planemanofnz wrote:

zkncj wrote:

An LR with a Premium Y cabin.

Or a Business Class, a la B6's Mint or SQ's Max products? That lower density layout would further increase range, perhaps making AKL-DPS/HNL viable, and maybe open new opportunities like AKL-CGK?

For an A321LR - 220 passengers in an all-economy configuration has a range of 4,000 nautical miles, although some variants or passenger configurations can extend that range up to around 4,500 nautical miles. AKL-CGK is within this (4,139 nautical miles).

So Air NZ needs at least 3 A321LR with reduced seating but some premium seats, just to serve CHC PER WLG PER and to increase the frequency to PPT?

Nah, I think 3 more 321s in their already standard configurations would be lot more useful increasing capacity on their existing routes and perhaps another Eastern Australia route.

Toenga wrote:

So Air NZ needs at least 3 A321LR with reduced seating but some premium seats, just to serve CHC PER WLG PER and to increase the frequency to PPT?

A few more - the LR/XLR could also be used on AKL-PER, AKL-DPS and AKL-HNL (all less than 4,000nm), freeing up those 789s - and maybe to launch a few other routes (e.g. AKL-CGK, and AKL-DRW).

Toenga wrote:

... more useful increasing capacity on their existing routes and perhaps another Eastern Australia route.

Perhaps. Though the lack of Business Class on the 321NEOs is a bit of a disadvantage in capturing premium Australian traffic travelling to/from the US, while the 321NEO might be too big for CBR or NTL.

planemanofnz wrote:

Toenga wrote:

So Air NZ needs at least 3 A321LR with reduced seating but some premium seats, just to serve CHC PER WLG PER and to increase the frequency to PPT?

A few more - the LR/XLR could also be used on AKL-PER, AKL-DPS and AKL-HNL (all less than 4,000nm), freeing up those 789s - and maybe to launch a few other routes (e.g. AKL-CGK, and AKL-DRW).

Toenga wrote:

... more useful increasing capacity on their existing routes and perhaps another Eastern Australia route.

Perhaps. Though the lack of Business Class on the 321NEOs is a bit of a disadvantage in capturing premium Australian traffic travelling to/from the US, while the 321NEO might be too big for CBR or NTL.

I have AKL-HNL and DPS at over 4000nm, where the A321LR can fly ‘up to’ 4700nm with 180-200pax, those routes particularly HNL-AKL would be not far short of 10hrs. I chuckle a little as over in the Phillipines thread they talk about a ‘right sized’ aircraft for MNL-AKL and the A321LR comes up, it would be 11hrs flying, just way to far with a meaningful load, or the A338 which is just as crazy when an A333 can do it and there are no other routes for an A338 which has long range and heavy.

It’s not really that much of a disadvantage to capturing US-OZ traffic, the 0900 ex AKL are wide bodies. The operating costs of the A321NEO are similar to the A320NEO, just better than another configuration.

I suspect that NZ wouldn't be that interested in 321LR to PPT - I think I am right in saying this route is very cargo heavy.

ZK-NBT wrote:

I have AKL-HNL and DPS at over 4000nm, where the A321LR can fly ‘up to’ 4700nm with 180-200pax.

AKL-DPS is 3,641 nm, while AKL-HNL is 3,814 nm - so, well short of the range limit.

Many carriers have far lower density layouts than 180-200 pax too, like B6's (138 pax).

GW54 wrote:

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

Damage to the aircraft’s undercarriage assembly, as well as a deflated tyre.
There is an inquiry currently under way by the TAIC so we will have to wait for their findings:

https://aviationsourcenews.com/incident ... estigated/

Toenga wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

zkncj wrote:

An LR with a Premium Y cabin.

Or a Business Class, a la B6's Mint or SQ's Max products? That lower density layout would further increase range, perhaps making AKL-DPS/HNL viable, and maybe open new opportunities like AKL-CGK?

For an A321LR - 220 passengers in an all-economy configuration has a range of 4,000 nautical miles, although some variants or passenger configurations can extend that range up to around 4,500 nautical miles. AKL-CGK is within this (4,139 nautical miles).

So Air NZ needs at least 3 A321LR with reduced seating but some premium seats, just to serve CHC PER WLG PER and to increase the frequency to PPT?

Nah, I think 3 more 321s in their already standard configurations would be lot more useful increasing capacity on their existing routes and perhaps another Eastern Australia route.

If Air NZ opened a new Eastern Australia route they would most likely use a A320 to start off with than an A321. Certainly more A321s would be very useful on increasing frequency to existing well established strong routes.

NZ516 wrote:

So Air NZ needs at least 3 A321LR with reduced seating but some premium seats, just to serve CHC PER WLG PER and to increase the frequency to PPT?

Nah, I think 3 more 321s in their already standard configurations would be lot more useful increasing capacity on their existing routes and perhaps another Eastern Australia route.

If Air NZ opened a new Eastern Australia route they would most likely use a A320 to start off with than an A321. Certainly more A321s would be very useful on increasing frequency to existing well established strong routes.[/quote]

Yes and they already have correctly configured A320neo's for this role if they purchased some more new A321's in existing configurations.

ZK-NBT wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

Toenga wrote:

So Air NZ needs at least 3 A321LR with reduced seating but some premium seats, just to serve CHC PER WLG PER and to increase the frequency to PPT?

A few more - the LR/XLR could also be used on AKL-PER, AKL-DPS and AKL-HNL (all less than 4,000nm), freeing up those 789s - and maybe to launch a few other routes (e.g. AKL-CGK, and AKL-DRW).

Toenga wrote:

... more useful increasing capacity on their existing routes and perhaps another Eastern Australia route.

Perhaps. Though the lack of Business Class on the 321NEOs is a bit of a disadvantage in capturing premium Australian traffic travelling to/from the US, while the 321NEO might be too big for CBR or NTL.

I have AKL-HNL and DPS at over 4000nm, where the A321LR can fly ‘up to’ 4700nm with 180-200pax, those routes particularly HNL-AKL would be not far short of 10hrs. I chuckle a little as over in the Phillipines thread they talk about a ‘right sized’ aircraft for MNL-AKL and the A321LR comes up, it would be 11hrs flying, just way to far with a meaningful load, or the A338 which is just as crazy when an A333 can do it and there are no other routes for an A338 which has long range and heavy.

It’s not really that much of a disadvantage to capturing US-OZ traffic, the 0900 ex AKL are wide bodies. The operating costs of the A321NEO are similar to the A320NEO, just better than another configuration.

Flight time AKL-HNL in either direction is 8.5hours, 3814nm. Within the capability of the LR.

I do think if NZ were to start operating longer haul narrow body routes again, they would benefit from a Premium Economy product. I would definitely pay for it to Hawaii or Bali. Also, the PER advantage would be flights from CHC.

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

I have AKL-HNL and DPS at over 4000nm, where the A321LR can fly ‘up to’ 4700nm with 180-200pax.

AKL-DPS is 3,641 nm, while AKL-HNL is 3,814 nm - so, well short of the range limit.

Many carriers have far lower density layouts than 180-200 pax too, like B6's (138 pax).

You are right, silly statute miles vs nautical miles.

Motorhussy wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

A few more - the LR/XLR could also be used on AKL-PER, AKL-DPS and AKL-HNL (all less than 4,000nm), freeing up those 789s - and maybe to launch a few other routes (e.g. AKL-CGK, and AKL-DRW).


Perhaps. Though the lack of Business Class on the 321NEOs is a bit of a disadvantage in capturing premium Australian traffic travelling to/from the US, while the 321NEO might be too big for CBR or NTL.

I have AKL-HNL and DPS at over 4000nm, where the A321LR can fly ‘up to’ 4700nm with 180-200pax, those routes particularly HNL-AKL would be not far short of 10hrs. I chuckle a little as over in the Phillipines thread they talk about a ‘right sized’ aircraft for MNL-AKL and the A321LR comes up, it would be 11hrs flying, just way to far with a meaningful load, or the A338 which is just as crazy when an A333 can do it and there are no other routes for an A338 which has long range and heavy.

It’s not really that much of a disadvantage to capturing US-OZ traffic, the 0900 ex AKL are wide bodies. The operating costs of the A321NEO are similar to the A320NEO, just better than another configuration.

Flight time AKL-HNL in either direction is 8.5hours, 3814nm. Within the capability of the LR.

I do think if NZ were to start operating longer haul narrow body routes again, they would benefit from a Premium Economy product. I would definitely pay for it to Hawaii or Bali. Also, the PER advantage would be flights from CHC.

HNL-AKL is 9:15, a narrow body would push this out towards 9:45, with the wind would be getting up there.

I think NZ see the narrow body fleet as easier to maintain a single configuration, obviously seperate domestic international fleets but they want to be able to cover any international route particularly and given the amount of of movements these aircraft do being able to sub an aircraft with the same one is far easier than multiple configurations.

Motorhussy wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

A few more - the LR/XLR could also be used on AKL-PER, AKL-DPS and AKL-HNL (all less than 4,000nm), freeing up those 789s - and maybe to launch a few other routes (e.g. AKL-CGK, and AKL-DRW).


Perhaps. Though the lack of Business Class on the 321NEOs is a bit of a disadvantage in capturing premium Australian traffic travelling to/from the US, while the 321NEO might be too big for CBR or NTL.

I have AKL-HNL and DPS at over 4000nm, where the A321LR can fly ‘up to’ 4700nm with 180-200pax, those routes particularly HNL-AKL would be not far short of 10hrs. I chuckle a little as over in the Phillipines thread they talk about a ‘right sized’ aircraft for MNL-AKL and the A321LR comes up, it would be 11hrs flying, just way to far with a meaningful load, or the A338 which is just as crazy when an A333 can do it and there are no other routes for an A338 which has long range and heavy.

It’s not really that much of a disadvantage to capturing US-OZ traffic, the 0900 ex AKL are wide bodies. The operating costs of the A321NEO are similar to the A320NEO, just better than another configuration.

Flight time AKL-HNL in either direction is 8.5hours, 3814nm. Within the capability of the LR.

I do think if NZ were to start operating longer haul narrow body routes again, they would benefit from a Premium Economy product. I would definitely pay for it to Hawaii or Bali. Also, the PER advantage would be flights from CHC.

So now we have an argument is for a fleet of about 5 A321 LRs with Premium Economy , say 200 seats to replace or supplement the 272 seat 787s for PER, PPT and HNL. The difference in seat count is modest, you loose freight capacity and fully premium seats, but it does open the possibility of direct CHC and WLG flights to PER.
I remain to be convinced that adding such a niche aircraft, three more destinations then the bog standard A321, is a better way of increasing capacity over adding more frames in the existing standard configurations and tolerating existing AkL transfers.

ZK-NBT wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

I have AKL-HNL and DPS at over 4000nm, where the A321LR can fly ‘up to’ 4700nm with 180-200pax.

AKL-DPS is 3,641 nm, while AKL-HNL is 3,814 nm - so, well short of the range limit.

Many carriers have far lower density layouts than 180-200 pax too, like B6's (138 pax).

You are right, silly statute miles vs nautical miles.

Motorhussy wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

I have AKL-HNL and DPS at over 4000nm, where the A321LR can fly ‘up to’ 4700nm with 180-200pax, those routes particularly HNL-AKL would be not far short of 10hrs. I chuckle a little as over in the Phillipines thread they talk about a ‘right sized’ aircraft for MNL-AKL and the A321LR comes up, it would be 11hrs flying, just way to far with a meaningful load, or the A338 which is just as crazy when an A333 can do it and there are no other routes for an A338 which has long range and heavy.

It’s not really that much of a disadvantage to capturing US-OZ traffic, the 0900 ex AKL are wide bodies. The operating costs of the A321NEO are similar to the A320NEO, just better than another configuration.

Flight time AKL-HNL in either direction is 8.5hours, 3814nm. Within the capability of the LR.

I do think if NZ were to start operating longer haul narrow body routes again, they would benefit from a Premium Economy product. I would definitely pay for it to Hawaii or Bali. Also, the PER advantage would be flights from CHC.

HNL-AKL is 9:15, a narrow body would push this out towards 9:45, with the wind would be getting up there.

I think NZ see the narrow body fleet as easier to maintain a single configuration, obviously seperate domestic international fleets but they want to be able to cover any international route particularly and given the amount of of movements these aircraft do being able to sub an aircraft with the same one is far easier than multiple configurations.

That is without the addition of a A321 LR subfleet.

BTW I have flown AKL-HNL many times in the 8.5 hr window in NZ DC-10’s and 742’s. Also, on CO DC-10’s and Pan-Am 707’s and 747’s. Sometime ago I used to fly this return three times a year. HA 787’s have the same flight time. Yes, narrow bodies will be slower.

ZK-NBT wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

I have AKL-HNL and DPS at over 4000nm, where the A321LR can fly ‘up to’ 4700nm with 180-200pax.

AKL-DPS is 3,641 nm, while AKL-HNL is 3,814 nm - so, well short of the range limit.

Many carriers have far lower density layouts than 180-200 pax too, like B6's (138 pax).

You are right, silly statute miles vs nautical miles.

Motorhussy wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

I have AKL-HNL and DPS at over 4000nm, where the A321LR can fly ‘up to’ 4700nm with 180-200pax, those routes particularly HNL-AKL would be not far short of 10hrs. I chuckle a little as over in the Phillipines thread they talk about a ‘right sized’ aircraft for MNL-AKL and the A321LR comes up, it would be 11hrs flying, just way to far with a meaningful load, or the A338 which is just as crazy when an A333 can do it and there are no other routes for an A338 which has long range and heavy.

It’s not really that much of a disadvantage to capturing US-OZ traffic, the 0900 ex AKL are wide bodies. The operating costs of the A321NEO are similar to the A320NEO, just better than another configuration.

Flight time AKL-HNL in either direction is 8.5hours, 3814nm. Within the capability of the LR.

I do think if NZ were to start operating longer haul narrow body routes again, they would benefit from a Premium Economy product. I would definitely pay for it to Hawaii or Bali. Also, the PER advantage would be flights from CHC.

HNL-AKL is 9:15, a narrow body would push this out towards 9:45, with the wind would be getting up there.

I think NZ see the narrow body fleet as easier to maintain a single configuration, obviously seperate domestic international fleets but they want to be able to cover any international route particularly and given the amount of of movements these aircraft do being able to sub an aircraft with the same one is far easier than multiple configurations.

That is without the addition of a A321 LR subfleet.

BTW I have flown AKL-HNL many times in the 8.5 hr window in NZ DC-10’s and 742’s. Also, on CO DC-10’s and Pan-Am 707’s and 747’s. Sometime ago I used to fly this return three times a year. HA and NZ’s 787’s have the same/similar flight time. Yes, narrow bodies will be slower.

For Air NZ if they decided to increase flying to PER it will come out of AKL most likely and not CHC or WLG. They will funnel all domestic connection traffic up through AKL as they do now. The second PER arrival into AKL would arrive in around 1700 to connect to the North American flights. The current morning arrival into AKL connects well to NZ domestic and the Pacific Island routes. PER would be well suited to double daily schedule using a 180 seat 321LR with some PE seats.

Toenga wrote:

So now we have an argument is for a fleet of about 5 A321 LRs with Premium Economy , say 200 seats to replace or supplement the 272 seat 787s for PER, PPT and HNL. The difference in seat count is modest, you loose freight capacity and fully premium seats, but it does open the possibility of direct CHC and WLG flights to PER.
I remain to be convinced that adding such a niche aircraft, three more destinations then the bog standard A321, is a better way of increasing capacity over adding more frames in the existing standard configurations and tolerating existing AkL transfers.

I've been doing some digging as to the capabilities of the A320 series, given the apparent need for a still-air range capability of 3,500 nm on the 2,888 nm AKL-PER run. Is the A321NEO up to the task, or not?

From the following link, in which payload-range capabiities of a number of aircraft are evaluated (numbers taken from Airbus and Boeing technical manuals), the answer is an emphatic NO.
https://epsilonaviation.wordpress.com/2 ... -airlines/

But, to my surprise, at any distance over 3,000 nm, the A320NEO's performance beats the A321NEO hands down. Using a round 100 kg per passenger and baggage (latest EASA survey data avg pax weight 76.7 kg, carry-on avg 7.3 kg, hold baggage avg 16.0 kg, total 100.0 kg exactly) the A321NEO could carry just 55 pax (and no freight) on a leg requiring a capability of 3,500 nm, such as AKL-PER (2,888 nm great circle distance plus diversion to BQB and holding time). By contrast, the A320NEO could carry 133 pax, or 79% load factor westbound, and probably a full load eastbound. The star is the A319NEO, which could carry its full passenger load in both directions.

The very rare A319NEO is not in the NZ fleet, nor ever likely to be. But this data shows that while everyone is thinking of the A321NEO as the way of the future, the humble A320NEO has many advantages, not least a $20m price advantage (based on list price admittedly), slightly cheaper operating costs, lower crewing costs and much stronger capabilities at the limits of its range. Because of its size, it's also more suitable, as others have pointed out, for opening new Tasman routes.

So I don't subscribe to the view that "bigger is better", necessarily. Especially when upgauging to the A321 could compromise the operation of some routes. But the takeaway here is that NZ already has an NB aircraft in its fleet that is capable of AKL-PER with a decent pax load. Freight should not be a major consideration, as long as AKL-PER continues to have some WB services.

I could see an A320NEO, configured "as is" but with perhaps twelve J seats replacing 24 Y seats for a total of 156 seats, being a serious prospect to bolster AKL-PER in addition to the current daily 789. It could carry up to 85% westbound on that basis, full on the return, and could operate outbound AKL-PER in the evening and connecting to North American services with a morning return from PER. Total number of daily seats 458, very close to the capacity offered when NZ operated 10x weekly in summer.

I could also see the same aircraft operating CHC-PER (say) 4x weekly in summer, and 2x weekly in winter (slightly shorter distance, even greater capacity). Hell, even WLG-PER nonstop appears to be possible with the take-off required at MTOW being 6,400 ft for the A320NEO. Demand on WLG-PER was about 25% higher than demand for AKL-HBA in the 2018 numbers I've seen quoted, IIRC, so 2-3x weekly on WLG-PER is by far not unrealistic.

All in all, a major surprise for me that the A320NEO performs so much better than the A321NEO at that range. I'm in the camp that says that in an environment where frequency is king, and point-to-point becomes more and more important, any future order for the A320 series should include more A320s as well as A321s.

[Edit: As an addendum, I think that a daily 156-seat A320 operating AKL-ADL - total seats 1,092/week - would be a much better option than a 5x weekly all-Y A321 offering 1,080 seats/week. So there's another route on which a mixed class A320 could be viable.]

DavidByrne wrote:

Toenga wrote:

So now we have an argument is for a fleet of about 5 A321 LRs with Premium Economy , say 200 seats to replace or supplement the 272 seat 787s for PER, PPT and HNL. The difference in seat count is modest, you loose freight capacity and fully premium seats, but it does open the possibility of direct CHC and WLG flights to PER.
I remain to be convinced that adding such a niche aircraft, three more destinations then the bog standard A321, is a better way of increasing capacity over adding more frames in the existing standard configurations and tolerating existing AkL transfers.

I've been doing some digging as to the capabilities of the A320 series, given the apparent need for a still-air range capability of 3,500 nm on the 2,888 nm AKL-PER run. Is the A321NEO up to the task, or not?

From the following link, in which payload-range capabiities of a number of aircraft are evaluated (numbers taken from Airbus and Boeing technical manuals), the answer is an emphatic NO.
https://epsilonaviation.wordpress.com/2 ... -airlines/

But, to my surprise, at any distance over 3,000 nm, the A320NEO's performance beats the A321NEO hands down. Using a round 100 kg per passenger and baggage (latest EASA survey data avg pax weight 76.7 kg, carry-on avg 7.3 kg, hold baggage avg 16.0 kg, total 100.0 kg exactly) the A321NEO could carry just 55 pax (and no freight) on a leg requiring a capability of 3,500 nm, such as AKL-PER (2,888 nm great circle distance plus diversion to BQB and holding time). By contrast, the A320NEO could carry 133 pax, or 79% load factor westbound, and probably a full load eastbound. The star is the A319NEO, which could carry its full passenger load in both directions.

The very rare A319NEO is not in the NZ fleet, nor ever likely to be. But this data shows that while everyone is thinking of the A321NEO as the way of the future, the humble A320NEO has many advantages, not least a $20m price advantage (based on list price admittedly), slightly cheaper operating costs, lower crewing costs and much stronger capabilities at the limits of its range. Because of its size, it's also more suitable, as others have pointed out, for opening new Tasman routes.

So I don't subscribe to the view that "bigger is better", necessarily. Especially when upgauging to the A321 could compromise the operation of some routes. But the takeaway here is that NZ already has an NB aircraft in its fleet that is capable of AKL-PER with a decent pax load. Freight should not be a major consideration, as long as AKL-PER continues to have some WB services.

I could see an A320NEO, configured "as is" but with perhaps twelve J seats replacing 24 Y seats for a total of 156 seats, being a serious prospect to bolster AKL-PER in addition to the current daily 789. It could carry up to 85% westbound on that basis, full on the return, and could operate outbound AKL-PER in the evening and connecting to North American services with a morning return from PER. Total number of daily seats 458, very close to the capacity offered when NZ operated 10x weekly in summer.

I could also see the same aircraft operating CHC-PER (say) 4x weekly in summer, and 2x weekly in winter (slightly shorter distance, even greater capacity). Hell, even WLG-PER nonstop appears to be possible with the take-off required at MTOW being 6,400 ft for the A320NEO. Demand on WLG-PER was about 25% higher than demand for AKL-HBA in the 2018 numbers I've seen quoted, IIRC, so 2-3x weekly on WLG-PER is by far not unrealistic.

All in all, a major surprise for me that the A320NEO performs so much better than the A321NEO at that range. I'm in the camp that says that in an environment where frequency is king, and point-to-point becomes more and more important, any future order for the A320 series should include more A320s as well as A321s.

[Edit: As an addendum, I think that a daily 156-seat A320 operating AKL-ADL - total seats 1,092/week - would be a much better option than a 5x weekly all-Y A321 offering 1,080 seats/week. So there's another route on which a mixed class A320 could be viable.]

David, thanks for your analysis.
At the moment A320/321 capacity constraints seem to largely preclude any route enlargement. But should capacity become available, using
your figures, a current A320 neo completly as is, except load restricted, could be used to prove CHC and WLG to PER viability with little risk. They might even be able to recoup some of the short loading penalty by selling adjacent seats empty.

Toenga wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

Toenga wrote:

So now we have an argument is for a fleet of about 5 A321 LRs with Premium Economy , say 200 seats to replace or supplement the 272 seat 787s for PER, PPT and HNL. The difference in seat count is modest, you loose freight capacity and fully premium seats, but it does open the possibility of direct CHC and WLG flights to PER.
I remain to be convinced that adding such a niche aircraft, three more destinations then the bog standard A321, is a better way of increasing capacity over adding more frames in the existing standard configurations and tolerating existing AkL transfers.

I've been doing some digging as to the capabilities of the A320 series, given the apparent need for a still-air range capability of 3,500 nm on the 2,888 nm AKL-PER run. Is the A321NEO up to the task, or not?

From the following link, in which payload-range capabiities of a number of aircraft are evaluated (numbers taken from Airbus and Boeing technical manuals), the answer is an emphatic NO.
https://epsilonaviation.wordpress.com/2 ... -airlines/

But, to my surprise, at any distance over 3,000 nm, the A320NEO's performance beats the A321NEO hands down. Using a round 100 kg per passenger and baggage (latest EASA survey data avg pax weight 76.7 kg, carry-on avg 7.3 kg, hold baggage avg 16.0 kg, total 100.0 kg exactly) the A321NEO could carry just 55 pax (and no freight) on a leg requiring a capability of 3,500 nm, such as AKL-PER (2,888 nm great circle distance plus diversion to BQB and holding time). By contrast, the A320NEO could carry 133 pax, or 79% load factor westbound, and probably a full load eastbound. The star is the A319NEO, which could carry its full passenger load in both directions.

The very rare A319NEO is not in the NZ fleet, nor ever likely to be. But this data shows that while everyone is thinking of the A321NEO as the way of the future, the humble A320NEO has many advantages, not least a $20m price advantage (based on list price admittedly), slightly cheaper operating costs, lower crewing costs and much stronger capabilities at the limits of its range. Because of its size, it's also more suitable, as others have pointed out, for opening new Tasman routes.

So I don't subscribe to the view that "bigger is better", necessarily. Especially when upgauging to the A321 could compromise the operation of some routes. But the takeaway here is that NZ already has an NB aircraft in its fleet that is capable of AKL-PER with a decent pax load. Freight should not be a major consideration, as long as AKL-PER continues to have some WB services.

I could see an A320NEO, configured "as is" but with perhaps twelve J seats replacing 24 Y seats for a total of 156 seats, being a serious prospect to bolster AKL-PER in addition to the current daily 789. It could carry up to 85% westbound on that basis, full on the return, and could operate outbound AKL-PER in the evening and connecting to North American services with a morning return from PER. Total number of daily seats 458, very close to the capacity offered when NZ operated 10x weekly in summer.

I could also see the same aircraft operating CHC-PER (say) 4x weekly in summer, and 2x weekly in winter (slightly shorter distance, even greater capacity). Hell, even WLG-PER nonstop appears to be possible with the take-off required at MTOW being 6,400 ft for the A320NEO. Demand on WLG-PER was about 25% higher than demand for AKL-HBA in the 2018 numbers I've seen quoted, IIRC, so 2-3x weekly on WLG-PER is by far not unrealistic.

All in all, a major surprise for me that the A320NEO performs so much better than the A321NEO at that range. I'm in the camp that says that in an environment where frequency is king, and point-to-point becomes more and more important, any future order for the A320 series should include more A320s as well as A321s.

[Edit: As an addendum, I think that a daily 156-seat A320 operating AKL-ADL - total seats 1,092/week - would be a much better option than a 5x weekly all-Y A321 offering 1,080 seats/week. So there's another route on which a mixed class A320 could be viable.]

David, thanks for your analysis.
At the moment A320/321 capacity constraints seem to largely preclude any route enlargement. But should capacity become available, using
your figures, a current A320 neo completly as is, except load restricted, could be used to prove CHC and WLG to PER viability with little risk. They might even be able to recoup some of the short loading penalty by selling adjacent seats empty.

All the centres on the A321 with penalties, The A320NEO is a very capable Aircraft and shouldn't be overlooked. Always thought the existing fleet of six was light given the high work load they have to achieve day in day out.

What's the reason that Air NZ don't have some form of business or PE in the 321 fleet for Tasman and Pacific flights? If QF can maintain it surely there's something there for NZ too.

The fact that NZ don't, it would be a huge surprise if they got LR versions of the 321 and put a different layout in it. The different layouts work for the 789 but a mixed layout narrow body fleet wouldn't probably work for them

mrkerr7474 wrote:

What's the reason that Air NZ don't have some form of business or PE in the 321 fleet for Tasman and Pacific flights? If QF can maintain it surely there's something there for NZ too.

The fact that NZ don't, it would be a huge surprise if they got LR versions of the 321 and put a different layout in it. The different layouts work for the 789 but a mixed layout narrow body fleet wouldn't probably work for them

Whilst there are similarities between NZ and Australia there are significant differences also.
Many businesses expanding across the Tasman, both ways, have found out to their considerable detriment attempting to just export their home way of doing things into an unexpectently sufficiently different market.

There was a considerable period of growing wealth disparity between the two countries, which has meant that New Zealanders, and their businesses, are are more frugal in their travel expenditure, perhaps trading traveling more often against comfort.

mrkerr7474 wrote:

What's the reason that Air NZ don't have some form of business or PE in the 321 fleet for Tasman and Pacific flights? If QF can maintain it surely there's something there for NZ too.

The fact that NZ don't, it would be a huge surprise if they got LR versions of the 321 and put a different layout in it. The different layouts work for the 789 but a mixed layout narrow body fleet wouldn't probably work for them

What's the reason? Short-term kneejerk stupidity driven by a fear of New Zealand being invaded by LCC's while Air NZ was saddled with higher operating costs post Ansett liquidation. Hence the "express" model.
I think it is well past time for Air NZ to reconsider this position now that they have an almost complete monopoly domestically, with fairly contained costs, and a need to compete for premium passengers across the tasman to feed trans-pacific services.

On a side note, Works Deluxe doesn't cut it, especially on the A321's. The seats are just horribly uncomfortable, and because of the scalloped seatback, the extra space of having the middle seat free is somewhat impeded. God I wish for a true Y+ or C seat. But in the meantime, I just fly QF and hope that VA return to the market

aerohottie wrote:

mrkerr7474 wrote:

What's the reason that Air NZ don't have some form of business or PE in the 321 fleet for Tasman and Pacific flights? If QF can maintain it surely there's something there for NZ too.

The fact that NZ don't, it would be a huge surprise if they got LR versions of the 321 and put a different layout in it. The different layouts work for the 789 but a mixed layout narrow body fleet wouldn't probably work for them

What's the reason? Short-term kneejerk stupidity driven by a fear of New Zealand being invaded by LCC's while Air NZ was saddled with higher operating costs post Ansett liquidation. Hence the "express" model.
I think it is well past time for Air NZ to reconsider this position now that they have an almost complete monopoly domestically, with fairly contained costs, and a need to compete for premium passengers across the tasman to feed trans-pacific services.

On a side note, Works Deluxe doesn't cut it, especially on the A321's. The seats are just horribly uncomfortable, and because of the scalloped seatback, the extra space of having the middle seat free is somewhat impeded. God I wish for a true Y+ or C seat. But in the meantime, I just fly QF and hope that VA return to the market

Express is fine on domestic NZ routes. How much do they ‘need’ to compete for passengers for trans pacific services though? The 0900 ex AKL and 1700 arrivals to SYD/MEL/BNE are wide bodies and have been particularly to MEL/BNE for a long time. These are the ones that connect to the US services. Yes there is ADL/CNS/OOL/HBT as well but you can’t be everything to everyone.

ZK-NBT wrote:

aerohottie wrote:

mrkerr7474 wrote:

What's the reason that Air NZ don't have some form of business or PE in the 321 fleet for Tasman and Pacific flights? If QF can maintain it surely there's something there for NZ too.

The fact that NZ don't, it would be a huge surprise if they got LR versions of the 321 and put a different layout in it. The different layouts work for the 789 but a mixed layout narrow body fleet wouldn't probably work for them

What's the reason? Short-term kneejerk stupidity driven by a fear of New Zealand being invaded by LCC's while Air NZ was saddled with higher operating costs post Ansett liquidation. Hence the "express" model.
I think it is well past time for Air NZ to reconsider this position now that they have an almost complete monopoly domestically, with fairly contained costs, and a need to compete for premium passengers across the tasman to feed trans-pacific services.

On a side note, Works Deluxe doesn't cut it, especially on the A321's. The seats are just horribly uncomfortable, and because of the scalloped seatback, the extra space of having the middle seat free is somewhat impeded. God I wish for a true Y+ or C seat. But in the meantime, I just fly QF and hope that VA return to the market

Express is fine on domestic NZ routes. How much do they ‘need’ to compete for passengers for trans pacific services though? The 0900 ex AKL and 1700 arrivals to SYD/MEL/BNE are wide bodies and have been particularly to MEL/BNE for a long time. These are the ones that connect to the US services. Yes there is ADL/CNS/OOL/HBT as well but you can’t be everything to everyone.

Agree that "express" is fine for domestic. Also agree that you can't be everything to everybody, but you can offer a decent level of service to the 70% of NZers who live outside AKL and those flying trans-tasman from Australia. It's not like having 8-12 Y+ seats on the A320 and A321 is a significant operational imposition

ZK-NBT wrote:

Express is fine on domestic NZ routes. How much do they ‘need’ to compete for passengers for trans pacific services though? The 0900 ex AKL and 1700 arrivals to SYD/MEL/BNE are wide bodies and have been particularly to MEL/BNE for a long time. These are the ones that connect to the US services. Yes there is ADL/CNS/OOL/HBT as well but you can’t be everything to everyone.

Tend to agree, by and large, but given that Australia-North America is a market they are actively chasing, and on which there is significant J demand, it's not unrealistic to think that some of the NB services feeding those routes could benefit from being in a mixed configuration. ADL in particular comes to mind, perhaps OOL. But also given the shift away from WBs on the AKL-SYD route, there's now a lot less J capacity on that route than there was. Perhaps some of the NB aircraft flying on AKL-SYD could also benefit from a J class?

By the way, I keep seeing people write "HBT" for Hobart - it's actually "HBA".

aerohottie wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

aerohottie wrote:

What's the reason? Short-term kneejerk stupidity driven by a fear of New Zealand being invaded by LCC's while Air NZ was saddled with higher operating costs post Ansett liquidation. Hence the "express" model.
I think it is well past time for Air NZ to reconsider this position now that they have an almost complete monopoly domestically, with fairly contained costs, and a need to compete for premium passengers across the tasman to feed trans-pacific services.

On a side note, Works Deluxe doesn't cut it, especially on the A321's. The seats are just horribly uncomfortable, and because of the scalloped seatback, the extra space of having the middle seat free is somewhat impeded. God I wish for a true Y+ or C seat. But in the meantime, I just fly QF and hope that VA return to the market

Express is fine on domestic NZ routes. How much do they ‘need’ to compete for passengers for trans pacific services though? The 0900 ex AKL and 1700 arrivals to SYD/MEL/BNE are wide bodies and have been particularly to MEL/BNE for a long time. These are the ones that connect to the US services. Yes there is ADL/CNS/OOL/HBT as well but you can’t be everything to everyone.

Agree that "express" is fine for domestic. Also agree that you can't be everything to everybody, but you can offer a decent level of service to the 70% of NZers who live outside AKL and those flying trans-tasman from Australia. It's not like having 8-12 Y+ seats on the A320 and A321 is a significant operational imposition

I recall a user saying that NZ only actually sold full fare J on a small number of seats per flight ex WLG/CHC when they had was it 8 from memory J seats on the A320.

Would Y+ simply just be more leg room on an A320/321? Or would they make it 3-2 seating and offer a better service selection?

DavidByrne wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Express is fine on domestic NZ routes. How much do they ‘need’ to compete for passengers for trans pacific services though? The 0900 ex AKL and 1700 arrivals to SYD/MEL/BNE are wide bodies and have been particularly to MEL/BNE for a long time. These are the ones that connect to the US services. Yes there is ADL/CNS/OOL/HBT as well but you can’t be everything to everyone.

Tend to agree, by and large, but given that Australia-North America is a market they are actively chasing, and on which there is significant J demand, it's not unrealistic to think that some of the NB services feeding those routes could benefit from being in a mixed configuration. ADL in particular comes to mind, perhaps OOL. But also given the shift away from WBs on the AKL-SYD route, there's now a lot less J capacity on that route than there was. Perhaps some of the NB aircraft flying on AKL-SYD could also benefit from a J class?

By the way, I keep seeing people write "HBT" for Hobart - it's actually "HBA".

True. At one stage NZ often ran 4 daily 772s AKL-SYD with 26J 40W or 104J 160W a day, a 77W has 44J 50W. For comparison QF generally have 2x 330 with 28J and 3x 738 with 12J or a total of 92J a day.

NZ some times have a second wide body at 1245 usually a code 1 789 with 18J 21W, they maybe able to run a 789 on the 0700 if required off an early PER/YVR arrival in winter at least, or the 1245 departure, the 1620 ex AKL and 1530 to MEL used to be 772s and depart SYD/MEL around 1900, not sure if they see enough J demand going forward to have some premium seating? There was mention about something on the A321 at one stage I recall?

Sorry HBT sounds right, obviously isn’t.

ZK-NBT wrote:

aerohottie wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Express is fine on domestic NZ routes. How much do they ‘need’ to compete for passengers for trans pacific services though? The 0900 ex AKL and 1700 arrivals to SYD/MEL/BNE are wide bodies and have been particularly to MEL/BNE for a long time. These are the ones that connect to the US services. Yes there is ADL/CNS/OOL/HBT as well but you can’t be everything to everyone.

Agree that "express" is fine for domestic. Also agree that you can't be everything to everybody, but you can offer a decent level of service to the 70% of NZers who live outside AKL and those flying trans-tasman from Australia. It's not like having 8-12 Y+ seats on the A320 and A321 is a significant operational imposition

I recall a user saying that NZ only actually sold full fare J on a small number of seats per flight ex WLG/CHC when they had was it 8 from memory J seats on the A320.

Would Y+ simply just be more leg room on an A320/321? Or would they make it 3-2 seating and offer a better service selection?

If they can't make 8 J seats work on NB fleet then sure, leave as is. As mentioned above I'm sure there is a market for J seats outside of the WB services to Aus and while not a full flat seat like the long haul fleet. If they have the PE style recliners and perhaps sell it as PE class rather than J class, they may be onto something as if it's sold as a lower price point than the QF equivalent, would be a steal ahead of QF who have recliners but sell them as J class and thus force QF into reducing their fares (unlikely I know)

ZK-NBT wrote:

aerohottie wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Express is fine on domestic NZ routes. How much do they ‘need’ to compete for passengers for trans pacific services though? The 0900 ex AKL and 1700 arrivals to SYD/MEL/BNE are wide bodies and have been particularly to MEL/BNE for a long time. These are the ones that connect to the US services. Yes there is ADL/CNS/OOL/HBT as well but you can’t be everything to everyone.

Agree that "express" is fine for domestic. Also agree that you can't be everything to everybody, but you can offer a decent level of service to the 70% of NZers who live outside AKL and those flying trans-tasman from Australia. It's not like having 8-12 Y+ seats on the A320 and A321 is a significant operational imposition

I recall a user saying that NZ only actually sold full fare J on a small number of seats per flight ex WLG/CHC when they had was it 8 from memory J seats on the A320.

Would Y+ simply just be more leg room on an A320/321? Or would they make it 3-2 seating and offer a better service selection?

Air NZ didn't have business on the A320's from memory. I think the B733's were the last to have business prior to the express model being implemented, and had a layout of 8J, 112Y (120 seats). This was changed to 133Y under express.

AKL airport managed to drain up the water from the flooded terminal in just 3 hours. They will now try to prevent it from happening again.

https://businessdesk.co.nz/article/auck ... hree-hours

aerohottie wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

aerohottie wrote:

Agree that "express" is fine for domestic. Also agree that you can't be everything to everybody, but you can offer a decent level of service to the 70% of NZers who live outside AKL and those flying trans-tasman from Australia. It's not like having 8-12 Y+ seats on the A320 and A321 is a significant operational imposition

I recall a user saying that NZ only actually sold full fare J on a small number of seats per flight ex WLG/CHC when they had was it 8 from memory J seats on the A320.

Would Y+ simply just be more leg room on an A320/321? Or would they make it 3-2 seating and offer a better service selection?

Air NZ didn't have business on the A320's from memory. I think the B733's were the last to have business prior to the express model being implemented, and had a layout of 8J, 112Y (120 seats). This was changed to 133Y under express.

I was talking about the international A320 sorry which initially had 8J 144Y I think it was in A 2-2 configuration in J. This was changed when they refitted the fleet which would have been 2009/10 or so.

In this article from yesterday about Qantas is to reconsider Chicago. Down near the bottom Alan Joyce mentions again that the AKL-JFK will complement and not be replaced by SYD- JFK once the project sunrise flights begins. I wonder if they will switch it to MEL- AKL - JFK it seems highly plausible.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... ts-chicago

ZK-NBT wrote:

I was talking about the international A320 sorry which initially had 8J 144Y I think it was in A 2-2 configuration in J. This was changed when they refitted the fleet which would have been 2009/10 or so.

So it was tried twenty plus years ago, but then obviously Air NZ came to the conclusion that not enough people were prepared to pay the required premium to offset the loss of Y seats. I seem to remember that on some routes, only Y was sold, and some passengers just scored the more spacious seats.

Has the transtasman, and close by Pacific Islands market changed enough in the meantime to justify trying trying again?
I really don't know.
They do have two seating configurations of their much smaller B787 fleet and seem to cope.but introducing a complete new class further complicates catering.

Toenga wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

I was talking about the international A320 sorry which initially had 8J 144Y I think it was in A 2-2 configuration in J. This was changed when they refitted the fleet which would have been 2009/10 or so.

So it was tried twenty plus years ago, but then obviously Air NZ came to the conclusion that not enough people were prepared to pay the required premium to offset the loss of Y seats. I seem to remember that on some routes, only Y was sold, and some passengers just scored the more spacious seats.

Has the transtasman, and close by Pacific Islands market changed enough in the meantime to justify trying trying again?
I really don't know.
They do have two seating configurations of their much smaller B787 fleet and seem to cope.but introducing a complete new class further complicates catering.

I’m certainly not in the camp saying they should reinstate J.

The long haul fleet is a little different in the way it is used given the longer sectors then a Tasman turn in between it is easier to match the aircraft to the route.

NZ516 wrote:

In this article from yesterday about Qantas is to reconsider Chicago. Down near the bottom Alan Joyce mentions again that the AKL-JFK will complement and not be replaced by SYD- JFK once the project sunrise flights begins. I wonder if they will switch it to MEL- AKL - JFK it seems highly plausible.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... ts-chicago

It's possible that QF may want minimal if not Zero connecting passengers on SYD-JFK where possible to maximise SYD O&D traffic, sending MEL along with BNE, ADL and other cities where possible to connect through AKL with timed flights/scissor hub operation.

Kiwiandrew wrote:

Toenga wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

I was talking about the international A320 sorry which initially had 8J 144Y I think it was in A 2-2 configuration in J. This was changed when they refitted the fleet which would have been 2009/10 or so.

So it was tried twenty plus years ago, but then obviously Air NZ came to the conclusion that not enough people were prepared to pay the required premium to offset the loss of Y seats. I seem to remember that on some routes, only Y was sold, and some passengers just scored the more spacious seats.

Has the transtasman, and close by Pacific Islands market changed enough in the meantime to justify trying trying again?
I really don't know.
They do have two seating configurations of their much smaller B787 fleet and seem to cope.but introducing a complete new class further complicates catering.

Around the time the A320 fleet went all economy I recall reading that typically on the routes ex WLG/CHC a single J seat might be sold, with any others only occupied with upgrades.

Whether this was true, I don't know, but there's an opportunity cost to providing a separate J class cabin, and if the story was anywhere near true it doesn't surprise me at all that they ditched the separate cabin in favour of a single class.

It would seem odd to me if NZ could only sell 1 J seat on a flight, whereas QF manage to operate with 12 J seats on the same sectors. Surely NZ could manage 8. And even if only 1 or 2 were sold at full J fare and rest were taken up by points fares and upgrades, that is still good for the NZ balance sheet. Points reduce financial liability, and are priced to match the equivalent of a fare, or more.

Kiwiandrew wrote:

Around the time the A320 fleet went all economy I recall reading that typically on the routes ex WLG/CHC a single J seat might be sold, with any others only occupied with upgrades.

Whether this was true, I don't know, but there's an opportunity cost to providing a separate J class cabin, and if the story was anywhere near true it doesn't surprise me at all that they ditched the separate cabin in favour of a single class.

Much of it is to do with connectivity. Not many businesses or govt have business class policies across the Tasman, and most of the traveller booking are either upgrading or connecting onwards to long hauil destinations. In the case of AKL, the WBs get siginificant business class booking given they provide feed to long haul US, plus you see people from other parts of New Zealand burning upgrades via AKL as its the only place you can.

FYI, QF business class is usually full most flights ex WLG, particularly the ones that provide onward connections to Asia and Europe. SQ was also filling business strongly, particuarly with the switch to A350.

Like much of these discussions, the lack of activity from WLG/CHC isnt necessarily because the market is not there. Its more a function of the structure of NZ's network.

Yeah, if you're just going to Aussie or somewhere else in Polynesia then most people aren't worried about being a bit more squished. If you're connecting through to another flight or longhaul then it makes a bit more sense. But honestly even then I think most kiwis don't really care enough. Especially with the massive premium that then takes away spending money from wherever you're going too. I'm currently looking at doing Premium Economy to Europe and back but that's only to get a bit more space to reduce covid risks. The jump from basic economy to premium economy is enough to make me reconsider it several times.

As for business travel? I'd think that for many it would be simpler and cheaper just to travel a day earlier and have a proper night's rest at the destination. Business class makes more sense if you're schedule means you have to hit the ground running. But if you've got even a little flexibility then an extra night is probably cheaper.

Most companies I've worked for would only look at upgrading from economy once you were hitting 8+ hours. And even then only premium economy unless you had a meeting within a few hours of landing.

Sure, many here will decry this as penny pinching and that people don't know what they're missing out on. But this community is a pretty niche one. Most people honestly don't care as long as they get to their destination at the scheduled time.

aerohottie wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

aerohottie wrote:

Agree that "express" is fine for domestic. Also agree that you can't be everything to everybody, but you can offer a decent level of service to the 70% of NZers who live outside AKL and those flying trans-tasman from Australia. It's not like having 8-12 Y+ seats on the A320 and A321 is a significant operational imposition

I recall a user saying that NZ only actually sold full fare J on a small number of seats per flight ex WLG/CHC when they had was it 8 from memory J seats on the A320.

Would Y+ simply just be more leg room on an A320/321? Or would they make it 3-2 seating and offer a better service selection?

Air NZ didn't have business on the A320's from memory. I think the B733's were the last to have business prior to the express model being implemented, and had a layout of 8J, 112Y (120 seats). This was changed to 133Y under express.

Air NZ's first ever A320's had business seats, I think it was 8. I distinctly recall them on a WLG-MEL-WLG service in 2006.

Does anyone have any insights in to why NZ24 is often departing very late? Since it restarted last year it hasn't had the best performance, and often the aircraft operating the flight has been in AKL for several hours or even since arrival in the same morning. Last nights very late departure was on ZK-NZN which has been in AKL all day, and none of the other North American flights were delayed like that....?

NZ516 wrote:

In this article from yesterday about Qantas is to reconsider Chicago. Down near the bottom Alan Joyce mentions again that the AKL-JFK will complement and not be replaced by SYD- JFK once the project sunrise flights begins. I wonder if they will switch it to MEL- AKL - JFK it seems highly plausible.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... ts-chicago

If it happens, I'd say BNE-AKL-JFK would be more plausible. BNE is also a 789 base plus MEL would also be a Sunshine route to JFK so wouldn't need the extra same plane encouragement.

Kiwiandrew wrote:

Not necessarily. Is QF actually getting a lot of pax buying J solely for the short hop across the Tasman, or are they connecting to the wider QF network, i.e.are they actually CHC/WLG - SYD/BNE/MEL passengers or CHC/WLG x/SYD/MEL/BNE - XXX passengers? I don't know the figures, but it would be interesting to know.

Probably around 30-40% of Business on QF Tasman from WLG/CHC is local, and 60-70% is connecting domestic AU, and international.

Do you know that for a fact or based on anything public or is this just a guess ?

Kiwiandrew wrote:

aerohottie wrote:

Kiwiandrew wrote:

Around the time the A320 fleet went all economy I recall reading that typically on the routes ex WLG/CHC a single J seat might be sold, with any others only occupied with upgrades.

Whether this was true, I don't know, but there's an opportunity cost to providing a separate J class cabin, and if the story was anywhere near true it doesn't surprise me at all that they ditched the separate cabin in favour of a single class.

It would seem odd to me if NZ could only sell 1 J seat on a flight, whereas QF manage to operate with 12 J seats on the same sectors. Surely NZ could manage 8. And even if only 1 or 2 were sold at full J fare and rest were taken up by points fares and upgrades, that is still good for the NZ balance sheet. Points reduce financiaof J pac solely butingl liability, and are priced to match the equivalent of a fare, or more.

Not necessarily. Is QF actually getting a lot of pax buying J solely for the short hop across the Tasman, or are they connecting to the wider QF network, i.e.are they actually CHC/WLG - SYD/BNE/MEL passengers or CHC/WLG x/SYD/MEL/BNE - XXX passengers? I don't know the figures, but it would be interesting to know.

Interestingly, I've been put onto QF WLG-SYD to connect to a United flight to SFO business class. NZ is also missing out on this traffic, not to mention other connections onto their partners flights. I'm sure NZ would rather I had flown with them to SFO via AKL, but it was cheaper to fly United and Qantas via SYD. So NZ missed out of getting any revenue from me, whereas they could have got something had they operated a J product.
I'm sure this isn't an isolated or unique situation. It's about the J product being contribution positive for the airline, not stand-alone positive. It's also about protecting and growing marketshare, and every little bit helps. NZ are actively pushing premium travellers to their competitor's product. That's short-sight imho

Kiwings wrote:

Do you know that for a fact or based on anything public or is this just a guess ?

Based on data I have seen

aerohottie wrote:

Kiwiandrew wrote:

aerohottie wrote:

It would seem odd to me if NZ could only sell 1 J seat on a flight, whereas QF manage to operate with 12 J seats on the same sectors. Surely NZ could manage 8. And even if only 1 or 2 were sold at full J fare and rest were taken up by points fares and upgrades, that is still good for the NZ balance sheet. Points reduce financiaof J pac solely butingl liability, and are priced to match the equivalent of a fare, or more.

Not necessarily. Is QF actually getting a lot of pax buying J solely for the short hop across the Tasman, or are they connecting to the wider QF network, i.e.are they actually CHC/WLG - SYD/BNE/MEL passengers or CHC/WLG x/SYD/MEL/BNE - XXX passengers? I don't know the figures, but it would be interesting to know.

Interestingly, I've been put onto QF WLG-SYD to connect to a United flight to SFO business class. NZ is also missing out on this traffic, not to mention other connections onto their partners flights. I'm sure NZ would rather I had flown with them to SFO via AKL, but it was cheaper to fly United and Qantas via SYD. So NZ missed out of getting any revenue from me, whereas they could have got something had they operated a J product.
I'm sure this isn't an isolated or unique situation. It's about the J product being contribution positive for the airline, not stand-alone positive. It's also about protecting and growing marketshare, and every little bit helps. NZ are actively pushing premium travellers to their competitor's product. That's short-sight imho

Its the only way to get to/from WLG business all the way if thats important to you. FJ have a pretty good business product nowadays as well via NAN but 2pw frequency makes it difficult.

qf2220 wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

In this article from yesterday about Qantas is to reconsider Chicago. Down near the bottom Alan Joyce mentions again that the AKL-JFK will complement and not be replaced by SYD- JFK once the project sunrise flights begins. I wonder if they will switch it to MEL- AKL - JFK it seems highly plausible.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... ts-chicago

If it happens, I'd say BNE-AKL-JFK would be more plausible. BNE is also a 789 base plus MEL would also be a Sunshine route to JFK so wouldn't need the extra same plane encouragement.

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.

ZK-NBT wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

In this article from yesterday about Qantas is to reconsider Chicago. Down near the bottom Alan Joyce mentions again that the AKL-JFK will complement and not be replaced by SYD- JFK once the project sunrise flights begins. I wonder if they will switch it to MEL- AKL - JFK it seems highly plausible.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... ts-chicago

If it happens, I'd say BNE-AKL-JFK would be more plausible. BNE is also a 789 base plus MEL would also be a Sunshine route to JFK so wouldn't need the extra same plane encouragement.

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.

ZK-NBT wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

In this article from yesterday about Qantas is to reconsider Chicago. Down near the bottom Alan Joyce mentions again that the AKL-JFK will complement and not be replaced by SYD- JFK once the project sunrise flights begins. I wonder if they will switch it to MEL- AKL - JFK it seems highly plausible.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... ts-chicago

If it happens, I'd say BNE-AKL-JFK would be more plausible. BNE is also a 789 base plus MEL would also be a Sunshine route to JFK so wouldn't need the extra same plane encouragement.

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.

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.
I certainly hope this leads QF to reinvigorate competition in NZ domestic too, either through JQ or with QF themselves. We desperately need some competition in the NZ domestic market

NTLDaz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

If it happens, I'd say BNE-AKL-JFK would be more plausible. BNE is also a 789 base plus MEL would also be a Sunshine route to JFK so wouldn't need the extra same plane encouragement.

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.