Air New Zealand, I feel is a good airline, but simply far too small.

So, for the sake of being creative guys, got any new ideas for new routes for Air New Zealand.

I once suggested flying the new 777-200 AKL-DEN-CPH, codesharing with both SA)">UA and SAS, thereby also liking to currently unlinked STAR hubs.

Another I have thought of, as SA is soon set to become a Star member, why not Air NZ start direct AKL-SYD(or possibly MEL or BNE)-JNB flight, and also codeshare with SA on the SYD-JNB leg. This would need to be a 744 flight due to the ETOPS unfriendly nature of deep south antartic flights.

Another flight i'd like to see is NZ start AKL-EZE. I suspect a large junk of the Australia/NZ to South America market is bound for EZE, and LAN only gets a foot in the door thanks to the strength of Qantas and oneworld in the south pacific. I suspect a lot of ppl would rather fly NZ than AR.

Any other ideas guys?

They need a hub with fifth freedom rights, in a location to pick up substantial feed and local traffic. SIN, KUL, BKK, HKG to connect Australia/NZ to Europe, and something in addition to LAX; YVR and SFO come to mind for North America-LHR traffic.

I would like to see Air New Zealand fly AKL-NYC-YYZ or AKL-NYC-CDG 

Also I would love to see AKL-SIN-BKK!

Quoting Lufthansa (Thread starter): I once suggested flying the new 777-200 AKL-DEN-CPH, codesharing with both SA)">UA and SAS, thereby also liking to currently unlinked STAR hubs.

I think AKL-NYC-FRA would be a better option for Air NZ!

Rob!  

lots of things planned over the next few years, depends on lots of things , including taking up on our 42 options, from boeing ;

possable routes might include ;

Mainland China,
South Africa
Canada
East side of USA
South America

Quoting Lufthansa (Thread starter): Air New Zealand, I feel is a good airline, but simply far too small.

What's wrong with small?

I'd rather Air New Zealand be small, good and profitable than big, fat and bloated.

cheers

mariner

They are also looking at India.
Im sure they mentioned India as one of their "definites" when the 777s/787s come on board.

All of this assumes that Qantas and NZ don't merge.

Personally I'm waiting on pins and needles for AKL-ORD

NZ is comfortable where it is and where it is going.

Staying small (or in relative terms small) is good for airlines.

NZ wouldn't have to be dragging long and large monkey arms through the mud that is the ever changing airline industry. It is a dynamic well placed company that is churning good healthy profits that are amazing considering the trouble it had after Ansett and 9/11.

I'm sure the blokes and girls at NZ have a well thought out strategy regarding expansion. Look at SFO. It was once served 3 times a week, now up to 6 times a week. PVG is being considered in some circles and NZ has obtained rights to fly twice a day to LHR.

The fleet is being modernised with new Boeing and Airbus products. Opening routes because they sound good is not the way. Opening routes that are attractive for Kiwis and the other country involved is the way to go. Getting good revenues from passengers and cargo is the way.

It's a great airline, with a great fleet and a great product. That is an excellent recipe for success.

Size doesn't mean everything. We learned that after the Ansett debacle.

Cheers

Zeekiel

Zeekiel

Had Air NZ had some balls and instead of purchasing Ansett, (and thus inheriting certain problems) and started a cheap shuttle along the east coast, say something similar to Air New Zealand Express Class, keeping both staffing levels and wages under control, it would be them with their headquaters in Brisbane and not Virginblue.

The size of Ansett wasn't the problem. The workpractices, number of aircraft types, labour relations and many general inefficiencies were. Also, for much of Air NZ management it was probably too bigger jump.

They made lots of mistakes like:
1 - Assuming they didn't have to match, or come close to matching Virgin Blue's prices. NZ foolishly removed many middle level Ansett managers and replaced them with Auckland staff....staff who'd never competed in a bigger airline environment... of course, QF very quickly snapped up some of those people who had such skills and used them against their former employer.

2 - Keeping complicated fair rules like return purchase tickets and 21 days advance, saturday night stays etc in an environment where Virgin didn't have such restrictions, and QF soon removed theres.

3 - Overcapacity

4 - Absurd things like the 3 crew 767s. In 2004 Virgin Blue carried the same amount of passengers as the original Ansett did in its last year of operations, yet they did so on 1/3 of the aircraft and staff.

If staying small is so good for Airlines, why isn't Impulse still here? And why did Ryanair and Easyjet grow so big? Or Jetlbue, or Southwest? And why just think about New Zealanders? Emirates doesn't just think about Dubai and SIA certainly doesn't just think about Singapore...Ditto for KLM. South African views itself as the only major airline for all of the southern half of Africa.

Also, look at your example regarding SFO. How many of those PAX do you think originate or terminate in MEL and BNE? Why else do you think, Air NZ send 744s to both Mel and BNE timed to connect to the LAX and SFO flights, when all their other aussie flights are by much smaller aircraft?

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 8): If staying small is so good for Airlines, why isn't Impulse still here?

If getting big is so good for airlines, why isn't Anset still here?

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 8): And why did Ryanair and Easyjet grow so big?

Given Easyjet's recent return on capital, they might be wishing they had not grown so big.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 8): And why just think about New Zealanders?

They don't. "Just" New Zealanders couldn't keep the airline going.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 8): Emirates doesn't just think about Dubai and SIA certainly doesn't just think about Singapore

Okay. But that is their choice. It is not an international law that airlines must grow exponentially. In any case, see above.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 8): Ditto for KLM.

But not ditto for Sabena or Swissair. Tiny Luxair, on the other hand, is still with us.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 8): South African views itself as the only major airline for all of the southern half of Africa.

It has had certain geo-political and historical advantages.

cheers

mariner

Quoting Mariner (Reply 9): If getting big is so good for airlines, why isn't Anset still here?

Fair comment!

I would suggest Ansett was not only big, but it was also too fat. The whole Ansett operation probably could have been run well with just 2 fleet types. The 767 (the 764 would have been ideal for Ansett, and was demonstrated in DL colours if i remember correctly) and probably the A320 family...or the 737.

Also, why were domestic 762s configured to seat just 220? In fact why where they purchased at all for the east coast shuttle routes...the 757 would have been a far better fit. That being said, a mixed 763 762 and 764 fleet could have served everywhere from HKG to HBA

Ansett was also starved of capital during its final few years being partly owned by Newscorp. Eddington tried to clean things up, but it was apparent the owners weren't going to let him at that stage.... and is it any wonder he fled to BA?

Sebena, and Swissair, had remarkably similar problems to Ansett. A high quality product, that did have a loyal following but simiply far far too much fat.

Wow Lufthansa. I agree with most (not all) of what you said in your last two posts.
On to my Respected User list for that!  

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 8): Had Air NZ had some balls and instead of purchasing Ansett, (and thus inheriting certain problems) and started a cheap shuttle along the east coast

Well this is what Air NZ wanted to do, but in 1995 the Australian Government reneged on its earlier agreement* to allow Air NZ to fly domestic routes in Australia (mainly because of pressure by some Australian Airlines) but conceded the right for Air NZ to buy into an Australian Airline. As they then did.

*In 1992 the Australian Government proposed a 'Single Aviation Market' policy which allowed Air NZ to operate domestic operations in Australia and limited beyond rights (ninth and sixth freedoms respectively).

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 8): Had Air NZ had some balls and instead of purchasing Ansett, (and thus inheriting certain problems) and started a cheap shuttle along the east coast

Ditto what NZ747 said.

Ansett was doomed unless it had significant capital and some better fleet and employment management even BEFORE NZ got there.

I mean they were operating 727's in the late 90's when Australia had no need for them in its skies.

They operated numerous types, chopped and changed fleets in the 80's and ended up with a bloated number of employees and management malpractice permeating through multiple divisional operations.

Ingrained problems are hard to iron out.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 8): And why did Ryanair and Easyjet grow so big?

Comparing apples with oranges. Ryanair and Easyjet serve a combined population base of 457,000,000 with their sprawling route structures and multiple hubs. NZ serves the base population of 4,000,000 plus all the nations it does visit. However, NZ does not have extensive route structures in large population areas due to codesharing. For example, it uses LH and BD for operating the internal routes in Europe.

They are LCC's whereas NZ is a full service carrier despite cutbacks on the service (frills) department in the Tasman and Domestic markets.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 8): Emirates doesn't just think about Dubai and SIA certainly doesn't just think about Singapore

These airlines are much different from NZ. Out of their home ports they serve many many routes. NZ can't just add routes for the sake of it out of AKL. There's got to be adequate demand, resources and capital to provide for new routes.

We're not the most wealthy country in the world. We don't have the wealth of other countries and airlines to invest in massive expansion.

Keeping NZ relatively small is good. Remember money doesn't grow on trees. NZ had to be bailed out by the New Zealand Government after Ansett.

Cheers

Zeekiel

Quoting Zeekiel (Reply 13): Keeping NZ relatively small is good. Remember money doesn't grow on trees. NZ had to be bailed out by the New Zealand Government after Ansett.

That was their own fault for biting off more than they could chew. As far as being forced to "purchase" ansett, well, I believe NZ just didn't push hard enough. After all, any such restrictions would have also applied equally to Richard Branson. (It took an ecentric british nutcase to come halfway around the world and scream loud enough..and only put up 10 million! a lot less than NZ paid for Ansett) Back in 1995, the keating government was in power. They should have tried again under the howard government. If they screamed loud and hard enough, I'm sure they would have got it... it is, after all, Australian law and the ability of a certain red and white airline to block that can only go so far.

I never claimed Ansett wasn't in trouble.... what I said, I basicaly pointed out that it really wasn't a good investment and there were lots of bad apples.... both before and during.... which is why NZ would have been better off doing it on its own.

Plus you missed the whole point about the NZ routes. A route to South Africa would be catering primarily to Australian and South African passengers. I might point out right now, that SIA, MAS and Emirates are selling significant numbers of tickets between the East Coast of Australia and South Africa. I'm sure ppl would much rather fly Non-stop on NZ. It is no different to QF offering flights from AKL to LAX.

The Australian government would almost certainly have to give NZ traffic rights.... and with a feed at the African end from South African, you would have a farely strong Star Alliance feed there. Plus think of all the tickets from Swiss and Lufthansa etc that would connect from Europe just like BA and QF do now.

Anyway all of this misses the whole point of this thread.... that is... lets look at some creative new routes... they don't necessarily have to be amazingly profitable... its just brainstorming (however there probably should be 'some' reason to suggest they may be viable)

If it is just brainstorming - fantasy - then yes, South Africa is a good idea.

There is a fair amount of migration from SA to NZ, Albany City might well be Little Jo'Burg.

But for real fun, I'd revive the old Qantas Fiesta route - Auckland, Tahiti, Acapulco, Mexico City, London.

(Yes, I know, Qantas flew Mexico City to Nassau to London, but I think the Bahamas is well-served).

Why keep Acapulco? Give Kiwis a great place for stopovers. You can get good hotels fairly cheap. It's a heck of a place to have a short break.

And a tie up with one of the Mexican airlines could give you the whole of the US.

  

cheers

mariner

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 14): A route to South Africa would be catering primarily to Australian and South African passengers.

That wouldn't be a bad route at all. Considering the All Blacks are sponsored by Air New Zealand  . Would make the journey to South Africa for the Tri-Nations a lot easier.

A stop in Perth would be enterprising.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 15): Albany City might well be Little Jo'Burg.

I'll say. Although I wasn't too pleased with the stories coming out from there in the NZ Herald.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 14): I believe NZ just didn't push hard enough.

I suppose that may be because of a give up attitude. Even then, whether they would have got it is a different story. Branson is a clever bugger when it comes to marketing. Make a big song and dance plus flank yourself with two gorgeous blonde bombshells.

I did misunderstand your topic. I apologise for that.

Cheers

Zeekiel

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this thread about NZ expanding? Why is Ansett being said in this thread?

Quoting 777ER (Reply 17): Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this thread about NZ expanding? Why is Ansett being said in this thread?

Well it was me who introduced Ansett. But in the sense about why we purchased Ansett to EXPAND NZ's operations and why NZ suffered during 2000/2001.

So blame me for the introduction.

Cheers

Zeekiel

I hope it doesn't expand ridiculously - even if that does mean less exotic destinations to use staff perks to.The reason we are doing well now is because we have defined that we are a niche pacific rim carrier, not the pseudo-global player previous management thought we were. It's testiment to solid business practise and sound decisions that have got us making some money again, not teetering on the brink of bankrupcy,

Small, but I wouldn't say far too small.. They have tonnes of flights across the ditch. But as a person living in AKL I would say that they were pretty big as there are so many flights to and from here.

Do you think that the 52 options will be taken over a long period of time? They have 8 772ER's coming, more are needed to complete the disposal of all the 744's and 763's but then it will leave about 40 more. I believe that purchasing an extra 40 aircraft won't expand the airline ridiculously due to the fact that they'll only probably buy them in increments of 8's or 10's (daily flights to PVG, PEK etc: wont make it look significantly larger with a couple more). To my knowledge, their capital isn't large enough to get all in one go and first of all they have to sort out that flight attendant problem of theirs..

Lots of places I can think of. EZE, CDG, FRA, ZRH, FCO, BKK, KUL, PVG, ICN, ADL, JNB, DPS, YVR, JFK, ORD, PEK, DXB, BOM...the list goes on and on.

I read somewhere that some of those options may end up being 747 advanced as well as the 777s and 787s

They've alreday served FRA, BKK, KUL, ICN DPS, and YVR in the past.
Most if not all became "victims" of codeshares and alliances.   

Quoting ZKSUJ (Reply 21): CDG, FRA, ZRH, FCO

Just looking at these Europe options, will NZ make use of their existing hub at LAX or perhaps move it to SFO? Is SFO too small? Would you consider the opening of an asian hub?

Asian may be good, SIN and HKG even BKK would be great.

NZ767-Yeah I know but would'nt it be nice to see NZ metal go back to those places.

Lobby the NZ Government to open up Immigration and increase the population by 10 to 15 million  

Cheers

I believe that there are enough asians in NZ at the present time.. considering that Maoris originated from Taiwan.. 
ok, back to the main subject..

Then we better boost the Asian routes   

I understood that South African is in the process of joining the star alliance so I doubt Air New Zealand will bother with South Africa. They could codeshare via Sydney or Perth.

China and perhaps India must be on the horizon.

Another idea I would have for Air New Zealand would be to buy some smaller aircraft like EMB17X, EMB19X and launch more Tasman routes to smaller population centres for example , AKL-ADL (I understand Qantas has recently started to fly this route), WLG-CBR or CHC-CNS. They could also do the reverse and start routes like Tauranga to Sydney.

Quoting ZKSUJ (Reply 27): Then we better boost the Asian routes

Haha, that is the only thing I've read here that makes theoretical sense.   

Air New Zealand is one of may favorite airlines (simply the best in flight service I have ever experienced) and these ambitious plans are interesting, but is any of this practical for a small southern hemisphere nation like New Zealand? New Zealand is a magnficent place, but its a small nation with a tiny population. NZ finally launched its connection to SFO, I do think that we will see increased and expanded services to Asian capitals, and possibly the second connection to LHR (via an Asian city) will be added if NZ can find the right route, but I do not know if more makes sense from a financial point of view? Routes to places like South America, South Africa, etc high risk - and long distances which require a huge investment in aircraft.

Should NZ think global and become another SQ or EK (thats what we are really talking about here) - it would be nice, but AKL does not enjoy the geographical position that SIN or DXB have - Auckland is a great city, but its out of the way for most travellers. And, as pointed out, the airline does not have the financial resources to pull off a huge expansion and NZ is risk adverse; the Ansett fiasco set back the airline back many years and only now, with the new Boeing order, is NZ really thinking about the future, for years their survival was in jeopardy.

Whatever the outcome, I wish NZ the best - they are a terrific carrier.

I would say that should NZ expand, it should be small. I would say:

AKL-PER-JNB
AKL-BKK-LHR
AKL-PVG
AKL-NGO-PEK (continuation of existing Nagoya route)

SpinalTap - I'm from Wellington and WLG-CBR wouldn't work. The demand might be excellent for 20-30 seats 5 days a week and thats about it. There would be no demand other than Government to Government. WLG-OOL was always a logical idea but I can't imagine further routes to Australia out of Wellington. But AKL is NZ's hub and not running ADL for example seems odd.
These EMB19X would seem to have a great application for NZ and QF especially on the Tasman. Out of AKL you could go to far smaller places on East Coast Australia than most people realise because you can promote it as New Zealand and onwards to SFO/LAX as a feeder route.

Any secondary routes such as WLG-OOL or WLG-CBR, even if they were considered would most likely go to Freedom Air.

While the airplane nut in me would love to see NZ at ports all over the world such as East Coast US, Europe, the Middle East, South America and South Africa, the businessman in me would take a very cautious and analytical approach to any potential new route.
Our biggest handicap I think is our geographical position and small population (as Dutchjet pointed out).  

Personally from living in canberra the dmeand wouldnt be there to go to new zealand canberra offeres skiing etc every one i knew in cbr wanted to go to somewhere exotic and warm!!!! but the governments can use their own planes or go via syd or mel.

WLG-CBR would work. Say maybe 1 flight per week.

Quoting SpinalTap (Reply 28): Another idea I would have for Air New Zealand would be to buy some smaller aircraft like EMB17X, EMB19X and launch more Tasman routes to smaller population centres for example , AKL-ADL (I understand Qantas has recently started to fly this route), WLG-CBR or CHC-CNS. They could also do the reverse and start routes like Tauranga to Sydney.

I personally don't think that EMB RJ's are right for such routes.. Air NZ would want a sized aircraft of at least an A320/737. Air NZ still want to make that QF codeshare so I believe that AKL-ADL won't be in the picture. It's run by a 738 at odd hours and the price is outrageous! Well going along your lines of getting EMB's, they could get a ROT-SYD route going. Rotorua Airport is trying to get the inernational status but I think that they have been told to lengthen its runway. Also the Lakes District Council (Alexandra, Cromwell, Wanaka, Queenstown area) want to make a really long runway to boost tourism there. If any of you have been to ZQN, the banking is similar to Kai Tak but just with smaller aircraft. The hills make it hard to establish a big airport so their plan is to make it on the plains of Central Otago.

Any demand for AKL-DRW? How about DPS? Let's hope that the share price starts to rise and we can see some significant profits!

You will never never never see RJ's of any sort on Trans Tasman routes. No what if's buts or maybe's, it will NEVER happen. There are numerous reasons for this if everyone stops and thinks about it. RJ's have not been designed in anyway to comply with ETOPS requirements for a start let alone all the other reasons I can think of.

I'm actually working on a paper for my MBA at stuff similar to this. This is what I'd do. Turn AKL into a South Pacific hub.

The plan would be to capture through traffic and make travel more accessible for smaller destinations.

Focus on capturing Australia traffic to North/South America and North/South American traffic to Australia. With only one and at most two stops you could go to/from any major Australian city to almost anywhere in the US, Canada and South America in minimal time.

Capture traffic from Asia to South America. Similar approach and theory as mentioned above.

First of all get rid of the 733s and replace with A319s and A321s

AKL - Australia (SYD, MEL, BNE, ADL, PER, CBR) Various frequencies (high for SYD & MEL), all non-stop. Aircraft types = A320/319/321

AKL - ASIA (SIN, BKK, HKG, PEK, PVG, NGO, NRT, SEL) Daily or bi-daily frequencies, all non - stop. Aircraft Types = 777 & 787

AKL - South America (AEP, GIG) Weekly or bi-weekly, all non- stop. Aircraft types = 777 or 787

AKL - North America (LAX, SFO, YVR, HNL, JFK and maybe ORD) Daily or Bi Daily all non-stop. Aircraft types = 744, 777 & 787.

AKL - Europe (LHR via LAX, FRA via JFK) Daily LHR, bi-daily FRA, Aircraft Types = 744 & 777

AKL - South Pacific (RAR, Nadi, Samoa, Tahiti and Vanuatu) Frequency and a/c type as required.

If this strategy worked I'd then look at opening more ports with the 787s into North America, Europe and Asia and increase frequency or a/c size into Australia.

I'd also put a daily afternoon/ evening flight from WEL - CBR, say leave WEL at 4.00pm and return from CBR 6.30pm. Sure the pax numbers may not be high but your yield would be. Govt passengers pay higher fares, just look at Qantas' presence in CBR. Also the greater Canberra region contains over 600,000 people all within an easy 2 - 3 hr drive from the airport. Their only option now is an expensive regional flight to SYD or a long drive.

Finally use Freedom air to fly into OOL, NTL & CNS. All with A320s

Turning AKL into a hub would result in a boom for greater Auckland. More tourists and business would intern come to Auckland and NZ in general. This of course is just the vision. There is a lot of work needed to be done to ensure this strategy was successful.

B787: There was talk of Emirates establishing a Hub in Auckland but whether that will ever come off, Probably Not.

In My view , NZ will not consider expansions until new aircraft have been delivered.
There may be some expansion but I think more code sharing is the Likely option .
It will be interesting to see if NZ takes up its options on further 787s. Presumably they will.
Then of course there is the 777-300`s due much later on.
There will be some new routes I personally think in Asia because that is where a lot of our tourism comes from.
Cheers
Stuarts8

Quoting B787 (Reply 38): This is what I'd do. Turn AKL into a South Pacific hub.

Would you envisage the often talked about NZ owned terminal at AKL as a key part of this strategy?

Quoting Stuarts8 (Reply 39): In My view , NZ will not consider expansions until new aircraft have been delivered

Of course. It makes sense to bed the new a/c in on existing routes. It allows NZ to first lift their service within their existing network and then slowly expand.

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 40): Would you envisage the often talked about NZ owned terminal at AKL as a key part of this strategy?

Not sure what you mean here but the international terminal is currently undergoing renovation to bring it up to date ie separate level departure and arrivals, more space and light etc. Our NZ friends can tell us more.

One of the key elements for the success of the strategy would be an appropriate terminal. There would be moments when the airport was busy and moments when it would quite down. I would think a design with many more gates that allowed portions of the airport to be shut down when not needed, would be appropriate. I believe BKK can do this, but not certain.

Personally, I feel that the two best options for NZ once they obtain more aircraft is to commence flights to South Africa and to South America.
At the moment SAA and QF are the only two airlines that control that market. They maybe from different alliances but their price structures are very similar i.e.: very high.
Should NZ enter that market offering direct flight to Johannesburg or Cape town out of Sydney a little competition would do the market very well.
As for South America, EZE, GRU and SCL would be the best options. As with South Africa, the code share offered by LA/QF means that prices are quite high if you would like to travel with them. Plus both airlines enjoy the benefits of each other through feeder traffic at either end. A tie up between NZ and RG would once again help competition especially if NZ where to do a shuttle of come sort between out of EZE. Let's not forget AR now originate their flight to AKL/SYD out of GRU!

NZ was/is thinking of building their own terminal at AKL for domestic and International flights.

B787 - as discussed on various other threads NZ could not operate to South America with the current or proposed fleet (assuming of course that the 744 is too large), due to current ETOPs restrictions. This severely limits the "Regional AKL Hub" theory you are proposing... for this to become reality NZ would need A340's.

Quoting Aerohottie (Reply 44): This severely limits the "Regional AKL Hub" theory you are proposing... for this to become reality NZ would need A340's

Good point, realised that after the fact. I guess it would all depend on how many people on the "feeder" flights from Asia and Australia would be heading too/from South America. I'm thinking that with multiple daily A320/19/21 flights from OZ and daily 787/777 flights from all over Asia you could just manage to fill a single 744 a day. Therefore you could run AKL - AEP x 3 a week and the same for AKL - GIG. It's worth a thought, more needs to be done in South America either by QF or NZ.

NZ could serve South America at present with 767s, eg, AKL PPT SCL for instance. ETOPS would allow this. Sure it's not non-stop but....
B787. I don't know if AEP can take 777's. Might have to be EZE.  

Quoting 777ER (Reply 17): Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this thread about NZ expanding? Why is Ansett being said in this thread?

Uh...because guess what happened the last time NZ tried to "expand"...

Quoting B787 (Reply 38): AKL - South America (AEP, GIG) Weekly or bi-weekly, all non- stop. Aircraft types = 777 or 787

That`s virtually impossible at the moment with "twins".

Agree NZ must flying South America, but making one-stop between AKL-EZE/SCL is a real inconvenience compared to the non-stops flights competition (LA and AR)

Quoting B787 (Reply 38): AKL - South America (AEP, GIG) Weekly or bi-weekly, all non- stop. Aircraft types = 777 or 787

AEP is only domestic and Uruguay ops.

Quoting TBCITDG (Reply 42): A tie up between NZ and RG would once again help competition especially if NZ where to do a shuttle of come sort between out of EZE.

Only one problem...

Quoting TBCITDG (Reply 42): Let's not forget AR now originate their flight to AKL/SYD out of GRU!

LA/AR's direct connection might be more attractive to PAX flying this route. I think a direct (or non-stop) flight to GRU via EZE or SCL would be best.

And btw, LAN also originates their flight out of GRU.

Cheers,
PPVRA