New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

sunrisevalley · Tue Apr 21, 2015 12:44 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 38):
789 AKL-JNB or CPT three times a week

Non stop is not a starter in my view. It is likely to be a 16hr flight westbound and according to GC mapper it is outside the EDTO330 min. range.

sunrisevalley · Tue Apr 21, 2015 3:15 pm

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 47):
Dont think so, pretty sure you need 330 to fly over the Pole and I think there may be further restrictions once you're X° south (but not certain and what degree south that is).

Quoting gemuser (Reply 48):
Yes, it's 60 degrees South. The killer is the requirement for pax recovery & subsistence after an emergency landing on the ice. Simply far too expensive to be seriously considered, you also run into problems with the Antarctic treaties limiting what you can do

I don't believe trans polar flights over the South Pole are possible since the space appears to be beyond EDTO 330-min. I believe what the rules term "acceptable airport" and 60degrees south have no direct connection. An "acceptable airport" must have the facilities to handle passengers in the event of a diversion. For example, the two closest "acceptable airports" in NZ and South America are CHC and USH.
On a AKL-EZE flight the entry point into EDTO is one hour after CHC and the exit point is one hour before USH. The 77E with OEI ( one engine inoperative) travels 435nm. in one hour Since the 77E is limited by a ~300-min cargo fire suppression in an engine out situation a 300-min ( 5hrs *435 nm) circle is drawn through both the entry and exit points .
If you go to the link below and scroll to P 86 you will see the 330-min EZE-AKL example illustrating this. Note that the track is considerably below S60 degrees. No where does it say this is not permitted. QF fly below S60 almost every day on SYD-SCL.
http://www.icao.int/SAM/Documents/20...%20Operations%20considerations.pdf

sunrisevalley · Tue Apr 21, 2015 3:57 pm

Quoting Mr AirNZ (Reply 45):
NAN is just a nice easy shorthaul turn between longhaul flights.

Not too different than some of the AKL-SYD rotations that the 789 does once or twice a week.

Motorhussy · Tue Apr 21, 2015 6:19 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 52):
Quoting Mr AirNZ (Reply 45):
NAN is just a nice easy shorthaul turn between longhaul flights.

Not too different than some of the AKL-SYD rotations that the 789 does once or twice a week.

And probably chosen over PPT not just because of timing but because of the increased quality of FJ's new product and subsequent competition for premium passengers.

ZKOJH · Wed Apr 22, 2015 3:08 am

Seems to be all good NEWS the last couple of weeks coming from NZ -

"Recruitment drive for Air NZ cabin staff"

Airline is on the hunt for 450-500 more flight attendants to meet growth surge.

Air New Zealand is on the hunt for hundreds of extra flight attendants as its growth surges for the rest of the year.

Managers are running mass recruiting sessions at the airline's Auckland headquarters on weekends to find up to 300 more cabin crew to help staff more domestic and international flights, says the Air New Zealand chief operations officer, Bruce Parton.

About 100 hopefuls at a time were undergoing screening on Saturdays for positions, he said.

The airline would normally recruit 200 extra flight attendants a year, but to fill extra positions 450 to 500 new staff were being sought.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ticle.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11436283

NZ1 · Wed Apr 22, 2015 7:31 am

Quoting ZKNCL (Reply 26):
Does anybody know if OJH was repainted during her maintenance in CHC?

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 27):

ZK-OJH "Star Alliance" A320 got skipped on the repainting , this was told by NZ1 a few threads ago. not sure what the updated time frame for her is yet.

OJH has been repainted....was rolled out last Friday and still wears the Star Alliance livery.

OJK is currently in the paint hangar and should be out this Friday.

There are a few more Q300's to be done and then OJG and OJI are scheduled for an update to their livery.

NZ1

ZK-NBT · Wed Apr 22, 2015 8:33 am

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 53):

Definatly timing imo the refitted 772 is the same as the 789. Someone said earlier the 772 fleet wouldn't be used as much short haul when EZE starts. I make it 29 long haul rotations a week for the 772 fleet next peak season when 28 is max you can get with current schedules unless LAX/SFO inbound are retimed you may squeeze an extra? Currently planned peak 772 usage.

SFO 4 Weekly
LAX 3 Weekly
IAH 5 3 Weekly
EZE 3 Weekly
HKG Daily
YVR Daily

Make SFO a daily 77W up from 6 weekly and 28 rotations for the 772 and you have no slack bar daytime layover at AKL for 1 or 2 frames not on shorthaul currently often the case but there is 2/3 spare days for 1 frame at some stage. The 789 has 1 spare day with the second NRT flight.

I think we will see a few changes as more 789s join next year YVR/EZE likely 789s I wonder if SIN might go back to a 772 thats freed up?

Gasman · Wed Apr 22, 2015 9:21 am

Quoting ZK-NBT (Reply 56):

Did NZ retire the 744 fleet just a bit too soon?

NZ107 · Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:15 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 57):

Who knows what would have happened if the price of oil dropped a year earlier than it did.. I mean they probably would have gotten rid of them within 2-3 years (or maybe the lifespan of a C or D check) but it would have given them a few more growth options.

aerorobnz · Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:28 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 57):
Did NZ retire the 744 fleet just a bit too soon?

I don't think so, my feeling has always been that the 763 fleet was thinned far too soon as the short/midhaul workhorse. They served and still do their purpose very well.
The other thing I think was not so good was given that the 772s arrived in 2005 that they didn't order more 77Ws to replace the 747s straight away. I strongly believe that the slight increase in the operating costs a 77W are easily paid for by the extra cargo space available and even the extra seats would keep NZ competitive on 772 routes like YVR/SFO/HKG and even PVG.
The fact that NZ would have had a larger fleet of the same aircraft would have had major advantages as well. The 772s should never have been taken up IMO

Motorhussy · Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:38 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 59):

The fact that NZ would have had a larger fleet of the same aircraft would have had major advantages as well. The 772s should never have been taken up IMO

If not the 77E then what would the interim lift have been prior to 77W becoming available and the 789's late arrival? Surely the 77E has been part of the NZ success story over the last 15-years?! Maybe the A332 and 77W?

cchan · Wed Apr 22, 2015 12:04 pm

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 60):
If not the 77E then what would the interim lift have been prior to 77W becoming available and the 789's late arrival? Surely the 77E has been part of the NZ success story over the last 15-years?! Maybe the A332 and 77W?

If I remember correctly, at the time the 77E were ordered, the 77W was not even available, and NZ was considering 343 vs 77E. I am glad they went with 77E and then followed by 77W. Things would be a lot different if they have gone down the 343-346 route.

sunrisevalley · Wed Apr 22, 2015 12:12 pm

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 60):
If not the 77E then what would the interim lift have been prior to 77W becoming available

The 77W entered service in 2004 and NZ's first 77E in October 2005. So it is possible that they could have bypassed the 77E . No doubt they would have needed to commit earlier than they did.

[Edited 2015-04-22 05:14:42]

sunrisevalley · Wed Apr 22, 2015 6:45 pm

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 59):
I strongly believe that the slight increase in the operating costs a 77W are easily paid for by the extra cargo space available

Rob you touch on the interesting question of freight. NZ publish all sorts of passenger statistics each month but nothing on freight. Assuming a 85% passenger load factor each 77W is capable of hauling at least 11-pallets or 22t of freight on any sector up to 13hrs. since April 16th and up to this time of the day, -OKM has flown 15 sectors , thus with a capacity of 300t in about one week. There are 7 like that. And there are 8 77E and 3 789 all capable of carrying 16t on 13hr sectors on the same 85% passenger payload assumption. Another potential of ~ 2600t giving a wide body fleet capability of pushing 5000t a week.

dc10s2hnl · Wed Apr 22, 2015 9:19 pm

Saw Key being interviewed by the news at LAX enroute to Gallipoli commemorations, defending himself against "ponytailgate". Looked like he was just standing around talking to reporters in Tom Bradley. How is the PM and NZ government delegation getting to Turkey, is the PM flying commercial? NZ 2 connecting to TK 10 at LAX?

Motorhussy · Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:33 pm

Quoting dc10s2hnl (Reply 64):
ponytailgate

Or Tailgate as I prefer to call it.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 62):
The 77W entered service in 2004 and NZ's first 77E in October 2005. So it is possible that they could have bypassed the 77E . No doubt they would have needed to commit earlier than they did.

Yes but the 767 replacement was always the main driver for the 77E and I remember Boeing offering it until the 788 was available (at this stage NZ was not looking at the 789). The 744 was still the jumbo in the fleet and the 77W was not considered until later.

Gasman · Thu Apr 23, 2015 1:07 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 59):
Quoting gasman (Reply 57):
Did NZ retire the 744 fleet just a bit too soon?

I don't think so

It's interesting. Through the nineties and up until the late 2000's it seemed as though Boeing had designed and built the 744 for the exact purpose of NZ flying AKL-LAX/LHR. I flew on one packed 744 after another on that route, and always reflected on what a great cash-cow the 744 must be.

Then, almost overnight the 744 became an expensive, gas-guzzling, planet destroying dinosaur of a bygone era. It has seemed over the last 5 years that NZ can't rid itself of this once-great aircraft fast enough.

However, last year I had a very enjoyable flight on a QF 744 from SYD-JFK, and KLM is about to take me PVG-AMS-HKG on one of their *newly refurbished* 744s. So for these airlines, the 744 works and are worth investing a modern cabin product in. At least some of NZ's 744's must have been fully paid for, and especially now with lower fuel prices........ I often wonder if they wish they'd kept them on the legacy routes another five years.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 59):
my feeling has always been that the 763 fleet was thinned far too soon

With you on this one. Again, it almost seemed as if this aircraft was tailor made for routes to SYD, MEL, SIN, and HNL.

sunrisevalley · Thu Apr 23, 2015 2:39 am

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 65):
The 744 was still the jumbo in the fleet and the 77W was not considered until later.

I believe NZ took up options on the 77W when they ordered the 77E and ( was it) 2- 788's which they changed to the 789 as soon as it was offered.

aerorobnz · Thu Apr 23, 2015 2:43 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 62):

Yes, they would have had to convert orders as they did for the 787. In combination with the full fleet of 767s including NCE/NCF/NCO/NCM and even NCN (which never quite got delivered and flies with LA now) there would be enough uplift to avoid needing the 772 at all.

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 65):

Also true about reason for ordering 772, but there was no immediate need to replace the 763 until 787 delivery was here anyway = no need for 772. The order for NZ 772s was completed in jan 2007 the 77W commenced in nov 2010. There must have been a point at which they could have become either type because it all came out of the same original order/options for 777 aircraft (can't remember how many but was 25+). At very least the advantages of operating the 77L on longhaul routes from akl were also compelling but the transtasman short stuff was where it lost to 77e - the very same routes where the 763 beats the 77e on.

Ultimately a fleet of refited 763s could have held onto the hnl per nrt even pvg and shorthaul markets until the order for 787s arrived and 77w the rest. If you can fill a 304 or now 312 seat with a 772 on a route then the same load on a 77W plus more cargo will always generate more revenue for a better fuel cost per seat. Unfortunately they had in their heads that the 77W was suitable in US trim only - as opposed to say a premium cabin of the same size as the 77e but more U/Y.

Nouflyer · Thu Apr 23, 2015 5:03 am

I agree with most of the points about the 763 being well-suited to the routes that it operates.

But there is a reason why right back to when Airpoints Dollars replaced Airpoints the two ports of HNL and PPT remained separate, and higher earning, than the rest of the Pacific/Perth markets.

Their fare levels are much higher than for the rest of the "Pacific Rim" ports apart from the US mainland.

A high density Economy cabin on the 789 to PER/PVG/NRT makes sense.

But I struggle to see why those aircraft have Premium Economy and lie-flat beds when the 763 routes don't, even though the last remaining 763 routes - apart from Denpasar and Raro - are usually ones with relatively higher yielding fare levels.

ZK-NBT · Thu Apr 23, 2015 5:27 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 57):

Did NZ retire the 744 fleet just a bit too soon?

With only 2 left they couldn't get rid of them soon enough. Like you I love them and for NZ they served their role well until an aircraft like the 777 came along and obviously fuel became very expensive and a GFC hit.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 59):
I don't think so, my feeling has always been that the 763 fleet was thinned far too soon as the short/midhaul workhorse. They served and still do their purpose very well.
The other thing I think was not so good was given that the 772s arrived in 2005 that they didn't order more 77Ws to replace the 747s straight away. I strongly believe that the slight increase in the operating costs a 77W are easily paid for by the extra cargo space available and even the extra seats would keep NZ competitive on 772 routes like YVR/SFO/HKG and even PVG.

I agree although part of me would say they could have ordered 77Es to replace the 742s in the late 1990s, it would have added another fleet type but the 77E would have just offered that bit more to places like HKG and once ETOPS allowed they could have gone onto LAX routes. They would have been left with 5 744s in the fleet which NBS/T/U were I believe offered to CX but not taken probably due age? Or price? It was all 3 or none of them I think from NZ's POV. But they were owned and could have been sold earlier, SUH, SUI were leased and leases were renewed around 2005/06 whereas they would have been returned and replaced by ordered 77Ws.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 68):
In combination with the full fleet of 767s including NCE/NCF/NCO/NCM and even NCN (which never quite got delivered and flies with LA now)

NCP was NTU, NCE left in 2002, there was also NCH.

ZKNCL · Thu Apr 23, 2015 6:14 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 68):

Completely agree with you in all your points. A larger 763 fleet would ultimately be quite a bit more useful today. At least the owned birds were retained and lasted longer than expected. Although I still believe acquiring the 77E's have been fundamental to NZ today.

Quoting NZ1 (Reply 55):
OJH has been repainted

Thanks NZ1.

Regards,
ZKNCL

zkojq · Thu Apr 23, 2015 6:38 am

Quoting cchan (Thread starter):
- NZ retiring 733 in Sept, preliminary schedule is out for the last flights

Just bought my ticket! Bought it on flexi, incase the date gets moved. Who else here will be aboard?

Quoting byronicle6 (Reply 28):
With SIN, EZE & IAH having started or starting within the year (the most obvious gaps in the network IMO), where do people see future expansion for NZ?

ICN, TPE and GRU (as an extension or replacement of EZE) would be my guesses.

Quoting gasman (Reply 38):
At last count there were thirty billion South Africans living in Auckland.

Indeed.

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 44):
"Air New Zealand pax up 9% to 1.5m with 87% load factor in Mar-2015, group-wide yields up"

Fantastic job by Air New Zealand, those numbers are very healthy.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 59):
The 772s should never have been taken up IMO

An interesting thought. What would have happened to the YVR route? Too far for 767s. It was originally flown by 744s, but I can't imagine the airline being able to fill them year round. Would have been very expensive flying a not too full 744 there during the fuel spike in 2008.

If 772s weren't ordered, the 767s would have needed the cabin upgrade earlier and would need proper Business and Premium Economy seating to have been installed. I remember flying a 767 to Hong Kong in 06 or 07. No AVOD and the old style seats made for an uncomfortable flight.

Quoting cchan (Reply 61):
Things would be a lot different if they have gone down the 343-346 route.

Yeah, better looking planes.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 59):
my feeling has always been that the 763 fleet was thinned far too soon as the short/midhaul workhorse.

This I agree with.

Quoting NZ1 (Reply 55):
OJH has been repainted....was rolled out last Friday and still wears the Star Alliance livery.

For those interested, the noticeable difference are black wingtip fences, new font for 'Air New Zealand', removal of the flag and 'Airbus A320' markings.

Quoting dc10s2hnl (Reply 64):
Saw Key being interviewed by the news at LAX enroute to Gallipoli commemorations, defending himself against "ponytailgate".

Getting more and more interesting....

[Edited 2015-04-23 00:38:56]

aerorobnz · Thu Apr 23, 2015 7:46 am

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 72):
What would have happened to the YVR route?

This is a prime candidate for the 77W. The costs of dispatching a 77W over the 77E are minimal. With a only a bit of marketing they would have sustained it year round. It may not have become daily though.

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 72):
If 772s weren't ordered, the 767s would have needed the cabin upgrade earlier and would need proper Business and Premium Economy seating to have been installed.

correct.

Quoting ZK-NBT (Reply 70):
I agree although part of me would say they could have ordered 77Es to replace the 742s in the late 1990s, it would have added another fleet type

Yep. 1997 was the time to order them, along with the rest of the carriers like DL/AA/SQ/TG/KE/MH. As usual NZ likes to order the last cab off the rank....Had they done so, then they would have been able to replace them with the 789s.

zkeoj · Thu Apr 23, 2015 11:12 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 68):
NCN (which never quite got delivered and flies with LA now)

Heya Rob

what do you mean by "never quite got delivered"? According to airfleets it was with NZ from 2000 until 2006, and I have been on it LAX-PPT-RAR in 2004?

Cheers
micha

NZ107 · Thu Apr 23, 2015 11:14 am

Quoting zkeoj (Reply 74):

I flew on it SYD-AKL in 2004..

I don't recall a NCM however.

[Edited 2015-04-23 04:14:46]

mariner · Thu Apr 23, 2015 9:17 pm

Here's an interesting one - Sounds Air is taking over Wellington-Taupo from Air NZ:

http://www.voxy.co.nz/national/taupo...ngton-air-service-secured/5/219524

"Taupo-Wellington air service secured

Taupō District Council has signed a deal with Sounds Air to fly the Taupō - Wellington route Air New Zealand abandons at the end of this month.

The six-year agreement will see the Marlborough-based air operator provide at least three return flights on each week day and two return flights on Saturdays and Sundays, starting as soon as possible. In return, the council will guarantee the first three seats per flight. A regular review period has been built into the agreement to ensure the arrangements are working for both parties.

The 45-minute flights would be on a nine-seater Pilatus PC12 - a single-engine, turboprop plane widely used in Australia and the United States and manufactured in Switzerland."

Sounds Air in expansion mode?

mariner

Sylus · Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:18 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 76):

How many of the dropped NZ routes haven't been picked up by smaller airlines now? Must not be many left.. Hopefully it works out smoothly for these regional centres.

mariner · Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:48 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 76):
Sounds Air in expansion mode?

It seems Sounds is also considering Napier to Blenheim:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay...cfm?c_id=1503458&objectid=11424018

"Airport considers new carrier

A new air service between Hawke's Bay and the prime South Island wine region of Marlborough is being considered by top-of-the-south provincial carrier Sounds Air."

And this other article about it makes it sound like (almost) a done deal:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/destin...14981/sounds-air-continues-to-soar

"Sounds Air continues to soar

Marlborough company Sounds Air is expanding its operations again by securing the Taupo to Wellington route Air New Zealand abandons later this month.

Sounds Air managing director Andrew Crawford said all the company's expansion plans were linked.

"Without these operations we wouldn't have created the Blenheim to Napier service," he said."

Very interesting moves. I wish ;em well.

mariner

A330NZ · Thu Apr 23, 2015 11:13 pm

Quoting Sylus (Reply 77):
Must not be many left..

My beloved PMR - NSN route

I'm pretty sure that's the last one

Sylus · Thu Apr 23, 2015 11:24 pm

Quoting A330NZ (Reply 79):

I think I read somewhere that sounds air was also looking at PMR-NSN. Wouldn't surprise me as its within their region.

zkojq · Fri Apr 24, 2015 12:44 am

Quote:
Air New Zealand has selected a next generation Pratt and Whitney engine for its new Airbus fleet in a move that it says will help secure the future of its Christchurch Engine Centre.

The airline said the centre is set for a period of strong growth after this morning announcing it had selected the PurePower PW1100G-JM for its 13 new Airbus A320neo and A321neo aircraft which are due to join its fleet from 2017.

Air New Zealand chief operations officer Bruce Parton said that means the centre will be one of the first facilities in the world with the capability to support the repair and overhaul of the new generation engines.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ticle.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11437846

Not really very surprising, given the presense of the Christchurch Engine Center.

Dedicated thread here: Air New Zealand Selects P&W GTF For A320neo Fleet (by ZKOJQ Apr 23 2015 in Civil Aviation)

Quoting mariner (Reply 76):

Here's an interesting one - Sounds Air is taking over Wellington-Taupo from Air NZ:

That's more frequency than there is currently, right? Maybe something good for the region. I've always been surprised at how low capacity and frequency of flights to Taupo with Air New Zealand are. I thought that the regional demand would be enough to support Q300s or ATRs, but apparently not.

[Edited 2015-04-23 17:52:44]

aerorobnz · Fri Apr 24, 2015 1:09 am

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 75):
I don't recall a NCM however.

There was one - it served briefly for about 3.5 years on and off. In fact you are also correct it was not NCN I was thinking of but NCP that never quite made it here

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Matthew Millsom

It became CC-CML which I subsequently flew from EZE-LIM.

If we use the data from airfleets we see 6 former frames on top of the 5 in service + ZK-NCP which was ntu. Plenty I would think to have continued on (refitted)
767-319ER 14/06/1991 01/06/2002 ZK-NCE
767-319ER 14/02/1992 15/04/2006 ZK-NCF To LOT Polish Airlines
767-319ER 10/10/1994 01/11/2006 ZK-NCH To Flyglobespan
767-35HER 01/04/1996 27/04/1998 ZK-NCM To Airtours
767-35HER 03/11/1998 21/05/2000 ZK-NCM To Canadian Airlines
767-319ER 03/04/2000 06/04/2006 ZK-NCN To Flyglobespan
767-319ER 31/08/2000 12/09/2007 ZK-NCO To Flyglobespan

Conjecture of course, but It stems from
a) they took 77E over 77Ls
b) If the economics per seat on a 77L didn't work why they didn't choose a standardised fleet of EDTO 330 capable 77W as most airlines chose for 777s in the early mid '00s instead of the dated EDTO 180. Remember it is off the same production line (ie: a slot for a 77E could have been a 77W) and more efficient. The doldrums of little growth activity (and subsequently the massiive growth in 2015) were majorly affected by the lack/access to EDTO 330 capability
c) Why order the 77E when the 789 which replaces it so soon after the 77E was delivered. By that time they knew of the delays and elected to convert to -9s they were in a powerful position to negotiate

Quoting mariner (Reply 76):
The 45-minute flights would be on a nine-seater Pilatus PC12

Score... Time for a Pilatus for the logbook..

sunrisevalley · Fri Apr 24, 2015 1:13 am

With UA switching some 787's to 77W's in the next two years I wonder if NZ might be in the hunt for some of the slots to pick up some earlier deliveries.

aerorobnz · Fri Apr 24, 2015 1:47 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 83):
With UA switching some 787's to 77W's in the next two years I wonder if NZ might be in the hunt for some of the slots to pick up some earlier deliveries.

Yep. I immediately thought the same. The leased fleet of 77Es may not have their leases renewed if they can get another 4-5, If they can get the whole lot of 8-10 slots then the 772s might be lucky to see another 2 years in service.

nb: remind me to book a sector on ZK-OKE soon. (the last 772 I haven't yet flown)

kiwiandrew · Fri Apr 24, 2015 2:01 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 83):
With UA switching some 787's to 77W's in the next two years I wonder if NZ might be in the hunt for some of the slots to pick up some earlier deliveries.

I was under the impression that the 787-9s swapped out by UA have already been re-sold to Xiamen Airlines, refer to post number 12 in this thread UA Confirms Exchange Of 787 Orders For 10 77Ws (by jetblastdubai Apr 23 2015 in Civil Aviation)

zkncj · Fri Apr 24, 2015 2:21 am

Are the 763s that went to Flygobelspan still flying?

Wasn't there also one that went to Air Niugni?

aerorobnz · Fri Apr 24, 2015 2:35 am

Quoting zkncj (Reply 86):
Wasn't there also one that went to Air Niugni?

That was ZK-NCE - Still flying with OMNI Intl.
NCN is with Transaero as EI-UNC and NCO is now about to start as VQ-BVD with Nordwind, having been with Kenya Airways since Globespan went bust.

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 85):
by UA have already been re-sold to Xiamen Airlines

does that mean that Xiamen have bought the UA slots and aircraft as additional frames, or that Xiamen have vacated their existed slots for -9s and moved into UA slots.

zkncj · Fri Apr 24, 2015 3:05 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 87):
That was ZK-NCE - Still flying with OMNI Intl.
NCN is with Transaero as EI-UNC and NCO is now about to start as VQ-BVD with Nordwind, having been with Kenya Airways since Globespan went bust.

Thanks, so NCH is out of business?-

aerorobnz · Fri Apr 24, 2015 4:25 am

Quoting zkncj (Reply 88):
Thanks, so NCH is out of business?-

Appears to be active with Omni Intl as well by to look of it. NZ aircraft are usually popular on the second-hand market due to traditionally high levels of maintenance.

777ER · Fri Apr 24, 2015 5:11 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 78):
Blenheim to Napier service,"

This is certainly an interesting route. One I would expect to work since its a tourist route between two tourist destinations.

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 81):
That's more frequency than there is currently, right? Maybe something good for the region. I've always been surprised at how low capacity and frequency of flights to Taupo with Air New Zealand are

NZ operated with 19 seat 1900Ds, these Sounds Air flights are with a 9 seat aircraft. Less seats per flight would certainly be better for the market if it means a midday departure. Will be weird seeing these lill Pilatus at the Sounds Air gate at WLG.

zkncj · Fri Apr 24, 2015 5:30 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 90):
Will be weird seeing these lill Pilatus at the Sounds Air gate at WLG.

The way sounds air is going they are going to need some more gate space at WLG, maybe they could take over those centre gates that NZ currently uses for b1990s.

777ER · Fri Apr 24, 2015 5:49 am

Quoting zkncj (Reply 91):

But NZ is also going to need those regional gates with the extra Q300/ATR services. Sounds Air uses a gate beside the rental car parking lot which has about 3 gates on that side. NZ doesn't really own those gates on the regional side I don't believe so Sounds Air could easily handle a flight or two from one of those gates when NZ doesn't have a flight arriving/departing

sunrisevalley · Fri Apr 24, 2015 2:20 pm

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 82):
If the economics per seat on a 77L didn't work why they didn't choose a standardised fleet of EDTO 330 capable 77W as most airlines chose for 777s in the early mid '00s instead of the dated EDTO 180.

The 77L economics worked everywhere except on sectors less than 4-hours. EDTO> 180-min. came to NZL in Sept. 2010 The only EDTO destinations that materially affected NZ were South America, south central USA and South Africa. The effect of the more than 2 1/2 -year delay in the FAA approving the RR/77E for EDTO>180 would have been obviated if NZ had been operating the 77L

aerorobnz · Fri Apr 24, 2015 2:50 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 93):
The 77L economics worked everywhere except on sectors less than 4-hours

Yep precisely, So in other words it lost out because NZ wanted to misuse a 772 instead of a 763. It's perhaps a little ironic that now the 77W is far more common transtasman not because of loads but because it has better economics for that length than the 772 with a similar booked load..

sunrisevalley · Fri Apr 24, 2015 6:34 pm

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 94):
but because it has better economics for that length than the 772 with a similar booked load..

The additional 6-hrs a day TT utilization for two 77W's would not hurt either in reducing the fixed costs. The way I see it is that NZ should be looking at closing out the leases on the four leased 77E's as soon as they are able and hang onto the five 763's until they have alternate lift in place. Not sure why they would refurbish the leased 77E's unless they can get something for the refurbishing at the end of the lease.

mariner · Fri Apr 24, 2015 8:04 pm

Quoting 777ER (Reply 90):
This is certainly an interesting route. One I would expect to work since its a tourist route between two tourist destinations.

I suppose what surprises me is that the management of Sounds Air has been remarkably conservative for a long time, sticking (mostly) to a tested formula - short hops across Cook Strait.

Now, suddenly, they've expanded, or are expanding, and extending their reach. They're still sticking to one aspect of their model - single engine aircraft - and they seem to have a deal of faith in the Pilatus, but I wonder what the next stage of their development is.

mariner

Planesmart · Fri Apr 24, 2015 8:41 pm

Quoting 777ER (Reply 9):
WLG has always been a safety concern for B737/A320s. A runway extension is needed to remove these concerns and if it means more airlines decide to use WLG then its an excellent return for the economy both in extra spending and extra landing fees

There is absolutely no commercial justification for the Wellington runway extension. The commercial shareholder's target rates of return, preclude it from contributing on a pro rata basis. But councils, which have no appreciation of commercial realities, rate payer capacity or the aviation industry will fund it based on inflated projections and ego.

Gasman · Sat Apr 25, 2015 1:06 am

Quoting planesmart (Reply 97):
There is absolutely no commercial justification for the Wellington runway extension.

What would be a commercial justification? Would that require an airline declaring in writing they will commence daily A380 ops just as soon as the runway is extended, dammit? (Sorry about the sarcastic tone, that didn't come out quite like I intended

) Because of course in the real world, it never quite works this way........ one can do all the feasibility studies in the world but at the end of the day there is always an element of "if you build it, they will come" to these things.

Currently, there is arguably a safety justification for extending the runway. Operationally, aircraft are frequently payload restricted out of WLG, so there is commercial justification there, as operating payload restricted services are inherently inefficient for the carrier.

How long is WLG in the greater scheme of things anyway? 6000ft (actually slightly under) which is the length of a small regional airport runway by worldwide standards. CBR - arguably comparable in terms of airport utility - is 9000 ft. Add to this the fact that WLG has to concede with wicked weather, challenging topography and rocks at either end, putting all this together I think WLG is too short, even if it has been made to work successfully thus far.

mariner · Sat Apr 25, 2015 1:31 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 98):
Operationally, aircraft are frequently payload restricted out of WLG, so there is commercial justification there, as operating payload restricted services are inherently inefficient for the carrier.

That's the best commercial reason, in my book, for extending the runway.

mariner

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net