Quoting HLZCPH (Reply 148): Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 146): Terrible choice, in my opinion. And what an insane amount of money to outlay - looks like moving the NH90 helicopters (another stupid military purchase - remember the land vehicle debacle?) is a key driver of all this. I agree, the C17 is too expensive for us. How much is a new C130J anyway? That hasn't been mentioned anywhere that I know of. How about one or two RNZAF A319's? Seems to work well for the Aussies antarctic operations. Could pick up some used examples pretty cheap, powered with IAE engines to match the Air NZ machines (maintenance wise). Plus 2 or 3 tactical type aircraft. My 2c!

Why wouldn't they future proof and order A320neo? And what's the skinny on the Airbus A400 Atlas, is this being actively considered as a Herc replacement?

Quoting HLZCPH (Reply 148):

The question that should be asked is whether any of the other "contenders" are in fact viable options. If one of the requirement is to fly to McMurdo without the need for a point of safe return (remember the incident with the 757 a couple of years back) then can any of the other aircraft do this - the C17 can and does with the U.S. Air National Guard ops out of ChCh. Can a A400M, A319/320, or C130J do this with a meaningful payload? If not they may be an even more expensive white elephant in that they would fail to deliver a significant airlift requirement.

Quoting aerojoe (Reply 151): f one of the requirement is to fly to McMurdo without the need for a point of safe return (remember the incident with the 757 a couple of years back)

Oh, that sounds interesting, do you have more details ?

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 152): Quoting aerojoe (Reply 151): f one of the requirement is to fly to McMurdo without the need for a point of safe return (remember the incident with the 757 a couple of years back) Oh, that sounds interesting, do you have more details ?

McCully tells the story…

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11138273

There was also a TAIC report earlier this year which the media also reported on. I think this resulted in the RNZAF stopping 757 flights to the ice - so leaving a major capability gap in terms of New Zealand's ability to move people and cargo in support of their research activities on the ice.

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 153): McCully tells the story… http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11138273

thanks, I wonder how I missed this at the time

Quoting HLZCPH (Reply 148): How about one or two RNZAF A319's? Seems to work well for the Aussies antarctic operations. Could pick up some used examples pretty cheap, powered with IAE engines to match the Air NZ machines (maintenance wise).

What about some ex NZ A320s? they will be starting to get rid of the early ZK-OJ* fleet next year and there only 10 years old.

Surely they could do some mods to them to extend range?

Quoting aerojoe (Reply 151): The question that should be asked is whether any of the other "contenders" are in fact viable options. If one of the requirement is to fly to McMurdo without the need for a point of safe return (remember the incident with the 757 a couple of years back) then can any of the other aircraft do this - the C17 can and does with the U.S. Air National Guard ops out of ChCh.

The RNZAF 757s are very old and are of the non-ER model, hence the problem. A couple years back there was an plan of trying using NZ 763ER down to the ice, but the trail didn't happen due to weather and American budget cuts that year.

Quoting zkncj (Reply 156): The RNZAF 757s are very old and are of the non-ER model, hence the problem.

Is there an -ER model of the 757 ? I know the 767 had -200 and -200ER but as far as I was aware there was no the 757 just had the -200 and -300 without a specific ER model.

[Edited 2015-04-16 21:18:49]

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 157): Quoting zkncj (Reply 156): The RNZAF 757s are very old and are of the non-ER model, hence the problem. Is there an -ER model of the 757 ? I know the 767 had -200 and -200ER but as far as I was aware there was no the 757 just had the -200 and -300 without a specific ER model.

Correct, Boeing did not build an ER model of the 757.

Quoting aerojoe (Reply 151): If one of the requirement is to fly to McMurdo without the need for a point of safe return (remember the incident with the 757 a couple of years back) then can any of the other aircraft do this - the C17 can and does with the U.S. Air National Guard ops out of ChCh.

Surely there are cheaper alternatives - the Embraer KC-390 is the perfect size replacement for the C130s, jet powered and with a greater range, at an upfront cost of just USD50 million. Now, we don't know what the exact requirements for the RNZAF are, but USD300 million for just one airframe is spectacularly expensive. Like, astronomical, particularly for our thinly funded military. I'd rather they spent the money on replacements for the Orions.

Quoting zkncj (Reply 156): The RNZAF 757s are very old and are of the non-ER model, hence the problem.

There must be a plenthora of higher MTOW 757s and relatively new 767ERs available across the gobal fleet - stil lefficient with established parts, training and maintenance systems, that can move more passengers than a C17 and operate as both VIP and troop transport.

The C17 - given it won't be replacing the C130s - is just the most bizarre option.

Alternatively, come to an arrangement with the USAF about jointly using their C17s. Again, cheaper than buying our own.

Has anyone seen anything more about the last NZ 733 services on 6 September?

"Air New Zealand Tentatively Schedules Last Boeing 737 Operation in Sep 2015"

Air New Zealand has tentatively assigned final Boeing 737-300 scheduled operations, currently planned on 06SEP15,

Auckland > Christchurch NZ557. As of 17APR15, planned Boeing 737-300 operation on 06SEP15, 2 round-trip Auckland – Wellington morning service, followed by 1.5 round-trip Auckland – Christchurch, as follow. Note planned final 737-300 operation remains subject to change.

http://airlineroute.net/2015/04/17/nz-737-sep15/

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 161):

Wouldn't be surprised if NZ raises the fares for this special moment but hopefully they don't.

In regards to the RNZAF replacements. I can see 2x C17s for heavy/mass operations with 3-4 A400Ms/Embraer KC-390 as C130 replacements with 2 BBJs/ACJs as B757 replacements. If the ACJ gets the nod then I wouldn't be surprised if the A400M is the biggest winner over the C17s.

Looks like NZ is gearing up to make sure no one else is welcome in the domestic market, over the next year will be adding an extra 650,000 seats!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...d-more-than-650-000-domestic-seats

Quoting zkncj (Reply 163):

Your claims about NZ trying to block another competitor isn't really true since a bigger aircraft (A320) is taking over from a smaller aircraft (B733) in the main truck markets with bigger aircraft (Q300/ATR) taking over from smaller aircraft (1900D/Q300) hence the bigger capacity. More seats was always expected

Quoting 777ER (Reply 162): In regards to the RNZAF replacements

AN-178 would be awesome. I love to see more russian aircraft around the world.

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 161): Auckland > Christchurch NZ557. As of 17APR15, planned Boeing 737-300 operation on 06SEP15

I will book. I for one will miss the 737s. I'm sick of the A320s already. At least the 321s are on the way for domestic operations, that makes it a little more variation at least.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 165): At least the 321s are on the way for domestic operations, that makes it a little more variation at least.

So does that suggest split configs (on the assumption they put a J cabin into the 321) or will they only really be doing domestics at peak times and for positioning?

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 165): At least the 321s are on the way for domestic operations, that makes it a little more variation at least.

WHAT! When was this announced? Guess the high FFs will get the J seats since NZ is only having 3x A321s in service, unless of course that has changed?

I understood the A321s were being purchased especially for Trans Tasman routes and that the order had been increased to five airframes. With VA installing J class into all their B738s I would imagine the A321s will be J class capable as well??

Quoting Jetstar315 (Reply 168):

Yes the A321s are replacing the B763s on TT/Island routes. Can't see a need for 5x A321s to replace B763 services unless NZ is considering expansions using A321s or permanently operating some A321s are domestic?

Quoting 777ER (Reply 167):

Not necessarily.. You had to pay for them if you flew the 763 CHC-AKL over the summer.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 167): WHAT! When was this announced? Guess the high FFs will get the J seats since NZ is only having 3x A321s in service, unless of course that has changed?

Emphasis on the 3 specified as 321s at order - they have not ruled out conversion rights or rights on slots if they should have a 'top up' order. While there is no official announcement on the matter, It's hardly a surprise that the aircraft could and should be used domestically to WLG,CHC,ZQN as the demand and connections suit. There are probably even enough intl business class tickets from those ports to justify at least some business class services offered per day domestically to AKL.

I'm fairly confident that like the 788, the 320s will will end up with a fair percentage converted to 321s. I also suspect that the initial order of 14 NEOs is just the tip of a larger iceberg. I expect an interchangeable 321 fleet for sure, whether that means business on domestic or seats to suit/convertible configuration on transtasman remains to be seen. There are plenty of markets from AKL that warrant increases/upsizing. MEL/SYD/BNE/PER/RAR/NAN/APW could all do with a 321 at very least seasonally. As I have said numerous times before, if they utilise their longhaul fleet better they can open up more routes to more places. The added cost of operating a 772/77W instead of a 320/763 is outrageous even with 100 extra seats and cargo belly space. There is no doubt that money can be saved operating a 321 with a very low CASM over a poorly utilised longhaul fleet.

I think if NZ could arrange leasing/purchasing on additional 789s delivered within 2 years the 772s would be gone as well as the four 767s being extended and the international fleet utilised solely longhaul with a mixed class 321 fleet to join the regional dots ex AKL. A fleet of say 10-14 321s 16-20 789s and fleet of 8-10 77W variants would cover pretty much every eventuality from AKL, and lets say 10 320NEOs taken up for direct Y only routes like VLI/TBU/OOL/CNS/MCY/NLK and the rest of NZ intl airports.

[

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 171): I think if NZ could arrange leasing/purchasing on additional 789s delivered within 2 years the 772s would be gone

I too wonder about the continued 8 frame 77E fleet. 18- months from now there should be 8 ( or is it 9) 789's in the fleet. It would be interesting to know the lease terms on the four leased 77E's. I expect these were not the ones converted to EDTO 300 rating. The ability of the 789 to carry the same payload as a 77E and marginally further with a fuel burn of at least 21% less has to be attractive . What interests me at this time is when will a revised cabin layout be introduced to the 789. Will it be at #7 or will it be later. I can see the 789 on the EZE and IAH services after #6 .

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 172): I can see the 789 on the EZE

The 787 will take over EZE as soon as EDTO/Insurance/Fleet size allow, this has already been declared by NZ

When did the Vancouver flights change numbers from NZ83/84 to NZ23? Any particular reason?

Quoting Sylus (Reply 118): I thought the JQ 320's and NZ ATR's had similar RNP technology? Any thoughts??

They might well be able to get the aircraft in, but if it is going to be stuck on the ground for a the rest of the day due to weather, it might not be worthwhile doing so.

Quoting nzrich (Reply 138): yes it's IAH

Best bit of the article:

Quote: Research found some Americans thought it took more than 40 hours to fly here.

  
I'm glad IAH was chosen. The most obvious choice for any third destination in the continental us.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 143): Yes I think so to. I expect LAX to probably revert to just double daily 77W (plus the RAR flight), except in the busiest peak where you might get a 3rd flight on certain days

Seems logical to me, at least for the short term.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 145): Any word on what the timetable will be ?

Going by past precedent, presumably they will put the departure in the evening departures bank, just like they did to EZE. That will be important for connections from Australian ports.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 146): Terrible choice, in my opinion. And what an insane amount of money to outlay - looks like moving the NH90 helicopters (another stupid military purchase - remember the land vehicle debacle?) is a key driver of all this.

Agreed, though as someone who lives near the approach path to one of the Runways at Whenuapai, I will welcome the sound of C-17s flying overhead.   

Quoting zkncj (Reply 156): What about some ex NZ A320s? they will be starting to get rid of the early ZK-OJ* fleet next year and there only 10 years old.

   I think you can put in an ACT or two to increase range when needed. Not sure how much of a hassle it is to install and remove them.

For the RNZAF, I think that an ex Air NZ 767-300WL or two might be better suited to the antarctic flights. A while back when Cairns had a hurricane (and potentially an issue with fuel contamination) Air New Zealand sent a 767 over to replace the normal A320 flight. It tankered in enough fuel for the return leg, which I find quite impressive.  

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 157): Is there an -ER model of the 757 ? I know the 767 had -200 and -200ER but as far as I was aware there was no the 757 just had the -200 and -300 without a specific ER model.

The 757 has different weight variants, just like most other airliners, though higher weight versions aren't marketed as ERs in the same way that 767s are. However, to my knowledge the difference between the heaviest and lightest weight variation isn't particularly significant. I have no idea what weight variants the RNZAF's 757s are.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 159): USD300 million for just one airframe is spectacularly expensive.

  

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 161): "Air New Zealand Tentatively Schedules Last Boeing 737 Operation in Sep 2015"

So this is the retirement flight? What a shame that it will land after dark. Would be good if the airline can provide clarity on this.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 165): At least the 321s are on the way for domestic operations, that makes it a little more variation at least.

? Won't A321neos be wasted on domestic routes? The efficiency gains would surely be greater on longer, Tasman/Pacific flights? Are some A321s going to be dedicated to domestic duties?

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 173): The 787 will take over EZE as soon as EDTO/Insurance/Fleet size allow, this has already been declared by NZ

How about IAH, though I suppose its too early to say.

[Edited 2015-04-17 07:29:24]

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 174): How about IAH, though I suppose its too early to say.

From an EDTO viewpoint they need 240-min for IAH and I expect that under the accelerated EDTO rules NZ 789's will be at 240-min within the next month or two. Add a year to this for 330-min for the type to be eligible for service to EZE. Maybe Rob has some ideas on whether the high density 789 would have enough premium seating for IAH. LAN seem to be satisfied that 30 premium seats are enough for their 788/789 SCL-AKL/SYD service. Perhaps then NZ's 39 premium seats in the 789 will be sufficient
and the EZE service will use the current version. Can a 3x week 789 EZE service be added to the schedule and the complete 789 schedule be made to work with 6 aircraft?

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 171): I think if NZ could arrange leasing/purchasing on additional 789s delivered within 2 years the 772s would be gone as well as the four 767s being extended and the international fleet utilised solely longhaul with a mixed class 321 fleet to join the regional dots ex AKL. A fleet of say 10-14 321s 16-20 789s and fleet of 8-10 77W variants would cover pretty much every eventuality from AKL, and lets say 10 320NEOs taken up for direct Y only routes like VLI/TBU/OOL/CNS/MCY/NLK and the rest of NZ intl airports.

Interesting thoughts. I do agree the 321s could useful on peak domestic services, especially WLG and ZQN routes. With VA moving to J seats, wouldn't it be wise for NZ to also offer J seats out of WLG and CHC also?

http://mobile.abs-cbnnews.com/busine...7/15/pal-eyes-flights-new-zealand/

Happy news. PR and 5J. Buggered if I know where there will be room for them though.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 176): wouldn't it be wise for NZ to also offer J seats out of WLG and CHC also?

On every service, no. On flights with a large chunk of connecting passengers to NZ Intl yes. I can say that possibly any flights with the breakfast/booze and cheese service would be likely candidates and then normal Y only for the rest of the A320 flights

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 175): Maybe Rob has some ideas on whether the high density 789 would have enough premium seating for IAH

The costs savings alone from offering a 787 over a 777, and also from having one configuration are probably good enough that they will not bother a configuration change with the current order. Additional top up order then yes maybe, but I have my doubts. My feeling is that they would happily let the route prove itself as viable before either beefing it up to a 77W or offering a second service a la NZ4 which goes to connect to a different hub at IAH. As we have seen with the 789 so far, the utilisation has been much improved and I think the benefit of being all in the same confguration helps this no end. Until we know what IAH will do for LAX/SFO route cannibalisation it is hard to gauge. Ultimately we may well see one 787 one 77W flight to all three ports.
I have always suggested split configurations are a benefit only when you have the fleet size to back it up. A fleet of 12 is better off as a whole, than as 2 subfleets of 6. A fleet of 24 is better off optimised as two fleets of 12 to suit the markets they fly.

A few less one-ups on a flight will not really mean less revenue. eg: 18 sold business as opposed to 18 sold and 8 one ups/frequent flyer upgrades

Quoting 777ER (Reply 176): Interesting thoughts. I do agree the 321s could useful on peak domestic services, especially WLG and ZQN routes. With VA moving to J seats, wouldn't it be wise for NZ to also offer J seats out of WLG and CHC also?

The problem is much bigger than offering J seats. VA wanted to offer meals for everyone in Economy and at least 1 check-in bag for everyone but that doesn't work with NZ's S2S. VA domestic and Pacific Islands flights have all gone full service. Trans-Tasman products will be very odd in their network.

Quoting Sylus (Reply 118):

Jstar fly RNP AR approaches. ATRs fly RNAV GNSS approaches. Minima is a lot higher for ATRs.

Quoting xiaotung (Reply 178): The problem is much bigger than offering J seats. VA wanted to offer meals for everyone in Economy and at least 1 check-in bag for everyone but that doesn't work with NZ's S2S. VA domestic and Pacific Islands flights have all gone full service. Trans-Tasman products will be very odd in their network.

Except that with Virgin as a partner rather than a competitor the need for S2S is highly debatable - I for one think that the profitability is a result of the reduced competition, not the unbundled model.

If Air NZ returned to a full-service model with Virgin they would only lose the very lowest-yielding passengers to Jetstar.

And Virgin is already seeing in its domestic market that the abolition of $85 Saver Lite fares (without baggage and snacks) and their replacement with $95 Saver fares (with both) has served only to increase their yields without reducing their loads.

Seats 2 Suit made sense in mid-2010. But Virgin Australia's more recent experience - combined with the sidelining of it as a competitor - probably makes Seats 2 Suit more of a yield-killer than a load-grower.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 180): Except that with Virgin as a partner rather than a competitor the need for S2S is highly debatable - I for one think that the profitability is a result of the reduced competition, not the unbundled model.

VA uses Tiger to compete with Jetstar. If VA brought TT to the trans-Tasman routes, it would leave NZ in an awfully awkward position. With new aircraft arriving, it's decision time for NZ.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 180): If Air NZ returned to a full-service model with Virgin they would only lose the very lowest-yielding passengers to Jetstar.

A kick in the teeth to all the lower-income Kiwis - or the thrifty - who would prefer to fly the national carrier, perhaps.

Just for reference, two of the ULCC - unbundled - airlines are among the most profitable in the world, at least in terms of return on investment.

mariner

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 165): At least the 321s are on the way for domestic operations, that makes it a little more variation at least.

Explains why the new domestic gates in AKL are marked with A321 as well as A320.

Like all NZ orders I'm sure we can expect changes, look at the recent domestic order that got an couple of A320s added two it. Then the order for 2x 788s became 12x 789s.

Quoting xiaotung (Reply 178): The problem is much bigger than offering J seats. VA wanted to offer meals for everyone in Economy and at least 1 check-in bag for everyone but that doesn't work with NZ's S2S. VA domestic and Pacific Islands flights have all gone full service. Trans-Tasman products will be very odd in their network.

I think apart of the problem is suits to seat works way to well for NZ, thinking about it last time I booked the works was in 2010. Surely its saving NZ allot of money from not provided drinks/meals to most of the passengers.

They done a very good job at teaching the NZ market they don't get meals,drinks,movies and bags to cross the Tasman, just like they did with the domestic flights.

Quoting mariner (Reply 182): A kick in the teeth to all the lower-income Kiwis - or the thrifty - who would prefer to fly the national carrier, perhaps.

But you have yourself argued previously that national carriers are not charities.

S2S should only go if Virgin's experience from Australia applies - namely that slightly higher bundled fares deliver higher yields without significantly reducing loads.

At the end of the day it should be a business decision.

(And by the way, the alternative retort to your assertion is "what about the non-Auckland based Business Class passengers who would like to fly on the national carrier?")

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 184): But you have yourself argued previously that national carriers are not charities.

Not charities at all, but - like all companies - airlines depend on goodwill and, with our small population, from the largest possible swathes of the community.

And given the profit record of Virgin Australia since it went up-market, and Tiger, and the profit record of Air New Zealand, I'm not sure what Virgin has to teach.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 184): (And by the way, the alternative retort to your assertion is "what about the non-Auckland based Business Class passengers who would like to fly on the national carrier?")

I've flown business class Air NZ across the Tasman.   

If Air NZ thinks it is a good idea to bring back business class across the TT board, hey, go for it . I'm only defending (again) the lower-end traffic.

mariner

Quoting xiaotung (Reply 181): VA uses Tiger to compete with Jetstar. If VA brought TT to the trans-Tasman routes, it would leave NZ in an awfully awkward position. With new aircraft arriving, it's decision time for NZ.

I'd say if Virgin did try to pull that card out, I'm pretty sure we'd see NZ launch an takeover bid for the control of Virgin.

Quoting mariner (Reply 182): A kick in the teeth to all the lower-income Kiwis - or the thrifty - who would prefer to fly the national carrier, perhaps.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 184): S2S should only go if Virgin's experience from Australia applies - namely that slightly higher bundled fares deliver higher yields without significantly reducing loads.

But do they? look at Qantas on the tasman all they have left is there little 738 services, yet NZ is able to fill an 777-300ER at the same time.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 184): "what about the non-Auckland based Business Class passengers who would like to fly on the national carrier?")

When NZ removed J from the A320, the average business class loaded we're 1.5 on A320 services. Unlike Australia most New Zealand business don't permit Business Class for Tasman travel. Allot of business require that you travel on the lowest fare. If NZ didn't offer lower fares, they would end up losing passengers to JQ.

Quoting zkncj (Reply 186): But do they? look at Qantas on the tasman all they have left is there little 738 services, yet NZ is able to fill an 777-300ER at the same time.

Perhaps it's due to EK taking most of QF customers on their widebody aircraft and QF has better use for their own widebodies.

If VA didn't have an alliance with NZ, who's to say they wouldn't put one of their A330 on SYD-AKL? After all we are seeing VA A330 on Nadi now.

Quoting zkncj (Reply 186): When NZ removed J from the A320, the average business class loaded we're 1.5 on A320 services. Unlike Australia most New Zealand business don't permit Business Class for Tasman travel. Allot of business require that you travel on the lowest fare. If NZ didn't offer lower fares, they would end up losing passengers to JQ.

That was the information NZ tried to feed the public and yet we are seeing VA putting Business seats on their B737's across the Tasman.

Quoting zkncj (Reply 186): I'd say if Virgin did try to pull that card out, I'm pretty sure we'd see NZ launch an takeover bid for the control of Virgin.

Two of NZ's closest allies SQ and VA have all gone down to a dual brand strategy. Could NZ ever bring back Freedom Air?

[Edited 2015-04-17 22:18:52]

Quoting xiaotung (Reply 187): That was the information NZ tried to feed the public and yet we are seeing VA putting Business seats on their B737's across the Tasman.

I hope it works for them.

In the days of Virgin Blue, I used to fly their Premium Economy fairly regularly and I was often the only passenger in that class across the Tasman.

mariner

[Edited 2015-04-17 22:25:06]

Quoting xiaotung (Reply 187): That was the information NZ tried to feed the public and yet we are seeing VA putting Business seats on their B737's across the Tasman.

Yet it is also possible VA see's very little demand for Business on it's TT/Pacific network but the operational efficiencies of doing away with a separate sub fleet of New Zealand aircraft and having all machines on the Australian AOC generates savings through improved aircraft utilization and reduced duplication and is worth the trade off.

My feeling is it is somewhere in the middle.

Quoting zkncj (Reply 186): I'd say if Virgin did try to pull that card out, I'm pretty sure we'd see NZ launch an takeover bid for the control of Virgin.

After their last attempt at taking over an Australian carrier, no thanks  

I think that TT will be used in some way, shape or form internationally from Australia, but it may well be more aimed at some of the Pacific island destinations first.

NZ would throw up some potential issues with getting the mix right between the 3 brands (NZ, VA and TT), but there could be some scope for a LCC presence for secondary destinations (ie. Hamilton and Dunedin).

The Australia-NZ market has almost gone back to its roots in the past decade, with a re-focusing on the main cities (AKL, WLG and CHC) at the expense of the "glory" days of secondary city flights with Kiwi and Freedom. Queenstown is the only airport that has appeared to thrive outside of the main 3, with continued presence from QF, VA and NZ.

Quoting xiaotung (Reply 187): That was the information NZ tried to feed the public and yet we are seeing VA putting Business seats on their B737's across the Tasman.

VA's Tasman business class is hardly what you would call an decent short-hual international product anyway, ex AKL I don't think its going to do very well. You'll fly it once for $800ow and struggle to find value in it. The seat doesn't even have an foot reset!, they we're serious about it they would of use the same product as on the a330s.

The biggest thing that needs to change on the Tasman is the tax, and is the biggest limiting factor in growth.

NZ has found what the market wants, its $350-400 return fares to MCY/BNE/OOL/SYD/MEL and has put allot of effort into making this profitable.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 162): In regards to the RNZAF replacements. I can see 2x C17s for heavy/mass operations with 3-4 A400Ms/Embraer KC-390 as C130 replacements with 2 BBJs/ACJs as B757 replacements. If the ACJ gets the nod then I wouldn't be surprised if the A400M is the biggest winner over the C17s.

As a possible outside the box alternative, how about something similar to what some of the European countries have for heavy lift.

12 countries funded the purchase and operation of 3 C-17s, with each country 'buying' a certain number of flight hours for their own use each year. The RNZAF could perhaps fund part of the purchase of an additional aircraft for the RAAF, with the aircraft made available for RNZAF operations for a certain number of hours each year, with possibilities to increase that number of hours as required.
This way the fixed costs are reduced (we only have to pay for a single aircraft, or part of a single aircraft), the operational costs are spread over a larger number of aircraft (making it cheaper to operate than having one or two of our own aircraft), and we can use whichever aircraft the RAAF have available (less issues with maintenance downtime).

The medium-lift Hercules replacement would then be better funded than if the RNZAF had to commit funds to buy the C-17s for itself. This could allow an extra A400M/KC-390/C-130J to be bought.

I see this option as providing more bang for our bucks.

Quoting SXI899 (Reply 192): The medium-lift Hercules replacement would then be better funded than if the RNZAF had to commit funds to buy the C-17s for itself. This could allow an extra A400M/KC-390/C-130J to be bought.

While the C17 might be an expensive purchase, I'm sure there would be an deal with an reduced payment plan with the US Government or an lease with the US Government for the C17s.

If the RNZAF had C17s they could take over more of the USAF flights from CHC, which would be an cost benfit to them not needing as large support base in summer.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 177): Quoting 777ER (Reply 176):wouldn't it be wise for NZ to also offer J seats out of WLG and CHC also? On every service, no. On flights with a large chunk of connecting passengers to NZ Intl yes. I can say that possibly any flights with the breakfast/booze and cheese service would be likely candidates and then normal Y only for the rest of the A320 flights

Sorry I was talking about international services for J.

Quoting xiaotung (Reply 178): Trans-Tasman products will be very odd in their network.

Which is why some serious head thinking needs to happen. TT could easily be used if NZ/VA are that scared about loosing the cheapest passengers.

Quoting mariner (Reply 182): Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 180):If Air NZ returned to a full-service model with Virgin they would only lose the very lowest-yielding passengers to Jetstar.A kick in the teeth to all the lower-income Kiwis - or the thrifty - who would prefer to fly the national carrier, perhaps.

Yet QF are perfectly able to offer meals, drinks, PTVs, FF points (good points and not a cheap offer like NZs seat only) and luggage for the same fare as NZs 'seat' only

Quoting Mr AirNZ (Reply 189): Yet it is also possible VA see's very little demand for Business on it's TT/Pacific network but the operational efficiencies of doing away with a separate sub fleet of New Zealand aircraft

You are totally right.

Quoting mariner (Reply 185): And given the profit record of Virgin Australia since it went up-market, and Tiger, and the profit record of Air New Zealand, I'm not sure what Virgin has to teach.

Exactly right also. while I want NZ to revise/simplify their S2S product I do believe that the market has shown that NZ method has been more successful.than VAs. The issue was never that some markets didn't need business,it was that the fleet needed to be te same, and that OOL/CNS/ADL couldn't justify businesson any flights and SYD/BNE/MEL could only justify on some flights but not others. Quite rightly, NZ realised that the chance of selling 18 extra Y class was a better chance than trying to sell the remaining 6 biz seats at a discounted price.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 195): Exactly right also. while I want NZ to revise/simplify their S2S product I do believe that the market has shown that NZ method has been more successful.than VAs. The issue was never that some markets didn't need business,it was that the fleet needed to be te same, and that OOL/CNS/ADL couldn't justify businesson any flights and SYD/BNE/MEL could only justify on some flights but not others. Quite rightly, NZ realised that the chance of selling 18 extra Y class was a better chance than trying to sell the remaining 6 biz seats at a discounted price.

With all due respect, that was nonsense at the time and it is nonsense now. The mathematical modelling is absurd.

Air NZ A320's were configured 8J 144Y.

The airline claimed that on Auckland flights they sold on average 4J tickets and that on other flights they sold an average of 1.5 excluding upgrades etc. (Which is ironic, considering that upgrades are commoditised by the airline).

Their international A320s are now configured 168Y.

A simple dummy booking shows that on the Tasman the cheapest sale Business Class ticket is priced at 2.5 times the price of the cheapest Economy ticket. And that is deeply conservative - the usual level is 4 times dearer.

From this you can extrapolate several things.

1) Every Air NZ A320 Tasman flight which sells fewer than the previous 144 Economy seats (now a 86% loading) has gained nothing from the new configuration but has lost on Business Class sales.

2) In order for a non-Auckland flight to be more profitable than under the old configuration, its revenue from Economy class sales must be greater than the old 144Y 1.5J sales level, which with J at 2.5 times the Y fare means that it needs to sell 148 Economy seats (88% loading). And that is probably too generous, as presumably the additional sales are the lowest yielding most price sensitive ones.

3) In order for an Auckland A320 flight to be more profitable than under the old configuration, its revenue must be greater than the old 144Y 4J sales level. With J selling at 2.5 times Y, that means that the minimum sale level must be 154Y, or a 92% loading.

And even those figures are deeply conservative. Bundled fares effectively charged everyone for alcohol, catering and baggage whether they consumed them or not. A la carte pricing lowers the yield for many if not most of the passengers.

So when people applaud Seats 2 Suit as the profit driver rather than the sidelining of Pacific Blue as a competitor, remember those three figures for the Tasman:

1) Any A320 taking off with fewer than 144 passengers is losing out compared with the old configuration.

2) Any A320 from Auckland with fewer than 154 passengers is losing out compared with the old configuration.

3) Any A320 from any other NZ port with fewer than 148 passengers is losing out compared with the old configuration.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 196): 2) Any A320 from Auckland with fewer than 154 passengers is losing out compared with the old configuration.

Welcome back K'man.
Load factors on NZ are high (higher on average than competitors) and VA is half NZ in terms of codeshare passengers. It has been successful, individual market share has grown on transtasman even if you exclude VA from figures.

You treat me as if I haven't spent a decade at the airport working with access to relevant information on most of the airlines. I see literally hundreds of A320 flights a year through AKL. The load factor on A320s has hugely increased over what it used to be with J Class. that is fact. Those that want business already know they need to fly widebodies trans tasman, and J load factors have picked up on those flights too. As long as they fly those types, there is no real need for J Class on A320s - in fact to do so would be detrimental to operating widebodies on shorthaul, as they need to be full in order to post a good profit.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 196): as presumably the additional sales are the lowest yielding most price sensitive ones.

You can't make that presumption so easily, when a flight fills up, the fares increase that's generally how it works.. The additional fares could just as easily be tickets sold within the last 21 days which could be just about full fare Y. Revenue/sales/Profit in this market are at an all time high. I fail to see how it can be a complete failure as you claim, or the empirical evidence in increased profits, revenue and sales would not be there for all to see.

Yes I admit I don't like S2S as a product to buy for my own flying, but I cannot deny it has stimulated the market hugely.

This thread is getting a bit long, so have started a new thread. Please continue the discussion in New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157 (by cchan Apr 18 2015 in Civil Aviation)

Thank you for your contributions