PA515
Posts: 1542
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Sun Jan 18, 2015 7:07 pm

Quoting Megatop747-412 (Reply 149):

OKA and OKE have been done. Apparently OKG is next starting early Feb. There was some confusion about OKF, which had a maintenance check but no upgrade, and OKD was an unplanned substitution on an AKL-SIN-AKL.

PA515

[Edited 2015-01-18 11:08:04]

[Edited 2015-01-18 11:11:44]
 
Megatop747-412
Posts: 303
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2000 1:59 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Sun Jan 18, 2015 7:53 pm

Quoting PA515 (Reply 150):
OKA and OKE have been done. Apparently OKG is next starting early Feb. There was some confusion about OKF, which had a maintenance check but no upgrade, and OKD was an unplanned substitution on an AKL-SIN-AKL.

PA515

Thanks PA515. Yes I did notice OKD operated on one of the AKL-SIN-AKL rotation, but otherwise it seemed to be OKA & OKE which have been operating the route so far.
 
BlackLabel
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:17 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:17 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 140):
My only experience has been with EK. It took ages to log on, wasn't cheap, didn't work for large segments of the flight..... and after mounting frustration, I realised both I and the world could cope with me being off-line for 13 hours. If the system in its entirety remained user-pays I wouldn't have a problem with it, but I would hate to see the cost built in to the price of a fare. It would also provide NZ with yet another parameter with which to frustrate the purchaser (seat plus bag no wi fi plus movies no fuel etc. etc.)

Conversely I've only used it on EK once, and it was sufficient for keeping my phone connected to keep an eye on email and IMs on the flight. UA, LH, and others have far better implementations that are actually useful for working. We have people who do their '40 hours' a week just in-flight, excluding any office time. Productivity management is important and WiFi is incredibly beneficial for that (note: nobody is compelled to use it or to work in-flight; but nearly everyone does).
 
Gasman
Posts: 2053
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Mon Jan 19, 2015 2:35 am

Can anyone else think of a legacy carrier that flies routes of similar length to NZ that does *not* have a VLA included in the fleet? I can't.

I always thought that NZ's move to phase out the 744s was premature. Several airlines (QF, BA, KL, TG to name a few) still seem to be using their ageing 744's very effectively. In the early years of this century, when I flew on one packed 744 after another between AKL and LAX, it seemed a no-brainer to me that NZ would progress its fleet to the 748i. And having flown on many 744s and A380s since NZ's 744s became sparse, I continue to be convinced that they offer a level of pax comfort that the 777 just cannot (or more probably, is not allowed to) match.
 
kiwiandrew

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Mon Jan 19, 2015 2:45 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 153):
Can anyone else think of a legacy carrier that flies routes of similar length to NZ that does *not* have a VLA included in the fleet? I can't.

Off the top of my head SA)">AA has a number of sectors of similar length to NZ and so does SA. SA's largest current aircraft is the A340-600 and SA)">AA biggest is the 77W, just like NZ. JL and NH have some reasonably long sectors ( and a much bigger population base than NZ) yet they see no need for a VLA either.

I don't see any direct correlation between stage length and a need for a VLA, surely the requirement for a VLA should be driven by the traffic demands. I suppose NZ could fill a pair of 748 daily on AKL-LAX, but at the cost of fleet flexibility. What other route would they be suitable for ? When you look at the costs of separate crews/spares/maintenance/training I cannot see any reason for them to have the 748i other than that fact that some enthusiasts would like them to have them.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Mon Jan 19, 2015 2:46 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 153):
Can anyone else think of a legacy carrier that flies routes of similar length to NZ that does *not* have a VLA included in the fleet? I can't.

American Airlines? But most airlines are retiring them from their fleets, certainly on trans-Pacific. This link is 15 August, 2014:

http://www.engadget.com/2014/08/15/747-grounded/

"The death of the original jumbo jet, Boeing's 747-400

Later this month, Cathay Pacific's 747 will fly from San Francisco to Hong Kong for the very last time. It's a story we're hearing from nearly every airline still flying the most recognizable passenger jet in aviation history -- rising fuel costs are prompting carriers to ground their fleets, opting to shuttle passengers in more modern (and efficient) airliners instead.

Hundreds of 747s still take to the skies every day, but their numbers are dwindling, with Boeing's 777-300ER and 787 Dreamliner, as well as the enormous Airbus A380, picking up the slack. "


I tend to agree with you. I haven't flown the748i, but the A380 is the only aircraft on which I don't get claustrophobia after about seven hours flying. I love it.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
wstakl
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 7:51 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Mon Jan 19, 2015 3:46 am

Just curious if anyone has any thoughts on the following scenario.....

Flew NZ94 NRT-CHC on the 6JAN15. Used the Smartgate and as usual it failed to take my photo and had to go to the manned booth. This happens everytime I leave/enter the country. Fed up I questioned the immigration officer as to why this keeps happening which they said they would try and ascertain. Swipes my passport, and then procedes to thoroughly quiz me on all my travel movements. Doesn't answer my question, puts a 'R' on the arrival card and sends me through.

Reach the customs people and get pulled aside for the full bag search and drug swob etc. Again get thoroughly quizzed on my travel movements. I ask the officer if this he is a random search and tells me he has to confirm with his superior. Get told its because I was only out of the country for 8 days. Now what makes me a little pissed off is that my partner has traveled everywhere I have and wasn't even questioned or had her bags searched (they weren't even opened) This makes be believe I was pulled aside because I questioned the immigration officer about my smartgate issues.

Now I realize that the Immigration/Customs people are only doing their job, but aren't we even allowed to ask a simple question without being labelled suspicious?

[Edited 2015-01-18 19:47:31]
 
Gasman
Posts: 2053
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:09 am

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 154):
I don't see any direct correlation between stage length and a need for a VLA

Yes, I implied such a correlation but it wasn't what I meant. It was more that pax such as myself and Mariner appreciate a VLA on long haul routes, and it is still offered by other carriers. I deliberately will seek out a VLA, especially if flying in Y, for this reason.

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 154):
I suppose NZ could fill a pair of 748 daily on AKL-LAX, but at the cost of fleet flexibility. What other route would they be suitable for ?

LAX-LHR. SYD-LAX could be re-incarnated. All pie in the sky stuff now; I very much doubt we'll see a VLA flying NZ colours anytime soon.
 
User avatar
NZ107
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:51 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Mon Jan 19, 2015 5:26 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 153):
Several airlines (QF, BA, KL, TG to name a few) still seem to be using their ageing 744's very effectively

QF doesn't have 777s so they had no choice but to keep the 744s; some of which are now in the desert/scrapped. BA still has a huge 744 fleet and only (relatively) recently started getting 77Ws. TG hasn't been performing too well and there was talk that they were going to downsize throughout last year. I'm led to believe that the above airlines operated them because they had few other alternatives (cost-wise) at the time.
It's all about the destination AND the journey.
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1173
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Mon Jan 19, 2015 6:06 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 155):
I haven't flown the748i

I had that pleasure just before Xmas on LH's D-ABYD, from LAX to FRA. It felt very much like the B744, just more modern. It sure was a very pleasant ride. On the way back we were on LH's B744 D-ABVX (FRA-YVR), and that was equally nice - even seemed to have a bit more legroom. When you board an LH B744 you think it is just a year old or so - absolutely impeccable (like any LH plane).

Off-topic, I thought I would never say this, but LH's LAX-FRA-YVR sectors were *significantly* superior to NZ's AKL-LAX/YVR-AKL sectors, pretty much in every aspect. NZ and LH are my most flown airlines, so I have plenty of experience to compare the two, and this year was the first time that I thought LH left NZ well behind...

Quoting WSTAKL (Reply 156):
Get told its because I was only out of the country for 8 days.

What a ridiculous reason! If that was the case, I would be searched about 70% of my arrival times. And in the last 10 years my luggage hasn't been searched once!

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 158):
QF doesn't have 777s so they had no choice but to keep the 744s

Just like LH - they don't have the 777 either (yet), and they are doing very well with B744, B748i and A380. Of course, they are a much larger airline, but interesting to see they can make it work (plus all those - according to anet myth - fuel guzzling, inefficient A340s). The A 346 was/is probably their "B777" in terms of capacity. KE also have all three types (B744, B748i, A380) plus the 777...

I am with Mariner and gasman - I select VLR flights wherever possible (except for EK), but that means there is very little choice here out of AKL, especially if you want to ride on Star Alliance airlines. At least LH will have them for many years to come  

Happy New Year everybody!
micha

[Edited 2015-01-18 22:13:02]
 
Gasman
Posts: 2053
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:42 am

Quoting ZKEOJ (Reply 159):
Off-topic, I thought I would never say this, but LH's LAX-FRA-YVR sectors were *significantly* superior to NZ's AKL-LAX/YVR-AKL sectors, pretty much in every aspect. NZ

I had a similar experience with my recent trip SYD-JFK flying QF in Y.

Quoting ZKEOJ (Reply 159):
- I select VLR flights wherever possible (except for EK), but that means there is very little choice here out of AKL, especially if you want to ride on Star Alliance airlines

My QF trip, on each leg was *so* much better than anything I've recently had on NZ that I am seriously considering switching allegiance, and just sucking up the inconvenience of traveling via Australia when my destination is the USA. If NZ had a VLA fleet that would have gone a significant way to closing the gap - but a lot was about the soft product as well.

Quoting ZKEOJ (Reply 159):
QF doesn't have 777s so they had no choice but to keep the 744s

Just like LH - they don't have the 777 either (yet)

And NZ, of course, has embraced the 777 at the expense of the 747. There's no doubting the 777 has proved to be a bean-counters' delight. But I would argue it is the worst wide-body ever made in terms of pax comfort. It is just wide enough to tempt airlines to squeeze in ten abreast in Y, which produces a cabin which feels far more claustrophobic than anything else out there. It also has none of the headroom, feeling of ambience, and walk around room that even a densely configured 744 seems to have. My original point was that many airlines that have also embraced the 777, offer a VLA option as well - in other words, the 777 is the workhorse, rather than the airline's flagship.

[Edited 2015-01-18 23:51:31]
 
dash8
Posts: 389
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 8:23 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Mon Jan 19, 2015 10:02 am

Hi All,

Wondering if anyone could inform me why VA still has the 700's in their fleet, the got rid of some but seem to have 2 remaining in the fleet, one of which has just been repainted into new livery. Just don't know why they are hanging onto 2 of them?
 
nascarnut
Posts: 305
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:43 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Tue Jan 20, 2015 12:07 am

NZ's 6th ATR72-600 is scheduled to operate on 23rd Jan.
23rd CHC-ROT-CHC-ZQN-CHC-HLZ-CHC
24th CHC-HLZ-CHC-IVC
 
Kashmon
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 8:08 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Tue Jan 20, 2015 12:56 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 153):

CX...
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1173
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Tue Jan 20, 2015 1:04 am

Quoting Kashmon (Reply 163):
CX...

To my knowledge, CX doesn't use their remaining B744s for long haul flying anymore, but only on regional services (sad as it is).

Cheers
micha
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1173
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Tue Jan 20, 2015 1:07 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 160):
just sucking up the inconvenience of traveling via Australia when my destination is the USA

I thought about the same for some time now, but just can't bring myself to add those extra hours. If I was able to fly in J no problem, but in Y it is adding a lot...

Cheers
micha
 
ZKSUJ
Posts: 6870
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 5:15 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Tue Jan 20, 2015 2:15 am

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 154):
. I suppose NZ could fill a pair of 748 daily on AKL-LAX, but at the cost of fleet flexibility. What other route would they be suitable for ?

I like many others have thought about this. As you mentioned the LAX run, but I also think LAX-LHR, AKL-SFO, re-open SYD-LAX (pie in the sky like gasman says but doable) and if SQ don;t bring the 380 into AKL full time I should imagine AKL-SIN would be a go as well (so 1x748i NZ and 1x77W SQ daily)

I'd love to see a VLA in NZ's fleet again, and though I know it won;t be for a while I reckon it will happen again eventually down the track.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2053
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Tue Jan 20, 2015 3:12 am

Quoting ZKEOJ (Reply 165):
I thought about the same for some time now, but just can't bring myself to add those extra hours. If I was able to fly in J no problem, but in Y it is adding a lot...

You're right - but the upside is that QFs flights to the USA depart in civilised hours. If I have to fly in Y (or even Y+) I'd prefer not depart on a night flight - particularly on a 10 abreast 77W. And as we all know NZs departures to the US are all evening/night departures.

My recent flight to JFK on QF on the other hand had me departing AKL for SYD around 0800, then left SYD for LAX around 1150 (SYD time) and had me arriving in JFK around six hours earlier than if I'd taken the NZ option departing later that same evening. Total travel time more, for sure........ but it was pretty painless travel.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3261
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Tue Jan 20, 2015 7:11 am

Any one heard if NZ has anything planned for 30/04/2015? which happens to mark 75 years of AKL-SYD-AKL
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 938
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Tue Jan 20, 2015 7:23 am

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 123):
Vladimir Beeblebrox moniker taken was it?

  Been using this as my online handle for quite a while now.

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 145):
Well, realistically the Air Force doesn't really have the funds for any new acquisitions (bar the new Beechcraft Texans). So all speculation on here is reasonably pointless.  

The NZDF don't do any major capital purchases themselves nor does the money come out of their normal budget. Major capital purchases like new ships or aircraft are done by the Ministry of Defence through a different budget. For example the navy is not purchasing a replacement for the Endeavour directly but rather the MoD is purchasing one for the navy.

Small but important difference I think.
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 3884
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:28 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 147):
why politically suicidal?

Taxpayers probably won't be too impressed with public funds being used to find a corporate jet conversation for the benefit of senior politicians.

The current arrangement with the 757s, whereby the cargo door allows a VIP section to be added/removed when needed, works well since the senior politicians can call the aircraft freighters, even though they do more VIP work for politicians than freight hauling.

Quoting WSTAKL (Reply 156):
I ask the officer if this he is a random search and tells me he has to confirm with his superior.

This certainly raises suspicions. Shouldn't the officer be able to answer you that himself? Maybe you've been put on some kind of list.  
Quoting gasman (Reply 160):
a cabin which feels far more claustrophobic than anything else out there. It also has none of the headroom, feeling of ambience, and walk around room that even a densely configured 744 seems to have.

  
It wasn't so bad when the 77Es had nine abreast in economy, but that's not going to be around too much longer. These days the 777 is something that I often go out of my way to avoid flying on. Plenty of people moan and moan about how Qantas hasn't bought/ordered any 777s but I'm actually quite happy that they don't....the result of not doing so is that Qantas's long haul aircraft are universally comfortable to fly aboard when in economy class. Can't say the same for airlines that have ten-across-in-economy 777s.

Quoting gasman (Reply 167):
the upside is that QFs flights to the USA depart in civilised hours. If I have to fly in Y (or even Y+) I'd prefer not depart on a night flight

I disagree with this (though i guess it is personal preference as much as anything). With the NZ schedule you can do a full day of work, have dinner before going to the airport for your flight. More importantly for me, daytime long haul flights seem to make me feel much more tired than night time ones.

Quoting ZaphodHarkonnen (Reply 169):
Small but important difference I think.

Interesting. Does the government/MOD have any money sitting around for such acquisitions?
First to fly the 787-9
 
Gasman
Posts: 2053
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Tue Jan 20, 2015 10:19 am

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 170):
It wasn't so bad when the 77Es had nine abreast in economy, but that's not going to be around too much longer. These days the 777 is something that I often go out of my way to avoid flying on.

Me too. Which translates into avoiding going out of my way to avoid flying NZ! The only reason I do still fly with them is for Star Alliance Status, but I'm tempted to just give that away.

The much heralded (on this website) success of the 777 is due to its reliability, and operating economics. Important bottom lines to be sure, but it's been a step backwards in terms of the travel experience.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Tue Jan 20, 2015 2:26 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 171):
but it's been a step backwards in terms of the travel experience.

Would you feel the same way in an ANA 777 at 70/36/117 or a JL at 56/40/149 ?
 
JQflightie
Posts: 548
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:18 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Tue Jan 20, 2015 2:59 pm

Quoting WSTAKL (Reply 156):

I have had this very thing with the smart gate happen a few times... I'm a flight attendant so I naturally got sick of this...but I finally got an answer from the lovely immigration lady in MEL.
Smart gate will only recognise you or accept you through when you flight number is up on the baggage claim screen and the first bag has left the aircraft  
Hope this has helped  
When is my next holiday?
 
Gasman
Posts: 2053
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:35 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 172):
but it's been a step backwards in terms of the travel experience.

Would you feel the same way in an ANA 777 at 70/36/117 or a JL at 56/40/149 ?

Well, of course as a bottom line rule the fewer seats (and people) you pack into a cabin, the better. My disdain for the 777 is a combination of:

- its width is just barely enough to make 10 abreast even feasible, but still far from comfortable
- Even 3-3-3 I don't feel is a particularly pax friendly config. Groups of four get split, couples will always have someone next to them etc.
- Internally I think it's noisier than it could be. This is something Airbus get right.
- its come along a time when load factors are higher than ever before - so not only are more seats in the cabin, they are actually being filled with people. So it's possible that what I blame the 777 for is actually just a reflection of today's load factors.
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 938
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Wed Jan 21, 2015 7:59 am

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 170):
Interesting. Does the government/MOD have any money sitting around for such acquisitions?

If the government decides they have the money then they do.  

But what we can look at is the expected appropriations from the last budget for the 2014/2015 Financial Year. http://www.budget.govt.nz/budget/pdfs/estimates/v4/est14-v4-defen.pdf

The only aircraft related purchases mentioned are the new Seasprites for the navy and pilot training equipment. So unless we hear something before the next budget I wouldn't expect anything to appear.

But again, if the government sees an awesome deal they have to make they're always able to adjust.
 
Mr AirNZ
Posts: 914
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2002 10:24 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Wed Jan 21, 2015 8:13 am

So it looks like Soundsair plans to give Westport a go replacing the Air New Zealand/Eagle Air service once it stops.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/6...to-fly-from-westport-to-wellington
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Wed Jan 21, 2015 8:17 am

Quoting Mr AirNZ (Reply 176):
So it looks like Soundsair plans to give Westport a go replacing the Air New Zealand/Eagle Air service once it stops.

Very good to hear. I hope it works well for them.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 3884
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Wed Jan 21, 2015 8:21 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 172):
Would you feel the same way in an ANA 777 at 70/36/117 or a JL at 56/40/149 ?

The problem is more to do with how the airlines configure the aircraft than the plane itself. V Australia and Singapore's 777s are very nice for example, but they're the exception rather than the rule.

Quoting gasman (Reply 174):
- its width is just barely enough to make 10 abreast even feasible, but still far from comfortable

  

Quoting gasman (Reply 174):
- Even 3-3-3 I don't feel is a particularly pax friendly config. Groups of four get split, couples will always have someone next to them etc.

This doesn't really bother me too much but the reason you mention highlights why 2-4-2 on an A330/A340 is so good.

Quoting gasman (Reply 174):
Internally I think it's noisier than it could be.

The -300ER (and presumably by extension the -200LR) is very loud during engine start and just a little too loud to be pleasant during climb.

Quoting gasman (Reply 174):
This is something Airbus get right.

  

Quoting Mr AirNZ (Reply 176):
So it looks like Soundsair plans to give Westport a go replacing the Air New Zealand/Eagle Air service once it stops

And they're getting PC-12s. Found this CGI on their facebook page:


I hope it works out well for them.
First to fly the 787-9
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Wed Jan 21, 2015 1:43 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 174):
- Internally I think it's noisier than it could be. This is something Airbus get right

I found no difference in cabin noise between an AC 77W and a LH A346 in Y on a YYZ/FRA/YYZ round trip. Maybe all in the ears of the beholder!  
 
Gasman
Posts: 2053
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Wed Jan 21, 2015 6:19 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 179):
I found no difference in cabin noise between an AC 77W and a LH A346 in Y on a YYZ/FRA/YYZ round trip. Maybe all in the ears of the beholder!

Indeed! Not personally flown the 346; but have the 342 - an aircraft that no-one ever criticised for having an excess of power!

Prior to the 777, every NZ widebody product dating right back to the DC-10 was comfortable, even generous in its Y class product. The 767, with its 2-3-2 config was/is a dream. For the first decade of their existence the 744s had 34 inch seat pitch. And so on.

The 777 has been a massive reversal on this theme. Even in J the cabin is actually pretty cramped. Now, some would immediately cite "oil prices", "economic harsh realities" and "consumers only want a LCC product" as reasons for forcing NZ into sadly making these necessary (but painful!!) "enhancements"..... a reality of the times...

Some of which is true but some of which is complete bollocks. Airlines are doing this largely because they have discovered they can get away with it. 99% of travellers don't research what product they're getting. They just know on some level they felt bloody awful after that flight from AKL-LAX, and will put it all down to jet lag or insufficient macrobiotics - not the fact that the airlines are stealthily squeezing them inch by inch. And the extent to which NZ - in they eyes of New Zealand's media - can do no wrong, never ceases to amaze me. (Wow! Hobbits! Must be a *great* airline!!).

So really - airlines have no "watchdogs" apart from people like us. In real terms, i believe the value for money in air travel has reduced quite significantly over the last 20 years. This trend concerns me, because if you believe that with 10 in Y on the 777, we've reached some sort of "line in the sand" in terms of reducing comfort - don't. Wait until they move to 30 inch pitch, and the media will be excited about the latest *hilarious* safety video.
 
User avatar
SelandiaBaru
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 2:39 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Wed Jan 21, 2015 7:18 pm

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 178):
I hope it works out well for them.

Me too. Good on Soundsair. Will be very interesting as the PC12's are not the cheap aircraft to operate, even as a single-engine aircraft. But presumably Soundsair will be picking up a second-hand model with lower initial upfront cost.
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Wed Jan 21, 2015 8:36 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 180):
So really - airlines have no "watchdogs" apart from people like us. In real terms, i believe the value for money in air travel has reduced quite significantly over the last 20 years. This trend concerns me, because if you believe that with 10 in Y on the 777, we've reached some sort of "line in the sand" in terms of reducing comfort - don't.

You make some good points. In economy, real estate and service has reduced.

My father, a small man, now well into his 80's, suffers from circulation problems. For long distance flights, airlines will now only accept his booking if he uses business or first class. That's partly a result of awareness and understanding about the condition, but a definite warning for your future health if you are a regular user of long distance economy.
 
aotearoa
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 1:50 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Wed Jan 21, 2015 8:56 pm

Surely all this talk of value must relate to cost. A $2500 air fare in 1960 would be worth more than 30k in real terms today. Considering the incredible complexity and infrastructure behind the scenes to support a flight, air travel with a safe and reliable airline is a true bargain.

Do you all just take this for granted? Great training, simulators, spare parts, brilliant maintenance support, fantastic safety culture, opened honest occurrence reporting - these are just a tiny piece of the thousands of 'components' that make up your journey....

Rant over......
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3589
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Wed Jan 21, 2015 9:09 pm

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 178):
Found this CGI on their facebook page:

And along with the fantastic image on their facebook page, the airline had this to say...

Quote:
It's official and Sounds Air is delighted to announce a new Westport - Wellington air service commencing 28th April 2015 after the departure of Air NZ from the route. We will be operating the route with two Pilatus PC12 aircraft - www.pilatus-aircraft.com - that offer speed and pressurisation in a modern turbo prop aircraft. Huge thanks for the support from Buller District Council, that have been excellent to deal with and we look forward to a long term relationship. Also the guys from Pilatus who excelled in showing how deals can be achieved for the benefit of all parties. Flights open for booking from Monday 26th Jan 2015 on a new schedule that works for West Coast and Wellington based travellers as well as business travellers and tourists alike.

Wonder how many pax they're going to fit on board.
come visit the south pacific
 
User avatar
MillwallSean
Posts: 945
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:07 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Wed Jan 21, 2015 9:14 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 179):
I found no difference in cabin noise between an AC 77W and a LH A346 in Y on a YYZ/FRA/YYZ round trip. Maybe all in the ears of the beholder!

The A346 is quieter than the B777. By a few db.
Personally I always found the rather capable old A343 to be the best long hauler constructed. It was to me also by far the most quiet one.
I would assume that most here either have noise-cancelling headphones (I do) or use earplugs when flying. Doing that makes a world of difference and the headphones I got many moons ago when desperate at AMS airport have been one of my best travel companions ever since.

For those that just experience the noise without such headphones or earplugs even a few db is important and the B777 is the noisiest of the long haulers. Especially if you are seated next to or behind the engines.

Quoting gasman (Reply 180):
Some of which is true but some of which is complete bollocks. Airlines are doing this largely because they have discovered they can get away with it. 99% of travellers don't research what product they're getting. They just know on some level they felt bloody awful after that flight from AKL-LAX, and will put it all down to jet lag or insufficient macrobiotics - not the fact that the airlines are stealthily squeezing them inch by inch. And the extent to which NZ - in they eyes of New Zealand's media - can do no wrong, never ceases to amaze me. (Wow! Hobbits! Must be a *great* airline!!).

So really - airlines have no "watchdogs" apart from people like us. In real terms, i believe the value for money in air travel has reduced quite significantly over the last 20 years. This trend concerns me, because if you believe that with 10 in Y on the 777, we've reached some sort of "line in the sand" in terms of reducing comfort - don't. Wait until they move to 30 inch pitch, and the media will be excited about the latest *hilarious* safety video.

The beauty about being an island is that certain things become insular and when repeated enough times people believe in them.
NZ is awesome and the service the best in the world is one of them. Like you say NZ is a successful business and they know how to squeeze every cent out of its passengers. Care for the customer is very very low down the list of priorities. fair enough they are a business. Prices to LAX vs prices to Asian destinations where it used to be competition was a case in point on how they worked.
The idea that our government think that its great that NZ is now cooperating on or having monopoly on almost every single longhaul is something between bizarre and plain corrupt. Were an island and NZ have sorted agreements with competitors to every long haul destination where they have competition and the government rubberstamps it. Talk about working in tandem against the traveling public. Local carrier - no competition=good for the citizens? How they manage that conclusion is impressive...
Feels like things that happens in a banana republics but no they happen here and gets support from our New Zealand government.

Kiwis are some of the worlds most frequent travelers another such myth that sees no support in data but keeps on getting repeated.
No One Likes Us - We Dont Care.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2053
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Wed Jan 21, 2015 9:15 pm

Quoting Aotearoa (Reply 183):
Surely all this talk of value must relate to cost. A $2500 air fare in 1960 would be worth more than 30k in real terms today

Of course value relates to cost. Are you referring to any particular airfare that cost $2500 in 1960??

I think it's more valid to relate to what's happened in the last 10-20 years. In that time, pretty much *everything* (except property) has become cheaper in real terms. The same can be said of air travel in general, but Air New Zealand would be an exception. Here's some examples.

In 1992 I purchased a return AKL-SYD fare for $350 on UA. That got me a 744, with everything included.

Through to the late 1990s it used to be regularly possible to secure return fares AKL-LAX - one of NZs most luctrative routes then as it is now - for $1600. That would get you a 744 with 34 inch pitch, again with everything included. Nowadays you'll usually pay over $2000 for an extremely restrictive fare, on a 10 abreast 777 with meal quality and seat pitch well below what what we took for granted 10-15 years ago. Add to that the fact that frequent flier benefits have been progressively eroded and you get the idea.

I can't believe all this reduction in product quality has been necessary due to rising fuel costs. Fuel is only one component of running an airline. NZ have increased fares (AKL-HNL is one outlandish example) and simultaneously degraded the product. That equals a massive reduction in value for money in my book. They are providing a LCC product but charging legacy fares.

Quoting Aotearoa (Reply 183):
Do you all just take this for granted? Great training, simulators, spare parts, brilliant maintenance support, fantastic safety culture, opened honest occurrence reporting

No.

[Edited 2015-01-21 13:20:34]
 
Gasman
Posts: 2053
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Wed Jan 21, 2015 9:18 pm

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 185):
The idea that our government think that its great that NZ is now cooperating on or having monopoly on almost every single longhaul is something between bizarre and plain corrupt.

  
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Wed Jan 21, 2015 10:11 pm

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 185):
The idea that our government think that its great that NZ is now cooperating on or having monopoly on almost every single longhaul is something between bizarre and plain corrupt.

Whos - corrupt?

I'm sure the various governments are pleased that the airline is making money, but those same governments have created some of the most liberal aviation policies in the world.

Any airline is free to start competitive service on any of the monopoly routes any time it wants. The fact that few have done so (and at least one has failed) is hardly the fault of Air NZ - or the government.

I dunno what's "corrupt" about that and I'm not sure what you want - perhaps that "the government" should subsidise foreign airlines to provide that competition?

I live in a world of free market competition and I'm happy to do so. You don't like Air NZ's product, you are free to fly with other airlines, and if it takes a one-stop to make that possible, I really don't see the problem.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Wed Jan 21, 2015 10:17 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 186):
Through to the late 1990s it used to be regularly possible to secure return fares AKL-LAX - one of NZs most luctrative routes then as it is now - for $1600. That would get you a 744 with 34 inch pitch, again with everything included. Nowadays you'll usually pay over $2000 for an extremely restrictive fare

According to the Reserve Bank inflation calculator, $1600 in Q4 1999 is $2288 in Q4 2014. If you go back to 1995, $1600 is now $2400.

That's CPI basket inflation, which obviously doesn't take into account that airline fuel costs (leaving aside the current blip) have increased about 315% over the same period.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2053
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:12 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 188):
Whos - corrupt?

I'm sure the various governments are pleased that the airline is making money

I think the point is that there is a disconnect between perception and reality. The perception in New Zealand is that NZ is a plucky little public utility, providing a world class product on the small of an oily rag with service that is second to none (well, Sytrax says so) for which we all should be jolly grateful exists at all. And product downgrades - if they're noticed at all by the public and the media - are sadly necessary due to fuel prices/Jetstar/Golbal warming/the credit crunch, and crucial for the survival of *our* airline.

The reality is somewhat different. NZ is a business that knows full well how to squueze every cent out of its passengers and does so unashamedly. The profits it makes - which, incomprehensibly even non-shareholders seem to applaud - are a direct result of this. Nothing wrong with that; we live in a capitalist society and if the public and media are brainwashed by NZ's spin, more fool them.

Quoting mariner (Reply 188):
You don't like Air NZ's product, you are free to fly with other airlines, and if it takes a one-stop to make that possible, I really don't see the problem.

In the last few years I've flown EK, SQ, NZ, TG, QF, UA several times in both Y and the premium classes. All the hard and soft products have their plusses and minuses. But for all that - only with NZ do I feel like I am being ripped off. Yes, there are other airlines but as you rightly say they involve a certain level of inconvenience - a level which I am however becoming increasingly ready to accept.
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2649
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:14 pm

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 178):
The -300ER (and presumably by extension the -200LR) is very loud during engine start and just a little too loud to be pleasant during climb.

There is an uncomfortable, high pitched whine at startup on the 77W, to the point where I thought something was seriously wrong the first time I flew one. Most noticeable behind the wing, of course.

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 178):
V Australia and Singapore's 777s are very nice for example, but they're the exception rather than the rule.

I go out of my way to fly SQ most of the time, but even moreso if the choice to Europe is NZ's 77W or SQ's.

Quoting mariner (Reply 177):
Very good to hear. I hope it works well for them.

Yeah let's hope it works out. I wonder if NZ pulling out of regional centres could actually kick start competition on regional routes. Though I'm sure they'd be back in a flash if they considered SoundsAir a threat.

Quoting SelandiaBaru (Reply 181):
Will be very interesting as the PC12's are not the cheap aircraft to operate, even as a single-engine aircraft.

What makes them so expensive? Do you thing Kingairs would have been the better option (albeit twin engine)?
 
Mr AirNZ
Posts: 914
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2002 10:24 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:22 pm

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 191):
Yeah let's hope it works out. I wonder if NZ pulling out of regional centres could actually kick start competition on regional routes. Though I'm sure they'd be back in a flash if they considered SoundsAir a threat.

Quoting SelandiaBaru (Reply 181):Will be very interesting as the PC12's are not the cheap aircraft to operate, even as a single-engine aircraft.
What makes them so expensive? Do you thing Kingairs would have been the better option (albeit twin engine)?

Sounds Air aren't stupid although I too had concerns over the operating and capital cost of the PC12. Looks like the council is basically under writing the service. The Westport News isn't available online but here is a link to the copy of the article.

http://3rdlevelnz.blogspot.co.nz/2015/01/westports-reaction.html
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:33 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 190):
I think the point is that there is a disconnect between perception and reality. The perception in New Zealand is that NZ is a plucky little public utility, providing a world class product on the small of an oily rag with service that is second to none (well, Sytrax says so) for which we all should be jolly grateful exists at all.

That isn't my perception, and what I objected to was the use of the word ""corrupt" in connection with Air NZ.

Everything else is a value judgement and I don't often trust other people's values - or judgements - when it comes to airlines.

I heard horror stories about Ryanair before I first flew with them, and to my pleasant surprise, it was completely efficient.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
Gasman
Posts: 2053
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:40 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 193):

Agreed. With me, it was Southwest I was dreading flying, and I have found them brilliant.

On a side note, I see in another thread that JAL are sticking with 8 abreast in their 787s. Good for them.   
 
wstakl
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 7:51 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Thu Jan 22, 2015 1:34 am

Mr Thompson says that the upgrade is part of Air New Zealand's commitment to maintaining a young, modern fleet, and delivering cutting-edge products to its customers alongside award-winning service.

Ok, as an economy passenger how is going 3-4-3 a cutting edge product? Or is he referring to the fancy new Panasonic PTV in the back of the seat in hope that people will ignore the narrow aisles etc. Also, is 3-4-3 on the 777 actually 'industry standard' as I hear the spin docters from NZ proclaiming. Maybe it is slowing becoming so, but I think there are still more 9 abreast carriers than 10 currently. Traveling in Y on NZ now seems like you are flying on a pseudo LCC yet unfortunately their fares don't reflect it.
 
xiaotung
Posts: 1000
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:58 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Thu Jan 22, 2015 2:20 am

It has been reported in the Chinese media that SkyTeam member Xiamen Airlines are preparing to launch XMN-SYD-WLG route with B787 later this year. SYD appear to be a near done deal but would WLG runway be a problem for B787?
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2649
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Thu Jan 22, 2015 2:21 am

Quoting WSTAKL (Reply 195):
Ok, as an economy passenger how is going 3-4-3 a cutting edge product? Or is he referring to the fancy new Panasonic PTV in the back of the seat in hope that people will ignore the narrow aisles etc. Also, is 3-4-3 on the 777 actually 'industry standard' as I hear the spin docters from NZ proclaiming. Maybe it is slowing becoming so, but I think there are still more 9 abreast carriers than 10 currently. Traveling in Y on NZ now seems like you are flying on a pseudo LCC yet unfortunately their fares don't reflect it.

Yeah they do seem to have successfully duped the media into peddling the "upgrade" storyline, minus the mention of the extra seat abreast.

Whatever. I'll just avoid flying them if there's an alternative.
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 3884
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Thu Jan 22, 2015 2:43 am

Quoting WSTAKL (Reply 195):
Ok, as an economy passenger how is going 3-4-3 a cutting edge product?

Cutting because the limited pitch means that the seat infront will be cutting into your knees.
Edge because with 3-4-3 all but the super thin (and children) are squashed right against to both edges of the seat.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 197):
Yeah they do seem to have successfully duped the media into peddling the "upgrade" storyline, minus the mention of the extra seat abreast.

I find this very annoying. At release, the herald spent ages praising the revolutionary goodness of the skycouch but only a single sentence mentioning 3-4-3. Not a stunning bit of journalism.
First to fly the 787-9
 
zkncj
Posts: 3261
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 151

Thu Jan 22, 2015 2:45 am

Looks like taking an flight on the CV580 just got easier, or maybe on there DC3

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/national/flight-relief-for-whakatane/

Do feel sorry for the people that end up on an Metroliner

[Edited 2015-01-21 18:46:21]

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