| Quoting RichardJF (Reply 46): There is no possible business case to support the idea of NZ flying to Heathrow in the first place. |
What an earth are you on? That is a ridiculous statement to make.
NZ1
Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
-
- kiwiandrew
RE: NZ's AKL-LHR Only Via LAX?
| Quoting NZ1 (Reply 50): Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 47): Quoting Zeekiel (Reply 44): The most sensible (IMHO) would be to operate double daily AKL LAX LHR. I never said that!!! (In a whining voice). No problems bro. I know what you mean. |
oooops - apologies - I lifted the quote from your reply rather than from the original poster - sorry
RE: NZ's AKL-LHR Only Via LAX?
Quoting RichardJF:
"AKL-LAX-LHR is a show route.
There is no possible business case to support the idea of NZ flying to Heathrow in the first place."
Obviously NZ have been doing it wrong for a number of years then Richard. Don't you think you'd better tell them?
Quoting RichardJF again:
"........ if you are carrying purely local traffic AKL-LAX combined with an LAX-LHR with no or very little through traffic."
Well Hello. Yes, this is what it's all about. It probably wouldn't be worthwhile without the fifth freedoms would it! No big secret there and standard practice throughout the airline business anyway. I wouldn't say either that NZ (or QF/BA) for that matter gets "very little or no through traffic" AKL-LHR.
Quoting NZ1 to RichardJF:
"What an earth are you on?"
Can you let us know? I'd like to buy some. Seems like good stuff.
"AKL-LAX-LHR is a show route.
There is no possible business case to support the idea of NZ flying to Heathrow in the first place."
Obviously NZ have been doing it wrong for a number of years then Richard. Don't you think you'd better tell them?
Quoting RichardJF again:
"........ if you are carrying purely local traffic AKL-LAX combined with an LAX-LHR with no or very little through traffic."
Well Hello. Yes, this is what it's all about. It probably wouldn't be worthwhile without the fifth freedoms would it! No big secret there and standard practice throughout the airline business anyway. I wouldn't say either that NZ (or QF/BA) for that matter gets "very little or no through traffic" AKL-LHR.
Quoting NZ1 to RichardJF:
"What an earth are you on?"
Can you let us know? I'd like to buy some. Seems like good stuff.
RE: NZ's AKL-LHR Only Via LAX?
I can remember one of my dad's friends who is an Air NZ flight attendant saying that he was serving the AKL-HKG flight last year in the Southern Winter with 16 passengers on board. He said that the cargo was the only thing keeping them in the air. If this is the case right throughout the winter apart from the holidays, is it worth flying at all? But then again, the new IFE might change a couple of things once they put the 772 on this route, outclassing the CX IFE. I think I could say the same thing on the SIN route as well, but I think that there is slightly more demand as it is a S.A. hub.
RE: NZ's AKL-LHR Only Via LAX?
| Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 51): I lifted the quote from your reply rather than from the original poster - sorry |
No offence to you cuz. A simple mistake. Lets sit down and have some tea
.
Back to the bizzo.
Cheers
Zeekiel
RE: NZ's AKL-LHR Only Via LAX?
| Quoting RichardJF (Reply 46): AKL-LAX-LHR is a show route. |
Finally someone with some sense on here.
I've seen the numbers myself, the breakeven on LAX-LHR is in the high 90%. The high fares on AKL-LAX subsidize the whole route.
As I said earlier, the fares from AKL-LAX are often higher then if you flew AKL-LHR. Worse in the inverse.
They would be better off redirecting the flight to go via another destination and free up some seats for LAX only pax, or not fly at all. However it is important to keep the Kiwi flag at LHR so the flight in unlikely to go anywhere.
The loads are high, but the fares are crap given the length of the flight.
RE: NZ's AKL-LHR Only Via LAX?
Quoting Airzim (Reply 19),
"Actually I have worked in the head office and seen the numbers myself."
For the second time, was that Air NZ head office?
What numbers did you see? Pax numbers or yield? Did you see any cargo figures? How long ago did you see those numbers? Are they recent figures?
Quoting Airzim (Reply 55),
"As I said earlier, the fares from AKL-LAX are often higher then if you flew AKL-LHR. Worse in the inverse."
I haven't checked but this would make sense. With only two airlines serving the route, the law of supply and demand comes into play here. That's just basic business and marketing law.
"Actually I have worked in the head office and seen the numbers myself."
For the second time, was that Air NZ head office?
What numbers did you see? Pax numbers or yield? Did you see any cargo figures? How long ago did you see those numbers? Are they recent figures?
Quoting Airzim (Reply 55),
"As I said earlier, the fares from AKL-LAX are often higher then if you flew AKL-LHR. Worse in the inverse."
I haven't checked but this would make sense. With only two airlines serving the route, the law of supply and demand comes into play here. That's just basic business and marketing law.
RE: NZ's AKL-LHR Only Via LAX?
| Quoting NZ767 (Reply 56): For the second time, was that Air NZ head office? What numbers did you see? Pax numbers or yield? Did you see any cargo figures? How long ago did you see those numbers? Are they recent figures? |
Yes it was the NZ head office. What other head office would it be?
It wasn't pax numbers. Those serve almost no gauge. It was RASK. Cargo was not including in the calculation.
Recent, how recent do they have to be to be right?
| Quoting NZ767 (Reply 56): I haven't checked but this would make sense. With only two airlines serving the route, the law of supply and demand comes into play here. That's just basic business and marketing law. |
Glad I didn't go to your business school.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: a19901213, A388, Adipocere, airsmiles, AUxyz, Baidu [Spider], belfordrocks, Bing [Bot], chiad, DanielsBrawley, Eikie, Fiend, Guillaume787, IonLogic, Kiwiandrew, kwbl, mga707, northwest_guy, onwFan, PHXBern, Rookie87, SESGDL, Someone83, TKflyer, usflyer msp, XRadar98 and 152 guests