NZ516 wrote:

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.

Some of them must of been due some heavy maintenance hence them getting scrapped.

With there age keeping them up to ETOPS standards was probably getting pretty cost prohibitive.

I’ve been thinking about NZ’s capacity shortage and what can be done. I assume it’s almost a given that quickly getting your hands on an A320 or 321 NEO would be pretty much impossible, and likewise a 789 (especially a GE-powered one, which is presumably what NZ needs for the better fuel consumption). That just leaves the 77W, of which there may be some available.

How many? Well, one to replace the Wamos A330, a second to liberate a 789 and allow more frequency on ORD and JFK, surely a priority for the carrier. And perhaps a third for elsewhere on the network, noting that A320/321 routes are also constrained by a lack of spare capacity.

Even a fleet of 10 77Ws and 14 789s only makes a fleet of 24 wide bodies, where pre-covid it numbered 29-30 - still a 20% reduction. Getting back to pre-covid levels of activity seems to be very far in the future.

DavidByrne wrote:

I’ve been thinking about NZ’s capacity shortage and what can be done. I assume it’s almost a given that quickly getting your hands on an A320 or 321 NEO would be pretty much impossible, and likewise a 789 (especially a GE-powered one, which is presumably what NZ needs for the better fuel consumption). That just leaves the 77W, of which there may be some available.

How many? Well, one to replace the Wamos A330, a second to liberate a 789 and allow more frequency on ORD and JFK, surely a priority for the carrier. And perhaps a third for elsewhere on the network, noting that A320/321 routes are also constrained by a lack of spare capacity.

Even a fleet of 10 77Ws and 14 789s only makes a fleet of 24 wide bodies, where pre-covid it numbered 29-30 - still a 20% reduction. Getting back to pre-covid levels of activity seems to be very far in the future.

I think Anet is more fascinated with fleet size than NZ itself. Foran said in a Herald interview late last year he was happy to leave the WB fleet at 24. I think we have to accept a smaller NZ than pre-COVID.

zkncj wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

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.

Some of them must of been due some heavy maintenance hence them getting scrapped.

With there age keeping them up to ETOPS standards was probably getting pretty cost prohibitive.

Interesting that could be the case and they might have thought they were never going to be needed again. No one could have guessed that demand would recover so fast some suggestions were that it would take 5 years to bounce back after the outbreak.

DavidByrne wrote:

I’ve been thinking about NZ’s capacity shortage and what can be done. I assume it’s almost a given that quickly getting your hands on an A320 or 321 NEO would be pretty much impossible, and likewise a 789 (especially a GE-powered one, which is presumably what NZ needs for the better fuel consumption). That just leaves the 77W, of which there may be some available.

How many? Well, one to replace the Wamos A330, a second to liberate a 789 and allow more frequency on ORD and JFK, surely a priority for the carrier. And perhaps a third for elsewhere on the network, noting that A320/321 routes are also constrained by a lack of spare capacity.

Even a fleet of 10 77Ws and 14 789s only makes a fleet of 24 wide bodies, where pre-covid it numbered 29-30 - still a 20% reduction. Getting back to pre-covid levels of activity seems to be very far in the future.

Perhaps the ex VA 77Ws could have been taken on board as were quite young. But they have gone to QR now so there might be another few recent built 77Ws available not sure where. I agree that about 3 extra would be about right to free up two 789s to beef up ORD/JFK to daily. The challenge to find a young spare 320neo would be really difficult. While the A320 neo family backlog on order from Airbus has passed over the 6000 mark. So placing a order for new builds is not going to help out with the present situation.

DavidByrne wrote:

I’ve been thinking about NZ’s capacity shortage and what can be done. I assume it’s almost a given that quickly getting your hands on an A320 or 321 NEO would be pretty much impossible, and likewise a 789 (especially a GE-powered one, which is presumably what NZ needs for the better fuel consumption). That just leaves the 77W, of which there may be some available.

How many? Well, one to replace the Wamos A330, a second to liberate a 789 and allow more frequency on ORD and JFK, surely a priority for the carrier. And perhaps a third for elsewhere on the network, noting that A320/321 routes are also constrained by a lack of spare capacity.

Even a fleet of 10 77Ws and 14 789s only makes a fleet of 24 wide bodies, where pre-covid it numbered 29-30 - still a 20% reduction. Getting back to pre-covid levels of activity seems to be very far in the future.

Pretty sure there are 77Ws available from EK, SQ, CX, EY, NH or previously operated by those carriers, maybe back to BR even?

Several wide bodies were freed up with dropped routes
LHR 2, given LAX has been a max of 10 weekly rather
EZE 1.5 in NW given 5 weekly
RAR-LAX, RAR-SYD effectively make that an additional 0.5,
SYD 1 had a double banger 77E 0700 and 1600 so ,MEL 0.5 had a 77E in the afternoon which returned to late to depart again that evening, that where I thought the 0015 arrival from SYD could have done PER at 0200 saving the aircraft parking overnight at PER.

Looking ahead to NW23/24 let’s see what fits with the current fleet

77W x7
LAX x7 2 aircraft
SFO x5 1.5
IAH x7 2
SIN x7 1
PPT x2 .5

789 code 2 x5
JFK x7 2
ORD x7 2
YVR x3 1

Code 1 x9
PVG x7 2
HKG x7 1
NRT x7 1
PER x7 1
ICN x4 .5
TPE x3 .5
YVR x4 1
HNL x3 .5
PPT x1

Leaves around 1.5 to increase maybe CHC-SIN/PER or a little more Tasman flying. Nothing announced re JFK/ORD just a bit of a hunch.

Atleast 3x 77W available during the day for short haul to SYD/MEL/BNE, SIN needs to rotate somewhere, plus at least 3x 789 to MEL/SYD/NAN/RAR/APW/TBU.

NAN/RAR//APW/TBU share 1 aircraft depending on the day

321
AKL-SYD x21 2 ( 1 overnight SYD)
AKL-MEL x14 1.5 (1 overnight MEL)
AKL-BNE x13 2 (1 on Saturday)
AKL-OOL x7 .5
AKL-RAR x4 (overnight service with OOL aircraft)
AKL-APW x3 (alternate days to RAR overnight service)
AKL-ADL x5
AKL-NAN (AM, days 789 not operating)
AKL-TBU x4 overnight
AKL-NOU x3

Leaves A320s for CHC/WLG/ZQN/IUE/HBA, probably some AKL flying instead of A321s.

CHC-SYD x11
CHC-MEL x7
CHC-BNE x7
CHC-OOL x3

WLG-SYD x12
WLG-MEL x7
WLG-BNE x7
WLG-OOL x2

ZQN-SYD x7
ZQN-MEL x 5
ZQN-BNE x 5

AKL-IUE x2
AKL-HBA x3

Ok that’s all a bit of a mess, particularly the narrow bodies, some of the A320/321 might be a bit mixed between ports.

NZ801 wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

I’ve been thinking about NZ’s capacity shortage and what can be done. I assume it’s almost a given that quickly getting your hands on an A320 or 321 NEO would be pretty much impossible, and likewise a 789 (especially a GE-powered one, which is presumably what NZ needs for the better fuel consumption). That just leaves the 77W, of which there may be some available.

How many? Well, one to replace the Wamos A330, a second to liberate a 789 and allow more frequency on ORD and JFK, surely a priority for the carrier. And perhaps a third for elsewhere on the network, noting that A320/321 routes are also constrained by a lack of spare capacity.

Even a fleet of 10 77Ws and 14 789s only makes a fleet of 24 wide bodies, where pre-covid it numbered 29-30 - still a 20% reduction. Getting back to pre-covid levels of activity seems to be very far in the future.

I think Anet is more fascinated with fleet size than NZ itself. Foran said in a Herald interview late last year he was happy to leave the WB fleet at 24. I think we have to accept a smaller NZ than pre-COVID.

Lol, I and others find it interesting. But yes Foran did say that, and like I say with no more LHR/EZE, RAR-LAX, RAR-SYD and less wide bodies dedicated to short haul as such like SYD 4x daily and afternoon MEL run that frees up almost 4-5 aircraft.

NZ516 wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

I’ve been thinking about NZ’s capacity shortage and what can be done. I assume it’s almost a given that quickly getting your hands on an A320 or 321 NEO would be pretty much impossible, and likewise a 789 (especially a GE-powered one, which is presumably what NZ needs for the better fuel consumption). That just leaves the 77W, of which there may be some available.

How many? Well, one to replace the Wamos A330, a second to liberate a 789 and allow more frequency on ORD and JFK, surely a priority for the carrier. And perhaps a third for elsewhere on the network, noting that A320/321 routes are also constrained by a lack of spare capacity.

Even a fleet of 10 77Ws and 14 789s only makes a fleet of 24 wide bodies, where pre-covid it numbered 29-30 - still a 20% reduction. Getting back to pre-covid levels of activity seems to be very far in the future.

Perhaps the ex VA 77Ws could have been taken on board as were quite young. But they have gone to QR now so there might be another few recent built 77Ws available not sure where. I agree that about 3 extra would be about right to free up two 789s to beef up ORD/JFK to daily. The challenge to find a young spare 320neo would be really difficult. While the A320 neo family backlog on order from Airbus has passed over the 6000 mark. So placing a order for new builds is not going to help out with the present situation.

Same age if not a year or 2 older than the NZ 77Ws, those were leased and spent 2.5 years parked up. There are several 77Ws around that might be suitable at the right price.

NZ801 wrote:

I think Anet is more fascinated with fleet size than NZ itself. Foran said in a Herald interview late last year he was happy to leave the WB fleet at 24. I think we have to accept a smaller NZ than pre-COVID.

I don’t think it’s so much a fascination with fleet size, but rather a fascination with what the long-term consequences of reducing the WB fleet size by 20% will be on the network and the airline’s ability to be competitive. To be honest, I’m a bit perplexed by what NZ’s big-picture strategy might be. If 24 is the long-term WB fleet size, then that has some pretty significant implications. No new routes, very little room to increase frequencies; it doesn’t seem to me to be a recipe for a dynamic airline. More like a carrier that’s given up to an extent, only willing and able to maintain the status quo.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

I’ve been thinking about NZ’s capacity shortage and what can be done. I assume it’s almost a given that quickly getting your hands on an A320 or 321 NEO would be pretty much impossible, and likewise a 789 (especially a GE-powered one, which is presumably what NZ needs for the better fuel consumption). That just leaves the 77W, of which there may be some available.

How many? Well, one to replace the Wamos A330, a second to liberate a 789 and allow more frequency on ORD and JFK, surely a priority for the carrier. And perhaps a third for elsewhere on the network, noting that A320/321 routes are also constrained by a lack of spare capacity.

Even a fleet of 10 77Ws and 14 789s only makes a fleet of 24 wide bodies, where pre-covid it numbered 29-30 - still a 20% reduction. Getting back to pre-covid levels of activity seems to be very far in the future.

Perhaps the ex VA 77Ws could have been taken on board as were quite young. But they have gone to QR now so there might be another few recent built 77Ws available not sure where. I agree that about 3 extra would be about right to free up two 789s to beef up ORD/JFK to daily. The challenge to find a young spare 320neo would be really difficult. While the A320 neo family backlog on order from Airbus has passed over the 6000 mark. So placing a order for new builds is not going to help out with the present situation.

Same age if not a year or 2 older than the NZ 77Ws, those were leased and spent 2.5 years parked up. There are several 77Ws around that might be suitable at the right price.

The ex VA 77Ws were not leased. They were owned and subsequently mortgaged during the SQ/EY ownership era.

They were sold to their mortgagers during the bankruptcy process and subsequently on-sold to a UK leasing company that leased them out to QR.

NZ801 wrote:

Foran said in a Herald interview late last year he was happy to leave the WB fleet at 24.

When 75% of your long-haul destinations have been operated under antitrust immunity/JVs/monopolies, I bet you would be comfortable with a stagnant fleet - keep capacity tight, and drive up yields. But all good things must come to an end - let's see how they'll fare with a stagnant fleet in responding to some of the first real long-haul competition they'll have seen in years (IMO DL to LAX and QF to JFK will only be the beginning).

NZ801 wrote:

I think we have to accept a smaller NZ than pre-COVID.

Why? New Zealand's economy and population have already exceeded pre-Covid levels, with tourism on track to too. If NZ don't continue to grow in line with the rest of the sector, others will at their expense.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Pretty sure there are 77Ws available from EK, SQ, CX, EY, NH or previously operated by those carriers, maybe back to BR even?

Would they need crews? Isn't there a shortage of crews? I'm not familiar with how the BR arrangement worked pre-Covid, when crews weren't so in demand. While they could get a plane from CX for example, CX wouldn't have spare crews, like with the Wamos arrangement.

I heard from a contact that the final NZ1082 CHC-CAN service was on the 20th March. It had been operating for a total of 26 months.

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

I doubt that would be the case. The union won't have the final say on that. It will be management at the board level to decide on.

DavidByrne wrote:

I’ve been thinking about NZ’s capacity shortage and what can be done. I assume it’s almost a given that quickly getting your hands on an A320 or 321 NEO would be pretty much impossible, and likewise a 789 (especially a GE-powered one, which is presumably what NZ needs for the better fuel consumption). That just leaves the 77W, of which there may be some available.

How many? Well, one to replace the Wamos A330, a second to liberate a 789 and allow more frequency on ORD and JFK, surely a priority for the carrier. And perhaps a third for elsewhere on the network, noting that A320/321 routes are also constrained by a lack of spare capacity.

Even a fleet of 10 77Ws and 14 789s only makes a fleet of 24 wide bodies, where pre-covid it numbered 29-30 - still a 20% reduction. Getting back to pre-covid levels of activity seems to be very far in the future.

It would have been an ideal time for Pacifica Air to be flying by now. There is room in the market with no Samoa Air and VA off the island routes. Pacifica could be doing half a dozen routes by now AKL/WLG/CHC to RAR/TBU/APW. These could have used two jets and kept a 3rd as a spare. More frequencies from AKL and say around two per week for both WLG/CHC

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Pretty sure there are 77Ws available from EK, SQ, CX, EY, NH or previously operated by those carriers, maybe back to BR even?

Would they need crews? Isn't there a shortage of crews? I'm not familiar with how the BR arrangement worked pre-Covid, when crews weren't so in demand. While they could get a plane from CX for example, CX wouldn't have spare crews, like with the Wamos arrangement.

They would use NZ crews for it. Eventually they will have enough as they are hiring more all the time.

ZK-NBT wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

I’ve been thinking about NZ’s capacity shortage and what can be done. I assume it’s almost a given that quickly getting your hands on an A320 or 321 NEO would be pretty much impossible, and likewise a 789 (especially a GE-powered one, which is presumably what NZ needs for the better fuel consumption). That just leaves the 77W, of which there may be some available.

How many? Well, one to replace the Wamos A330, a second to liberate a 789 and allow more frequency on ORD and JFK, surely a priority for the carrier. And perhaps a third for elsewhere on the network, noting that A320/321 routes are also constrained by a lack of spare capacity.

Even a fleet of 10 77Ws and 14 789s only makes a fleet of 24 wide bodies, where pre-covid it numbered 29-30 - still a 20% reduction. Getting back to pre-covid levels of activity seems to be very far in the future.

Pretty sure there are 77Ws available from EK, SQ, CX, EY, NH or previously operated by those carriers, maybe back to BR even?

Several wide bodies were freed up with dropped routes
LHR 2, given LAX has been a max of 10 weekly rather
EZE 1.5 in NW given 5 weekly
RAR-LAX, RAR-SYD effectively make that an additional 0.5,
SYD 1 had a double banger 77E 0700 and 1600 so ,MEL 0.5 had a 77E in the afternoon which returned to late to depart again that evening, that where I thought the 0015 arrival from SYD could have done PER at 0200 saving the aircraft parking overnight at PER.

Looking ahead to NW23/24 let’s see what fits with the current fleet

77W x7
LAX x7 2 aircraft
SFO x5 1.5
IAH x7 2
SIN x7 1
PPT x2 .5

789 code 2 x5
JFK x7 2
ORD x7 2
YVR x3 1

Code 1 x9
PVG x7 2
HKG x7 1
NRT x7 1
PER x7 1
ICN x4 .5
TPE x3 .5
YVR x4 1
HNL x3 .5
PPT x1

Leaves around 1.5 to increase maybe CHC-SIN/PER or a little more Tasman flying. Nothing announced re JFK/ORD just a bit of a hunch.

Atleast 3x 77W available during the day for short haul to SYD/MEL/BNE, SIN needs to rotate somewhere, plus at least 3x 789 to MEL/SYD/NAN/RAR/APW/TBU.

NAN/RAR//APW/TBU share 1 aircraft depending on the day

321
AKL-SYD x21 2 ( 1 overnight SYD)
AKL-MEL x14 1.5 (1 overnight MEL)
AKL-BNE x13 2 (1 on Saturday)
AKL-OOL x7 .5
AKL-RAR x4 (overnight service with OOL aircraft)
AKL-APW x3 (alternate days to RAR overnight service)
AKL-ADL x5
AKL-NAN (AM, days 789 not operating)
AKL-TBU x4 overnight
AKL-NOU x3

Leaves A320s for CHC/WLG/ZQN/IUE/HBA, probably some AKL flying instead of A321s.

CHC-SYD x11
CHC-MEL x7
CHC-BNE x7
CHC-OOL x3

WLG-SYD x12
WLG-MEL x7
WLG-BNE x7
WLG-OOL x2

ZQN-SYD x7
ZQN-MEL x 5
ZQN-BNE x 5

AKL-IUE x2
AKL-HBA x3

Ok that’s all a bit of a mess, particularly the narrow bodies, some of the A320/321 might be a bit mixed between ports.

A few more were dropped before 2019 which almost was equivalent to one 789 or two if you add the CHC seasonals
AKL- HND 3 pw ( so a combination of 10 pw with NRT)
AKL - KIX 3 pw
AKL - ORD was 5pw now down to 3pw
CHC- SIN 5pw
CHC-PER 2pw

So nearly 7 freed up wide bodies.

NZ516 wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Pretty sure there are 77Ws available from EK, SQ, CX, EY, NH or previously operated by those carriers, maybe back to BR even?

Would they need crews? Isn't there a shortage of crews? I'm not familiar with how the BR arrangement worked pre-Covid, when crews weren't so in demand. While they could get a plane from CX for example, CX wouldn't have spare crews, like with the Wamos arrangement.

They would use NZ crews for it. Eventually they will have enough as they are hiring more all the time.

Yes by November NZ should have enough time to train the required crew.

Not sure if BR had 2 cabin crew or something on board when NZ leased from them?

NZ516 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

I’ve been thinking about NZ’s capacity shortage and what can be done. I assume it’s almost a given that quickly getting your hands on an A320 or 321 NEO would be pretty much impossible, and likewise a 789 (especially a GE-powered one, which is presumably what NZ needs for the better fuel consumption). That just leaves the 77W, of which there may be some available.

How many? Well, one to replace the Wamos A330, a second to liberate a 789 and allow more frequency on ORD and JFK, surely a priority for the carrier. And perhaps a third for elsewhere on the network, noting that A320/321 routes are also constrained by a lack of spare capacity.

Even a fleet of 10 77Ws and 14 789s only makes a fleet of 24 wide bodies, where pre-covid it numbered 29-30 - still a 20% reduction. Getting back to pre-covid levels of activity seems to be very far in the future.

Pretty sure there are 77Ws available from EK, SQ, CX, EY, NH or previously operated by those carriers, maybe back to BR even?

Several wide bodies were freed up with dropped routes
LHR 2, given LAX has been a max of 10 weekly rather
EZE 1.5 in NW given 5 weekly
RAR-LAX, RAR-SYD effectively make that an additional 0.5,
SYD 1 had a double banger 77E 0700 and 1600 so ,MEL 0.5 had a 77E in the afternoon which returned to late to depart again that evening, that where I thought the 0015 arrival from SYD could have done PER at 0200 saving the aircraft parking overnight at PER.

Looking ahead to NW23/24 let’s see what fits with the current fleet

77W x7
LAX x7 2 aircraft
SFO x5 1.5
IAH x7 2
SIN x7 1
PPT x2 .5

789 code 2 x5
JFK x7 2
ORD x7 2
YVR x3 1

Code 1 x9
PVG x7 2
HKG x7 1
NRT x7 1
PER x7 1
ICN x4 .5
TPE x3 .5
YVR x4 1
HNL x3 .5
PPT x1

Leaves around 1.5 to increase maybe CHC-SIN/PER or a little more Tasman flying. Nothing announced re JFK/ORD just a bit of a hunch.

Atleast 3x 77W available during the day for short haul to SYD/MEL/BNE, SIN needs to rotate somewhere, plus at least 3x 789 to MEL/SYD/NAN/RAR/APW/TBU.

NAN/RAR//APW/TBU share 1 aircraft depending on the day

321
AKL-SYD x21 2 ( 1 overnight SYD)
AKL-MEL x14 1.5 (1 overnight MEL)
AKL-BNE x13 2 (1 on Saturday)
AKL-OOL x7 .5
AKL-RAR x4 (overnight service with OOL aircraft)
AKL-APW x3 (alternate days to RAR overnight service)
AKL-ADL x5
AKL-NAN (AM, days 789 not operating)
AKL-TBU x4 overnight
AKL-NOU x3

Leaves A320s for CHC/WLG/ZQN/IUE/HBA, probably some AKL flying instead of A321s.

CHC-SYD x11
CHC-MEL x7
CHC-BNE x7
CHC-OOL x3

WLG-SYD x12
WLG-MEL x7
WLG-BNE x7
WLG-OOL x2

ZQN-SYD x7
ZQN-MEL x 5
ZQN-BNE x 5

AKL-IUE x2
AKL-HBA x3

Ok that’s all a bit of a mess, particularly the narrow bodies, some of the A320/321 might be a bit mixed between ports.

A few more were dropped before 2019 which almost was equivalent to one 789 or two if you add the CHC seasonals
AKL- HND 3 pw ( so a combination of 10 pw with NRT)
AKL - KIX 3 pw
AKL - ORD was 5pw now down to 3pw
CHC- SIN 5pw
CHC-PER 2pw

So nearly 7 freed up wide bodies.

HNd was replaced seasonally with additional NRT, newer more than 10x weekly to TYO, the aircraft from routes like additional NRT/KIX in NW went to DPS/HNL in NS.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

Would they need crews? Isn't there a shortage of crews? I'm not familiar with how the BR arrangement worked pre-Covid, when crews weren't so in demand. While they could get a plane from CX for example, CX wouldn't have spare crews, like with the Wamos arrangement.

They would use NZ crews for it. Eventually they will have enough as they are hiring more all the time.

Yes by November NZ should have enough time to train the required crew.

Not sure if BR had 2 cabin crew or something on board when NZ leased from them?

Would have though the leased BR 77W would of been fully crewed by NZ it was re-registered in New Zealand on NZ’s AOC.

Would have been the same as the 2x ex SQ 77E’s they had before covid covering the 787 issues.

NZ516 wrote:

duff wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

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

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

I doubt that would be the case. The union won't have the final say on that. It will be management at the board level to decide on.

They wont have the final say but they have a very significant influence on the decision

duff wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

duff wrote:

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

I doubt that would be the case. The union won't have the final say on that. It will be management at the board level to decide on.

They wont have the final say but they have a very significant influence on the decision

If sounds like a decision has been made and the plan is for an aircraft NZ can crew themselves for NW23/24.

ZK-NBT wrote:

If sounds like a decision has been made and the plan is for an aircraft NZ can crew themselves for NW23/24.

Eh? Did I miss something here? Decision already made? Or is this speculation? If so, this is exactly how A-net rumours become fact by repetition!

ZK-NBT wrote:

Yes by November NZ should have enough time to train the required crew.

The unemployment rate here is still quite low - will they really be able to find and train up enough crew?

duff wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

duff wrote:

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

I doubt that would be the case. The union won't have the final say on that. It will be management at the board level to decide on.

They wont have the final say but they have a very significant influence on the decision

On a related note, does anyone know whether NZ is still using its PVG-based crew here to plug local staff shortages? Presumably the unions wouldn't be too happy about that arrangement going on much longer.

DavidByrne wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

If sounds like a decision has been made and the plan is for an aircraft NZ can crew themselves for NW23/24.

Eh? Did I miss something here? Decision already made? Or is this speculation? If so, this is exactly how A-net rumours become fact by repetition!

If you see what I quoted. It seems NZ have made the decision that Wamos will be replaced by something NZ can crew themselves reading between the lines. I have no inside knowledge or what the aircraft might be, I’d pick a 77W.

ZK-NBT wrote:

duff wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

I doubt that would be the case. The union won't have the final say on that. It will be management at the board level to decide on.

They wont have the final say but they have a very significant influence on the decision

If sounds like a decision has been made and the plan is for an aircraft NZ can crew themselves for NW23/24.

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Yes by November NZ should have enough time to train the required crew.

The unemployment rate here is still quite low - will they really be able to find and train up enough crew?

They will from somewhere, they are training crew all the time it just takes time to get enough to crew a 77W.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

Would they need crews? Isn't there a shortage of crews? I'm not familiar with how the BR arrangement worked pre-Covid, when crews weren't so in demand. While they could get a plane from CX for example, CX wouldn't have spare crews, like with the Wamos arrangement.

They would use NZ crews for it. Eventually they will have enough as they are hiring more all the time.

Yes by November NZ should have enough time to train the required crew.

Not sure if BR had 2 cabin crew or something on board when NZ leased from them?

I think it was all NZ crew on ZK-OKT

Yes the leased BR and ex-SQ 777s were all crewed by NZ crew.

DavidByrne wrote:

I’ve been thinking about NZ’s capacity shortage and what can be done. I assume it’s almost a given that quickly getting your hands on an A320 or 321 NEO would be pretty much impossible, and likewise a 789 (especially a GE-powered one, which is presumably what NZ needs for the better fuel consumption). That just leaves the 77W, of which there may be some available.

Air NZ did get their hands on two A320-232s for Domestic from later this year by extending the lease on the two that were to be returned and replaced with A321-271NXs OYD and OYE. Those two A321s would be more useful in the International fleet and I don't know if there's been enough time for Air NZ to order the different seating, Wifi equipment, life rafts, HF radio etc to have these delivered in the International configuration. If not then perhaps they could be temporarily upgraded to enable them to operate EDTO to destinations where Wifi is not considered necessary.

Anyway I keep checking for any clues such as a photo of the next Air NZ A321 in case it has a Wifi radome fitted. Last month Air NZ said the next two A321s are expected "by the end of the year" and in FY2024, so between 01 Jul and 31 Dec 2023.

PA515

No disrespect, but I question whether the upcoming domestic A321s would actually be more useful in the international fleet.

I get that international routes have the glamour, and I'd love to see NZ expand as much as anyone else, but there's a reason ( and not just because they're not equipped for overwater travel) that the domestic fleet stays at home. Put simply, domestic is NZ's bread and butter.

I'm sad to see the international network reduced ( I had wanted a South American route for a long time and leapt at the chance go to Buenos Aires shortly after the route started), but I can understand while resources are still limited that their focus is on domestic first and foremost.

It's a competitive labour market out there currently and I think it will take them quite a few years to get back to running 2019 levels of international capacity. Until they get there, they'll have to look at directing what capacity/resources they have where they believe they'll get the best returns, and that may not always be where we as aviation enthusiasts would prefer.

planemanofnz wrote:

duff wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

I doubt that would be the case. The union won't have the final say on that. It will be management at the board level to decide on.

They wont have the final say but they have a very significant influence on the decision

On a related note, does anyone know whether NZ is still using its PVG-based crew here to plug local staff shortages? Presumably the unions wouldn't be too happy about that arrangement going on much longer.

With the PVG services ramping back up to daily, I’d think they would all be going back onto AKL-PVG? Saying that doesn’t mean NZ hasn’t just employed more crew based in PVG.

I don’t see the problem with it, JQ long-haul do it (and on the JQ 788 flights I’ve been on they have been great crews).

We’re happy to buy products made overseas, so don’t see why there should be a issue with crew being based overseas.

NZ should really start to look at opening another crew base for long-haul outside of AKL. The labour market in New Zealand, is hurting future growth.

A SIN crew base could be interesting, especially if they keep moving towards double daily to SIN.

Air NZ will continue to have a cabin crew shortage while they maintain the current contract based on min rate $22.70 per hour. The experienced crew who came back are now leaving. The new crew will not hang around long when they realise flying is not the glamour job it used to be. One of AIr NZs marketing advantage was it's "kiwi" style of informality. If you go to foreign crew, thats gone. NZ is a small fish in very competitive market. They need to be able yo differentiate themselves from competitors - in the long run that is their only competitive advantage. Paying cabin crew min rates is not a smart long term strategy.

zkncj wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

duff wrote:

They wont have the final say but they have a very significant influence on the decision

On a related note, does anyone know whether NZ is still using its PVG-based crew here to plug local staff shortages? Presumably the unions wouldn't be too happy about that arrangement going on much longer.

With the PVG services ramping back up to daily, I’d think they would all be going back onto AKL-PVG? Saying that doesn’t mean NZ hasn’t just employed more crew based in PVG.

I don’t see the problem with it, JQ long-haul do it (and on the JQ 788 flights I’ve been on they have been great crews).

We’re happy to buy products made overseas, so don’t see why there should be a issue with crew being based overseas.

NZ should really start to look at opening another crew base for long-haul outside of AKL. The labour market in New Zealand, is hurting future growth.

A SIN crew base could be interesting, especially if they keep moving towards double daily to SIN.

Do you think a Singapore crew base will be cheaper ? Singapore is a much richer place than NZ. Maybe if NZ can tap into the lax Singapore labour laws and backdoor hire Indonesian and Malaysian crew - but I'm not sure if that would be allowed for a foreign airlines.

Maybe layover costs are cheaper in Auckland than Singapore.

NTLDaz wrote:

zkncj wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

On a related note, does anyone know whether NZ is still using its PVG-based crew here to plug local staff shortages? Presumably the unions wouldn't be too happy about that arrangement going on much longer.

With the PVG services ramping back up to daily, I’d think they would all be going back onto AKL-PVG? Saying that doesn’t mean NZ hasn’t just employed more crew based in PVG.

I don’t see the problem with it, JQ long-haul do it (and on the JQ 788 flights I’ve been on they have been great crews).

We’re happy to buy products made overseas, so don’t see why there should be a issue with crew being based overseas.

NZ should really start to look at opening another crew base for long-haul outside of AKL. The labour market in New Zealand, is hurting future growth.

A SIN crew base could be interesting, especially if they keep moving towards double daily to SIN.

Do you think a Singapore crew base will be cheaper ? Singapore is a much richer place than NZ.

It's not necessarily about labour costs in any given country - remember NZ had 130 London-based flight attendants until early-2020, when it pulled out of LHR.

Kiwings wrote:

One of AIr NZs marketing advantage was it's "kiwi" style of informality. If you go to foreign crew, thats gone.

Will introducing some more foreign crews really be an issue? Loads of airlines use foreign crews - QF uses Kiwis, AY uses Japanese, EI/FR use Spaniards, NH has used Europeans, EK/QR/EY obviously hire globally, and heck even NZ uses a majority Chinese crew on its PVG flights - all seem to work successfully for the airlines.

Kiwiandrew wrote:

No disrespect, but I question whether the upcoming domestic A321s would actually be more useful in the international fleet.

Could they maximize utilisation of the existing domestic fleet, by running later departures - e.g. 9, 10, 10:30pm, on the trunk routes? They used to market these routes as 'nightrider' discounted services (until 2015). These were popular - NZ said in 2015 they had proved a "huge hit".

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/air ... KZDCKFY24/

This way, NZ may temporarily reduce the need for some of the new 321NEOs on domestic, and can use them internationally (that is, if they see a need to do so).

Kiwings wrote:

Air NZ will continue to have a cabin crew shortage while they maintain the current contract based on min rate $22.70 per hour. The experienced crew who came back are now leaving. The new crew will not hang around long when they realise flying is not the glamour job it used to be. One of AIr NZs marketing advantage was it's "kiwi" style of informality. If you go to foreign crew, thats gone. NZ is a small fish in very competitive market. They need to be able yo differentiate themselves from competitors - in the long run that is their only competitive advantage. Paying cabin crew min rates is not a smart long term strategy.

Was minimum wage in New Zealand around $22.70 from 1st April this year?

What is the base starting rate JQ/JetConnect use?

planemanofnz wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

zkncj wrote:

With the PVG services ramping back up to daily, I’d think they would all be going back onto AKL-PVG? Saying that doesn’t mean NZ hasn’t just employed more crew based in PVG.

I don’t see the problem with it, JQ long-haul do it (and on the JQ 788 flights I’ve been on they have been great crews).

We’re happy to buy products made overseas, so don’t see why there should be a issue with crew being based overseas.

NZ should really start to look at opening another crew base for long-haul outside of AKL. The labour market in New Zealand, is hurting future growth.

A SIN crew base could be interesting, especially if they keep moving towards double daily to SIN.

Do you think a Singapore crew base will be cheaper ? Singapore is a much richer place than NZ.

It's not necessarily about labour costs in any given country - remember NZ had 130 London-based flight attendants until early-2020, when it pulled out of LHR.

And LHR based crew were paid considerably less than their AKL Counterparts. Crew wages in the UK are for some reason quite low (probably when it was part of the EU it had an influx of Eastern Europe workers). It works for people there as aside from London itself the cost of living in the UK Is very reasonable.

planemanofnz wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

zkncj wrote:

With the PVG services ramping back up to daily, I’d think they would all be going back onto AKL-PVG? Saying that doesn’t mean NZ hasn’t just employed more crew based in PVG.

I don’t see the problem with it, JQ long-haul do it (and on the JQ 788 flights I’ve been on they have been great crews).

We’re happy to buy products made overseas, so don’t see why there should be a issue with crew being based overseas.

NZ should really start to look at opening another crew base for long-haul outside of AKL. The labour market in New Zealand, is hurting future growth.

A SIN crew base could be interesting, especially if they keep moving towards double daily to SIN.

Do you think a Singapore crew base will be cheaper ? Singapore is a much richer place than NZ.

It's not necessarily about labour costs in any given country - remember NZ had 130 London-based flight attendants until early-2020, when it pulled out of LHR.

A London base made sense - otherwise you had NZ based crew having to do stays in LA and London. This isn't the case with Singapore. And as pointed out crew salaries in the UK aren't great.

Kiwiandrew wrote:

No disrespect, but I question whether the upcoming domestic A321s would actually be more useful in the international fleet.

I get that international routes have the glamour, and I'd love to see NZ expand as much as anyone else, but there's a reason ( and not just because they're not equipped for overwater travel) that the domestic fleet stays at home. Put simply, domestic is NZ's bread and butter.

I'm sad to see the international network reduced ( I had wanted a South American route for a long time and leapt at the chance go to Buenos Aires shortly after the route started), but I can understand while resources are still limited that their focus is on domestic first and foremost.

It's a competitive labour market out there currently and I think it will take them quite a few years to get back to running 2019 levels of international capacity. Until they get there, they'll have to look at directing what capacity/resources they have where they believe they'll get the best returns, and that may not always be where we as aviation enthusiasts would prefer.

Well the two upcoming A321s can only be used for domestic flying. If they were converted to International birds they can be used on both domestic and international flights so it gives the airline more flexibility. Every day there are international 320/321s on domestic duties so it is very common.

A320D ZK-OXD is back in service today after a long time over a month. It operated CHC-WLG NZ332 at 0705 this morning.

https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/230322-nzapr23

NZ domestic changes 1% overall reduction for April.

Quite a few routes actually increase, others reduce a bit, AKL-WLG drops by effectively 3 flights a day, I’m guessing more A321 rotations to cover a bit though?

ZK-NBT wrote:

https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/230322-nzapr23

NZ domestic changes 1% overall reduction for April.

Quite a few routes actually increase, others reduce a bit, AKL-WLG drops by effectively 3 flights a day, I’m guessing more A321 rotations to cover a bit though?

Big changes coming indeed. Nearly 100 less AKL- WLG services next month. But AKL- CHC sees an increase of 37 flights making it the number one NZ domestic route by frequency. I notice that AKL- IVC and CHC- ZQN is not listed perhaps they forgot to check them.

ZK-NBT wrote:

https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/230322-nzapr23

NZ domestic changes 1% overall reduction for April.

Quite a few routes actually increase, others reduce a bit, AKL-WLG drops by effectively 3 flights a day, I’m guessing more A321 rotations to cover a bit though?

April does have Easter, School Holidays and ANZAC all lumped in.

Could see that have a effect on AKL-WLG traffic.

So maybe not be 3 flights less each day? Just some dates with less due to public holidays? And reduced bussiness traffic that week.

zkncj wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/230322-nzapr23

NZ domestic changes 1% overall reduction for April.

Quite a few routes actually increase, others reduce a bit, AKL-WLG drops by effectively 3 flights a day, I’m guessing more A321 rotations to cover a bit though?

April does have Easter, School Holidays and ANZAC all lumped in.

Could see that have a effect on AKL-WLG traffic.

So maybe not be 3 flights less each day? Just some dates with less due to public holidays? And reduced bussiness traffic that week.

It does have to use holidays yes. I would say this is more to do with the worldwide PW engine shortage, seeing 1-2 A320/321NEO parked up and others A320s out for regular maintenance, although they probably avoid that during school holidays as demand is high. Plus not having probably enough crew. 92 less flights for the months is 3 a day, sure it may vary a bit day to day. I

Building the gateway New Zealand needs- Auckland Airport

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

In this media release there is a really good video of what the new terminal will look like. A new smart baggage processing system will be installed using 50% less power. I presume this will replace the international baggage conveyor system as well. When it's all integrated as one.

NZ516 wrote:

A320D ZK-OXD is back in service today after a long time over a month. It operated CHC-WLG NZ332 at 0705 this morning.

It was out for less time than OXJ which last operated back on 7th of Feb. Also what is the status on OYA?. Originally heard it wouldn't be operational again until first week of June. Understand its engines are on NHC and NNG.

GW54 wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

A320D ZK-OXD is back in service today after a long time over a month. It operated CHC-WLG NZ332 at 0705 this morning.

It was out for less time than OXJ which last operated back on 7th of Feb. Also what is the status on OYA?. Originally heard it wouldn't be operational again until first week of June. Understand its engines are on NHC and NNG.

I'm not sure on the situation of OYA other than what was discussed on here recently. I did hear that OXJ is due to return to service at the end of March.

NZ seeing strong demand for Skycouch on ORD/JFK.

Operating the New York route since last September and the resumption of flying to Chicago had allowed the airline to monitor passenger behaviour, and more of them are booking Skycouch ... “The interesting thing is that on those routes, Skycouch is in substantially increased demand,” said Reeves.

Also - possible delays to upcoming 787 deliveries?

Reeves said the airline did not have fixed dates, but expects to take delivery of the first two specially fitted out Boeing 787 Dreamliners in the last part of next year, although it is mindful of delays the aeroplane builder is suffering.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/air ... WQQK3NVKQ/