ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

a7ala wrote:

Again its not just a CHC thing - AKL paid out $5.3M in incentives to airlines in the same year. Its a normal thing that pretty much every airport and region has to do if you want new flights to your city nowadays. The only routes that typically wouldnt require support would be your hub airlines. So I doubt AKL would be supporting Air NZ expansion for example, but definitely would be helping AA/QF to provide competition.

Thanks that's interesting you would think AKL would even give higher incentives than that for the size of their airport compared to CHC

I am guessing the insentives are airfield related? Landing fees etc. AKL is the largest city and airport in NZ so naturally has more airlines wanting to serve it so it doesn’t necessarily mean the insentives will be higher.

It probably reflects the fact that most airlines that were operating AKL had been doing so for many years and so have probably timed off any incentive scheme, whereas CHC has airlines which are far more recent (CZ, CX). Plus as you say AKL will always be the first port if you want to serve New Zealand. Its a lot harder to get a second port served by an airline than the first as the incremental benefit of going to CHC once you have started AKL is less (if you have good domestic connectivity). Does the airline fly another frequency into AKL, or open another port to CHC? Its more risky to open the new port which translates to more support.

tullamarine wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

JQ expanding SYD-RAR to 3x weekly from end June. This reinforces my concern that through its flight timings NZ has dropped the ball on being the dominant carrier on Australia-Polynesia routes. The situation is still retrievable, but they need to make overnight flights to the islands connecting to the evening and morning departure banks a priority. Not to mention making it sooo much easier for domestic connections as well.

https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/230314-jqrar

The market to the Cook Islands from Australia is comparatively small. It remains an expensive destination with limited accommodation options and therefore struggles against competition from places like Fiji, Bali, Phuket and North Queensland. It is hard to see how NZ can really change that. JQ is running the route principally as a back of clock operation so, for them, it offers good aircraft utilisation. The economics for them are even better if they can operate the return service with a single crew but that may be a stretch at nearly 15 hours in total.

The Cook Islands, yes, but I’m picking that there is a significant amount of VFR traffic from Australia (especially Queensland) to APW and TBU. But my argument about retiming also benefits domestic NZ connections, as from many domestic ports currently an overnight in AKL is required. Not ideal given the amount of traffic to the islands from New Zealand.

a7ala wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Thanks that's interesting you would think AKL would even give higher incentives than that for the size of their airport compared to CHC

I am guessing the insentives are airfield related? Landing fees etc. AKL is the largest city and airport in NZ so naturally has more airlines wanting to serve it so it doesn’t necessarily mean the insentives will be higher.

It probably reflects the fact that most airlines that were operating AKL had been doing so for many years and so have probably timed off any incentive scheme, whereas CHC has airlines which are far more recent (CZ, CX). Plus as you say AKL will always be the first port if you want to serve New Zealand. Its a lot harder to get a second port served by an airline than the first as the incremental benefit of going to CHC once you have started AKL is less (if you have good domestic connectivity). Does the airline fly another frequency into AKL, or open another port to CHC? Its more risky to open the new port which translates to more support.

Not sure youcan say CX is a recent arrival to AKL/NZ. Has been operating to AKL for well over 30 years and probably nearer 40.

Kiwings wrote:

a7ala wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

I am guessing the insentives are airfield related? Landing fees etc. AKL is the largest city and airport in NZ so naturally has more airlines wanting to serve it so it doesn’t necessarily mean the insentives will be higher.

It probably reflects the fact that most airlines that were operating AKL had been doing so for many years and so have probably timed off any incentive scheme, whereas CHC has airlines which are far more recent (CZ, CX). Plus as you say AKL will always be the first port if you want to serve New Zealand. Its a lot harder to get a second port served by an airline than the first as the incremental benefit of going to CHC once you have started AKL is less (if you have good domestic connectivity). Does the airline fly another frequency into AKL, or open another port to CHC? Its more risky to open the new port which translates to more support.

Not sure youcan say CX is a recent arrival to AKL/NZ. Has been operating to AKL for well over 30 years and probably nearer 40.

Perhaps they meant CX is a recent arrival to CHC.

NZ516 wrote:

Kiwings wrote:

a7ala wrote:

It probably reflects the fact that most airlines that were operating AKL had been doing so for many years and so have probably timed off any incentive scheme, whereas CHC has airlines which are far more recent (CZ, CX). Plus as you say AKL will always be the first port if you want to serve New Zealand. Its a lot harder to get a second port served by an airline than the first as the incremental benefit of going to CHC once you have started AKL is less (if you have good domestic connectivity). Does the airline fly another frequency into AKL, or open another port to CHC? Its more risky to open the new port which translates to more support.

Not sure youcan say CX is a recent arrival to AKL/NZ. Has been operating to AKL for well over 30 years and probably nearer 40.

Perhaps they meant CX is a recent arrival to CHC.

I did....

It's looking like NHC is back in service today after a while out of action. Flying AKL - WLG return them AKL - RAR on the 17th. While NNG looks like to return to service on the 18th AKL. This will leave the other 3 domestic frames still yet out OYA, OXD, OXJ.

Kiwings wrote:

a7ala wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

I am guessing the insentives are airfield related? Landing fees etc. AKL is the largest city and airport in NZ so naturally has more airlines wanting to serve it so it doesn’t necessarily mean the insentives will be higher.

It probably reflects the fact that most airlines that were operating AKL had been doing so for many years and so have probably timed off any incentive scheme, whereas CHC has airlines which are far more recent (CZ, CX). Plus as you say AKL will always be the first port if you want to serve New Zealand. Its a lot harder to get a second port served by an airline than the first as the incremental benefit of going to CHC once you have started AKL is less (if you have good domestic connectivity). Does the airline fly another frequency into AKL, or open another port to CHC? Its more risky to open the new port which translates to more support.

Not sure youcan say CX is a recent arrival to AKL/NZ. Has been operating to AKL for well over 30 years and probably nearer 40.

CX will be 40 years in AKL this year. Hopefully they can celebrate by being able to restore pre covid capacity. Maybe at least daily AKL by years end, scheduled 3x week 359 through NS.

I'm hearing they might get to 5. On that basis not sure CHC will happen.
Apparently very short of crew.

Kiwings wrote:

I'm hearing they might get to 5. On that basis not sure CHC will happen.
Apparently very short of crew.

Maybe NZ could step in on CHC-HKG over this coming Dec-Feb instead, using capacity that comes off of DPS? Then leave it to CX for subsequent years, once their capacity issues are addressed.

Do CX-NZ have to get a CHC-HKG service back up and running as part of their JV approval?

DavidByrne wrote:

... I’m picking that there is a significant amount of VFR traffic from Australia (especially Queensland) to APW and TBU.

NZ is already doing well to APW and TBU, particularly now they have a monopoly ex-AKL (no more OL or VA) - see link below re "exceptionally high demand" for APW, for example. Is it really worth putting any effort into capturing low-yielding VFR transits from BNE to support these services, particularly with QF already making a play in the region?

https://www.talanei.com/2022/09/15/air- ... -to-samoa/

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Regarding the upcoming CNS service the schedule will still connect with the NZ's US services within the same day although about 12 hours both ways (no overnighting in AKL needed).
For example arrive from the US in AKL about 0700 and leave for CNS at 1915. On the return arrive back in AKL at 0630 then wait till 1930 to fly to the US. It's better than last year schedule which departed AKL to CNS at 0700 where it would have been too early for any US connection. The return from CNS at 1840 would just connect with the NZ LAX flight I guess. Although a 12 hour wait in AKL is long, I did wait 16 hours in SIN once waiting for my SIN - CHC flight home but there is heaps to see and do at SIN airport.

It a minimum 55min connection international to international at AKL, CNS at 0700 connects in winter from all US flights which arrive by 0600 bar the second LAX service

Would that work for IAH , ORD, JFK as I thought they would arrive too late after 0630 to connect to a 0700 service to CNS. Looks good for the YVR, SFO and LAX connection.

Kiwings wrote:

I'm hearing they might get to 5. On that basis not sure CHC will happen.
Apparently very short of crew.

CHC would be further down the return list. CX would return to bigger markets first eg ADL etc.

Air NZ upcoming service to MCY is operating 3 weekly from June 25. Looks good for connecting both ways with the schedule.

AKL 0910 1110 MCY
MCY 1240 1750 AKL

It is possible that the A320 could then do a AKL CNS rotation afterwards.

NZ516 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Regarding the upcoming CNS service the schedule will still connect with the NZ's US services within the same day although about 12 hours both ways (no overnighting in AKL needed).
For example arrive from the US in AKL about 0700 and leave for CNS at 1915. On the return arrive back in AKL at 0630 then wait till 1930 to fly to the US. It's better than last year schedule which departed AKL to CNS at 0700 where it would have been too early for any US connection. The return from CNS at 1840 would just connect with the NZ LAX flight I guess. Although a 12 hour wait in AKL is long, I did wait 16 hours in SIN once waiting for my SIN - CHC flight home but there is heaps to see and do at SIN airport.

It a minimum 55min connection international to international at AKL, CNS at 0700 connects in winter from all US flights which arrive by 0600 bar the second LAX service

Would that work for IAH , ORD, JFK as I thought they would arrive too late after 0630 to connect to a 0700 service to CNS. Looks good for the YVR, SFO and LAX connection.

NS only JFK at 0730 is to late, everything else arrives pre 0600 bay the second LAX service.

NZ516 wrote:

Kiwings wrote:

I'm hearing they might get to 5. On that basis not sure CHC will happen.
Apparently very short of crew.

CHC would be further down the return list. CX would return to bigger markets first eg ADL etc.

I'm not so sure about that.

Will they ever return to ADL? Even EK haven't.

CHC only operates for 3 months over what is the low-season/winter in the northern hemisphere, and so it can neatly plug the gap for any temporary excess capacity that will be needed to Europe/North America until November 2023, and from March 2024. In contrast, ADL would be a year-round flight, and so more resource-intensive. This may work in CHC's favour.

Also, CHC may be a condition of CX's JV with NZ? I'm not sure about this - but this wouldn't be a factor for ADL.

planemanofnz wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

... I’m picking that there is a significant amount of VFR traffic from Australia (especially Queensland) to APW and TBU.

NZ is already doing well to APW and TBU, particularly now they have a monopoly ex-AKL (no more OL or VA) - see link below re "exceptionally high demand" for APW, for example. Is it really worth putting any effort into capturing low-yielding VFR transits from BNE to support these services, particularly with QF already making a play in the region?

I'm not suggesting that any "effort" is needed; it's all about utilisation. But if you're going to look for improved utilisation, it makes sense to put that utilisation where connections are maximised. In the case of the Pacific Islands, you can achieve MANY more connections from this side of the Tasman AND eastern Australia by retiming those services to run overnight. Check the current timetable to see that many domestic pax are seriously disadvantaged by the present schedule.

DavidByrne wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

... I’m picking that there is a significant amount of VFR traffic from Australia (especially Queensland) to APW and TBU.

NZ is already doing well to APW and TBU, particularly now they have a monopoly ex-AKL (no more OL or VA) - see link below re "exceptionally high demand" for APW, for example. Is it really worth putting any effort into capturing low-yielding VFR transits from BNE to support these services, particularly with QF already making a play in the region?

I'm not suggesting that any "effort" is needed; it's all about utilisation. But if you're going to look for improved utilisation, it makes sense to put that utilisation where connections are maximised. In the case of the Pacific Islands, you can achieve MANY more connections from this side of the Tasman AND eastern Australia by retiming those services to run overnight. Check the current timetable to see that many domestic pax are seriously disadvantaged by the present schedule.

David. In a earlier thread I questioned the decision to introduce dedicated domestic A321 and got called 'ridiculous' by a another member. Given your comments and and the discussion around utilisation it again made me question that decision. Each evening the three (two at present as one is without engines) domestic A321's are parked up on average around 9-10 hours. If they were regional capable they could get far greater utilisation from those aircraft. Yes they were less costly to introduce due less equipment but that is short sighted due to the significantly reduced earning potential of those three and eventually seven aircraft.

GW54 wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ is already doing well to APW and TBU, particularly now they have a monopoly ex-AKL (no more OL or VA) - see link below re "exceptionally high demand" for APW, for example. Is it really worth putting any effort into capturing low-yielding VFR transits from BNE to support these services, particularly with QF already making a play in the region?

I'm not suggesting that any "effort" is needed; it's all about utilisation. But if you're going to look for improved utilisation, it makes sense to put that utilisation where connections are maximised. In the case of the Pacific Islands, you can achieve MANY more connections from this side of the Tasman AND eastern Australia by retiming those services to run overnight. Check the current timetable to see that many domestic pax are seriously disadvantaged by the present schedule.

David. In a earlier thread I questioned the decision to introduce dedicated domestic A321 and got called 'ridiculous' by a another member. Given your comments and and the discussion around utilisation it again made me question that decision. Each evening the three (two at present as one is without engines) domestic A321's are parked up on average around 9-10 hours. If they were regional capable they could get far greater utilisation from those aircraft. Yes they were less costly to introduce due less equipment but that is short sighted due to the significantly reduced earning potential of those three and eventually seven aircraft.

Good point there is far less flexibility with a small sub fleet. But even the international A321s don't always do much flying per day eg one does AKL- OOL - AKL then parks up and another one does AKL-- ADL - AKL only. The only one that does the two AKL- SYD- AKL- SYD - AKL rotations gets the most hours in the air.

NZ516 wrote:

Nelson Airport has lodged a planing application for it's proposed runway extension. The timeframe for completion is still 10-15 years.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/131 ... -extension

Could NSN airport almost take jet services with the runway extension? Having a look at the proposal for the extension.
When you look at the plans you find that the RESA is 240 metres, so they are actually looking at paving another roughly 600 meters to the north, almost 50% more runway!

Don't sell AKL airport says former mayor of Manukau city. The amount of dividends they receive helps to keep rates down.

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/dont-sell-au ... ort-shares

NZ516 wrote:

Don't sell AKL airport says former mayor of Manukau city. The amount of dividends they receive helps to keep rates down.

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/dont-sell-au ... ort-shares

Didn’t National put in place some legislation around Auckland Airport and the ownership limitations on essential infrastructure?

NZ516 wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Nelson Airport has lodged a planing application for it's proposed runway extension. The timeframe for completion is still 10-15 years.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/131 ... -extension

Could NSN airport almost take jet services with the runway extension? Having a look at the proposal for the extension.
When you look at the plans you find that the RESA is 240 metres, so they are actually looking at paving another roughly 600 meters to the north, almost 50% more runway!

What inundation plans do they have in place. The island across from the airport - linked by causeway - has already been defamed uninhabitable and managed retreat is already under way. I wouldn’t be investing in Nelson Airport without significant climate impact plans in place.

I listened to a Sharesies/BusinessDesk podcast interview with Greg Foran from Thursday. Foran reiterated the plan in the long term is for the long haul fleet to be a single type, specifically the 787 (interestingly he actually only mentioned the 789). He also mentioned the existing 789 fleet cabin refurb, and that NZ was considering what to do about the 77W fleet cabins including a possible refresh (though it didn’t sound like a full refurb to the new cabins).

Expect some more developments from NZ on the digital front as well e.g. utilising the new app platform for more sophisticated services and greater ability to self manage bookings/changes.

He praised DL as one of the best airlines in the world and NZ were working to ensure they were well placed for increased competition.

Motorhussy wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Don't sell AKL airport says former mayor of Manukau city. The amount of dividends they receive helps to keep rates down.

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/dont-sell-au ... ort-shares

Didn’t National put in place some legislation around Auckland Airport and the ownership limitations on essential infrastructure?

I'm not sure if they did. But with Labour in Government it all could have changed.

ZKNZR wrote:

I listened to a Sharesies/BusinessDesk podcast interview with Greg Foran from Thursday. Foran reiterated the plan in the long term is for the long haul fleet to be a single type, specifically the 787 (interestingly he actually only mentioned the 789). He also mentioned the existing 789 fleet cabin refurb, and that NZ was considering what to do about the 77W fleet cabins including a possible refresh (though it didn’t sound like a full refurb to the new cabins).

Expect some more developments from NZ on the digital front as well e.g. utilising the new app platform for more sophisticated services and greater ability to self manage bookings/changes.

He praised DL as one of the best airlines in the world and NZ were working to ensure they were well placed for increased competition.

The financial savings of an all 787 fleet over a mixed 777/787 fleet might be too good to ignore.

DavidByrne wrote:

In the case of the Pacific Islands, you can achieve MANY more connections from this side of the Tasman AND eastern Australia by retiming those services to run overnight.

Overnight services would be less desirable for holidaymakers, business and other traffic to/from AKL, which I imagine is the bulk of the traffic and the core group they want to keep happy.

Current schedules, with mixed morning and afternoon departures, seem to work well. Morning flights leaving to APW (8:45am), RAR (8:55am) and TBU (9:45am) align with checking in at a resort in early-mid afternoon, and still allow for connections from all major domestic ports (bar DUD) and North American ports. For those who don't make the morning flights, like the Australians, there are several afternoon flights in the week to APW (Sun, Mon, Wed, Fri), RAR (Thu, Sat) and TBU (Sat, Tue, Thu) which will connect for them. An overnight departure ex-AKL may mean I arrive to the islands at 5:00am after having not had much sleep in Economy Class, and needing to do my own thing for 8-10 hours until the resort allows for my check-in?

Coming home, if I need to check out of my resort at 11:00am, NZ has a flight some days leaving APW at 1:45pm, TBU at 1:50pm and RAR at 3:00pm - no need to wait around until midnight with no access to resort facilities, in the sweaty heat. I can still make connections at AKL around 7:00pm-8:00pm to the staples of WLG, CHC, and SYD, regional ports like PMR, NSN and NPE, and again, all the North American ports. Obviously MEL, BNE and DUD don't connect to these. However, there are alternative services which land into AKL from APW and TBU between 12:00-1:00am, and from RAR at around 5:00am, on some other days - the latter in particular would allow for greater Australian connections in the early departure banks ex-AKL.

Auckland Airport has unveiled a $3.9 billion redevelopment project, which will see it combine its domestic and international terminals. The airport said the project would reaplce the 57-year-old domestic terminal, at a cost of $2.2b and it was set to open between 2028 and 2029.



https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/486 ... nt-project

This is the first time I've seen a 2028-2029 opening date goal mentioned? Hopefully they can stick to it.

planemanofnz wrote:

Auckland Airport has unveiled a $3.9 billion redevelopment project, which will see it combine its domestic and international terminals. The airport said the project would reaplce the 57-year-old domestic terminal, at a cost of $2.2b and it was set to open between 2028 and 2029.



https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/486 ... nt-project

This is the first time I've seen a 2028-2029 opening date goal mentioned? Hopefully they can stick to it.

It looks good and hopefully they can stick with that timeframe as mentioned.

What happens with the turboprop services? I assume this is domestic jet services only looking at the drawings / what's mentioned, so while it helps with transfers to / from jet services, what about the props?

mrkerr7474 wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

Auckland Airport has unveiled a $3.9 billion redevelopment project, which will see it combine its domestic and international terminals. The airport said the project would reaplce the 57-year-old domestic terminal, at a cost of $2.2b and it was set to open between 2028 and 2029.



https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/486 ... nt-project

This is the first time I've seen a 2028-2029 opening date goal mentioned? Hopefully they can stick to it.

It looks good and hopefully they can stick with that timeframe as mentioned.

What happens with the turboprop services? I assume this is domestic jet services only looking at the drawings / what's mentioned, so while it helps with transfers to / from jet services, what about the props?

Yes apparently the plan is for the turboprop services will continue to operate from the existing domestic terminal “subject to airline consultation”. Given this is clean sheet that seems like a supreme wasted opportunity, particularly when they boast of streamlined 5 minute Intl/dom connections (which clearly won’t be the case for all regional services).

ZKNZR wrote:

... the plan is for the turboprop services will continue to operate from the existing domestic terminal

So regional pax will go from only having a terminal transfer for international flights at AKL, to having such terminal transfers now for domestic jet services too? That definitely seems less than ideal, and a missed opportunity to streamline operations in one go.

You'd imagine that they'd at least have some vision of how/where turboprop flights will be run in the longer-term at AKL, if they aren't covered by this 2028-2029 project - noting likelihood of increased security requirements, new electric aircraft coming online, etc.

ZKNZR wrote:

"subject to airline consultation”

That will be interesting to track

Why is more consultation needed? The airport has been in discussions with airlines since 2011 to build an integrated terminal. Over that time 21 concept designs have been developed.

Note backlash from airlines over the new domestic terminal announcement today.

Airlines said they are surprised and disappointed by airport’s announcement that it will go ahead with the project.

This $3.9b spend gets pushed on to airlines in fees that end up in ticket prices,” O’Brien said. “Airlines are frustrated by the airport’s action

https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/30083245 ... r-airfares

... airlines had agreed in principle to original plans for the terminal in 2021 but this was at a much lower price than the $2.2b revealed today.

In previous statements, the airport had said the cost of the terminal would be around $1b.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/air ... EEMWEYK4E/

Thoughts?

planemanofnz wrote:

ZKNZR wrote:

... the plan is for the turboprop services will continue to operate from the existing domestic terminal

So regional pax will go from only having a terminal transfer for international flights at AKL, to having such terminal transfers now for domestic jet services too? That definitely seems less than ideal, and a missed opportunity to streamline operations in one go.

To be honest there would be very few regional-domjet connections that cant be handled at WLG or CHC. About the only pain would be for pax connecting WRE/KKE to/from WLG/CHC/DUD/ZQN/IVC. Reinstating WRE/KKE-WLG would overcome that.

a7ala wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

ZKNZR wrote:

... the plan is for the turboprop services will continue to operate from the existing domestic terminal

So regional pax will go from only having a terminal transfer for international flights at AKL, to having such terminal transfers now for domestic jet services too? That definitely seems less than ideal, and a missed opportunity to streamline operations in one go.

To be honest there would be very few regional-domjet connections that cant be handled at WLG or CHC. About the only pain would be for pax connecting WRE/KKE to/from WLG/CHC/DUD/ZQN/IVC. Reinstating WRE/KKE-WLG would overcome that.

A few others too, like TUO, GBZ, WHK, KAT, WTZ, etc.

Beyond those, given AKL's greater frequencies and availability of seats, it's often been more convenient for pax to back-track through AKL, e.g. on NPL-ZQN, than go via WLG or CHC. It will be interesting to see if they try to beef up the WLG and CHC domestic hubs, in light of this.

a7ala wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

ZKNZR wrote:

... the plan is for the turboprop services will continue to operate from the existing domestic terminal

So regional pax will go from only having a terminal transfer for international flights at AKL, to having such terminal transfers now for domestic jet services too? That definitely seems less than ideal, and a missed opportunity to streamline operations in one go.

To be honest there would be very few regional-domjet connections that cant be handled at WLG or CHC. About the only pain would be for pax connecting WRE/KKE to/from WLG/CHC/DUD/ZQN/IVC. Reinstating WRE/KKE-WLG would overcome that.

I'm sorry but that doesn't really make sense. To actually make that work would require an increase in frequency of WLG-Regional flights that are currently AKL-Regional and WLG can hardly cope with the number of turboprop services as it is.

Not having a plan for Turboprops at AKL is predictably hairbrained thinking from AIAL. International and Domestic connections are a big thing for AKL Turboprops that currently have a big baring on OTP. Not including turboprops with Domestic under the same roof will only make this worse.

planemanofnz wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

In the case of the Pacific Islands, you can achieve MANY more connections from this side of the Tasman AND eastern Australia by retiming those services to run overnight.

Overnight services would be less desirable for holidaymakers, business and other traffic to/from AKL, which I imagine is the bulk of the traffic and the core group they want to keep happy.

Current schedules, with mixed morning and afternoon departures, seem to work well. Morning flights leaving to APW (8:45am), RAR (8:55am) and TBU (9:45am) align with checking in at a resort in early-mid afternoon, and still allow for connections from all major domestic ports (bar DUD) and North American ports. For those who don't make the morning flights, like the Australians, there are several afternoon flights in the week to APW (Sun, Mon, Wed, Fri), RAR (Thu, Sat) and TBU (Sat, Tue, Thu) which will connect for them. An overnight departure ex-AKL may mean I arrive to the islands at 5:00am after having not had much sleep in Economy Class, and needing to do my own thing for 8-10 hours until the resort allows for my check-in?

Coming home, if I need to check out of my resort at 11:00am, NZ has a flight some days leaving APW at 1:45pm, TBU at 1:50pm and RAR at 3:00pm - no need to wait around until midnight with no access to resort facilities, in the sweaty heat. I can still make connections at AKL around 7:00pm-8:00pm to the staples of WLG, CHC, and SYD, regional ports like PMR, NSN and NPE, and again, all the North American ports. Obviously MEL, BNE and DUD don't connect to these. However, there are alternative services which land into AKL from APW and TBU between 12:00-1:00am, and from RAR at around 5:00am, on some other days - the latter in particular would allow for greater Australian connections in the early departure banks ex-AKL.

Understand and agree with all of that, but the current schedule is utilisation-inefficient, which is one of the drivers the airline has signalled it wants to improve. Traditionally, airlines tend to focus on providing flights to business destinations at “convenient” times while leisure destinations are often at less convenient times, including back-of-the-clock. If NZ is serious about utilisation then surely it has to be thinking about this.

DavidByrne wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

In the case of the Pacific Islands, you can achieve MANY more connections from this side of the Tasman AND eastern Australia by retiming those services to run overnight.

Overnight services would be less desirable for holidaymakers, business and other traffic to/from AKL, which I imagine is the bulk of the traffic and the core group they want to keep happy.

Current schedules, with mixed morning and afternoon departures, seem to work well. Morning flights leaving to APW (8:45am), RAR (8:55am) and TBU (9:45am) align with checking in at a resort in early-mid afternoon, and still allow for connections from all major domestic ports (bar DUD) and North American ports. For those who don't make the morning flights, like the Australians, there are several afternoon flights in the week to APW (Sun, Mon, Wed, Fri), RAR (Thu, Sat) and TBU (Sat, Tue, Thu) which will connect for them. An overnight departure ex-AKL may mean I arrive to the islands at 5:00am after having not had much sleep in Economy Class, and needing to do my own thing for 8-10 hours until the resort allows for my check-in?

Coming home, if I need to check out of my resort at 11:00am, NZ has a flight some days leaving APW at 1:45pm, TBU at 1:50pm and RAR at 3:00pm - no need to wait around until midnight with no access to resort facilities, in the sweaty heat. I can still make connections at AKL around 7:00pm-8:00pm to the staples of WLG, CHC, and SYD, regional ports like PMR, NSN and NPE, and again, all the North American ports. Obviously MEL, BNE and DUD don't connect to these. However, there are alternative services which land into AKL from APW and TBU between 12:00-1:00am, and from RAR at around 5:00am, on some other days - the latter in particular would allow for greater Australian connections in the early departure banks ex-AKL.

Understand and agree with all of that, but the current schedule is utilisation-inefficient, which is one of the drivers the airline has signalled it wants to improve. Traditionally, airlines tend to focus on providing flights to business destinations at “convenient” times while leisure destinations are often at less convenient times, including back-of-the-clock. If NZ is serious about utilisation then surely it has to be thinking about this.

Fair point about inefficiency - I get what you mean.

Greater efficiency may come at a cost - in this case, reduced connection possibilities, and perhaps reduced desireability for holidays at the destination - factors which may outweigh the more efficient frame use.

Let's wait and see!

SelandiaBaru wrote:

I'm sorry but that doesn't really make sense. To actually make that work would require an increase in frequency of WLG-Regional flights that are currently AKL-Regional and WLG can hardly cope with the number of turboprop services as it is.

WLG has plans to increase their turbo/jet capability as well, which is why the brought the golf club. Yes Air NZ would have to increase their regional flying to WLG or CHC, and why not? Surely living in NPE and travelling to DUD via AKL just doesnt make sense if you can do it via WLG or CHC.

It looks like AKL has decided they want to capture as much of that WLG/CHC/DUD/ZQN<>International connecting traffic as possible (its by far the largest revenue driver for them for aero and retail) and prepared to leave the regional connectivity peice to other airports.

planemanofnz wrote:

Greater efficiency may come at a cost - in this case, reduced connection possibilities, and perhaps reduced desireability for holidays at the destination - factors which may outweigh the more efficient frame use.:

I still don't think you quite comprehend what I'm saying: to move the bulk of Pacific flights to overnight would increase connection possibilities, as well as be more utilisation-efficient. Yes, some connections are possible with the existing timetable, but with overnight flights to leisure destinations you are able to provide very easy connections to and from the islands from EVERY Australian and NZ destination (with the exception of PER, but that's another of my pet proposals).

ZKNZR wrote:

mrkerr7474 wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

Auckland Airport has unveiled a $3.9 billion redevelopment project, which will see it combine its domestic and international terminals. The airport said the project would reaplce the 57-year-old domestic terminal, at a cost of $2.2b and it was set to open between 2028 and 2029.



https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/486 ... nt-project

This is the first time I've seen a 2028-2029 opening date goal mentioned? Hopefully they can stick to it.

It looks good and hopefully they can stick with that timeframe as mentioned.

What happens with the turboprop services? I assume this is domestic jet services only looking at the drawings / what's mentioned, so while it helps with transfers to / from jet services, what about the props?

Yes apparently the plan is for the turboprop services will continue to operate from the existing domestic terminal “subject to airline consultation”. Given this is clean sheet that seems like a supreme wasted opportunity, particularly when they boast of streamlined 5 minute Intl/dom connections (which clearly won’t be the case for all regional services).

Surely the green space next to that top international wing in the photo (I believe that was AIAL masterplan extension and second runway up there originally etc), could have been utilised for a large domestic pier including the props instead of what the new plan would be?

As others have mentioned, unless they're going to funnel more regional traffic through WLG/CHC, it's a bit of a head scratcher what they are planning

DavidByrne wrote:

with overnight flights to leisure destinations you are able to provide very easy connections to and from the islands from EVERY Australian and NZ destination

There are already connections both ways to the majority of key of ports in NZ, as well as Australia's key gateway of SYD.

The overnight idea provides some new connections (MEL, BNE, etc) but at the expense of others (the US, China, etc).

DavidByrne wrote:

... as well as be more utilisation-efficient.

Yes, I agree.

mrkerr7474 wrote:

Surely the green space next to that top international wing in the photo (I believe that was AIAL masterplan extension and second runway up there originally etc), could have been utilised for a large domestic pier including the props instead of what the new plan would be?

Or they could extend the domestic jet terminal towards the existing domestic terminal, and set up some remote stands?

mrkerr7474 wrote:

Surely the green space next to that top international wing in the photo (I believe that was AIAL masterplan extension and second runway up there originally etc), could have been utilised for a large domestic pier including the props instead of what the new plan would be?

[quote="Or they could extend the domestic jet terminal towards the existing domestic terminal, and set up some remote stands?[/quote]

Or that too, would make more sense. However, just like the WLG masterplan with taking over the golf course, that design also makes no sense there so it must be an airports designers skill to design things that don't make much sense.

NZ seemingly doing very well at RAR, which is great to see.

... the Cook Islands remained a top destination for Kiwis, having “outperformed all other Pacific islands in the number of passengers booked” during Air New Zealand’s recent New Year sale. “This also exceeded the volume booked in the New Year sale in 2019" ... Mackey said forward bookings were “looking good” ...

https://www.cookislandsnews.com/interna ... e-horizon/

planemanofnz wrote:

Auckland Airport has unveiled a $3.9 billion redevelopment project, which will see it combine its domestic and international terminals. The airport said the project would reaplce the 57-year-old domestic terminal, at a cost of $2.2b and it was set to open between 2028 and 2029.



https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/486 ... nt-project

This is the first time I've seen a 2028-2029 opening date goal mentioned? Hopefully they can stick to it.

So the current domestic terminal has 9 gates with airbridges, the new domestic pier has 9x gates with airbridges.

Looks like those gates on the western side a swing gates that can be shared by International? assuming that these gates are spaced out enough so 2x A321/320s can park at them? which would bring the total up to 12 gates.

3x Extra gates doesn't seem like enough for growth, there is already peak times when NZ/JQ have aircraft on hard stands.

An interesting case where the Disputes Tribunal has fined EK for misleading marketing over its Business Class product on the 77W.

With the switch from the 77W to the 388 at CHC this month, hopefully there'll be no more confusion around the different offering in NZ.

https://english.alarabiya.net/business/ ... dvertising

It does raise a question re upcoming inconsistencies in NZ's long-haul fleet, with the 789 refurbs, and the 77Ws maybe staying on?

mrkerr7474 wrote:

Or that too, would make more sense. However, just like the WLG masterplan with taking over the golf course, that design also makes no sense there so it must be an airports designers skill to design things that don't make much sense.

Whats the issue with WLG's design? Isnt the plan to extend the airport to the south/east due to the road and houses to the north. Terminal extended south with International/dom jets moving there, while turboprops move to the north and around the rock. Golf course used for apron supporting the terminal south extension.

What can be done at WLG is severely restricted by land available.

Interesting changes at the Koru Lounges at DUD and ZQN.

Air New Zealand customers will no longer be able to pour their own spirits at two of the airline’s lounges, after a customer got so drunk she was unable to board her flight. While Air New Zealand only offers beer and wine in most of its regional lounges, until recently, it also had self-service spirits available in its lounges at Queenstown and Dunedin Airports, as these locations also function as international lounges. But the airline has now removed this option, after a “conversation” with Police.

... all spirits were now served behind the bar at Queenstown, and had been removed from the Dunedin lounge altogether, as that lounge did not have a serviced bar.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/131 ... om-lounges

Dry ice shortages have impacted NZ's ability to serve ice cream on both short and long-haul flights - deserts have changed to an un-named plated desert for Business Premier and a cake slice for Economy.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/131 ... ext-flight

a7ala wrote:

mrkerr7474 wrote:

Or that too, would make more sense. However, just like the WLG masterplan with taking over the golf course, that design also makes no sense there so it must be an airports designers skill to design things that don't make much sense.

Whats the issue with WLG's design? Isnt the plan to extend the airport to the south/east due to the road and houses to the north. Terminal extended south with International/dom jets moving there, while turboprops move to the north and around the rock. Golf course used for apron supporting the terminal south extension.

What can be done at WLG is severely restricted by land available.

Runway extension at WLG is pretty unlikely due to the pilot's association pressure that any extension also include installing full runway overrun areas. Apron extension is still a go if only for increased frequencies and battery electric regional planes.

a7ala wrote:

SelandiaBaru wrote:

I'm sorry but that doesn't really make sense. To actually make that work would require an increase in frequency of WLG-Regional flights that are currently AKL-Regional and WLG can hardly cope with the number of turboprop services as it is.

WLG has plans to increase their turbo/jet capability as well, which is why the brought the golf club. Yes Air NZ would have to increase their regional flying to WLG or CHC, and why not? Surely living in NPE and travelling to DUD via AKL just doesnt make sense if you can do it via WLG or CHC.

It looks like AKL has decided they want to capture as much of that WLG/CHC/DUD/ZQN<>International connecting traffic as possible (its by far the largest revenue driver for them for aero and retail) and prepared to leave the regional connectivity peice to other airports.

Sure, they have plans. Not necessarily that workable and certainly won't be ready to be in to place for the lacklustre AKL domestic development.

Air NZ is the largest user and and AKL will always be it's main market. Funneling more regional connections through WLG and CHC will just never be workable to the extent required to make this development work without taking an OTP hit.

There are also operational considerations with WLG that I don't think are going to change much unless a massive earthquake significantly modifies the topography.

You make a good point about NPE-AKL-DUD and there are WLG or CHC options, just not at the frequency hence some people taking the AKL option. I just can't see the Tetris working.

mrkerr7474 wrote:

mrkerr7474 wrote:

Surely the green space next to that top international wing in the photo (I believe that was AIAL masterplan extension and second runway up there originally etc), could have been utilised for a large domestic pier including the props instead of what the new plan would be?

[quote="Or they could extend the domestic jet terminal towards the existing domestic terminal, and set up some remote stands?

Or that too, would make more sense. However, just like the WLG masterplan with taking over the golf course, that design also makes no sense there so it must be an airports designers skill to design things that don't make much sense.

How that original masterplan ever passed a sense check I'll never know. The idea was that regional aircraft would use the northern runway with Domestic as it got extended and International aircraft would use the southern runway. That idea completely falls apart when you realise most international flights are from the north and most domestic and regional are from the south. Fun for airspace designers but practically daft.