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

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sat Apr 25, 2015 2:07 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.

A 789 with full passenger load is going to need at least 9000ft for a 10hr city pair. A 788 would need about 8000ft. But where does 10 hrs get you, not even to SIN. Or Is it sufficient to add enough runway to allow a 738 to uplift a full passenger load to BNE.? Between BNE and SIN there are very few destinations that would support a passenger service .
 
dash8
Posts: 389
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 8:23 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sat Apr 25, 2015 2:39 am

Out of curiosity, does anybody know how well the load factors have been on the direct seasonal CHC-PER and return flights? Would it be enough to warrant a year round service. Coming from CHC to North West WA is a long trip - typically around 18 hours. Would be good if it was year round then the trip could be shortened to around 13 hours give or take.

Would be interested to know if anyone has any figures / facts
 
CHCalfonzo
Posts: 118
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:56 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sat Apr 25, 2015 3:33 am

Quoting dash8 (Reply 101):

Out of curiosity, does anybody know how well the load factors have been on the direct seasonal CHC-PER and return flights? Would it be enough to warrant a year round service. Coming from CHC to North West WA is a long trip - typically around 18 hours. Would be good if it was year round then the trip could be shortened to around 13 hours give or take.

Would be interested to know if anyone has any figures / facts

Very accurate stats are available from BITRE. NZ is the only airline flying the route, so you can easily find the load factors by comparing the passengers carried to seats available. For Jan this year they averaged 85% LF.

[Edited 2015-04-24 20:46:44]
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10061
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sat Apr 25, 2015 4:11 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 96):

I'm surprised they are adding an extra aircraft type to the fleet when their Grand Caravans are good aircraft for their current needs. I really don't see how the 9 seat aircraft is better then a 12 seat Grand Caravan

Quoting planesmart (Reply 97):

Your reply shows how little knowledge you have of Wellington's market/aviation needs.

Its a known fact that WLGs runway length makes Trans-Tasman flights load restricted. A longer runway will remove this problem for the current aircraft serving WLG.
Its a known fact that WLGs runway length (and location) makes emergency stopping a hazard with the short stopping lengths at each end and two different waters both with rocks and a sharp drop off further adds to it.

Don't these two known facts make commercial sense?

Its also been discussed in the local papers here (and I believe on here in the earlier threads) that local companies are having to truck/rail their products up to AKL for airfreight overseas due to a lack of widebody capacity from WLG.
When PH used to operate here they were mainly cargo weight restricted. I've heard FJ is going to be quite cargo weight restricted also. Anyone know how badly NZs WLG-NAN flights were weight restricted?

I would love to see your evidence that WLG wouldn't benefit from extending the runway? All the evidence in this reply proves other wise.

When WLG was conducting its studies into passengers flight information they employed students (including me) to question passengers who were waiting at the departure gate (both domestic and international) about their travel plans/final destination/main destination. I know WIAL conducted several surveys for a few weeks over the years to gather information. The long haul results were pretty impressive with the majority of passengers going via Asia/Australia - hence WIAL mainly focusing on Asian carriers/routes or even a widebody from Australia. A widebody would work for the local cargo market.
Head Forum Moderator
[email protected]
Flown: 1900D,S340,Q300,AT72-5/6,DC3,CR2/7,E145,E70/75/90,A319/20/21,A332/3,A359,A380,F100,B717,B733/4/8/9,B742/4,B752/3,B763,B772/3, B789
With: NZ,SJ,QF,JQ,EK,VA,AA,UA,DL,FL,AC,FJ,SQ,TG,PR
 
Gasman
Posts: 2080
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sat Apr 25, 2015 4:16 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 100):
A 789 with full passenger load is going to need at least 9000ft for a 10hr city pair. A 788 would need about 8000ft. But where does 10 hrs get you, not even to SIN. Or Is it sufficient to add enough runway to allow a 738 to uplift a full passenger load to BNE.?

Well, that would be up to bean counters and planners to decide. My point is that there exists (and always has done) a mixture of commercial, safety and operational reasons to extend the runway from it's current length of under 6000'.

Perhaps I have misread Boeing's chart, but my interpretation is that an 8000ft runway at sea level will allow a 789 at MTOW to travel pretty much wherever it wants to go.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2080
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sat Apr 25, 2015 4:46 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 103):

Its a known fact that WLGs runway length makes Trans-Tasman flights load restricted. A longer runway will remove this problem for the current aircraft serving WLG.

In an industry like aviation, where margins can be so tight as to make airlines consider removing paint from the aircraft to make them lighter, payload restrictions must absolutely make them see red. It'd be like buying a bus and having a line of passengers standing at the bus-stop, but being forced to transport them one at a time.

In the 1980s, NZ's 732s were payload restricted off RWY 34. The problem was the inability to clear Newlands in the event of an engine failure after V1 (extra runway at the south end would have solved the problem). NZ were so desperate to do something that they sought approval for a "harbour circuit" engine-out procedure, thus avoiding the Newlands hills altogether.

Civil Aviation were dubious, so to prove a point NZ took an empty 732 and one night flew the proposed harbour circuit with one engine at idle. This only had the effect of a alarming a few local residents - the powers that be remained unconvinced, despite huge commercial pressure.

It's been an issue for a long long time.
 
CHCalfonzo
Posts: 118
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:56 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sat Apr 25, 2015 5:15 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 103):
I'm surprised they are adding an extra aircraft type to the fleet when their Grand Caravans are good aircraft for their current needs. I really don't see how the 9 seat aircraft is better then a 12 seat Grand Caravan

A pressurised aircraft is required to reliably operate WLG-WSZ where the route MSAs are over 8,000 ft, that is the predominant reason they've bought the PC-12. The Caravan is restricted to operating below 10,000 ft, which leaves a very narrow margin to operate in with little room to avoid significant weather. They're also faster than the Caravan by a large margin which will be important for the longer sectors they'll be operating (compared to short Cook Strait crossings).
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10061
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sat Apr 25, 2015 5:46 am

Quoting CHCalfonzo (Reply 106):

I've always thought the Caravans were pressurised due to the many markets they operate in overseas like Alaska for example
Head Forum Moderator
[email protected]
Flown: 1900D,S340,Q300,AT72-5/6,DC3,CR2/7,E145,E70/75/90,A319/20/21,A332/3,A359,A380,F100,B717,B733/4/8/9,B742/4,B752/3,B763,B772/3, B789
With: NZ,SJ,QF,JQ,EK,VA,AA,UA,DL,FL,AC,FJ,SQ,TG,PR
 
zkncj
Posts: 3294
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sat Apr 25, 2015 5:47 am

[/quote]

Quoting 777ER (Reply 103):
hence WIAL mainly focusing on Asian carriers/routes or even a widebody from Australia. A widebody would work for the local cargo market.

Would anyone be prepared to operated an Tasman widebody into WLG? CHC gets it daily 77W service on EK from SYD (plus an daily SQ from SIN) apart from that what would make Wellington suit it much more than say CHC?
 
zkncj
Posts: 3294
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sat Apr 25, 2015 5:53 am

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2...-slows-boeing-787-deliveries.html/

Looks like AA has delayed 5x of its 2016 787 deliveries, maybe an chance for NZ got pick up some 2016 slots to remove the 767s.
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10061
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sat Apr 25, 2015 6:01 am

Quoting zkncj (Reply 108):

Back in the days both NZ and QF operated twice daily B767/B747SPs. EK have previously expressed interest in a WLG tag on service but since the smallest aircraft is the 77W (previously A345), EK naturally decided against it. If EK had A330s operating to Australia's east coast then I'm sure EK would have launched services. QF sent an A332 to WLG during the RWC in 2011. QF last sent a B763 in 2003. An Asian airline who recently received their first B788 has expressed interest in a WLG service from SYD as well as Vietnam Airlines within the next 5 years.
Head Forum Moderator
[email protected]
Flown: 1900D,S340,Q300,AT72-5/6,DC3,CR2/7,E145,E70/75/90,A319/20/21,A332/3,A359,A380,F100,B717,B733/4/8/9,B742/4,B752/3,B763,B772/3, B789
With: NZ,SJ,QF,JQ,EK,VA,AA,UA,DL,FL,AC,FJ,SQ,TG,PR
 
kiwiandrew

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sat Apr 25, 2015 6:09 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 110):
EK have previously expressed interest in a WLG tag on service but since the smallest aircraft is the 77W (previously A345), EK naturally decided against it. If EK had A330s operating to Australia's east coast then I'm sure EK would have launched services

For EK to operate a tag into WLG they would either have to drop one of their existing services or persuade the Australian Government to re-write the air services agreement with the UAE since EK are limited to a maximum of 4 daily trans Tasman fifth freedom flights and they are already all being used ( 3 x daily to AKL and daily to CHC ) .
 
Gasman
Posts: 2080
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sat Apr 25, 2015 6:11 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 110):
If EK had A330s operating to Australia's east coast then I'm sure EK would have launched services.

But an EK 772 would work on the route. Wouldn't be able to be at MTOW out of WLG, but this shouldn't matter if your first destination is the east coast of Australia.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8314
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sat Apr 25, 2015 6:35 am

Quoting dash8 (Reply 101):

It will make it back next year again so it is doing well. I think once the fleet suits they will extend it. There is still plenty to happen in the next 12 months
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
User avatar
ZKNCL
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:00 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sat Apr 25, 2015 9:08 am

Quoting zkncj (Reply 109):
maybe an chance for NZ got pick up some 2016 slots to remove the 767s.

The 767s don't appear to be going anywhere soon as NZ doesn't seem to be in a rush to remove the type. Still could be a good idea to pick up those slots for expansion though.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8314
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sat Apr 25, 2015 9:21 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 112):
But an EK 772 would work on the route

Rapidly being phased out by EK for more 77Ws due early construction numbers...

Quoting ZKNCL (Reply 114):
Still could be a good idea to pick up those slots for expansion though.

Yep, the 772s are more at risk while they still have resale rather than scrap value (which the 767s don't have)
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
CHCalfonzo
Posts: 118
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:56 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sat Apr 25, 2015 10:16 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 112):
But an EK 772 would work on the route. Wouldn't be able to be at MTOW out of WLG, but this shouldn't matter if your first destination is the east coast of Australia.

This is an interesting possibility, I've often wondered whether WLG would be feasible for EK. There are a number of hurdles that would need to be overcome for this to work, the major one being the additional frequency rights EK would need from Australia.

If EK were to fly to WLG they would surely do so from SYD, which would necessitate them adding an extra SYD flight with a 77W. I can't see them adding a direct DXB-SYD 77W flight (this may even violate their QF agreement, A380s operate all the direct SYD/MEL-DXB flights now?), it would have to be another milk run route through Asia which seems unlikely.

If they were granted extra frequencies accross the Tasman, it seems more likely that they would add an extra CHC route, with QF code-sharing I'm sure they could make MEL-CHC work these days. EK have a 77W sitting in MEL each day which would be able to operate a TT sector with a small schedule adjustment to allow it. I know CHC airport see this as a likely possibility in the next 2-3 years.

The aircraft type is also a big problem, I doubt EK 77W's with their relatively dense seating arrangement could be operated from WLG without severe limitations, even on a 3.5 hr sector. I think EK have made it pretty clear that they will not operate anything smaller than a 77W to the major Australian cities, even ADL was launched with a 77W.

I think if WLG is going to secure a wide-body service in the near term it is likely to be a trans-Tasman tag on with a smaller Asian airline (ala CI, D7 etc.) looking to pick up some extra revenue on their Australian services.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sat Apr 25, 2015 12:43 pm

Quoting CHCalfonzo (Reply 116):
think if WLG is going to secure a wide-body service in the near term it is likely to be a trans-Tasman tag on with a smaller Asian airline (ala CI, D7 etc.) looking to pick up some extra revenue on their Australian services.

I think this is true. And it can work off the existing runway. Looking at a 4-hr. sector a 788 would have a ~34t payload or a 789, ~40t. Way more than most operators would be able to use. On the issue of non conforming over run space, has some form of net barrier ever been considered?
 
User avatar
NZ107
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:51 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sat Apr 25, 2015 1:09 pm

Quoting CHCalfonzo (Reply 116):

EK wouldn't waste a 772/77L to SYD. They have healthy loads on SYD-DXB and why restrict that by putting a 772/77L onto a route just to operate something into WLG? Europe is still two stops away.. Easier sending them through AKL. Chances are it'd have to come from somewhere else other than SYD though, as you wouldn't have 3 flights arriving and then departing SYD at a similar time, even if two go through SE Asia.

Also if WLG was that viable, especially compared with CHC, would you think they may have canned CHC for WLG by now?
It's all about the destination AND the journey.
 
dc10s2hnl
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 3:21 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sun Apr 26, 2015 12:10 am

Quoting CHCalfonzo (Reply 116):
I think if WLG is going to secure a wide-body service in the near term it is likely to be a trans-Tasman tag on with a smaller Asian airline (ala CI, D7 etc.) looking to pick up some extra revenue on their Australian services.
D7 has been making noise recently about returning to NZ via Australian east coast... at present how much of a weight-restriction would a A333 be hit with on a regular WLG-SYD sector?

[Edited 2015-04-25 17:15:57]
 
Andrensn
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:09 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sun Apr 26, 2015 12:41 am

If EK hypothetically had extra 5th freedoms from Australia and wanted to open WLG would this possible situation be feasible?

1. EK moves EK418/419 to WLG (77W) (currently CHC service)
2. EK moves EK412/413 to CHC (A380) (currently AKL service) - would need the addition of another airbridge to one of the gates at CHC (maybe 34???)
3. EK adds a night roundtrip to AKL on EK414/415 which sits overnight at SYD - would need slight shuffling to avoid SYD curfew, but would provide a variety of flight times and therefore connection at DXB for EK customers.
 
Sylus
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 10:14 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sun Apr 26, 2015 12:43 am

Quoting CHCalfonzo (Reply 116):

I've always thought a triangle route between WLG-CHC-SYD/MEL could work well, it could even work with a direct Asian route for example SIN-WLG-CHC-SIN. This could probably be done with a suitable aircraft (789,772) as the inbound aircraft would be light and able to land on the short WLG runway, the return leg would be via CHC so little fuel required.
 
CHCalfonzo
Posts: 118
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:56 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sun Apr 26, 2015 1:54 am

Quoting Andrensn (Reply 120):
If EK hypothetically had extra 5th freedoms from Australia and wanted to open WLG would this possible situation be feasible?

1. EK moves EK418/419 to WLG (77W) (currently CHC service)
2. EK moves EK412/413 to CHC (A380) (currently AKL service) - would need the addition of another airbridge to one of the gates at CHC (maybe 34???)
3. EK adds a night roundtrip to AKL on EK414/415 which sits overnight at SYD - would need slight shuffling to avoid SYD curfew, but would provide a variety of flight times and therefore connection at DXB for EK customers.

I don't think there is any way EK414 could be timed to do a Tasman trip because of the Sydney curfew and the departure banks at DXB. The departure from DXB would have to be brought forward which would prevent connections from the midnight arrival bank and the departure from SYD would have to be pushed back, missing the afternoon departure bank from DXB. The flight would also have an awful 4am arrival into AKL, and would always be at risk of cancellation due to the curfew.

Quoting Sylus (Reply 121):
I've always thought a triangle route between WLG-CHC-SYD/MEL could work well, it could even work with a direct Asian route for example SIN-WLG-CHC-SIN. This could probably be done with a suitable aircraft (789,772) as the inbound aircraft would be light and able to land on the short WLG runway, the return leg would be via CHC so little fuel required.

This could work and would certainly overcome the runway issue at WLG. I'm not sure there is sufficient benefit for an airline though, considering the cost of adding an extra stop to a flight. Code sharing on a domestic WLG-CHC/AKL seems like a much cheaper alternative. We haven't seen any triangular routes like this in NZ since the likes of TG, KE and SQ operating through AKL and CHC in the nineties and early noughties.
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10061
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sun Apr 26, 2015 1:57 am

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 111):

The talk was before AKL got all three services

Quoting gasman (Reply 112):

If a 772 was operating an EK service (or even an A330) then if EK like the chances. Anyone know how an A330 would work on a PER-WLG-PER route?


Quoting NZ107 (Reply 118):
Also if WLG was that viable, especially compared with CHC, would you think they may have canned CHC for WLG by now?

How could they when they don't have any suitable aircraft operating to/from Australia now? The A345 was the only suitable aircraft but that fleet is now basically gone from EK.

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 118):
Easier sending them through AKL.

Why send through AKL when QF provides a direct service?

[Edited 2015-04-25 19:19:54]
Head Forum Moderator
[email protected]
Flown: 1900D,S340,Q300,AT72-5/6,DC3,CR2/7,E145,E70/75/90,A319/20/21,A332/3,A359,A380,F100,B717,B733/4/8/9,B742/4,B752/3,B763,B772/3, B789
With: NZ,SJ,QF,JQ,EK,VA,AA,UA,DL,FL,AC,FJ,SQ,TG,PR
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10061
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sun Apr 26, 2015 2:07 am

Quoting CHCalfonzo (Reply 122):
Quoting Sylus (Reply 121):I've always thought a triangle route between WLG-CHC-SYD/MEL could work well, it could even work with a direct Asian route for example SIN-WLG-CHC-SIN. This could probably be done with a suitable aircraft (789,772) as the inbound aircraft would be light and able to land on the short WLG runway, the return leg would be via CHC so little fuel required.
This could work and would certainly overcome the runway issue at WLG. I'm not sure there is sufficient benefit for an airline though, considering the cost of adding an extra stop to a flight. Code sharing on a domestic WLG-CHC/AKL seems like a much cheaper alternative. We haven't seen any triangular routes like this in NZ since the likes of TG, KE and SQ operating through AKL and CHC in the nineties and early noughties.

Codeshares are certainly airlines most favourite and most easiest option. CHC and WLG and the easiest airports for customers connecting from domestic to international. Would be even better/easier if the airlines had departures/arrivals from say AKL around the same time and NZ gave WLG a international terminal connection like what CHC has. The connection between the terminals in AKL is simply a joke and isn't a great first impression for tourists when other major airports (wouldn't really call AKL a major) have far easier connections via monorails or underground trains.
Head Forum Moderator
[email protected]
Flown: 1900D,S340,Q300,AT72-5/6,DC3,CR2/7,E145,E70/75/90,A319/20/21,A332/3,A359,A380,F100,B717,B733/4/8/9,B742/4,B752/3,B763,B772/3, B789
With: NZ,SJ,QF,JQ,EK,VA,AA,UA,DL,FL,AC,FJ,SQ,TG,PR
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7015
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sun Apr 26, 2015 2:16 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 123):

EK have had 3 dailies to AKL since day 1 barring the first few months when they didn't yet fly to BNE. CHC came a year later.

Quoting ZKNCL (Reply 114):

Im not sure NZ can train crews quick enough to take even more aircraft at short notice.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 123):

77L ex PER though soon to be replaced.
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10061
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sun Apr 26, 2015 2:23 am

Quoting ZK-NBT (Reply 125):
Quoting 777ER (Reply 123):
EK have had 3 dailies to AKL since day 1 barring the first few months when they didn't yet fly to BNE. CHC came a year later.

Yes but the talk was that one of those flights was going to be for WLG. EK wanted to cover all the major New Zealand airports but decided the aircraft they were going to use wouldn't be suitable at the time.

Quoting ZK-NBT (Reply 125):
Quoting 777ER (Reply 123):
77L ex PER though soon to be replaced.

PER currently has two flights but isn't one using an A330?
Head Forum Moderator
[email protected]
Flown: 1900D,S340,Q300,AT72-5/6,DC3,CR2/7,E145,E70/75/90,A319/20/21,A332/3,A359,A380,F100,B717,B733/4/8/9,B742/4,B752/3,B763,B772/3, B789
With: NZ,SJ,QF,JQ,EK,VA,AA,UA,DL,FL,AC,FJ,SQ,TG,PR
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7015
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sun Apr 26, 2015 2:40 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 126):

While I have heard of EK to WLG Im not sure what the plans were I initially. WLG makes some sense but covering AKL-SYD/MEL/BNE and CHC-SYD probably makes more.

PER has 3 flights 2 77W 1 77L but drops to 2 daily 1 A380 1 77W soon, the third flight will come back at some point id imagine. The A330s haven't been to OZ in a long time their product is old and they are on the way out!

Whike AKL is not ideal neither is SYD and others including many major airports around the world! AKL is changing hopefully sooner rather than later probably 5-6 years until the terminals are integrated.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3294
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sun Apr 26, 2015 2:46 am

Quoting ZK-NBT (Reply 125):
Im not sure NZ can train crews quick enough to take even more aircraft at short notice.

They have just put yet another extension on the 777/787 at AKL, it now almost meets the other road.
 
aotearoa
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 1:50 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sun Apr 26, 2015 2:53 am

Load restrictions on Trans Tasman A320s operating off Runway 34 have been effectively removed by an RNP AR departure instigated by ANZ a number of years ago (IIRC 2011). This procedure offers an engine failure track up the Hutton Valley then left toward the coast thereby providing enough track miles to effectively have no obstacles in play.

After a period of exclusive use by ANZ (the Airline funded the procedure design), the procedure is available for use by any airline with the right equipment, training and approval.

Any airline that is serious about WLG operations will utilise this procedure.

The 'build it and they will come and use it' is a seriously flawed strategy. Ask HLZ.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7015
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sun Apr 26, 2015 3:01 am

Quoting zkncj (Reply 128):

Other road? What did this have to do with crew training? Im confused.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8314
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sun Apr 26, 2015 4:12 am

Quoting Sylus (Reply 121):
, it could even work with a direct Asian route for example SIN-WLG-CHC-SIN

SQ did that with CHC originally. It brings to mind another point

Triangular routes I feel have been dumped as an idea by NZ because they got tarnished with the same "no one-stop flights"
In fact they are a different kettle of fish, and could actually be a profitable way of serving our neighbours with more frequency and 2 long thin nonstop routes with more frequency,
AKL-NOU-VLI-AKL and AKL-VLI-NOU-AKL
AKL-IUE-TBU and AKL-IUE-TBU

In fact theoretically speaking
AKL-NAN-APW-WLG-NAN-APW-AKL is a good way of growing WLG routes to the point where they might require a larger aircraft and then provide the demand for the useable payload length runway.
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8314
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sun Apr 26, 2015 4:29 am

The only other way of EK getting to NZ is direct from DXB or via asia (if the rights allow). Therefore if EK flew a 777 or similar DXB-BKK-CHC then the SYD-WLG could be redirected to WLG. I think it is more likely that they just serve AKL-BKK-DXB or AKL-KUL-DXB or even AKL-CGK-DXB when/if MH or TG call AKL quits.

There are bigger priorities for an airline by EK, and a country like New Zealand. The focus should first be placed on AKL to develop into a real international airport of both size and quality before developing either WLG or CHC. nb: CHC is a far nicer airport to use and probably easier to expand, but they need an airline to hub there AND a city to match AKL in size.
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2666
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sun Apr 26, 2015 6:01 am

So, in conclusion, the best WLG can hope for is a trans Tasman widebody. Except, WLG is already well served on Tasman flights that connect to QF, EK and Star long hauls. So the benefit would be... what, exactly?

Quoting aotearoa (Reply 129):
The 'build it and they will come and use it' is a seriously flawed strategy. Ask HLZ.

  

Which is why Infratil is trying to get public money to cover the majority of the cost, from which they can increase user charges to reflect the increased cost of their assets, white elephant or otherwise.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2080
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sun Apr 26, 2015 9:17 am

Quoting aotearoa (Reply 129):
The 'build it and they will come and use it' is a seriously flawed strategy. Ask HLZ.

It is a seriously flawed strategy if it's the *only* justification, yes. But Wellington is not Hamilton. You could even make an argument that HLZ shouldn't exist at all, given it's only a 90 minute drive from AKL. On the other hand we know aircraft are already payload restricted out of WLG, so there is your market right there.

Who amongst us ten years ago would have predicted the transtasman market could support 3 daily A380s on top of existing services?
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3613
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sun Apr 26, 2015 11:12 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 131):
AKL-NAN-APW-WLG-NAN-APW-AKL is a good way of growing WLG routes to the point where they might require a larger aircraft and then provide the demand for the useable payload length runway.

.

Great idea but I think NZ adopting the old PH Style route may be better, as in AKL-APW-TBU-WLG-TBU-APW-AKL. NAN flights non-stop from WLG should be warranted too.

[Edited 2015-04-26 04:13:39]
come visit the south pacific
 
ZKSUJ
Posts: 6872
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 5:15 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sun Apr 26, 2015 11:55 am

Quoting aotearoa (Reply 129):
The 'build it and they will come and use it' is a seriously flawed strategy. Ask HLZ.

Add IVC to that one too!!! I personally don't see wide bodies to WLG any time soon, but I'm not the smartest guy in the world so you never know. I understand that surveys and studies have been done and it seems like it could justify a flight to Asia, but Asia is huge and 1 flight to 1 port would not suit close to everyone's needs so they will end up going via AKL any way wouldn't they?
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8314
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sun Apr 26, 2015 12:12 pm

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 135):
Great idea but I think NZ adopting the old PH Style route may be better, as in AKL-APW-TBU-WLG-TBU-APW-AKL. NAN flights non-stop from WLG should be warranted too.

Yeah to an extent I agree, but I used WLG-NAN as opposed to the higher average weights load control use for TBU/APW. I figured that non- VFR ex WLG might be more interested in NAN than TBU too.
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sun Apr 26, 2015 7:03 pm

[

Quoting gasman (Reply 104):
Perhaps I have misread Boeing's chart, but my interpretation is that an 8000ft runway at sea level will allow a 789 at MTOW to travel pretty much wherever it wants to go.

Just checked more closely . The 789 TOW off an 8000ft.runway on a standard day is 235t. This would allow a 36t payload for a 12 hr. sector. which would cover off quite a bit of Asia.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3294
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sun Apr 26, 2015 8:00 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 134):
It is a seriously flawed strategy if it's the *only* justification, yes. But Wellington is not Hamilton. You could even make an argument that HLZ shouldn't exist at all, given it's only a 90 minute drive from AKL. On the other hand we know aircraft are already payload restricted out of WLG, so there is your market right there.

HLZ had the benefit of being the lower cost airport, just 90minutes drive from central Auckland. It could have been the Luton of Auckland, but everyone wanted to use AKL.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sun Apr 26, 2015 8:04 pm

The best performer out of WLG as it is would be the 77L. Its MTOW would be about 292t and could haul > 40t to SIN or 37t to HKG, PVG or NRT. This airplane would also work rather well on an around the world track of DXB-PER/SIN-WLG-LAX- DXB. It would haul max passenger plus ~ 8T of cargo from WLG-LAX. It would allow a one stop same plane connection from PER to LAX.   
 
Gasman
Posts: 2080
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sun Apr 26, 2015 8:10 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 140):
This airplane would also work rather well on an around the world track of DXB-PER/SIN-WLG-LAX- DXB

I was just about to suggest WLG-PER-DXB. You beat me to it  
Quoting ZKSUJ (Reply 136):
I personally don't see wide bodies to WLG any time soon,

Don't forget that through the 80's the 747-SP made regular scheduled services into WLG, as of course did the 767.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...7SP_touches_down_in_Wellington.jpg

[Edited 2015-04-26 13:18:32]
 
ZKSUJ
Posts: 6872
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 5:15 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sun Apr 26, 2015 9:10 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 141):

Yeap I'm well aware of that, sorry I should rephrase that to wide body long haul flights that I don't see anytime soon.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3294
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sun Apr 26, 2015 9:55 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 141):
Don't forget that through the 80's the 747-SP made regular scheduled services into WLG, as of course did the 767.
SP_touches_down_in_Wellington.jpg</i></font></td></tr></TABLE>" target="_blank">http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...n.jpg

Wasnt that because back in the early 80s once the 707s/DC8s we're gone there was nothing else that could operate these services until the 737-300 came along?

Does anyone know what the load factors we're like in the 80s when there was an double daily widebody? vs say an A320 these days with an 168 seats.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2080
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sun Apr 26, 2015 10:09 pm

Quoting zkncj (Reply 143):
Wasnt that because back in the early 80s once the 707s/DC8s we're gone there was nothing else that could operate these services until the 737-300 came along?

Pretty much. But the point is that the WLG Transtasman market was so robust that QF still though it was worth putting a 747-SP on the route, when they could very easily have forced everyone to travel via AKL or CHC.

I personally suspect that intl. services out of WLG remains a partially untapped market.
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3613
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sun Apr 26, 2015 10:57 pm

Quoting zkncj (Reply 143):
Wasnt that because back in the early 80s once the 707s/DC8s were gone there was nothing else that could operate these services... ?

Yes and no. During this period, NZ and QF co-operated on trans-Tasman flights to/from WLG. The flights were not focused on the convenience of the traveller but on filling the planes for the two airlines and sharing the proceeds. When NZ (TE back then) had the DC-8, QF had no aircarft WLG capable from Oz so they sold seats on the TE flights. After the DC-8's were retired, QF brought in the 747SP and the situation was reversed. Then came the 767's which saw both NZ and QF metal landing in the capital, and some form of competition began. True competition beginning when the 733 started plying the skies, including that of PH between MEL and WLG.

Quoting zkncj (Reply 143):
double daily widebody?

These, as far as I remember, were not necessarily double daily to one destination; SYD was by far the most popular destination followed by BNE, then MEL a far third (which has changed significantly). The airlines still co-operated to a degree.
come visit the south pacific
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sun Apr 26, 2015 10:58 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 99):
That's the best commercial reason, in my book, for extending the runway.
Quoting 777ER (Reply 103):
Its a known fact that WLGs runway length makes Trans-Tasman flights load restricted. A longer runway will remove this problem for the current aircraft serving WLG.

If the commercial reasons exist as you describe, that will translate to increased revenues from existing and new operators.

The fact the commercial shareholder in the airport is unwilling to contribute it's share of the capital costs for the runway extension, because the return on investment won't meet it's required rate of return speaks volumes about the lack of commercial justification. Why should local ratepayers subsidise airlines? I thought airport users were already dissatisfied with the current charges, yet advocates think ratepayers should cover the capital and increased operating costs of the extension.

If the argument is safety, not commercial, then the commercial shareholder should be required to fund their share.

From a country perspective, the investment should be treated as being for NZ Inc. Will NZ Inc benefit from the runway extension? If that can be shown to be the case, there may be a justification. If Wellington Inc benefits, but Auckland Inc and Christchurch Inc lose out, it is not in NZ's interest to proceed.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sun Apr 26, 2015 11:31 pm

EK will be looking more closely at opportunities for the 77L as they get more of the HGW A380's for the ULH routes. These might be routes not presently serviced.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2080
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Sun Apr 26, 2015 11:51 pm

Quoting planesmart (Reply 146):
From a country perspective, the investment should be treated as being for NZ Inc. Will NZ Inc benefit from the runway extension? If that can be shown to be the case, there may be a justification.

That's the line I would take. The benefit to NZ Inc. is
- reducing the risk of a tragedy
- enable more commercially efficient use of payload in existing aircraft
- potentially open up new routes with benefits for travelers, tourism and the economy.
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3613
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Mon Apr 27, 2015 12:10 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 148):
That's the line I would take. The benefit to NZ Inc. is
- reducing the risk of a tragedy
- enable more commercially efficient use of payload in existing aircraft
- potentially open up new routes with benefits for travelers, tourism and the economy.

Agreed and added to that...
- making the counrty's central New Zealand export sector for high value perishable products more efficient in getting product to market.
- making another viable option when AKL is closed due to weather/emergency etc as CHC cannot cope with ALL the increased international traffic.

Quoting planesmart (Reply 146):
The fact the commercial shareholder in the airport is unwilling to contribute it's share of the capital costs

To play devil's advocate, why would they? They're not the only ones to benefit.
come visit the south pacific

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