ZK-NBT wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

They rehash the same articles, so does Alan Joyce.

BNE a 789 base? You mean a crew base? They had 4 789s there pre covid but those haven’t returned as they are required elsewhere.

I could see AKL-JFK remain possibly if QF only run SYD-JFK and leave The rest via AKL.

Maybe. But maybe a 236 seat plane won't be that hard to sell with AU connections and AKL originating traffic. Not to mention the large AA FF base in NYC. Time will tell.

QF don’t have many of the said 236 seat planes, they will use them where they get the highest yeids which may not be ex AKL once they are running non stop.

I'm talking about the 236 seat 787, not the 238 seat A350. Project Sunrise will be premium flights and priced accordingly.

NTLDaz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

Maybe. But maybe a 236 seat plane won't be that hard to sell with AU connections and AKL originating traffic. Not to mention the large AA FF base in NYC. Time will tell.

QF don’t have many of the said 236 seat planes, they will use them where they get the highest yeids which may not be ex AKL once they are running non stop.

I'm talking about the 236 seat 787, not the 238 seat A350. Project Sunrise will be premium flights and priced accordingly.

I know, that is what I said, they will use the 236 seat 789s where they get the highest yeild once they are running non stop from SYD with the A350, AKL maybe not have the highest yields then for a 789. We will see.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

QF don’t have many of the said 236 seat planes, they will use them where they get the highest yeids which may not be ex AKL once they are running non stop.

I'm talking about the 236 seat 787, not the 238 seat A350. Project Sunrise will be premium flights and priced accordingly.

I know, that is what I said, they will use the 236 seat 789s where they get the highest yeild once they are running non stop from SYD with the A350, AKL maybe not have the highest yields then for a 789. We will see.

That's why I said maybe. If it stacks up QF will keep it. If it doesn't they won't. Competition to NZ would be a good thing for the Kiwi consumer.

Sorry for getting confused - given when you said ' when they're running nonstop '.

NTLDaz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

I'm talking about the 236 seat 787, not the 238 seat A350. Project Sunrise will be premium flights and priced accordingly.

I know, that is what I said, they will use the 236 seat 789s where they get the highest yeild once they are running non stop from SYD with the A350, AKL maybe not have the highest yields then for a 789. We will see.

That's why I said maybe. If it stacks up QF will keep it. If it doesn't they won't. Competition to NZ would be a good thing for the Kiwi consumer.

Sorry for getting confused - given when you said ' when they're running nonstop '.

Yes sorry I meant non stop from SYD. I see the confusion.

aerohottie wrote:

I can see this being the case for a few routes. JFK, ORD, MIA, DFW, maybe even CLT. AKL being 1,000nm further east and providing international to international connections just makes sense for anything that doesn't operate nonstop, or with limited nonstop from anywhere other than SYD.

They're still looking at BNE-ORD as per Executive Traveller this week. East Coast/JFK cannot be served non-stop from anywhere in Australia (hence why AKL made sense) - but ORD can (from BNE). I think they'll prefer to go with BNE for places ORD and westwards and claim the 'non-stop to Australia' label in doing so - even if it means a bit of a messier transit experience.

NTLDaz wrote:

... a 236 seat plane won't be that hard to sell with AU connections and AKL originating traffic. Not to mention the large AA FF base in NYC.

Totally agree.

ZK-NBT wrote:

QF don’t have many of the said 236 seat planes, they will use them where they get the highest yeids which may not be ex AKL once they are running non stop.

Don't forget though that there's always the possibility that AKL-JFK could switch to AA metal down the line, should QF have fleet constraints. The benefit of the JV.

Air NZ A321-271NX ZK-OYC (msn 11096) presently on it's first flight as D-AVZA.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/d-avza

Also Air NZ 777-319ER ZK-OKR is due back from SIN tomorrow night.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zk-okr

PA515

Air NZ have made some reductions this week from the previous week. CHC Tasman schedule from 32 weekly to 23 weekly most of the afternoon turns have finished. The only ones remaining are CHC - OOL two weekly service.
WLG has 19 weekly daily SYD, BNE and 5 weekly MEL.
Some of the international 320s are doing increased domestic flying.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

QF don’t have many of the said 236 seat planes, they will use them where they get the highest yeids which may not be ex AKL once they are running non stop.

I'm talking about the 236 seat 787, not the 238 seat A350. Project Sunrise will be premium flights and priced accordingly.

I know, that is what I said, they will use the 236 seat 789s where they get the highest yeild once they are running non stop from SYD with the A350, AKL maybe not have the highest yields then for a 789. We will see.

Likely that QF will want maximum SYD O&D when they start SYD-JFK, with minimal to no connection traffic. This will likely increase the chances of MEL(or BNE)-AKL-JFK being kept for connections from all other cities. MEL-JFK will likely to be down lower in priority for at least 18 months (i.e SYD-LHR, MEL-LHR) for Sunrise deployment.

SCFlyer wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

I'm talking about the 236 seat 787, not the 238 seat A350. Project Sunrise will be premium flights and priced accordingly.

I know, that is what I said, they will use the 236 seat 789s where they get the highest yeild once they are running non stop from SYD with the A350, AKL maybe not have the highest yields then for a 789. We will see.

Likely that QF will want maximum SYD O&D when they start SYD-JFK, with minimal to no connection traffic. This will likely increase the chances of MEL(or BNE)-AKL-JFK being kept for connections from all other cities. MEL-JFK will likely to be down lower in priority for at least 18 months (i.e SYD-LHR, MEL-LHR) for Sunrise deployment.

Probably drifting from the NZ thread, but the four routes, SYD/MEL-LHR/JFK I see as being the most important routes in Sunrise so it wouldn't surprise me to see them happen as soon as the first 8 deliveries allow.

Ive learned in the Aus thread that BNE isnt a 789 base anymore, but I still think it will have the biggest chance of taking the AU leg of an AKL-JFK flight.

planemanofnz wrote:

aerohottie wrote:

I can see this being the case for a few routes. JFK, ORD, MIA, DFW, maybe even CLT. AKL being 1,000nm further east and providing international to international connections just makes sense for anything that doesn't operate nonstop, or with limited nonstop from anywhere other than SYD.

They're still looking at BNE-ORD as per Executive Traveller this week. East Coast/JFK cannot be served non-stop from anywhere in Australia (hence why AKL made sense) - but ORD can (from BNE). I think they'll prefer to go with BNE for places ORD and westwards and claim the 'non-stop to Australia' label in doing so - even if it means a bit of a messier transit experience.

I think QF would rather have BNE-ORD as a DFW substitute as well anyway, seeing as BNE only has LAX now. It's still a major AA hub

planemanofnz wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

... a 236 seat plane won't be that hard to sell with AU connections and AKL originating traffic. Not to mention the large AA FF base in NYC.

Totally agree.

I was doing a dummy booking the other day on AAs website (even Google Flights brought up the same) from AKL to EDI, and it interestingly gave the best route of AKL-JFK (QF) - LHR-EDI (BA) and same on the return. That was for this coming November with connection times in all airports less than 2.5hrs. As mentioned above with AA FF base being large, you would think that would also help fill 236 seats a day or even a few times a week

I could see QF keeping the AKL-JFK flight to utilize connections from all other airports ex Aus that don't have direct flights as well as pull in as many NZ connections as well as from the other end. Yes it might be a long journey but theoretically folk can do Europe - NYC (if they feel like a NYC stop) - AKL. Unlikely that many travellers would take that option coming down under but there is another possibility

I also agree, I hope QF / JQ look to enhance their offering on the NZ domestic market to add better competition

The discussion about Business Class on short-haul narrowbody services is really depressing.

Those of you who remember my old incarnation may well recall whom my “insider” was, and while he is long gone, I’m not going to name him here.

But I was told in very clear terms that the Express Model was the predetermined outcome of a review process, and the data actually had to be selectively presented to support it.

Load factors in A320 international business class were around 70% in terms of paid sales - so 5 of the 8 seats. The other 3 tended to go on upgrades, which themselves are a profit centre.

Both Loyalty and Long-haul lobbied for the retention of A320 Business. At the time Air NZ had more frequent flyer members in Australia than Virgin Blue, and the loss of Business Class on Cairns-Auckland was disastrous in terms of both Australia-USA and USA-Australia sales, while the Adelaide service was crippled by the loss of outbound passengers to LAX who ended up preferring to connect Business-Business at Sydney on Qantas or even Virgin.

International short-haul Express got up because domestic wanted an All-Economy fleet and because the figures were fudged to conceal two significant issues, namely:

1. The effect of surrendering long-haul Business Class sales in both directions between Australia and the USA, and,

2. If Air NZ was selling an average of 5 Business seats per A320, at a median cost (conservatively) of double the cheapest discount economy, they needed to sell an extra 10 Economy seats to maintain previous earnings. But Economy loads were already around 90%, so the they needed to sell considerably more Economy seats per flight, which were only likely to be sold by deep discounting and never did happen.

It was a terrible idea. And what is frustrating is that the people responsible are long gone, but their dishonest spin has become accepted fact.

Ultimately, Air NZ International has become a hybrid of Air Calin and Jetstar.

Narrowbody services are Economy come what may. And long-haul is capped at single sector, with someone else flying passengers onward to their destination.

It’s a model. But it’s a rubbish model, a model suitable for a tinpot airline with just a couple of widebodies.

The dogma from the old guard who idealised LCC models needs to be discarded. No other serious end-of-the line airline has made dumb decisions like all-economy international Business Class or terminating services half-way to Europe.

It needs to stop.

Koruman23 wrote:

The discussion about Business Class on short-haul narrowbody services is really depressing.

Those of you who remember my old incarnation may well recall whom my “insider” was, and while he is long gone, I’m not going to name him here.

But I was told in very clear terms that the Express Model was the predetermined outcome of a review process, and the data actually had to be selectively presented to support it.

Load factors in A320 international business class were around 70% in terms of paid sales - so 5 of the 8 seats. The other 3 tended to go on upgrades, which themselves are a profit centre.

Both Loyalty and Long-haul lobbied for the retention of A320 Business. At the time Air NZ had more frequent flyer members in Australia than Virgin Blue, and the loss of Business Class on Cairns-Auckland was disastrous in terms of both Australia-USA and USA-Australia sales, while the Adelaide service was crippled by the loss of outbound passengers to LAX who ended up preferring to connect Business-Business at Sydney on Qantas or even Virgin.

International short-haul Express got up because domestic wanted an All-Economy fleet and because the figures were fudged to conceal two significant issues, namely:

1. The effect of surrendering long-haul Business Class sales in both directions between Australia and the USA, and,

2. If Air NZ was selling an average of 5 Business seats per A320, at a median cost (conservatively) of double the cheapest discount economy, they needed to sell an extra 10 Economy seats to maintain previous earnings. But Economy loads were already around 90%, so the they needed to sell considerably more Economy seats per flight, which were only likely to be sold by deep discounting and never did happen.

It was a terrible idea. And what is frustrating is that the people responsible are long gone, but their dishonest spin has become accepted fact.

So the "terrible" express model that was introduced under Rob Fyfe, has survived the very commercial and profitable Luxon era, and persists under Foran.
I can't see any changes just yet, until post covid travel patterns become more settled. Patterns that may well settle to favouring introducing some premium seats on some narrow bodies. A321s could be as a first step, be fitted with 8 "business class" seats.
I am sure though this will already be under constant review.

Toenga wrote:

Koruman23 wrote:

The discussion about Business Class on short-haul narrowbody services is really depressing.

Those of you who remember my old incarnation may well recall whom my “insider” was, and while he is long gone, I’m not going to name him here.

But I was told in very clear terms that the Express Model was the predetermined outcome of a review process, and the data actually had to be selectively presented to support it.

Load factors in A320 international business class were around 70% in terms of paid sales - so 5 of the 8 seats. The other 3 tended to go on upgrades, which themselves are a profit centre.

Both Loyalty and Long-haul lobbied for the retention of A320 Business. At the time Air NZ had more frequent flyer members in Australia than Virgin Blue, and the loss of Business Class on Cairns-Auckland was disastrous in terms of both Australia-USA and USA-Australia sales, while the Adelaide service was crippled by the loss of outbound passengers to LAX who ended up preferring to connect Business-Business at Sydney on Qantas or even Virgin.

International short-haul Express got up because domestic wanted an All-Economy fleet and because the figures were fudged to conceal two significant issues, namely:

1. The effect of surrendering long-haul Business Class sales in both directions between Australia and the USA, and,

2. If Air NZ was selling an average of 5 Business seats per A320, at a median cost (conservatively) of double the cheapest discount economy, they needed to sell an extra 10 Economy seats to maintain previous earnings. But Economy loads were already around 90%, so the they needed to sell considerably more Economy seats per flight, which were only likely to be sold by deep discounting and never did happen.

It was a terrible idea. And what is frustrating is that the people responsible are long gone, but their dishonest spin has become accepted fact.

So the "terrible" express model that was introduced under Rob Fyfe, has survived the very commercial and profitable Luxon era, and persists under Foran.
I can't see any changes just yet, until post covid travel patterns become more settled. Patterns that may well settle to favouring introducing some premium seats on some narrow bodies. A321s could be as a first step, be fitted with 8 "business class" seats.
I am sure though this will already be under constant review.

Express was a Ralph Norris model. Rob Fyfe was hired as CTO to implement it, but Ralph was the CEO.
Let me reword it for accuracy...
The "terrible" express model that was introduced under Ralph Norris, but implemented by Rob Fyfe, has survived the very conservative, no-investment, short-sighted, bleed-the-asset type reign of Luxon, and hopefully will change under Foran, who previously ran the world's largest low-cost retailer.

Koruman23 wrote:

The discussion about Business Class on short-haul narrowbody services is really depressing.

Those of you who remember my old incarnation may well recall whom my “insider” was, and while he is long gone, I’m not going to name him here.

But I was told in very clear terms that the Express Model was the predetermined outcome of a review process, and the data actually had to be selectively presented to support it.

Load factors in A320 international business class were around 70% in terms of paid sales - so 5 of the 8 seats. The other 3 tended to go on upgrades, which themselves are a profit centre.

Both Loyalty and Long-haul lobbied for the retention of A320 Business. At the time Air NZ had more frequent flyer members in Australia than Virgin Blue, and the loss of Business Class on Cairns-Auckland was disastrous in terms of both Australia-USA and USA-Australia sales, while the Adelaide service was crippled by the loss of outbound passengers to LAX who ended up preferring to connect Business-Business at Sydney on Qantas or even Virgin.

International short-haul Express got up because domestic wanted an All-Economy fleet and because the figures were fudged to conceal two significant issues, namely:

1. The effect of surrendering long-haul Business Class sales in both directions between Australia and the USA, and,

2. If Air NZ was selling an average of 5 Business seats per A320, at a median cost (conservatively) of double the cheapest discount economy, they needed to sell an extra 10 Economy seats to maintain previous earnings. But Economy loads were already around 90%, so the they needed to sell considerably more Economy seats per flight, which were only likely to be sold by deep discounting and never did happen.

It was a terrible idea. And what is frustrating is that the people responsible are long gone, but their dishonest spin has become accepted fact.

Without identifying myself and the role I had at the time. This post from Koruman is 100% factually correct

aerohottie wrote:

... The "terrible" express model that was introduced under Ralph Norris, but implemented by Rob Fyfe, has survived

But will it continue to survive and thrive into the future? It was developed in a different era - multiple factors have changed, such as NZ's greater focus to target Australia-US traffic (including premium traffic within this corridor).

planemanofnz wrote:

aerohottie wrote:

... The "terrible" express model that was introduced under Ralph Norris, but implemented by Rob Fyfe, has survived

But will it continue to survive and thrive into the future? It was developed in a different era - multiple factors have changed, such as NZ's greater focus to target Australia-US traffic (including premium traffic within this corridor).

Yeah very true.
I certainly hope it is being re-evaluated, particularly with the more premium 787's coming into the fleet.

aerohottie wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

aerohottie wrote:

... The "terrible" express model that was introduced under Ralph Norris, but implemented by Rob Fyfe, has survived

But will it continue to survive and thrive into the future? It was developed in a different era - multiple factors have changed, such as NZ's greater focus to target Australia-US traffic (including premium traffic within this corridor).

Yeah very true.
I certainly hope it is being re-evaluated, particularly with the more premium 787's coming into the fleet.

And I maintain that they could make 8 seats work on NB fleet which you do hope is in constant review. Times have changed even when I was with the airline 12 years ago. If they feel the need, they can keep the seats to suit option to an extent, just remove works deluxe as this would become the new business class option

The annoying thing about Domestic prevailing and getting Business Class removed from the A320 fleet against the wishes of International and Loyalty - and the actual DATA - was that the A320 fleet was meant to be International’s anyway - with Domestic utilising 733’s.

The whole charade was purely part of Domestic taking over the A320 fleet through the back door, and a fairy tale about short-haul International sales was used to facilitate it.

What is truly terrifying is that that lie has now been blindly accepted as facts by incoming management teams, with the result that the narrowbody fleet is no longer fit for international purpose.

And worse, the same lies about optimising Economy fares saw the first aircraft of the 789 fleet configured in a stupid economy-heavy configuration which would massively compromise profits were the airline not still actively in “reduce capacity, be anti-competitive and price-gouge your monopolies” mode.

PA515 wrote:

Air NZ A321-271NX ZK-OYC (msn 11096) presently on it's first flight as D-AVZA.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/d-avza

Also Air NZ 777-319ER ZK-OKR is due back from SIN tomorrow night.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zk-okr

PA515

Regarding OKR flying from SIN to AKL they could have flown it back with passengers as QF use to do that when an aircraft had completed maintenance. You need to get cabin crew positioned for it of course. Looks like the first revenue service for OKR is NZ103 AKL - SYD at 0900 tomorrow.

And regarding OYC it will be very welcome addition to the domestic fleet as things have been very tight of late in the schedules.

Koruman23 wrote:

The annoying thing about Domestic prevailing and getting Business Class removed from the A320 fleet against the wishes of International and Loyalty - and the actual DATA - was that the A320 fleet was meant to be International’s anyway - with Domestic utilising 733’s.

The whole charade was purely part of Domestic taking over the A320 fleet through the back door, and a fairy tale about short-haul International sales was used to facilitate it.

What is truly terrifying is that that lie has now been blindly accepted as facts by incoming management teams, with the result that the narrowbody fleet is no longer fit for international purpose.

And worse, the same lies about optimising Economy fares saw the first aircraft of the 789 fleet configured in a stupid economy-heavy configuration which would massively compromise profits were the airline not still actively in “reduce capacity, be anti-competitive and price-gouge your monopolies” mode.

Luxon is undoubtedly the devout conservative. Enhance and strongly defend the status quo,. rather then initiate any required change for real progress.
Foran, we don't really know what he stands for.
His entire tenure has been coping with an externally generated severe crisis.
Air NZ has remained very largely functional throughout, so I would give him, and their staff considerable credit for their crisis management here.
But what, and where, next in the new normal world, whatever that is?
I don't know.
I await with interest.

Toenga wrote:

Koruman23 wrote:

The annoying thing about Domestic prevailing and getting Business Class removed from the A320 fleet against the wishes of International and Loyalty - and the actual DATA - was that the A320 fleet was meant to be International’s anyway - with Domestic utilising 733’s.

The whole charade was purely part of Domestic taking over the A320 fleet through the back door, and a fairy tale about short-haul International sales was used to facilitate it.

What is truly terrifying is that that lie has now been blindly accepted as facts by incoming management teams, with the result that the narrowbody fleet is no longer fit for international purpose.

And worse, the same lies about optimising Economy fares saw the first aircraft of the 789 fleet configured in a stupid economy-heavy configuration which would massively compromise profits were the airline not still actively in “reduce capacity, be anti-competitive and price-gouge your monopolies” mode.

Luxon is undoubtedly the devout conservative. Enhance and strongly defend the status quo,. rather then initiate any required change for real progress.
Foran, we don't really know what he stands for.
His entire tenure has been coping with an externally generated severe crisis.
Air NZ has remained very largely functional throughout, so I would give him, and their staff considerable credit for their crisis management here.
But what, and where, next in the new normal world, whatever that is?
I don't know.
I await with interest.

Agree with you 100%. I left Air New Zealand sometime considerable time ago. Over a 25 year career some of the decisions made by management defied logic. Fyfe gets a lot of credit but let's not forget he effectively turned Air NZ into a 'semi' LCC, Luxton as you quite rightly say was conservative by nature but we shouldn't forget that the management team that supported him were the same ones that operated under Fyfe. Greg Foran has been operating in crisis mode so we don't understand what he stands for as yet. He is still dealing with the legacy of those that came before him. With another 777 back as of today and the final one due April we will see less reliance an the 320/321 out of Auckland. For WLG and CHC more of the same. What I have observed on my travels back and forth over the Tasman on a regular basis with Qantas is that the business class cabin is almost without fail full. There is a demand that Air NZ aren't meeting with the A320.

GW54 wrote:

Toenga wrote:

Koruman23 wrote:

The annoying thing about Domestic prevailing and getting Business Class removed from the A320 fleet against the wishes of International and Loyalty - and the actual DATA - was that the A320 fleet was meant to be International’s anyway - with Domestic utilising 733’s.

The whole charade was purely part of Domestic taking over the A320 fleet through the back door, and a fairy tale about short-haul International sales was used to facilitate it.

What is truly terrifying is that that lie has now been blindly accepted as facts by incoming management teams, with the result that the narrowbody fleet is no longer fit for international purpose.

And worse, the same lies about optimising Economy fares saw the first aircraft of the 789 fleet configured in a stupid economy-heavy configuration which would massively compromise profits were the airline not still actively in “reduce capacity, be anti-competitive and price-gouge your monopolies” mode.

Luxon is undoubtedly the devout conservative. Enhance and strongly defend the status quo,. rather then initiate any required change for real progress.
Foran, we don't really know what he stands for.
His entire tenure has been coping with an externally generated severe crisis.
Air NZ has remained very largely functional throughout, so I would give him, and their staff considerable credit for their crisis management here.
But what, and where, next in the new normal world, whatever that is?
I don't know.
I await with interest.

Agree with you 100%. I left Air New Zealand sometime considerable time ago. Over a 25 year career some of the decisions made by management defied logic. Fyfe gets a lot of credit but let's not forget he effectively turned Air NZ into a 'semi' LCC, Luxton as you quite rightly say was conservative by nature but we shouldn't forget that the management team that supported him were the same ones that operated under Fyfe. Greg Foran has been operating in crisis mode so we don't understand what he stands for as yet. He is still dealing with the legacy of those that came before him. With another 777 back as of today and the final one due April we will see less reliance a the 320/321 out of Auckland. For WLG and CHC more of the same. What I have observed on my travels back and forth over the Tasman on a regular basis with Qantas is that the business class cabin is almost without fail full. There is a demand that Air NZ aren't meeting with the A320.

I used to fly across the Tasman on QF very very regularly (usually in business) and can confirm that it was almost always full. Often there might be 2-3 seats spare that they used for frequent flyer points upgrades, and failing that staff with upgrades. So always full while economy was usually not.

The Wamos wetlease has been extended till OCT 23.

https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/wamos-flight-experience

Zkpilot wrote:

GW54 wrote:

Toenga wrote:

Luxon is undoubtedly the devout conservative. Enhance and strongly defend the status quo,. rather then initiate any required change for real progress.
Foran, we don't really know what he stands for.
His entire tenure has been coping with an externally generated severe crisis.
Air NZ has remained very largely functional throughout, so I would give him, and their staff considerable credit for their crisis management here.
But what, and where, next in the new normal world, whatever that is?
I don't know.
I await with interest.

Agree with you 100%. I left Air New Zealand sometime considerable time ago. Over a 25 year career some of the decisions made by management defied logic. Fyfe gets a lot of credit but let's not forget he effectively turned Air NZ into a 'semi' LCC, Luxton as you quite rightly say was conservative by nature but we shouldn't forget that the management team that supported him were the same ones that operated under Fyfe. Greg Foran has been operating in crisis mode so we don't understand what he stands for as yet. He is still dealing with the legacy of those that came before him. With another 777 back as of today and the final one due April we will see less reliance a the 320/321 out of Auckland. For WLG and CHC more of the same. What I have observed on my travels back and forth over the Tasman on a regular basis with Qantas is that the business class cabin is almost without fail full. There is a demand that Air NZ aren't meeting with the A320.

I used to fly across the Tasman on QF very very regularly (usually in business) and can confirm that it was almost always full. Often there might be 2-3 seats spare that they used for frequent flyer points upgrades, and failing that staff with upgrades. So always full while economy was usually not.

This was the insanity of removing Business Class on the A320 fleet (which only operated international flights).

Existing Economy loads were around 90%, meaning that on average the airline only sold 140 of the 156 Economy seats (in addition to 5 of the 8 Business seats).

Suddenly the 8 Business seats were gone, but to raise the same revenue as when they existed the airline now needed to sell more Economy seats - when they already couldn’t sell the 156 they already had.

It’s like a sports team which can’t sell out its 20,000 seat stadium trying to fix the problem by increasing the stadium’s capacity to 35,000 seats.

In this region not just Qantas but also Fiji Airways, Air Calin, Air Tahiti Nui, Air Niugini and even Air Vanuatu operate Business Class on every shorthaul flight. But apparently Air NZ serves a “more Jetstar” clientele.

Yet Air NZ management has had a free ride for over a decade for a monumentally stupid and self-defeating all-economy shorthaul international model which does not survive even the slightest scrutiny, is economically illiterate and wasn’t supported by the data or even most departments of the airline when it was implemented.

And, just as Loyalty and International warned, Air NZ ended up surrendering a significant part of its long haul market as a result, as well as the market share that it had in Australia, where it had more frequent flyer members than Virgin at the time it ripped out the Business cabin on the A320’s.

Ironically both Qantas and Virgin Australia now have as their CEO’s people who used to run LCCs. Yet neither of them are stupid enough to remove Business class from their 737 fleets.

zkncj wrote:

The Wamos wetlease has been extended till OCT 23.

https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/wamos-flight-experience

Well this is unexpected but it will help out the operation considerably. The fleet has been running a fairly tight schedule already. Plus they have DPS returning soon in March and 787s out on maintenance. As it mentions with strong demand for Air travel the need to extend the lease for it is there.

zkncj wrote:

The Wamos wetlease has been extended till OCT 23.

https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/wamos-flight-experience

Has anyone heard reviews of the service/cabin generally since Wamos has been running the route?

Koruman23 wrote:

Existing Economy loads were around 90%, meaning that on average the airline only sold 140 of the 156 Economy seats (in addition to 5 of the 8 Business seats).

Suddenly the 8 Business seats were gone, but to raise the same revenue as when they existed the airline now needed to sell more Economy seats - when they already couldn’t sell the 156 they already had.

It’s like a sports team which can’t sell out its 20,000 seat stadium trying to fix the problem by increasing the stadium’s capacity to 35,000 seats.

?

A 90% average load factor doesn't mean every single flight goes out with empty Y seats. In fact it means the opposite, the majority of flights would be 100% full in Y with only a selection of off-peak flights at lower demand times at lower numbers. If Y is full on most flights then the revenue opportunity from adding more of them is considerable. Narrowbody J was filled with mostly Oz point of sale long haul travelers as you pointed out. As a rule, NZ point of sale (including business) don't fly J trans-Tasman, but in Y class are less price-sensitive because of loyalty and/or business accounts. The strategic decision is therefore much more finely balanced. How many of those Oz long haul travelers would accept an economy seat on the TT leg at a slightly cheaper fare, and how many would be lost to all-J competitors? Would the number lost be responsible for more or less revenue than that gained by new Y passengers, who are more likely to be NZ-origin with a greater propensity to pay a higher Y fare?

Koruman23 wrote:

In this region not just Qantas but also Fiji Airways, Air Calin, Air Tahiti Nui, Air Niugini and even Air Vanuatu operate Business Class on every shorthaul flight. But apparently Air NZ serves a “more Jetstar” clientele.

NZ is higher margin than all of those airlines.

The shorthaul passenger just about everywhere is "Jetstar clientele". Flyers of all types would prefer to pay less and sit in economy on shorter flights. All-Y Southwest carries more domestic US business traffic than any other carrier. Easyjet is the top carrier out of London. No major European airline offers J seating on their narrowbodies.

Koruman23 wrote:

Yet Air NZ management has had a free ride for over a decade for a monumentally stupid and self-defeating all-economy shorthaul international model which does not survive even the slightest scrutiny, is economically illiterate and wasn’t supported by the data or even most departments of the airline when it was implemented.

And, just as Loyalty and International warned, Air NZ ended up surrendering a significant part of its long haul market as a result, as well as the market share that it had in Australia, where it had more frequent flyer members than Virgin at the time it ripped out the Business cabin on the A320’s.

I know you're exaggerating for effect, but it would have been a close call revenue wise either way and not a "monumentally stupid" decision. NZ did fine forgoing whatever market share it lost from the decision, which despite what you assert I doubt amounted to a truly significant number of pax. The dominant J markets from Oz continue to enjoy a daily J offering connecting to the relevant long haul destinations. Even better in fact, a true long-haul product rather than a 20% bigger seat and 5 inches more legroom.

Koruman23 wrote:

Ironically both Qantas and Virgin Australia now have as their CEO’s people who used to run LCCs. Yet neither of them are stupid enough to remove Business class from their 737 fleets.

Virgin probably should remove J. With current capacity shortfalls in Oz and a generally non-premium brand I reckon they could generate more revenue from increasing seat count in their planes. If their fleet didn't already have it do you think they'd be installing it post bankruptcy?

Hi all, I was notified last night my flight PER/AKL on 24/03 has now been subbed by the Wamos aircraft, lease has been extended. Luckily we are in Biz, currently i have reserved seats 1K and 2H, a staggered pair on the starboard window, front row and away from the loo on the other side. Anyone been on this aircraft and any advice on best seating in biz? Obviously a night flight so not much talking to the other half required!

DUDtoDFW wrote:

Koruman23 wrote:

Existing Economy loads were around 90%, meaning that on average the airline only sold 140 of the 156 Economy seats (in addition to 5 of the 8 Business seats).

Suddenly the 8 Business seats were gone, but to raise the same revenue as when they existed the airline now needed to sell more Economy seats - when they already couldn’t sell the 156 they already had.

It’s like a sports team which can’t sell out its 20,000 seat stadium trying to fix the problem by increasing the stadium’s capacity to 35,000 seats.

?

A 90% average load factor doesn't mean every single flight goes out with empty Y seats. In fact it means the opposite, the majority of flights would be 100% full in Y with only a selection of off-peak flights at lower demand times at lower numbers. If Y is full on most flights then the revenue opportunity from adding more of them is considerable. Narrowbody J was filled with mostly Oz point of sale long haul travelers as you pointed out. As a rule, NZ point of sale (including business) don't fly J trans-Tasman, but in Y class are less price-sensitive because of loyalty and/or business accounts. The strategic decision is therefore much more finely balanced. How many of those Oz long haul travelers would accept an economy seat on the TT leg at a slightly cheaper fare, and how many would be lost to all-J competitors? Would the number lost be responsible for more or less revenue than that gained by new Y passengers, who are more likely to be NZ-origin with a greater propensity to pay a higher Y fare?

Koruman23 wrote:

In this region not just Qantas but also Fiji Airways, Air Calin, Air Tahiti Nui, Air Niugini and even Air Vanuatu operate Business Class on every shorthaul flight. But apparently Air NZ serves a “more Jetstar” clientele.

NZ is higher margin than all of those airlines.

The shorthaul passenger just about everywhere is "Jetstar clientele". Flyers of all types would prefer to pay less and sit in economy on shorter flights. All-Y Southwest carries more domestic US business traffic than any other carrier. Easyjet is the top carrier out of London. No major European airline offers J seating on their narrowbodies.

Koruman23 wrote:

Yet Air NZ management has had a free ride for over a decade for a monumentally stupid and self-defeating all-economy shorthaul international model which does not survive even the slightest scrutiny, is economically illiterate and wasn’t supported by the data or even most departments of the airline when it was implemented.

And, just as Loyalty and International warned, Air NZ ended up surrendering a significant part of its long haul market as a result, as well as the market share that it had in Australia, where it had more frequent flyer members than Virgin at the time it ripped out the Business cabin on the A320’s.

I know you're exaggerating for effect, but it would have been a close call revenue wise either way and not a "monumentally stupid" decision. NZ did fine forgoing whatever market share it lost from the decision, which despite what you assert I doubt amounted to a truly significant number of pax. The dominant J markets from Oz continue to enjoy a daily J offering connecting to the relevant long haul destinations. Even better in fact, a true long-haul product rather than a 20% bigger seat and 5 inches more legroom.

Koruman23 wrote:

Ironically both Qantas and Virgin Australia now have as their CEO’s people who used to run LCCs. Yet neither of them are stupid enough to remove Business class from their 737 fleets.

Virgin probably should remove J. With current capacity shortfalls in Oz and a generally non-premium brand I reckon they could generate more revenue from increasing seat count in their planes. If their fleet didn't already have it do you think they'd be installing it post bankruptcy?

There are plenty of signs to suggest that a good proportion of the travelling public in NZ are not "Jetstar clientele". Lounges and frequent flyer programmes give NZ a pricing power that JQ can't match (when combined with network coverage and local non-airline earning potential).

Didn't VA look at removing J cabins after COVID? Regardless, having J makes their velocity programme more enticing and as we know, successful loyalty programmes can make a large contribution to healthy airline yields.

VA does have all Y aircraft generally used in WA for FIFO and intra-WA RPT, along with thin PER-East Coast flying such as LST and HBA. (VA Regional has the Fokkers, the 6x ex Tiger A320s and mostly recently the ex KLM 737-700s which are replacing the older Fokkers)

nz2 wrote:

Hi all, I was notified last night my flight PER/AKL on 24/03 has now been subbed by the Wamos aircraft, lease has been extended. Luckily we are in Biz, currently i have reserved seats 1K and 2H, a staggered pair on the starboard window, front row and away from the loo on the other side. Anyone been on this aircraft and any advice on best seating in biz? Obviously a night flight so not much talking to the other half required!

Nice for some. We had a booking for Y+ on 17/3 and have been downgraded to Y and reimbursed a pittance for the displeasure, which by no means comes close to compensating the actual fare difference between Y+ and Y at the time of booking, but now only a month out gives us no options to book elsewhere other than the wear a $5k per person price to fly business. Not impressed at all

Looks like Gabrielle is going to thump the Northland and Auckland regions at the beginning of next week.

The dominant J markets from Oz continue to enjoy a daily J offering connecting to the relevant long haul destinations. Even better in fact, a true long-haul product rather than a 20% bigger seat and 5 inches more legroom.

Ignoring how dire NZ long-haul J class is compared with its competition, the product isn't really appropriate for a 3 hour flight. In some respects flying a 77W on a 3 hour service is a misuse of the plane though I guess it is done for utilisation purposes more than anything else. Most people flying this length of service in J want some increased space and improved service. A lie-flat bed which they won't use is not a decision factor for most on a trans-Tasman flight.

Virgin probably should remove J. With current capacity shortfalls in Oz and a generally non-premium brand I reckon they could generate more revenue from increasing seat count in their planes. If their fleet didn't already have it do you think they'd be installing it post bankruptcy?

VA still has a significant corporate client base that they need to serve and the availability of J will be a requirement for many corporate accounts. They only have 8 J seats on their 738s and don't seem to have any issue filling them. VA J is priced very competitively compared with the extortionate rates QF charges for basically the same product.

As has been pointed out, VA do not put J on their regional fleet (73G, A320, F100) given FIFO contracts rarely require it. QF is the same with its F100s and A320s.

aerohottie wrote:

nz2 wrote:

Hi all, I was notified last night my flight PER/AKL on 24/03 has now been subbed by the Wamos aircraft, lease has been extended. Luckily we are in Biz, currently i have reserved seats 1K and 2H, a staggered pair on the starboard window, front row and away from the loo on the other side. Anyone been on this aircraft and any advice on best seating in biz? Obviously a night flight so not much talking to the other half required!

Nice for some. We had a booking for Y+ on 17/3 and have been downgraded to Y and reimbursed a pittance for the displeasure, which by no means comes close to compensating the actual fare difference between Y+ and Y at the time of booking, but now only a month out gives us no options to book elsewhere other than the wear a $5k per person price to fly business. Not impressed at all

Yes I was in PE also, lucky to have had the upgrade come through with this change in aircraft which offered more J seats than the 789. I asked a few months ago here about this scenario and one poster advised this could well be the result, lucky enough for me had the upgrade request in place and went up....

DUDtoDFW wrote:

Koruman23 wrote:

Existing Economy loads were around 90%, meaning that on average the airline only sold 140 of the 156 Economy seats (in addition to 5 of the 8 Business seats).

Suddenly the 8 Business seats were gone, but to raise the same revenue as when they existed the airline now needed to sell more Economy seats - when they already couldn’t sell the 156 they already had.

It’s like a sports team which can’t sell out its 20,000 seat stadium trying to fix the problem by increasing the stadium’s capacity to 35,000 seats.

?

A 90% average load factor doesn't mean every single flight goes out with empty Y seats. In fact it means the opposite, the majority of flights would be 100% full in Y with only a selection of off-peak flights at lower demand times at lower numbers. If Y is full on most flights then the revenue opportunity from adding more of them is considerable. Narrowbody J was filled with mostly Oz point of sale long haul travelers as you pointed out. As a rule, NZ point of sale (including business) don't fly J trans-Tasman, but in Y class are less price-sensitive because of loyalty and/or business accounts. The strategic decision is therefore much more finely balanced. How many of those Oz long haul travelers would accept an economy seat on the TT leg at a slightly cheaper fare, and how many would be lost to all-J competitors? Would the number lost be responsible for more or less revenue than that gained by new Y passengers, who are more likely to be NZ-origin with a greater propensity to pay a higher Y fare?

Koruman23 wrote:

In this region not just Qantas but also Fiji Airways, Air Calin, Air Tahiti Nui, Air Niugini and even Air Vanuatu operate Business Class on every shorthaul flight. But apparently Air NZ serves a “more Jetstar” clientele.

NZ is higher margin than all of those airlines.

The shorthaul passenger just about everywhere is "Jetstar clientele". Flyers of all types would prefer to pay less and sit in economy on shorter flights. All-Y Southwest carries more domestic US business traffic than any other carrier. Easyjet is the top carrier out of London. No major European airline offers J seating on their narrowbodies.

Koruman23 wrote:

Yet Air NZ management has had a free ride for over a decade for a monumentally stupid and self-defeating all-economy shorthaul international model which does not survive even the slightest scrutiny, is economically illiterate and wasn’t supported by the data or even most departments of the airline when it was implemented.

And, just as Loyalty and International warned, Air NZ ended up surrendering a significant part of its long haul market as a result, as well as the market share that it had in Australia, where it had more frequent flyer members than Virgin at the time it ripped out the Business cabin on the A320’s.

I know you're exaggerating for effect, but it would have been a close call revenue wise either way and not a "monumentally stupid" decision. NZ did fine forgoing whatever market share it lost from the decision, which despite what you assert I doubt amounted to a truly significant number of pax. The dominant J markets from Oz continue to enjoy a daily J offering connecting to the relevant long haul destinations. Even better in fact, a true long-haul product rather than a 20% bigger seat and 5 inches more legroom.

Koruman23 wrote:

Ironically both Qantas and Virgin Australia now have as their CEO’s people who used to run LCCs. Yet neither of them are stupid enough to remove Business class from their 737 fleets.

Virgin probably should remove J. With current capacity shortfalls in Oz and a generally non-premium brand I reckon they could generate more revenue from increasing seat count in their planes. If their fleet didn't already have it do you think they'd be installing it post bankruptcy?

Virgin used to be all Economy and added the same two rows of 2-2 Business to their 737s that Air NZ took out of their A320’s.

Now they have the former Jetstar CEO in charge, and not only are Virgin keeping narrowbody Business Class, but new entrant Rex is too!

And unlike Air NZ, they aren’t feeding into a long-haul network….

Koruman23 wrote:

DUDtoDFW wrote:

Koruman23 wrote:

Existing Economy loads were around 90%, meaning that on average the airline only sold 140 of the 156 Economy seats (in addition to 5 of the 8 Business seats).

Suddenly the 8 Business seats were gone, but to raise the same revenue as when they existed the airline now needed to sell more Economy seats - when they already couldn’t sell the 156 they already had.

It’s like a sports team which can’t sell out its 20,000 seat stadium trying to fix the problem by increasing the stadium’s capacity to 35,000 seats.

?

A 90% average load factor doesn't mean every single flight goes out with empty Y seats. In fact it means the opposite, the majority of flights would be 100% full in Y with only a selection of off-peak flights at lower demand times at lower numbers. If Y is full on most flights then the revenue opportunity from adding more of them is considerable. Narrowbody J was filled with mostly Oz point of sale long haul travelers as you pointed out. As a rule, NZ point of sale (including business) don't fly J trans-Tasman, but in Y class are less price-sensitive because of loyalty and/or business accounts. The strategic decision is therefore much more finely balanced. How many of those Oz long haul travelers would accept an economy seat on the TT leg at a slightly cheaper fare, and how many would be lost to all-J competitors? Would the number lost be responsible for more or less revenue than that gained by new Y passengers, who are more likely to be NZ-origin with a greater propensity to pay a higher Y fare?

Koruman23 wrote:

In this region not just Qantas but also Fiji Airways, Air Calin, Air Tahiti Nui, Air Niugini and even Air Vanuatu operate Business Class on every shorthaul flight. But apparently Air NZ serves a “more Jetstar” clientele.

NZ is higher margin than all of those airlines.

The shorthaul passenger just about everywhere is "Jetstar clientele". Flyers of all types would prefer to pay less and sit in economy on shorter flights. All-Y Southwest carries more domestic US business traffic than any other carrier. Easyjet is the top carrier out of London. No major European airline offers J seating on their narrowbodies.

Koruman23 wrote:

Yet Air NZ management has had a free ride for over a decade for a monumentally stupid and self-defeating all-economy shorthaul international model which does not survive even the slightest scrutiny, is economically illiterate and wasn’t supported by the data or even most departments of the airline when it was implemented.

And, just as Loyalty and International warned, Air NZ ended up surrendering a significant part of its long haul market as a result, as well as the market share that it had in Australia, where it had more frequent flyer members than Virgin at the time it ripped out the Business cabin on the A320’s.

I know you're exaggerating for effect, but it would have been a close call revenue wise either way and not a "monumentally stupid" decision. NZ did fine forgoing whatever market share it lost from the decision, which despite what you assert I doubt amounted to a truly significant number of pax. The dominant J markets from Oz continue to enjoy a daily J offering connecting to the relevant long haul destinations. Even better in fact, a true long-haul product rather than a 20% bigger seat and 5 inches more legroom.

Koruman23 wrote:

Ironically both Qantas and Virgin Australia now have as their CEO’s people who used to run LCCs. Yet neither of them are stupid enough to remove Business class from their 737 fleets.

Virgin probably should remove J. With current capacity shortfalls in Oz and a generally non-premium brand I reckon they could generate more revenue from increasing seat count in their planes. If their fleet didn't already have it do you think they'd be installing it post bankruptcy?

Virgin used to be all Economy and added the same two rows of 2-2 Business to their 737s that Air NZ took out of their A320’s.

Now they have the former Jetstar CEO in charge, and not only are Virgin keeping narrowbody Business Class, but new entrant Rex is too!

And unlike Air NZ, they aren’t feeding into a long-haul network….

REX feeds into DL (VA's former North American JV partner). As previously mentioned, VA has QR (Europe/Middle East), UA (North America) and SQ (Asia/Europe) as their long haul partners.

SCFlyer wrote:

Koruman23 wrote:

DUDtoDFW wrote:

?

A 90% average load factor doesn't mean every single flight goes out with empty Y seats. In fact it means the opposite, the majority of flights would be 100% full in Y with only a selection of off-peak flights at lower demand times at lower numbers. If Y is full on most flights then the revenue opportunity from adding more of them is considerable. Narrowbody J was filled with mostly Oz point of sale long haul travelers as you pointed out. As a rule, NZ point of sale (including business) don't fly J trans-Tasman, but in Y class are less price-sensitive because of loyalty and/or business accounts. The strategic decision is therefore much more finely balanced. How many of those Oz long haul travelers would accept an economy seat on the TT leg at a slightly cheaper fare, and how many would be lost to all-J competitors? Would the number lost be responsible for more or less revenue than that gained by new Y passengers, who are more likely to be NZ-origin with a greater propensity to pay a higher Y fare?



NZ is higher margin than all of those airlines.

The shorthaul passenger just about everywhere is "Jetstar clientele". Flyers of all types would prefer to pay less and sit in economy on shorter flights. All-Y Southwest carries more domestic US business traffic than any other carrier. Easyjet is the top carrier out of London. No major European airline offers J seating on their narrowbodies.



I know you're exaggerating for effect, but it would have been a close call revenue wise either way and not a "monumentally stupid" decision. NZ did fine forgoing whatever market share it lost from the decision, which despite what you assert I doubt amounted to a truly significant number of pax. The dominant J markets from Oz continue to enjoy a daily J offering connecting to the relevant long haul destinations. Even better in fact, a true long-haul product rather than a 20% bigger seat and 5 inches more legroom.



Virgin probably should remove J. With current capacity shortfalls in Oz and a generally non-premium brand I reckon they could generate more revenue from increasing seat count in their planes. If their fleet didn't already have it do you think they'd be installing it post bankruptcy?

Virgin used to be all Economy and added the same two rows of 2-2 Business to their 737s that Air NZ took out of their A320’s.

Now they have the former Jetstar CEO in charge, and not only are Virgin keeping narrowbody Business Class, but new entrant Rex is too!

And unlike Air NZ, they aren’t feeding into a long-haul network….

REX feeds into DL (VA's former North American JV partner). As previously mentioned, VA has QR (Europe/Middle East), UA (North America) and SQ (Asia/Europe) as their long haul partners.

NZ does have EY (Middle East), QR (flights via Aus from NZ actually list Air NZ as first choice for the Tasman sector instead of QF), SQ (Asia/Europe) as long haul partners/codesharing as well and all those airlines have a solid business class product that you get demoted onto NZ Economy on the Tasman sector.

Looks like ZK-OKO is heading up to SIN for maintenance - currently airborne as NZ6007.

QR (flights via Aus from NZ actually list Air NZ as first choice for the Tasman sector instead of QF

This tells you more about the state of the relationship between QF and QR than anything else.

tullamarine wrote:

The dominant J markets from Oz continue to enjoy a daily J offering connecting to the relevant long haul destinations. Even better in fact, a true long-haul product rather than a 20% bigger seat and 5 inches more legroom.

Ignoring how dire NZ long-haul J class is compared with its competition, the product isn't really appropriate for a 3 hour flight. In some respects flying a 77W on a 3 hour service is a misuse of the plane though I guess it is done for utilisation purposes more than anything else. Most people flying this length of service in J want some increased space and improved service. A lie-flat bed which they won't use is not a decision factor for most on a trans-Tasman flight.

No dispute that NZ J is long overdue an improvement!

I don't think increased space is a decision factor at all for just about any traveler on the trans-tasman, neither lie-flat bed or armchair. Improved service on the other hand, yes. (Hence the European shorthaul J of good service in an economy seat. A service that NZ offers albeit with maybe a lower quality food and beverage offer.)

For me the best reason to offer a shorthaul J armchair relates to:

Unclekoru wrote:

There are plenty of signs to suggest that a good proportion of the travelling public in NZ are not "Jetstar clientele". Lounges and frequent flyer programmes give NZ a pricing power that JQ can't match (when combined with network coverage and local non-airline earning potential).

A larger-seat shorthaul J utilized as a mostly free perk to drive loyalty, on the principle that the floor space sacrificed is more than paid back by frequent flyers competing for free upgrades or burning miles expensively to get a seat. Kind of how the US network carriers utilize their first class space.

Euro model shorthaul J vs US model shorthaul J - seems like a close call either way.

tullamarine wrote:

VA still has a significant corporate client base that they need to serve and the availability of J will be a requirement for many corporate accounts. They only have 8 J seats on their 738s and don't seem to have any issue filling them. VA J is priced very competitively compared with the extortionate rates QF charges for basically the same product.

Is domestic J really an option for any material corporate accounts even in Australia? Admittedly I've only ever had anecdotal interactions with corporate travel teams, but I've never seen a policy provide for J for anything less than 4 hours flying time. I could maybe see a case for it on red-eyes from PER, but only for a long-haul flat bed product. Any business specifying J for SYD - BNE on their corporate account has a fantastic cost saving opportunity for their finance team to discover!

VA's expensive pursuit of the Aussie business passenger through the massive investment in business class cabins (especially the A330 product), was one of the causes of their balance sheet stress, pre-covid underperformance and ultimate failure. Although other harebrained schemes such as starting a long haul product in brand new enormous 77Ws, overpaying for a ULCC, and trying to match QF on frequency did much more damage. I reckon Bain would have dumped J if there was any material cost to keep offering it for sale. But enjoying a revenue and loyalty premium from seats and lounges that were written down to zero in a bankruptcy? That probably makes sense for them!

Is domestic J really an option for any material corporate accounts even in Australia? Admittedly I've only ever had anecdotal interactions with corporate travel teams, but I've never seen a policy provide for J for anything less than 4 hours flying time

Yes, lots of corporate clients still provide J class travel for C-level managers particularly. Politicians and senior public servants all remain entitled to J class flights for all domestic travel.

Most members of Beyond (VA's equivalent of Chairmans Lounge) would expect J class travel and automatic upgrades to J where available even when flying on a Y ticket.

Although other harebrained schemes such as starting a long haul product in brand new enormous 77Ws, overpaying for a ULCC, and trying to match QF on frequency did much more damage.

Not sure they overpaid for Tiger but it was a distraction they could have done without. The 77Ws, whilst too big for their needs, actually were profitable on LAX services. Unfortunately, at the time they were acquired, there wasn't a smaller option that offered equivalent economics. These days, VA would have definitely looked at 789s or A359s instead.

Cathay Pacific HKG - CHC is now bookable from the 12th of November 2023, (arrival into CHC on the 13th). Flight will be 3x weekly on Mondays Thursdays and Saturdays using A350-900s. Arrives at CHC at 1:30pm and departs 2:30pm.

PA515 wrote:

Air NZ A321-271NX ZK-OYC (msn 11096) presently on it's first flight as D-AVZA.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/d-avza

Also Air NZ 777-319ER ZK-OKR is due back from SIN tomorrow night.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zk-okr

PA515

Looks like OKR has gone tech on its first day back in passenger service. Stuck in SYD, scheduled to ferry back to AKL 10 Feb.

ZKNZR wrote:

PA515 wrote:

Air NZ A321-271NX ZK-OYC (msn 11096) presently on it's first flight as D-AVZA.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/d-avza

Also Air NZ 777-319ER ZK-OKR is due back from SIN tomorrow night.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zk-okr

PA515

Looks like OKR has gone tech on its first day back in passenger service. Stuck in SYD, scheduled to ferry back to AKL 10 Feb.

May not be tech related there was bad weather on the east coast of Australia impacting flights.

Sprite8806 wrote:

Cathay Pacific HKG - CHC is now bookable from the 12th of November 2023, (arrival into CHC on the 13th). Flight will be 3x weekly on Mondays Thursdays and Saturdays using A350-900s. Arrives at CHC at 1:30pm and departs 2:30pm.

Interesting that they have prioritized CHC over re-starting other destinations, and that they announced this before CZ has announced any return to CHC.

With the HKD pegged to the USD, and the USD's ongoing strength against the NZD, New Zealand has become cheaper for Hong Kong holidaymakers.

zkncj wrote:

ZKNZR wrote:

PA515 wrote:

Air NZ A321-271NX ZK-OYC (msn 11096) presently on it's first flight as D-AVZA.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/d-avza

Also Air NZ 777-319ER ZK-OKR is due back from SIN tomorrow night.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zk-okr

PA515

Looks like OKR has gone tech on its first day back in passenger service. Stuck in SYD, scheduled to ferry back to AKL 10 Feb.

May not be tech related there was bad weather on the east coast of Australia impacting flights.

Can confirm, it was weather related, and then crew going out of hours. Due back in the morning.