RE: AKL's plans. Remember also that its not the airport that is paying for these plans. Its the airlines. They are already complaining about what was announced today; imagine their opposition if there were even more jet stands, and the inclusion of regional as well? And you can bet that none of the airlines would want to pay for Air NZ's turboprop enhancements - infact I doubt even Air NZ would want to.

In an ideal world airports would love to do everything all at once and make it amazing. They have to work within the constraints of the funding system, airlines willingness to pay and the regulator.

a7ala wrote:

RE: AKL's plans. Remember also that its not the airport that is paying for these plans. Its the airlines. They are already complaining about what was announced today; imagine their opposition if there were even more jet stands, and the inclusion of regional as well? And you can bet that none of the airlines would want to pay for Air NZ's turboprop enhancements - infact I doubt even Air NZ would want to.

In an ideal world airports would love to do everything all at once and make it amazing. They have to work within the constraints of the funding system, airlines willingness to pay and the regulator.

Air NZ know they have problems at AKL and this plan will only provide a marginal improvement. As has been demonstrated this new domestic terminal barely provides enough gates for current schedules let alone any expansion. Is the spend worth it to improve the domestic-international transfer without any other appreciable operational benefits?

SelandiaBaru wrote:

a7ala wrote:

RE: AKL's plans. Remember also that its not the airport that is paying for these plans. Its the airlines. They are already complaining about what was announced today; imagine their opposition if there were even more jet stands, and the inclusion of regional as well? And you can bet that none of the airlines would want to pay for Air NZ's turboprop enhancements - infact I doubt even Air NZ would want to.

In an ideal world airports would love to do everything all at once and make it amazing. They have to work within the constraints of the funding system, airlines willingness to pay and the regulator.

Air NZ know they have problems at AKL and this plan will only provide a marginal improvement. As has been demonstrated this new domestic terminal barely provides enough gates for current schedules let alone any expansion. Is the spend worth it to improve the domestic-international transfer without any other appreciable operational benefits?

So maybe Air NZ needs to build its own domestic jet terminal (integrated with international) and jetstar can keep using the old one. I bet none of the other airlines that operate at AKL are going to want to pay for a domestic terminal that really only Air NZ gets benefit from.

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.

The new terminal will have 12 gates a 20% increase from the article. I thought the current one has 11 gates for jets already so just one extra. At least it's not a cut in capacity which is good. But the cost is mind boggling at 3 times what it was forecasted a year ago!

a7ala wrote:

SelandiaBaru wrote:

a7ala wrote:

RE: AKL's plans. Remember also that its not the airport that is paying for these plans. Its the airlines. They are already complaining about what was announced today; imagine their opposition if there were even more jet stands, and the inclusion of regional as well? And you can bet that none of the airlines would want to pay for Air NZ's turboprop enhancements - infact I doubt even Air NZ would want to.

In an ideal world airports would love to do everything all at once and make it amazing. They have to work within the constraints of the funding system, airlines willingness to pay and the regulator.

Air NZ know they have problems at AKL and this plan will only provide a marginal improvement. As has been demonstrated this new domestic terminal barely provides enough gates for current schedules let alone any expansion. Is the spend worth it to improve the domestic-international transfer without any other appreciable operational benefits?

So maybe Air NZ needs to build its own domestic jet terminal (integrated with international) and jetstar can keep using the old one. I bet none of the other airlines that operate at AKL are going to want to pay for a domestic terminal that really only Air NZ gets benefit from.

Haha maybe, but with the AIAL CEO likely to try for a run at becoming Air NZ CEO in the future I can't see that.

a7ala wrote:

SelandiaBaru wrote:

a7ala wrote:

RE: AKL's plans. Remember also that its not the airport that is paying for these plans. Its the airlines. They are already complaining about what was announced today; imagine their opposition if there were even more jet stands, and the inclusion of regional as well? And you can bet that none of the airlines would want to pay for Air NZ's turboprop enhancements - infact I doubt even Air NZ would want to.

In an ideal world airports would love to do everything all at once and make it amazing. They have to work within the constraints of the funding system, airlines willingness to pay and the regulator.

Air NZ know they have problems at AKL and this plan will only provide a marginal improvement. As has been demonstrated this new domestic terminal barely provides enough gates for current schedules let alone any expansion. Is the spend worth it to improve the domestic-international transfer without any other appreciable operational benefits?

So maybe Air NZ needs to build its own domestic jet terminal (integrated with international) and jetstar can keep using the old one. I bet none of the other airlines that operate at AKL are going to want to pay for a domestic terminal that really only Air NZ gets benefit from.

Seems logical, it’s commonly done in the USA where airlines or a group of airlines own/lease the terminal building. They are responsible for the up keep and overall operation of that terminal. In LAX NZ used to be one of the key stake holders of the T2 lease, before they moved to TBIT.

It’s likely NZ wants a basic functional, modern terminal with enough gates to keep they operation moving l. Highly likely they don’t want the shopping mall, with airbridges that’s AIAL are building.

The cost of AIAL’s solution seems ridiculous, would love to know the break down of costs of retail vs aeronautical benefits in these new building.

It seems like they should just let NZ lease the ground space from there hangars, to the control tower and let them do what they want.

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.

Not necessarily saying issues with WLG design. It was more to me it doesn't make much sense using the golf course as apron for more aircraft seeing as this is closer to the hill and houses above.

I always thought it made more sense to relocate all the car parking for Air NZ staff, cargo ops and longer term car parking on the golf course land. Get rid of that old hanger that's there as well and extend the airport building all the way down that section that those facilities would vacate in this situation.

Obviously my two cents is irrelevant but it just seems like it makes more logical sense doing it that way as well as to avoid noise issues with residents on the hill etc

mrkerr7474 wrote:

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.

Not necessarily saying issues with WLG design. It was more to me it doesn't make much sense using the golf course as apron for more aircraft seeing as this is closer to the hill and houses above.

I always thought it made more sense to relocate all the car parking for Air NZ staff, cargo ops and longer term car parking on the golf course land. Get rid of that old hanger that's there as well and extend the airport building all the way down that section that those facilities would vacate in this situation.

Obviously my two cents is irrelevant but it just seems like it makes more logical sense doing it that way as well as to avoid noise issues with residents on the hill etc

That or relocate the entire airport, the connect it back to the city by high speed rail.

But that is never going to happen in New Zealand.

zkncj wrote:

a7ala wrote:

SelandiaBaru wrote:

Air NZ know they have problems at AKL and this plan will only provide a marginal improvement. As has been demonstrated this new domestic terminal barely provides enough gates for current schedules let alone any expansion. Is the spend worth it to improve the domestic-international transfer without any other appreciable operational benefits?

So maybe Air NZ needs to build its own domestic jet terminal (integrated with international) and jetstar can keep using the old one. I bet none of the other airlines that operate at AKL are going to want to pay for a domestic terminal that really only Air NZ gets benefit from.

Seems logical, it’s commonly done in the USA where airlines or a group of airlines own/lease the terminal building. They are responsible for the up keep and overall operation of that terminal. In LAX NZ used to be one of the key stake holders of the T2 lease, before they moved to TBIT.

It’s likely NZ wants a basic functional, modern terminal with enough gates to keep they operation moving l. Highly likely they don’t want the shopping mall, with airbridges that’s AIAL are building.

The cost of AIAL’s solution seems ridiculous, would love to know the break down of costs of retail vs aeronautical benefits in these new building.

It seems like they should just let NZ lease the ground space from there hangars, to the control tower and let them do what they want.

I suspect if NZ ran their own terminal they'd want the shopping mall. You want a return on your investment ( not just operationally ) and high rents help with that.

planemanofnz wrote:

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?

This must have been some time ago when EK were running the 77W DXB-KUL-AKL?

EK don't fly the 77W to CHC, they don't fly there at all until they return next week with the A380.

ZK-NBT wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

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?

This must have been some time ago when EK were running the 77W DXB-KUL-AKL?

EK don't fly the 77W to CHC, they don't fly there at all until they return next week with the A380.

You're right! It must have been related to their flights here last year.

Forgot that about CHC - will be good to get them back next week!

zkncj wrote:

a7ala wrote:

SelandiaBaru wrote:

Air NZ know they have problems at AKL and this plan will only provide a marginal improvement. As has been demonstrated this new domestic terminal barely provides enough gates for current schedules let alone any expansion. Is the spend worth it to improve the domestic-international transfer without any other appreciable operational benefits?

So maybe Air NZ needs to build its own domestic jet terminal (integrated with international) and jetstar can keep using the old one. I bet none of the other airlines that operate at AKL are going to want to pay for a domestic terminal that really only Air NZ gets benefit from.

Seems logical, it’s commonly done in the USA where airlines or a group of airlines own/lease the terminal building

Indeed - there are several other examples around the world.

LH owns 40% of Terminal 2 at MUC (with 60% owned by Flughafen München GmbH) - perhaps this co-ownership model could be a solution at AKL.

Other examples include:
- PG owns USM
- J9 owns Terminal 5 at KWI
- RE (which ceased ops in 2021) was part of the same group (the Stobart Group) that owned SEN

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

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?

This must have been some time ago when EK were running the 77W DXB-KUL-AKL?

EK don't fly the 77W to CHC, they don't fly there at all until they return next week with the A380.

You're right! It must have been related to their flights here last year.

Forgot that about CHC - will be good to get them back next week!

In regards to NZ 789/77W having different cabins, I guess so long as NZ keep the 77W on certain routes, long haul particularly they shouldn't have an issue? They finally got consistency when they retired the 763 fleet. I can't see the 77W getting a full refurb, but they are likely it seems to be around at least 2-3 years longer than initially planned?

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.

The thing is NZ generally add slack into the international fleet, it’s not like they are going to increase utilisation by adding 12 overnight short haul runs or something silly. I don’t know we might be talking 3-4 flights. I don’t necessarily disagree that a mixed fleet makes sense, but obviously for the airline it makes some sense to have seperate fleets.

SelandiaBaru wrote:

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.

Yes which is why they finally came to their senses and made the domestic improvements on the south side with future international expansion to the north.

Speaking of this domestic terminal announcement, I too was disappointed in the announced 12x gates as being typical AIAL piecemeal options. BUT, the plans do include more piers in future (eastwards towards existing Dom terminal), they are more spacious making them more efficient/productive, and they allow regional to expand. There is still nothing to say that initially one airline (NZ or JQ) couldn’t move over while the other remains effectively adding many more gates.
Also interesting is how expensive this project is. I really struggle to get my head around how something that shouldn’t be more than $1B at the absolute most ends up being $2-3B! It’s not like AKL terminals are known for being amazing or anything Glad that they are finally getting on with it though.

zkncj 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.

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.

Yes you are correct so the use of hard stands/ remote stands will continue for parking for long layovers. As currently some nights Air NZ have 10 domestic jets overnighting at or near the terminal and JQ 3 jets for the next day. With the new pier going on top of the 4 main remote stands they will have to find some new ones or park up at the international apron. To be towed over later when they are required for a flight.

Zkpilot wrote:

Also interesting is how expensive this project is. I really struggle to get my head around how something that shouldn’t be more than $1B at the absolute most ends up being $2-3B!

It's actually closer to $4 billion (3.9), rather than 2-3.

The new terminal will be $2.2 billion, with the rest of the $3.9 billion for "other key projects associated with that development" - whatever that means. 'Transport hub'?

Zkpilot wrote:

BUT, the plans do include more piers in future (eastwards towards existing Dom terminal).

Lol - the AIAL press release today says:

Kicking infrastructure investment down the road would not be in New Zealand’s best interests. History shows it will not get any easier or cheaper.

Yet that's exactly what they seem to be doing re props.

https://corporate.aucklandairport.co.nz ... land-needs

Seven sharp did a story and interview on the AKL airport domestic terminal proposal. There is black and white footage of the old terminal being built 57 years ago and it cost $10m back then! What a bargain it was then but probably just a large barn and nothing special for that price.

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/shows/seven-shar ... -a-glow-up

Air fares will have to increase to pay for the new terminal. Air NZ is saying that the cost increases will make air travel unaffordable for a large number of passengers.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/travel/2 ... l-pay.html

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JHkaLNfat0Y

Has anybody seen the article on this on Simple Flying? The terminal arrangement is slightly different.... interesting.

ZK-NBT wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

This must have been some time ago when EK were running the 77W DXB-KUL-AKL?

EK don't fly the 77W to CHC, they don't fly there at all until they return next week with the A380.

You're right! It must have been related to their flights here last year.

Forgot that about CHC - will be good to get them back next week!

In regards to NZ 789/77W having different cabins, I guess so long as NZ keep the 77W on certain routes, long haul particularly they shouldn't have an issue? They finally got consistency when they retired the 763 fleet. I can't see the 77W getting a full refurb, but they are likely it seems to be around at least 2-3 years longer than initially planned?

It's not just a 789/77W thing; for a while NZ is going to have two different products within the 789 fleet. But how often does any airline have a uniform product across its entire fleet? Rarely, I would think, and everyone including the courts should know that. There must have been something special about the EK case. Maybe they were doing local advertising in Christchurch and showing the better product that they had no plans to offer on that route?

NZ516 wrote:

Air fares will have to increase to pay for the new terminal. Air NZ is saying that the cost increases will make air travel unaffordable for a large number of passengers.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/travel/2 ... l-pay.html

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JHkaLNfat0Y

I think we need to be told straight up from AIAL who much extra we will be paying?

If it’s say $15-20 extra on a AKL-WLG fare? Is it really worth it? It probably say let’s just keep the current terminal, it’s not that bad. It really just need a decent refurb with some additional space, which wouldn’t cost $4billion.

One for the best things about the current domestic terminal, is simplicity you can happy turn up 30-40mins before your flight.

I could see NZ fighting to stay in the current terminal if that is the case. Really hope this own ends up in court, and maybe raises some questions around AIAL’s spending.

The domestic terminal just needs to be functional, not a $4billion master peace.

mjgbtv wrote:

But how often does any airline have a uniform product across its entire fleet? Rarely, I would think, and everyone including the courts should know that. There must have been something special about the EK case. Maybe they were doing local advertising in Christchurch and showing the better product that they had no plans to offer on that route?

My understanding of why EK lost is in line with your last sentence. EK used the latest lie flat product in promotional images but only flew the older angled bed product on the route in question.

The consistent mis-match between the advertised product and what was delivered formed the basis of the succesful bait and switch legal action.

NZ516 wrote:

Seven sharp did a story and interview on the AKL airport domestic terminal proposal. There is black and white footage of the old terminal being built 57 years ago and it cost $10m back then! What a bargain it was then but probably just a large barn and nothing special for that price.

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/shows/seven-shar ... -a-glow-up

When the airport opened it was always intended that the terminal was going to eventually be a cargo terminal. That never happened and so we have a domestic terminal which is an embarrassment but also old. The current international terminal is also a shambles. Over the years it has just been added on to in an sd hoc way. Anyone working there will tell you what a rabbit warren it is behind the scenes and how broken it is. The lack of office space, the leaking toilets, it is a mess.Just look at the building now and you can see all the addons that have been built over the years in a catch up mode.
AIAL have made a lot over money over the years , not necessarily from operating an airport but from their property portfolio and retail operations.

This is so long overdue....it should have been done years ago. Of course the airlines are going to complain....but they also all complain about how bad the terminals are. Just hope they actually get ahead of the game and future proof the building.

Reading some of these articles this morning about the new domestic terminal development.

Allot of them point back to the “green line” walkway between domestic and international or having to take a bus between terminal and calling it third world.

Um? Have they not traveled outside of New Zealand, the people that writing these articles I can think of many airports overseas with terminal transfers. Bare in mind over the years AIAL made roaring changes around the terminals that made this transfer process worse.

SYD/BNE you can’t even walk between International it’s bus, taxi or train.

Why is New Zealand so fixated that Domestic and International have to be the same terminal?

Surely for around $1-1.5billion, they could of built a upgraded stand alone domestic terminal.

mjgbtv wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

You're right! It must have been related to their flights here last year.

Forgot that about CHC - will be good to get them back next week!

In regards to NZ 789/77W having different cabins, I guess so long as NZ keep the 77W on certain routes, long haul particularly they shouldn't have an issue? They finally got consistency when they retired the 763 fleet. I can't see the 77W getting a full refurb, but they are likely it seems to be around at least 2-3 years longer than initially planned?

It's not just a 789/77W thing; for a while NZ is going to have two different products within the 789 fleet. But how often does any airline have a uniform product across its entire fleet? Rarely, I would think, and everyone including the courts should know that. There must have been something special about the EK case. Maybe they were doing local advertising in Christchurch and showing the better product that they had no plans to offer on that route?

For sure, I’m sure NZ will do their best to have the new product on specific routes, not always possible as things go wrong, sometimes you end up with a code 1 789 instead of a code 2 on a route, some pax go from J to Y.

First new code 3 aircraft will mainly be for JFK/ORD. Refits you would think SIN maybe. The refits will have a similar number of seats to the current code 2. Will they keep the older 77W on LAX/SFO/IAH, I’m guessing they will initially until at least several 789s are refitted.

For EK they have multiple configurations on the 77W and a few seats, not sure the oldest ones have ever been upgraded? They mainly flew the older ones in this case on the AKL-KUL-DXB route.

NZ516 wrote:

GW54 wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

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.

Probably that word crew again. Not enough of them. Both of those aircraft could do an overnight to RAR/APW/TBU, ADL doesn’t arrive back until 1840. The OOL aircraft could do an 1800 to TBU would get back by around 0100 if they wanted to.

planemanofnz wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Also interesting is how expensive this project is. I really struggle to get my head around how something that shouldn’t be more than $1B at the absolute most ends up being $2-3B!

It's actually closer to $4 billion (3.9), rather than 2-3.

The new terminal will be $2.2 billion, with the rest of the $3.9 billion for "other key projects associated with that development" - whatever that means. 'Transport hub'?

I think they’re being a bit cute/clever by bundling other things in with the cost. But even $2.2B is a lot for a relatively small terminal/pier off an existing terminal.

Zkpilot wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Also interesting is how expensive this project is. I really struggle to get my head around how something that shouldn’t be more than $1B at the absolute most ends up being $2-3B!

It's actually closer to $4 billion (3.9), rather than 2-3.

The new terminal will be $2.2 billion, with the rest of the $3.9 billion for "other key projects associated with that development" - whatever that means. 'Transport hub'?

I think they’re being a bit cute/clever by bundling other things in with the cost. But even $2.2B is a lot for a relatively small terminal/pier off an existing terminal.

When you compare it against the Westfield NewMarket re-development completed in 2019 (https://www.scentregroup.com/our-customers/westfield-destinations/westfield-newmarket) that had a cost of $790million(NZD).

Which has 88,600sqm of lettable retail space, 256 retailers, over 3000 carparks seems pretty good value for $790million.

zkncj wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

It's actually closer to $4 billion (3.9), rather than 2-3.

The new terminal will be $2.2 billion, with the rest of the $3.9 billion for "other key projects associated with that development" - whatever that means. 'Transport hub'?

I think they’re being a bit cute/clever by bundling other things in with the cost. But even $2.2B is a lot for a relatively small terminal/pier off an existing terminal.

When you compare it against the Westfield NewMarket re-development completed in 2019 (https://www.scentregroup.com/our-customers/westfield-destinations/westfield-newmarket) that had a cost of $790million(NZD).

Which has 88,600sqm of lettable retail space, 256 retailers, over 3000 carparks seems pretty good value for $790million.

I don’t think you can accurately compare a shopping mall to an airport terminal. Costs have probably close to doubled in just 4 years. There is a lot more to an airport than a building.

ZK-NBT wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

I think they’re being a bit cute/clever by bundling other things in with the cost. But even $2.2B is a lot for a relatively small terminal/pier off an existing terminal.

When you compare it against the Westfield NewMarket re-development completed in 2019 (https://www.scentregroup.com/our-customers/westfield-destinations/westfield-newmarket) that had a cost of $790million(NZD).

Which has 88,600sqm of lettable retail space, 256 retailers, over 3000 carparks seems pretty good value for $790million.

I don’t think you can accurately compare a shopping mall to an airport terminal. Costs have probably close to doubled in just 4 years. There is a lot more to an airport than a building.

Indeed, the number of intricate parts that go into these structures is phenominal, far in excess of anything that'd go into an office building or shopping centre.

Interestingly looking for comparable projects, some of those at LAX come in at similar rates for brownfield terminal developments once you convert from USD to NZD, they've systematically gone through almost all their terminals now with costs ranging from approx US$315m for smaller terminal refreshers through to US$1.6b for the likes of Bradley Midfield. So the $2.2b for what we are getting doesn't seem too far out of place at all in a global context.

In respect to the gate count, those on the side closest to international all look to be MARS similar to Pier B so offer plenty of flexibility. As I've said before how stands are allocated ultimately has more influence on the overall efficiency and capacity of the facility than the total number.

Infrastructure is expensive, and NZers will have to get used to these big numbers as the amount of infrastructure works that have been kicked down the road for years come home to roost. As AIAL rightly say, it's only going to get more expensive so it's time to move on, 21 iterations seems more than generous as well from a consultation perspective over the years.

zkncj wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

It's actually closer to $4 billion (3.9), rather than 2-3.

The new terminal will be $2.2 billion, with the rest of the $3.9 billion for "other key projects associated with that development" - whatever that means. 'Transport hub'?

I think they’re being a bit cute/clever by bundling other things in with the cost. But even $2.2B is a lot for a relatively small terminal/pier off an existing terminal.

When you compare it against the Westfield NewMarket re-development completed in 2019 (https://www.scentregroup.com/our-customers/westfield-destinations/westfield-newmarket) that had a cost of $790million(NZD).

Which has 88,600sqm of lettable retail space, 256 retailers, over 3000 carparks seems pretty good value for $790million.

Not really comparable. An airport terminal requires complex luggage handling, fuel handling and waste handling systems as well as modified taxiways etc. In addition, there is the added cost of building in an airside environment. Even modifying existing lounges airside is much more expensive than normal building modifications.

NPL8800 wrote:

21 iterations seems more than generous as well from a consultation perspective over the years.

And yet there's still no long-term plan for prop flights, with further consultations on the cards for those.

planemanofnz wrote:

NPL8800 wrote:

21 iterations seems more than generous as well from a consultation perspective over the years.

And yet there's still no long-term plan for prop flights, with further consultations on the cards for those.

Based on the master plans it is reasonably intuitive as to where the regional component will likely go, and that's the existing foot print of the jet end of the domestic terminal, so it's likely a situation of they have to build jets first so they can then demo part of the foot print of the existing domestic terminal and then rebuild the regional piers. I have no doubt they'd have probably liked to move them together but again brownfield development isn't like greenfield and an element of sequencing will always be required.

tullamarine wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

I think they’re being a bit cute/clever by bundling other things in with the cost. But even $2.2B is a lot for a relatively small terminal/pier off an existing terminal.

When you compare it against the Westfield NewMarket re-development completed in 2019 (https://www.scentregroup.com/our-customers/westfield-destinations/westfield-newmarket) that had a cost of $790million(NZD).

Which has 88,600sqm of lettable retail space, 256 retailers, over 3000 carparks seems pretty good value for $790million.

Not really comparable. An airport terminal requires complex luggage handling, fuel handling and waste handling systems as well as modified taxiways etc. In addition, there is the added cost of building in an airside environment. Even modifying existing lounges airside is much more expensive than normal building modifications.

Absolutely agree. I would very much doubt that Westfield Newmarket has concrete either side of the buildings rated for a 300t+ pavement loading, and a high pressure fuel hydrant running underneath it. Neither of those things come cheap….!

Avtur wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

zkncj wrote:

When you compare it against the Westfield NewMarket re-development completed in 2019 (https://www.scentregroup.com/our-customers/westfield-destinations/westfield-newmarket) that had a cost of $790million(NZD).

Which has 88,600sqm of lettable retail space, 256 retailers, over 3000 carparks seems pretty good value for $790million.

Not really comparable. An airport terminal requires complex luggage handling, fuel handling and waste handling systems as well as modified taxiways etc. In addition, there is the added cost of building in an airside environment. Even modifying existing lounges airside is much more expensive than normal building modifications.

Absolutely agree. I would very much doubt that Westfield Newmarket has concrete either side of the buildings rated for a 300t+ pavement loading, and a high pressure fuel hydrant running underneath it. Neither of those things come cheap….!

The majority of the hard stands for the new domestic pier are already there, they are just building it between the current hard stands between the two terminals.

They should the current terminal for a budget option, for airlines that don’t want all the extra frills.

I bet NZ would choose to stay in the current terminal, and refuse to move.

I don’t get it. For years this thread has been full of complaints about how cheap and appalling the domestic terminal is. Now there’s a plan to build something decent, all of a sudden people want a cheap budget version instead. I reckon if a cheap budget version had been proposed, people would have been outraged by how NZ always builds cheap infrastructure without thinking long term. You have to laugh!

In any event, it’s not the airlines who will pay for the terminal, it’s the passengers.

planemanofnz wrote:

NPL8800 wrote:

21 iterations seems more than generous as well from a consultation perspective over the years.

And yet there's still no long-term plan for prop flights, with further consultations on the cards for those.

Leaving the prop flights out and requiring terminal transfer for link to mainline domestic is ludicrous. A hotch-potch, make-it-up-as-you-go-a-long approach to infrastructure... much in line with what we have come to expect!

However, it does sound as if the airport is talking to the airlines about the future of link services and what kind of terminal solution they want. If you look at the photo in the Simple Flying article on this development it's different than the one in the Herald... the new pier on the far side of international has gates on both sides. I'd imagine the final form of what is built could be a bit different from some of the models we are looking at... with a link solution eventually woven in.

NZ321 wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

NPL8800 wrote:

21 iterations seems more than generous as well from a consultation perspective over the years.

And yet there's still no long-term plan for prop flights, with further consultations on the cards for those.

Leaving the prop flights out and requiring terminal transfer for link to mainline domestic is ludicrous. A hotch-potch, make-it-up-as-you-go-a-long approach to infrastructure... much in line with what we have come to expect!

However, it does sound as if the airport is talking to the airlines about the future of link services and what kind of terminal solution they want. If you look at the photo in the Simple Flying article on this development it's different than the one in the Herald... the new pier on the far side of international has gates on both sides. I'd imagine the final form of what is built could be a bit different from some of the models we are looking at... with a link solution eventually woven in.

In respect to the simple flying article every image they used was either out of date or from an unrelated project, at least 2 were from the currently on hold international arrivals expansion and the one with the single roof design was the previous combined terminal masterplan, the one you see on the herald is current. The last image has been associated with the new domestic pier but still quite old. Quite misleading from an imagery perspective.

NZ321 wrote:

... it does sound as if the airport is talking to the airlines about the future of link services and what kind of terminal solution they want.

Consultations with the airlines have been taking place since 2011, according to the press. Yet, still no plan!

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ321 wrote:

... it does sound as if the airport is talking to the airlines about the future of link services and what kind of terminal solution they want.

Consultations with the airlines have been taking place since 2011, according to the press. Yet, still no plan!

Wow so long.

zkncj wrote:

Avtur wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

Not really comparable. An airport terminal requires complex luggage handling, fuel handling and waste handling systems as well as modified taxiways etc. In addition, there is the added cost of building in an airside environment. Even modifying existing lounges airside is much more expensive than normal building modifications.

Absolutely agree. I would very much doubt that Westfield Newmarket has concrete either side of the buildings rated for a 300t+ pavement loading, and a high pressure fuel hydrant running underneath it. Neither of those things come cheap….!

The majority of the hard stands for the new domestic pier are already there, they are just building it between the current hard stands between the two terminals.

They should the current terminal for a budget option, for airlines that don’t want all the extra frills.

I bet NZ would choose to stay in the current terminal, and refuse to move.

I do hope that my user name offers you something of a clue? I can absolutely assure you, that there is no fuel hydrant under the current hard stands (71-73). Nor is there any hydrant under the current Jetstar gates, or any of the stands on domestic jet gates (which is often a problem if you have to do a CHC,and ZQN off a tanker, due to running out of fuel). Work was done over the last year, on what they called the “TDP fuel diversion project” which has given the airport hydrant new high and low points (32, 33 A-C). These are located just behind what is due to be the old horse transit facility, also next to the soon to be closed “honey pot”, and another set just in the taxiway beyond gate 2. None of this work would have been done, if the plan wasn’t what we have seen from AIAL recently.

I agree, that to some people the cost might be “eye watering”, but I congratulate AIAL for finally committing to completing this project. If they didn’t do it now for 4bn, then in five years time, it would cost double that, and everyone would be whining about why they didn’t do it sooner.

On the simple flying article here it is for anyone who might be interested:

This one has a different version of the new AKL terminal

https://simpleflying.com/auckland-airpo ... e-opening/

They mention along with the new terminal there is more work on the aprons and a new cargo facility and the second runway coming. It's a bit vague if it's all being built at once or not.
Perhaps AKL airport wants to keep the existing domestic terminal long term as they will invest $75 m on improvements on it. I expect the aerobridges will be replaced with stairs to get pax down to the link flights

zkncj wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Air fares will have to increase to pay for the new terminal. Air NZ is saying that the cost increases will make air travel unaffordable for a large number of passengers.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/travel/2 ... l-pay.html

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JHkaLNfat0Y

I think we need to be told straight up from AIAL who much extra we will be paying?

If it’s say $15-20 extra on a AKL-WLG fare? Is it really worth it? It probably say let’s just keep the current terminal, it’s not that bad. It really just need a decent refurb with some additional space, which wouldn’t cost $4billion.

One for the best things about the current domestic terminal, is simplicity you can happy turn up 30-40mins before your flight.

I could see NZ fighting to stay in the current terminal if that is the case. Really hope this own ends up in court, and maybe raises some questions around AIAL’s spending.

The domestic terminal just needs to be functional, not a $4billion master peace.

It will likely be hard to calculate the exact expected pricing for using the future terminal and so the terminal charge added to each ticket could even be higher than $15-20. The existing domestic terminal is staying on as well so that will have to be paid for it's running costs by additional charges to the regional flights. Both Air NZ and AKL airport must have discussed these cost increases over the last 20 + years. For me and many others will still see the need for a larger domestic terminal connected to the international one. As the current one is too small and really cramped. Plus not fit for purpose, especially with the A321s becoming more frequent there is just no where to sit except on the floor!!!

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

GW54 wrote:

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.

Probably that word crew again. Not enough of them. Both of those aircraft could do an overnight to RAR/APW/TBU, ADL doesn’t arrive back until 1840. The OOL aircraft could do an 1800 to TBU would get back by around 0100 if they wanted to.

That's pretty useful for the evening flight to TBU getting back at 0100 as it's similar to others that arrive just after midnight.
Certainly the ADL arrival is a bit late to squeeze in another rotation afterwards.

I didn’t see any mention of swing gates in what I saw. An efficient swing gate arrangement would allow an early morning peak WLG-AKL (say) flight to then join the outgoing Tasman bank; back in the evening for a 7.30-ish return south. All using the same gate. Surely that could be of real interest to both NZ and potentially JQ.

NZ516 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

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.

Probably that word crew again. Not enough of them. Both of those aircraft could do an overnight to RAR/APW/TBU, ADL doesn’t arrive back until 1840. The OOL aircraft could do an 1800 to TBU would get back by around 0100 if they wanted to.

That's pretty useful for the evening flight to TBU getting back at 0100 as it's similar to others that arrive just after midnight.
Certainly the ADL arrival is a bit late to squeeze in another rotation afterwards.

TBu already has 3 weekly 1715 departures returns 0025, just using a different aircraft, the 1715 aircraft could go to SYD/BNE/NAN/MEL, MEL would get back very late given the flight length. NAN might make the most sense here would return by 0030 and give an afternoon option.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Probably that word crew again. Not enough of them. Both of those aircraft could do an overnight to RAR/APW/TBU, ADL doesn’t arrive back until 1840. The OOL aircraft could do an 1800 to TBU would get back by around 0100 if they wanted to.

That's pretty useful for the evening flight to TBU getting back at 0100 as it's similar to others that arrive just after midnight.
Certainly the ADL arrival is a bit late to squeeze in another rotation afterwards.

TBu already has 3 weekly 1715 departures returns 0025, just using a different aircraft, the 1715 aircraft could go to SYD/BNE/NAN/MEL, MEL would get back very late given the flight length. NAN might make the most sense here would return by 0030 and give an afternoon option.

That would be of benefit. AKL usually gets 4 A321s landing after midnight BNE, SYD plus 2 PI ones. There would be scope for a bit more flying but the fleet is still small 13 in total. And could really be a bit bigger to do more flying perhaps they can lease in a couple more.