Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

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

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Fri Mar 06, 2015 7:19 am

Mariner, you might be being too deferential to NZ management's claims.

They purport this flight to service Brazil, in spite of a total lack of connections. Then again, they also still maintain that Buenos Aires is a Pacific Rim destination, even though it bathes in the South Atlantic!

Until they learn the difference between the Atlantic and Pacific, I'd urge a dose of scepticism.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Fri Mar 06, 2015 7:53 am

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 150):
Mariner, you might be being too deferential to NZ management's claims.


Surely, I'm not one of those a.netters who believes they can run any airline better than the people actually doing it.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 150):
Then again, they also still maintain that Buenos Aires is a Pacific Rim destination, even though it bathes in the South Atlantic!

I don't recall they've ever said that the route map will be only and exclusively Pacific Rim - which is just as well, because none of the waters of the true Pacific bathe Singapore's shores. Arafura Rim, perhaps? Straits Rim?

"Pacific Rim" is a metaphor.

But if you're going to be so pedantic, then we should stop all the chat about a 3rd US city immediately, because I don't think of IAH or ORD as "Pacific Rim." Even LAS would be a small stretch.

mariner

[Edited 2015-03-06 00:00:30]
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4618
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Fri Mar 06, 2015 8:03 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 151):
Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 150):
Then again, they also still maintain that Buenos Aires is a Pacific Rim destination, even though it bathes in the South Atlantic!

I don't recall they've ever said that the route map will be only and exclusively Pacific Rim - which is just as well, because none of the waters of the Pacific bathe Singapore's shores. Arafura Rim, perhaps?

I think when referring to Pacific Rim it means actual countries rather than individual cities.
By this you could say that Argentina certainly is on the edge of the Pacific and whilst Singapore is not directly there when referring to oceans and regions then it would be considered to be Pacific.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Fri Mar 06, 2015 8:17 am

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 152):
I think when referring to Pacific Rim it means actual countries rather than individual cities.

Singapore is a country.

Malaysia is a country, too, and I don't think of it as a "Pacific" country - there are several seas in between.

As above, "Pacific Rim" is a metaphor.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 152):
By this you could say that Argentina certainly is on the edge of the Pacific and whilst Singapore is not directly there when referring to oceans and regions then it would be considered to be Pacific.

Each to their own. But how are you going to explain it if the airline does choose IAH or ORD?

mariner

[Edited 2015-03-06 00:27:41]
 
Gasman
Posts: 2204
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Fri Mar 06, 2015 8:54 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 153):
Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 152):
I think when referring to Pacific Rim it means actual countries rather than individual cities.

Singapore is a country.

Malaysia is a country, too, and I don't think of it as a "Pacific" country - there are several seas in between.

As above, "Pacific Rim" is a metaphor.

Enough rimming, boys.

The issue is should we be at all cynical about the current lack of brilliance surrounding onward connections for their new service to EZE? The short answer is no. It would be less than we'd expect of a major profitable company to establish a service like this and adopt some sort of "let's see where the cards fall" attitude with respect to the onward connections. My bet is that we'll see something approaching a NZ/AR route network closer to the time.

The long answer........ perhaps. It's not unheard of for NZ to embark on new ventures that even with foresight were ill conceived. FRA, and HKG-LHR spring to mind.

[Edited 2015-03-06 01:02:38]
 
Nouflyer
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 9:38 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Fri Mar 06, 2015 9:44 am

Last month's investor presentation calls Buenos Aires a Pacific Rim destination, on page 13.

They said it, not me.

http://www.airnewzealand.com.au/asse...5-interim-analyst-presentation.pdf
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:06 am

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 155):
Last month's investor presentation calls Buenos Aires a Pacific Rim destination, on page 13.

They said it, not me.

Already answered. I guess I'm wasting my time.

mariner
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4618
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:50 am

[quote=mariner,reply=153][
Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 152):
I think when referring to Pacific Rim it means actual countries rather than individual cities.

Singapore is a country.

Malaysia is a country, too, and I don't think of it as a "Pacific" country - there are several seas in between.

As above, "Pacific Rim" is a metaphor.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 152):
By this you could say that Argentina certainly is on the edge of the Pacific and whilst Singapore is not directly there when referring to oceans and regions then it would be considered to be Pacific.

Each to their own. But how are you going to explain it if the airline does choose IAH or ORD?

mariner

[Edited 2015-03-06 00:27:41]
/quote]not sure why you are saying Singapore is a country... Capt Obvious?
Singapore is located between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean so yes I would consider it a Pacific Rim.

As for IAH or ORD... Last time I checked the USA had quite a vast Pacific Ocean coastline. In fact it's over 7000miles long....
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Fri Mar 06, 2015 12:19 pm

Now that the EZE-AKL flight time of 13hr36min has been posted it is possible to get some idea on payload . First I think the time reflects winds on the high end of the range and that there will be some days when the time will be quite a lot less.
Looking at what LAN and QF do on SCL-AKL/SYD , they fly a SSW heading down to as far as 70S and then NNW . No doubt this is to make the winds as much abeam as possible. P 98 of the link below shows the optimized track for the June 25th 2014 winds . Note the southern extremity is about 70S
The ESAD is ~6250nm ; based on this the load range chart for the 77E suggests a payload ~43t. A 261-seat 789 (24J 28Y+ 209Y) can haul the same load but with > 20% less fuel.
Extrapolating this time to GRU-AKL gives a flight time of 15hrs 52min. 77E payload would be ~30t something less than max passenger load based on 312 seats. The 261 seat 789 would haul ~32t which would allow for max passenger plus some belly cargo.


http://www.icao.int/SAM/Documents/20...%20Operations%20considerations.pdf
 
Nouflyer
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 9:38 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Fri Mar 06, 2015 12:49 pm

Sunrise Valley,
You seem to be saying that for the same amount of fuel and carrying a similar amount of freight, Air NZ had a choice between:

a) a 77E to Buenos Aires, or
b) a 789 to Sao Paulo.

The choice of Buenos Aires seems very brave if that is the case.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:40 pm

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 159):
a) a 77E to Buenos Aires, or
b) a 789 to Sao Paulo.

The 789 configured at ~261 seats is not yet a reality ( may never be) ,but way back when NZ talked of an ~ 260 seat version , neither is the EDTO 330 mins. that is needed. I expect NZ is working on accelerated EDTO for the 789 but they need to get a year of 240 mins. out of the way first. Watch for a proving flight at 240-min. and 330 min should start one year later. It seems to me that unless they were to put a seat block on the 77E , GRU would be too marginal. I wonder how much LAN forced their hand. If they could have put off the start of the service to ~June 2016 with a 789 at 330-min. there might have been a different outcome. An interesting thought is whether an ORD/ IAH or whatever destination will prompt a more spacious 789 because of the 14 to 16hrs flying time. Seems to me 36" seat pitch for some rows of Y as UA and HA do it, has much to recommend it.

[Edited 2015-03-06 08:48:54]
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Fri Mar 06, 2015 6:28 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 154):
Enough rimming, boys.

It seems it won't go away.
 
Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 157):
Singapore is located between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean so yes I would consider it a Pacific Rim.

And Argentina will be Air NZ's first landfall on the other side of the Pacific.

If people want to argue as to whether that's "Rim" or not, go for it, but the meaning is clear to me.

mariner
 
PA515
Posts: 1678
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Fri Mar 06, 2015 6:57 pm

Yesterday morning, on another forum, Xiaotung provided a link to Air NZ's Australian website which had published the AKL-EZE schedule. However, by yesterday evening the schedule had been removed. Earlier the New Zealand website had EZE loaded into the booking thing, but that was later removed as well.

Looks like there's been a slight change of plan.

PA515
 
Gasman
Posts: 2204
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Fri Mar 06, 2015 6:58 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 161):

If people want to argue as to whether that's "Rim" or not, go for it

Let's not. We can all have our own ideas as to what constitutes Pacific Rim. I think we'd all agree that the Netherlands, and probably Malawi aren't part of it; but I wouldn't push the point too hard.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 160):
Seems to me 36" seat pitch for some rows of Y as UA and HA do it, has much to recommend it.

Oh..... it does. And not just for payload reasons! As a 193cm person, the extra seat pitch is the difference between an unbearable flight and one that is comfortable, possibly enjoyable. I can never believe it only costs a few hundred bucks more!
 
PA515
Posts: 1678
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:09 pm

Is ZK-OKM getting a repaint in SIN?

PA515
 
NZ1
Head Moderator
Posts: 1802
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 1:32 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:46 pm

OKM is not being repainted in SIN....however OKO will be when it heads up there.

NZ1
 
PA515
Posts: 1678
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Fri Mar 06, 2015 11:01 pm

Quoting NZ1 (Reply 165):
OKM is not being repainted in SIN....however OKO will be when it heads up there.

When is ZK-OKO due in SIN? Thanks.

PA515
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Sat Mar 07, 2015 2:29 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 163):
I can never believe it only costs a few hundred bucks more!

I can drive to BUF get an inexpensive return ticket to JFK pickup HA and for an extra $260 have 36" through to AKL an 18" wide seat as standard and a stopover in HNL as well. I find the thought rather attractive.
 
NZ1
Head Moderator
Posts: 1802
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 1:32 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Sat Mar 07, 2015 3:25 am

Quoting PA515 (Reply 166):

Quoting NZ1 (Reply 165):
OKM is not being repainted in SIN....however OKO will be when it heads up there.

When is ZK-OKO due in SIN? Thanks.

PA515

Mid next month for C Check & Repaint

NZ1
 
Gasman
Posts: 2204
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Sat Mar 07, 2015 7:18 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 167):
I can drive to BUF get an inexpensive return ticket to JFK pickup HA and for an extra $260 have 36" through to AKL an 18" wide seat as standard and a stopover in HNL as well. I find the thought rather attractive.

Totally. I last took advantage of it on a flight HNL-LAX last year on UA; for that 5 hour flight I think it was only an extra $60 US or something ridiculous. Made the world of difference.
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10143
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Sat Mar 07, 2015 9:25 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 167):

After having a nice return flight on UA last week via SYD (meal wasn't that great on the return sector), I'm seriously considering now flying via Australia and spending the extra $200 to sit in Economy Plus with more recline and leg room. If there was another easy Star option to the USA then I would also seriously consider that option.

NZ is simply over priced on the USA market for passengers starting the long flight in AKL
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4618
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Sat Mar 07, 2015 11:29 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 167):

Quoting gasman (Reply 163):
I can never believe it only costs a few hundred bucks more!

I can drive to BUF get an inexpensive return ticket to JFK pickup HA and for an extra $260 have 36" through to AKL an 18" wide seat as standard and a stopover in HNL as well. I find the thought rather attractive.

Not to mention 2x pieces of luggage at 32kg per piece compared to NZ 1x piece at 23kg.
 
User avatar
NZ107
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:51 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Sat Mar 07, 2015 12:17 pm

Quoting NZ1 (Reply 168):

I guess OKP and OKQ aren't too far behind in the repainting queue then?

It seems like the end of the specials is nigh.. The beginning of boring and drab planes is about to begin.. I wish they'd keep OKQ in the All Blacks c/s rather than change it to NZE-esque (or even white - wouldn't that be a travesty!).

[Edited 2015-03-07 04:20:38]

[Edited 2015-03-07 04:21:24]
 
PA515
Posts: 1678
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Sat Mar 07, 2015 12:34 pm

HA446 AKL-HNL appears to be dumping fuel for a return to AKL. Presently about 80 kms east of the Coromandel Peninsular.

PA515
 
PA515
Posts: 1678
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Sat Mar 07, 2015 3:18 pm

Quoting PA515 (Reply 173):

HA446 landed AKL about 0200. Took off again at 0411.

PA515
 
Unclekoru
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:00 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Sun Mar 08, 2015 12:52 am

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 9):
Indeed but I think you may be missing my point.

Changes to CASA EDTO rulings with regard twin engined aircraft flying ETOPS routes over the Southern Ocean potentially impacts traffic to New Zealand. Twin engined operations from South America may soon not HAVE to stop in AKL before making landfall in Oz, this may negatively impact both AKL (in terms of reduced traffic), and NZ (in terms of blunting its competitive edge with the new EZE route).

And the relaxation of EDTO restrictions may make a compelling case for a combined NZ/VA/SA AKL-MEL-JNB route using an NZ 789, and resurrecting VA's attempt which failed due to an uneconomical diversion with their, too large for the route, 77W.

Indeed I did.

  
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4665
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Sun Mar 08, 2015 2:48 am

Quoting Mr AirNZ (Reply 110):
OKB, OKC, OKF and OKH are the relevant frames that have been fitted with increased fire suppressant to enable EDTO 240.

Thanks.

Quoting gasman (Reply 111):
Excellent. Nice to know I can be inside a burning plane for 3 hours 59 minutes before the fire will make its way into the cabin.

Even 119 minutes of fire would be problematic, me thinks.

Quoting NZ1 (Reply 168):
Mid next month for C Check & Repaint

Why isn't that getting done at Auckland? Will OKP get a repaint soon too?

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 172):
The beginning of boring and drab planes is about to begin.. I wish they'd keep OKQ in the All Blacks c/s rather than change it to NZE-esque (or even white - wouldn't that be a travesty!).

   I presume ZK-OKQ has to be repainted by the time of this year's Rugby World Cup? (since I believe that was part of the sponsorship deal with the NZRU)
 
Gasman
Posts: 2204
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Sun Mar 08, 2015 3:29 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 170):
NZ is simply over priced on the USA market for passengers starting the long flight in AKL

I think we're all agreed on this - aren't we? The point of contention would be over what this means. It seems to me we're divided into two camps.

- those who believe that this is an acceptable part of a successful business model; NZ is profitable, and there seems to be no shortage of people wanting to purchase the NZ-USA product, whether it's overpriced by our standards or not.

Or, the camp which I belong to:

- that this is a somewhat cynical use of the company's monoploy, that it's a shame that NZ's product has deteriorated from it's "Blue Chip" status of 10-15 years ago, and that this pricing structure relies on the naivety of the traveling public. It could hurt NZ if it causes it to bleed enough high yielding frequent fliers, particularly once genuine competition returns to the USA routes.
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10143
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Sun Mar 08, 2015 3:53 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 177):
Or, the camp which I belong to:- that this is a somewhat cynical use of the company's monoploy, that it's a shame that NZ's product has deteriorated from it's "Blue Chip" status of 10-15 years ago, and that this pricing structure relies on the naivety of the traveling public. It could hurt NZ if it causes it to bleed enough high yielding frequent fliers, particularly once genuine competition returns to the USA routes.

This is certainly the camp I'm now in! I use to only fly NZ long haul, only in Y+ and book the connecting flights (UA domestic etc) on the same NZ ticket. Now thanks to Koruman, other members, reading articles in the paper and doing my own research I'm now shocked at how much NZ is charging us New Zealanders for flights from AKL and connecting flights with say UA or AC. When you look at NZ fares from SYD-AKL-LAX on NZs Australian web-site (works best if your actually in Australia while doing this), the fares were much cheaper. Yes NZ is a business and deserves to make a profit, but at the expense of loosing customers? NZ is fully taking advantage of their situation to LAX/SFO/YVR and I really hope some competition arrives ASAP.

Since QF left the market, NZs product in Y has only gone one way, and it certainly hasn't gone up! The only nice seats in Y are the ones at the front of Y or the rear of Y where the seats are 3-3-3
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Sun Mar 08, 2015 4:43 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 177):
- those who believe that this is an acceptable part of a successful business model; NZ is profitable, and there seems to be no shortage of people wanting to purchase the NZ-USA product, whether it's overpriced by our standards or not.

Put me firmly in the first camp - that the airline is, fairly sensibly, responding to the changed and changing market, a process that began when they abandoned first class.

mariner
 
User avatar
NZ107
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:51 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Sun Mar 08, 2015 4:57 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 179):

I'm going to wait until I see if/how they adapt to competition on the mainland USA route.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Sun Mar 08, 2015 6:12 am

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 180):
I'm going to wait until I see if/how they adapt to competition on the mainland USA route.

That raises another question.

IF Air NZ is creaming it with high fares because of the monopoly, why have other airlines allowed the monopoly to continue?

If they think there is money to be made, why have they left it so long?

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

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Sun Mar 08, 2015 6:23 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 181):
IF Air NZ is creaming it with high fares because of the monopoly, why have other airlines allowed the monopoly to continue?

Seriously, Mariner? Seriously?

If another airline enters it's not a monopoly any more. So they can't get the same inflated yields.

Look no further than AKL-HNL. As a monopoly, Air NZ was charging NZ$7500 Business Class return for recliner seats. Hawaiian now competes and the price is $4000 return.
 
Unclekoru
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:00 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Sun Mar 08, 2015 6:26 am

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 180):
IF Air NZ is creaming it with high fares because of the monopoly, why have other airlines allowed the monopoly to continue?

If they think there is money to be made, why have they left it so long?

Commercial inertia? Not having the right equipment etc… I believe Air NZ's current profitability lies in it's monopoly on the Nth American routes. It's a bit like the early 90's when almost all of the airlines profitability came from the Japanese market.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Sun Mar 08, 2015 6:53 am

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 182):
Seriously, Mariner? Seriously?

I don't understand that reaction, but yes, of course, seriously.

If the yields AKL-LAX are so inflated, then someone should be able to make money with somewhat lower fares, lower yields.

Airlines flying the further distance from SYD to LAX can make money on lower fares. Why should not the same be true for AKL-LAX?

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 182):
Look no further than AKL-HNL. As a monopoly, Air NZ was charging NZ$7500 Business Class return for recliner seats. Hawaiian now competes and the price is $4000 return.

Which is exactly my point.

mariner
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10143
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Sun Mar 08, 2015 8:14 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 181):
If they think there is money to be made, why have they left it so long?

Not every airline has a spare aircraft or two sitting around waiting to cream it somewhere!
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Sun Mar 08, 2015 9:12 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 185):
Not every airline has a spare aircraft or two sitting around waiting to cream it somewhere!

No, indeed. But it's been a while.

Maybe it isn't a high priority.

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

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Sun Mar 08, 2015 8:29 pm

Any clues what share HA has of the AKL-HNL market? Stats NZ do not split data out by carrier. They use the excuse commercially sensitive or something like that. BITRE does not have these sort of inhibitions!
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1923
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Sun Mar 08, 2015 8:33 pm

Maybe we could have a special thread entitled "I no longer fly monopolistic NZ because it offers poor value for money" and then the rest of us who are heartily sick of the incessant NZ-bashing can discuss something else? I think this discussion only goes to reinforce that the national obsession with the tall poppy syndrome is alive and well - anyone who is successful has to be cut down to size.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2204
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Mon Mar 09, 2015 1:47 am

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 188):
Maybe we could have a special thread entitled "I no longer fly monopolistic NZ because it offers poor value for money" and then the rest of us who are heartily sick of the incessant NZ-bashing can discuss something else? I think this discussion only goes to reinforce that the national obsession with the tall poppy syndrome is alive and well - anyone who is successful has to be cut down to size.

Hmmmmm. Ok - I'll bite.

Firstly, what is often described as the "Tall Poppy Syndrome" has been shown to be a) utter bollocks, and b) not unique to New Zealand. It is nothing more than a sour-grapes catch-cry trotted out by individuals (or companies) who believe their celebrity status, or some valid achievement mandates they should be above all criticism. Certainly it would seem that some here would believe NZ are above criticism because they are currently posting a profit.

Secondly, this is a "New Zealand Aviation" thread within an aviation website. Air New Zealand is always going to be a major point of discussion. You imply the criticisms of Air NZ which are aired here ("incessant NZ bashing") have no basis in fact, or are simply a knee jerk response by people in whose eyes NZ can do nothing right. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. All of the criticism I have seen of NZ here is valid, specific and based in fact. It is motivated - at least as far as I am concerned - by the fact NZ in my eyes is *not* a "Tall-poppy". That would be an airline which is professional, profitable but also good value for money. In my view NZ scores one out of three.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Mon Mar 09, 2015 2:44 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 189):
Firstly, what is often described as the "Tall Poppy Syndrome" has been shown to be a) utter bollocks, and b) not unique to New Zealand.

Those two statements being contradictory - LOL.

If the Tall Poppy Syndrome is "not unique to NZ" that means it does exist - so how can it be "utter bollocks" at the same time?

I think Air NZ is fair game with the key word being "fair" - and sometimes, it isn't and it does get a bit relentless.

Still, that's a.net, I guess.  

mariner
 
Gasman
Posts: 2204
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Mon Mar 09, 2015 5:23 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 190):
Quoting gasman (Reply 189):
Firstly, what is often described as the "Tall Poppy Syndrome" has been shown to be a) utter bollocks, and b) not unique to New Zealand.

Those two statements being contradictory - LOL.

If the Tall Poppy Syndrome is "not unique to NZ" that means it does exist - so how can it be "utter bollocks" at the same time?

Give me strength. As my teachers used to say to me, there's always one in a class.........

"Tall Poppy" paranoia is not unique to New Zealand. It is still a nonsense concept nonetheless.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Mon Mar 09, 2015 5:38 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 191):
As my teachers used to say to me, there's always one in a class.........

Yes. And, as you might guess, that one was often me. But I'm content in that role.

Quoting gasman (Reply 191):
It is still a nonsense concept nonetheless.

I dispute that - strongly - but this is supposed to be about aviation, y'know, things with wings.

On that note, anyone got any bright ideas as to the best way to get to Myanmar - Burma - from Auckland - AirNZ/Singapore, or Thai or ......?

mariner
 
Gasman
Posts: 2204
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Mon Mar 09, 2015 5:50 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 192):
Yes. And, as you might guess, that one was often me. But I'm content in that role.

Totally with you.

Quoting mariner (Reply 192):
On that note, anyone got any bright ideas as to the best way to get to Myanmar - Burma - from Auckland - AirNZ/Singapore, or Thai or ......?

SQ all the way.

I have always loved Thai, but when I last had a long haul trip with them (AKL-CDG-AKL) the hard product was well below par (this was in J & F). Malaysian is an option, but then of course you don't get Star Alliance points.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Mon Mar 09, 2015 6:19 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 193):
SQ all the way.

I have always loved Thai, but when I last had a long haul trip with them (AKL-CDG-AKL) the hard product was well below par (this was in J & F). Malaysian is an option, but then of course you don't get Star Alliance points.

Well, yes, but it's a bit - conventional and I'm hoping to do something a bit different.

I'm wondering if anyone here has flown Vietnam Airlines (from Sydney) because I may split the trip between Yangon and Vientiane (Laos). Basically, I'm going to pig out on Asian food in the middle of our winter - we don't get a lot of Asian food in Tutukaka - LOL.

StarAlliance (or any FF) points are not an issue, I don't collect 'em.

mariner
 
Gasman
Posts: 2204
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Mon Mar 09, 2015 6:41 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 194):
I'm wondering if anyone here has flown Vietnam Airlines

Not personally, but I have a precious, high maintenance colleague who felt their J class product was superior to SQ.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Mon Mar 09, 2015 8:05 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 195):
Not personally, but I have a precious, high maintenance colleague who felt their J class product was superior to SQ.

That's worth investigating. Thanks.

mariner
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8435
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Mon Mar 09, 2015 8:41 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 192):
On that note, anyone got any bright ideas as to the best way to get to Myanmar - Burma - from Auckland - AirNZ/Singapore, or Thai or ......?

You could get a cheap fare on PR ex Australia and stop off for some Filipino food along the way. (YUM!!)
 
cchan
Posts: 979
Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 8:54 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Mon Mar 09, 2015 9:12 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 194):
I'm wondering if anyone here has flown Vietnam Airlines (from Sydney) because I may split the trip between Yangon and Vientiane (Laos).

Have been on VN on short haul and domestic a number of times, have not tried them on long haul though. My experience in Y is that they are similar to Chinese carriers CA, CZ. They get you there, the product is ok if you are not fuzzy. SGN and HAN are not great places for transit though, and check visa requirements for Vietnam before you pay.

Quoting mariner (Reply 194):
Vientiane (Laos)

Easiest would be to fly with TG via BKK for VTE.
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3676
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread 154

Mon Mar 09, 2015 9:39 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 196):

How about flying China Airlines from AKL to TPE then on to RGN? Alternate transport across Indo-China then SGN or HAN to TPE and AKL.

Who is online

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