Gemuser
Posts: 5044
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:08 pm

Quoting 777ER (Reply 45):
ts a known fact the B777 has lower operating costs then the B744s, if it wasn't true then the B777 wouldn't have ripped apart the A340s sales or Boeing would have faced some problems with false advertising. Yes introducing a new type is more money for an airline. Do you really believe that QF has the right long haul fleet right now with only B744s and A380s with nothing around the A340/B777 size for routes that don't require B744s? If QF had ordered the B777/A340 like many other airlines around the world for routes that didn't require Jumbos then do you believe the B787 delays wouldn't be affecting QFs fleet plans as badly? Are you trying to say that its not worth introducing a new type because of extra costs? If so they why did QF introduce the A330 when it already had B767s perfectly able to fly the routes the A330s are currently flying? QF introduced the A330 because it saw a need for the aircraft. The same can be said for the A380.

OK, point by point:

Agree the B777 has lower DIRECT operating costs than the B744. I'd bet that the three second hand B744s had lower TOTAL operating costs than three new B777. You CANNOT ignore the financing and other indriect costs.

The "gap" argument again. QF has never had an aircrat in the "gap". In fact there is less "gap" between the A333 and A380 than between the B744 and B763. There MAY be a case for changing this, but how would we know?

QF would have the ideal fleet for its route structure, according to its management, IF Airbus & Boeing had met their contractual delivery dates and we wouldn't be having this discssion, again!

I am saying that decission if it is worth the cost of introduction of a new fleet type is complex with many factors that are not obvious from outside the actual fleet planning group and senior management.

Again you MAYBE correct, the point is we don't and can't know. IMHO you should present your points as an opinion, which you are certainly entitled to have and not as facts, which you can't possibly know.

Gemuser
DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:50 pm

Quoting 777ER (Reply 30):
I read on here last week a comment about a conversation a QF B744 flight crew had with a DL B772LR flight crew while both aircraft were enroute to LAX from SYD.

The 77L burning something under 7t./ hr and the 744 something over 9t an hour.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3432
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:25 am

Has ZK-NAQ been pulled from service? it seems to be parked up with ZK-NQC now.
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:32 am

Quoting koruman (Reply 43):
Alaska Airlines is really more a Seattle and Portland airline than a pure Alaska one, isn't it?

Why should Air NZ limit itself to a sole long-haul hub at Auckland, when there are just under 200,000 New Zealand citizens in BNE's catchment area, whose combined GDP is larger than Wellington's or Christchurch?
Quoting mariner (Reply 44):
Alaska (the state) is in the US and Alaska (the airline) is a US airline and if its primary hub - SEA - in the US were not profitable, then there would be a very real problem.
Quoting mariner (Reply 44):
It is a New Zealand airline, majority state owned, and if the primary hub in New Zealand is not profitable, then there is a problem.

There are 600,000 people with NZ passports living in Australia's Eastern states, plus a further 400,000 former NZ passport holders who now travel on Australian passports. That is the same population as the South Island of New Zealand. Plus there are a further 2.5 million non-New Zealanders in BNE's catchment area and a further 4.8 million non-New Zealanders in MEL's catchment area. And they all have an average disposable income almost double that of New Zealanders domiciled in New Zealand.

Alaska Airlines simply leverage their rights as a US carrier to serve larger and more profitable cities than can be found in their own state.

Air New Zealand has to come to terms with the fact that New Zealand is at the end of the line geographically, has a very small population and, in OECD terms, a very poor population.

Even Selwyn Cushing could see that the solution was to diversify and use the Australian long-haul rights to "do an Alaska" at Brisbane.

But Fyfe and his colleagues seem to think that there is blood to be got out of the very stony New Zealand market, and is trying to turn a potentially high-volume destination (North and East Asia) into a high-yield one.
 
nz2
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:38 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:39 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 33):
It is quite extraordinary to me that so many blame Qantas long haul problems on fleet choice and completely ignore both (a) the very high level competition that has arrived on the those routes (b) the global economy and (c) Boeing.

But all other airlines face the same issues and have access to the same equipment, it comes down to the choices the respective management team take in aircraft and route selection. These woes are not QF's alone.

Quoting mariner (Reply 40):
Who else to blame? Boeing didn't deliver on its contractual promise. That promise had swung the deal away from Airbus.

I would think that QF are being compensated for the delays, not entirely sure but understand Airbus did so for its several years of A380 delays. However the compensation does not make up all the short fall admittedly

Quoting mariner (Reply 40):
The 777 is the backbone of the Air France/KLM long haul fleet. How's that airline surviving the current economic realities?:

Hmmm, what about Emirates who operate around 100 x 777's? Sorry but that statement does not have credence.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:13 am

Quoting koruman (Reply 53):
There are 600,000 people with NZ passports living in Australia's Eastern states, plus a further 400,000 former NZ passport holders who now travel on Australian passports. That is the same population as the South Island of New Zealand. Plus there are a further 2.5 million non-New Zealanders in BNE's catchment area and a further 4.8 million non-New Zealanders in MEL's catchment area. And they all have an average disposable income almost double that of New Zealanders domiciled in New Zealand.

I don't dispute any of that.

I have said frequently that I would very much like to see Air NZ use its beyond Australia rights. So I'm confused.

Quoting NZ2 (Reply 54):
But all other airlines face the same issues and have access to the same equipment, it comes down to the choices the respective management team take in aircraft and route selection. These woes are not QF's alone.

I don't claim them to be Qantas' woes alone. My point is exactly the reverse. I agree with what Boeing said a couple of weeks ago - airlines must adapt to the new economic realities or collapse.

Quoting NZ2 (Reply 54):
Hmmm, what about Emirates who operate around 100 x 777's? Sorry but that statement does not have credence.

I don't know what doesn't have credence. Are you saying that the projections are wrong and that Air France/KLM is going to record a profit?

mariner

[Edited 2012-01-05 17:30:16]
aeternum nauta
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8336
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:18 am

Quoting zkncj (Reply 52):
Has ZK-NAQ been pulled from service?

ZK-NAQ?? that was a 737-204 originally - went to Cayman airways. I couldn't find it on the register. Is that the right rego??
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
nz2
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:38 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Fri Jan 06, 2012 2:24 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 55):
I don't know what doesn't have credence. Are you saying that the projections are wrong and that Air France/KLM is going to record a profit?


What I am saying is you cannot blame the 777 for the financial standing of AF/KLM, it is the management and other circumstances not its choice of aircraft.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Fri Jan 06, 2012 2:56 am

Quoting NZ2 (Reply 57):
What I am saying is you cannot blame the 777 for the financial standing of AF/KLM, it is the management and other circumstances not its choice of aircraft.

I don't "blame" the 777. I don't "blame" any aircraft.

Emirates is a very profitable airline and flies the 777. Lufthansa is a very profitable airline and doesn't fly the 777. It does fly the (much reviled on a.net) A340 as well as the supposedly "inefficient" 747.

I am saying that the 777 is not the magic bullet for all the problems at Qantas, which are deeper and more broad-ranging than simply the choice of aircraft.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4081
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Fri Jan 06, 2012 3:16 am

Quoting gemuser (Reply 50):
Agree the B777 has lower DIRECT operating costs than the B744. I'd bet that the three second hand B744s had lower TOTAL operating costs than three new B777. You CANNOT ignore the financing and other indriect costs.

Yes, but if they had ordered Boeing 777-200ERs earlier, so that they were being delivered from 1998/1999 onwards (same timespan that British Airways, Emirates and SIA were getting their first ones) the aircraft would have nearly paid for themselves (or done so to a significant degree) by 2008 when the oil prices peaked.

Quoting mariner (Reply 58):
I am saying that the 777 is not the magic bullet for all the problems at Qantas, which are deeper and more broad-ranging than simply the choice of aircraft.

I agree but one of Qantas' problems is its less efficient long haul fleet.
First to fly the 787-9
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Fri Jan 06, 2012 3:45 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 58):
I am saying that the 777 is not the magic bullet for all the problems at Qantas, which are deeper and more broad-ranging than simply the choice of aircraft.

Sorry, I misunderstood.

I thought that @alangirvan and yourself were implying that there is a fundamental economic argument against flying

Australia/NZ - intermediate point - UK

with oil prices where they are now.

And I was arguing that it's a lot more economical to do so with a 777 than with a 747. And that Qantas backed the wrong horse.
 
ZKSUJ
Posts: 6875
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 5:15 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Fri Jan 06, 2012 3:46 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 51):
The 77L burning something under 7t./ hr and the 744 something over 9t an hour.

I heard the 77L is the best machine on routes 6+ hours for the 777 family. 7t is pretty good.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 45):
Yes introducing a new type is more money for an airline. Do you really believe that QF has the right long haul fleet right now with only B744s and A380s with nothing around the A340/B777 size for routes that don't require B744s?

They did order the A330 family which would have been a great fit to a) replace 767s and b) fill the gap in that market. However many these 332s seem to have gone to JQ instead of QF. If we are discussing fleet choices alone, it seems like QF managment are the big reason for the woes of the airline with decisions like this. A fleet of 380, 744, 333, 332 would have been a nice fleet which could happily turn a profit.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 45):
Its a known fact the B777 has lower operating costs then the B744s, if it wasn't true then the B777 wouldn't have ripped apart the A340s sales or Boeing would have faced some problems with false advertising.

Yea that is true. But it is hard to say that the 744 is the only/main cause for QF's woes (I got the impression it was what you implied). Other factors contribute and we all know, the 744 is not the root cause if it even was a cause at all. The jumbo is not so 'inefficient' that it will bring an airline to it's knees alone.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Fri Jan 06, 2012 4:59 am

Quoting ZKSUJ (Reply 61):
If we are discussing fleet choices alone, it seems like QF managment are the big reason for the woes of the airline with decisions like this. A fleet of 380, 744, 333, 332 would have been a nice fleet which could happily turn a profit.

That may be true, but the major problem of the 787 has been the incremental nature of the delays. If Qantas - or Air NZ or several others - had known from the git-go that the delay was going to be of this duration, they might have made other fleet decisions earlier on.

It may still be happening. I'm no great fan of Ben Sandilands florid writing style, but I admire his knowledge and this is his latest on it:

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...s-seriously-wrong-on-the-787-line/

"Something is seriously wrong on the 787 line

All Things 787 is now reporting that only two Dreamliners, both configured for longer haul flights, are going to be delivered this month.

That makes four to the start of February, the other two, in a domestic/regional configuration for All Nippon Airways, having been delivered in September and October.

What the hell is going on, not just in the media, but in Boeing? What is the problem with this jet? Why has almost every single statement by Boeing since the roll out of a decorated shell in July 2007, whether under the supposedly enforceable rules of financial guidance, or in general interviews and briefings, been variously purposefully misleading, vague, inaccurate or useless?"


I have no idea what this says for future deliveries, or the state of play with the 789, but it is troubling to read stuff like this.

Whatever reservations I have about the management of Air NZ or Qantas - any airline - or plaudits I have for that same management, it is starting to look as if the smartest airline CEO out there is Tim Clark at Emirates, who has no 787 delivery issues because he didn't order any.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
zkncj
Posts: 3432
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Fri Jan 06, 2012 7:15 pm

NZ1924 SYD-LAX? covering for VA again?
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Fri Jan 06, 2012 8:26 pm

Quoting koruman (Reply 53):

There are 600,000 people with NZ passports living in Australia's Eastern states, plus a further 400,000 former NZ passport holders who now travel on Australian passports. That is the same population as the South Island of New Zealand. Plus there are a further 2.5 million non-New Zealanders in BNE's catchment area and a further 4.8 million non-New Zealanders in MEL's catchment area. And they all have an average disposable income almost double that of New Zealanders domiciled in New Zealand.

Do you think that there is room for an airline like Air New Zealand to grow long haul service out of BNE or MEL? That seems a bit confusing to me. BNE and MEL have seen long haul competition go up. Both have multiple daily flights to LAX, so that rules out the US market as an opportunity. Southeast Asia is well covered, so that leaves Japan and China as unserved markets. That seems like a very limited opportunity.

Also, I know you have a strong sense of national pride when choosing airlines and destinations, but I'm not sure citizenship has much to do with air travel decisions. Just because there are New Zealand citizens in Australia does not mean that they will choose New Zealand airlines for their service. I'd expect any operations to be filled with mostly Australian or foreign citizens since they are the ones traveling the majority of the routes.

NZ operated SYD-LAX for many years. That was back when there was only QF and UA as competition and they still couldn't make it work because they had limited feed and it was not their primary base. UA and QF dominated the route until their eventual pullout. Australia has only become more competitive since then.

In my opinion, the way for NZ to lose more money faster on their long haul operations is to start long haul operations from Australia. In my opinion tailoring their market around the New Zealand and South Pacific market is what they should do. Having larger premium cabins for specific routes like LAX and LHR and smaller premium cabins for other routes makes sense. Developing New Zealand tourism makes sense. Searching for subsidies from South Pacific nations looking for expanded service makes sense. Trying to grow just to grow does not make sense.

Quoting koruman (Reply 53):

Alaska Airlines simply leverage their rights as a US carrier to serve larger and more profitable cities than can be found in their own state.

I think the connection of how Alaska operates is a bit of a stretch. It is true that Alaska Airlines dominated a saturated market and moved south to expand. However that was in the 1960s when air travel was regulated and much more fragmented. AS has been based in Seattle for 50 years. It still dominates the Alaska market, but the airline is focused on Seattle and the Western US. I don't think there is an untapped market in Australia where Air New Zealand can grow.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
xiaotung
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:58 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:19 pm

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 64):
Do you think that there is room for an airline like Air New Zealand to grow long haul service out of BNE or MEL? That seems a bit confusing to me. BNE and MEL have seen long haul competition go up. Both have multiple daily flights to LAX, so that rules out the US market as an opportunity. Southeast Asia is well covered, so that leaves Japan and China as unserved markets. That seems like a very limited opportunity.

When Norris was still CEO, Brisbane mayor was courting NZ to open AKL-BNE-PVG route. Of course later NZ chose to fly to PVG direct under Fyfe. BNE still doesn't have a direct flight to PVG. Would that have been a better route for NZ?
 
xiaotung
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:58 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:23 pm

http://www.smh.com.au/business/virgi...continue-in-nz-20120105-1pmrt.html

It looks like DJ is still losing money on the Tasman since the alliance with NZ took place. Why don't they just pull out altogether and leave it all to NZ and share some revenue? Does ACCC prohibit this from happening?
 
ZKOJH
Posts: 1500
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:51 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Sat Jan 07, 2012 12:08 am

So yet another great move by NZ lets buy a stake in an airline and get some profit oh wait still to many animals on the Tasman to fight with, It sounds just like the failed buy of LH of BD and look where that has ended up - being brought by ‘IAG' and them leaving Star Alliance this year. What has gone wrong at the head of NZ over the last year. !! ?? It was once a great company but I wonder like many others and can see that its in a mess.
Air New Zealand ~ dreams of flying
 
kiwiinoz
Posts: 2000
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:07 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Sat Jan 07, 2012 3:13 am

I'm amazed that the ballooning tragedy has not been mentioned yet:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10777246

It sounds absolutely horrifying. A very experienced pilot apparently.
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Sat Jan 07, 2012 4:10 am

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 64):
Do you think that there is room for an airline like Air New Zealand to grow long haul service out of BNE or MEL?
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 64):
Both have multiple daily flights to LAX, so that rules out the US market as an opportunity. Southeast Asia is well covered, so that leaves Japan and China as unserved markets. That seems like a very limited opportunity.

Yes, I do. Three years ago the only service from BNE to North America was Qantas 5 times weekly, with an inferior product in every class (at the time) to Air New Zealand. No Honolulu. No San Francisco. No Vancouver.

Air NZ hesitated and Virgin Australia entered the market with a 77W which was too big for the market. Air NZ's 77E orders and options would have been perfect for all those routes, except for BNE-HNL which was ideal for the 763 (and is now an Air Australia A330 route).

As for Asia, the only Qantas routes are to Singapore and Hong Kong. I have long argued that if Air NZ had taken steps to fly BNE-HKG and MEL-HKG it could have made its HKG-LHR flight work far better.

I'm a top tier Star Alliance elite in BNE's 4.5 million catchment area. And my only options are Singapore Airlines to SIN or Air NZ.

But let's be clear about this. With Virgin a new "virtual" long-haul entrant at BNE and MEL, I'm not arguing that NZ should compete with them. I'm saying that they should persuade Virgin to desert their absentee spouse Delta to get into bed with them instead.

I recently got a nasty surprise with a Virgin-ticketed, Virgin-coded long-haul itinerary. I got the points I was expecting, but zero status points, which it turns out is because the "virtual" network doesn't always include status earning. An expansion of the Virgin-NZ partnership to long-haul would suit many customers just fine.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 64):
NZ operated SYD-LAX for many years. That was back when there was only QF and UA as competition and they still couldn't make it work because they had limited feed and it was not their primary base.

That's not quite correct. The demise of Ansett removed their domestic feed, and the only aircraft they had with the range to fly SYD-LAX was a huge 744. If they had had 77Es at the time the story would have been different.

Also, as you well know, they did an under-the-table anti-competitive deal with United, wherein United withdrew from AKL-LAX to give Air NZ a duopoly with Qantas, in return for Air NZ withdrawing from SYD-LAX to give United a duopoly with Qantas.
 
NZ1
Head Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 1796
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 1:32 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Sat Jan 07, 2012 4:30 am

Quoting kiwiinoz (Reply 68):

There was a thread started earlier here:

11 Die In NZ Hot Air Balloon Crash (by texan Jan 6 2012 in Civil Aviation)

NZ1
--
NZ1
Head Forum Moderator
 
kiwiandrew

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Sat Jan 07, 2012 4:32 am

Quoting koruman (Reply 69):
I have long argued that if Air NZ had taken steps to fly BNE-HKG and MEL-HKG it could have made its HKG-LHR flight work far better.

and when arguing for it have you actually checked whether NZ has the relevant rights to pick up pax in MEL/BNE and take them to HKG and beyond? From my ( limited) understanding of the Air Services Agreement between New Zealand and Hong Kong it is far from clear whether those rights actually exist.

Quoting koruman (Reply 69):
Also, as you well know, they did an under-the-table anti-competitive deal with United, wherein United withdrew from AKL-LAX to give Air NZ a duopoly with Qantas, in return for Air NZ withdrawing from SYD-LAX to give United a duopoly with Qantas.

Do we 'know' this? or is it just another exmample of an oft repeated Anet rumour which has taken on a life of it's own regardless of whether there is any factual basis? Repeating something over and over does not necessarily make it true. I know that NZ ceased their SYD-LAX flights after losing a lot of their feed in the wake of the AN collapse, and at a time when a lot of Aussie customers were feeling pretty anti NZ, and I also know that at a time when UA was fighting for it's own survival it dropped the LAX-AKL flight ( as well as many others) . As I recall vividly, in the same era many airlines worldwide slashed their route networks and retrenched in order to survive. I don't know whether any or all of these route closures were as a result of clandestine agreements ( although of course it does make a wonderful story for conspiracy theorists)

Quoting koruman (Reply 69):
I recently got a nasty surprise with a Virgin-ticketed, Virgin-coded long-haul itinerary. I got the points I was expecting, but zero status points,


Judging by some of your posts over the years you have had a few nasty surprises with status points, perhaps it would be an idea to check before you pay for an itinerary what you will earn from it rather than waiting to find out after you have already flown and then feeling ripped off?
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Sat Jan 07, 2012 5:40 am

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 71):
when arguing for it have you actually checked whether NZ has the relevant rights to pick up pax in MEL/BNE and take them to HKG and beyond?

I worded my post quite carefully to reflect that uncertainty. There are steps open to Air NZ in seeking to explore new markets and traffic rights, which of course is where the admirable John Macilree comes in!

My understanding, by the way, is that for example AKL-BNE-HKG and CHC-MEL-HKG are not the problems - the issue is obtaining rights for additional flights beyond HKG.

I have also written, numerous times, that if HKG rights could not be obtained, there are numerous other ports in Asia which could have been used as an NZ/Virgin group hub allowing affordable crewing and the same commercial advantages claimed for SQ and EK by virtue of their hubs.

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 71):
Judging by some of your posts over the years you have had a few nasty surprises with status points, perhaps it would be an idea to check before you pay for an itinerary what you will earn from it rather than waiting to find out after you have already flown and then feeling ripped off?

I thought I had. Thanks for the concern though 

The Virgin Velocity website and the back of the Virgin magazine list several airline's services which do not attract Status Credits when booking flights with them which carry their code (as opposed to Virgin Australia's).

But the Terms and Conditions on the website and the site itself do not identify any codeshare-operated VA flights which do not attract Status Credits, and so I assumed that I was safe.

When my status didn't change when I expected it to I emailed Virgin Velocity to enquire why. They told me that the codeshares only include Status Credits if the operating airline pays Virgin Velocity money to account for the Status Credits, and referred me back to the T&C - which still didn't specify which codeshare partner's flights do and don't include Status Credits.

A smile may form now on Mariner's lips when I say that having had experiences which I consider to be unacceptable with status credits on own-airline coded and own-airline ticketed Virgin and Air New Zealand tickets, I'm now reluctantly coming to the conclusion that maybe I should give Qantas a go. The vast bulk of my long-haul flying is Hawaii, California, the UK and Tahiti, so Emirates and Singapore Airlines have limited amounts to offer me. I thought that Virgin Australia was a realistic option, but the status credit situation has now convinced me otherwise.
 
cchan
Posts: 979
Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 8:54 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:21 am

Quoting koruman (Reply 69):
I have long argued that if Air NZ had taken steps to fly BNE-HKG and MEL-HKG it could have made its HKG-LHR flight work far better.

Don't forget there is a very strong competitor here: CX. With both CX and QF as competitors, these maybe too hard for NZ?
 
PA515
Posts: 1569
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Sat Jan 07, 2012 2:42 pm

Quoting zkncj (Reply 63):
NZ1924 SYD-LAX? covering for VA again?

The 7th Jan NZ1924 was ZK-NBU arriving AKL from SIN about 0830. The flight number was previously used for a SYD-LAX charter and incorrectly recognised as a SYD-LAX flight by data.flight24.com

PA515
 
nascarnut
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:43 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Sat Jan 07, 2012 3:52 pm

Appears QANTAS A380 diverting to AKL. QF012 ETA into AKL around 0800 on Sunday 8th Jan

[Edited 2012-01-07 08:27:08]
 
nascarnut
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:43 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Sat Jan 07, 2012 3:55 pm

The Black 777-300, ZK-OKQ is due into AKL on 12 Jan.
NZ6391 etd PAE 2110/10 eta AKL 0900/12
 
boeing767-300
Posts: 625
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 11:23 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Sat Jan 07, 2012 4:09 pm

The debate on whether or not QF should have bought 777s rages on. I think it has a lot to do with the original purchase of A380. The A330 came as the 'steak knives' for the A380 sale. I had never heard this until a QF staffer told me.

Whilst not doubting the A330 for some missions it is no 777 and the introduction of the A330 made the aquisition of 777 even more unlikely.

In hindsight the best option may have been 10 A380 2577W /77L and refurb the 767s until arrival of 787 for 767 replacement and long thin routes....
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Sat Jan 07, 2012 5:50 pm

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 77):
Whilst not doubting the A330 for some missions it is no 777 and the introduction of the A330 made the aquisition of 777 even more unlikely.

I think that is true.

With the A380 for the big long haul routes, the A330 is probably more useful to Qantas than the 777 would have been.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
jasewgtn
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2000 5:24 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:38 pm

Funny site this morning,

Flew AKL/HLZ on NZ2203, ZK-EAD (B1900D) and we were taxing out behind a Qantas Widebody A/C which held at A1 and we snuck out before it on A2 Runway 23L

To my suprise it was an A380. David vs Goliath or what! LOL

Did QF have a divert to AKL this morning or scheduled up-gauge?

[Edited 2012-01-07 13:45:29]
 
nascarnut
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:43 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:04 pm

Quoting jasewgtn (Reply 79):
Did QF have a divert to AKL this morning or scheduled up-gauge?

Diversion. QF012 SYD-LAX VH-OQI
 
deconz
Posts: 153
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 11:14 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:18 pm

Quoting nascarnut (Reply 80):
Diversion. QF012 SYD-LAX VH-OQI

QF012 LAX-SYD
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:28 pm

Quoting cchan (Reply 73):
Quoting mariner (Reply 78):
With the A380 for the big long haul routes, the A330 is probably more useful to Qantas than the 777 would have been.

I don't agree at all.

The A380 may be a good size for SYD-SIN-LHR and SYD-LAX.

But it is too large to be ideal for BNE-LAX, BNE-Asia-LHR, MEL-Asia-Europe and even MEL-LAX. And certainly for SYD-DFW and SYD-JNB.

But the A330 hasn't got enough range to fly any of those routes, whereas the 77E or 77L does.

So Qantas is left having to use gas-guzzling 747s on those routes. The only long(ish) haul routes where Qantas could use the A330 are Australia-Asia and Australia-HNL. But it has given so many of them to Jetstar that it can't, so we have the delicious irony of Qantas using clapped-out 763 aircraft on SYD-HNL which actually have an inferior hard product to Jetstar's 330s.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:48 pm

Quoting koruman (Reply 82):
But it is too large to be ideal for BNE-LAX, BNE-Asia-LHR, MEL-Asia-Europe and even MEL-LAX. And certainly for SYD-DFW and SYD-JNB.

But the A330 hasn't got enough range to fly any of those routes, whereas the 77E or 77L does.

Hmmmm? The A330HGW has a range of around 7000 nautical miles (6840nm-7200nm):

Jetstar Confirms HGW A332s (by JerseyFlyer Oct 2 2009 in Civil Aviation)

http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2009/05/31/a330-vs-787/

A330-200 5t Payload Uprate (by Brons2 May 9 2009 in Civil Aviation)

mariner

[Edited 2012-01-07 16:10:04]
aeternum nauta
 
nascarnut
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:43 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:11 am

Aerolineas Argentinas latest A340-300 LV-CSE just arrived in AKL from XMN.
Looks good in new paint scheme.
Aircraft is parked on layover stand at Intl
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:32 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 83):
Hmmmm? The A330HGW has a range of around 7000 nautical miles (6840nm-7200nm):

How many A330-200's do QF and JQ have? AirFleets say's 8. Apparently 4 are used domestically and are probably not HGW versions. Leaves four for International of which AUS-AKL-LAX -JFK and return would need two or more.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:37 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 85):
How many A330-200's do QF and JQ have? AirFleets say's 8. Apparently 4 are used domestically and are probably not HGW versions. Leaves four for International of which AUS-AKL-LAX -JFK and return would need two or more.

I've no idea and it doesn't look as if Qantas plans to use the HGW to its range advantage, just as I don't think Qantas is going to acquire the 777.

I was simply responding to Koruman's comments on the range.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:48 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 86):
I was simply responding to Koruman's comments on the range.

I understand. But there is a gap between what the A330-300's and 767-300ER's can do and the 744's.
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:57 am

My (very crude) understanding is that the rule of thumb is that an A330-200 can fly SYD-HNL or AKL-LAX but cannot fly BNE-LAX or SYD-LAX with a commercially viable load.

I still think that Qantas got caught with their pants down. They thought they would be just fine with a portfolio of A380 and 747-400 aircraft as well as a handful of A330s for all their long-range needs until the 787 came along.

And that is causing major problems now, because they have a capability gap for markets too small for the A380 now, with their only options being gas-guzzling 747s or range-restricted A330 and 767 aircraft.

And that's why I don't think that the comments about Qantas cutting back from 4 to 2 daily LHR flights is particularly relevant to this thread, because what we're actually seeing is maintenance of A380 flights and discontinuation of 747 flights, which seems to me to be due to the interaction of high oil prices and high 747 fuel consumption.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Sun Jan 08, 2012 2:45 am

Quoting koruman (Reply 88):
My (very crude) understanding is that the rule of thumb is that an A330-200 can fly SYD-HNL or AKL-LAX but cannot fly BNE-LAX or SYD-LAX with a commercially viable load.

From the mouth of Airbus, Koruman:

http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/pr...ean-air-orders-six-more-a330-200s/

"Korean Air has placed a new firm order with Airbus for six more A330-200 aircraft. The order is the first for the new 238 tonne increased take-off weight version of the popular twin-engine widebody, offering an extended flying range of up to 7,200 nautical miles"

The extended range of 7200 nautical miles means it can fly to just about all the places you said it couldn't.

As in that a.net/Jetstar link I posted for you, the A330HGW could fly, say, MEL-BKK-LHR. If Qantas doesn't want to use it for that, it isn't about the aircraft.

Quoting koruman (Reply 88):
And that's why I don't think that the comments about Qantas cutting back from 4 to 2 daily LHR flights is particularly relevant to this thread, because what we're actually seeing is maintenance of A380 flights and discontinuation of 747 flights, which seems to me to be due to the interaction of high oil prices and high 747 fuel consumption.

I would have thought the amount of competition between Oz and the UK had a deal to do with it. All routes are ultimately capacity finite.

mariner

[Edited 2012-01-07 18:50:30]
aeternum nauta
 
alangirvan
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2000 2:13 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:06 am

The weights of the A330-200 and -300 are increasing all the time. When Qantas took their 6 new aircraft a few years ago,t hey tried routes like SYD-BOM, SYD-PEK and AKL-LAX. Of those, only AKL-LAX is still operated. The Korean A332 is the weight of a plane delivered more recently than the Qantas planes.

There are some very long A332 sectors being flown. China Southern uses A332s from Guangzhou to Western Europe - Paris and Amsterdam (and China Southern does have 777s, so they could use those if they wanted). Many European airlines use A332s between Europe and Asia - Air Berlin, which will be an OneWorld partner for Qantas. Air China uses A332s between PEK and London.

It is not just that Qantas may not have suitable aircraft. BA is also cancelling LHR-BKK-SYD, and BA could use 777s if they wanted. (BA has been using 777s on LHR-SIN-SYD for some years now). If 747s are so fuel inefficient, who does Cathay Pacific, which has a lot of 777s still operate a large fleet of 747s? Cathay has not grounded or retired its 747s fleet - they are still frontline aircraft. 77Ws may have great fuel burn, but it is not as simple as saying that the better fuel efficiency of 777s would have saved Qantas HKG-LHR and BKK-LHR routes. It would be sad if Qantas invested the capital cost of acquiring 77Ws for routes to London, to find that the yields still do not improve.
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:15 am

Quoting koruman (Reply 88):
And that's why I don't think that the comments about Qantas cutting back from 4 to 2 daily LHR flights is particularly relevant to this thread, because what we're actually seeing is maintenance of A380 flights and discontinuation of 747 flights, which seems to me to be due to the interaction of high oil prices and high 747 fuel consumption.
Quoting mariner (Reply 89):
I would have thought the amount of competition between Oz and the UK had a deal to do with it. All routes are ultimately capacity finite.

I think that the competition to which you refer has mainly hurt Qantas in terms of the 20 million passengers living within 100 km of Manchester, Newcastle, Glasgow and Birmingham, who will obviously fly Emirates / Etihad / Singapore Airlines because they, unlike Qantas/BA, won't require them to fly via Heathrow. But again, that is the choice of Qantas management.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:42 am

Quoting koruman (Reply 91):
I think that the competition to which you refer has mainly hurt Qantas in terms of the 20 million passengers living within 100 km of Manchester, Newcastle, Glasgow and Birmingham, who will obviously fly Emirates / Etihad / Singapore Airlines because they, unlike Qantas/BA, won't require them to fly via Heathrow. But again, that is the choice of Qantas management.

The difference is that Emirates, say, would probably attract many of those pax not by bringing them to Australia but by taking them to Asia.

Qantas (like Air NZ) is an end of the line airline, until and unless it sets up an Asian hub - but many people have a conniption fit about that, as Asian-ization.

I keep encountering people who seem to wish it was still called Qantas Empire Airways. And it isn't.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Sun Jan 08, 2012 5:48 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 92):
Qantas (like Air NZ) is an end of the line airline, until and unless it sets up an Asian hub - but many people have a conniption fit about that, as Asian-ization.

At long-last we agree about something!

I have no time or sympathy for the management at Qantas or Air NZ feeling sorry for themselves about being "end-of-the-line" carriers and concluding that they need to stick to one sector operations and codeshare beyond those points.

It's nonsense - it's a recipe for giving half your revenue to someone else for doing something you could have done yourself.

I am entirely comfortable with Qantas and/or Air New Zealand finding themselves an amenable government somewhere in Asia and hubbing operations to multiple European ports there. I don't believe that Asian crews should be allowed to work the flights between those hubs and Australia or New Zealand, but Asia-Europe seems fair game to me.

But the single sector point-to-point model enrages me. By the same logic, there should be no supermarket chains, just local produce being bartered in your home village.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Sun Jan 08, 2012 6:29 am

Quoting koruman (Reply 93):
But the single sector point-to-point model enrages me. By the same logic, there should be no supermarket chains, just local produce being bartered in your home village.

It doesn't actually enrage me, very little enrages me these days, but we agree in principle.

I've always believed that the NZ market isn't big enough to support much more than it has - if that - it's just that my preferences are different from yours.

I am much more focussed on the Pacific Rim/China//Asia - and a wee bitty beyond - and I think it is bizarre to think that people (from places other than Oz) just want to come to NZ and go home again.

Quoting koruman (Reply 93):
I don't believe that Asian crews should be allowed to work the flights between those hubs and Australia or New Zealand, but Asia-Europe seems fair game to me.

I don't have a problem with them working those flights. Bare minimum, I think the language issues have to be addressed, and it is never going to happen under the Kiwi education system - but I think that for those flights they should be paid accordingly.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4081
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:07 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 89):
From the mouth of Airbus, Koruman:

http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/pr...ean-air-orders-six-more-a330-200s/

"Korean Air has placed a new firm order with Airbus for six more A330-200 aircraft. The order is the first for the new 238 tonne increased take-off weight version of the popular twin-engine widebody, offering an extended flying range of up to 7,200 nautical miles"

The extended range of 7200 nautical miles means it can fly to just about all the places you said it couldn't.

As in that a.net/Jetstar link I posted for you, the A330HGW could fly, say, MEL-BKK-LHR. If Qantas doesn't want to use it for that, it isn't about the aircraft.

Yes but unless i'm wrong, this range increase is only for A330-200s delivered from 2010 onwards. A330s delivered before then cannot operate 7,200nm routes with a worthwhile payload. I believe Koruman's point was that Qantas management thought they would be fine with their existing A330s and wouldn't need to order any more aircraft (either more A330-200s or, for instance, 777s) to meet their needs until the 787s arrived.

As it happens, Qantas has three A330-200s that were delivered in 2010 (VH-EBN, VH-EBO and VH-EBP). I'm not sure if they are HGW versions with the extra range.

I hope all that made sense.
First to fly the 787-9
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Sun Jan 08, 2012 5:15 pm

Quoting zkojq (Reply 95):
Yes but unless i'm wrong, this range increase is only for A330-200s delivered from 2010 onwards.

I believe that's right.

Quoting zkojq (Reply 95):
I believe Koruman's point was that Qantas management thought they would be fine with their existing A330s and wouldn't need to order any more aircraft (either more A330-200s or, for instance, 777s) to meet their needs until the 787s arrived.

At more than one point in time, that thinking was quite correct.

As I said earlier, the incremental nature of the 787 delays was a real problem for any fleet planner.

If Qantas thought they were going to get their first 787's in 2008 but they were delayed until 2009, that's one thing - they could handle a year delay.

If Qantas thought they were going to get their first 787's in 2008 and they were delayed until 2014, I think you might have seen some other aircraft orders, a different fleet plan.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
nascarnut
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:43 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Sun Jan 08, 2012 6:50 pm

The newest Toll Holdings 737 freighter arrived in AKL 8th Jan after ferrying LAX-HNL-APW-AKL.
N704AG 737-400SF to be registered ZK-TLF. Aircraft is currently in an All White finish, same as ZK-FXT 737-300SF that Airwork use to operate AKL-CHC mail run.
 
User avatar
LHRBFSTrident
Posts: 574
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:38 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Sun Jan 08, 2012 9:11 pm

Any ideas why ZK-NBT was parked remote at LAX on Saturday afternoon (Jan 7) ?

I thought LAX was an all-77W/77E operation at this point - was there a substitution?
 
aklrno
Posts: 1542
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:18 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 108

Sun Jan 08, 2012 9:25 pm

Quoting LHRBFSTrident (Reply 98):
Any ideas why ZK-NBT was parked remote at LAX on Saturday afternoon (Jan 7) ?

I thought LAX was an all-77W/77E operation at this point - was there a substitution?

There is still a 747 AKL-LAX and return 3 or 4 days a week. I'm heading out on one in a few hours.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos