Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8428
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Sat Feb 28, 2015 10:43 pm

I got told timings for EZE and the new schedule the other day. I dont know where I will fit them all at AKL.
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.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4577
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Sat Feb 28, 2015 11:06 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 49):

Quoting gasman (Reply 48):


Cities in the running include Chicago, Houston and Las Vegas."

Out of those three, I'd vote for LAS.

mariner

Luxon specifically mentions close to the East Coast and your bet is LAS???
Even if Luxon hadn't mentioned East Coast LAS would be my last choice (being a stones throw from LAX, not much further from SFO and being a small O&D market with even less in the way of connections).
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Sat Feb 28, 2015 11:33 pm

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 51):
Luxon specifically mentions close to the East Coast and your bet is LAS???

This is what was actually said:

"Air New Zealand is also working on plans to fly to a third United States mainland destination, in the interior or close to the eastern seaboard."

Note - "the interior" OR close to the eastern seaboard, and I'm not sure that I'd include IAH as "close to the eastern seaboard" - only a bit closer.

Of the three that were stated as being on the short list - yes, although it isn't my bet, it is my preference.

LAS is a place where people want to go (it's one of the top ten busiest airports in the US) and that's always a pretty good starting point for an airline.

My "first preference" would be DEN, but they seem to have nixed that.

mariner

[Edited 2015-02-28 15:47:42]
aeternum nauta
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4577
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Sun Mar 01, 2015 12:50 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 52):
Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 51):




My "first preference" would be DEN, but they seem to have nixed that.

mariner

[Edited 2015-02-28 15:47:42]

Yes DEN would be perfect. Nice and Central. Popular in winter for the skiing market. However I think it is not viable simple due to hot n high performance penalties.
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
aklrno
Posts: 1597
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:18 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Sun Mar 01, 2015 2:36 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 50):
Luxon specifically mentions close to the East Coast and your bet is LAS???
Even if Luxon hadn't mentioned East Coast LAS would be my last choice (being a stones throw from LAX, not much further from SFO and being a small O&D market with even less in the way of connections).

Even though I personally think IAH is more likely, to say LAS with about 150,000 hotel rooms is not a big destination sounds weird. And it is very well connected to most of the US but maybe not on Star Alliance. They manage to keep 4 runways very busy going somewhere.

It is also the only airport in the world with non-stop service to Area 51.   
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10134
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Sun Mar 01, 2015 6:37 am

Quoting PA515 (Reply 43):
Quoting 777ER (Reply 42):How about this then:'Northern Summer' AKL-ORD 1630/1500, ORD-AKL 1930/0515'Northern Winter' AKL-ORD 1630/1300, ORD-AKL 1730/0515

That schedule would create an 8pm onwards connecting arrival into EWR, YYZ, DTW and other destinations towards the Eastern side/Atlantic in the New York time zone (or 1 hour further ahead in the Atlantic time zone). Certainly is much better for arrivals but I'm struggling to see how NZ would prefer ORD as the AKL departure can't be pushed forward more to enable better connections without causing connecting issues from Aussie.

A 6-6.30am arrival into AKL would certainly be better then a 5.15am arrival
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
 
nascarnut
Posts: 308
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:43 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Sun Mar 01, 2015 6:54 am

I would love to see IAH win the battle. The connections throughout the US/Mexico/Central America and Canada would offer a huge opportunity.
NZ will time whatever city they choose to benefit from the Austrlia feed so earliest departure from AKL would be around 1900 to provide best connections. This will allow the three widebodies NZ104/SYD, NZ136/BNE and NZ124/MEL all to connect with it unless the retime these three flights earlier. On the reverse sector it would be an early morning arrival.
Not sure if someone could provide suitable timings for a AKL-IAH sector to see how favourable they match up with the
NZ-AUST connections but also the UA connections ex IAH.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Sun Mar 01, 2015 12:05 pm

Ibelieve IAH arrival must be in time for 1600hr and later departures. A long shot, but how about ATL. and a DL feed arrangement. Possible with a 77W.
.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Sun Mar 01, 2015 12:37 pm

Better still, MCO or MIA. Both about 90min. from. NYC
and under 16hrs westbound to AKL
 
User avatar
drerx7
Posts: 4448
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:19 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Sun Mar 01, 2015 12:46 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 57):
A long shot, but how about ATL. and a DL feed arrangement. Possible with a 77W.

Nah....
I'm hoping it's IAH, and announced soon...it really would help in my honeymoon planning lol....one stop to NAN via Star Alliance.
HOUSTON, TEXAS
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Sun Mar 01, 2015 1:30 pm

At MIA it might be possible to work something out with AA that would satisfy any Sth. Pacific ambitions they might have.
 
zkncj
Posts: 4168
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Sun Mar 01, 2015 5:58 pm

Quoting 777ER (Reply 41):
Anyone know when NZs SYD lounge re-opens? The temporary one is simply too small and with just over 1 hour before the first of 2 NZ departures (WLG then CHC), the lounge is certainly filling up fast!

It's mean to be in April, although they have published an opening date.

If anything I'd say it would be the 30/4/15 to align with the 75 anniversary of flying AKL-SYD
 
texan
Posts: 4071
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:23 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Sun Mar 01, 2015 8:16 pm

Quoting drerx7 (Reply 59):
Nah....
I'm hoping it's IAH, and announced soon...it really would help in my honeymoon planning lol....one stop to NAN via Star Alliance.

You're not the only one! Trying to get the family from Dallas and Houston to my wedding in Tonga. IAH-AKL would have been a godsend for that. And it'd make it easier to get home and visit the family.

Texan
"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
 
User avatar
NZ107
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:51 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Sun Mar 01, 2015 8:56 pm

It's all about the destination AND the journey.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Sun Mar 01, 2015 9:22 pm

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 63):
Strongest hint yet of UA/AA starting AKL..

They won't do it until NZ make it clear what their next US destination is. NZ know this, which is why they're in no hurry to declare it - if indeed they actually do have genuine plans to open up another US destination.

Because in the absence of trans-Pacific competition, you would have to wonder why NZ would open up another US destination. The market is finite. LAX works as a hub. Why fragment the market and increase the need for infrastructure by opening up a new hub?? The only reason would be if there's competition. At the moment it seems to be one big "let's see who blinks first" game.
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Mon Mar 02, 2015 7:38 am

Happy Anet-Birthday, gasman!     
 
Gasman
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Mon Mar 02, 2015 7:47 am

Quoting zkeoj (Reply 65):

Hahaha, thanks mate  . 11 years of time wasting... and including this, 1048 posts. I could've found a cure for cancer if I'd spent the time productively.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1822
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Mon Mar 02, 2015 11:18 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 64):
Because in the absence of trans-Pacific competition, you would have to wonder why NZ would open up another US destination. The market is finite. LAX works as a hub. Why fragment the market and increase the need for infrastructure by opening up a new hub?? The only reason would be if there's competition. At the moment it seems to be one big "let's see who blinks first" game.

Why open up a new hub? Perhaps precisely to pre-empt the competition and offer something that they can't or won't. The carrier could reallocate its 3x weekly "extra" AKL-SFO frequencies and/or the extra AKL-LAX frequencies and offer service 3x or 6x weekly to a new hub offering better connections to the eastern seaboard for the cost of a few hours of fuel per day (OK, more than that, but you get the drift). Or it could keep all their "extra" frequencies, add a new hub as well, and really take it to the opposition. Neither would be a bad defensive move against competition on both of its existing two mainland US routes.

It's a viable strategy for NZ to "blink" first, as you put it. I call it taking first mover advantage.

You're correct, though, that it is a finite market. A growing, but finite, market. There are currently up to 4 daily frequencies from NZ to mainland US, and with the prospect of UA competing on AKL-SFO and AA competing on AKL-LAX, added to an NZ flight to a new internal hub, you can imagine that the market may within a couple of years be seeking to digest 6 or 7 daily frequencies to the US. That's a lot of extra seats to fill, and it would ensure a real competitive battle to fill them, to the benefit of the consumer.

But not, I suspect, to the benefit of the shareholders of the airlines involved, at least not initially. For all the players and potential players, this will surely be a long-term play, and the dividends may be a few years off. Or not come at all.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8428
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Mon Mar 02, 2015 11:58 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 66):
11 years of time wasting... and including this, 1048 posts. I could've found a cure for cancer if I'd spent the time productively.

It's ok ...it could be worse *ahem* 14 years and 20days and 7446 posts...lol
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.
 
PA515
Posts: 1653
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Mon Mar 02, 2015 12:16 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 47):
I think Mr Luxon is being a little mischievous on this one.
Quoting gasman (Reply 48):
I suspect NZ are spinning this out as long as they can simply to discourage other players to enter the NZ-USA direct market.

Quite possibly. Luxon was reported recently saying Air NZ conducts 'war games' scenarios!

Here's the videoed interview with the NZ Herald. The new USA destination is discussed from 4min 05.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/businessvi...&gal_cid=1503215&gallery_id=158300

PA515

[Edited 2015-03-02 04:21:20]
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1822
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Mon Mar 02, 2015 12:35 pm

Quoting PA515 (Reply 69):
Here's the videoed interview with the NZ Herald. The new USA destination is discussed from 4min 05.

Watched that - tend to agree with those who identified a strong hint about ORD . The "point of difference" that he is seeking just wouldn't be the same for IAH. And that must surely put the 789 in the frame?

[Edited 2015-03-02 04:36:26]
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Mon Mar 02, 2015 1:24 pm

.

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 70):
And that must surely put the 789 in the frame?

Accelerated EDTO is allowed for under ICAO Annex 6. This appears to be available to operators with "substantial " EDTO-180-min. experience. Essentially , subject to getting all the paperwork approved, 240-min. can start as early as the EIS of the type. Thus eligibility for 330-min. can be as soon as one year after EIS. There would be no reason in my view why NZ or any other eligible 787 operator would not apply for accelerated approval. Also under this rule the NZ 77E should be 330-min. approved later in year prior to commencement of service to EZE.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:04 pm

Quoting PA515 (Reply 69):
The new USA destination is discussed from 4min 05.
Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 70):
The "point of difference" that he is seeking just wouldn't be the same for IAH

The one to two hours is the "point of difference". ATL fits the criteria as well as ORD. In the interior close to the Eastern Seaboard with a second to none DL feed! Maybe part of the VA/DL arrangement might rub off!
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Mon Mar 02, 2015 7:31 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 64):
The market is finite. LAX works as a hub. Why fragment the market and increase the need for infrastructure by opening up a new hub??

Certainly, any market is finite but the "whole US" market remains relatively untapped.

Yes, folk who already want to go to NZ can connect through LAX or SFO, but large numbers of people will not even have considered NZ, except as some vague pipe dream, because of the lack of direct service.

A new city opens up a whole new market/catchment area and i's easily provable, at least in the US, that non-stops stimulate the market, sometimes quite dramatically.

mariner

[Edited 2015-03-02 11:32:30]
aeternum nauta
 
Gasman
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Mon Mar 02, 2015 9:43 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 73):

I agree, but in light of what you said I don't understand this cat & mouse "any day now" game that NZ have played around this "new US destination" for at least five years.

It's clear that any extra services to the US, much as we would like to think otherwise, are not a no-brainer. QF and UA have pulled out altogether. NZ have dithered over a new destination for years. If it was that simple a business case, either NZ or another player would've done it years ago. Apart from the fact we're enjoying a blip in fuel prices, nothing is really that different right now.

I think what we have is a Mexican standoff. NZ are tempted for the reasons you mention, but don't want to open up a potentially risky new route if they're about to lose their trans-Pacific monopoly. And the US carriers won't commit themselves either only to find themselves competing head to head with NZ on a brand new route.

NZ won't actually start services to any new US destination this calender year. I'd bet mariner's house on it.  
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1822
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Mon Mar 02, 2015 10:53 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 72):
Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 70):
The "point of difference" that he is seeking just wouldn't be the same for IAH

The one to two hours is the "point of difference". ATL fits the criteria as well as ORD.

Yes, this for me was the real "revelation" (in my mind, at least) - the psychological benefit of not having to travel 5-6 hours from the eastern seaboard before you even board your flight to NZ. Yes, ATL would also fit the bill, but I can't see them getting into bed with DL when they have a partner already in UA. And Chicago probably has more appeal as a destination for NZers and Australians than ATL.

Quoting gasman (Reply 74):
I think what we have is a Mexican standoff. NZ are tempted for the reasons you mention, but don't want to open up a potentially risky new route if they're about to lose their trans-Pacific monopoly. And the US carriers won't commit themselves either only to find themselves competing head to head with NZ on a brand new route.

I don't see this at all. UA is rumoured to be interested in SFO-AKL, while AA is rumoured to be looking at LAX-AKL. NZ will stay on these routes irrespective of the competition. No one is currently rumoured to be looking at a flight from the interior which could compete with one of NZ's destinations-under-consideration. I very much doubt that NZ would have put so much reputation on the line by sending such strong signals about a new destination if there was a chance that they would not proceed if AA or UA came to the party.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
Gasman
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Mon Mar 02, 2015 11:09 pm

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 75):
UA is rumoured to be
Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 75):
AA is rumoured to be
Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 75):
NZ's destinations-under-consideration

"Rumoured to be/under consideration". Why the rumours??? These are not originating from social media, but the airlines themselves are feeding them to the media who respond in kind. This is not unheard of, but we generally do not see teasers of this magnitude before every new route is announced. They are, at this point, playing a game. I doubt that any airline has even itself completely decided on a new route.

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 75):
I very much doubt that NZ would have put so much reputation on the line by sending such strong signals about a new destination if there was a chance that they would not proceed if AA or UA came to the party.

Of course they would. What other reason would they have for sending the signals in the first place? Just to get us excited? They want to discourage any new players from entering the market, all the while keeping an exit clause for themselves. They are playing for time.

[Edited 2015-03-02 15:11:55]
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1810
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Mon Mar 02, 2015 11:22 pm

For me, ORD is a no-brainer. In addition to the *A UA east coast destinations, ORD has good *A connections into YYZ/YUL/YOW (11+ million population) and *A connections to 15+ European destinations.

I'll admit my bias - instead of YOW-YYZ-LAX/SFO/YVR-AKL, with a 6-8 hour connection westbound on the west coast and a red-eye connection returning, I would get YOW-ORD-AKL with good connection times.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Mon Mar 02, 2015 11:37 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 74):
I agree, but in light of what you said I don't understand this cat & mouse "any day now" game that NZ have played around this "new US destination" for at least five years.

I don't recall it being cat and mouse for five years. I remember it was mentioned as possible by Rob Fyfe - but so was India, and we ain't there yet.

Quoting gasman (Reply 74):
NZ have dithered over a new destination for years. If it was that simple a business case, either NZ or another player would've done it years ago.

(a) see above and (b) I don't think it is a simple business case, I think it's very complicated.

I don't see another viable destination on the west coast and everyone here seems to hold their nose when I even mention LAS. DEN is my first preference, but may have altitude problems.

That leaves ORD and IAH. I don't share the general enthusiasm for IAH (a pig of a place in high summer) and ORD's a heck of a long way, as the suggestion of ATL would be.

So - I dunno. But I don't quite understand your impatience, since you seem to have sworn off Air NZ.

mariner

[Edited 2015-03-02 16:14:05]
aeternum nauta
 
Gasman
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Tue Mar 03, 2015 12:30 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 78):
t I don't quite understand your impatience, since you seem to have sworn off Air NZ.

I very much want to see another player - preferably QF or AA - enter the NZ-USA market. I perceive NZ's current tactics as delaying this process.

If neither QF nor any US carrier enters the market and NZ opens a successful new route, then the battle is won for NZ and its frequent fliers. Sure the monopoly situation will remain; but people who fly NZ regularly don't seem to know or care that they are getting fleeced.

But I would far prefer see genuine competition in the market.

On the other hand if NZ continue playing for time as they currently are, competing carriers could simply give up and walk away in frustration. NZ could then decide a new route isn't worth the risk, given their existing monopoly and market capture of close to 100%. And then, no-one except NZ's shareholders has won.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Tue Mar 03, 2015 12:49 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 79):
I very much want to see another player - preferably QF or AA - enter the NZ-USA market.

I'd quite like to see it, too, but I don't see that anything Air NZ is doing would inhibit it.

If United wants to start SFO-AKL, it will (presumably in tandem with Air NZ) and if American wants to start LAX-AKL - or even PHX-AKL - it will.

Not to burst anyone's bubble, but whatever dreams our airline may have of Pacific domination, the over-acheiving Americans think we're chopped liver, they play real hardball. Look at the extraordinary deal that the heavies of Warner Brothers got for making "The Hobbit" here, laws were changed to kow-tow to them.

I think Luxon is tougher than most, and I'm pleased we may him, but why on earth would AKL- ORD/IAH/LAS deter the American heavyweights, competition is their daily bread and butter.

If they think there's money to be made, they'll come here. If not - not.

mariner

[Edited 2015-03-02 16:52:08]
aeternum nauta
 
Gasman
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Tue Mar 03, 2015 1:07 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 80):
If they think there's money to be made, they'll come here. If not - not.

I suspect NZ/QF/UA/AA have all come to the same conclusion. There is money to be made with one more aircraft flying between NZ and the US, but not two. All that remains to be decided is what colour it's painted.
 
xiaotung
Posts: 1099
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:58 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Tue Mar 03, 2015 1:07 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 78):
I don't recall it being cat and mouse for five years. I remember it was mentioned as possible by Rob Fyfe - but so was India, and we ain't there yet.

Wasn't India announced by John Key instead of Rob Fyfe?

Rob Fyfe also said that he hoped to see some cooperation with VA on the US routes because there was a market for duo destination visitors where they would enter New Zealand and leave from Australia or vice versa. Years have gone by and UA could now beat NZ in serving this purpose.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Tue Mar 03, 2015 1:11 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 81):
I suspect NZ/QF/UA/AA have all come to the same conclusion.

Hawaiian jumped in. Seems to be doing okay, too.

I really - really - don't think you can blame Air NZ for the perceptions of the others.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
Gasman
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Tue Mar 03, 2015 1:13 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 78):
everyone here seems to hold their nose when I even mention LAS

A three times per week service to LAS would actually make a lot of sense and would likely self sustain purely with O&D traffic
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Tue Mar 03, 2015 1:43 am

Quoting xiaotung (Reply 82):
Wasn't India announced by John Key instead of Rob Fyfe?

Key may have. I only remember it being mentioned by Fyfe (or someone at Air NZ) - IIRC as a potential destination for the 787's. There was some chat about it here at the time, both for and against.

Quoting xiaotung (Reply 82):
Years have gone by and UA could now beat NZ in serving this purpose.

I'd be mildly surprised to see United hooking up with Virgin Oz - if that's what you mean - but I wouldn't fall over in shock.

Quoting gasman (Reply 84):
A three times per week service to LAS would actually make a lot of sense and would likely self sustain purely with O&D traffic

Or get really creative and time it to hook up with Virgin Atlantic's LAS-LGW.

Anything's possible, mate.  

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
xiaotung
Posts: 1099
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:58 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Tue Mar 03, 2015 1:54 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 85):
I'd be mildly surprised to see United hooking up with Virgin Oz - if that's what you mean - but I wouldn't fall over in shock.

I meant UA may now beat NZ in serving duo destination visitors from the States as they will have flights to both New Zealand and Australia.

VA will never team up with UA unless they are finished with DL.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Tue Mar 03, 2015 1:56 am

Quoting xiaotung (Reply 86):
meant UA may now beat NZ in serving duo destination visitors from the States as they will have flights to both New Zealand and Australia.

Ah, I see, my mistake. Yeh, sure, if it happens.

I was never really sure - I was living in the States at the time - why Air NZ gave up SYD-LAX.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1822
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Tue Mar 03, 2015 2:09 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 79):
On the other hand if NZ continue playing for time as they currently are, competing carriers could simply give up and walk away in frustration. NZ could then decide a new route isn't worth the risk, given their existing monopoly and market capture of close to 100%. And then, no-one except NZ's shareholders has won.

I agree with Mariner. If the US heavyweights want in to the NZ market, they're not going to be deterred by what you perceive as NZ "dithering". You're implying that NZ has an obligation to act magnanimously toward potential competitors and help them out by signalling a firm intention before they're ready to do so. That's just so wrong on every level!

You're also implying that NZ's enthusiasm for a new "interior" destination is a pure ploy to keep the competition away. That's only realistically going to work for NZ if it announces first and UA and AA walk away as a consequence - and then your desire for NZ to stop dithering has backfired because you fail to achieve competition. If NZ holds back and the others "walk away in frustration" before NZ announces (as you suggest above) then you've also failed to achieve your desired outcome of increased competition.

The only way that you achieve competition is if AA or UA themselves make a positive decision to begin services. That's entirely up to them to decide, and the only influence that NZ may have over that is whether they are scared off by the advantage that a new interior destination may give to NZ, which is doubtful, in my view, if they're serious long-term players.

Goliaths UA and AA are not going to allow themselves to be bullied by the minnow NZ - and NZ has no obligation to back off announcing a new destination in order to allow AA or UA into the market. I can't think of a single business in any industry that would take that approach! Let the market prevail - but don't blame NZ for having a monopoly on the route if neither UA nor AA take up the opportunity. They've both tried and failed before, after all, as have QF and CO (also now subsumed into UA).
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
xiaotung
Posts: 1099
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:58 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Tue Mar 03, 2015 2:12 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 87):
I was never really sure - I was living in the States at the time - why Air NZ gave up SYD-LAX.

My understanding is NZ gave up SYD-LAX so UA would give up AKL, whether that was an informal agreement or not, I don't know. Of course at the time NZ was in no shape to compete in the Australian market but I don't see why NZ could not re-enter the market now that their AKL monopoly is about to end.

I am not sure why VA bother with the DL alliance now they have both NZ and SQ as partners.
 
IndianicWorld
Posts: 3422
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:32 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Tue Mar 03, 2015 2:26 am

Quoting xiaotung (Reply 89):
I am not sure why VA bother with the DL alliance now they have both NZ and SQ as partners.

This was agreed prior to the ownership stakes being taken from memory.

IF, and yes that's an if, the DL partnership is vworking for VA now theres no point changing it at this point. When the deal comes up for renewal, I am sure that the influence of the VA owners will come into it, with all 3 major invested carriers not exactly having any bond to DL. The only party that would likely try and push for DL's cause would be Branson, given DL's ownership of a stake in VS.

DL would likely have some significant issues servicing SYD without VA though. The feed would be an important element, especially if VA and UA teamed up. It would give UA access to BNE (VA daily 77W) and VA then gains MEL non-stop flight access again (UA daily 789).

The VA ownership dynamic will be an interesting one to watch in coming years.
 
xiaotung
Posts: 1099
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:58 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Tue Mar 03, 2015 2:32 am

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 90):
This was agreed prior to the ownership stakes being taken from memory.

IF, and yes that's an if, the DL partnership is vworking for VA now theres no point changing it at this point. When the deal comes up for renewal, I am sure that the influence of the VA owners will come into it, with all 3 major invested carriers not exactly having any bond to DL. The only party that would likely try and push for DL's cause would be Branson, given DL's ownership of a stake in VS.

But VA and DL are now filing for a 10 year extension to their alliance which was what really surprised me.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Tue Mar 03, 2015 2:38 am

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 88):
You're implying that NZ has an obligation to act magnanimously toward potential competitors and help them out by signalling a firm intention before they're ready to do so. That's just so wrong on every level!

I'm implying no such thing. But the thing is, they *have* signaled a firm intention before they're ready to follow through with it. This is a ploy. I'm not making a judgment on it on way or other. There's no law against any American carrier doing similarly.

My point is that all of this behaviour probably indicates that the business case for another US destination/carrier is tenuous at best.

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 88):
You're also implying that NZ's enthusiasm for a new "interior" destination is a pure ploy to keep the competition away.

Again, you misunderstand me. I'm implying that NZ's enthusiasm for an interior destination is dependent on their trans-Pacific monopoly remaining intact. Which is understandable, but not great news for the traveller.
 
IndianicWorld
Posts: 3422
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:32 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Tue Mar 03, 2015 2:39 am

Quoting xiaotung (Reply 91):
But VA and DL are now filing for a 10 year extension to their alliance which was what really surprised me.

That is very interesting indeed.

One would have thought that the influences of the VA board would have taken them in a different direction, so it must make some strategic or financial sense in some way to continue this.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Tue Mar 03, 2015 2:52 am

Quoting xiaotung (Reply 89):
My understanding is NZ gave up SYD-LAX so UA would give up AKL, whether that was an informal agreement or not, I don't know

I've heard that several times and - in the absence of proof - it doesn't quite have the ring of reality to me. If anyone has such proof, then of course, I'd be pleased to see it.

I was in the States and saw it from a US perspective - I was closely following the United bankruptcy proceedings. Given the money United was losing, and had been for some time, I don't think they gave a brass razoo what Air NZ did or didn't do, it was about United's survival.

I agree the timing of it could give rise to conspiracy theories but they'd be very one-sided. Similarly, I don't know that Air NZ's AKL monopoly is about to end.

I've read the speculation and the most I can say is that it may be about to end.

Should Air NZ restart SYD-LAX? It seems to be a saturated market these days and I think it would give Virgin Australia the screaming ab-dabs, they're having enough trouble already with international losses. SYD-LAS? In a heartbeat, but maybe I'm just stirring the pot.  

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

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Tue Mar 03, 2015 2:58 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 92):
Again, you misunderstand me. I'm implying that NZ's enthusiasm for an interior destination is dependent on their trans-Pacific monopoly remaining intact.

Why? I think it's (partly) insurance in case they lose their monopoly.   

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1822
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:04 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 92):
But the thing is, they *have* signaled a firm intention before they're ready to follow through with it. This is a ploy. I'm not making a judgment on it on way or other. There's no law against any American carrier doing similarly.

My point is that all of this behaviour probably indicates that the business case for another US destination/carrier is tenuous at best.

They've actually said that they're looking at the possibilities of an interior destination, which is true, and is the sort of info that I, as a (very small!) shareholder in NZ would expect as part of my ongoing analysis of whether they're a share I should hold or sell. True, it may also have the effect of dissuading competitors, but the carrier owes nothing to its competitors, just its own shareholders. If they eventually decide that they won't proceed, I'll be disappointed as an airline geek and as an avid traveller, but as a shareholder I'll assume that they did the numbers and it didn't stack up. But to label it a naked "ploy" is a pretty extreme reaction.

As for this "behaviour" indicating that the business case for a new destination is tenuous at best, that's drawing a very long bow. The delay in making an announcement could indicate any number of things, from decisions yet to be made about aircraft type and configuration, down to the availability of slots at their preferred destination. Or just that they're doing further number-crunching. I can be a conspiracy theorist with the best of them, but this issue isn't one that jumps out at me as such!
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1822
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:12 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 92):
I'm implying that NZ's enthusiasm for an interior destination is dependent on their trans-Pacific monopoly remaining intact.

Sorry, don't want to go on and on, but I'd have thought that on that basis you'd encourage NZ to hold back on its announcement until AA and UA had made their positions clear, rather than lambasting them for not announcing sooner? Because if they announce tomorrow, that might be the trigger for UA and AA to walk away, which is precisely the outcome you want to avoid. Or am I still misunderstanding?
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
Gasman
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Tue Mar 03, 2015 5:13 am

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 97):
Or am I still misunderstanding?

Yes. I feel very unloved.  

I'm actually not lambasting anyone, and I have no real vested interest in this. But every time there is "news" along these lines, everyone here comes, just a little. Which I am trying to say is a little premature.

I think NZ are definitely playing games (and playing the media) a bit though. I'm not lambasting them for it at all!! It's just clever use of the media. A bit sly, but not dishonest or fraudulent.
 
zkncj
Posts: 4168
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Tue Mar 03, 2015 6:44 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 94):
Should Air NZ restart SYD-LAX? It seems to be a saturated market these days and I think it would give Virgin Australia the screaming ab-dabs, they're having enough trouble already with international losses. SYD-LAS? In a heartbeat, but maybe I'm just stirring the pot.

I would go with SYD-SFO, 4-7X weekly with an 772.

In the longer term I'm thinking it would be more sense for VA to exit the longhaul makret, and pass these services to NZ

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