Also, for NZ ZQN provides no connecting opportunity with the rest of New Zealand (unlike AKL/WLG/CHC). Plus NZ is struggling to maintain their capacity at the other international ports.

Actually ZQN does gets transit pax for their international flights from CHC, WLG etc . Some days the afternoon ZQN departures to Australia have a lot especially when the existing CHC to Aust afternoon flights have been sold out.

NZ516 wrote:

Also, for NZ ZQN provides no connecting opportunity with the rest of New Zealand (unlike AKL/WLG/CHC). Plus NZ is struggling to maintain their capacity at the other international ports.

Actually ZQN does gets transit pax for their international flights from CHC, WLG etc . Some days the afternoon ZQN departures to Australia have a lot especially when the existing CHC to Aust afternoon flights have been sold out.

They only have flights from AKL/WLG/CHC so limits transfers (I presume you are talking transfers not transits), and ZQN's location in completely the wrong place for connectivity. Around 5% of their resident travel market is from Wellington/Canterbury, and I suspect some of that will have had a few days in ZQN before flying international anyway (so not real transfers).

NZ516 wrote:

Also, for NZ ZQN provides no connecting opportunity with the rest of New Zealand (unlike AKL/WLG/CHC). Plus NZ is struggling to maintain their capacity at the other international ports.

Actually ZQN does gets transit pax for their international flights from CHC, WLG etc . Some days the afternoon ZQN departures to Australia have a lot especially when the existing CHC to Aust afternoon flights have been sold out.

In peak ZQN winter season there seems to be a lot more International NZ flights, (ski market). Where as in summer there are probably a lot more AUS NZ combo holiday pax where QF, JQ and VA will pick up the bulk of that from Australia and NZ pick it up out of AKL.

a7ala wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Also, for NZ ZQN provides no connecting opportunity with the rest of New Zealand (unlike AKL/WLG/CHC). Plus NZ is struggling to maintain their capacity at the other international ports.

Actually ZQN does gets transit pax for their international flights from CHC, WLG etc . Some days the afternoon ZQN departures to Australia have a lot especially when the existing CHC to Aust afternoon flights have been sold out.

They only have flights from AKL/WLG/CHC so limits transfers (I presume you are talking transfers not transits), and ZQN's location in completely the wrong place for connectivity. Around 5% of their resident travel market is from Wellington/Canterbury, and I suspect some of that will have had a few days in ZQN before flying international anyway (so not real transfers).

You originally said that ZQN provides no connection option for travellers which is not correct. It doesn't matter of the location it is. If there are seats available people do it every day. You can even fly CHC-IVC-AKL if their are seats available people do it if the non stop services are full it's more common than many people realize. And if it gets you to your destination on the day you want it can be the only option at times.

seat1a wrote:

Curious about any more information on Pacifika? Not sure that's the correct spelling, thought they used a K. They had a plan to fly Pacific islands.

Idea long cancelled.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/travel/125497621/ ... ermanently

I would be interested in a discussion about the future Air New Zeland international network.

In the pre-Covid era, Air NZ chose to take an idiosyncratic and ultimately unique approach to international network planning.

1. They essentially bailed out of most routes which entailed significant competition.
2. They focused on monopoly and pseudo-monopoly routes wherever possible, forming anti-competitive alliances to Australia, New Caledonia, Tahiti, Singapore and Hong Kong which were arguably highly fortunate to obtain regulatory approval.
3. They operated an unusually high percentage of government-underwritten routes (Auckland to Norfolk Island, Brisbane to Norfolk Island, Auckland to Niue, Sydney to Rarotonga, Los Angeles to Rarotonga). These routes combined a lack of risk (due to government underwriting) with a monopoly market position.
4. They carried their Shanghai route through a decade and a half of losses for reasons of market development, in spite of revealing in their own financial statements that it made a loss every year except for one.
5. They converted their short-haul narrowbody international network to all-economy, a decision which was not followed by Qantas or Virgin Australia or SilkAir or Aircalin or Fiji Airways, and was only shared with Jetstar in this region.
6. They closed AKL-HKG-LHR and AKL-LAX-LHR and AKL-PPT-LAX on the basis that one-stop tickets are unprofitable. While failing to see the irony that their new Chicago, Houston and Newark routes had virtually no O+D market, and were reliant upon the airline purchasing domestic sectors on United Airlines in order to sell tickets. And again, this Air NZ "No one-stop services" dogma was never adopted by the legacy American airlines (which all run hub-and-spoke models), or by Singapore Airlines and Emirates (both of which sell more than 80% of their tickets on one-stop services). And in the case of Qantas, they rolled out PER-LHR, PER-CDG and AKL-JFK services which were actually entirely based upon feed from SYD, MEL and BNE to sell one-stop tickets.

In isolation, Air NZ's route decisions were unusual and quirky. In combination they led to the airline forging a uniquely different direction, in which it eschewed almost all competition and focused on exploiting market monopolies. In effect, the direction taken allowed for modest profits but made the airline a hostage to if and when other carriers chose to enter the market and compete. And the model of terminating European services half-way and selling onward sectors on a different carrier actually meant that the only airline with whom Air New Zealand shared a business model was Air Calin, which is a highly unusual model for an airline to choose to emulate.

So where next?

Koruman23 wrote:

I would be interested in a discussion about the future Air New Zeland international network.

In the pre-Covid era, Air NZ chose to take an idiosyncratic and ultimately unique approach to international network planning.

1. They essentially bailed out of most routes which entailed significant competition.
2. They focused on monopoly and pseudo-monopoly routes wherever possible, forming anti-competitive alliances to Australia, New Caledonia, Tahiti, Singapore and Hong Kong which were arguably highly fortunate to obtain regulatory approval.
3. They operated an unusually high percentage of government-underwritten routes (Auckland to Norfolk Island, Brisbane to Norfolk Island, Auckland to Niue, Sydney to Rarotonga, Los Angeles to Rarotonga). These routes combined a lack of risk (due to government underwriting) with a monopoly market position.
4. They carried their Shanghai route through a decade and a half of losses for reasons of market development, in spite of revealing in their own financial statements that it made a loss every year except for one.
5. They converted their short-haul narrowbody international network to all-economy, a decision which was not followed by Qantas or Virgin Australia or SilkAir or Aircalin or Fiji Airways, and was only shared with Jetstar in this region.
6. They closed AKL-HKG-LHR and AKL-LAX-LHR and AKL-PPT-LAX on the basis that one-stop tickets are unprofitable. While failing to see the irony that their new Chicago, Houston and Newark routes had virtually no O+D market, and were reliant upon the airline purchasing domestic sectors on United Airlines in order to sell tickets. And again, this Air NZ "No one-stop services" dogma was never adopted by the legacy American airlines (which all run hub-and-spoke models), or by Singapore Airlines and Emirates (both of which sell more than 80% of their tickets on one-stop services). And in the case of Qantas, they rolled out PER-LHR, PER-CDG and AKL-JFK services which were actually entirely based upon feed from SYD, MEL and BNE to sell one-stop tickets.

In isolation, Air NZ's route decisions were unusual and quirky. In combination they led to the airline forging a uniquely different direction, in which it eschewed almost all competition and focused on exploiting market monopolies. In effect, the direction taken allowed for modest profits but made the airline a hostage to if and when other carriers chose to enter the market and compete. And the model of terminating European services half-way and selling onward sectors on a different carrier actually meant that the only airline with whom Air New Zealand shared a business model was Air Calin, which is a highly unusual model for an airline to choose to emulate.

So where next?

IAH I can understand as having very limited O&D… but Chicago and most notably, New York? One of the most iconic and largest metropolitan cities on the planet and you would argue that there’s no O&D traffic to New York? There’s so much tourism + business travel and even VFR traffic between NY and oceania.

That aside, I think NZ has found their North America network to work well for them. So going forward, I can only see them strengthen it. Perhaps not with any new routes though, but definitely frequency increases. I think if they were to introduce any new cities, it’d be YYZ, potentially followed by IAD (UAL Hub) and maybe, just maybe, Seattle.

Singapore seems to be where they concentrate most of their Asia traffic. Contradictory to your comment on NZ’s anti-one-stop trips, I actually think Singapore for NZ forms a notable hub for them to filter passengers on to places like India, China and even onward to Europe if necessary. NZ have definitely pulled out of operating one-stop trips on their own metal - but with limited capacity and slack in their fleet, perhaps it’s for the best.

The only black hole in their network is South America. At least with Europe you can very easily be routed via SIN or north America, but South America is sorely missing on their route map. Well that and South Africa…

JJWess wrote:

Koruman23 wrote:

I would be interested in a discussion about the future Air New Zeland international network.

In the pre-Covid era, Air NZ chose to take an idiosyncratic and ultimately unique approach to international network planning.

1. They essentially bailed out of most routes which entailed significant competition.
2. They focused on monopoly and pseudo-monopoly routes wherever possible, forming anti-competitive alliances to Australia, New Caledonia, Tahiti, Singapore and Hong Kong which were arguably highly fortunate to obtain regulatory approval.
3. They operated an unusually high percentage of government-underwritten routes (Auckland to Norfolk Island, Brisbane to Norfolk Island, Auckland to Niue, Sydney to Rarotonga, Los Angeles to Rarotonga). These routes combined a lack of risk (due to government underwriting) with a monopoly market position.
4. They carried their Shanghai route through a decade and a half of losses for reasons of market development, in spite of revealing in their own financial statements that it made a loss every year except for one.
5. They converted their short-haul narrowbody international network to all-economy, a decision which was not followed by Qantas or Virgin Australia or SilkAir or Aircalin or Fiji Airways, and was only shared with Jetstar in this region.
6. They closed AKL-HKG-LHR and AKL-LAX-LHR and AKL-PPT-LAX on the basis that one-stop tickets are unprofitable. While failing to see the irony that their new Chicago, Houston and Newark routes had virtually no O+D market, and were reliant upon the airline purchasing domestic sectors on United Airlines in order to sell tickets. And again, this Air NZ "No one-stop services" dogma was never adopted by the legacy American airlines (which all run hub-and-spoke models), or by Singapore Airlines and Emirates (both of which sell more than 80% of their tickets on one-stop services). And in the case of Qantas, they rolled out PER-LHR, PER-CDG and AKL-JFK services which were actually entirely based upon feed from SYD, MEL and BNE to sell one-stop tickets.

In isolation, Air NZ's route decisions were unusual and quirky. In combination they led to the airline forging a uniquely different direction, in which it eschewed almost all competition and focused on exploiting market monopolies. In effect, the direction taken allowed for modest profits but made the airline a hostage to if and when other carriers chose to enter the market and compete. And the model of terminating European services half-way and selling onward sectors on a different carrier actually meant that the only airline with whom Air New Zealand shared a business model was Air Calin, which is a highly unusual model for an airline to choose to emulate.

So where next?

IAH I can understand as having very limited O&D… but Chicago and most notably, New York? One of the most iconic and largest metropolitan cities on the planet and you would argue that there’s no O&D traffic to New York? There’s so much tourism + business travel and even VFR traffic between NY and oceania.

That aside, I think NZ has found their North America network to work well for them. So going forward, I can only see them strengthen it. Perhaps not with any new routes though, but definitely frequency increases. I think if they were to introduce any new cities, it’d be YYZ, potentially followed by IAD (UAL Hub) and maybe, just maybe, Seattle.

Singapore seems to be where they concentrate most of their Asia traffic. Contradictory to your comment on NZ’s anti-one-stop trips, I actually think Singapore for NZ forms a notable hub for them to filter passengers on to places like India, China and even onward to Europe if necessary. NZ have definitely pulled out of operating one-stop trips on their own metal - but with limited capacity and slack in their fleet, perhaps it’s for the best.

The only black hole in their network is South America. At least with Europe you can very easily be routed via SIN or north America, but South America is sorely missing on their route map. Well that and South Africa…

With respect, I am arguing about the ORD-NZ and NYC-NZ markets, rather than about the global significance of Chicago and New York.

Basically the entire North America to NZ market used to fit on one daily Air NZ and one daily Qantas 744 - and that included a lot of onward traffic to/from Australia.

When Qantas and United withdrew, Air NZ eventually increased to 2 daily 77Ws serving LAX (one of which also carried onward traffic to London) and one daily 77W to SFO.

Either way, the entire North America to NZ market has never been shown to exceed around 1000 seats per day, the vast majority of which are for US West Coast traffic.

So the Chicago, Houston and Newark routes all require the market to/from the South, the Midwest and the Northeast of the USA to be grown rapidly and massively.

It's inevitable that the Houston route will include onward traffic to Mexico and Florida and outbound traffic from places like Texas, Georgia and Florida.

Similarly the Chicago route will carry people flying onward to Toronto, or to Eli Lilly in Indianapolis, for example.

And the Newark route will carry traffic to/from Boston, Washington DC and Philadelphia as well as NYC.

All of this traffic is likely to be ticketed on the same ticket - meaning that Air NZ is going to be buying a lot of sectors from United Airlines and Air Canada. But current dogma is that an NZ ticket from Auckland to Atlanta or Miami via Houston is fine, because NZ operates only one sector, whereas an Auckland to London ticket on an Air NZ service via LAX was uneconomic. And I don't buy that logic - because it is economically illiterate.

Don't get me wrong - I'm delighted that those three new US routes are open. But I think their viability destroys the airline's own argument against AKL-LAX-LHR.

Especially when you consider that Qantas is serving JFK out of Auckland, and that Delta and United are competing too. The eventual outcome will be that Air NZ will end up having to stop the current price gouging to North America and will have to either compete or exit.

And that is where Air NZ's 2015-2020 international strategy was intellectually bankrupt and unsustainable. If you base your model around price gouging on monopoly routes, what are you going to do when competitors choose to enter the market?

Koruman23 wrote:

I would be interested in a discussion about the future Air New Zeland international network.

In the pre-Covid era, Air NZ chose to take an idiosyncratic and ultimately unique approach to international network planning.

1. They essentially bailed out of most routes which entailed significant competition.
2. They focused on monopoly and pseudo-monopoly routes wherever possible, forming anti-competitive alliances to Australia, New Caledonia, Tahiti, Singapore and Hong Kong which were arguably highly fortunate to obtain regulatory approval.
3. They operated an unusually high percentage of government-underwritten routes (Auckland to Norfolk Island, Brisbane to Norfolk Island, Auckland to Niue, Sydney to Rarotonga, Los Angeles to Rarotonga). These routes combined a lack of risk (due to government underwriting) with a monopoly market position.
4. They carried their Shanghai route through a decade and a half of losses for reasons of market development, in spite of revealing in their own financial statements that it made a loss every year except for one.
5. They converted their short-haul narrowbody international network to all-economy, a decision which was not followed by Qantas or Virgin Australia or SilkAir or Aircalin or Fiji Airways, and was only shared with Jetstar in this region.
6. They closed AKL-HKG-LHR and AKL-LAX-LHR and AKL-PPT-LAX on the basis that one-stop tickets are unprofitable. While failing to see the irony that their new Chicago, Houston and Newark routes had virtually no O+D market, and were reliant upon the airline purchasing domestic sectors on United Airlines in order to sell tickets. And again, this Air NZ "No one-stop services" dogma was never adopted by the legacy American airlines (which all run hub-and-spoke models), or by Singapore Airlines and Emirates (both of which sell more than 80% of their tickets on one-stop services). And in the case of Qantas, they rolled out PER-LHR, PER-CDG and AKL-JFK services which were actually entirely based upon feed from SYD, MEL and BNE to sell one-stop tickets.

In isolation, Air NZ's route decisions were unusual and quirky. In combination they led to the airline forging a uniquely different direction, in which it eschewed almost all competition and focused on exploiting market monopolies. In effect, the direction taken allowed for modest profits but made the airline a hostage to if and when other carriers chose to enter the market and compete. And the model of terminating European services half-way and selling onward sectors on a different carrier actually meant that the only airline with whom Air New Zealand shared a business model was Air Calin, which is a highly unusual model for an airline to choose to emulate.

So where next?

Some of the one stop services had a lot of competition eg HKG - LHR had CX, BA , VS as well as NZ. While PPT to LAX has TN and DL so I can see why they decided to move off them. During the time they pulled out of some one stop services they opened up new unserved markets from AKL with non stop flying which usually had lower trip costs so therefore overall higher revenue for them.

Koruman23 wrote:

JJWess wrote:

Koruman23 wrote:

I would be interested in a discussion about the future Air New Zeland international network.

In the pre-Covid era, Air NZ chose to take an idiosyncratic and ultimately unique approach to international network planning.

1. They essentially bailed out of most routes which entailed significant competition.
2. They focused on monopoly and pseudo-monopoly routes wherever possible, forming anti-competitive alliances to Australia, New Caledonia, Tahiti, Singapore and Hong Kong which were arguably highly fortunate to obtain regulatory approval.
3. They operated an unusually high percentage of government-underwritten routes (Auckland to Norfolk Island, Brisbane to Norfolk Island, Auckland to Niue, Sydney to Rarotonga, Los Angeles to Rarotonga). These routes combined a lack of risk (due to government underwriting) with a monopoly market position.
4. They carried their Shanghai route through a decade and a half of losses for reasons of market development, in spite of revealing in their own financial statements that it made a loss every year except for one.
5. They converted their short-haul narrowbody international network to all-economy, a decision which was not followed by Qantas or Virgin Australia or SilkAir or Aircalin or Fiji Airways, and was only shared with Jetstar in this region.
6. They closed AKL-HKG-LHR and AKL-LAX-LHR and AKL-PPT-LAX on the basis that one-stop tickets are unprofitable. While failing to see the irony that their new Chicago, Houston and Newark routes had virtually no O+D market, and were reliant upon the airline purchasing domestic sectors on United Airlines in order to sell tickets. And again, this Air NZ "No one-stop services" dogma was never adopted by the legacy American airlines (which all run hub-and-spoke models), or by Singapore Airlines and Emirates (both of which sell more than 80% of their tickets on one-stop services). And in the case of Qantas, they rolled out PER-LHR, PER-CDG and AKL-JFK services which were actually entirely based upon feed from SYD, MEL and BNE to sell one-stop tickets.

In isolation, Air NZ's route decisions were unusual and quirky. In combination they led to the airline forging a uniquely different direction, in which it eschewed almost all competition and focused on exploiting market monopolies. In effect, the direction taken allowed for modest profits but made the airline a hostage to if and when other carriers chose to enter the market and compete. And the model of terminating European services half-way and selling onward sectors on a different carrier actually meant that the only airline with whom Air New Zealand shared a business model was Air Calin, which is a highly unusual model for an airline to choose to emulate.

So where next?

IAH I can understand as having very limited O&D… but Chicago and most notably, New York? One of the most iconic and largest metropolitan cities on the planet and you would argue that there’s no O&D traffic to New York? There’s so much tourism + business travel and even VFR traffic between NY and oceania.

That aside, I think NZ has found their North America network to work well for them. So going forward, I can only see them strengthen it. Perhaps not with any new routes though, but definitely frequency increases. I think if they were to introduce any new cities, it’d be YYZ, potentially followed by IAD (UAL Hub) and maybe, just maybe, Seattle.

Singapore seems to be where they concentrate most of their Asia traffic. Contradictory to your comment on NZ’s anti-one-stop trips, I actually think Singapore for NZ forms a notable hub for them to filter passengers on to places like India, China and even onward to Europe if necessary. NZ have definitely pulled out of operating one-stop trips on their own metal - but with limited capacity and slack in their fleet, perhaps it’s for the best.

The only black hole in their network is South America. At least with Europe you can very easily be routed via SIN or north America, but South America is sorely missing on their route map. Well that and South Africa…

With respect, I am arguing about the ORD-NZ and NYC-NZ markets, rather than about the global significance of Chicago and New York.

Basically the entire North America to NZ market used to fit on one daily Air NZ and one daily Qantas 744 - and that included a lot of onward traffic to/from Australia.

When Qantas and United withdrew, Air NZ eventually increased to 2 daily 77Ws serving LAX (one of which also carried onward traffic to London) and one daily 77W to SFO.

Either way, the entire North America to NZ market has never been shown to exceed around 1000 seats per day, the vast majority of which are for US West Coast traffic.

So the Chicago, Houston and Newark routes all require the market to/from the South, the Midwest and the Northeast of the USA to be grown rapidly and massively.

It's inevitable that the Houston route will include onward traffic to Mexico and Florida and outbound traffic from places like Texas, Georgia and Florida.

Similarly the Chicago route will carry people flying onward to Toronto, or to Eli Lilly in Indianapolis, for example.

And the Newark route will carry traffic to/from Boston, Washington DC and Philadelphia as well as NYC.

All of this traffic is likely to be ticketed on the same ticket - meaning that Air NZ is going to be buying a lot of sectors from United Airlines and Air Canada. But current dogma is that an NZ ticket from Auckland to Atlanta or Miami via Houston is fine, because NZ operates only one sector, whereas an Auckland to London ticket on an Air NZ service via LAX was uneconomic. And I don't buy that logic - because it is economically illiterate.

Don't get me wrong - I'm delighted that those three new US routes are open. But I think their viability destroys the airline's own argument against AKL-LAX-LHR.

Especially when you consider that Qantas is serving JFK out of Auckland, and that Delta and United are competing too. The eventual outcome will be that Air NZ will end up having to stop the current price gouging to North America and will have to either compete or exit.

And that is where Air NZ's 2015-2020 international strategy was intellectually bankrupt and unsustainable. If you base your model around price gouging on monopoly routes, what are you going to do when competitors choose to enter the market?

Just a slight correction at New York, Air NZ serve JFK and not Newark. At JFK there is no feed from domestic flights as United's domestic hub is Newark. So it's nearly all O&D at JFK to AKL plus some international traffic via other European Star Alliance partners.

NZ516 wrote:

Koruman23 wrote:

I would be interested in a discussion about the future Air New Zeland international network.

In the pre-Covid era, Air NZ chose to take an idiosyncratic and ultimately unique approach to international network planning.

1. They essentially bailed out of most routes which entailed significant competition.
2. They focused on monopoly and pseudo-monopoly routes wherever possible, forming anti-competitive alliances to Australia, New Caledonia, Tahiti, Singapore and Hong Kong which were arguably highly fortunate to obtain regulatory approval.
3. They operated an unusually high percentage of government-underwritten routes (Auckland to Norfolk Island, Brisbane to Norfolk Island, Auckland to Niue, Sydney to Rarotonga, Los Angeles to Rarotonga). These routes combined a lack of risk (due to government underwriting) with a monopoly market position.
4. They carried their Shanghai route through a decade and a half of losses for reasons of market development, in spite of revealing in their own financial statements that it made a loss every year except for one.
5. They converted their short-haul narrowbody international network to all-economy, a decision which was not followed by Qantas or Virgin Australia or SilkAir or Aircalin or Fiji Airways, and was only shared with Jetstar in this region.
6. They closed AKL-HKG-LHR and AKL-LAX-LHR and AKL-PPT-LAX on the basis that one-stop tickets are unprofitable. While failing to see the irony that their new Chicago, Houston and Newark routes had virtually no O+D market, and were reliant upon the airline purchasing domestic sectors on United Airlines in order to sell tickets. And again, this Air NZ "No one-stop services" dogma was never adopted by the legacy American airlines (which all run hub-and-spoke models), or by Singapore Airlines and Emirates (both of which sell more than 80% of their tickets on one-stop services). And in the case of Qantas, they rolled out PER-LHR, PER-CDG and AKL-JFK services which were actually entirely based upon feed from SYD, MEL and BNE to sell one-stop tickets.

In isolation, Air NZ's route decisions were unusual and quirky. In combination they led to the airline forging a uniquely different direction, in which it eschewed almost all competition and focused on exploiting market monopolies. In effect, the direction taken allowed for modest profits but made the airline a hostage to if and when other carriers chose to enter the market and compete. And the model of terminating European services half-way and selling onward sectors on a different carrier actually meant that the only airline with whom Air New Zealand shared a business model was Air Calin, which is a highly unusual model for an airline to choose to emulate.

So where next?

Some of the one stop services had a lot of competition eg HKG - LHR had CX, BA , VS as well as NZ. While PPT to LAX has TN and DL so I can see why they decided to move off them. During the time they pulled out of some one stop services they opened up new unserved markets from AKL with non stop flying which usually had lower trip costs so therefore overall higher revenue for them.

I am not arguing for a barrage of one-stop flights.

I think that failing to operate a London route is a disgrace which actually brings shame on a full-service carrier. The others I'm really not bothered about.

In my old incarnation I believed - and probably still do - that Air NZ should have taken control of V Australia to run a second Australian carrier's LAX services and use that to hub at LAX onwards to Europe. The 789 order was ideal for that. But there no longer is a V Australia, and a Koruhub at LAX is off the agenda.

I don't consider HKG to be a viable destination at all any more for geopolitical reasons. An international airline needs to be nimble, and there are good reasons why I would be avoiding that part of the world completely on the basis that political developments carry too great a risk of disrupting any Chinese route's viability.

At this stage I would argue that Air NZ should now be looking at how to get a US pre-clearance facility at AKL. It wouldn't help in terms of EWR, with Qantas already opening JFK, but it would carry the potential to make Air NZ a carrier of choice between Australia and LAX, SFO, DFW/IAH, ORD and HNL.

NZ516 wrote:

Koruman23 wrote:

JJWess wrote:

IAH I can understand as having very limited O&D… but Chicago and most notably, New York? One of the most iconic and largest metropolitan cities on the planet and you would argue that there’s no O&D traffic to New York? There’s so much tourism + business travel and even VFR traffic between NY and oceania.

That aside, I think NZ has found their North America network to work well for them. So going forward, I can only see them strengthen it. Perhaps not with any new routes though, but definitely frequency increases. I think if they were to introduce any new cities, it’d be YYZ, potentially followed by IAD (UAL Hub) and maybe, just maybe, Seattle.

Singapore seems to be where they concentrate most of their Asia traffic. Contradictory to your comment on NZ’s anti-one-stop trips, I actually think Singapore for NZ forms a notable hub for them to filter passengers on to places like India, China and even onward to Europe if necessary. NZ have definitely pulled out of operating one-stop trips on their own metal - but with limited capacity and slack in their fleet, perhaps it’s for the best.

The only black hole in their network is South America. At least with Europe you can very easily be routed via SIN or north America, but South America is sorely missing on their route map. Well that and South Africa…

With respect, I am arguing about the ORD-NZ and NYC-NZ markets, rather than about the global significance of Chicago and New York.

Basically the entire North America to NZ market used to fit on one daily Air NZ and one daily Qantas 744 - and that included a lot of onward traffic to/from Australia.

When Qantas and United withdrew, Air NZ eventually increased to 2 daily 77Ws serving LAX (one of which also carried onward traffic to London) and one daily 77W to SFO.

Either way, the entire North America to NZ market has never been shown to exceed around 1000 seats per day, the vast majority of which are for US West Coast traffic.

So the Chicago, Houston and Newark routes all require the market to/from the South, the Midwest and the Northeast of the USA to be grown rapidly and massively.

It's inevitable that the Houston route will include onward traffic to Mexico and Florida and outbound traffic from places like Texas, Georgia and Florida.

Similarly the Chicago route will carry people flying onward to Toronto, or to Eli Lilly in Indianapolis, for example.

And the Newark route will carry traffic to/from Boston, Washington DC and Philadelphia as well as NYC.

All of this traffic is likely to be ticketed on the same ticket - meaning that Air NZ is going to be buying a lot of sectors from United Airlines and Air Canada. But current dogma is that an NZ ticket from Auckland to Atlanta or Miami via Houston is fine, because NZ operates only one sector, whereas an Auckland to London ticket on an Air NZ service via LAX was uneconomic. And I don't buy that logic - because it is economically illiterate.

Don't get me wrong - I'm delighted that those three new US routes are open. But I think their viability destroys the airline's own argument against AKL-LAX-LHR.

Especially when you consider that Qantas is serving JFK out of Auckland, and that Delta and United are competing too. The eventual outcome will be that Air NZ will end up having to stop the current price gouging to North America and will have to either compete or exit.

And that is where Air NZ's 2015-2020 international strategy was intellectually bankrupt and unsustainable. If you base your model around price gouging on monopoly routes, what are you going to do when competitors choose to enter the market?

Just a slight correction at New York, Air NZ serve JFK and not Newark. At JFK there is no feed from domestic flights as United's domestic hub is Newark. So it's nearly all O&D at JFK to AKL plus some international traffic via other European Star Alliance partners.

Oops, my bad.

As my multi-year absence shows, during the Covid period I really didn't keep abreast of international aviation. So apologies for that.

At this stage I would argue that Air NZ should now be looking at how to get a US pre-clearance facility at AKL. It wouldn't help in terms of EWR, with Qantas already opening JFK, but it would carry the potential to make Air NZ a carrier of choice between Australia and LAX, SFO, DFW/IAH, ORD and HNL.

Surely creating a pre-clearance in AKL would just mean QF,UA, AA and DL immediately push for exactly the same thing at SYD and probably MEL.

tullamarine wrote:

At this stage I would argue that Air NZ should now be looking at how to get a US pre-clearance facility at AKL. It wouldn't help in terms of EWR, with Qantas already opening JFK, but it would carry the potential to make Air NZ a carrier of choice between Australia and LAX, SFO, DFW/IAH, ORD and HNL.

Surely creating a pre-clearance in AKL would just mean QF,UA, AA and DL immediately push for exactly the same thing at SYD and probably MEL.

So be it I guess

Koruman23 wrote:

So where next?

As a (mostly) lurker for a very long time, I'm happy to see you back Koruman and I enjoy the always entertaining threads that result!

My own thoughts on NZ long-haul? I always start by noting the choices they made pre-covid had for better or worse made them a much higher margin enterprise than most of their competitors in the region. Much more profit per dollar invested than QF, SQ etc managed. Really only matched by the more successful LCCs like FR and a handful of network carriers like AS, FI, CM, DL. So their chosen network was working for the shareholders even if nobody else.

In the post-covid world, what sort of routes can NZ fly to get back to generating the high returns it enjoyed pre-covid?
- Outbound NZ business travelers with NZ loyalty. Never particularly big for NZ, mostly Oz focused, and much diminished since Covid. Helps fill the likes of LAX, SFO, SIN, HKG with the help of the connecting JVs on each route.
- Outbound NZ vacation/VFR. Cost sensitive, works best where NZ offers a better/easier experience than others (basically, non-stops). DPS, HNL, YVR.
- Inbound "premium leisure". The big trend in aviation post-covid. Cashed up professionals traveling to interesting places filling the J seats that businesses no longer buy. A great fit for the NZ brand and network, and the North America of 2023 is perfect for this. New Zealand has vastly grown in awareness and positive perception here in the past decade or two, amongst those in the market for long-haul vacations. By far the most common response in the Texas of 2023 (where I live) is that "it's on my bucket list". 20 years ago it was 50/50 whether people had even heard of it. The planes are full at great fares, despite the US3 and QF all entering and growing in the market.

Flights are then topped up by attractively priced and timed one-stops Oz-North America. Oz point of sale dominating, where NZ has a strong brand and market presence. Low fares but help maximise revenue on each plane that departs AKL for North America.

For future long haul routes I would look for routes that fill those particular niches and where NZ can earn a premium. Assuming business travel isn't going to grow massively any time soon, that means more outbound leisure (1-2x weekly SGN, BKK, HKT, LAS, OGG) or the same inbound (SEA, DFW, IAD, YYZ). On balance I think outbound more likely as NZ is now hitting all the largest viable inbound markets, except...

LHR-AKL. The London flyer has a choice of 10+ competitors at various price points and stopover options, and no local *A carrier for loyalty, so NZ is really only attractive to those wanting the New Zealand experience from boarding the plane. The market is so large though that those passengers, plus a share of the LAX-LHR would I'm sure still keep the route profitable today. But I think it would look marginal when including the opportunity cost of those slots, which if I recall sold for $50 million, with lucky timing just before Covid. I don't think NZ is losing sleep over the decision they made there.

US Pre-clearance at AKL is more likely to happen than SYD or MEL. SYD just does not have the space, and MEL hardly have the flights. I know that sizeable expansion projects are in the pipeline for AKL, so it’d be a great opportunity to seize, especially for NZ.

And to be fair, you’d most likely see QF launch more US flights from AKL instead of putting up a stink about SYD not getting the facility. They know how capacity constrained it gets at peak times.

JJWess wrote:

US Pre-clearance at AKL is more likely to happen than SYD or MEL. SYD just does not have the space, and MEL hardly have the flights. I know that sizeable expansion projects are in the pipeline for AKL, so it’d be a great opportunity to seize, especially for NZ.

And to be fair, you’d most likely see QF launch more US flights from AKL instead of putting up a stink about SYD not getting the facility. They know how capacity constrained it gets at peak times.

US Pre-Clearance in AKL would be so straight forward to step too, Gate 15-18 already get blocked off for USA departures.

Adding US Pre to Pier B, seems like a logical option. Add a few moveable walls so it can be either 2 or 4 gates at once.

AKL-USA must be getting close to 10x departures at peak times of the year?

zkncj wrote:

JJWess wrote:

US Pre-clearance at AKL is more likely to happen than SYD or MEL. SYD just does not have the space, and MEL hardly have the flights. I know that sizeable expansion projects are in the pipeline for AKL, so it’d be a great opportunity to seize, especially for NZ.

And to be fair, you’d most likely see QF launch more US flights from AKL instead of putting up a stink about SYD not getting the facility. They know how capacity constrained it gets at peak times.

US Pre-Clearance in AKL would be so straight forward to step too, Gate 15-18 already get blocked off for USA departures.

Adding US Pre to Pier B, seems like a logical option. Add a few moveable walls so it can be either 2 or 4 gates at once.

AKL-USA must be getting close to 10x departures at peak times of the year?

Well with DL in the picture (and if it’s true that AA will return LAX-AKL) then you’re looking at the 10-14 range. If NZ brings up ORD and JFK flying, and with LAX being 10 weekly… yeah you’ve got a sizeable amount of US bound departures.

On another note, with these blocked off gates - are passengers questioned/subject to any form of screening?

JJWess wrote:

zkncj wrote:

JJWess wrote:

US Pre-clearance at AKL is more likely to happen than SYD or MEL. SYD just does not have the space, and MEL hardly have the flights. I know that sizeable expansion projects are in the pipeline for AKL, so it’d be a great opportunity to seize, especially for NZ.

And to be fair, you’d most likely see QF launch more US flights from AKL instead of putting up a stink about SYD not getting the facility. They know how capacity constrained it gets at peak times.

US Pre-Clearance in AKL would be so straight forward to step too, Gate 15-18 already get blocked off for USA departures.

Adding US Pre to Pier B, seems like a logical option. Add a few moveable walls so it can be either 2 or 4 gates at once.

AKL-USA must be getting close to 10x departures at peak times of the year?

Well with DL in the picture (and if it’s true that AA will return LAX-AKL) then you’re looking at the 10-14 range. If NZ brings up ORD and JFK flying, and with LAX being 10 weekly… yeah you’ve got a sizeable amount of US bound departures.

On another note, with these blocked off gates - are passengers questioned/subject to any form of screening?

Typically there is a screen point of verbal questions, checking passport matches boarding pass etc.

The US changes it requirements allot, they have a very reactive approach to the current situation.

JJWess wrote:

zkncj wrote:

JJWess wrote:

US Pre-clearance at AKL is more likely to happen than SYD or MEL. SYD just does not have the space, and MEL hardly have the flights. I know that sizeable expansion projects are in the pipeline for AKL, so it’d be a great opportunity to seize, especially for NZ.

And to be fair, you’d most likely see QF launch more US flights from AKL instead of putting up a stink about SYD not getting the facility. They know how capacity constrained it gets at peak times.

US Pre-Clearance in AKL would be so straight forward to step too, Gate 15-18 already get blocked off for USA departures.

Adding US Pre to Pier B, seems like a logical option. Add a few moveable walls so it can be either 2 or 4 gates at once.

AKL-USA must be getting close to 10x departures at peak times of the year?

Well with DL in the picture (and if it’s true that AA will return LAX-AKL) then you’re looking at the 10-14 range. If NZ brings up ORD and JFK flying, and with LAX being 10 weekly… yeah you’ve got a sizeable amount of US bound departures.

On another note, with these blocked off gates - are passengers questioned/subject to any form of screening?

If AA return to LAX-AKL plus DL you could have based on current schedules around 9-10 daily US departures. I expect there could be some changes.

NZ
LAX x10
IAH x7
SFO x5
JFK x3
ORD x3
HNL x3

AA
DFW x7
LAX x7

UA
SFO x7

DL
LAX x7

QF
JFK x3

HA
HNL x3

ZK-NBT wrote:

JJWess wrote:

zkncj wrote:

US Pre-Clearance in AKL would be so straight forward to step too, Gate 15-18 already get blocked off for USA departures.

Adding US Pre to Pier B, seems like a logical option. Add a few moveable walls so it can be either 2 or 4 gates at once.

AKL-USA must be getting close to 10x departures at peak times of the year?

Well with DL in the picture (and if it’s true that AA will return LAX-AKL) then you’re looking at the 10-14 range. If NZ brings up ORD and JFK flying, and with LAX being 10 weekly… yeah you’ve got a sizeable amount of US bound departures.

On another note, with these blocked off gates - are passengers questioned/subject to any form of screening?

If AA return to LAX-AKL plus DL you could have based on current schedules around 9-10 daily US departures. I expect there could be some changes.

NZ
LAX x10
IAH x7
SFO x5
JFK x3
ORD x3
HNL x3

AA
DFW x7
LAX x7

UA
SFO x7

DL
LAX x7

QF
JFK x3

HA
HNL x3

That’s correct. It’d go above the 10 mark if ORD, LAX and JFK get increased flights from NZ (and potentially QF on the JFK sector).
My bad. Should’ve made that clearer

Well, January was a long month of information that came out - so many things happened, let's enjoy this month and here we go!

"Air New Zealand borrows A380 to rescue passengers stranded by Auckland floods with additional flights."

Air New Zealand says it is undertaking one of the biggest customer recoveries in the airline’s history as it tries to rebook customers stranded by the closure of Auckland Airport in floods.

Almost 9000 customers were affected by the shutdown of New Zealand’s biggest international airport. With few spare seats to rebook passengers on, the airline has sought to upgrade aircraft or fly additional services to clear the backlog.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/travel/air-n ... HB2Z4M6LM/

Also, remember something to keep an eye on will be Air NZ's interim results which are on the 23rd of February 2023.

Koruman23 wrote:

All of this traffic is likely to be ticketed on the same ticket - meaning that Air NZ is going to be buying a lot of sectors from United Airlines and Air Canada. But current dogma is that an NZ ticket from Auckland to Atlanta or Miami via Houston is fine, because NZ operates only one sector, whereas an Auckland to London ticket on an Air NZ service via LAX was uneconomic. And I don't buy that logic - because it is economically illiterate.

Don't get me wrong - I'm delighted that those three new US routes are open. But I think their viability destroys the airline's own argument against AKL-LAX-LHR.

Especially when you consider that Qantas is serving JFK out of Auckland, and that Delta and United are competing too. The eventual outcome will be that Air NZ will end up having to stop the current price gouging to North America and will have to either compete or exit.

I think the LHR route is a little different as they had to have a whole crew base dedicated for those flights at the end of the line in LHR. With QF doing JFK they are leveraging off a the Jetconnect AKL base that already flies to multiple destinations.

ZKOJH wrote:

Also, remember something to keep an eye on will be Air NZ's interim results which are on the 23rd of February 2023.

Yes. There will be some changes to the "Projected aircraft in service' since 25 Aug 2022. The obvious is the delayed delivery of the GE 789s and ZK-OKO remaining. Will be interesting to see if ZK-OKO's lease has been extended or if it has been purchased. The BBAM listing for ZK-OKO on myairtrade.com was for Sale or Lease and that was removed last week. Perhaps the leases on the two domestic A320-232s due to be returned in FY2024 will be extended and A321-271NX ZK-OYE might be delivered as ZK-NNH. Anyway only three weeks to go.

Edit: I spoke too soon. ZK-OKO was relisted by BBAM on 26 Jan 2023 for Sale or Lease. The available date is 10 Nov 2023. Interesting.

PA515

anstar wrote:

Koruman23 wrote:

All of this traffic is likely to be ticketed on the same ticket - meaning that Air NZ is going to be buying a lot of sectors from United Airlines and Air Canada. But current dogma is that an NZ ticket from Auckland to Atlanta or Miami via Houston is fine, because NZ operates only one sector, whereas an Auckland to London ticket on an Air NZ service via LAX was uneconomic. And I don't buy that logic - because it is economically illiterate.

Don't get me wrong - I'm delighted that those three new US routes are open. But I think their viability destroys the airline's own argument against AKL-LAX-LHR.

Especially when you consider that Qantas is serving JFK out of Auckland, and that Delta and United are competing too. The eventual outcome will be that Air NZ will end up having to stop the current price gouging to North America and will have to either compete or exit.

I think the LHR route is a little different as they had to have a whole crew base dedicated for those flights at the end of the line in LHR. With QF doing JFK they are leveraging off a the Jetconnect AKL base that already flies to multiple destinations.

Yes I think this is a point that seems to be missed in the discussion on NZ one stop flights. Comparison with the likes of EK or SQ is also slightly disingenuous - the vast majority of flights by those carriers are direct/nonstop from their hub, but with their convenient geographical location and extensive network they can ‘combine’ these to offer all manner of one stop journeys. Their costs will surely be a lot lower with aircraft and crew doing and out back returns to home base.

Back in the days of NZ AKL-LAX-LHR crew were out of AKL for 7-8 days on those sectors. That costs.

anstar wrote:

Koruman23 wrote:

All of this traffic is likely to be ticketed on the same ticket - meaning that Air NZ is going to be buying a lot of sectors from United Airlines and Air Canada. But current dogma is that an NZ ticket from Auckland to Atlanta or Miami via Houston is fine, because NZ operates only one sector, whereas an Auckland to London ticket on an Air NZ service via LAX was uneconomic. And I don't buy that logic - because it is economically illiterate.

Don't get me wrong - I'm delighted that those three new US routes are open. But I think their viability destroys the airline's own argument against AKL-LAX-LHR.

Especially when you consider that Qantas is serving JFK out of Auckland, and that Delta and United are competing too. The eventual outcome will be that Air NZ will end up having to stop the current price gouging to North America and will have to either compete or exit.

I think the LHR route is a little different as they had to have a whole crew base dedicated for those flights at the end of the line in LHR. With QF doing JFK they are leveraging off a the Jetconnect AKL base that already flies to multiple destinations.

They had a LHR base. They didn’t and don’t HAVE to have one. They can simply extend trips to be multi leg just like their pilots do. The LHR base was about cutting crew costs (at a time when NZ had crew on old expensive contracts), that isn’t really an issue anymore as COVID let the airline bring in new contracts etc at lower cost.

With the move to an entire 787 fleet and the effective reduction in cargo capacity would there be any sense in NZ converting a 77W to a freighter?

PA515 wrote:

ZKOJH wrote:

Also, remember something to keep an eye on will be Air NZ's interim results which are on the 23rd of February 2023.

Yes. There will be some changes to the "Projected aircraft in service' since 25 Aug 2022. The obvious is the delayed delivery of the GE 789s and ZK-OKO remaining. Will be interesting to see if ZK-OKO's lease has been extended or if it has been purchased. The BBAM listing for ZK-OKO on myairtrade.com was for Sale or Lease and that was removed last week. Perhaps the leases on the two domestic A320-232s due to be returned in FY2024 will be extended and A321-271NX ZK-OYE might be delivered as ZK-NNH. Anyway only three weeks to go.

Edit: I spoke too soon. ZK-OKO was relisted by BBAM on 26 Jan 2023 for Sale or Lease. The available date is 10 Nov 2023. Interesting.

PA515

So Air NZ might have done an extra 12 months lease on ZK-OKO and don't plan on holding onto it after 10 Nov. Perhaps their plan is just 6 77Ws for the next few years.

Koruman23 wrote:

I would be interested in a discussion about the future Air New Zealand international network.

In the pre-Covid era, Air NZ chose to take an idiosyncratic and ultimately unique approach to international network planning.

Network planning and therefore fleet planning, which then impacts network decisions.
With the 787-9 original order in mid 2000's-ish, I completely get how and why that decision was made.
But my opinion is that the 772 replacement with more 787's was the wrong one, particularly when factoring in the future 773 replacement.
I can't help but feel that a combined 787-9 (12-14 aircraft) and A350 (7ish A359 and 7 A35X) would've provided a more capable and resilient fleet for NZ going forward. In particular, the A359's would be far more capable on the ORD and JFK routes.
We can always rehash history, and hindsight is 20/20 and all that. But still worth considering these decisions and the impacts they've had and will have going forward.

NZ516 wrote:

PA515 wrote:

ZKOJH wrote:

Also, remember something to keep an eye on will be Air NZ's interim results which are on the 23rd of February 2023.

Yes. There will be some changes to the "Projected aircraft in service' since 25 Aug 2022. The obvious is the delayed delivery of the GE 789s and ZK-OKO remaining. Will be interesting to see if ZK-OKO's lease has been extended or if it has been purchased. The BBAM listing for ZK-OKO on myairtrade.com was for Sale or Lease and that was removed last week. Perhaps the leases on the two domestic A320-232s due to be returned in FY2024 will be extended and A321-271NX ZK-OYE might be delivered as ZK-NNH. Anyway only three weeks to go.

Edit: I spoke too soon. ZK-OKO was relisted by BBAM on 26 Jan 2023 for Sale or Lease. The available date is 10 Nov 2023. Interesting.

PA515

So Air NZ might have done an extra 12 months lease on ZK-OKO and don't plan on holding onto it after 10 Nov. Perhaps their plan is just 6 77Ws for the next few years.

It could be engines or something? Power by the hour type deal so NZ didn’t want to lock or in longer and can decide later weather to extend? Hard to imagine will get rid of it.

aerohottie wrote:

Koruman23 wrote:

I would be interested in a discussion about the future Air New Zealand international network.

In the pre-Covid era, Air NZ chose to take an idiosyncratic and ultimately unique approach to international network planning.

Network planning and therefore fleet planning, which then impacts network decisions.
With the 787-9 original order in mid 2000's-ish, I completely get how and why that decision was made.
But my opinion is that the 772 replacement with more 787's was the wrong one, particularly when factoring in the future 773 replacement.
I can't help but feel that a combined 787-9 (12-14 aircraft) and A350 (7ish A359 and 7 A35X) would've provided a more capable and resilient fleet for NZ going forward. In particular, the A359's would be far more capable on the ORD and JFK routes.
We can always rehash history, and hindsight is 20/20 and all that. But still worth considering these decisions and the impacts they've had and will have going forward.

Originally they ordered the 788 or 7E7, back then it was a bit surprising they changed to the 789 imo given initially it was replacing the 763. Even back then I think the long term goal was a single type long haul fleet, the 772/77W was considered to big and they couldn’t afford to replace the 744/763 at the same time.

I don’t disagree that the A350 would carry more over a long distance and could have been a good fit.

ZKNZR wrote:

Back in the days of NZ AKL-LAX-LHR crew were out of AKL for 7-8 days on those sectors. That costs.

Ten days for the flightcrew as I remember it. Though actually that could have been for via HKG.

All this discussion about LAX-LHR is missing the possibility that NZ could return to LHR down the line, non-stop from AKL. 10-15 years ago who'd have thought we'd have AKL-DXB/DOH/ORD/JFK - doesn't seem to be that far-fetched that AKL-LHR could become a reality.

Reading some of the comments on the future direction of NZ, I'm interested to see that most people have focused on the past, rather than the future, though there have been a few interesting comments on the future.

I'd take issue with some of what K'man said about the network strategy being essentially "point-to-point" - it most emphatically is not. Looking east, the strategy is publicly stated as being to provide own-metal connectivity from Australian ports to the Americas, and most recently it was stated that further Australian ports were possible (though as I noted a couple of days ago, no decision on CBR until some time next year). The number of Australasia to North America city pairs has grown enormously in the last few years. Looking west, the own-metal offering is more about point-to-point, I'd acknowledge, but when partner airlines are taken into account, there's a big focus on hubbing - especially at SIN.

The argument about one-stop services is primarily to do with the expense of such an operation. Much of that cost is a consequence of crew being away from home for long periods and being accommodated, or the costs of marketing a low-frequency sector where there is relatively low brand awareness (ie LAX-LHR). However, if the intermediate point was located in Australia, and local crews hired at that base, then much of the argument about crew costs would disappear, and we know that NZ's brand awareness in Australia is high - to the point where a couple of years running in the not-too-distant past, NZ was voted the must trusted brand in Australia.

So for the future, I'd like to see NZ view itself as more of an Australasian airline than as a NZ carrier - it should play to its strengths. There's been a lot of discussion about the possible reinstatement of an LHR link - I say, why not consider PER as a hub for services to Europe and India? It's not too wacky an idea to think that you could run AKL-PER-LHR daily, with a scissor hub operating at PER for CHC-PER-FRA 3x weekly, for example. And Australian connectivity could be provided by running (say) WLG/ZQN-SYD/BNE/MEL-PER, for example, with connections at PER also to BOM or DEL, perhaps. We know that PER-LHR has been extraordinarily successful for QF.

Bottom line is that New Zealand is a very limited market on its own, and NZ has never really taken up the opportunities offered by the Single Aviation Market in a meaningful way. After all, what I'm suggesting here is no different to what QF is already planning for toward the Americas, and not that dissimilar to what NZ already does to the Americas, so from a philosophical point of view there's no major innovation.

planemanofnz wrote:

All this discussion about LAX-LHR is missing the possibility that NZ could return to LHR down the line, non-stop from AKL. 10-15 years ago who'd have thought we'd have AKL-DXB/DOH/ORD/JFK - doesn't seem to be that far-fetched that AKL-LHR could become a reality.

Very true. I had asked the question about aircraft capability to operate AKL-LHR with either 787 or 350. Answer I got in the tech ops post was that the A359 could do it, and possibly A35X depending on seating configuration.
Another point raised was that AKL-LHR and LHR-AKL flights could operate eastbound in both directions, which makes the flight similar or less than SYD-LHR westbound in terms of flight time at approx 19 hours and 15 minutes

DavidByrne wrote:

Reading some of the comments on the future direction of NZ, I'm interested to see that most people have focused on the past, rather than the future, though there have been a few interesting comments on the future.

I'd take issue with some of what K'man said about the network strategy being essentially "point-to-point" - it most emphatically is not. Looking east, the strategy is publicly stated as being to provide own-metal connectivity from Australian ports to the Americas, and most recently it was stated that further Australian ports were possible (though as I noted a couple of days ago, no decision on CBR until some time next year). The number of Australasia to North America city pairs has grown enormously in the last few years. Looking west, the own-metal offering is more about point-to-point, I'd acknowledge, but when partner airlines are taken into account, there's a big focus on hubbing - especially at SIN.

The argument about one-stop services is primarily to do with the expense of such an operation. Much of that cost is a consequence of crew being away from home for long periods and being accommodated, or the costs of marketing a low-frequency sector where there is relatively low brand awareness (ie LAX-LHR). However, if the intermediate point was located in Australia, and local crews hired at that base, then much of the argument about crew costs would disappear, and we know that NZ's brand awareness in Australia is high - to the point where a couple of years running in the not-too-distant past, NZ was voted the must trusted brand in Australia.

So for the future, I'd like to see NZ view itself as more of an Australasian airline than as a NZ carrier - it should play to its strengths. There's been a lot of discussion about the possible reinstatement of an LHR link - I say, why not consider PER as a hub for services to Europe and India? It's not too wacky an idea to think that you could run AKL-PER-LHR daily, with a scissor hub operating at PER for CHC-PER-FRA 3x weekly, for example. And Australian connectivity could be provided by running (say) WLG/ZQN-SYD/BNE/MEL-PER, for example, with connections at PER also to BOM or DEL, perhaps. We know that PER-LHR has been extraordinarily successful for QF.

Bottom line is that New Zealand is a very limited market on its own, and NZ has never really taken up the opportunities offered by the Single Aviation Market in a meaningful way. After all, what I'm suggesting here is no different to what QF is already planning for toward the Americas, and not that dissimilar to what NZ already does to the Americas, so from a philosophical point of view there's no major innovation.

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.

Perhaps the leases on the two domestic A320-232s due to be returned in FY2024 will be extended and A321-271NX ZK-OYE might be delivered as ZK-NNH. Anyway only three weeks to go.

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.

aerohottie wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

All this discussion about LAX-LHR is missing the possibility that NZ could return to LHR down the line, non-stop from AKL. 10-15 years ago who'd have thought we'd have AKL-DXB/DOH/ORD/JFK - doesn't seem to be that far-fetched that AKL-LHR could become a reality.

Very true. I had asked the question about aircraft capability to operate AKL-LHR with either 787 or 350. Answer I got in the tech ops post was that the A359 could do it, and possibly A35X depending on seating configuration.
Another point raised was that AKL-LHR and LHR-AKL flights could operate eastbound in both directions, which makes the flight similar or less than SYD-LHR westbound in terms of flight time at approx 19 hours and 15 minutes

The shortest route to LHR from AKL is basically northbound over the North Pole. Winds may make a slightly more easterly route quicker though. It is hard to say whether even a Sunrise A35K could do AKL-LHR. It is likely that SYD-LHR is right at the limits of what Airbus can do right now. There probably isn't demand from enough customers for them to bother trying to get the extra 1500kms of range that NZ would be after if it was ever tempted to do AKL-LHR non-stop.

Why don't United Airlines fly Auckland to Chicago? It's a no brainer
ORD is United's biggest hub, and Air New Zealand only fly Auckland to Chicago 3x weekly, surely United could do the other 4 days? It would make sense, I'm not sure why they don't fly it yet.

Sprite8806 wrote:

Why don't United Airlines fly Auckland to Chicago? It's a no brainer
ORD is United's biggest hub, and Air New Zealand only fly Auckland to Chicago 3x weekly, surely United could do the other 4 days? It would make sense, I'm not sure why they don't fly it yet.

Maybe they see more opportunity to make money using the aircraft elsewhere, though with another 100 787s on the way anything is possible, but in the short term they seem quite happy to leave most of the NZ-US flying to their joint venture partner NZ

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

UA to run 789 to AKL Q2.

Kiwiandrew wrote:

Sprite8806 wrote:

Why don't United Airlines fly Auckland to Chicago? It's a no brainer
ORD is United's biggest hub, and Air New Zealand only fly Auckland to Chicago 3x weekly, surely United could do the other 4 days? It would make sense, I'm not sure why they don't fly it yet.

Maybe they see more opportunity to make money using the aircraft elsewhere, though with another 100 787s on the way anything is possible, but in the short term they seem quite happy to leave most of the NZ-US flying to their joint venture partner NZ

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

I thought SFO is UA largest hub?

ZK-NBT wrote:

Kiwiandrew wrote:

Sprite8806 wrote:

Why don't United Airlines fly Auckland to Chicago? It's a no brainer
ORD is United's biggest hub, and Air New Zealand only fly Auckland to Chicago 3x weekly, surely United could do the other 4 days? It would make sense, I'm not sure why they don't fly it yet.

Maybe they see more opportunity to make money using the aircraft elsewhere, though with another 100 787s on the way anything is possible, but in the short term they seem quite happy to leave most of the NZ-US flying to their joint venture partner NZ

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/

NZ516 wrote:

Perhaps the leases on the two domestic A320-232s due to be returned in FY2024 will be extended and A321-271NX ZK-OYE might be delivered as ZK-NNH. Anyway only three weeks to go.

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.

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

KE increase AKL, 789/772.

zkncj wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Perhaps the leases on the two domestic A320-232s due to be returned in FY2024 will be extended and A321-271NX ZK-OYE might be delivered as ZK-NNH. Anyway only three weeks to go.

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.

NZ516 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Kiwiandrew wrote:

Maybe they see more opportunity to make money using the aircraft elsewhere, though with another 100 787s on the way anything is possible, but in the short term they seem quite happy to leave most of the NZ-US flying to their joint venture partner NZ

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.

DavidByrne wrote:

Reading some of the comments on the future direction of NZ, I'm interested to see that most people have focused on the past, rather than the future, though there have been a few interesting comments on the future.

I'd take issue with some of what K'man said about the network strategy being essentially "point-to-point" - it most emphatically is not. Looking east, the strategy is publicly stated as being to provide own-metal connectivity from Australian ports to the Americas, and most recently it was stated that further Australian ports were possible (though as I noted a couple of days ago, no decision on CBR until some time next year). The number of Australasia to North America city pairs has grown enormously in the last few years. Looking west, the own-metal offering is more about point-to-point, I'd acknowledge, but when partner airlines are taken into account, there's a big focus on hubbing - especially at SIN.

The argument about one-stop services is primarily to do with the expense of such an operation. Much of that cost is a consequence of crew being away from home for long periods and being accommodated, or the costs of marketing a low-frequency sector where there is relatively low brand awareness (ie LAX-LHR). However, if the intermediate point was located in Australia, and local crews hired at that base, then much of the argument about crew costs would disappear, and we know that NZ's brand awareness in Australia is high - to the point where a couple of years running in the not-too-distant past, NZ was voted the must trusted brand in Australia.

So for the future, I'd like to see NZ view itself as more of an Australasian airline than as a NZ carrier - it should play to its strengths. There's been a lot of discussion about the possible reinstatement of an LHR link - I say, why not consider PER as a hub for services to Europe and India? It's not too wacky an idea to think that you could run AKL-PER-LHR daily, with a scissor hub operating at PER for CHC-PER-FRA 3x weekly, for example. And Australian connectivity could be provided by running (say) WLG/ZQN-SYD/BNE/MEL-PER, for example, with connections at PER also to BOM or DEL, perhaps. We know that PER-LHR has been extraordinarily successful for QF.

Bottom line is that New Zealand is a very limited market on its own, and NZ has never really taken up the opportunities offered by the Single Aviation Market in a meaningful way. After all, what I'm suggesting here is no different to what QF is already planning for toward the Americas, and not that dissimilar to what NZ already does to the Americas, so from a philosophical point of view there's no major innovation.

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).

There's a reason why a number of airlines (including NZ) that had multiple attempts to invest in the Australian domestic market through investing in past or present airlines or starting up competitors (e.g Tiger Airways Australia) has decided to stray away from trying again after burning millions (or billions).