DavidByrne wrote:

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.

Very true David the capability of having swing gates would be a huge benefit for the operation. A lot less towing and moving aircraft from gate to gate tying up staff for long periods would have financial savings for both NZ and JQ. Plus less delays to the schedule which has a knock on effect for the rest of the day. At the moment sometimes a CHC- AKL 0600 service arrives at 0725 at the domestic terminal then gets towed over to the international gate for a 0900 flight to HBA or NOU so it's always a rush.

It's likely the new domestic terminal once opened will be known as Pier C. Then if they decided to build a new regional terminal attached to the complex it will be called Pier D. Then AKL Airport would be a great national asset once all completed.

Good demand for holiday destinations and Europe (higher than pre-Covid).

Surely we'll see the second daily EK flight and QR's non-stop one, return to AKL?

House of Travel ... said the firm was seeing record numbers of customers looking for winter getaways ... And in spite of airline capacity still not at 2019 levels, the demand for holidays to Britain and Europe has been ‘‘unprecedented’' with numbers ... higher than pre-Covid.

Fortis Travel said ... demand for bookings for a mid-winter break somewhere warm have been unprecedented with sales up significantly compared to 2019 ... Sales would likely be higher if it wasn’t for limited availability in premium cabins. Business class cabin demand continued to be strong.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/the ... C643J7M3A/

planemanofnz wrote:

Good demand for holiday destinations and Europe (higher than pre-Covid).

Surely we'll see the second daily EK flight and QR's non-stop one, return to AKL?

House of Travel ... said the firm was seeing record numbers of customers looking for winter getaways ... And in spite of airline capacity still not at 2019 levels, the demand for holidays to Britain and Europe has been ‘‘unprecedented’' with numbers ... higher than pre-Covid.

Fortis Travel said ... demand for bookings for a mid-winter break somewhere warm have been unprecedented with sales up significantly compared to 2019 ... Sales would likely be higher if it wasn’t for limited availability in premium cabins. Business class cabin demand continued to be strong.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/the ... C643J7M3A/

There are other places in the world that command more seats than NZ, QR non stop is expensive for the airline, perhaps it will return sometime? EK are back to CHC now they and SQ will be popular options, TG and CA will return in quite sure but maybe not until NW23/24. EK second daily hrs to say several 777s retired and I don’t believe any new aircraft until late 2024, still some A380s to come back though not sure that will help AKL.

ZK-NBT wrote:

QR non stop is expensive for the airline

Costs didn't stop them launching non-stop in 2017. The service only went one-stop due to Covid and the need to carry more cargo, and I understand was unable to be restarted due to QR's dispute with Airbus grounding their 350 fleet (the 772LRs which flew here had to be redeployed to 350 routes). Now that dispute has recently resolved, and given the strong rebound in premium demand ex-AKL as above, non-stops should return?

The ADL stop erodes QR's competitiveness here - e.g. no lounge for Business Class passengers in transit, a need for those from certain countries to have to obtain Australian transit visas, and lack of availability (capacity to AKL having to be 'shared' with ADL capacity). Is this really "the best product" at AKL, as QR has touted?

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/qat ... PU2KXRGDI/

I'd love to see EY come in and give them competition.

ZK-NBT wrote:

EK second daily hrs to say several 777s retired and I don’t believe any new aircraft until late 2024, still some A380s to come back though not sure that will help AKL.

There are several factors at play for EK, including:

- Cargo. They have been wet-leasing an A330-200F from Air Belgium since last year to operate a cargo-only service from Dubai to Auckland via Jakarta. This shows they do see demand for freight, which only a one-stop service (like via Bali) would be able to tap.

- Connections. The 1x daily Auckland offering doesn't connect both ways to those EMEA ports which EK also only flies 1x daily to. Think places like Newcastle and Glasgow (in isolation, not important, but together all of which add up). This is an issue for QR too.

The use of 380s to new ports (like Taipei recently) may free up 777s for a second Auckland flight.

The new EK-PR partnership, and PR not having suitable spare aircraft for Manila-Auckland, may open an opportunity for EK to step in on the route?

https://www.routesonline.com/news/29/br ... terlining/

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

QR non stop is expensive for the airline

Costs didn't stop them launching non-stop in 2017. The service only went one-stop due to Covid and the need to carry more cargo, and I understand was unable to be restarted due to QR's dispute with Airbus grounding their 350 fleet (the 772LRs which flew here had to be redeployed to 350 routes). Now that dispute has recently resolved, and given the strong rebound in premium demand ex-AKL as above, non-stops should return?

The ADL stop erodes QR's competitiveness here - e.g. no lounge for Business Class passengers in transit, a need for those from certain countries to have to obtain Australian transit visas, and lack of availability (capacity to AKL having to be 'shared' with ADL capacity). Is this really "the best product" at AKL, as QR has touted?

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/qat ... PU2KXRGDI/

I'd love to see EY come in and give them competition.

To rephrase, It’s expensive to run non stop when there are other routes that aren’t currently served and they don’t have enough aircraft to go around atm.

I can’t see EY in AKL, they dropped PER and BNE.

DavidByrne wrote:

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!

The problem is that AKL does build “cheap” look at pier B! So unless this new one is going to be quality, I don’t see how it’s going to cost so much! I’m still all for it but just surprised at the expense. Feel they’re probably lumping a few other things in with the build.

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

EK second daily hrs to say several 777s retired and I don’t believe any new aircraft until late 2024, still some A380s to come back though not sure that will help AKL.

There are several factors at play for EK, including:

- Cargo. They have been wet-leasing an A330-200F from Air Belgium since last year to operate a cargo-only service from Dubai to Auckland via Jakarta. This shows they do see demand for freight, which only a one-stop service (like via Bali) would be able to tap.

- Connections. The 1x daily Auckland offering doesn't connect both ways to those EMEA ports which EK also only flies 1x daily to. Think places like Newcastle and Glasgow (in isolation, not important, but together all of which add up). This is an issue for QR too.

The use of 380s to new ports (like Taipei recently) may free up 777s for a second Auckland flight.

The new EK-PR partnership, and PR not having suitable spare aircraft for Manila-Auckland, may open an opportunity for EK to step in on the route?

https://www.routesonline.com/news/29/br ... terlining/

Is this EK freight run still operating? I haven’t noticed it for a while and aircraft they were using has been flying elsewhere. Yes there has always been good freight demand and a 77W one stop would certainly help there.

Yes EK are all about connections, AKL connects both ways to the main bank in the morning, that must cover 90% of destinations, AKL isn’t the only route that is single daily and some of the smaller routes may operate in other banks that don’t connect AKL but connect to other larger markets.

Yes they can free up 77Ws as A380s return.

Not sure EK would have the rights for MNL-AKL? restricted airport at MNL. PR will return to AKL when they can.

Zkpilot wrote:

The problem is that AKL does build “cheap” look at pier B!

Yes, Pier B is just plain embarrassing.

NZ516 wrote:

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!!!

The same could be said for gate 1-10 at the international terminal, hazard guess those gate have less than 100 seats each at them they are zoo when anything larger than an half full a320 is departing from them.

Sitting on the floor in a terminal isn't to uncommon especially in a LCC world, NZ Domestic would be almost a LCC?

In constructing the new domestic jet pier, I wonder if they'll make provision for a second lounge, in addition to the Koru Lounge? Maybe a QF group one, or a pay as you go one, like Strata in the international terminal.

Lack of space for a lounge in AKL may be a barrier to QF coming back into domestic NZ ops (for example, with 717s, A220s or E190s). It may also be a barrier for the likes of VA or even LCC Rex which has lounges.

I know new domestic entrants are unlikely in the near-term, but long-term, there will be more and more growth which you would imagine could encourage new players. Hopefully AIAL has this longer-term vision in mind.

planemanofnz wrote:

In constructing the new domestic jet pier, I wonder if they'll make provision for a second lounge, in addition to the Koru Lounge? Maybe a QF group one, or a pay as you go one, like Strata in the international terminal.

Lack of space for a lounge in AKL may be a barrier to QF coming back into domestic NZ ops (for example, with 717s, A220s or E190s). It may also be a barrier for the likes of VA or even LCC Rex which has lounges.

I know new domestic entrants are unlikely in the near-term, but long-term, there will be more and more growth which you would imagine could encourage new players. Hopefully AIAL has this longer-term vision in mind.

That is true. So NZ lease the current domestic terminal off AIAL?

Re QF it would have to replace JQ which lets be honest has little to no chance of happening imo, JQ just have much lower costs. Despite QF getting smaller A220s, they aren’t likely to put them a marginal market line NZ, and remember QF/NZ use each other for domestic fees in their respective countries.

Good point on where any new entrants would go?

NZ516 wrote:

It's likely the new domestic terminal once opened will be known as Pier C. Then if they decided to build a new regional terminal attached to the complex it will be called Pier D. Then AKL Airport would be a great national asset once all completed.

Just a quick mock up of what AKL could do to consolidate INT & DOM.

They could construct a temporary pier from INT to DOM which would result in additional gate space & continue construction of Pier D in the meantime.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NZ516 wrote:

It's likely the new domestic terminal once opened will be known as Pier C. Then if they decided to build a new regional terminal attached to the complex it will be called Pier D. Then AKL Airport would be a great national asset once all completed.

That or call it pier D (domestic) with regional being pier E. Remember the plans are also for another parallel pier to pier B which would make sense to call pier C.

Recently did the Air NZ International for the week 03 to 09 Jul 2023. As per usual there are some flights that don't fit, so aircraft types will change as the schedule firms up. Some are obvious though. SYD-CHC-SYD 0845/1350 1505/1645 must be an A321 as an A321 overnights in SYD (AKL-SYD 1930/2110) and A321s don't do SYD-ZQN-SYD 0925/1425 1530/1650.

However on a Sa AKL-SYD is 1950/2130 which the AKL-ADL-AKL 0825/1055 1155/1840 aircraft could do. Not sure why the Sat timing is different as it's not necessary on a Sat, and is probably meant to be Fri when it is necessary.

AKL-OOL-AKL 0910/1055 1155/1655 does AKL-MEL 1830/2040 which was always the pattern. The Sun AKL-HBA-AKL looks like it will be an A321 as there are no A320s available on Sun.

And some of the A321s must be 789s, like AKL-MEL-AKL 1535/1740 1850/0025 on Fri and Sun, and AKL-SYD-AKL 1250/1430 1540/2050 on Sun. And there's no 789/A321/A320 available for the AKL-MEL-AKL 1255/1500 1610/2145 A321 on Fri and only an A320 available on Sun.

Perhaps AKL-ADl-AKL will soon return to being a 789 three days a week and that A321 can go to TBU etc instead, unless cargo is the priority.

PA515

PA515 wrote:

Recently did the Air NZ International for the week 03 to 09 Jul 2023. As per usual there are some flights that don't fit, so aircraft types will change as the schedule firms up. Some are obvious though. SYD-CHC-SYD 0845/1350 1505/1645 must be an A321 as an A321 overnights in SYD (AKL-SYD 1930/2110) and A321s don't do SYD-ZQN-SYD 0925/1425 1530/1650.

However on a Sa AKL-SYD is 1950/2130 which the AKL-ADL-AKL 0825/1055 1155/1840 aircraft could do. Not sure why the Sat timing is different as it's not necessary on a Sat, and is probably meant to be Fri when it is necessary.

AKL-OOL-AKL 0910/1055 1155/1655 does AKL-MEL 1830/2040 which was always the pattern. The Sun AKL-HBA-AKL looks like it will be an A321 as there are no A320s available on Sun.

And some of the A321s must be 789s, like AKL-MEL-AKL 1535/1740 1850/0025 on Fri and Sun, and AKL-SYD-AKL 1250/1430 1540/2050 on Sun. And there's no 789/A321/A320 available for the AKL-MEL-AKL 1255/1500 1610/2145 A321 on Fri and only an A320 available on Sun.

Perhaps AKL-ADl-AKL will soon return to being a 789 three days a week and that A321 can go to TBU etc instead, unless cargo is the priority.

PA515

I haven’t plotted it all out like you have, but going through all the NB flights in my head I also concluded that NZ is definitely short of NB capacity to meet current international plans. I’m in favour of using the capabilities of the A320NEO and using it in addition to current plans to provide a second daily on AKL-PER, and also to reintroduce CHC-PER - saving 789 capacity for real long-haul services.

Given the shortage of NB capacity, though, this is unlikely. Unless, of course, some of the international CEOs could be retained. I haven’t been following the discussion on which of the OJx series are still around, but is retaining a handful for longer a realistic possibility?

DavidByrne wrote:

PA515 wrote:

Recently did the Air NZ International for the week 03 to 09 Jul 2023. As per usual there are some flights that don't fit, so aircraft types will change as the schedule firms up. Some are obvious though. SYD-CHC-SYD 0845/1350 1505/1645 must be an A321 as an A321 overnights in SYD (AKL-SYD 1930/2110) and A321s don't do SYD-ZQN-SYD 0925/1425 1530/1650.

However on a Sa AKL-SYD is 1950/2130 which the AKL-ADL-AKL 0825/1055 1155/1840 aircraft could do. Not sure why the Sat timing is different as it's not necessary on a Sat, and is probably meant to be Fri when it is necessary.

AKL-OOL-AKL 0910/1055 1155/1655 does AKL-MEL 1830/2040 which was always the pattern. The Sun AKL-HBA-AKL looks like it will be an A321 as there are no A320s available on Sun.

And some of the A321s must be 789s, like AKL-MEL-AKL 1535/1740 1850/0025 on Fri and Sun, and AKL-SYD-AKL 1250/1430 1540/2050 on Sun. And there's no 789/A321/A320 available for the AKL-MEL-AKL 1255/1500 1610/2145 A321 on Fri and only an A320 available on Sun.

Perhaps AKL-ADl-AKL will soon return to being a 789 three days a week and that A321 can go to TBU etc instead, unless cargo is the priority.

PA515

I haven’t plotted it all out like you have, but going through all the NB flights in my head I also concluded that NZ is definitely short of NB capacity to meet current international plans. I’m in favour of using the capabilities of the A320NEO and using it in addition to current plans to provide a second daily on AKL-PER, and also to reintroduce CHC-PER - saving 789 capacity for real long-haul services.

Given the shortage of NB capacity, though, this is unlikely. Unless, of course, some of the international CEOs could be retained. I haven’t been following the discussion on which of the OJx series are still around, but is retaining a handful for longer a realistic possibility?

Re the OJx series A320s these have all long gone now, last one left several months ago, OJM from memory. NZ did hint a while back that more A321s for international and ATRs were possible.

I like your other idea of more back of clock flying to the islands RAR/APW/TBU particularly.

Some say they should have gone with a mixed regional domestic fleet but we are talking about a small number of flights potentially 4-5 daily max probably less, and the airline knows what it is doing despite what some of A.net think.

EK413 wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

It's likely the new domestic terminal once opened will be known as Pier C. Then if they decided to build a new regional terminal attached to the complex it will be called Pier D. Then AKL Airport would be a great national asset once all completed.

Just a quick mock up of what AKL could do to consolidate INT & DOM.

They could construct a temporary pier from INT to DOM which would result in additional gate space & continue construction of Pier D in the meantime.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The thing is that don't even half to consolidate the domestic and international terminals, SYD/BNE don't and to be honest its not that bad. All they need todo is run a frequent bus transfer e.g. very 10minutes (its done overseas all the time).

If they removed Gate 20/21 and kept building out towards the hard stands they would make a double sided pier that would last 20+ years. The over the current roadway build a new departure level, bit like WLG with drop of zone downstairs and departure floor upstairs.

PA515 wrote:

Perhaps AKL-ADl-AKL will soon return to being a 789

You mean ADL? A widebody may help them to get some more premium US connections. But will these passengers be enough to cover the increased costs of the 789, given some O&D has no doubt gone onto QR?

DavidByrne wrote:

... reintroduce CHC-PER

Would they re-introduce CHC-PER, or continue to funnel CHC demand through AKL to try and support a second AKL-PER service, even 3x weekly seasonal (10x weekly overall), to better connect PER to the US both ways?

ZK-NBT wrote:

Despite QF getting smaller A220s, they aren’t likely to put them a marginal market line NZ

Maybe not domestically, but I hope they will use them here to open connections from regional Australian ports (e.g. CBR-AKL) - Alan Joyce said only mid-last year he wanted to see such routes, connecting to JFK. It would be great to see them to regional NZ too, like DUD.

ZK-NBT wrote:

QF/NZ use each other for domestic fees in their respective countries.

That deal is time-limited and depends on renewed approval by regulators, IIRC. Can NZ rely on approval long-term, particularly given the amount of domestic carrier expansion in Australia (Bonza, Rex, etc)?

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Despite QF getting smaller A220s, they aren’t likely to put them a marginal market line NZ

Maybe not domestically, but I hope they will use them here to open connections from regional Australian ports (e.g. CBR-AKL) - Alan Joyce said only mid-last year he wanted to see such routes, connecting to JFK. It would be great to see them to regional NZ too, like DUD.

ZK-NBT wrote:

QF/NZ use each other for domestic fees in their respective countries.

That deal is time-limited and depends on renewed approval by regulators, IIRC. Can NZ rely on approval long-term, particularly given the amount of domestic carrier expansion in Australia (Bonza, Rex, etc)?

Codeshare requires regulator approval at the minimum, although basic interline is not. Besides NZ still has a interline with VA, despite having QF as their primary Australian domestic partner.with codeshares.

zkncj wrote:

EK413 wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

It's likely the new domestic terminal once opened will be known as Pier C. Then if they decided to build a new regional terminal attached to the complex it will be called Pier D. Then AKL Airport would be a great national asset once all completed.

Just a quick mock up of what AKL could do to consolidate INT & DOM.

They could construct a temporary pier from INT to DOM which would result in additional gate space & continue construction of Pier D in the meantime.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The thing is that don't even half to consolidate the domestic and international terminals, SYD/BNE don't and to be honest its not that bad. All they need todo is run a frequent bus transfer e.g. very 10minutes (its done overseas all the time).

If they removed Gate 20/21 and kept building out towards the hard stands they would make a double sided pier that would last 20+ years. The over the current roadway build a new departure level, bit like WLG with drop of zone downstairs and departure floor upstairs.

Something similar to HKG, DEN bridge or LHR with a under ground tunnel connecting the concourse perhaps.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

planemanofnz wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

... reintroduce CHC-PER

Would they re-introduce CHC-PER, or continue to funnel CHC demand through AKL to try and support a second AKL-PER service, even 3x weekly seasonal (10x weekly overall), to better connect PER to the US both ways?

Who knows what the plan is. But at its height (2018?) the market appeared to support 10x AKL-PER and 2x CHC-PER in the summer peak - 12x weekly combined. The current offering is barely half this level. It’s almost an invitation to a competitor to step in and replace that capacity (say) with an A321LR.

DavidByrne wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

... reintroduce CHC-PER

Would they re-introduce CHC-PER, or continue to funnel CHC demand through AKL to try and support a second AKL-PER service, even 3x weekly seasonal (10x weekly overall), to better connect PER to the US both ways?

Who knows what the plan is. But at its height (2018?) the market appeared to support 10x AKL-PER and 2x CHC-PER in the summer peak - 12x weekly combined. The current offering is barely half this level. It’s almost an invitation to a competitor to step in and replace that capacity (say) with an A321LR.

NZ just doesn't have the fleet to increase PER hence the lease from Wamos. The NZ Airbus fleet is nearly maxed out so can't be deployed CHC - PER and they have gone away from flying seasonal routes completely. It does leave room for a new entrant on PER - AKL eg JQ321LR and they are getting nearly one new delivery every month.

Zkpilot wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

It's likely the new domestic terminal once opened will be known as Pier C. Then if they decided to build a new regional terminal attached to the complex it will be called Pier D. Then AKL Airport would be a great national asset once all completed.

That or call it pier D (domestic) with regional being pier E. Remember the plans are also for another parallel pier to pier B which would make sense to call pier C.

Correct ZKpilot. In a book history of AKL airport there is a photo of a model done back in the early 70s with a terminal with 5 piers. The development has just been postponed so many times. At least the next one is going to start soon!

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!

This is what makes me laugh when people whinge about the public sector take forever to do stuff.

It has bugger all to do with public sector stuff. It's a large and high profile org problem. Doesn't matter if it's public or private, when the org is large and operates in a high profile area? Changes take FOREVER.

NZ516 wrote:

NZ just doesn't have the fleet to increase PER hence the lease from Wamos. The NZ Airbus fleet is nearly maxed out so can't be deployed CHC - PER and they have gone away from flying seasonal routes completely. It does leave room for a new entrant on PER - AKL eg JQ321LR and they are getting nearly one new delivery every month.

Exactly. They’re short of WB capacity AND they’re short of NB capacity. What’s the plan? No more international fleet deliveries until, what, 2025? Surely something has to give, especially if Wamos can’t be extended again.

NZ516 wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

It's likely the new domestic terminal once opened will be known as Pier C. Then if they decided to build a new regional terminal attached to the complex it will be called Pier D. Then AKL Airport would be a great national asset once all completed.

That or call it pier D (domestic) with regional being pier E. Remember the plans are also for another parallel pier to pier B which would make sense to call pier C.

Correct ZKpilot. In a book history of AKL airport there is a photo of a model done back in the early 70s with a terminal with 5 piers. The development has just been postponed so many times. At least the next one is going to start soon!

Much more recently than that (which did look good). They had one when they were about tk do the second runway and then again pre-COVID.
There’s an image of it in this link:
https://itwgse.com/news/auckland-airport/

NZ516 wrote:

It does leave room for a new entrant on PER - AKL eg JQ321LR

Would QF not be a better bet on the route, than JQ? They've flown the route before, and this time around, such a service could rely on connections like PER-AKL-JFK, to plug gaps with O&D (Joyce said mid-last year he wanted QF to have services from all major Australian capital cities into AKL to connect to JFK).

NZ516 wrote:

NZ just doesn't have the fleet ... they have gone away from flying seasonal routes completely.

There are still a few seasonal ones (AKL-DPS/CNS/MCY).

I do wonder if DPS could end up becoming year-round.

CNS and MCY were supposed to go year-round with Aviation Attraction Investment Fund (AAIF) funding from the State of Queensland during mid 2021, it ended up being canned with the "bubble breaking" and the subsequent rounds of COVID shutdowns on both sides of the ditch during that year.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/air ... 62BVJN3BY/

DavidByrne wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

NZ just doesn't have the fleet to increase PER hence the lease from Wamos. The NZ Airbus fleet is nearly maxed out so can't be deployed CHC - PER and they have gone away from flying seasonal routes completely. It does leave room for a new entrant on PER - AKL eg JQ321LR and they are getting nearly one new delivery every month.

Exactly. They’re short of WB capacity AND they’re short of NB capacity. What’s the plan? No more international fleet deliveries until, what, 2025? Surely something has to give, especially if Wamos can’t be extended again.

Hopefully the plan will be to lease in at least one WB and perhaps two NBs. So they can increase a few routes back to their pre covid levels.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

NZ just doesn't have the fleet ... they have gone away from flying seasonal routes completely.

There are still a few seasonal ones (AKL-DPS/CNS/MCY).

I do wonder if DPS could end up becoming year-round.

I agree with DPS going year round it makes sense plus it would simplify the operation somewhat. All the other airlines serve it year round VA, QF , JQ but from a much larger market of course.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

It does leave room for a new entrant on PER - AKL eg JQ321LR

Would QF not be a better bet on the route, than JQ? They've flown the route before, and this time around, such a service could rely on connections like PER-AKL-JFK, to plug gaps with O&D (Joyce said mid-last year he wanted QF to have services from all major Australian capital cities into AKL to connect to JFK).

QF would be good for the route but I think they are not getting their 321LRs for some time after JQ gets theirs so it will ito wait longer.

NZ516 wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

Very true David the capability of having swing gates would be a huge benefit for the operation. A lot less towing and moving aircraft from gate to gate tying up staff for long periods would have financial savings for both NZ and JQ. Plus less delays to the schedule which has a knock on effect for the rest of the day. At the moment sometimes a CHC- AKL 0600 service arrives at 0725 at the domestic terminal then gets towed over to the international gate for a 0900 flight to HBA or NOU so it's always a rush.

Agree that swing gates would be beneficial but your quoted example is wrong. I travel regularly on CHC-AKL 0545/0600 service and it is always a CEO and the next sector is always domestic, But NZ573 to CHC is 5 times a week 320NEO and positions for trans Tasman early the next morning and parks up on CHC swing gates 20 or 21.

Again on the advantages of swing gates, I have experienced poor OTP with NZ573 because the aircraft is towed too late from the international gate and sometimes not cleaned before so it becomes a "biosecurity" risk. Air NZ is struggling with staff shortages.

NZ516 wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

NZ just doesn't have the fleet ... they have gone away from flying seasonal routes completely.

There are still a few seasonal ones (AKL-DPS/CNS/MCY).

I do wonder if DPS could end up becoming year-round.

I agree with DPS going year round it makes sense plus it would simplify the operation somewhat. All the other airlines serve it year round VA, QF , JQ but from a much larger market of course.

Just about every other route in the network could use more capacity in NS before DPS goes year round. As things recover ICN, TPE, YVR, ORD, JFK moving code 1 and 2 789s around.

Much larger market ex Australia as you say , hence it makes sense there but not in AKL.

NZ516 wrote:

Hopefully the plan will be to lease in at least one WB and perhaps two NBs. So they can increase a few routes back to their pre covid levels.

Yes, I hope so. I’m unclear how many 789s or A320/321NEOs may actually be available though - I doubt there are white-tails sitting around so it may be down to finding an airline which has over-ordered. Although if the OJx series have all gone already, surely there must have been some thought given to retaining a couple to avoid running short of capacity. So I wonder what is the plan?

DavidByrne wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Hopefully the plan will be to lease in at least one WB and perhaps two NBs. So they can increase a few routes back to their pre covid levels.

Yes, I hope so. I’m unclear how many 789s or A320/321NEOs may actually be available though - I doubt there are white-tails sitting around so it may be down to finding an airline which has over-ordered. Although if the OJx series have all gone already, surely there must have been some thought given to retaining a couple to avoid running short of capacity. So I wonder what is the plan?

NZ hinted recently at more A321s. 3 OJx were retained pre covid to increase domestic but could cover international as well. Though effectively the A321D has replaced those.

Wide body I would still have to think short term leasing a 77W would make more sense from an availability point of view.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Wide body I would still have to think short term leasing a 77W would make more sense from an availability point of view.

My understanding is WAMOS won’t be extended.

Zkpilot wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

That or call it pier D (domestic) with regional being pier E. Remember the plans are also for another parallel pier to pier B which would make sense to call pier C.

Correct ZKpilot. In a book history of AKL airport there is a photo of a model done back in the early 70s with a terminal with 5 piers. The development has just been postponed so many times. At least the next one is going to start soon!

Much more recently than that (which did look good). They had one when they were about tk do the second runway and then again pre-COVID.
There’s an image of it in this link:
https://itwgse.com/news/auckland-airport/

Wow that concept is amazing but would be way out of the budget.

NZ801 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Wide body I would still have to think short term leasing a 77W would make more sense from an availability point of view.

My understanding is WAMOS won’t be extended.

So it will return to Spain around the end of October.

NZ801 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Wide body I would still have to think short term leasing a 77W would make more sense from an availability point of view.

My understanding is WAMOS won’t be extended.

I wonder why - dissatisfaction with how they've done to PER?

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ801 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Wide body I would still have to think short term leasing a 77W would make more sense from an availability point of view.

My understanding is WAMOS won’t be extended.

I wonder why - dissatisfaction with how they've done to PER?

It’s already been extended to October, I am guessing they plan to get something a little more permanent?

DavidByrne wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Hopefully the plan will be to lease in at least one WB and perhaps two NBs. So they can increase a few routes back to their pre covid levels.

Yes, I hope so. I’m unclear how many 789s or A320/321NEOs may actually be available though - I doubt there are white-tails sitting around so it may be down to finding an airline which has over-ordered. Although if the OJx series have all gone already, surely there must have been some thought given to retaining a couple to avoid running short of capacity. So I wonder what is the plan?

It's a real shame they can't bring them back as they still could have flown on for a few more years. Especially with the 3 were regional 320s they were very versatile and could cover domestic and international flights. They were not too old compared with QF 737s some are getting to 20 years of service. Some of the ex NZ 320s are with new airlines now and some have been scrapped. Now they are real short of capacity and don't have any orders for new international 320s at all.

https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/230320-nzpvg

Slight change to NZ service to PVG - from 26 March to end of April only 5 weekly, now daily from 1 May.

ZKNZR wrote:

https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/230320-nzpvg

Slight change to NZ service to PVG - from 26 March to end of April only 5 weekly, now daily from 1 May.

Reported already a few weeks ago by AIAL.

https://corporate.aucklandairport.co.nz ... nd-airport

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ801 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Wide body I would still have to think short term leasing a 77W would make more sense from an availability point of view.

My understanding is WAMOS won’t be extended.

I wonder why - dissatisfaction with how they've done to PER?

Union wont allow for another extension. Its replacement is being organised

duff wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ801 wrote:

My understanding is WAMOS won’t be extended.

I wonder why - dissatisfaction with how they've done to PER?

Union wont allow for another extension. Its replacement is being organised

Interesting, just for the PER run or something like the BR 77W? Though that was generally just used to LAX.