Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Nouflyer
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 9:38 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Fri Feb 06, 2015 8:03 am

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 31):
Other have noted that NZ benefits from "anti-competitive behaviour" on its monopoly routes. I challenge that - you cannot blame NZ for being "anti-competitive" because the other carriers which have historically served most of these routes have progressively pulled out over the decades.

No offence, but I dispute that.

United and NZ coordinated their respective withdrawals from SYD-LAX and AKL-LAX.

Air NZ has effectively made a Godfather-style "offer you cannot refuse" to Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific, Virgin Australia, Air Tahiti Nui, Air Calin and the-then Air Pacific. There is no horse's head, but there is a share in the profits of a monopoly operation.

For reasons that I have never understood you have a supine competition regulator which permits such anti-competitive behaviour.

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 31):
It's also clear that NZ cannot compete (and it has stated so itself) with carriers such as the ME3

This is an absolute fiction which is used to camouflage the fact that Air NZ chooses to exit such markets.

London-Dubai-Australia-NZ is a 2-stop operation which is 500km longer than LHR-LAX-AKL.

But the operating economics are significantly more compromised than that for the ME3.

Australia-Dubai is a 12,000km sector, compared with 10,000km for AKL-LAX and 8,800km for LHR-LAX.

You have to carry an awful lot of fuel just to transport the fuel on such a ULH flight.

The bottom line is that Air NZ chooses not to compete on such routes, in spite of much better operating economics. My opinion is that they prefer to exploit monopolies with a low quality/high fare model rather than compete.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Fri Feb 06, 2015 8:44 am

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 49):
but how are the crew supposed to know who wants to be addressed with British style formality and who wants normal kiwi levels of friendliness ?

But is being called "mate" really a normal kiwi level of friendliness?? When I board an aircraft I am buying a service, and entering into a professional relationship (of sorts) with the airline. That mandates some basic level of professional formality. I don't expect to be called "mate" by the maitre'd at a restaurant for example. Anyway, who cares, this is an aviation not a sociology forum. Maybe I'm just a snob.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 50):
My opinion is that they prefer to exploit monopolies with a low quality/high fare model rather than compete.

I'd call that a fact rather than an opinion. Probably prudent, as the few times they do chose to compete (LHR-HKG springs to mind) it has been an abject failure.
 
zkncj
Posts: 4164
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Fri Feb 06, 2015 8:49 am

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 43):
Right. Wasn't aware it was to be on the next level. I wonder what they'll do with the space where the current lounge is then. In that case, I suppose we'll just lose the skydeck bit, where I spent a lot of my childhood!

Qantas is meant to be opening an new lounge later this year, maybe they will move into the old NZ space?
 
User avatar
NZ107
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:51 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Fri Feb 06, 2015 8:52 am

Quoting zkncj (Reply 52):

That would still leave some sort of gap there - QF doesn't need that much space. Unless EK looks to expand their lounge too.. But even then, it's on the wrong side for EK to expand.
It's all about the destination AND the journey.
 
kiwiandrew

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:20 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 51):
Anyway, who cares, this is an aviation not a sociology forum

Clearly you do, otherwise why did you comment on it in the first place?

However, my point is that service is very subjective... what one person finds appropriate another does not, and no airline can please everyone. Your preference is for formality and you have the right to that... my preference is informality. Neither is more valid than the other... but the crew can't be expected to instinctively know which passenger prefers which approach.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1821
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:46 am

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 50):
The bottom line is that Air NZ chooses not to compete on such routes, in spite of much better operating economics. My opinion is that they prefer to exploit monopolies with a low quality/high fare model rather than compete.

I'd suggest that the reason why NZ doesn't compete with the ME3 (or indeed, with any other Asian carrier on NZ-Europe routes via Asia) is that it lacks the natural advantage these carriers have - their home base is en route. This is a massive benefit to these carriers for two primary reasons:
(a) All crew can be home-domiciled and crew costs offshore are kept to an absolute minimum
(b) None of the sectors are fifth freedom where they have to win passengers from two markets where their name recognition is low.

Whereas NZ, when it attempted AKL-HKG-LHR, struggled with recognition and pax on the HKG-LHR sector. NZ established itself literally decades ago (in an age when fifth freedom flights were the norm) as a niche carrier on LAX-LHR. Were it not for that, I have no doubt that NZ would not be running any services to Europe at all.

I believe this is why NZ has promised "no more one-stop flights" - and almost every other carrier on the planet bar just a few has also dropped them. UTA, KL, LH, OA, JU, AZ and Lauda (did I miss any?) have all abandoned Australasia (and BA is just a shadow of its former self). When you consider how vastly lower air fares are now than they have been historically, something has to give. Competitive pressures are so strong, getting rid of fifth freedom flights and focusing on single sector origin-destination traffic is an obvious way of protecting yourself.

As for EK, anecdotally they have struggled to fill their aircraft on the Tasman - I'd suggest for the same reason: when people book Transtasman, their instinct is to look to the "local" carriers - NZ, QF, JQ, VA. I'd suggest that EK benefits from the QF alliance on the Tasman more than QF does, for sure.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
Nouflyer
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 9:38 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:22 am

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 55):
I'd suggest that the reason why NZ doesn't compete with the ME3 (or indeed, with any other Asian carrier on NZ-Europe routes via Asia) is that it lacks the natural advantage these carriers have - their home base is en route. This is a massive benefit to these carriers for two primary reasons:
(a) All crew can be home-domiciled and crew costs offshore are kept to an absolute minimum
(b) None of the sectors are fifth freedom where they have to win passengers from two markets where their name recognition is low.

Another good post David, but I totally disagree with this premise, which Air NZ has passed off as the gospel against 1-stop flying.

Air NZ has crew bases in London and in Auckland. 1-stop flights via the USA are therefore effectively "home-domiciled" flights.

When Emirates flies between a European destination and Dubai and an Australian destination they require the same number of crew changes, and it matters not one jot that the stopover point and not the distant points are where the crew is domiciled. A crew member cannot fly DXB-SYD and then turn around and fly SYD-DXB without a rest period.

Air NZ has almost always been rather successful with its 1-stop London flight via LAX.

The problem was that they had a choice between operating a second daily frequency via Hong Kong or San Francisco (or even Vancouver) and they picked the wrong flight. They chose the route with no partner and with lousy departure times ex-HKG and they chose a route on which they could not compete against a dominant local carrier.

Anyone can make a mistake. They were obviously influenced by noisy opposition to US transit rules and chose wrongly.

But instead of correcting the mistake and learning the right lesson, the powers that be concocted a BS argument against 2 sector tickets, which if correct would mean that there was no future for Singapore Airlines or Emirates et al.

So instead of taking a number of market opportunities which existed - such as shifting the second LHR slot pair from Hong Kong to San Francisco or even Vancouver - the airline has closed its corporate mind to such opportunities and is concentrating on exploiting monopolies.

Which is great while you can do it.

But sooner or later, every good monopoly ceases to be a monopoly. And there is no apparent strategy to survive such an eventuality, indeed the old Blue Chip model is dead and buried.

There is the self-proclaimed "nimble" attitude, but that has never been anything more than marketing tripe. The only two times the airline has shown any speed to react in recent years was when it corrected its own egregious errors with "Pacific Express" Business Class and the bungled Spaceseat which Kaiarahi suffered at great expense.

But that wasn't "nimble". That was just correcting expensive incompetence which should have been prevented in the first place.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8424
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:25 am

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 54):
but the crew can't be expected to instinctively know which passenger prefers which approach.

To an extent you are right, however I happen to know that the current training post Rob is for Sir/Madame/Mr/Mrs _____ and if in any doubt always adopt the formal greeting.

Quoting gasman (Reply 42):
but on NZ you have to pay a lot more for Y+ which is a weird product in itself

on the 77W yes. The new 787 style is much better than Space Seats, I wish they would get rid of them, but I agree that why would anyone for a product that they can travel in J Class on other airlines for the same price as U class on NZ - especially if LAX is not the destination.

A quick search for the dates I'm going to LAX reveals that CI,CZ,HA can all be obtained in C for same money, as U Class on NZ, or to HKG reveals that QF U can be optained for much less, buy on CX side of codeshare flight for same as MH/CI and a few others in J and then on NZ in U same as the cost of flying TG/SQ in C Cls (both ways 77W/A380 lunchtime dep)
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.
 
Nouflyer
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 9:38 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:50 am

And David, consider the ME3 market.

I would have thought that even in 2015, the only European market which it is worth Air NZ trying to control is the British Isles. The amount of travel to/from other European destinations is limited, especially since the airline effectively gave up on France-Tahiti via LAX and Germany-Fiji via LAX.

Now, there are two ways to view that.

You comment on building Fifth Freedom markets, but NZ already has loyal customer bases now (or when HKG-LHR was axed) in both San Francisco and London. They even had a spare Heathrow slot pair that they seem to have given to Cathay Pacific.

The other way to view it is in terms of secondary UK airport markets. Sure, NZ is not going to compete to Newcastle. I don't really see why it couldn't compete to Manchester and in the era of 787-8s which carry barely more passengers than a 737 or an A320 they could arguably even compete to Glasgow and Dublin.

But there is this all or nothing attitude. Emirates can serve Lyon and Hamburg and Air NZ can't, so restrict Europe to London??????

The Virgin Australia investment is redundant in terms of the USA currently, as Delta gains the benefits of Virgin's customer base.

But Virgin operates SYD-LAX and BNE-LAX daily with 777-300ERs which are so big that they force huge discounting - Premium Economy is almost always available for A$2200 return.

Perhaps NZ-VA would have all sorts of other options. Link those flights and the Auckland ones to flights onward to Gatwick, Manchester and Glasgow.

Suddenly you combine the Australian market with that of New Zealand and a wider range of European destinations become viable.

Something like:

CHC-LAX-GLA 787-8
WLG-LAX-DUB 787-8
AKL-LAX-LHR 77W
AKL-LAX-MAN 787-9
AKL-SFO-LHR 77W
SYD-LAX 77W
BNE-LAX 77W

I'm not convinced that passengers in Dublin and Glasgow who want to go to Sydney think "I must do it via Dubai". In fact, I suspect many of them would rather do it via LA.

And I'm sure that between them Virgin and Air NZ could sell 170 daily seats at a decent yield 1-stop between Glasgow and the combined markets of Sydney, Auckland, Brisbane, Christchurch and Wellington.

But no. Instead the future seems to be a Buenos Aires bizarrely relocated to the "Pacific Rim", a city where New Zealand is largely unknown.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1821
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Fri Feb 06, 2015 11:31 am

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 56):
Air NZ has crew bases in London and in Auckland. 1-stop flights via the USA are therefore effectively "home-domiciled" flights.

I appreciate the fact of the UK crew base, but I can think of many additional costs that accrue to such flights that are not borne by carriers based at en route hubs. It's no accident that the global trend is strongly in the direction of single sectors being served from hubs. In the long term, I think for most carriers it will become an absolute economic necessity.

The hub is key to airline success in the current airline geopolitical environment. NZ's hub, at AKL, is perfectly located for traffic from Australia to the Americas, north and south. It's gratifying to see NZ finally acknowledge South America so it can seek to strengthen AKL as a hub. AKL is also arguably one of the best positioned hubs for Asia to South America pax, though some creative scheduling may be required to deliver both Asia and Australia to South America without long layovers. The only other realistic en route hub in the region is SYD, though UA/DL/AA via the US will always have the advantage of frequency and sheer number of destinations at both ends. I think that Asian carriers that currently serve South America (JL, KE?) will eventually retreat for the above reasons. AKL is without peer as a hub for traffic from anywhere to the Pacific Islands. But that's about it.

Within the one-sector strategy, NZ should play to its strengths, meaning focus on the Australia-North America market, developing new destinations on the Australian end, and adding new North American points as and if required. It has to make Asia/Australia to South America a money-spinner (at the fare levels that South America currently commands, that should be possible, surely). The Pacific Islands services gain limited benefit from AKL's role as a hub, apart from out of Australia, and I don't see that changing soon.

It's unfortunate, but AKL's geographical position limits the longer-term development of AKL as a hub, and so I can only ever see NZ being a Pacific basin carrier, with the sole exception of LAX-LHR.

Don't get me wrong - I would love to see the NZ tail (preferably the black one!) in far-flung ports around the globe. I'd love to see SFO-LHR, LAX-FRA again, maybe even PER-JNB or PER-BOM. But while I'd never say never, it's a real long shot.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1821
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Fri Feb 06, 2015 11:42 am

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 58):
Suddenly you combine the Australian market with that of New Zealand and a wider range of European destinations become viable.

Something like:

CHC-LAX-GLA 787-8
WLG-LAX-DUB 787-8
AKL-LAX-LHR 77W
AKL-LAX-MAN 787-9
AKL-SFO-LHR 77W
SYD-LAX 77W
BNE-LAX 77W

I'm not convinced that passengers in Dublin and Glasgow who want to go to Sydney think "I must do it via Dubai". In fact, I suspect many of them would rather do it via LA.

I don't think we're that far apart as to what the possibilities are - if the airline had a plan which would turn any of this list of routes into a profit centre, I'd applaud. It's just that you're perhaps more aspirational, while I'm looking through a lens of longer-term historical trends and costs having to be cut to the bone.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
Nouflyer
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 9:38 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Fri Feb 06, 2015 12:03 pm

David, my concern is about the sustainability of the non-stop Pacific Rim strategy. North America will always be a high-yielding market in our lifetimes.

But can we say that about any of the rest of the medium-haul and long-haul network apart from London?

I'm not at all sure that we can: all those routes are on the life-support system provided by a monopoly. They are all 90%+ leisure markets.

It's as if Emirates or Singapore Airlines had just decided to be small carriers from their home port to a handful of destinations.
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13406
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Fri Feb 06, 2015 12:07 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 46):
being the most obvious, and also the dislike of last names.

I went to Westlake Boys, it was all last names there, no teacher evedr called you by your first name.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 50):
The bottom line is that Air NZ chooses not to compete on such routes, in spite of much better operating economics. My opinion is that they prefer to exploit monopolies with a low quality/high fare model rather than compete.

They are a profitable business not a charity.

I personally enjoy flying with NZ, everytime I return home I normally fly the final leg on NZ, last time I didn't even notice 10 abreast on the 77W until I counted the seats when we deplaned. I'm a big guy, broad shoulders, built like a front row forward, it was fine for me. Compared to what I fly in Europe (mainly SK) NZ is miles ahead.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 58):
Instead the future seems to be a Buenos Aires bizarrely relocated to the "Pacific Rim", a city where New Zealand is largely unknown.

But New Zealand isn't largely unknown in Argentina.
 
Nouflyer
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 9:38 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Fri Feb 06, 2015 1:15 pm

Yes Rob, but you guys are all pretty formal in Forrest Hill!

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree about Argentina. I've always found that they follow soccer like Kiwis follow rugby and that the elite follow rugby like they do equestrian in NZ. Which is a pretty small, elite market.
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13406
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Fri Feb 06, 2015 1:46 pm

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 63):
Yes Rob, but you guys are all pretty formal in Forrest Hill!

Milford please.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 63):
I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree about Argentina.

It's the third largest sport by player participation in Argentina after soccer and basketball.

But it's not all about rugby. NZ isn't the cheapest place to get too, I would see as us as a tourist destination for wealthy people, same as North American tourists to NZ.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Fri Feb 06, 2015 1:59 pm

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 55):
Whereas NZ, when it attempted AKL-HKG-LHR, struggled with recognition and pax on the HKG-LHR sector.

This route would have worked with the 788 even the early overweight ones. The loads closely matched the capacity of the aircraft. The 77E was too large and its > 20% more fuel burn over the 788 killed it.
 
CHCalfonzo
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:56 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Fri Feb 06, 2015 3:20 pm

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 56):
But instead of correcting the mistake and learning the right lesson, the powers that be concocted a BS argument against 2 sector tickets, which if correct would mean that there was no future for Singapore Airlines or Emirates et al.


Sorry to burst your bubble, but the argument against one stop services from NZ/AUS for locally based carriers is absolutely valid. The advantage for carriers based in the middle east/Asia is clear. They can offer 1 stop flights to a much greater range of destinations with much greater scale than any Pacific or European carrier could EVER economically justify. Simple as that.

Operating two sectors with a wide ranging feed from either end generates a descent yield which will always be more economically viable than operating a one stop flight from one end of the Earth to the other with a limited connecting feed. Take CHC as the perfect example... SQ can operate profitable NZ-Europe flights from here but NZ can not. It is no secret why. Case closed. Get over it. You can spend as much as you like on an NZ ticket NZ-LHR and they will barely make money off you without the niche high yield feed from NZ-LA and LA-LHR and vice versa. The position NZ has on the LA-LHR market is a 1 in a million opportunity, good luck, but not something to go running to the bank waving wads of cash over. Every local carrier has a natural parochial local advantage over NZ in this market.

Making the argument that NZ could more effectively serve Europe by competing with North American carriers on one-stop services is as absurd as them competing with Asian carriers on one-stop services. It is simply not economic, no-matter which direction you go, East or West! NZ (and QF/VA for that matter) have arrived at the same conclusion, Europe is too far away to serve directly these days. This is the mirror image of the conclusion the majority of European carriers came to a long time ago. The far far East is too far away, with too sparse a population to justify serving with expensive one-stop services. The yield simply isn't there.

EK/SQ/CX/CZ etc. can justify selling cheap tickets in these markets, because it is a side show for them. It just bolsters the loads on their core non-stop services, allowing them to offer more frequencies to command a greater yield. This is not the case for the end of line carriers like NZ/QF/VA/BA/AF, for whom high yielding tickets can only be sold between one major destination at each end. Outside these major destinations they loose all their competitive advantage to middle East/Asian carriers offering more direct services. CHC-LHR, ADL-LHR, PER-LHR, BNE-LHR are the classic examples of this situation. NZ/QF/VA cannot compete with SQ/EK in these markets, so why bother. There isn't enough money for them.
 
CHCalfonzo
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:56 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Fri Feb 06, 2015 3:39 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 44):
Tell 'em.

Spark/Telecom had a habit of calling me "Dave" when I had introduced myself as "David." It took a while - several conversations with supervisors and finally a letter to the CEO - but they don't call me "Dave" anymore.

Get over it, Dave is a perfectly valid contraction of David. It doesn't matter what naive pre-conceptions you have about your name being contracted, the person on the other end was clearly not intending to cause offence. Surely you understood that the person on the other end of the telephone was addressing you. Is that not the purpose of a name!?
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13406
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Fri Feb 06, 2015 6:37 pm

Quoting CHCalfonzo (Reply 67):

Get over it, Dave is a perfectly valid contraction of David. It doesn't matter what naive pre-conceptions you have about your name being contracted, the person on the other end was clearly not intending to cause offence.

I don't know about that, my sons Nicholas 9 & Christopher 6 will not answer to any variation of their names, only their full name and believe me I've tried, whereas I'm a Robert and am happy with Rob, Robbie or Robert.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Fri Feb 06, 2015 6:47 pm

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 59):
I would love to see the NZ tail (preferably the black one!) in far-flung ports around the globe.

I understand the desire, a lot of Australians have it about Qantas, and not just on a.net.

So Qantas ran into similar problems and for much the same reasons, and while their cancellation of FRA isn't the reason they're back in profit, it was symptomatic of the (much disliked) restructuring of the airline.

NZ changed, fairly dramatically, in the forty years I was away. When I first arrived in 1965, England was still called "home" (I arrived on a "home boat") and there was no interest in China or Asia generally. Even Singapore was a colonial hangover.

NZ is different now and the route map reflects that.

Quoting CHCalfonzo (Reply 67):
Get over it, Dave is a perfectly valid contraction of David.

I live in the country, I'm called Dave all the time, and yours was pretty much the attitude of Telecom. But since I'm paying Telecom, it's my money they're after, I think it should be my choice what I am called.

And since my living is partly based on how Kiwis speak - and why - I was intrigued to see how far it would go. As above, over a period of about a year, it had it go right to the top.

mariner

[Edited 2015-02-06 11:28:46]
aeternum nauta
 
Gasman
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Fri Feb 06, 2015 8:12 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 69):
I live in the country, I'm called Dave all the time, and yours was pretty much the attitude of Telecom. But since I'm paying Telecom, it's my money they're after, I think it should be my choice what I am called.

But going back to......... aircraft, let me get this straight. You would object to being called "Dave" by cabin crew you don't know, but you're fine with "mate"?

The professional relationship between crew and passengers on an aircraft (or a Spark customer and the call centre in Mumbai) most definitely does not have the fidelity necessary for anyone to expect their own preference of personal greeting to be catered for. But let me make this point - even if your preference is "Fyfe-casual-Kiwi-BBQ", surely you are not actually offended by too much formality? But the reverse isn't true. So unless you have good intuitive grounds for thinking the punter would be fine with "mate", the default should surely be "Sir".

It is also a very short psychological step to extending that relaxed style of personal interaction to a relaxed style of personal service. Much harder to be upset at the fact your tray hasn't been cleared for an hour if you're being called "mate", right? "Mate! Relax! Kiwi BBQ, we're all friends! Go help yourself to another beer - they're down in the rear galley where there are three crew just chatting".  
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13406
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Fri Feb 06, 2015 8:56 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 70):
Much harder to be upset at the fact your tray hasn't been cleared for an hour if you're being called "mate", right? "Mate!

If your tray hasn't been cleared for an hour then more fool you, there is a call button, you press it, someone comes to your seat you ask them to clear your tray, it's not rocket science.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:12 pm

Quoting Kiwirob (Reply 71):
If your tray hasn't been cleared for an hour then more fool you, there is a call button, you press it, someone comes to your seat you ask them to clear your tray, it's not rocket science.

Hmmm. I'm not sure what I said to trigger your somewhat passive-aggressive, tangential response; but nonetheless I'll humour it.

If your tray hasn't been collected, it's safe to assume that neither have those of the passengers around you. It's also safe to assume that no-one likes sitting behind their empty tray and that the crew know this, and they also know it's a job that is waiting to be done. Therefore by pressing the call button to ask for your tray to be removed, in the absence of an unequivocal reason why your try must be removed ahead of anyone else's, you are identifying yourself as impatient, self important, and also indirectly accusing the crew of not doing their jobs.

No-one wants to be labelled as that guy. And this is not rocket science either.

Once I witnessed someone who *did* request the trays be cleared. The response from the crew member was "this is Economy - what do you expect, service?" Now, she was joking - (a la Kiwi BBQ), but was this professional? No.
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13406
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:19 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 72):

No-one wants to be labelled as that guy. And this is not rocket science either.

Well I've got no problem being that guy, I've lived long enough in Norway to see what happens when nobody complains about anything, if you don't say anything then and there, you have no reason to complain after the fact.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:40 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 70):
But going back to......... aircraft, let me get this straight. You would object to being called "Dave" by cabin crew you don't know, but you're fine with "mate"?

It has never happened that I've been called Dave onboard, but yes, generally, I'd be fine with mate. An aircraft is a societal situation, I don't expect every f/a to remember every passenger's name, and the difference with Telecom is that I'm usually calling, one on one, because there is a problem - why else call?

It's a very small thing, it neither steals my wallet nor breaks my leg, and the solution to it is easy. It used to be that Singapore f/a's, at least in first class, would ask how I wanted to be addressed, which seems a simple way around it.

Quoting Kiwirob (Reply 73):
I've got no problem being that guy, I've lived long enough in Norway to see what happens when nobody complains about anything, if you don't say anything then and there, you have no reason to complain after the fact.

  

mariner

[Edited 2015-02-06 13:58:15]
aeternum nauta
 
Nouflyer
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 9:38 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Sat Feb 07, 2015 3:48 am

Quoting CHCalfonzo (Reply 66):
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the argument against one stop services from NZ/AUS for locally based carriers is absolutely valid. The advantage for carriers based in the middle east/Asia is clear. They can offer 1 stop flights to a much greater range of destinations with much greater scale than any Pacific or European carrier could EVER economically justify. Simple as that.

Operating two sectors with a wide ranging feed from either end generates a descent yield which will always be more economically viable than operating a one stop flight from one end of the Earth to the other with a limited connecting feed. Take CHC as the perfect example... SQ can operate profitable NZ-Europe flights from here but NZ can not. It is no secret why. Case closed. Get over it. You can spend as much as you like on an NZ ticket NZ-LHR and they will barely make money off you without the niche high yield feed from NZ-LA and LA-LHR and vice versa. The position NZ has on the LA-LHR market is a 1 in a million opportunity, good luck, but not something to go running to the bank waving wads of cash over. Every local carrier has a natural parochial local advantage over NZ in this market.

Making the argument that NZ could more effectively serve Europe by competing with North American carriers on one-stop services is as absurd as them competing with Asian carriers on one-stop services. It is simply not economic, no-matter which direction you go, East or West! NZ (and QF/VA for that matter) have arrived at the same conclusion, Europe is too far away to serve directly these days. This is the mirror image of the conclusion the majority of European carriers came to a long time ago. The far far East is too far away, with too sparse a population to justify serving with expensive one-stop services. The yield simply isn't there.

There are so many invalid inferences in this post that I hardly know where to start.

Firstly, you fail to acknowledge that the ME3 have far greater fuel burn because one of their sectors is ULH and their route is longer in the first place.

Secondly, the key argument against 1-stop flying is the need to carry two sets of costs in terms of fuel and crewing costs and landing fees on a fare which often isn't that much bigger than for a 1-sector flight. But that is the ME3's entire market and business model. There are not hordes of people wanting to go to the propped-up-by-Abu-Dhabi basketcase which is Dubai. Emirates, Etihad and Qatar Airways are splitting revenue and carrying costs on almost every fare that they sell across 2 sectors. And by definition they are for Australia and for New Zealand it is often 3 sectors not 2.

And what is more, when Air NZ flies AKL-LAX-LHR they are combining through fares with relatively high-yielding AKL-LAX and LAX-LHR tickets.

But on Dubai-Europe Emirates have no such good fortune. They are combining the market with the comedy yields that they carry for underprivileged subcontinental immigrants doing VFR travel to the Indian subcontinent.

So talk of Air NZ having an inbuilt competitive disadvantage against Emirates to the UK is utterly untrue. It's precisely the opposite - Emirates has an inbuilt competitive disadvantage against Air New Zealand on such a route.

Thirdly, you fail to see that the advantage of a mid-line hub is in terms of being able to feed multiple origins and destinations. But Air NZ doesn't need to feed Venice or Hamburg or Oslo - its European market is mainly Britain and Ireland.

Fourthly, you make no allowance for the economic frailty of both New Zealand and 99% of the potential Asian destinations.

The first world countries whose carriers can happily restrict themselves to non-stop single sector flying by and large

a) Don't have a population of 4.5 million, and
b) Don't languish in 32nd place in the list of nations by GDP per capita, and
c) Don't exist in a location where most untapped potential future single-sector destinations are poor and have minimal business or tourism links to themselves.

And the NZ economic reality is just one end of the problem.

More to the point, the Pacific Rim countries which are potential destinations are in even worse shape, and increasingly are defined by narrowbody LCC aviation markets.

Japan has the best combination of wealth and population volume, but has had a struggling economy for donkey's years and is now itself languishing in 27th place in terms of GDP per capita. Three of the four Japanese markets that Air NZ has tried have failed. Meanwhile China is below the world average in 89th position and Indonesia is in 101st position.

Non-stop flying is great.

But not when you are connecting "extremely small and not very wealthy" with "large and poor".

Even Air NZ has acknowledged that with the "almost-LCC" fit out of the 787-9 fleet.

My opinion is that Air NZ is lucky to be allowed the monopolies that it has, and good luck to them.

But they should also remember the issue that goes right back to the bungled 1994 single aviation market with Australia - the only thing that adds scale and wealth to Air New Zealand's home market is Australia.

And apologies for calling the BS about 2-sector flying so stridently. I read this nonsense almost every day, and I can't ignore the blatant falsehood in the case of Air NZ forever. It is just absolute rubbish.

[Edited 2015-02-06 19:59:37]
 
nz2
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:38 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:52 am

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 3):
Not enough space for rail IMO, unless you put it all underground....which is extra expensive. As ever, you have to ask where the money will come from. The council is broke.
Quoting NZ107 (Reply 43):
I've never been greeted as a *G.. Mind you, I've only been *G for a year. But I've travelled with a *G on NZ over the last few years and no greets there either. I might just be heading back to OW this year or next..

Gold members have not been greeted by name nor given headsets for almost 2 years, it is only Gold Elite. I too was a bit put out when I started missing out on headsets so I asked the guy next to me who advised he was GE, so obviously NZ just upped the level which I can understand, Gold is pretty easy to attain, I am just thankful I made GE a year ago! I have always been greeted as "welcome back Mr XXX" and same during the flight

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 43):
Right. Wasn't aware it was to be on the next level. I wonder what they'll do with the space where the current lounge is then. In that case, I suppose we'll just lose the skydeck bit, where I spent a lot of my childhood!

I recall the original skydeck when both domestic and Intl were in the same terminal (read cargo shed), fantastic days, smell of kerosene , loud engines and jet blast in your face!
 
zkncj
Posts: 4164
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Sat Feb 07, 2015 6:43 am

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 53):
But even then, it's on the wrong side for EK to expand.

The current NZ Lounge & the EK Lounge back-on to each other. NZ's showers are along the wall next to the EK lounge.
 
Nouflyer
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 9:38 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Sat Feb 07, 2015 7:54 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 72):
Hmmm. I'm not sure what I said to trigger your somewhat passive-aggressive, tangential response; but nonetheless I'll humour it.

He's a Westlake boy who grew up in Milford. He probably got toughened up by a few Carmel College girls breaking his heart when he was growing up. Be gentle on him! Milford's a tough old place.

On a serious note, I don't know about you, but whatever class of service I'm in I feel embarrassed if I press the call button unless I'm suffering a heart attack or on fire. It makes me feel like a queue-jumper, especially if my neighbours have the same service issue that I do.
 
keen2fly
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 2:10 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Sat Feb 07, 2015 8:50 am

Quoting Kiwirob (Reply 62):
I went to Westlake Boys, it was all last names there, no teacher evedr called you by your first name.

I went to Kristin, no teacher ever called me by my last name, your point is? Flight attendants aren't teachers, this isn't a classroom but it is the 21st century. I for one would find it quite alright if I was called by my last name or first. I think these arguments are starting to get into the realm of over-pedantic nitpicking. If I'm having a good flight I'm not going to get a bee in my bonnet over being called 'mate' it's common in NZ and like it or not there will be NZ Aircrew that will use it. I'm not really going to lose sleep over being called mate, sir or any other commonly used word. What I am going to get annoyed over while flying is bad-tempered, unhappy flight attendants (something that I have been encountering increasingly on NZ), bad food and substandard hard product, things that are increasingly, in my opinion, plaguing the national carrier, while it's sad to see, it's a reality that may or may not be fixed by the management. Those are the pressing issues, not being called what I'd imagine we all encounter daily in New Zealand.
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13406
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Sat Feb 07, 2015 9:35 am

Quoting keen2fly (Reply 79):

I went to Kristin, no teacher ever called me by my last name, your point is?

Woopee I went to Kristin before Westlake, Kristin is a very different place than a boys school. Kristin compared to Westlake was a very wishy washy namby pamby kind of school, filled with do gooder teachers, who would never in a million years think of calling a kid by there last name, but go to Auckland Grammar, Kings, St Kents and it's last names for everyone.

I think the lack of respect today is a big problem, if I'm flying anything other than economy I'd like to be called Sir or Mr KiwiRob.
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Sat Feb 07, 2015 9:55 am

Quoting keen2fly (Reply 79):
I'm not really going to lose sleep over being called mate, sir or any other commonly used word.

Years ago, the Advisory Board in Washington, identified a correlation between the customer greeting, customer appearance / dress, and service level experienced. This was unrelated to the aviation industry.

In the mid-90's an organisation I contracted to, had a client who requested similar research, also not aviation-related. This too revealed similar correlations.

Essentially the greeting categorises how that person rates you, and the level of service you will receive. In some cases, that isn't the case - some individuals use a consistent greeting. We were more interested in those that didn't, comparing the level of perceived service received by customers (their ratings / our observations). Based on the earlier survey results, if you are being called mate, buddy or similar, you are almost certainly casually dressed, or in some form of work clothes. In contrast, the percentage of males wearing suits and ties greeted casually, provided with service levels less than 75% of the rated range, was extremely low.

Last year, but underway now, almost identical research for an airport, at the request of an airline customer. For comparative purposes (and extra revenue), we also sold the survey to a service station operator and bank. Interesting to see how they compare with the earlier surveys. We also ran a survey last year of the airline's customers. The perception was casual greeting = less professional, even for economy passengers. More marked for frequent flyers.

Appears some on here are quite tolerant in respect to casual greetings, and the likely lower levels of service that follow.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Sat Feb 07, 2015 10:23 am

Quoting planesmart (Reply 81):
Appears some on here are quite tolerant in respect to casual greetings, and the likely lower levels of service that follow.

  

Interesting! You've confirmed something I dimly suspected.
 
Nouflyer
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 9:38 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Sat Feb 07, 2015 10:28 am

Quoting Kiwirob (Reply 80):
Westlake was a very wishy washy namby pamby kind of school

Exposed at last!

Kiwirob is none other than Mr Gormsby! Obviously in exile from Te Papawai High School.

So many posts now make so much more sense than ever before. No wonder you want to be called Sir!
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10134
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:00 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 42):
Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 41):
No waterservice overnight on multiple flights and been forced to sit with an empty tray on my tray table for over an hour before they finally shifted it (lazy and inattentive)

Standard for NZ. On QF overnight the service continues unabated throughout the night.

On UA99 earlier this week, the crew would walk around and individually remove the empty food trays instead of doing it with a trolley say 30-60mins later
Head Forum Moderator
[email protected]
Flown: 1900D,S340,Q300,AT72-5/6,DC3,CR2/7,E145,E70/75/90,A319/20/21,A332/3,A359,A380,F100,B717,B733/4/8/9,B742/4,B752/3,B763,B772/3, B789
With: NZ,SJ,QF,JQ,EK,VA,AA,UA,DL,FL,AC,FJ,SQ,TG,PR
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Sat Feb 07, 2015 6:39 pm

Here's a very positive article about the small-fry airlines in NZ, concentrating of Air Chathams and Sounds Air:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/6...o-the-challenge-as-air-nz-bows-out

"Small airlines rise to the challenge as Air NZ bows out"

It's full of good stuff and it may be a bit overly optimistic but it all makes a lot of sense, and it confirms that Air Chathams will use the DC3 on the Auckland-Whakatane run. Yay!

It lists Sounds Air as the "second biggest" airline in the country after Air NZ and its subsidiaries, and that while the Whanganui route could do better the others seem to be doing well.

"While passenger numbers on the Whanganui to Wellington service that Sounds Air took over from Air New Zealand a year ago "could be better", Sounds Air was optimistic about Wellington to Westport, buying two Pilatus PC12 to service the route and for charter work."

It isn't for those who are only interested in the bigger, snazzy aircraft, the more glamorous routes and their FF benefits, but I love stuff like this and I enjoyed reading it. There's a fun piece of odd phrasing, which, at first glance, could suggest that Sounds might only have one pilot - LOL - and there is no discussion on whether any of the aircrew ever call any passenger "mate".

The battlers have always been more interesting to me than success.  

mariner

[Edited 2015-02-07 10:45:14]
aeternum nauta
 
Gasman
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Sat Feb 07, 2015 7:03 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 85):

It is a great article. Commenting on a couple of quotes:

Air New Zealand, he said, had "turned its back on significant pieces of rural New Zealand and that was inappropriate

and this

The key to Sounds Air success has been sticking to a known market and operating it well, said Andrew Crawford, Sounds Air's general manager and part owner.

"Flying across Cook Strait is our niche," he said. "We cater for the business market and we have built up a loyal fan base. Once they get on they don't tend to get off."


There is nothing inappropriate about NZ pulling out of routes which are uneconomic. Unless NZ has a formal public utility role that is subsidised by the government, it would be irresponsible to do anything else.

Some see a disconnect between NZ branding the routes as uneconomic and small operators like Sounds Air Being able to make them viable. The second quote clarifies this point. The regional scene in New Zealand is far from ubiquitous. It's rather a collection of individualised niche markets that are better served by niche (dare I say "nimble") operators rather than one major carrier with an entrenched infrastructure.

Good luck to all these guys!
 
keen2fly
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 2:10 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Sat Feb 07, 2015 7:36 pm

Quoting Kiwirob (Reply 80):

Ooh, seems by that response certain wounds are still a bit raw. I shall not press you on them anymore Kiwirob. Sorry, make that SIR Kiwirob of Milford.

Quoting mariner (Reply 85):

I've wanted for a long time to travel on a smaller airline in New Zealand, but never find myself needing to fly a provincial route. Perhaps with the move for me to PMR this year I could make something happen. Though my student budget might dictate otherwise. I've long been fascinated by the operators in NZ with older aircraft such as the Convairs, and wonder how on earth they've managed to stay afloat. So this article was a good read, with the obligatory light digs at NZ. Working at TVNZ I can confirm that trashing NZ has become something of a populist cause, articles and stories depicting NZ negatively get a big response from the public.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Sat Feb 07, 2015 7:44 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 86):
There is nothing inappropriate about NZ pulling out of routes which are uneconomic. Unless NZ has a formal public utility role that is subsidised by the government, it would be irresponsible to do anything else.

Perhaps make an allowance for p.r. in tha statement? For some locals, it may be a selling point.

Quoting gasman (Reply 86):
Some see a disconnect between NZ branding the routes as uneconomic and small operators like Sounds Air Being able to make them viable. The second quote clarifies this point.

I think it's as it should be - the market at work.

Curiously, the Sounds route with the most frequency is Wellington to Picton - up to 8 x daily in summer - which is no-compete, and I don't know what the contract between Sounds and Westport says, but apparently it makes allowance for "other routes" - CHC, perhaps?

The other mild puzzle is that the third route Air NZ dropped - AKL-Kaitaia - doesn't seem to have a replacement airline yet, although four small airlines put their hands up.

Quoting keen2fly (Reply 87):
Working at TVNZ I can confirm that trashing NZ has become something of a populist cause, articles and stories depicting NZ negatively get a big response from the public.

And on a.net these days. Not unlike the situation with Qantas, which, for a while there, couldn't do anything right, while Virgin got a free pass on everything.  

mariner

[Edited 2015-02-07 11:48:55]
aeternum nauta
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13406
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Sat Feb 07, 2015 8:32 pm

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 83):

Exposed at last!

Touché K'man.
 
PA515
Posts: 1648
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Sun Feb 08, 2015 12:53 pm

Some Air NZ schedule observations during the 2015 Rugby World Cup in England and Wales 18 Sep to 31 Oct.

There's no NZ2 AKL-LAX-LHR for Tue 13 Oct and Wed 21 Oct, but the return NZ1 LHR-LAX-AKL is there. And no NZ1 LHR-LAX-AKL for Tue 03 Nov, but the outbound NZ2 is there.

The extra Sun NZ4 AKL-LAX, NZ3 LAX-AKL flights, 20 Sep 77E, 27 Sep 789, 04 Oct 789, 11 Oct 789 & 18 Oct 789 coincide with the Rugby World Cup.

Apart from the Sun 20 Sep NZ4/NZ3, there are only six 77E's in use late Aug to early Dec. One will be getting the refit, so another is available for repainting or something else. Maybe the 20 Sep 77E will be changed to a 789.

http://nyc787.blogspot.com has delivery dates for ZK-NZC of 03 Aug 2015, ZK-NZD of 01 Jul 2015 and ZK-NZH of 28 Oct 2015. So, NZD before NZC, and NZH at the end of October.

PA515
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4573
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:11 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 16):
Can't believe I missed that. So NZ received an unbelievably cheap newspaper advert.

Pretty much.

Quoting keen2fly (Reply 17):
The journalists who have their tickets paid for then write a 'review' gushing about the airline really shouldn't be allowed to call themselves journalists...

   But, as we've seen from most major news publications in recent times, the standard for being a journalist hasn't been set particularly high.

Quoting axio (Reply 18):
Also $99 for the plane models... really!?!
Quoting gemuser (Reply 20):
These are professional models, not consumer ones.

The plastic 787 ones aren't professional. Skymarks 787s can be had for much less than $100 if you know where to look.

Quoting Kiwirob (Reply 25):
I approve of it

As do I, which I thought I made clear in that post.  
Quoting Kiwirob (Reply 25):
Start following Nouflyer he's remarkably similar.

I thought so too. 
Quoting NZ107 (Reply 36):
an open air deck would be welcome

Yes please. It would be nice to have a better view towards the western side of the terminal.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 41):
Potentially including UA on their 772 (and in future 77W), It will be the industry standard by the 777X

All the more reason to avoid 777s.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 41):
Dreadful as it is - it's time to upgrade to another fare

Or upgrade to an airline that better aircraft with better comfort for passengers in Y. A340s/A350s/A380s and 787s being a good start.

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 49):
I don't think the crew can win....personally, I hate being called "sir".

  
Likewise. I despise being called Sir. I do however really appreciate it when crew can remember my name without looking at the list. Nothing like being welcomed aboard with 'welcome ZK, how have you been doing today?'   I always make a note to give positive feedback about the crew on My Voice when they remember my name.

I suppose they should err on the side of formality if in doubt though. A lot of people seem to get unnecessarily fussy about that sort of thing.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 50):
You have to carry an awful lot of fuel just to transport the fuel on such a ULH flight.

   Yes, but that is the case on AKL-LAX too.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 50):
The bottom line is that Air NZ chooses not to compete on such routes, in spite of much better operating economics.

Yes, they can choose not to. And when they do choose, they will choose the high yielding passengers. The passengers who fly fly from Europe to London/Europe via EK are nearly always the low yielding ones who aren't going to contribute a lot to revenue. Air New Zealand doesn't need to worry about these and can spend their efforts picking more valuable fruit.

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 55):
(did I miss any?)
VS

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 58):
WLG-LAX-DUB 787-8

Runway length issues at Wellington, no?

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 58):
CHC-LAX-GLA 787-8

I would think that even AKL-LAX-NCE would stand a better chance than that one.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 78):
I feel embarrassed if I press the call button unless I'm suffering a heart attack or on fire

   I also refrain from using that button if at all possible.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 78):
He's a Westlake boy who grew up in Milford. He probably got toughened up by a few Carmel College girls breaking his heart when he was growing up. Be gentle on him! Milford's a tough old place.
Quoting Kiwirob (Reply 80):
Woopee I went to Kristin before Westlake, Kristin is a very different place than a boys school. Kristin compared to Westlake was a very wishy washy namby pamby kind of school, filled with do gooder teachers
Quoting keen2fly (Reply 87):
Ooh, seems by that response certain wounds are still a bit raw. I shall not press you on them anymore Kiwirob. Sorry, make that SIR Kiwirob of Milford.

Oh my, what has become of the NZ Aviation Thread? Are the Smiths still keeping up with the Jonses? Did the Chealsea Tractors get stuck on the wet grass?  
Quoting mariner (Reply 85):
It's full of good stuff and it may be a bit overly optimistic but it all makes a lot of sense, and it confirms that Air Chathams will use the DC3 on the Auckland-Whakatane run.

That seems like a very good excuse to go visit Grandma. 

[Edited 2015-02-08 05:32:38]
First to fly the 787-9
 
coolian2
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:34 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Sun Feb 08, 2015 4:31 pm

I don't have ANY issue with stuff like "mate".

In my very customer facing role I've often said "cheers matey" or "all good buddy" and my customer surveys are stunning.

"Mate" I think is a reasonable cultural assumption for NZ. (I hate this part....) It is what it is.
Q300/ATR72-600/737-200/-300/-400/-700/-800/A320/767-200/-300/757-200/777-300ER/
747-200/-300/-400/ER/A340-300/A380-800/MD-83/-88/CRJ-700/-900
 
Gasman
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Sun Feb 08, 2015 5:47 pm

Quoting coolian2 (Reply 92):
"Mate" I think is a reasonable cultural assumption for NZ. (I hate this part....) It is what it is.

"He's not my "mate" and he never will be." So wrote a customer in a formal written complaint about an employee where I work. Now, being called "mate" was probably only 25% of this guy's overall complaint, and without the rest he probably wouldn't have complained at all.......... but you have to be so careful.

"Mate" is fine in the right context. But picking that context is going to be inconsistent between situations and individuals. Being called mate by a FA I've had several previous interactions with during the flight? Fine. But as a 48 year old being greeted as "mate" on entering J class by a 23 year old FA? Doesn't work for me.



[Edited 2015-02-08 10:16:37]
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Sun Feb 08, 2015 7:13 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 93):
"Mate" is fine in the right context. But picking that context is going to be inconsistent between situations and individuals. Being called mate by a FA I've had several previous interactions with during the flight? Fine. But as a 48 year old being greeted as "mate" on entering J class by a 23 year old FA? Doesn't work for me.

I think it's a storm in a teacup.

I very seldom hear "mate" used these days on aircraft - and not so much even out here in the country. The last time I remember hearing "mate" (onboard) was on Virgin Blue before that airline went international bland. The fact that I remember hearing it suggests it isn't common, on Air NZ, or Virgin - or even Qantas.

The old Kiwi slanguage is dying, I seldom hear "bloke" anymore, or "dunny" although I still occasionally, very, very occasionally, hear "quid" used - in Australia, not here - and even "two bob" to mean twenty cents. I don't often hear "bloody" used as an expletive, these days it's more likely to be the "f" word.

TV and the internet have brought immediate access to international-speak - the American "guys" and "you guys" didn't exist in NZ when I left in 1972, and no one gave anyone the middle finger, it was always two fingers.

Language experts have speculated that it is part of the ol' Kiwi cultural cringe, and there may be more than a degree of truth in that, but mostly I think it is mostly the instant communication - thus the ubiquitous "bro" among Maori, even though there is no "b" in the Maori alphabet.

Part of me thinks it's a wee bit sad that NZ is running so fast from its own uniqueness (although I see the reluctance to use the call button still exists), but I'm an old fart, perhaps I'm remembering too fondly when I was young.

It isn't good or bad, it's just what it is. But if people don't like either "sir" or "mate" as the fail safe form of address, then Air NZ is stuck between a rock and a hard place - I've no idea what's wrong with either, fair dinx, I don't.

mariner

[Edited 2015-02-08 11:37:09]
aeternum nauta
 
Gasman
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:33 pm

I wonder what the next widebody for NZ will be?

The 787 has the medium haul sector stitched, and will do for some time.

In terms of high capacity long haul......... A380/748i - alas, not a hope. 777-X? Might be compatible with the LAX/LHR route, slightly more pax friendly than the 77W (wider cabin), and better operating economics. Thoughts?
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13406
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:45 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 94):

TV and the internet have brought immediate access to international-speak - the American "guys" and "you guys" didn't exist in NZ when I left in 1972, and no one gave anyone the middle finger, it was always two fingers.

We're fighting back with 'chur' which I don't get, I must be to old.
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Sun Feb 08, 2015 10:20 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 94):
I think it's a storm in a teacup.

I very seldom hear "mate" used these days on aircraft - and not so much even out here in the country. The last time I remember hearing "mate" (onboard) was on Virgin Blue before that airline went international bland. The fact that I remember hearing it suggests it isn't common, on Air NZ, or Virgin - or even Qantas.

It's about context and frequency.

If individual staff consistently address male customers as mate or similar, that's not an issue, and that's more likely the further out of cities you go.

But if you arrive at check in, or phone the call centre, do you expect to be referred to as mate or bud?

Many businesses use a script. The script might say greet customer, with no further guidance, or it may specify acceptable (and some document unacceptable) greetings.

Without pre-empting the current research, informal familiar greetings are linked to lower standards and speed of customer service. Where the customer is named, greeted as sir / madam, or greeted with no personalising (good morning), the reverse held true.

Some businesses (in scripts), but many individual staff 'mirror' or 'reflect' customers, based on their perceived age, affluence, height (yes, short customers, even where served by short staff, received consistently lower service, and if you are bald and short....) and appearance. The downstream consequence is a further correlation between these perceptions, the greeting used, and the level of service delivered.

A customer appears at check in, casually dressed, and is greeted as mate, while the next customer in a suit, is greeted by name or sir. Not important you think, but then introduce a question, or even an issue, and observe how those same customers are handled.

In the previous research, clothing, hairstyle and jewellery was changed on the same participants, and greeting and service changes observed, which were quite significant.

Have a bit of fun when queuing at airports, boarding, buying a paper, dining out, and see if you can see and hear different comments, tone, body language, etc.
 
wstakl
Posts: 241
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 7:51 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Mon Feb 09, 2015 1:47 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 93):
But as a 48 year old being greeted as "mate" on entering J class by a 23 year old FA? Doesn't work for me.

What does cabin class have to do with it? Are you saying FA's in J and F should be on the more mature side? Sounds a bit precious to me cobber.
 
NZ1
Head Moderator
Posts: 1802
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 1:32 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 153

Mon Feb 09, 2015 5:32 am

Quoting PA515 (Reply 90):
There's no NZ2 AKL-LAX-LHR for Tue 13 Oct and Wed 21 Oct, but the return NZ1 LHR-LAX-AKL is there. And no NZ1 LHR-LAX-AKL for Tue 03 Nov, but the outbound NZ2 is there. .

The missing NZ1 & NZ2 flights are being replaced by special RWC flights carrying the team and supporters.

Quoting PA515 (Reply 90):
Apart from the Sun 20 Sep NZ4/NZ3, there are only six 77E's in use late Aug to early Dec. One will be getting the refit, so another is available for repainting or something else. Maybe the 20 Sep 77E will be changed to a 789.

The reason for only 6 of the 77E aircraft being in operation is that 2 of them are being upgraded at the same time in order to have the refit completed by the end of December.

NZ1

[Edited 2015-02-08 21:34:53]
--
NZ1
Head Forum Moderator

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