Quoting DeltaB717 (Reply 99):

I think I read somewhere that the 767s weren't getting painted as they are leaving the fleet by 2016. I could be wrong though.

Quoting cchan (Reply 98): I am wondering whether the A320NEO could do RAR-SYD with full loads. Could be a better sized aircraft to use on this route than the 789 or 772?

Would appear to be about an 8-hr sector assuming a 454k cruise speed. The A320neo payload/range table suggests it should carry a full passenger load. But is there a cargo component on this route?

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 101): But is there a cargo component on this route?

Thanks. Probably not much cargo on this route, especially on the RAR-SYD sector.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 101): Would appear to be about an 8-hr sector assuming a 454k cruise speed. The A320neo payload/range table suggests it should carry a full passenger load. But is there a cargo component on this route?

I'm no expert but it can do RAR-SYD albeit with little freight but can't do AKL/CHC-PER, is this because of Freight carried?

Quoting ZK-NBT (Reply 103): but it can do RAR-SYD albeit with little freight

OOPS, my bad, read the pounds column not the kg column. The A320neo is good for about 3.5hrs at max passenger.....sorry.

Quoting zkncj (Reply 73): I find the current Domestic A320 to be pretty comfortable, well that's in space thankfully never had to sit down the back of the bus on either an Domestic or International A320

I'm not complaining about their comfortableness as such, I just don't think they look so great.

Quoting byronicle6 (Reply 100): I think I read somewhere that the 767s weren't getting painted as they are leaving the fleet by 2016

I hope they are allowed the dignity of getting to retire in the current livery.

Quoting Unclekoru (Reply 97): EAL is the first to go. I believe it's a 13 aircraft schedule now, not 12 as mentioned above.

Shouldn't the oldest aircraft in the fleet (ZK-EAQ, I believe which was bought second hand) get retired/sold first?

Quoting zkojq (Reply 105): Shouldn't the oldest aircraft in the fleet (ZK-EAQ, I believe which was bought second hand) get retired/sold first?

Expect EAL, EAM, EAN, EAO and EAP to go first as the last 1900D's built should get the best price. Didn't see any listed for sale, so perhaps they already have a buyer.

And read somewhere that AKL-NSN will get a 10% increase in seats over the next 12 months with more ATR flights. Presume that means an ATR overnight at NSN. ATR's MVE and MVF are due in Sep 14 and '1st Qtr 15. Nothing in the schedule yet, but another two DH3's released to replace BEH's.

PA515

Quoting cchan (Reply 102): Thanks. Probably not much cargo on this route, especially on the RAR-SYD sector.

RAR-SYD is mainly operated for the freight, rather the passenger load. The flight carrys fresh sea food direct to the SYD Market, and was part of the reason for the route starting.

WLG have announced the runway extension is being considered for the southern end with final details in the next few months. http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post...Airport-to-stretch-south-not-north

ZK-OKR just departed Paine Field (KPAE) as ANZ6391 for Auckland a few minutes ago. It's scheduled to arrive at 7:32am.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/ZKOKR

[Edited 2014-06-06 23:56:26]

Quoting DeltaB717 (Reply 99): . is there any chance ZK-NCI, which is currently in maintenance in HKG, will be the first 76W in the new colours?

The answer to that is no. No 767s are being repainted.

NZ1

Quoting 777ER (Reply 108): WLG have announced the runway extension is being considered for the southern end with final details in the next few months

Does some of this length need to be used to improve the over runs ? This extension should allow a JQ 788 to go ~12 hrs. at max passenger load

[Edited 2014-06-07 06:07:59]

Quoting 777ER (Reply 108): WLG have announced the runway extension is being considered for the southern end with final details in the next few months.

It was a stupid idea when first proposed and it's still a stupid idea now. New Zealand does not need 3 airports capable of long haul flights. It's just a big waste of ratepayer money.

Quoting NZ1 (Reply 110): ZK-OKR just departed Paine Field (KPAE) as ANZ6391 for Auckland a few minutes ago. It's scheduled to arrive at 7:32am.

Currently showing due into AKL @ 0825 now. Just in front of NZ90

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 112): It was a stupid idea when first proposed and it's still a stupid idea now. New Zealand does not need 3 airports capable of long haul flights. It's just a big waste of ratepayer money.

Extension for safety reasons could be considered, but extension to accommodate long haul jets is just ridiculous.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 112): It's just a big waste of ratepayer money.

Let it be financed by the two stakeholders . If they try and saddle airlines with the debt servicing costs in the landing fees they will find it increasingly difficult to attract new carriers and to keep what they have . Perhaps the most useful end result is that it will allow WLG-BNE services to operate at max passenger load instead of limiting seats sold to about 150. It find it amusing to read of all the economic spin offs but absolute silence on who the brave souls are going to be that will provide the medium for all this to happen. It smacks of a repeat of the failed CHC-KUL service. A lot of hoopla but a distinct shortage of customers stepping up and plonking their money down.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 115): Let it be financed by the two stakeholders

Isn't one of the two main stakeholders the Wellington City Council, so they would end up costing rate payers.


I don't think they will get an cent out of NZ, its really the most over priced airport in the country. To the point NZ has take them to court in the pass, and have also stated they would be more willing to invest into PPQ.

OKR arrived this morning, following OKC. 2 boring livery planes. The livery looks particularly bad on the longer 77W - there's too much white.

Air New Zealand Boeing 777-300ER New Livery by ANZ787900, on Flickr

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 115): Let it be financed by the two stakeholders . If they try and saddle airlines with the debt servicing costs in the landing fees they will find it increasingly difficult to attract new carriers and to keep what they have . Perhaps the most useful end result is that it will allow WLG-BNE services to operate at max passenger load instead of limiting seats sold to about 150. It find it amusing to read of all the economic spin offs but absolute silence on who the brave souls are going to be that will provide the medium for all this to happen. It smacks of a repeat of the failed CHC-KUL service. A lot of hoopla but a distinct shortage of customers stepping up and plonking their money down.

Of course it will be financed by the two stakeholders - who else is there in the frame? But of course there will also be an expectation that the airlines will ultimately fund it through their fees and charges - that's how any commercial venture works. I think that Infratil does need some credit for being over the years a company with reasonable judgement - leaving aside Manston and Lubeck, perhaps, and in the case of Lubeck did put in provisions to the purchase which allowed it an "out" - which they took.

I'd have thought that extending a short 6,300 ft runway to around 7,300 ft is far from just about attracting long-haul carriers. If, as you say, it will allow an extra 30-odd seats on a 738 flight on WLG-BNE, I'd have thought VA/NZ would indeed be very supportive and happy with that as an investment that they would not mind having to help pay off. I'm less clear why you equate the long-haul prospects with the D7 service on CHC-KUL. It's not as if long-haul services from CHC are inherently problematic - SQ, NZ and EK all seem to come back year after year without any complaint, and China Southern are clearly impressed with the possibilities in the medium term at least. While D7 failed in CHC (as did TG and BA years ago) others have succeeded.

I think that the most likely way in which WLG would be served long-haul is by an EK-style connection from east coast Australia. If that brought EK, CX, TG or whomever into the capital, traffic rights notwithstanding, why wouldn't we wish them the very best and hope that for both WLG and the airline concerned it was a success? I find all the doom and gloom about what a waste of money a runway extension might be to be quite narrow, "glass-half-empty" thinking.

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 117): The livery looks particularly bad on the longer 77W - there's too much white.

Yawn - I'm getting so tired of hearing on A-net how boring the new livery is. On this topic, I prefer to listen to friends and acquaintances who are not airline junkies, and I can tell you that from that quarter the verdict is almost universal praise and pride in the livery and the use of black as a colour that they identify with and which they feel represents New Zealand. I travelled AKL-WLG on JQ with two friends a week or so ago, and as we taxied past the NZ domestic fleet line-up my friends consciously strained their heads and leaned across me (seated in the window seat) to see if they could spot one of the A320 fleet in the new colour scheme, and were ecstatic and full of positive comment when they did.

In general (and this isn't aimed at NZ107!) our NZ thread is infused with cynicism, negativity and criticism. Lighten up, people! It almost makes me yearn for one of K'man's blue-sky thinking posts - while I don't always agree with him, and while he can be a bit of a broken record, at least his "blue-sky" posts are positive and innovative. Mind you, he also has a penchant for trashing what he doesn't like.

Am I the only one here who thinks that a measured critique, acknowledging both the positive and negative aspects of a decision or initiative, is more interesting to read than a simplistic trashing of an idea? Or the only one that doesn't think that airline management are imbeciles for not understanding the airline business as well as A-net followers do?

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 112): Quoting 777ER (Reply 108):WLG have announced the runway extension is being considered for the southern end with final details in the next few months.It was a stupid idea when first proposed and it's still a stupid idea now. New Zealand does not need 3 airports capable of long haul flights. It's just a big waste of ratepayer money.

I don't see how an extra 300 metres will enable a good load long haul but will enable an EK/full NZ/DJ/QF loads with cargo across the Tasman

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 115): Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 112): It's just a big waste of ratepayer money. Let it be financed by the two stakeholders . If they try and saddle airlines with the debt servicing costs in the landing fees they will find it increasingly difficult to attract new carriers and to keep what they have

Exactly, If WLG charges to much then airlines won't expand and will instead take the service elsewhere

Quoting zkncj (Reply 116): have also stated they would be more willing to invest into PPQ.

When/where have NZ stated that? I'm happy still if NZ expands more at PPQ as I'm at the halfway mark for both WLG and PPQ access. Loads of free parking spots on the roads to PPQ

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 118): If that brought EK, CX, TG or whomever into the capital, traffic rights notwithstanding, why wouldn't we wish them the very best and hope that for both WLG and the airline concerned it was a success?

I try not to be negative, but that practically won't happen. As have mentioned before, population around WLG region cannot sustain regular long haul flights. Most Asian airlines have good loads from eastern Australia, does not need the handful of passengers from WLG, and are unlikely to fly their metal into WLG as an extension to their Australian flights. The management at WLG airport need to be realistic, Wellington is not a city with unlimited development potential, so don't waste our money on this nonsense.

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 118): I think that the most likely way in which WLG would be served long-haul is by an EK-style connection from east coast Australia. If that brought EK, CX, TG or whomever into the capital

EK could operate an A380 with a 50t payload out of WLG anytime it wishes to the east coast of Australia. Present runway length by itself would not present a problem

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 118): Yawn - I'm getting so tired of hearing on A-net how boring the new livery is.

I don't mind the black version on the 789.... But the 'normal' version is just so bland.

Compare that to the jaffa jet from Jetstar:

Jetstar Airbus A320 10th Birthday by ANZ787900, on Flickr

Now that is a real eye catcher.

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 122): Compare that to the jaffa jet from Jetstar:

Each to their own, but the day Air NZ has a techicolor yawn of livery like that is the day I stop flying the airline.  

mariner

I'm with DavidByrne. I'm all for the smart lines and clean colours of the new livery. Makes the PAC wave and blue tail look dated.

Quoting cchan (Reply 120):

Yes it may never happen but are you in charge of those airlines? If WLG put together a good package (just like AKL has in the past to get services.....CZ landing fees anyone?) and an airline is keen then that package will help with the launch phase. EK have publicly said in the past that WLG runway was the only thing preventing EK services. EK was very happy to finally have a presence in WLG via the QF codeshare. I wouldn't be surprised to see EK launch WLG services via Aussie replacing either both QF services on a route or simply replacing one of the daily SYD services with a B77W. Terminal/customs capacity is there, just boarding/de-boarding would slow you down if it was an A380.

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 122): Now that is a real eye catcher.

Reminds me of the green machine NZ had with the Holidays livery on ZK-SJE. I could handle the green machine but I felt sick seeing the orange machine photo! Simply too much orange there!

Quoting Aotearoa (Reply 124): I'm all for the smart lines and clean colours of the new livery

Even the borrowed/gifted silver fern? You would of thought a forward thinking company like NZ could of at least designed their own fern.

Quoting WSTAKL (Reply 126): Even the borrowed/gifted silver fern? You would of thought a forward thinking company like NZ could of at least designed their own fern.

Why? It's the logo of the partner corporation, Tourism New Zealand.

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/queenstown.../303150/air-nz-extends-partnership

"Air NZ extends partnership

A $20 million extension to marketing partnership with Tourism New Zealand is one of two key partnerships announced by Air New Zealand this week, both of which aim to drive international tourism."

Just out of interest, Ryanair charges €150,000 (minimum) to put a corporate logo on their jets.

mariner

[Edited 2014-06-08 00:23:03]

Quoting cchan (Reply 120): I try not to be negative, but that practically won't happen. As have mentioned before, population around WLG region cannot sustain regular long haul flights. Most Asian airlines have good loads from eastern Australia, does not need the handful of passengers from WLG, and are unlikely to fly their metal into WLG as an extension to their Australian flights. The management at WLG airport need to be realistic, Wellington is not a city with unlimited development potential, so don't waste our money on this nonsense.

My point, exactly - the glass-half-full approach. Given that EK is happy to fly transtasman pax to AKL and CHC as an extension of it's Australian services, and by whatever criteria they judge success, it continues year-after-year, what is so impossible about WLG? Given the QF-JQ group have no services at all on WLG-BNE, maybe an EK flight on WLG-BNE and beyond would serve QF and JQ interests well - as well as providing long-haul services from WLG.

Again, I find it interesting, and frankly, a little disturbing, that some A-netters believe they have more commercial nous than the people from Infratil et al who are putting up real $$$ for this venture. Do you seriously think that they just thought this idea up in the pub one night and didn't do some serious benefit/cost analysis? Or that they didn't canvass potential users before going public? To suggest that "they need to be realistic" is a big call for an armchair expert with no dollars in the game. I'd be more impressed with the "waste of money" and "nonsense" arguments if Infratil's shareholders rose up against the plan en masse - they're the ones in the front line, after all. As for the rest of us, what about giving WLG the benefit of the doubt and celebrating their boldness and the fact that a 7,300 ft runway will provide a bit more security for crews and passengers at one of the world's most challenging major airports?

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 128): the fact that a 7,300 ft runway will provide a bit more security for crews and passengers at one of the world's most challenging major airports?

WLG is my home airport and I feel safe flying into/out of WLG but if a pilot touches down in an area which requires a fairly full 737/320 to brake hard to safely stop then this extension is excellent news - even if it also means bigger aircraft can also safely and with a decent load use WLG then its a double win. Pilots would also be happy with a longer runway cause if they touch down further down the runway then normal then their point of no return in terms of aborting is a quick/fast think.

Quoting Motorhussy (Reply 130): Quoting mariner (Reply 123): but the day Air NZ has a techicolor yawn of livery like that is the day I stop flying the airline

I assume that's a logo et of some kind, for - what - holidays?

I don't much like it, I don't see what it's selling, but it's an inoffensive green, it isn't an assault on my eyes.  

mariner

With Air NZ on a regular basis increasing Intl and Domestic capacity out of ZQN, I am surprised they have not yet opted to operate an additional early morning flight ex AKL that could then operate a Transtasman sector and return to AKL.

Possible routing
AKL-ZQN-SYD-AKL, AKL-ZQN-MEL-AKL and AKL-ZQN-BNE-AKL
AKL-SYD-ZQN-AKL, AKL-MEL-ZQN-AKL and AKL-BNE-ZQN-AKL

Possible timings
AKL-ZQN 0830 - 1020
ZQN-SYD 1120 - 1235
SYD-AKL 1335 - 1840

AKL-SYD 0900- 1030
SYD-ZQN 1130 - 1630
ZQN-AKL 1730 - 1920

Would require regional aircraft to operate Domestic sector but with the Terminal restraints ZQN experience between 1200 and 1500 this would ease congestion while also allowing expansion without slots restrictions. This would allow the Intl passengers to check out of hotels early while allowing the AKL passengers a morning on the slopes before heading home.
It would also hinge on the twighlight curfew and when NZ are ready to operate later.
Would work during summer months..

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 117): OKR arrived this morning, following OKC. 2 boring livery planes. The livery looks particularly bad on the longer 77W - there's too much white.

I seem to buck the trend here, but I actually like the new livery. Yes saying goodbye to the teal was sad, but I think that it will grow on us eventually. I do agree that the livery could have been better executed, instead of slapping on a comparatively ugly fern they could've designed their own. At the end of the day, it looks like some thought has gone into the livery (as opposed to painting the entire fuselage white, whoever's idea that was should be dismissed) and I think it gives the airline a fresh, more modern look.

On the WLG runway note, I am a little skeptical about whether Wellington could support long-haul flights, but I'll leave that to the experts. I am in favour of extending the runway because it will give WLG and airlines options in the longer term and will also give a little more breathing room for pilots who have to land in interesting conditions.

Well I'm pleased WLG are now looking at the southern end runway extension rather than the full northern one which would have negatively impacted my view and house value. I'm glad the extension is going ahead for the increased safety but am sceptical about the airport attracting a direct long haul flight from any port in Asia. Further, EK adding a TT extension to an Oz flight offers little more advantage to the flying public than can currently be experienced with QF/EK code share and a change of planes at MEL or SYD. From an aircraft fanboy perspective though, it would be great to have a regular wide body back in the capital.

Regards
MH

Quoting Motorhussy (Reply 134): EK adding a TT extension to an Oz flight offers little more advantage to the flying public than can currently be experienced with QF/EK code share and a change of planes at MEL or SYD.

Yes, but one could make the same judgement about EK serving AKL or CHC, or about CI operating BNE-AKL and SYD-AKL, or LA operating SYD-AKL. A significant reason these carriers don't code share on such sectors is that the passenger experience isn't as good if you have to change planes and/or carriers en route. From the point of view of most passengers, I'd suggest, same-plane services provide a sense of security and comfort that is a real marketing advantage. From the point of view of the airline, it also builds the brand far more effectively than an en route change to another carrier could ever achieve.

Surely EK flights to NZ are about making modest revenue and avoiding Australian parking fees.

With the increase in EK 380 flights to Australia, another NZ destination isn't perhaps out of the question.

Given EK customer satisfaction strongly favouring the 380 ahead of the 777, think how that might translate when pitched against current Wellington offerings.

Quoting planesmart (Reply 136): Surely EK flights to NZ are about making modest revenue and avoiding Australian parking fees.

The idea that EK flights to NZ are to avoid paying parking fees at Australian airports is a notion that has been around as long as I've been following A-net - but there has never been a skerrick of evidence to support that - that I've seen, at least. If anyone can point to a source for this being the motivation, I'd be happy to see it. Otherwise, I think it has to be considered to be one of those A-net "myths" that become "fact" through people repeating them time and again.

If EK really wanted to avoid parking fees at Australian airports, then they'd surely be better off rescheduling their flights to minimise the wait. Given the number of connection "waves" they have at DXB, it shouldn't be too hard to reschedule and still connect with one of these.

In my understanding, if EK decided that they want to operate transTasman into WLG they have 3 choices:

1/ persuade the Aussie government to grant them more 5th freedom rights as they are currently utilising the maximum number they are permitted; or

2/ try to make a go of the service without 5th freedom rights, ie, longhaul pax only; or

3/transfer one of their current Tasman services out of AKL/CHC to operate to/from WLG instead.

I'm not sure the Aussie government will give them any more Tassie rights, and I certainly can't see EK making a go of the flight if they don't have rights to sell the Tasman sector. I guess if they felt that they could make more money switching one of their existing services to operate to/from WLG then they would probably have done it already.

Quoting davidByrne (Reply 137): If EK really wanted to avoid parking fees at Australian airports, then they'd surely be better off rescheduling their flights to minimise the wait. Given the number of connection "waves" they have at DXB, it shouldn't be too hard to reschedule and still connect with one of these.

The reason for current timing Ex Dubai is to give people a morning arrival and late departure to A) get full use the day and B) provide overnight flights, ie times that the customer want. As the capitol cost of the aircraft sitting in Oz is sunk and picked up by the DXB sector (s) then the TTAS trip only has to cover the variables, hence the reason for sending them to NZ ie no finance cost on the plane itself (and avoiding parking costs) thus the seats TTAS can be marginally costed to cover variables.

Quoting mariner (Reply 131): Quoting Motorhussy (Reply 130):Quoting mariner (Reply 123):but the day Air NZ has a techicolor yawn of livery like that is the day I stop flying the airlineI assume that's a logo et of some kind, for - what - holidays?

Yes it was advertising the Holiday travel stores NZ operates. NZ also had a baggage tug at WLG painted in the Holidays livery.

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 138): In my understanding, if EK decided that they want to operate transTasman into WLG they have 3 choices:1/ persuade the Aussie government to grant them more 5th freedom rights as they are currently utilising the maximum number they are permitted; or2/ try to make a go of the service without 5th freedom rights, ie, longhaul pax only; or3/transfer one of their current Tasman services out of AKL/CHC to operate to/from WLG instead.

Wouldn't EK just be able to take over one of QFs flights to WLG?

Quoting nz2 (Reply 139): The reason for current timing Ex Dubai is to give people a morning arrival and late departure to A) get full use the day and B) provide overnight flights, ie times that the customer want. As the capitol cost of the aircraft sitting in Oz is sunk and picked up by the DXB sector (s) then the TTAS trip only has to cover the variables, hence the reason for sending them to NZ ie no finance cost on the plane itself (and avoiding parking costs) thus the seats TTAS can be marginally costed to cover variables.

Yes, agree that the strategy delivers that as an outcome, but with three daily departures from SYD and MEL to Dubai (can't remember how many from BNE), and five (?) departure banks daily through DXB EK has plenty of flexibility to maintain schedules to meet most passenger preferences without doing a Transtasman sector as well.

It's not as if airlines always consciously eschew long layovers in foreign ports, either. NZ itself has an aircraft spend more than 12 hours at Hong Kong every day, 13 hours twice a week at PVG, and well over 9 hours daily at LAX. While this is sometimes down to slot availability, it's also often down to passenger flight departure preference.

As a local example, NZ could, if it chose, route its flights to YVR via LAX (as it once did) and save itself a couple of aircraft and whatever fees it currently pays at LAX for its day's sojourn. By running NZ6 earlier in the day, it could also do a daytime return flight with a much shorter layover. That it chooses not to either of these suggests to me one or more of the following:
* "Parking" fees (at LAX, at least) are not a significant factor (though that doesn't speak for SYD, MEL or BNE)
* "Saving" two aircraft (ie the capital costs of these aircraft) is not as significant as other factors in NZ's decision making
* Passenger preference for overnight flights in each direction is a strong factor in the airline's timing decisions
* The local LAX-YVR market is not one that NZ sees it could make a serious impression on
* The marginal costs (for NZ at least) of the additional sector are not sufficiently low to be persuasive

My argument is that airlines are unlikely to run extra sectors of the EK Transtasman type without considering a multiplicity of factors, and that to ascribe it simply to "parking fees" or the convenience of departure times or whatever is unlikely to be the whole story. In NZ's case, even the sum of all the above bullet point factors did not outweigh the carrier's preference to "waste" two additional aircraft on a non-stop service on AKL-YVR.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 140): Wouldn't EK just be able to take over one of QFs flights to WLG?

They still are subject to 4 flights a day T-T regardless of the QF arrangement. That was one reason they set the agreement up, so they can appeal to NZ based business traffic more without additional flights

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 122): Compare that to the jaffa jet from Jetstar:

Love the term Jaffa jet!!! Least it will be easy to spot whilst airborne

Quoting 777ER (Reply 140): Wouldn't EK just be able to take over one of QFs flights to WLG?

Definitely not. EK is not an Australian airline "yet".

Quoting davidByrne (Reply 141): My argument is that airlines are unlikely to run extra sectors of the EK Transtasman type without considering a multiplicity of factors

Remember in the case of New Zealand it is an end of line destination so airlines like CI, EK etc choose to fly their own aircraft to NZ but as an extension of Australian flights partly in EKs case due to distance (yes a 77L could do DXB-AKL) and CI not enough demand. LA go the other way again via AKL this time due to distance, costly or not enough demand to serve AKL and SYD separately.

Quoting davidByrne (Reply 141): As a local example, NZ could, if it chose, route its flights to YVR via LAX (as it once did)

Did they? Was via HNL in the 1980s, was it via LAX at some point?

Quoting davidByrne (Reply 141): As a local example, NZ could, if it chose, route its flights to YVR via LAX (as it once did) and save itself a couple of aircraft

could NZ get the same transiting arrangement at LAX for YVR as it does for LHR?

Quoting ZK-NBT (Reply 144): Did they? Was via HNL in the 1980s, was it via LAX at some point?

At one point they had two flights a week - one via HNL and the other via LAX. Times change . . .

Re the 77W to NRT:
NZ99/NZ90 AKL-NRT-AKL Sat 27 Dec 14 -- 77W replaces 789
NZ99/NZ90 AKL-NRT-AKL Sun 28 Dec 14 -- 77W replaces 763
NZ99/NZ90 AKL-NRT-AKL Sat 03 Jan 15 -- 77W replaces 789
NZ99/NZ90 AKL-NRT-AKL Sun 04 Jan 15 -- 77W replaces 763

Other flights affected are:
NZ6/NZ5 AKL-LAX-AKL Sat 27 Dec 14 -- 77E replaces 77W
NZ8/NZ7 AKL-SFO-AKL Sat 03 Jan 15 -- 77E replaces 77W

NZ175/NZ176 AKL-PER-AKL Fri 26 Dec 14 -- 77E replaces 789
NZ175/NZ176 AKL-PER-AKL Fri 02 Jan 15 -- 77E replaces 789

NZ289/NZ288 AKL-PVG-AKL Fri 26 Dec 14 -- 789 replaces 77E
NZ289/NZ288 AKL-PVG-AKL Fri 02 Jan 15 -- 789 replaces 77E

Is there a particular reason for this extra Business Premier / Premium Economy / Freight capacity to NRT?

PA515

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 145):

Why would NZ need the same transit privileges for YVR passengers at LAX when they have a direct option? Can't see how NZ could get it even if they applied/wanted it with their impending move to TBIT and UA in T7/8 and AC in T2. Maybe a Canada transit option with AC?

Looks like NZ has decided to rename the domestic fares again! http://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/new-domestic-options

Note not mention of Koru Hour, or the free snack.