where the aircraft touches down.

Likewise with range, and thinking specifically about WLG-PER, a distance of 2,842nm: The A320NEO's range of 3,500nm with 165 pax gives a margin of 658 nm "surplus" on a route like WLG-PER. Obviously, with headwinds westbound you can kiss goodbye to about 30min (see below)* of that at cruise speed - say 240nm range equivalent. Would the remaining 418 nm of available range be an adequate margin for holding and diversion, given the alternate for PER (BQB), is just 109nm distant?

I know this has been discussed before, but it's always been dismissed without any technical argument in my recollection. On the basis of this info, from Airbus's own technical publications, what are the real limitations of the A320NEO out of WLG? Could it operate WLG-PER with full pax load (but no freight)? Not that I'm saying it should, but could it? And could the A320 be used to provide more frequency on AKL- or CHC-PER (the long distances in a narrow fuselage notwithstanding - but noting there are many who are proposing that QF should open AKL-PER with an even narrower A220).

Obviously I'm no tech expert, but I'm wondering if someone who is more knowledgeable than I can comment?

* Back-of-the envelope: Comparing AKL-PER 7h 10m westbound, and 6h 15m eastbound, the average of both is around 6h 40m. suggests that the wind "costs" about 30 min westbound, and "saves" about 30 min eastbound

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20190422150 ... C-A320.pdf

Without getting into WLG's runway specifics, I seriously doubt the A320Neo can do any New Zealand-PER. Yes its 2835Nm GC distance, but then you have to factor winds which will probably add on +12-15% and then distance alternates which might add on another few hundred Nm (I understand mainly Learmonth (Exmouth) is used), plus another couple of % for enroute deviation. So its more like 3500-3600Nm still air distance than 2835.

Aside from that I would have thought the aircraft would have no problem MCTOW from WLG. Particularly when you factor in a consistent 5-10kts headwind on takeoff. It does bring ADL, CNS, APW and RAR into the mix for WLG.

WLG has a shorter runway than RAR, I recall hearing NZ A320s were weight restricted ex RAR to AKL, I’m not sure in what way, no freight perhaps? They also flew RAR-CHC which is further and VA flew 738s RAR-AKL. Some of that is probably due runway length and some aircraft performance, the NEO maybe better.

I have seen people say QF could run an A321LR AKL-PER, I can’t say I have seen that said for the A220, seems way to far.

zkncj wrote:

a7ala wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

And that would be a good idea?

Also it doesnt make sense. Why would an all A321Neo fleet mean no WLG international services? The aircraft isnt payload restricted to BNE/SYD/MEL.

NZ likes to thing they are Air Auckland, it would fit perfectly in there model of Air Auckland.

If they really cared about the WLG market, they would have invested more into it e.g. aircraft they could do WLG-SYD/BNE/MEL double daily.

Before the A220 come on the market, there was the E190s that could of been a better fit.

NZ may be air Auckland but you have to look at the market. Post covid frequency has further reduced which is why perhaps longer term it may make sense to upgauge to A321s to provide more capacity, I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

The reality is NZ maybe Air Auckland but where else would a fleet of E190s or A220s actually make economic sense other than the usual HBT or WLG/CHC routes where they could economically use a fleet of 15-20 aircraft?

ZK-NBT wrote:

https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/230202-keakl

KE increase AKL, 789/772.

Great to see them sustain the recovery on this route, despite NZ competition.

ZK-NBT wrote:

zkncj wrote:

a7ala wrote:

Also it doesnt make sense. Why would an all A321Neo fleet mean no WLG international services? The aircraft isnt payload restricted to BNE/SYD/MEL.

NZ likes to thing they are Air Auckland, it would fit perfectly in there model of Air Auckland.

If they really cared about the WLG market, they would have invested more into it e.g. aircraft they could do WLG-SYD/BNE/MEL double daily.

Before the A220 come on the market, there was the E190s that could of been a better fit.

NZ may be air Auckland but you have to look at the market. Post covid frequency has further reduced which is why perhaps longer term it may make sense to upgauge to A321s to provide more capacity, I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

The reality is NZ maybe Air Auckland but where else would a fleet of E190s or A220s actually make economic sense other than the usual HBT or WLG/CHC routes where they could economically use a fleet of 15-20 aircraft?

NZ are too committed to ATR's so its not going to happen, but the E190s / A220s could be used domestically too e.g AKL-NSN,IVC,DUD,PMR / WLG-CHC/DUD/ZQN etc

zkncj wrote:

a7ala wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

And that would be a good idea?

Also it doesnt make sense. Why would an all A321Neo fleet mean no WLG international services? The aircraft isnt payload restricted to BNE/SYD/MEL.

NZ likes to thing they are Air Auckland, it would fit perfectly in there model of Air Auckland.

If they really cared about the WLG market, they would have invested more into it e.g. aircraft they could do WLG-SYD/BNE/MEL double daily.

Before the A220 come on the market, there was the E190s that could of been a better fit.

I have been looking at the current comparitive purchase / lease costs between the A220 300 and the A321 neo
viewtopic.php?t=1475667#p23420115
The difference in cost per seat is huge. I suspect the the same for operating costs. Fuel costs will be much more dependent on getting the air frame to the destination, then each passenger, and the crewing cost differential is just the additional FA per 50 passengers.
Airport charges though will undoubtedly favour "right sizing"

So whilst an A220 is undoubtedly a better fit for some routes, and indeed may make other new routes actually viable, it seems to be a huge financial hurdle for relatively small airline to introduce an extra type, instead of operating their existing types in less then ideal circumstances.

Under capacity aircraft can be operated more frequently, albeit with sub optimal capacity at daily peak demands.
Over capacity aircraft disadvantage can be largely mitigated by a combination of sub optimal route frequency and discounted fare offerings.

Toenga wrote:

zkncj wrote:

a7ala wrote:

Also it doesnt make sense. Why would an all A321Neo fleet mean no WLG international services? The aircraft isnt payload restricted to BNE/SYD/MEL.

NZ likes to thing they are Air Auckland, it would fit perfectly in there model of Air Auckland.

If they really cared about the WLG market, they would have invested more into it e.g. aircraft they could do WLG-SYD/BNE/MEL double daily.

Before the A220 come on the market, there was the E190s that could of been a better fit.

I have been looking at the current comparitive purchase / lease costs between the A220 300 and the A321 neo
viewtopic.php?t=1475667#p23420115
The difference in cost per seat is huge. I suspect the the same for operating costs. Fuel costs will be much more dependent on getting the air frame to the destination, then each passenger, and the crewing cost differential is just the additional FA per 50 passengers.
Airport charges though will undoubtedly favour "right sizing"

So whilst an A220 is undoubtedly a better fit for some routes, and indeed may make other new routes actually viable, it seems to be a huge financial hurdle for relatively small airline to introduce an extra type, instead of operating their existing types in less then ideal circumstances.

Under capacity aircraft can be operated more frequently, albeit with sub optimal capacity at daily peak demands.
Over capacity aircraft disadvantage can be largely mitigated by a combination of sub optimal route frequency and discounted fare offerings.

So many variables isn’t there. I enjoy the chat here, armchair CEOs are great. The reality is it comes down to cost, it’s always slightly amusing when we need this aircraft for this route and that aircraft for that route when neither are in the fleet. Airlines are run by the accountants and are a business.

Hence NZ will end up with
787-9/10
A320/321
ATR72
Q300

Just interesting to see what replaces the Q300, that should be next in line but a way off yet. Other than that I don’t see a 77W replacement order rather just a few more 787s top up to bring the fleet to 23-24 maybe a few more, then A321s replacing A320s as leases expire or heavy HMV come up. I do see a few more A321/ATR for expansion.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Toenga wrote:

zkncj wrote:

NZ likes to thing they are Air Auckland, it would fit perfectly in there model of Air Auckland.

If they really cared about the WLG market, they would have invested more into it e.g. aircraft they could do WLG-SYD/BNE/MEL double daily.

Before the A220 come on the market, there was the E190s that could of been a better fit.

I have been looking at the current comparitive purchase / lease costs between the A220 300 and the A321 neo
viewtopic.php?t=1475667#p23420115
The difference in cost per seat is huge. I suspect the the same for operating costs. Fuel costs will be much more dependent on getting the air frame to the destination, then each passenger, and the crewing cost differential is just the additional FA per 50 passengers.
Airport charges though will undoubtedly favour "right sizing"

So whilst an A220 is undoubtedly a better fit for some routes, and indeed may make other new routes actually viable, it seems to be a huge financial hurdle for relatively small airline to introduce an extra type, instead of operating their existing types in less then ideal circumstances.

Under capacity aircraft can be operated more frequently, albeit with sub optimal capacity at daily peak demands.
Over capacity aircraft disadvantage can be largely mitigated by a combination of sub optimal route frequency and discounted fare offerings.

So many variables isn’t there. I enjoy the chat here, armchair CEOs are great. The reality is it comes down to cost, it’s always slightly amusing when we need this aircraft for this route and that aircraft for that route when neither are in the fleet. Airlines are run by the accountants and are a business.

Hence NZ will end up with
787-9/10
A320/321
ATR72
Q300

Just interesting to see what replaces the Q300, that should be next in line but a way off yet. Other than that I don’t see a 77W replacement order rather just a few more 787s top up to bring the fleet to 23-24 maybe a few more, then A321s replacing A320s as leases expire or heavy HMV come up. I do see a few more A321/ATR for expansion.

With the apparent success of the A321neo I suspect that there will be no more 320s beyond any already ordered.

Toenga wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Toenga wrote:

I have been looking at the current comparitive purchase / lease costs between the A220 300 and the A321 neo
viewtopic.php?t=1475667#p23420115
The difference in cost per seat is huge. I suspect the the same for operating costs. Fuel costs will be much more dependent on getting the air frame to the destination, then each passenger, and the crewing cost differential is just the additional FA per 50 passengers.
Airport charges though will undoubtedly favour "right sizing"

So whilst an A220 is undoubtedly a better fit for some routes, and indeed may make other new routes actually viable, it seems to be a huge financial hurdle for relatively small airline to introduce an extra type, instead of operating their existing types in less then ideal circumstances.

Under capacity aircraft can be operated more frequently, albeit with sub optimal capacity at daily peak demands.
Over capacity aircraft disadvantage can be largely mitigated by a combination of sub optimal route frequency and discounted fare offerings.

So many variables isn’t there. I enjoy the chat here, armchair CEOs are great. The reality is it comes down to cost, it’s always slightly amusing when we need this aircraft for this route and that aircraft for that route when neither are in the fleet. Airlines are run by the accountants and are a business.

Hence NZ will end up with
787-9/10
A320/321
ATR72
Q300

Just interesting to see what replaces the Q300, that should be next in line but a way off yet. Other than that I don’t see a 77W replacement order rather just a few more 787s top up to bring the fleet to 23-24 maybe a few more, then A321s replacing A320s as leases expire or heavy HMV come up. I do see a few more A321/ATR for expansion.

With the apparent success of the A321neo I suspect that there will be no more 320s beyond any already ordered.

I agree, that’s what I have been saying. I don’t know anything, not in the airline at all.

I mean all the ex AKL domestic routes could go A321 tomorrow, only IVC might have a ? and again that is a single route. Possibly even all WLG/CHC-ZQN services could. Demand will continue to grow in the coming years so by the time the A320s need replacement there won’t be any ?

Same on the Tasman and Pacific, WLG/CHC might end up with less flights but a larger aircraft.

DavidByrne wrote:

This I don't get at all. Why start ANY new long-haul route on that basis? Specifically, why would QF start SYD-AKL-JFK when the route from SYD to JFK is already served by it with AA, its partner airline? That route is albeit a little shorter, but it includes an ULH sector of equivalent length. And is it really "vanity" for NZ to restart a destination to which it previously operated for 30+ years and for which there is an established and acknowledged significant market? And to serve it via a country in which it has extremely high brand confidence? As for not providing pax with something they don't already have, I'd argue that a through-plane service is always preferable from a pax point of view than a service where you have to change planes, change gates, change airlines midstream.

Sorry, but I need argument that's rather more sophisticated. I'm not going to die in a ditch over this, but none of the arguments advanced so far against the idea stand up IMO. Someone please tell me why QF operating SYD-AKL-JFK is a fantastic idea, but NZ operating AKL-PER-LHR is an appalling one!

I was saying the same thing about this about six months ago
Where I was suggesting NZ copy QF strategy and start a one stop service to LHR eg AKL-PER-LHR in response to QF starting SYD-AKL-JFK. But it was firmly rejected and that it could never work etc. Without any particular reason why.

NZ516 wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

. Someone please tell me why QF operating SYD-AKL-JFK is a fantastic idea, but NZ operating AKL-PER-LHR is an appalling one!

I was saying the same thing about this about six months ago
Where I was suggesting NZ copy QF strategy and start a one stop service to LHR eg AKL-PER-LHR in response to QF starting SYD-AKL-JFK. But it was firmly rejected and that it could never work etc. Without any particular reason why.

I don't disagree except I don't see this as a retaliatory measure, but as a strategic move for NZ. I think PER could also be the way to reach deeper into Asia (eg India) at less risk than operating nonstop. Or even Africa, though I'm not confident that South Africa is a good long-term play.

NZ516 wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

This I don't get at all. Why start ANY new long-haul route on that basis? Specifically, why would QF start SYD-AKL-JFK when the route from SYD to JFK is already served by it with AA, its partner airline? That route is albeit a little shorter, but it includes an ULH sector of equivalent length. And is it really "vanity" for NZ to restart a destination to which it previously operated for 30+ years and for which there is an established and acknowledged significant market? And to serve it via a country in which it has extremely high brand confidence? As for not providing pax with something they don't already have, I'd argue that a through-plane service is always preferable from a pax point of view than a service where you have to change planes, change gates, change airlines midstream.

Sorry, but I need argument that's rather more sophisticated. I'm not going to die in a ditch over this, but none of the arguments advanced so far against the idea stand up IMO. Someone please tell me why QF operating SYD-AKL-JFK is a fantastic idea, but NZ operating AKL-PER-LHR is an appalling one!

I was saying the same thing about this about six months ago
Where I was suggesting NZ copy QF strategy and start a one stop service to LHR eg AKL-PER-LHR in response to QF starting SYD-AKL-JFK. But it was firmly rejected and that it could never work etc. Without any particular reason why.

QF use a very premium heavy config on their 789 to achieve PER-LHR. All QF 789s are consequently in the same low economy config.

Unless NZ were willing to have a sub fleet of a specific config then the route wouldn’t be achievable.
That’s without taking any commercial factors in to account.

DavidByrne wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

. Someone please tell me why QF operating SYD-AKL-JFK is a fantastic idea, but NZ operating AKL-PER-LHR is an appalling one!

I was saying the same thing about this about six months ago
Where I was suggesting NZ copy QF strategy and start a one stop service to LHR eg AKL-PER-LHR in response to QF starting SYD-AKL-JFK. But it was firmly rejected and that it could never work etc. Without any particular reason why.

I don't disagree except I don't see this as a retaliatory measure, but as a strategic move for NZ. I think PER could also be the way to reach deeper into Asia (eg India) at less risk than operating nonstop. Or even Africa, though I'm not confident that South Africa is a good long-term play.

A 789 could easily do AKL-JNB or AKL-DEL without a stop in PER. Both routes are significantly shorter than AKL-JFK though JNB would probably be a bit longer than mapping suggests to avoid going too far south. Adding an unnecessary stop would be a mistake; you'd just be trading away your route advantage and inviting comparisons with competing services from SQ or QF.

tullamarine wrote:

A 789 could easily do AKL-JNB.

Wouldn't JNB being hot and high impact performance/viability?

Similar issues at the likes of MEX and DEN.

DavidByrne wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

. Someone please tell me why QF operating SYD-AKL-JFK is a fantastic idea, but NZ operating AKL-PER-LHR is an appalling one!

I was saying the same thing about this about six months ago
Where I was suggesting NZ copy QF strategy and start a one stop service to LHR eg AKL-PER-LHR in response to QF starting SYD-AKL-JFK. But it was firmly rejected and that it could never work etc. Without any particular reason why.

I don't disagree except I don't see this as a retaliatory measure, but as a strategic move for NZ. I think PER could also be the way to reach deeper into Asia (eg India) at less risk than operating nonstop. Or even Africa, though I'm not confident that South Africa is a good long-term play.

NZ have said no more one stops., QF still have a few, up till Covid they served JFK via LAX with feed from MEL/SYD/BNE, they no longer see that as viable, I didn’t expect them to restart JFK till sunrise , they are definitely worried about NZ taking pax, I am in the camp that says AKL-JFK won’t hang around once SYD/MEL-JFK start.

For NZ why would they restart LHR? That is what I don’t get, it is an expensive route to operate period, I don’t think it matters where they stop that will change that.

Obzerva wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

This I don't get at all. Why start ANY new long-haul route on that basis? Specifically, why would QF start SYD-AKL-JFK when the route from SYD to JFK is already served by it with AA, its partner airline? That route is albeit a little shorter, but it includes an ULH sector of equivalent length. And is it really "vanity" for NZ to restart a destination to which it previously operated for 30+ years and for which there is an established and acknowledged significant market? And to serve it via a country in which it has extremely high brand confidence? As for not providing pax with something they don't already have, I'd argue that a through-plane service is always preferable from a pax point of view than a service where you have to change planes, change gates, change airlines midstream.

Sorry, but I need argument that's rather more sophisticated. I'm not going to die in a ditch over this, but none of the arguments advanced so far against the idea stand up IMO. Someone please tell me why QF operating SYD-AKL-JFK is a fantastic idea, but NZ operating AKL-PER-LHR is an appalling one!

I was saying the same thing about this about six months ago
Where I was suggesting NZ copy QF strategy and start a one stop service to LHR eg AKL-PER-LHR in response to QF starting SYD-AKL-JFK. But it was firmly rejected and that it could never work etc. Without any particular reason why.

QF use a very premium heavy config on their 789 to achieve PER-LHR. All QF 789s are consequently in the same low economy config.

Unless NZ were willing to have a sub fleet of a specific config then the route wouldn’t be achievable.
That’s without taking any commercial factors in to account.

FYI NZ are getting a 227 seat 789 for JFK/ORD.

ZK-NBT wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

I was saying the same thing about this about six months ago
Where I was suggesting NZ copy QF strategy and start a one stop service to LHR eg AKL-PER-LHR in response to QF starting SYD-AKL-JFK. But it was firmly rejected and that it could never work etc. Without any particular reason why.

I don't disagree except I don't see this as a retaliatory measure, but as a strategic move for NZ. I think PER could also be the way to reach deeper into Asia (eg India) at less risk than operating nonstop. Or even Africa, though I'm not confident that South Africa is a good long-term play.

NZ have said no more one stops., QF still have a few, up till Covid they served JFK via LAX with feed from MEL/SYD/BNE, they no longer see that as viable, I didn’t expect them to restart JFK till sunrise , they are definitely worried about NZ taking pax, I am in the camp that says AKL-JFK won’t hang around once SYD/MEL-JFK start.

For NZ why would they restart LHR? That is what I don’t get, it is an expensive route to operate period, I don’t think it matters where they stop that will change that.

QF’s AKL-JFK is a different beast to NZ starting PER-LHR. Effectively, QF will have 1-stop feed from BNE/SYD/MEL and maybe PER if that is launched, plus from JQ’s domestic NZ services, plus QFs non negligible amount of NZ based FFs, plus a bit of local NYC feed from AA frequent flyers. They also have a crew base in LHR and AKL which decreases costs for both flights.

NZ would (with its current network) only have feed from AKL, PER and NZ FFs in both cities.

QF just has a way larger pool of potential passengers to draw from, NZ is at a complete disadvantage. The only way for it to work is if it had domestic feed from VA but we know that isn’t happening.

Its a miracle that 5th freedom flights still exist in this day and age of bean counting. ANZ decided it wasn’t for them, so be it. It’s a head scratcher they were allowed to basically have monopolies with the CX and SQ deals but its the state of things and those agreements give them enough coverage to be happy with the state of things.

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

NZ would (with its current network) only have feed from AKL, PER and NZ FFs in both cities.

It would be interesting if NZ launched WLG-PER and CHC-PER with 321NEOs - that could give any PER-LHR flight a bit more feed. But I can't see LHR returning for NZ unless non-stop from AKL in 10-15 years.

ZK-NBT wrote:

For NZ why would they restart LHR? That is what I don’t get, it is an expensive route to operate period, I don’t think it matters where they stop that will change that.

LON probably has more Kiwis oversess than anywhere else, other than two or three Australian cities. The UK is a top 10 trading partner for New Zealand, and a new NZ-UK free trade agreement was concluded recently. There are a range of other reasons why NZ may want to serve LON.

The whole one-stop era has stopped for NZ, IMO, for various reasons - but this doesn't mean NZ could not return to LHR 10 years down the line non-stop from AKL in a low density 787/350/777 layout - with the rate at which aircraft tech and performance are improving. Such a service could command a good premium.

planemanofnz wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

NZ would (with its current network) only have feed from AKL, PER and NZ FFs in both cities.

It would be interesting if NZ launched WLG-PER and CHC-PER with 321NEOs - that could give any PER-LHR flight a bit more feed. But I can't see LHR returning for NZ unless non-stop from AKL in 10-15 years.

Air Auckland..CHC-PER maybe but WLG not a chance. If Qantas were smart a service out of CHC or WLG (but less likely) to connect with PER-LHR would be a smart move.

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

I don't disagree except I don't see this as a retaliatory measure, but as a strategic move for NZ. I think PER could also be the way to reach deeper into Asia (eg India) at less risk than operating nonstop. Or even Africa, though I'm not confident that South Africa is a good long-term play.

NZ have said no more one stops., QF still have a few, up till Covid they served JFK via LAX with feed from MEL/SYD/BNE, they no longer see that as viable, I didn’t expect them to restart JFK till sunrise , they are definitely worried about NZ taking pax, I am in the camp that says AKL-JFK won’t hang around once SYD/MEL-JFK start.

For NZ why would they restart LHR? That is what I don’t get, it is an expensive route to operate period, I don’t think it matters where they stop that will change that.

QF’s AKL-JFK is a different beast to NZ starting PER-LHR. Effectively, QF will have 1-stop feed from BNE/SYD/MEL and maybe PER if that is launched, plus from JQ’s domestic NZ services, plus QFs non negligible amount of NZ based FFs, plus a bit of local NYC feed from AA frequent flyers. They also have a crew base in LHR and AKL which decreases costs for both flights.

NZ would (with its current network) only have feed from AKL, PER and NZ FFs in both cities.

QF just has a way larger pool of potential passengers to draw from, NZ is at a complete disadvantage. The only way for it to work is if it had domestic feed from VA but we know that isn’t happening.

Its a miracle that 5th freedom flights still exist in this day and age of bean counting. ANZ decided it wasn’t for them, so be it. It’s a head scratcher they were allowed to basically have monopolies with the CX and SQ deals but its the state of things and those agreements give them enough coverage to be happy with the state of things.

Agreed. Oz-AKL-US works well for NZ, anything else they are at more of a disadvantage, QF/AA can hub through AKL to North America, not that it makes to much sense to do so these days bar JFK which is the exception.

Several airlines struggled to make AKL work effectively year round so for the likes of CX/SQ a JV with NZ suited them as well.

planemanofnz wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

NZ would (with its current network) only have feed from AKL, PER and NZ FFs in both cities.

It would be interesting if NZ launched WLG-PER and CHC-PER with 321NEOs - that could give any PER-LHR flight a bit more feed. But I can't see LHR returning for NZ unless non-stop from AKL in 10-15 years.

WLG-PER just can’t happen, it would need a wide body off that runway which won’t happen.

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

For NZ why would they restart LHR? That is what I don’t get, it is an expensive route to operate period, I don’t think it matters where they stop that will change that.

LON probably has more Kiwis oversess than anywhere else, other than two or three Australian cities. The UK is a top 10 trading partner for New Zealand, and a new NZ-UK free trade agreement was concluded recently. There are a range of other reasons why NZ may want to serve LON.

The whole one-stop era has stopped for NZ, IMO, for various reasons - but this doesn't mean NZ could not return to LHR 10 years down the line non-stop from AKL in a low density 787/350/777 layout - with the rate at which aircraft tech and performance are improving. Such a service could command a good premium.

NZ generally focus on the inbound market, not entirely of course. I’m not personally convinced that NZ would be interested in AKL-LHR non stop. They could have leased their slots out.

A range of other reasons they may want to serve LHR yet they pulled out and slots sold, crew base closed. They still have a ticket office.

GW54 wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

NZ would (with its current network) only have feed from AKL, PER and NZ FFs in both cities.

It would be interesting if NZ launched WLG-PER and CHC-PER with 321NEOs - that could give any PER-LHR flight a bit more feed. But I can't see LHR returning for NZ unless non-stop from AKL in 10-15 years.

Air Auckland..CHC-PER maybe but WLG not a chance. If Qantas were smart a service out of CHC or WLG (but less likely) to connect with PER-LHR would be a smart move.

Air Auckland, we can keep on that all we like, NZ is a small country that is potentially overserved by air, but the roads and land don’t make it a quick journey to get around so air travel is required more so than maybe normal for a country that size.

Based off NZ previous slots for the LAX service, a change to a stop in PER would have meant a schedule something like

AKL 2100 PER 2310
PER 0050 LHR 1115
LHR 1615 PER 1715
AKL 1845 AKL 0545

So AKL-PER becomes evening, this is assuming a second daily AKL-PER which it would be, you don’t have a daylight PER-AKL still to connect to the US and to connect WLG/CHC you would have several hours to connect both directions say those flights arriving 2000 leaving 2100 ex PER.

A code 3 789 needed wouldn’t need feed anyway, it would be full from AKL with a few pax getting on and off in PER. It seems a hard sell, better to have a service through a Star hub which then makes it pointless as Star carriers already serve the market.