Page 4 of 5

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 12:17 am
by zkncj
Quoting gasman (Reply 148):
- enable more commercially efficient use of payload in existing aircraft

But at what cost? would the airlines be happy to pay the extra cost?

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 12:41 am
by Motorhussy
Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 147):
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.

How awesome would a DXB-MAA-AKL or DXB-CMB-AKL route be?

Quoting zkncj (Reply 150):
But at what cost? would the airlines be happy to pay the extra cost?

That's all detail to be worked out and why they're trying to figure out if it can be done and who will pay for what. All interested parties (those who stand to benefit - the airlines, the airport, the council, local businesses, tourists, Wellingtonions and those from the greater region) are going to have to wear some of the cost, it's just a case of proportions and each group of course want to pay as small a share as possible.

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 12:49 am
by 777ER
Quoting motorhussy (Reply 135):
NAN flights non-stop from WLG should be warranted too.

NZ operated seasonal WLG-NAN A320 services during winter. Don't believe NZ will continue now that FJ is operating yearly B738 services

Quoting planesmart (Reply 146):
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.

Infratil won't benefit? They will certainly benefit from many aspects, increased passenger loads and diversion aircraft for starters due to a more accomdating runway. Doesn't matter IMHO that Infratil doesn't want to pay any (or some) of the costs. Why should Infratil burden the costs when an extended runway would benefit more then one party?

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 147):

EK would need more rights to launch another Australian - New Zealand service, or remove one of their AKL/CHC services and replace it with QF. A QF option would simply require an A380 service through AKL/CHC to somewhere

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. If Wellington Inc benefits, but Auckland Inc and Christchurch Inc lose out, it is not in NZ's interest to proceed.

Not everything that is best suited to this countries needs must be based in either AKL or CHC, so that talk is simply bull! Going by your logic then that means that Wellington misses out with tourism starting/ending in AKL and/or CHC. Wellington certainly doesn't miss out as we all know. Going by your logic again then maybe no cruise ships should service Wellington because after all, only the Wellington economy benefits when tourists spend money in Wellington's shops/attractions. Do you see how your argument there is simply filled with holes?

Quoting zkncj (Reply 150):
Quoting gasman (Reply 148):- enable more commercially efficient use of payload in existing aircraftBut at what cost? would the airlines be happy to pay the extra cost?

They won't be happy but they would also benefit as they would be able to carry more even more payload on days when the weather isn't being nice compared to days when they carry less payloads on nice days. Remember the BNE VA flight from WLG either last year or the previous year that had to offload mutiple bags (around 50 bags) due to there being no wind? If that flight departed from say AKL on a windless day, then that situation wouldn't have happened

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 1:01 am
by zkncj
Quoting 777ER (Reply 152):
They won't be happy but they would also benefit as they would be able to carry more even more payload on days when the weather isn't being nice compared to days when they carry less payloads on nice days. Remember the BNE VA flight from WLG either last year or the previous year that had to offload mutiple bags (around 50 bags) due to there being no wind? If that flight departed from say AKL on a windless day, then that situation wouldn't have happened

But does the cost outweigh the benefit? e.g. its probably cheaper for the airline to have an reduced payload, and work it into it cost base and take the hit the few days an year we're weather prevents an full load.

Ultimately at the end of the day its going to be the current passengers that pay the price, as the cost will likely get charge as an Airport Development Charge for departing passengers.

Why should the passengers now that are traveling ex-WLG on an full NZ a320, have to help cover the costs of an passenger traveling on an long-haul 787 service from WLG?

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 1:27 am
by 777ER
Quoting zkncj (Reply 153):

The problem doesn't exist on a few days per year, the problem exists on daily services. It becomes worse when its raining or windy. Compunding this situation for years would result in less revenue for the airline compared to paying a small amount (if its past onto the airline) which could be passed onto a customer if the airline wishes and being able to cary more weight which would outweigh the small extra cost. If it didn't work then the flights would stop which would really only hurt the airport company with less revenue. WIAL would soon get the picture if airlines stopped certain flights.

Airport Development Charges are just like the Toll people pay to drive on Aucklands Northern Corridor route. People are happy to pay the toll if it means they get a better option, ie faster routes. You pay that to get better services/options. The ADC isn't any different. PMR charges it to enable they can fund better facilities. Can't see why WLG couldn't charge it as an ADC when you've got toll roads and other airports using it to fund better facilities. Yes its annoying but its a way of life.

Nothing has been said about how it would be funded/charged, so your idea of a full A320 being charged is currently invalid. If its a regional flight then they would hardly ever need the longer runway option (unless its windy as) but an A320/B738 passenger would benefit with the possiblity of longer flights. FJs NAN flight would be the longest served from WLG, so it would certainly benefit. If you use the service then you should funding it, yes I do agree its unfair if your not using it but as I said, nothing has been confirmed as far as I know

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 1:47 am
by MillwallSean
my humble thought, the idea that EK would consider Wellington is rather farfetched. Those passengers who really wants WEL will transfer to a suitable QF flight in Australia. Serving WEL means EK should open another station in New Zealand and add infrastructure there instead of focusing on AKL lacks credibility in my opinion. AKL is the gateway to New Zealand. Its 40% of the countrys economy and its 35% of the countrys population. It is the port of call for foreign airlines serving New Zealand.
Christchurch offers a gateway to the south island and in doing that offers a unique selling point. The south island is the major tourist destination in New Zealand after Auckland, add that to the usual VFR etc and Christchurch has its appeal. A limited market but one where a few carriers can find a niche.
Wellington however lacks such a unique selling point and even with it clearly being a very different market to Upper North island its a market with limitations. Infrastructure limitations has been discussed here but also market size and composition. Whats worse in the case of EK, they can serve WEL adequately by putting pax on QF from all Australian ports. Its thus not a city that EK needs to put its footprint on or a market where EK can add soemthing new. All Ek does in WEL is shift passengers from QF to EK and they will have very precise data on the viability of doing so.
My understanding is that so far they have not seen anything close to a businesscase suggesting the need for it.

----------------------------------------------------------------

I am missing somethings here. Why would EK want to fly to AKL from any other ports than Australian ones?
Sure there might be a business-case for a fight between BKK-AKL, should TG drop the route, but why is it a good use of EK resources to fill this market niche?
It doesn't help EK, doesn't increase its footprint or assist Dubai Inc.
EK once stated that serving New Zealand was cheaper than having planes sitting idle in Australia. I suspect that these days they could reshuffle the flights, so that they match any of the big banks in DXB and thus avoid the long downtime in Aussie ports. But EK has found a way to serve an additional market, a niche market that sells connecting tickets. And I assumed they would continue doing that until their alliance with QF was announced.

With QF offering flights over the Tasman the calculations are very different. Is it really worth having the resources away from base that long? Does the 8-10 hours the plane spend flying across the Tasman justify the allocation of such an expensive asset? Could it be used more profitable elsewhere? (There is a good substitute that EK can hand over its pax to with a simple penstroke...)
From my humble point of view, EK could at anytime drop New Zealand all together and put us on connecting QF flights without risking a major loss of revenue. If they do this probably depends more on internal EK data than on the New Zealand market.
My thoughts, we should be happy as long as EK serves the routes across the Tasman. It wont last forever if the alliance with QF gets stronger. Eventually QF will realise how many passengers they hand over to EK and want something in return. The tasman seems to be the most logical way for EK to provide returns...

---------------------------------------------------------

India/Sri lanka.
With New Zealand Inc being really clever (NOT) and dropping the IELTS requirements for students at Polytechniques we have seen a huge influx of students from the subcontinent who study a 9 month diploma course and then get a one year workvisa. Its basically an immigration scheme, the cheapest immigration scheme on offer by any western country and the candidates it attracts reflects this...
However the majority of students who have signed up from this are from either Punjab or Gujarat and those two groups are also the largest indian groups in New Zealand. And while numbers from india to NZ are respectable, the majority is VFR tourism.
I struggle to see any business case for a route between AKL-India, should one ever materialise it will be to/from Delhi based on the demographics of Indians who has migrated to New Zealand.

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 2:03 am
by sunrisevalley
Quoting 777ER (Reply 152):
Remember the BNE VA flight from WLG either last year or the previous year that had to offload mutiple bags (around 50 bags) due to there being no wind?

I have often wondered how much a 10k or 20k wind does for the takeoff weight. A CAA publication says a 1.5% gain for each knot of headwind up to 20k. Given WLG at 6352ft , by my figuring a 10k headwind effectively makes WLG a 7300 ft. runway or at 5 knots ~6800ft. What is the probability of 5K winds at WLG? Pretty high I would think.

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 2:56 am
by Gasman
Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 155):
All Ek does in WEL is shift passengers from QF to EK and they will have very precise data on the viability of doing so.

But EK doesn't strike me as an airline that is driven by such things as tedious as "very precise data". If they did a precise analysis that showed a market need for three of their A380s into AKL daily, I'd like to see it.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 156):
A CAA publication says a 1.5% gain for each knot of headwind up to 20k. Given WLG at 6352ft , by my figuring a 10k headwind effectively makes WLG a 7300 ft. runway or at 5 knots ~6800ft. What is the probability of 5K winds at WLG? Pretty high I would think.

Theoretically. But usually the wind at WLG comes in the form as a crosswind, so the headwind component is in the form of a vector. And it's not as efficient as it's "true" headwind counterpart. Sure, a 5KT headwind in WLG is fairly predictable but not reliably enough to the point where scheduled services or payload calculations could be based on it.

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 3:07 am
by Jetstar315
IMHO I don't think Wellington Airport will ever be anything more than a Domestic/Tasman/South Pacific Island operation. The greater urban Wellington area population according to Wikipedia is only 472,760 people and that takes in all towns from Otaki southwards on the west, and Masterton southwards on the Eastern side of the North Island. What airline in their right mind is going to set up a medium/long haul operation based on these numbers?? It just won't happen. The infrastructure and finance needed to increase the Wellington runway would be prohibitive and even if that was carried out, the available land for airport expansion is virtually nil!! How crazy of past generations not to have developed Paraparaumu into Wellington's main airport and gotten rid of Rongotai altogether! With the size of the aircraft required to operate long haul (i.e.such as Emirates) would be such that the runway would need about another 4,000ft and thats not going to happen, despite what anyone may think. I think 2 major international airports for a country with not much over 4,000,000 population is plenty. Victoria in Australia only has 2 international capable airports (Tullamarine and Avalon) and yet they serve a population of close to 6 Million population, both having long main runways. I think people from the Wellington area will be commuting to AKL or CHC for many years to come to take long haul international flights from NZ.

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 3:16 am
by zkncj
Quoting gasman (Reply 157):
But EK doesn't strike me as an airline that is driven by such things as tedious as "very precise data". If they did a precise analysis that showed a market need for three of their A380s into AKL daily, I'd like to see it.

If any thing I'd say its an mere status thing for EK to be able to say they fly 3x 380s into AKL Daily.

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 3:43 am
by 777ER
Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 155):
the idea that EK would consider Wellington is rather farfetched. Those passengers who really wants WEL will transfer to a suitable QF flight in Australia. Serving WEL means EK should open another station in New Zealand and add infrastructure there instead of focusing on AKL

The thought of EK was way before EK/QF started dating. When the EK/QF tie up was announced, either EK's CEO or their Australian Manager stated that they were happy to finally add WLG to the route map via QF flights. EK uses Menzies who have an operation at WLG, so not really any major set up required.

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 155):
I am missing somethings here. Why would EK want to fly to AKL from any other ports than Australian ones?Sure there might be a business-case for a fight between BKK-AKL, should TG drop the route, but why is it a good use of EK resources to fill this market niche?

QF/EK codeshare agreement provides an excellent chance for both carriers. AA has stated an interest in serving AKL and EK has stated at interest in serving AKL-LAX. QF could and would use both carriers if one of them set up an LAX operation

Quoting Jetstar315 (Reply 158):
How crazy of past generations not to have developed Paraparaumu into Wellington's main airport and gotten rid of Rongotai altogether

Well you can't help Politicians can you since they put up the biggest fight to keep the airport where it currently is.

Quoting Jetstar315 (Reply 158):
The greater urban Wellington area population according to Wikipedia is only 472,760 people and that takes in all towns from Otaki southwards on the west, and Masterton southwards on the Eastern side of the North Island.

Yes that is Wellington's current area population, but the Kapiti Coast region is one of New Zealands (if not the fastest) growing suburban areas. The WLG catchment also includes the top of the South Island with BHE, NSN and Picton and goes as far north as New Plymouth, Taupo and Hawkes Bay. Flying to WLG is just as easy as compared to flying to AKL

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 4:21 am
by zkncj
Quoting 777ER (Reply 160):
Yes that is Wellington's current area population, but the Kapiti Coast region is one of New Zealands (if not the fastest) growing suburban areas. The WLG catchment also includes the top of the South Island with BHE, NSN and Picton and goes as far north as New Plymouth, Taupo and Hawkes Bay. Flying to WLG is just as easy as compared to flying to AKL

Problem being as long as NZ keeps it Domestic dominance, people will still be booked through AKL. For NZ it would make sense to send people through AKL, rather than WLG as it provides much more flexibility an recovery from delays etc.

On your average week day ex-AKL on NZ/VA you have;
AKL-SYD: 6-7x Daily
AKL-BNE: 4-5x Daily
AKL-MEL: 4-5x Daily
AKL-OOL: 2x Daily
AKL-PER: 1x Daily
AKL-ADL: 1x Daily
AKL-CNS: 3-5x Weekly (Sessional)
AKL-MCY: 3-5x Weekly (Sessional)

ex-WLG
WLG-MEL: 1x Daily
WLG-SYD: 2x Daily
WLG-BNE: 2x Daily

Sending regional passengers via WLG is currently an risky move, especially as turbo-props are the first flights to get delayed in Wellingtons bad weather. We as via AKL, there is plenty of choice to re-book passengers if needed.

WLG only typically offers an early morning, and early afternoon departure to BNE/SYD. Where as most days of the weekl ex AKL to BNE/SYD/MEL you have an early morning, morning, midday, afternoon and evening option.

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 4:45 am
by zkncj
This Thursday marks 75 years since the first NZ/TE AKL-SYD service, any chance NZ might do an $75 sale?

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 6:25 am
by 777ER
Quoting zkncj (Reply 161):
Quoting 777ER (Reply 160):Yes that is Wellington's current area population, but the Kapiti Coast region is one of New Zealands (if not the fastest) growing suburban areas. The WLG catchment also includes the top of the South Island with BHE, NSN and Picton and goes as far north as New Plymouth, Taupo and Hawkes Bay. Flying to WLG is just as easy as compared to flying to AKL

Problem being as long as NZ keeps it Domestic dominance, people will still be booked through AKL. For NZ it would make sense to send people through AKL, rather than WLG as it provides much more flexibility an recovery from delays etc.

Yes that is certainly true but NZ does offer the option of via WLG. I've seen it from Hawkes Bay.

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 7:06 am
by jetkid
Hi all, I rarely post comments on here (as you’ll be able to tell) but I thought with talk about Wellington and international flights you might like some historical info.

From the Air NZ ‘Worldwide Timetable’ 27OCT85 – 29MAR86 – featuring a 767-219ER on the cover (the start of NZ 762 operations) - which also listed some QF services.

All services listed below operated by 767-200ER aircraft.

WLG/BNE
7 - 1410/1455 - TE 165
3 - 1600/1745 - QF58

WLG/MEL
3 - 0800/0955 - TE 151
6 - 1600/1755 - QF 38

WLG/SYD
6 - 0930/1055 - TE141
1 - 0950/1115 - TE141
3 - 1745/1910 - TE147
4 - 0800/0925 - QF 48
5 - 1545/1710 - QF48
7 - 1830/1955 - QF48

And back
BNE/WLG
7 – 1610/2230 - TE166
3 – 0900/1520 - QF 57

MEL/WLG
3 – 1110/1635 – NZ152
7 – 1100/1625 – QF 37

SYD/WLG
7 - 0800/1300 – NZ142
1 – 1235/1735 – NZ144
4 – 1730/2230 – NZ146
6 - 0830/1330 – QF47
35 – 0930/1430 – QF47

I collected Air NZ and Qantas printed timetables from late 1984 through to their last printed versions and still have them all in a few boxes.

Cheers

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 7:10 am
by zkncj
Quoting 777ER (Reply 163):
Yes that is certainly true but NZ does offer the option of via WLG. I've seen it from Hawkes Bay.

I just looked at NPE-MEL for the of of May, Sunday is the only day of the week with an WLG option everything else is via Auckland (and quicker via Auckland). NPE-SYD looks like the couple of days there is an WLG option you need to over night in Wellington, which is an added expense/time.

Looks pretty pricey getting to Australia from regional New Zealand! the oneway fares are the same as a AKL-SYD return!

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 8:45 am
by axio
Quoting 777ER (Reply 154):
PMR charges it to enable they can fund better facilities.

If you're referring to the $5 departure fee - that went a couple of years back.

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 8:55 am
by 777ER
Quoting axio (Reply 166):

I know paying at the airport was stopped but I thought it was now included in the airfares


Does anyone know where to find the night rider service routes/fares?

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 9:13 am
by zkncj
Quoting 777ER (Reply 167):
Does anyone know where to find the night rider service routes/fares?
http://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/night-rider

Pretty limited at the moment, must be another route soon?

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 10:00 am
by aw70
Quoting Jetstar315 (Reply 158):
How crazy of past generations not to have developed Paraparaumu into Wellington's main airport and gotten rid of Rongotai altogether!

Have you ever flown out of NZPP? Even decades ago, the space would have hardly been sufficient to develop a major airport there. And in particular, there would be no chance of having a long, jet-compatible runway aligned with the westerlies. So even if it had been built before the area was covered in residential housing, a major airport at the site of NZPP would be crosswind hell more than half the time.

That, and the rather poor link to the actual metro area. Sure, the rail link could be accelerated a bit - but hardly by so much that it would be better than current WLG.

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 10:38 am
by MillwallSean
Quoting gasman (Reply 157):

But EK doesn't strike me as an airline that is driven by such things as tedious as "very precise data". If they did a precise analysis that showed a market need for three of their A380s into AKL daily, I'd like to see it.
Quoting 777ER (Reply 160):
EK uses Menzies who have an operation at WLG, so not really any major set up required.

With that I disagree, I think EK is one of the best numbers driven operations out there. AKL is to be knowledge profitable and a rather important part of the EK Oceanic network.
One may discuss the need these days for three flights but should they serve NZ, AKL seems like the port i would have pooled my resources into. Simple economics. 40% of the economy in one city, 1.5 million people and the only corporate scene to speak of in NZ.

What WEL has is government traffic. However if EK wants that, why not look at Canberra. A city screaming as loud as Wellington for international service, a city of greater population than Wellington and with more government traffic. Also Australias highest disposable income...

We often forget that Adelaide only saw EK recently. And the size and market in Adelaide is different to WEL.
EK isn't everywhere and should they start another flight to Oceania it'll be after very careful consideration.
Such careful consideration may see Darwin/Cairns/Gold Coast etc served rather than far away destinations in NZ.

[Edited 2015-04-27 05:20:39 by ManuCH]

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 4:47 pm
by PA515
Quoting 777ER (Reply 160):
Flying to WLG is just as easy as compared to flying to AKL

Not sure about that. WLG is less of a domestic hub and increasingly origin and destination.

Capacity from HLZ, TRG, ROT, NPL, NPE, PMR, BHE to WLG has remained static while nonstop flights to CHC and AKL-BHE have commenced and increased. Most of these are now ATR's.

Eff. 09 Feb 2016 AKL-BHE 12 of the 27 weekly flights will be ATR.
Eff. 28 Mar 2016 TRG-CHC 9 of the 13 weekly flights will be ATR.

PA515

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 11:13 pm
by Planesmart
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.

Surely aircraft and operating procedures are safer in 2015 than at any time in the past? Just as at the City of London airport, it's up to airlines to acquire and operate appropriate aircraft for each airport. Airlines do the sums - pay more for safer airport or fly aircraft appropriate for existing airport infrastructure.
Commercial efficiency = airlines meet the cost.
New routes will see loss of domestic passengers flying to Auckland and Christchurch, so lower revenues.

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 151):
That's all detail to be worked out and why they're trying to figure out if it can be done and who will pay for what. All interested parties (those who stand to benefit - the airlines, the airport, the council, local businesses, tourists, Wellingtonions and those from the greater region) are going to have to wear some of the cost, it's just a case of proportions and each group of course want to pay as small a share as possible.

Infratil has already stated they are not prepared to fund their pro rata share (based on shareholding), because the economic justifications do not exist (new flights, minus less domestic).

Quoting 777ER (Reply 152):
Infratil won't benefit? They will certainly benefit from many aspects, increased passenger loads and diversion aircraft for starters due to a more accomdating runway. Doesn't matter IMHO that Infratil doesn't want to pay any (or some) of the costs. Why should Infratil burden the costs when an extended runway would benefit more then one party?

If they won't even fund their pro rata share because the economic benefits don't stack up, are we100% sure the non-economic benefits stack up for ratepayer shareholders, for their pro rata share, let alone the component Infratil won't fund which will also be funded by ratepayers?

Quoting 777ER (Reply 152):
Going by your logic again then maybe no cruise ships should service Wellington because after all, only the Wellington economy benefits when tourists spend money in Wellington's shops/attractions.

How much have rate payers funded for accommodating cruise ships? How many domestic passengers travel from Wellington to Auckland and Christchurch by sea? A ridiculous comparison.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 154):
If it didn't work then the flights would stop which would really only hurt the airport company with less revenue. WIAL would soon get the picture if airlines stopped certain flights.

If it doesn't work, then rate payers and airport users fund the capital and operating costs for ever. If it doesn't work, or rather 'it won't work', is precisely why Infratil won't fund their pro rata share.

Quoting Jetstar315 (Reply 158):
IMHO I don't think Wellington Airport will ever be anything more than a Domestic/Tasman/South Pacific Island operation. The greater urban Wellington area population according to Wikipedia is only 472,760 people and that takes in all towns from Otaki southwards on the west, and Masterton southwards on the Eastern side of the North Island. What airline in their right mind is going to set up a medium/long haul operation based on these numbers?? It just won't happen.

You are so right. This isn't the first time runway improvements have been suggested, and it won't be the last. The reason it's in play this time, is because those pushing a super city, are trying to get WCC councillors and residents on board by offering an amalgamation dependant project.

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 11:47 pm
by a7ala
All this discussion around EK and WLG. FYI there is EK404/405 B77W which arrives MEL 8:50 and departs MEL 19:00. Its ground time is probably about 60-90mins too short for MEL-WLG but with some schedule tweaking might work. Issue as people have highlighted would be the current landing distance at WLG (take-off would be fine over a short sector).

Obviously no benefit in running the plane to AKL given they fly 3xA380 (including MEL), and also CHC is served by EK on SYD, so a lost opportunity for New Zealand. Im sure if the aircraft could fly it the UAE govt would work pretty hard to get the extra rights they need on the Tasman, particularly if the case was made to benefit QF as well.

The QF/EK codeshare has resulted in a significant increase in WLG Asia/Europe traffic via SYD rather than via AKL, and so the opportunity for QF is actually to take more of that market share from the likes of NZ/SQ etc.

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 11:51 pm
by a7ala
Quoting A7ALA (Reply 173):
Infratil has already stated they are not prepared to fund their pro rata share (based on shareholding), because the economic justifications do not exist (new flights, minus less domestic).

Umm... the airport probably makes about $20 per passenger from the new flights and yet an additional visitor to Wellington spends around $1000 in the local economy. The benefits are clearly weighted away from the airport?

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:04 am
by Gasman
Quoting planesmart (Reply 172):
Surely aircraft and operating procedures are safer in 2015 than at any time in the past?

Yes. But a runway that is too short, is a runway that is too short. Regardless of any talk about expansion.

Is WLG too short? Yes, in my opinion, based purely on the fact that it is the airport of a capital city that can't handle relatively short A320 ops without payload restriction. For me, that one fact alone is enough to clinch the argument.

The safety argument is harder to make. Is WLG safe enough? How long is a piece of string? Heaven hope we are never given the "benefit of hindsight" with this one. But WLG is a 5900' runway surrounded with hills, wicked crosswinds, and rocks at both ends. Ask any pilot which is safer - WLG, or AKL with its 12,000' runway, usually calm weather and lovely wide approach paths.

Would a longer runway lead to more medium-long haul ops? Again, we don't really know. But what we do know is that the global aviation market is going stratospheric. That, combined with the fact Wellington is a capital city that is (slowly) growing in population size leads me to believe that it would.

[Edited 2015-04-27 18:11:30]

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 2:23 am
by ZKSUJ
Quoting 777ER (Reply 160):
Flying to WLG is just as easy as compared to flying to AKL

Still harder to get to WLG from places like NPE in terms of general frequency. Beauty of AKL is that if a connection does not make it, there are more flights to cover the slack both domestically and internationally

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 2:59 am
by aerokiwi
Quoting gasman (Reply 144):
I personally suspect that intl. services out of WLG remains a partially untapped market.

What's truly remarkable is how well Wellington has benefitted from smaller aircraft. See the frequency increases today compared to...

Quoting jetkid (Reply 164):
All services listed below operated by 767-200ER aircraft.

So this pissing match to try and get bigger jets to satisfy some kind of ego thing isn't really supported by history... or economics... or sound financial planning.

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.

"Reducing the risk of tragedy" - are you implying WLG is inherently dangerous?

Quoting 777ER (Reply 152):
Infratil won't benefit? They will certainly benefit from many aspects, increased passenger loads and diversion aircraft for starters due to a more accomdating runway. Doesn't matter IMHO that Infratil doesn't want to pay any (or some) of the costs. Why should Infratil burden the costs when an extended runway would benefit more then one party?

Welcome to the world of externalities. Absolutely Infratil will benefit - unlikely from longhaul passenger services as they are, in my opinion, simply not viable. Instead they'll benefit from increased user-charges as a result of the higher valuation of their assets. Cunning eh? So no matter what happens, Infratil wins while the taxpayer assumes the disproportionate majority of the risks.

Consider smartphones - we all benefit from them. But it was Apple that invested in them originally (in their current, most usable form). Did they get a handout from the public for its development?

Quoting 777ER (Reply 154):
Airport Development Charges are just like the Toll people pay to drive on Aucklands Northern Corridor route. People are happy to pay the toll if it means they get a better option, ie faster routes.

No, that's user pays. Which if applied to WLG would mean only the passengers benefitting from the longer runway would pay. Though the comparison doesn't fit because that's all post-development. Infratil are asking for public money to assume double the risk relative to its potential return

Quoting 777ER (Reply 152):
Do you see how your argument there is simply filled with holes?

I wouldn't be throwing that line around too much, just quietly.

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 170):
What WEL has is government traffic.

I've said this a number of times before but don't get too excited about government traffic. Yes it's there but it's highly variable and rarely as lucrative as you'd think. There's a reason that WLG-CBR hasn't happened yet.

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 170):
A city screaming as loud as Wellington for international service, a city of greater population than Wellington and with more government traffic. Also Australias highest disposable income...

While I agree that CBR would be a candidate before WLG, it's telling that longhaul hasn't happened there yet either.

Quoting planesmart (Reply 172):
If they won't even fund their pro rata share because the economic benefits don't stack up, are we100% sure the non-economic benefits stack up for ratepayer shareholders, for their pro rata share, let alone the component Infratil won't fund which will also be funded by ratepayers?

      Absolutely. This is the key. If ever there should be a warning bell to government, this is it.

Quoting gasman (Reply 175):
Is WLG too short? Yes, in my opinion, based purely on the fact that it is the airport of a capital city that can't handle relatively short A320 ops without payload restriction. For me, that one fact alone is enough to clinch the argument.

Except no airline, no Council and no government has been prepared to back it. Hell even the airport company doesn't back it (without subsidy).

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 3:06 am
by Gasman
Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 177):
"Reducing the risk of tragedy" - are you implying WLG is inherently dangerous?

Yes, for the reasons given below,

Quoting gasman (Reply 175):
But WLG is a 5900' runway surrounded with hills, wicked crosswinds, and rocks at both ends. Ask any pilot which is safer - WLG, or AKL with its 12,000' runway, usually calm weather and lovely wide approach paths.

and no, because WLG has handled 5 million pax per year for decades without a major incident.

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:57 am
by mariner
Air NZ leaves - Sounds Air expands.

This a good article about the last Air NZ flight out of Westport (with four passengers) and the takeover of the service by Sounds:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ticle.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11439897

"Air NZ's final flight out of Westport"

The second half of the article has some interesting news about Sounds:

"Sounds Air managing director Andrew Crawford told The News recently that the airline would need to buy another PC12 for the route. He said Sounds Air was also looking at a Greymouth-Wellington service and a Blenheim-Napier service."

I had heard of them buying another Pilatus, and about the Napier route, but Greymouth to Wellington is a surprise to me.

mariner

[Edited 2015-04-27 21:58:38]

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 6:59 am
by aerokiwi
Quoting mariner (Reply 179):
This a good article about the last Air NZ flight out of Westport (with four passengers) and the takeover of the service by Sounds:

Maybe in 5-10 years NZ, having abandoned the 19-seat market, may find itself with fairly established competition for 50-seat and over routes.

Best of luck to Sounds Air.

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:01 am
by aerorobnz
Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 180):
Maybe in 5-10 years NZ, having abandoned the 19-seat market, may find itself with fairly established competition for 50-seat and over routes.

It is just as likely that as with Eagle, Air Nelson and Mt Cook were bought by NZ to cut out the competition, the same could be done with Soundsair. The airline industry constantly works in big circular patterns, especially in mediocre/small markets like NZ with little in the way of original ideas and entrepreneurial enterprise.. There are only so many ways to reinvent when the market is barely large enough to allow for any competition at all,

If NZ returns to the small regional market having realised they have made an error of judgement I think this is exactly how they will do it

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 11:38 am
by NZ107
Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 181):

Great Barrier Airlines was once owned by Ansett NZ... Then maybe Qantas NZ and/or Air NZ after they went belly up?

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 2:11 pm
by 777ER
Quoting planesmart (Reply 172):
Quoting 777ER (Reply 152):Going by your logic again then maybe no cruise ships should service Wellington because after all, only the Wellington economy benefits when tourists spend money in Wellington's shops/attractions.How much have rate payers funded for accommodating cruise ships? How many domestic passengers travel from Wellington to Auckland and Christchurch by sea? A ridiculous comparison.

Wellington City Council have spent millions in the last few year developing one of the sheds into a Customs/arrival terminal and built a covered walkway from the wharf to near the Railway Station. Your original comment mentioned nothing about domestic services - only international services which this discussion is mainly based on, so your question/comment about domestic services isn't really valid! Your argument is basically that if New Zealand doesn't benefit then Wellington shouldn't have any services and instead all services should be based out of AKL or CHC, so again since New Zealand doesn't benefit, does that mean Wellington should loose its cruise ship industry since 'New Zealand Inc' doesn't really benefit as Auckland and Christchurch are loosing money/spending? Should WLG loose all its current Tasman services since AKL and CHC are loosing passengers on transit as 'New Zealand Inc' is missing out there also? From the sounds of it, your saying that Wellington doesn't contribute to 'New Zealand Inc' economy.

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:31 pm
by CHCalfonzo
Quoting 777ER (Reply 183):
Wellington City Council have spent millions in the last few year developing one of the sheds into a Customs/arrival terminal and built a covered walkway from the wharf to near the Railway Station. Your original comment mentioned nothing about domestic services - only international services which this discussion is mainly based on, so your question/comment about domestic services isn't really valid! Your argument is basically that if New Zealand doesn't benefit then Wellington shouldn't have any services and instead all services should be based out of AKL or CHC, so again since New Zealand doesn't benefit, does that mean Wellington should loose its cruise ship industry since 'New Zealand Inc' doesn't really benefit as Auckland and Christchurch are loosing money/spending? Should WLG loose all its current Tasman services since AKL and CHC are loosing passengers on transit as 'New Zealand Inc' is missing out there also? From the sounds of it, your saying that Wellington doesn't contribute to 'New Zealand Inc' economy.

You are just employing a straw man argument. No productive outcome is going to come from reducing each others arguments to absurdity like this.

I'm afraid WLG's grand plan to attract a long haul flight does not economically add anything new to NZ as a whole, and therefore is not going to attract any investment from central government. As much as you may not like the National party's economic policy from a parochial regional perspective it is not going to change in the next 2-3 years (and I doubt very much that there will be spare money floating around to fund projects like this when we see the next government change). While I don't entirely agree with the economic direction that NZ has been put on in the last 15 years, it has become clear that each region must show it's worth to the decision makers in order to attract investment. Unfortunately for Wellington (and possibly more pertinent to this discussion, Inftatil) the benefit generated by this project for NZ as a whole is minimal and any growth can be easily accommodated at existing facilities at AKL (and to a lesser extent CHC). What is the point for NZ as a whole to have a third truly international airport? What extra services that add value to the country will be generated that would not be catered for by other ports without the runway extension?

Let's take SQ as an example. The vast majority of SQ passengers on NZ services are connecting to European (predominantly UK, even more than passengers originating or terminating in Asia believe it or not) flights and are VFR passengers and tourists. The VFR passengers are going to travel if they have family connections regardless of route options, adding an extra short domestic or Tasman connection to get to or from Wellington is no hurdle to them. The will travel anyway. As for tourists, it makes no sense to start or end your NZ holiday in Wellington (inbound tourists make up a large proportion of international airline passengers to NZ), so what benefit does a direct WLG flight offer an airline?

The more thought you give to this concept the more far-fetched it seems, putting parochialism aside and taking a high level view of the situation. You can't fault the people responsible for the economic future of Wellington for their efforts in trying to push this idea forward (obviously Infratil's motivation does not share the element of common good other sources of momentum for this idea do) but I think they should be focussing on initiatives which play to Wellington's unique strengths, not something which competes with other regions who are clearly better placed to serve the long-haul travel market.

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 7:38 pm
by mariner
Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 181):
If NZ returns to the small regional market having realised they have made an error of judgement I think this is exactly how they will do it

Air NZ has made such an impeccable case for not flying the smaller regional routes - the twenty seaters or less - that with no new candidate aircraft on the horizon which would change the equation, I think it will probably remain valid for the foreseeable future. Why assume a financial burden when there is no need?

I think Air NZ must have expected the hue and cry about dropping the smaller regional routes, and that others would step in, so, to some extent at least, I think Air NZ has orchestrated this, the sharing of confidential info with the small fry, for example. Whether it proceeds to the next step - interlining with one or some of the small fry - remains to be seen.

Perhaps if one of the small fry gets uppity one day and gets 50 seaters - becoming a possible competitive threat to Air NZ - things might be different, but Sounds, for example, is building a very interesting route map with little direct competition and only limited indirect competition.

I think it's the most interesting move in NZ regional flying in a long time and solves several problems for Air NZ, so I hope it goes well for the small fry.

mariner

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:05 pm
by Motorhussy
Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 177):

"Reducing the risk of tragedy" - are you implying WLG is inherently dangerous?

While WLG is not 'inherently' dangerous, there are dangers associated with its short runway length. In 2007 a JJ A320 with a full passenger load overshot the runway while landing at CGH, the main cause; hydroplaning while breaking during very heavy rainfall and excess precipitation on the runway. On a longer runway, the breaking required is less aggressive and likelihood of hydroplaning mitigated. WLG runway is shorter than CGH and the heavy deluges of rain can be the same; the aircraft and passenger capacities are the same also.

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:42 pm
by NZ107
Quoting motorhussy (Reply 186):

I thought there were other issues with CGH such as the lack of grooving or other such measures..

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 9:30 pm
by zkncj
Apparently the media has been invite to an 75 years of AKL-SYD tomorrow 6am in Auckland and 12 in Sydney.

Any ideas?

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:40 pm
by Planesmart
Quoting 777ER (Reply 183):
Wellington City Council have spent millions in the last few year developing one of the sheds into a Customs/arrival terminal and built a covered walkway from the wharf to near the Railway Station. Your original comment mentioned nothing about domestic services - only international services which this discussion is mainly based on, so your question/comment about domestic services isn't really valid! Your argument is basically that if New Zealand doesn't benefit then Wellington shouldn't have any services and instead all services should be based out of AKL or CHC, so again since New Zealand doesn't benefit, does that mean Wellington should loose its cruise ship industry since 'New Zealand Inc' doesn't really benefit as Auckland and Christchurch are loosing money/spending? Should WLG loose all its current Tasman services since AKL and CHC are loosing passengers on transit as 'New Zealand Inc' is missing out there also? From the sounds of it, your saying that Wellington doesn't contribute to 'New Zealand Inc' economy.

We're talking about the financial justification of changing the status quo, not for the airport's existence.

If the commercial shareholder cannot make a financial case for contributing it's pro rata share of the capital costs of a runway extension, with access to hard financial data, regular dialogue with airlines and other customers, how can a local authority justify meeting their share of the capital, plus the commercial entities as well?

I know which entity is the most business savvy and financially prudent, so warning bells should be ringing and red flags waving for rate payers, passengers and freight businesses.

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 11:04 pm
by aerorobnz
Quoting zkncj (Reply 188):
Any ideas?

NZ103 787 operation with a little bit of celebration so I believe

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 11:35 pm
by 777ER
Quoting CHCalfonzo (Reply 184):
Quoting planesmart (Reply 189):

I understand your points well but having been a person who was employed by WIAL for the surveys, I'm looking at it from a different direction after hearing/reading the replies to the questions.

Every passenger wants a more direct route if possible. Wellington residents hate the mess that is AKL and would avoid it when possible. If NZ gave WLG the same international flight that CHC gets with the passengers processed in CHC instead of AKL then Wellington residents wouldn't hate AKL as much as it would save time and the hassle of changing terminals. NSN and BHE passengers could also be routed to WLG to be cleared by Customs there.

On the whole, our runway is too short and it needs to be extended. Landing in an A320 and having to basically slam on the brakes in the wet is interesting. The airlines would benefit from the longer runway by being able to carry more on Tasman services and if NZ decided to use the A321s on domestic then they could carry a good load more also.

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 11:38 pm
by a7ala
Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 190):
We're talking about the financial justification of changing the status quo, not for the airport's existence.

If the commercial shareholder cannot make a financial case for contributing it's pro rata share of the capital costs of a runway extension, with access to hard financial data, regular dialogue with airlines and other customers, how can a local authority justify meeting their share of the capital, plus the commercial entities as well?

I know which entity is the most business savvy and financially prudent, so warning bells should be ringing and red flags waving for rate payers, passengers and freight businesses.

I have already pointed out one example where New Zealand has missed out on an additional widebody flight with EK on WLG-MEL due to the runway not being long enough. CHC airport recently said that their EK service (same B77W aircraft) had contributed $1,200 Million in visitor spend over the last 10 years in the South Island.

http://www.christchurchairport.co.nz...tes-ten-years-of-emirates-service/

Had CHC's runway been WLG's length this aircraft would not be in New Zealand, and almost certainly wouldnt have flown to AKL either given their existing A380 service on AKL-SYD which it would have flown over the top of. There is no reason to think that a service like this couldnt to the same for central New Zealand as the South Island, and if the additional visitor contribution was equivalent to the CHC service of $1,200 Million, then it makes a $300m spend a bit of a no-brainer (without even considering a direct service to Asia).

WLG's outbound longhaul market is actually larger than CHC's and higher yielding (business travel), and what Wellington lacks in international visitors in comparison is down to the lack of visibility the city has in non-australia markets which is primarily down to no airline or regional tourism organisations promoting the city - not because Wellington has nothing to offer.

What people also forget is that there are plenty of mono-Island itineraries taken in New Zealand (AKL-WLG, WLG-CHC) and with more returning visitors to New Zealand they are looking to visitor places away from Rotorua/Queenstown (which is now full anyway).

And as I pointed out before most of the benefits of these large infrastructure projects lie outside the airport, and im sure any contribution by the airport vs external stakeholders would be separated in some way.

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2015 12:25 am
by Motorhussy
Quoting A7ALA (Reply 192):
What people also forget is that there are plenty of mono-Island itineraries taken in New Zealand (AKL-WLG, WLG-CHC) and with more returning visitors to New Zealand they are looking to visitor places away from Rotorua/Queenstown (which is now full anyway).

And WLG-ZQN, and CHC-ZQN.

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 187):

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 186):

I thought there were other issues with CGH such as the lack of grooving or other such measures..

Yes you're right, adequate runway drainage was also partially to blame, along with pilot error. Placing a fuel depot at the end of the runway was not the sagacious planning either.

With regard to the (proposed) runway extension at WLG, what is the extension requirement to bring it up to standard for:
A/ Uencumbered trans-Tasman A32X/73X flights, vs
B/ A safe diversion runway for longhaul 777, A350, 787, A330 flights during AKL/CHC closures, vs
C/ A longhaul departure runway capable of non-stop flights to SGN for example.

As a Wellingtonion and a ratepayer, I'm fully in support of A and B, but only if costs are shared can be born equitably between all vested interests, commercial or otherwise, and most importantly Infratil.

For the final option to happen, perhaps A and B will have to be achieved first, and with that increased focus may come the organic growth in profile and demand for 'Wellington'. But again, only with full commercial and other support, plus airline commitment.

As an aside, if the runway extension does go ahead, I see a great opportunity for a south coast safe marina to be built at the South-East end of the runway (which could be perfect for fresh fish export).

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2015 2:26 am
by aerokiwi
Quoting A7ALA (Reply 192):
WLG's outbound longhaul market is actually larger than CHC's and higher yielding (business travel),

Source for all of this, please? Perhaps outbound is a larger market, but inbound is pretty crucial too.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 191):
If NZ gave WLG the same international flight that CHC gets with the passengers processed in CHC instead of AKL

Wait, I'm confused. Given apparently the AKL terminal transfer is such a monumental hassle (it's not), why couldn't passengers just be routed via same-terminal CHC? In which case, why do you need to replicate the cHC network out of WLG?

Quoting 777ER (Reply 191):
then Wellington residents wouldn't hate AKL as much as it would save time and the hassle of changing terminals.

Right so the problem is the terminal transfer (assuming there's an actual problem). Passengers have same-terminal options in Melbourne and AKL will eventually be developing a same-terminal offering, which is a far lower cost/risk solution.

But let's be honest. This isn't really about the terminal transfer. This is about a small New Zealand city with delusions of grandeur and a savvy airport owner trying to play them for all they've got.

But you know what? I'm actually all for it provided a. there's no government contribution and b. ratepayers are asked directly if they want to fund it and c. that funding amount from ratepayers is commensurate with their shareholding.

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2015 2:31 am
by a7ala
Quoting motorhussy (Reply 193):
With regard to the (proposed) runway extension at WLG, what is the extension requirement to bring it up to standard for:
A/ Uencumbered trans-Tasman A32X/73X flights, vs
B/ A safe diversion runway for longhaul 777, A350, 787, A330 flights during AKL/CHC closures, vs
C/ A longhaul departure runway capable of non-stop flights to SGN for example.

A/ I would guess they need around 2100m TORA for unrestricted takeoff for A320 and probably similar for B738 with higher thrust engines - so would require +150-180m
B/ A330 is probably ok now given they have had them in the past. B77W would be most runway hungry on LDA and suspect they would need 2100m LDA for wet performance - so would require +285
C/ This is where it gets tricky as depends on aircraft used, configuration/seats and whether 100% payload or 100% paxload is sufficient for the commericial case. Best aircraft for WLG is probably the A350-900 which has a better power:weight than the B787-8 (although high thrust a good option). I suspect for the A350/B787-8 high thrust they would probably need another +200-300m to get full pax to SGN (full payload inbound) but an additional 50-100m beyond that would open up BKK/PVG/LAX

So to solve A/B its almost +300m for the B77W landing and then to get to Asia its a minimum +200m but the longer you extend the higher the outbound freight and more opportunities it opens. Newcastle UK is a good example of the runway required, where EK operate B77W on a runway which has TORA 2262m LDA 2125m (compared with WLG's existing TORA 1925m LDA 1814m).

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2015 2:42 am
by a7ala
Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 194):
Source for all of this, please? Perhaps outbound is a larger market, but inbound is pretty crucial too.

Stats NZ migration dataset (YEMar15):

Resident Departures to Destinations Excluding Oceania by NZ Region
Canterbury - 94,300 (Business purpose proportion 12%)
Wellington - 97,900 (Business purpose proportion 17%)
However Canterbury is a huge geographic region and so need to include Manawatu (2hr drive) to be broadly consistent
Wellington+Manawatu - 120,000
For reference Auckland - 400,000 (Business purpose proportion 15%)

Agree on the inbound, and a long haul carrier into Wellington would support existing itineraries and develop new ones. Wellington is just as good gateway to the South Island as CHC is and offers a number of different tourism experiences that are not covered in other NZ cities.

[Edited 2015-04-28 19:44:08]

And the argument about connecting over AKL/SYD not being an issue is a dumb one. AKL/SYD might think they are large hub airports but by world standards they are tiny end of the line stations. Wellingtonians current connecting over AKL can connect with 9xasia ports, 4xnorth american, and 0xeuropean ports. Over SYD they can connect with 19xAsia, 5xNorth American, and 3xMiddle East/Africa. By contrast a service to SIN could connect to 98xAsia, 14xEurope, 8xMiddle East and out of HKG 99xAsia, 10xNorth America, 17xEurope, 9xMiddle East. And the reverse for visitors.


[Edited 2015-04-28 19:50:30]

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2015 4:17 am
by a7ala
Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 197):
So, a subset of total passenger movements (NZ-resident only, outbound only) with an implied value to each of those movements (note also that CHC is still in recovery mode).

You asked for the numbers and the source - I provided. And CHC is not in recovery mode as far as outbound travel goes - if anything CHC saw a spike in outbound travel as a result of the earthquakes (its the inbound market thats been affected).

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 197):
But again, if you want to pour ratepayers' money into it - go Welly. Just keep your mitts off the national purse, because if you go for taxpayer funds, it does become an NZ Inc issue. And then you account for losses in AKL and CHC. You consider hospitals and schools and welfare and the pension. That is, you open a can of worms.

If the benefits for New Zealand Inc stack up then why shouldnt they get some proportion of tax payers money? How much money did the govt put into consecutive Americas Cups and what was the return to outside of Auckland? Think also about the cargo which is carried past Wellington Airport to Auckland by road due to a lack of wide-body capacity in the centre of the country. The extension should provide signfiicant benefits for central New Zealand, and even if there is no benefit to the rest of New Zealand it is still a net benefit to New Zealand overall. No difference than the government part funding local road/public transport projects in regions around New Zealand which only benefit those regions.

Whats your concern? a. No one will want to fly it and so extension is a waste of money, or b. everyone will want to fly it and so AKL/CHC will be destroyed?

[Edited 2015-04-28 21:24:01]

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2015 5:41 am
by Gasman
Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 199):
AKL and CHC make sense.

CHC doesn't really either. It's not a commercial capital, it keeps falling down, and in terms of being a gateway to anything, it's still 6 hours drive from our world class mountain resort (ZQN). Yet somehow, it's intl services survive.

Quoting CHCalfonzo (Reply 184):
The VFR passengers are going to travel if they have family connections regardless of route options, adding an extra short domestic or Tasman connection to get to or from Wellington is no hurdle to them. The will travel anyway.

I live twenty minutes drive from AKL. The fact that my bolthole out of this dreary backwater is only 20 minutes away keeps me sane for the 330 days per year I'm not traveling. And it has been responsible for several trips (including long haul) that I would not have taken had another connection been involved. The same would hold true for WLG. If you create the facility, to some extent you will create a market.

Quoting A7ALA (Reply 200):
If the benefits for New Zealand Inc stack up then why shouldnt they get some proportion of tax payers money?

Exactly. And the sum we're talking - 500 million or so - is peanuts, in national infrastructure terms.

No one is suggesting we're going to see daily A380 ops into WLG. But, surely routes like WLG-NAN, WLG-LAX, WLG-PER are not beyond the realms of credibility. Not to mention the existing payload/safety issues, which for me are enough justification to proceed with the extension.

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 157

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:05 am
by MillwallSean
If we want to talk about getting public funding, based on benefits to New Zealand Inc we wouldn't discuss WEL. The one investment that NZ Inc would do is AKL. Any other investments don't stand a chance to provide a return.
Imagine AKL with two runways, one major terminal, space for carousels, space for real MAF service, a trainlink to the city. Then we can discuss need and discuss possible national funding.

With that said, the country has chosen a different model, airports are not national instead regional or private.

WEL may need a tad longer runway to ensure they have proper access to transtasman/polynesian flights. Thats all there is demand for. And by all means have their private owner pay for that. After all whats the point of having a private owner of an airport and then have the public pay for its investments?
Makes very little sense to me.
If Infratil don't see a business-case then, well, there is non. If the council thinks they know better than the owners, id be very worried.

However as someone above here said, Infratil don't exactly fill me with confidence. remember the hopeless fiasco that was Snapper? Set public transport in New Zealand inc back 5 years at least. Luckily we have gotten rid of it and Infratil and have a proper solution up and running, even though the government apparently want to take control of it. (Mindboggling)