Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

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

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Mon Jun 29, 2015 6:16 am

NZ are putting a Q300, ATR, 2x A320 and a B763 on DUD-WLG-DUD route this week due to the super rugby final.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/s...arly-for-allkiwi-super-rugby-final
 
Gasman
Posts: 2204
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Mon Jun 29, 2015 6:38 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 100):
NZ are putting a Q300, ATR, 2x A320 and a B763 on DUD-WLG-DUD route this week due to the super rugby final.

A 763 into DUD?? Hmmmmm. Shortish runway, crew unfamiliarity, hills around, no ILS, wicked crosswinds occasionally...... the rational side of me is telling me not to even post this; but I think I'd prefer the trip in one of the smaller aircraft.
 
zkncj
Posts: 4370
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Mon Jun 29, 2015 6:43 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 101):
A 763 into DUD?? Hmmmmm. Shortish runway, crew unfamiliarity, hills around, no ILS, wicked crosswinds occasionally...... the rational side of me is telling me not to even post this; but I think I'd prefer the trip in one of the smaller aircraft.

It's been done before - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP-9ZoU3Ef8
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2834
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Mon Jun 29, 2015 7:32 am

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 96):
Assume you mean PPQ Paraparaumu, rather than PMR Palmerston North?! And regardless of how good the road gets, there's no way I want to spend 40-minutes on it versus 10 off-peak, and an 80-minutes versus 30 during peak times.

No I mean PMR. As a freighter facility for the lower North Island, it probably has ready access to improving road networks so it will cope as a freight hub for the region, with access to greater Wellington.

40 minutes is too much for you? So now you know how Aucklanders feel  
 
zkncj
Posts: 4370
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Mon Jun 29, 2015 7:48 am

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 103):
40 minutes is too much for you? So now you know how Aucklanders feel  

Ha yeah - I'm pretty happy if I can make it home in 40 minutes during peak traffic (25km drive). Last week one morning it took me 1hr30 minutes to get into work and that was leaving at 7am.

According to Google Maps, its a 46minute (52km) drive from Central Wellington City to PPQ.
 
PA515
Posts: 1687
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Mon Jun 29, 2015 8:02 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 101):
A 763 into DUD?? Hmmmmm. Shortish runway, crew unfamiliarity, hills around, no ILS, wicked crosswinds occasionally...... the rational side of me is telling me not to even post this; but I think I'd prefer the trip in one of the smaller aircraft.
Quoting zkncj (Reply 102):
It's been done before

In September 2014 and May 2015. Good photo here with two ATR's in the new colour scheme.

http://mrcaviation.blogspot.co.nz/20...zealand-boeing-767-at-dunedin.html

PA515
 
rwy21
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:54 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Mon Jun 29, 2015 8:20 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 101):

thought you may have been talking about WLG, the runway in DUD is around the same length and far less wind than WLG, and believe it has ILS on both approaches, and 767 aircraft are not a new aircraft for the airport
 
Gasman
Posts: 2204
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Mon Jun 29, 2015 8:41 am

Quoting rwy21 (Reply 106):
believe it has ILS on both approaches

It does, I stand corrected. It didn't in the late 1980's when I last flew there as a private pilot.

Yes it generally has less wind than WLG, but when the wind comes off the hills to the South the crosswind is ghastly and can be a challenge for even 737s.

I know, I know, as even a PPL I'm ashamed at myself for even posting that. Just something about bringing the very occasional widebody into DUD activated my "situational awareness paranoia" button.

[Edited 2015-06-29 01:42:37]

[Edited 2015-06-29 01:43:38]
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4631
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Mon Jun 29, 2015 8:42 am

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 91):
There's a new factor in the equation, however, arising from current initiatives by Auckland Transport to develop a light rail network. The first line of this network will be Wynyard-Britomart-Dominion Rd on current plans, and AT is studying the possibility of extending it to the Airport as an alternative to extending the Onehunga Line. That will unlikely bring forward the time frame, though the kind of creative funding mechanisms being considered (possibly a BOOT) will mean that no central government contribution may be required.

Having light rail to the airport via Dominion Rd would clearly be a compromise, as the journey would be slower along Dominion Rd than via the existing rail network, but the costs of getting to the Airport would be very significantly cheaper by light rail than by heavy rail. Don't think that the light rail would get held up constantly by other traffic, though, because the plan is to have a completely segregated line in the middle of the road (no vehicles turning across the rail except at major intersections) and the line would form part of the "Rapid Transit Network" that currently includes the rail lines and the Northern Busway.

Light rail to the airport would almost be worse than nothing at all. Light rail is the cheaper incorrect option for an airport line. It is slower, smaller, not suited for long distance or for people with luggage. Do it once do it right build it with heavy rail (LR is great for dense urban areas like Dominion Rd etc but not the airport). There is a cheaper HR option to have the line go via Otahuhu which would save on distance, cost and not require the additional expense of the harbour crossing from Onehunga. The other hope is that at the airport it is built as a loop so that it can eventually be extended to Manukau without being a dead end station.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2204
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Mon Jun 29, 2015 8:53 am

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 108):
Do it once do it right

Posted in wrong thread. This is the NEW ZEALAND aviation thread.

 
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13704
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Mon Jun 29, 2015 8:59 am

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 91):
Having light rail to the airport via Dominion Rd would clearly be a compromise

Hopefully they never make a decision to go light rail.

I think the best solution for rail to the airport is via Onehunge and continuing past the airport and linking up with the new Manukau Spur, this vastly increases the catchment area for airport rail services. Double tracking is also a given.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4631
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:15 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 109):

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 108):
Do it once do it right

Posted in wrong thread. This is the NEW ZEALAND aviation thread.




Haha yes of course, forgot the no forethought that happens here   
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 1042
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:33 am

Could DUD take a 777-200ER?
 
Sylus
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 10:14 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Mon Jun 29, 2015 10:35 am

Quoting 77west (Reply 112):

I believe DUD's runway and apron are only certified for 767/330 sized aircraft and down. This is probably due to aircraft weight but I can tell you I train every week there for my PPL and it would be a very tight fit to get a 777 in!
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1957
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Mon Jun 29, 2015 10:38 am

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 108):
Light rail to the airport would almost be worse than nothing at all. Light rail is the cheaper incorrect option for an airport line. It is slower, smaller, not suited for long distance or for people with luggage. Do it once do it right build it with heavy rail (LR is great for dense urban areas like Dominion Rd etc but not the airport). There is a cheaper HR option to have the line go via Otahuhu which would save on distance, cost and not require the additional expense of the harbour crossing from Onehunga. The other hope is that at the airport it is built as a loop so that it can eventually be extended to Manukau without being a dead end station.
Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 110):
I think the best solution for rail to the airport is via Onehunge and continuing past the airport and linking up with the new Manukau Spur, this vastly increases the catchment area for airport rail services. Double tracking is also a given.

All of these are valid points (though not necessarily insurmountable)

* Yes, light rail is cheaper, but there's nothing to say it couldn't be tailored for people with luggage. Smaller vehicles also lend themselves to higher frequency, which is one of the biggest drivers of demand for any public transport service.

* Light rail may be slower than heavy rail, but the kind of segregated right of way proposed (especially on Dominion Rd) will make this less of a disadvantage than might otherwise be the case. There will be approximately twice as many stops along Dominion Rd as a rail line of equivalent distance, but once it reaches the SH20 corridor there should be no speed disadvantage.

* A heavy rail option via Otahuhu has been proposed, but has not been actively considered by AT (not recently, anyway). This may be for several reasons, among them: (a) it would create a physical barrier across South Auckland communities that would be politically unacceptable (remember the East-West Link [a road through that same area] debate at the last local government elections) and require a vast number of demolitions of residential properties; and (b) a loop connecting through to Manukau would be less efficient in network terms the further south the "jumping off point" from the Southern Line was.

* The idea of a true loop through to Manukau is almost out of the question for heavy rail, as it would require to run under the second runway and significant parts of the airport proper, and the economics of that are just not considered feasible. The best that could be hoped for with a heavy rail "loop" from Onehunga through to Manukau is an "in-and-out" solution a la Newmarket for the Western Line.

* Whether the line toward the city is light or heavy rail, via Onehunga or Otahuhu, there are intriguing prospects in the long term (decades away) for a light rail connection from the Airport through to Manukau, onward to Botany and thence via the Pakuranga "busway" currently in planning to Panmure and the Eastern Line, and eventually continuing down the Ellerslie-Panmure Highway to Ellerslie Station on the Southern Line. This not currently being considered by AT, but has been talked up by local politicians in the East as an option. Quite apart from offering a huge range of potential destinations for Airport users and workers, and connecting in three places with the heavy rail network, it also ticks a lot of the boxes for "general use" public transport serving the south and east.

All of this is well into the future, in some cases waaay into the future, But returning to the central question of light vs heavy rail for the connection to the city, it's not as one-sided as some might suppose. I was a real sceptic for the light rail option initially, but there are real arguments in its favour which have made me more willing to consider either as a possible outcome:
* Light rail is certainly cheaper, and that may mean the difference between a rail connection and no rail connection to the airport.
* Viewed in the context of serving all airport users, not just passengers with baggage, light rail connecting to the heavy rail network at Onehunga (and possibly Puhinui as well) is no different from any other public transport connection that people will have to make - especially when the New (bus) Network is implemented from 2016 onward.
* Transit time isn't the only factor that air passengers or commuters consider (otherwise everyone would drive almost everywhere and no one would ever use public transport). If the cost of a journey comes in at around 20% or less of the taxi fare, then that will be a factor for many users. If you don't need to pay exorbitant parking fees to keep your own car at the airport, that's also going to be a factor for some. If you're a backpacker or day-tripper without luggage, it may also be your natural choice. And if you're an airport worker, whether the trip runs via Dominion Rd or Penrose may make no difference at all.

I'm aware of a CEO of a major enterprise who very regularly uses the Airbus from choice because it just makes sense for him. So let's not make the mistake of modelling the behaviour of the entire travelling public on how we personally choose to travel.
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13704
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Mon Jun 29, 2015 10:56 am

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 114):
* Viewed in the context of serving all airport users, not just passengers with baggage, light rail connecting to the heavy rail network at Onehunga (and possibly Puhinui as well) is no different from any other public transport connection that people will have to make - especially when the New (bus) Network is implemented from 2016 onward.

I think the main idea with airport rail is to minimise the number of connections needed between the airport and CBD. With heavy rail it might even be possible to run express services between the airport and CBD.
 
zkncj
Posts: 4370
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Mon Jun 29, 2015 6:55 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 110):
I think the best solution for rail to the airport is via Onehunge and continuing past the airport and linking up with the new Manukau Spur, this vastly increases the catchment area for airport rail services. Double tracking is also a given.

Slight problem when they rebuilt Onehunga to Penrose - they only did an single track! down an rather narrow rail corridor
 
ZKSUJ
Posts: 6889
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 5:15 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Tue Jun 30, 2015 2:44 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 101):
A 763 into DUD?? Hmmmmm. Shortish runway, crew unfamiliarity, hills around, no ILS
Quoting 77west (Reply 112):
Could DUD take a 777-200ER?

As far as length go, its about the same as WLG and PMR so if they can take one into WLG then in theory based on RWY length (And RWY length only) its ok for DUD
 
coolian2
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:34 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Tue Jun 30, 2015 4:50 am

Quoting zkncj (Reply 116):
Slight problem when they rebuilt Onehunga to Penrose - they only did an single track! down an rather narrow rail corridor

Nothing stopping you double tracking onwards from Onehunga I presume?

At least then you could still keep a respectable frequency.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1957
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Tue Jun 30, 2015 7:04 am

Quoting coolian2 (Reply 118):
Nothing stopping you double tracking onwards from Onehunga I presume?

If it's decided to run heavy rail to Mangere and the Airport via Onehunga, then the Penrose-Onehunga section will be double-tracked. It's possible that the Manukau Harbour crossing will be single track, though, if it's decided to run it under the SH 20 bridge (which has been future-proofed for such an outcome). There would be double tracking from the south bank of the harbour to the airport, though.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4631
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:35 am

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 114):

Light rail is cheaper but not massively so considering most of it will be in a new corridor anyway.

I was under the impression that due to the changes to the 2nd runway both the road and rail will go under the 2nd runway now rather than around it.

In the context of all airport users heavy rail is still better in terms of speed and connecting into the rest of the rail network.
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4751
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Tue Jun 30, 2015 11:22 am

One year since ZK-NZE was delivered; how time flies!   

AVHerald has a description of the issue that caused ZK-NCG to return to AKL last week:

Quote:
A passenger reported the aircraft had departed with an hour delay due to maintenance work on a fuel gauge, that was not indicating properly. In flight the captain announced the fuel gauge still "wasn't cooperating" and they were returning to Auckland.

The airline reported a malfunction of the cockpit fuel indicators, the aircraft burned off fuel and returned to Auckland. Another aircraft took the passengers to Honolulu.
http://avherald.com/h?article=4885d9af&opt=0

Nasa's 747 has been doing a lot of flying south of the South Island:
http://twitter.com/SOFIAtelescope/status/615623960051318785
http://twitter.com/SOFIAtelescope/status/615467350054154240

MilwallSean mentioned several times in the Civil Aviation Forums that Brisbane and Auckland were Malaysia Airlines' worst performing routes. Brisbane was cut a few days ago, so I wonder how long until the same happens to Auckland. Would that see Air Asia X return to Kiwi skies?

Quoting 777ER (Reply 81):
The freighters currently are old turbo-props and the CV's/F27s aren't as quiet as the modern props used today

I'm pretty sure that Q300s are louder than the Convairs.

Quoting gasman (Reply 83):
at AKL there's always talk of building a rail service to make it faster

If only there was less talk and more action towards this. Takes me 50 minutes to get there.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 75):
Out of interest, why PMR? Is that some kind of distribution hub for NZ Post?

I have no idea, but a distribution center for NZPost would make sense.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1957
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:15 pm

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 120):
I was under the impression that due to the changes to the 2nd runway both the road and rail will go under the 2nd runway now rather than around it.

My understanding is that the route will be to the east of the second runway. Other options have been considered, though.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 120):
In the context of all airport users heavy rail is still better in terms of speed and connecting into the rest of the rail network.

Agreed, but it may be politically far easier for local government to go it alone with a BOOT for light rail than get central government buy-in (and funding) for an extension of the heavy rail network. It may be a choice between something (light rail) and nothing in the end. A change of government could completely change the landscape, however.

Quoting zkojq (Reply 121):
If only there was less talk and more action towards this. Takes me 50 minutes to get there.

Agreed! But with other priorities (CRL, Pakuranga Busway) much more urgent in the 2015-2025 decade, don't expect that action until the 2025-2035 decade. If then.
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13704
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:59 pm

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 122):
Agreed! But with other priorities (CRL, Pakuranga Busway) much more urgent in the 2015-2025 decade, don't expect that action until the 2025-2035 decade. If then.

The airport was originally built with rail in the picture. If you look at this photo, the overbridge was supposed to lead to the underground railway station. A friend of mine's dad was one of ARC architects who designed the terminal, he's always said the railway station was going to be underground, the lift wells are apparently a few much deeper than they need to be in anticipation of this station.


http://ps-image-bucket.s3.amazonaws....new-zealand/auckland%20airport.jpg
 
User avatar
ZKNCL
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:00 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Tue Jun 30, 2015 1:09 pm

Quoting zkojq (Reply 121):
MilwallSean mentioned several times in the Civil Aviation Forums that Brisbane and Auckland were Malaysia Airlines' worst performing routes. Brisbane was cut a few days ago, so I wonder how long until the same happens to Auckland. Would that see Air Asia X return to Kiwi skies?

I am aware that AKL was one of the worst performing routes in a review conducted in 2012, however, I believe that in recent years the route has been turned to better performing one. Their flights being full can obviously be attributed to the low prices they have for it, but I was under the impression the AKL is an important market that MH is looking to retain. They've highlighted in their pretty vague plans that NZ/AUS is a market they want to put a strong focus on, so I'd imagine the cuts we have seen in the BNE axing and the PER, MEL, SYD, and ADL frequency cuts are the last of them for now as MH were just right-sizing the network.

I could very well be wrong though, so don't hold anything on me  

Regards,
ZKNCL
 
PA515
Posts: 1687
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Thu Jul 02, 2015 11:27 am

ZK-MVG on delivery as SX1512. Presently heading towards Crete at 25,000 ft.

http://www.flightradar24.com/SX1512

Presume the routing is the same as the others, TLS-HBE-AAN, AAN-NAG-PEN, PEN-KOE, KOE-BNE, BNE-CHC.

PA515
 
User avatar
SXI899
Posts: 256
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:02 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Thu Jul 02, 2015 12:38 pm

Quoting PA515 (Reply 125):
ZK-MVG on delivery as SX1512. Presently heading towards Crete at 25,000 ft.
Whoops, looks like the boys missed a letter when plugging in the callsign!

Quoting PA515 (Reply 125):
Presume the routing is the same as the others, TLS-HBE-AAN, AAN-NAG-PEN, PEN-KOE, KOE-BNE, BNE-CHC.
Correct.
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2834
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Thu Jul 02, 2015 1:07 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 110):
Hopefully they never make a decision to go light rail.

Agreed. I was awaiting a tram home today here in Melbourne when one went faulty further down the line.

Despite being fully grade separated, it took 30 minutes to clear the faulty tram - a massive buildup of trams behind and angry commuters. Now imagine that kind of disruption for passengers trying to catch flights. The consequences being a little more severe.

Trams are not the solution. You may as well just have a bus service with dedicated bus lines - more actual seating capacity too. Throw in a few core stops, such as Onehunga and Newmarket and boom, cheaper and more flexible than a tram.

But if the intent is to move masses of people quickly, a train is the better solution. What about a spur from the southern line?
 
PA515
Posts: 1687
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Thu Jul 02, 2015 1:57 pm

Quoting SXI899 (Reply 126):
Whoops, looks like the boys missed a letter when plugging in the callsign!

Hi Yorden. Same thing happened on one of the earlier flights.

Was able to follow it down to 1125 ft about 5 kms south of HBE thanks to a flightradar24 receiver in Cyprus. Still no feed from Egypt. Would have landed about UTC1335.

Do you know which month ZK-MVH will be delivered?

PA515

[Edited 2015-07-02 06:59:56]
 
User avatar
MillwallSean
Posts: 994
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:07 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Thu Jul 02, 2015 3:47 pm

Quoting zkojq (Reply 121):

MilwallSean mentioned several times in the Civil Aviation Forums that Brisbane and Auckland were Malaysia Airlines' worst performing routes. Brisbane was cut a few days ago, so I wonder how long until the same happens to Auckland. Would that see Air Asia X return to Kiwi skies?
Quoting ZKNCL (Reply 124):
I am aware that AKL was one of the worst performing routes in a review conducted in 2012, however, I believe that in recent years the route has been turned to better performing one. Their flights being full can obviously be attributed to the low prices they have for it, but I was under the impression the AKL is an important market that MH is looking to retain. They've highlighted in their pretty vague plans that NZ/AUS is a market they want to put a strong focus on, so I'd imagine the cuts we have seen in the BNE axing and the PER, MEL, SYD, and ADL frequency cuts are the last of them for now as MH were just right-sizing the network.

Funny that this is mentioned now, Im just sitting in KL and have met some interesting individuals.
I have it on very good authority that AKL is still heavily lossmaking. But thats all I know. No one told me about closures or amendments. (lucky for my credibility that MH followed up on me sticking my neck out in regards to BNE being a lemon, was a poster or two that stated that BNE wasn't a poor performer anymore)...
CM the new manager is a man who is involved, everywhere apparently. Leaks are reduced, I didn't even get an inside on the stated new branding, possible name etc. With that said they were pretty impressed with CM. Said he was damn good.
Reducing the amount of suppliers with 85% - 90% isnt a bad idea but says alot about how MH used to be run. many people have gotten rich on MH:s behalf and with the new owner there is time to turn the airline into a business again. They are making the right moves so far.
With that said almost every week there are new reductions of service, dont read to much into KL-Australia changes and New Zealand being kept. They didnt announce any changes to BKI-PER either and thats sure to come.

Inb regards to AKL - the prices they have been selling tickets for is unsustainable. full flights or not, those prices to a bloated organisation like MH is suicidal. Examples of what friends anf family have bought, NZ$1650 to AMS and you add 450 per leg for business class ie NZ$1800. That is fares one can only dream of normally with an airline such as MH. MH has been using virtual fixed price upgrades (called auctions), however as long as you have big you have virtually been ensured of the upgrade. I have only bid minimum and received the upgrade everytime.

Also in regards to AKL and Air Asia X there are some good talks happening between Air Asia and MH on further cooperation. My guess would be that nothing is decided when it comes to AKL until those talks have been advanced. AKL is further in distance than what Air Asia X has said is its profitable stage lengths.
Being selfish I much rather fly Air Asia X, KLIA 2 is much more appealing than KLIA and I always connect on Air Asia anyway since work use them as our preferred shorthaul carrier in Asean...
Something about KLIA rubs me the wrong way. Not sure what it is but I just feel that KLIA 2 is more Malaysia to me than KLIA who feels like a desolate, half run down government building where grey bureaucrats calls you in at a timetable only they set and know...
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1957
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Thu Jul 02, 2015 9:08 pm

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 127):
Despite being fully grade separated, it took 30 minutes to clear the faulty tram - a massive buildup of trams behind and angry commuters. Now imagine that kind of disruption for passengers trying to catch flights. The consequences being a little more severe.

. . .

But if the intent is to move masses of people quickly, a train is the better solution. What about a spur from the southern line?

I don't understand the logic here. Surely a train could just as easily break down and cause the same kind of disruption. As could an accident on the motorway cause chaos for a bus. I don't think we can say that any realistic transport mode is going to be immune from flight-threatening disruption.

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 129):
Examples of what friends anf family have bought, NZ$1650 to AMS and you add 450 per leg for business class ie NZ$1800.

Umm, by my calculations that's $2,100!
 
coolian2
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:34 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Thu Jul 02, 2015 10:31 pm

 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1957
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Thu Jul 02, 2015 11:24 pm

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 130):
Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 129):
Examples of what friends anf family have bought, NZ$1650 to AMS and you add 450 per leg for business class ie NZ$1800.

Umm, by my calculations that's $2,100!

OK, now I understand - the total fare being $3,450. Brain fade, I'm afraid.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4631
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Fri Jul 03, 2015 10:52 am

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 130):

I don't understand the logic here. Surely a train could just as easily break down and cause the same kind of disruption. As could an accident on the motorway cause chaos for a bus. I don't think we can say that any realistic transport mode is going to be immune from flight-threatening disruption.


Since the trains in AKL are 3 or 6 car EMUs a fault in one wouldn't stop it from moving on (albeit slowly) to somewhere out of the way/return to depot.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8435
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Fri Jul 03, 2015 11:06 am

The MH staff in AKL will find out if they stay or are redundant in August I'm led to believe. the question is whether AKL will make it past the rebranding - the current rumour is certainly that it won't. If it does go I think it might be the cue QR needs to start DOH-KUL-AKL. MH/QF would of course codeshare and MH would maintain a presence as a codeshare.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4631
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Fri Jul 03, 2015 1:14 pm

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 134):

The MH staff in AKL will find out if they stay or are redundant in August I'm led to believe. the question is whether AKL will make it past the rebranding - the current rumour is certainly that it won't. If it does go I think it might be the cue QR needs to start DOH-KUL-AKL. MH/QF would of course codeshare and MH would maintain a presence as a codeshare.


If not I wonder if it has potential as a 789 route for a certain airline based in AKL?
 
User avatar
MillwallSean
Posts: 994
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:07 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Fri Jul 03, 2015 2:40 pm

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 134):
The MH staff in AKL will find out if they stay or are redundant in August I'm led to believe. the question is whether AKL will make it past the rebranding - the current rumour is certainly that it won't. If it does go I think it might be the cue QR needs to start DOH-KUL-AKL. MH/QF would of course codeshare and MH would maintain a presence as a codeshare.
Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 135):


If not I wonder if it has potential as a 789 route for a certain airline based in AKL?

I would have guessed that the only airline that might consoder AKL from KUL is Air Asia X. QR, hmm maybe you know more than me? (I havent heard a thing but I know very little about QR so that doesnt say much.

The problem for an airline like MH is that it has staff everywhere and has extremely bloated costs. Read this fact, over 20.000 suppliers...
CM the new manager wants to bring it down to 2000 within a year. No problem but he will step on a lot of toes, toes that has gotten rich through extremely favourable contracts with MH...

Thanks those of you that teach me about Auckland and its awful public transport. The railway debates here are for a person like me enlightening. Answers alot of questions. And for the record, build, build the CRL, build the airport extension and build a tunnel to north shore etc. Were Auckland, 40% of GDP and we get less that kaitaia per person? That we can thank clueless bullies and lifestyle property owners like Mr Joyce. A man who single-handedly screwed up almost every NZ business that went to Indoensia, Singapore etc with him and a government trade delegation that i had the misfortune of being part of. FYI Insulting hosts isn't clever and his jokes may work in farmville and boganville but absolutely nowhere else...

Also 20 minutes from Mt Eden to the airport. Pls enlighten me how. Having lived in the suburb for soon 10 years I have yet to make it to Auckland airport within 30 minutes from my door.
My extended family lives in Three Kings and they may make it if they have a 11pm flight and risk losing their license on the motorway, but even that is highly doubtful.

With that said, the view from Marina Bay sands isn't bad despite the haze, what is bad is that stupid Orbit guaranteed that the KL ticket guaranteed me SQ both ways between AKL-SIN but to my shock and horror I am on the morning departure out of SIN next week and thus will have the pleasure of NZ longhaul. Its been ages and I don't look forward to it.
Note to myself never ever let them handle anything ever again no matter how busy I am...
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Fri Jul 03, 2015 2:55 pm

has NZ made any arrangement with AC for services via IAH from YYZ?
 
zkncj
Posts: 4370
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Fri Jul 03, 2015 7:32 pm

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 135):
If not I wonder if it has potential as a 789 route for a certain airline based in AKL?

Maybe more like using one of those spare 763s?
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13704
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Fri Jul 03, 2015 7:37 pm

Quoting coolian2 (Reply 131):
From the recent AIAL masterplan:

If AKL ever looks like this I'll be amazed.

http://transportblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Airport-terminal.jpg
 
keen2fly
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 2:10 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Fri Jul 03, 2015 8:38 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 139):
If AKL ever looks like this I'll be amazed.

Yep, it'll get diluted down into some patchy, cobbled together mess of a couple of new piers and tacked-on extensions to the terminal building.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2204
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Fri Jul 03, 2015 8:54 pm

Quoting keen2fly (Reply 140):
Yep, it'll get diluted down into some patchy, cobbled together mess of a couple of new piers and tacked-on extensions to the terminal building.

........... with compromises that will in themselves cost the airport and airlines money, amounting to many times more than it would have cost to do the thing properly in the first place.

Oh and of course, it'll leak.

[Edited 2015-07-03 13:56:10]
 
PA515
Posts: 1687
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Fri Jul 03, 2015 9:14 pm

ZK-MVG looking at a dawn arrival into PEN about 90 mins from now.

http://flightradar24.com/SXI1512

PA515

[Edited 2015-07-03 14:15:22]

[Edited 2015-07-03 14:16:54]
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1957
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Sat Jul 04, 2015 12:05 am

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 133):
Since the trains in AKL are 3 or 6 car EMUs a fault in one wouldn't stop it from moving on (albeit slowly) to somewhere out of the way/return to depot.

I'm picking that you're not a regular commuter by train, and that you don't receive the "trains delayed or cancelled" text message alerts! Even the new electric trains do not appear to be immune . . .
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2834
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Sat Jul 04, 2015 1:41 am

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 130):
I don't understand the logic here. Surely a train could just as easily break down and cause the same kind of disruption. As could an accident on the motorway cause chaos for a bus. I don't think we can say that any realistic transport mode is going to be immune from flight-threatening disruption.

Trams are a new (to Auckland - yes I know we had them way back when) technology requiring massive new investment in infrastructure (grade-separated tracks, possibly overhead lines, actual rolling stock, stations) that has a considerable ongoing operating cost - maintenance in particular. See Wellington's trolley buses being phased out for an example of the expense of a beloved, yet completely unnecessary technology (they haven't operated on weekends for years to allow maintenance).

So rather than introduce an entirely new transport mode in Auckland, first ask what's the point of PT to the airport - what are you trying to achieve?

Move masses of people? Trains. Yes, they break down too, but as they're fully grade separated from roads and other modes, are usually designed with more redundancies that enable faster recovery in the event of a fault. And whereas trams can be affected by other vehicle, pedestrian and cyclist interactions (crashes - they happen in Melbourne all the time) Ok so Auckland has a shitty history with its train network, but that's a management issue that can be resolved by bringing someone in with a hint of expertise.

Funny thing with trams too - a bus network has to be maintained anyway as a backup in the event of a disruption. So why not just go with buses anyway?

Moving smaller numbers of people, but faster implementation and felxibility? Buses. A fully grade separated bus network is cheaper to install and maintain (bus lanes), less disruptive to existing systems, doesn't fall prey to Auckland's woeful traffic, actually offers more seating than trams (really - take a look at modern trams and their lack of seating - enjoy standing for your 45 minute commute to the airport), and is more flexible for when there are disruptions or routes needing to be changed.

If you grade separate, which is the only way trams would be close to being effective, you may as well stick with buses. And good luck grade separating in Auckland for trams down the major arterials - you'd be looking at 20 years before the thing kicks off. But a grade separation down the motorways for buses is pretty straightforward and can be used for other commuter buses.

But no, Auckland, indebted to its eyeballs, has to start going for the big and shiny because it looks good for the politicians to cut a ribbon. Which means it will take decades, if ever. Sigh.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 139):
If AKL ever looks like this I'll be amazed.

Ha! Don't worry, it won't.

Quoting keen2fly (Reply 140):
Yep, it'll get diluted down into some patchy, cobbled together mess of a couple of new piers and tacked-on extensions to the terminal building.

Absolutely. I believe the new CEO wanted a single, coherent design, but fat chance of that. Hodge-podge 4evs.
 
coolian2
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:34 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Sat Jul 04, 2015 2:36 am

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 133):
Since the trains in AKL are 3 or 6 car EMUs a fault in one wouldn't stop it from moving on (albeit slowly) to somewhere out of the way/return to depot.

Given the airport line is being pushed out to 2045 I'd hope we're at least onto EMU Mk2s
 
User avatar
NZ107
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:51 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Sat Jul 04, 2015 6:22 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 134):

I would expect EK to beat QR to the KUL-AKL route, if they had a race.. Just like how I wonder if EK might switch to DXB-KUL-BNE instead of sending it to MEL now MH has dropped that route. It'll be sad to see MH go, if they do.

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 136):
Also 20 minutes from Mt Eden to the airport. Pls enlighten me how. Having lived in the suburb for soon 10 years I have yet to make it to Auckland airport within 30 minutes from my door.

Quickest I've done from Epsom/Newmarket to the airport is 15-16 min. At speeds we currently wouldn't get ticketed for, having luck with lights and traffic.

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 143):
and that you don't receive the "trains delayed or cancelled" text message alerts!

Do you? How do you get these? Might come in handy..
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1957
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Sat Jul 04, 2015 7:25 am

So many misconceptions etc - where to start?

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 144):
So rather than introduce an entirely new transport mode in Auckland, first ask what's the point of PT to the airport - what are you trying to achieve?

Again, we have to not think of this as the "Airport Line" but as the South-Western Line, and remember that the citizens of Mangere and environs are key to the success of any rail-based venture, whether light or heavy.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 144):
Trains. Yes, they break down too, but as they're fully grade separated from roads and other modes, are usually designed with more redundancies that enable faster recovery in the event of a fault.

Truth is that Auckland's trains are not fully grade separated from road traffic, and to achieve that is going to cost literally hundreds of millions of dollars. So don't expect to see that any time soon. By comparison, there would actually be relatively few road/light rail conflicts on a line to the south-west. As for the "redundancies" - not sure what you mean here. There's no inherent reason why light rail can't have the same "redundancies" as heavy rail, especially (as may be the case) where the same manufacturer is chosen.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 144):
Ok so Auckland has a shitty history with its train network, but that's a management issue that can be resolved by bringing someone in with a hint of expertise.

Cheap shot - there are many factors which cause problems with Auckland's rail network, not least the track and signalling (not owned by Auckland Transport, but Kiwirail). To say it's a "management issue" is just playing to prejudices.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 144):
Buses. A fully grade separated bus network is cheaper to install and maintain (bus lanes), less disruptive to existing systems, doesn't fall prey to Auckland's woeful traffic, actually offers more seating than trams (really - take a look at modern trams and their lack of seating - enjoy standing for your 45 minute commute to the airport), and is more flexible for when there are disruptions or routes needing to be changed.

It may well be that there is separation on some key bus routes as a "prequel" to light rail. For example, there are real challenges getting double deck buses down Dominion Rd on the (preferred) existing bus lanes, as there will be significant and extremely expensive modifications required to verandas etc over much of the length of the road. An option still in the mix is to allocate the central lanes to a separated busway, which might subsequently be converted to light rail. At the current extraordinary growth rates being experienced for public transport even double deck buses are going to see congestion close to the central city, and are seen as a stop-gap until volumes merit light rail.

And as for "lack of seating" - if light rail was ordered, it would be to Auckland's specification, not to someone else's. As with the current batch of EMUs. If we want seats, we can have seats.

Remember that light rail has the ability to shift significantly greater volumes of passengers than buses do. It's also a matter of persuading people out of their cars so we don't have more and more car congestion, and rightly or wrongly, light rail is demonstrably "sexier" than a bus.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 144):
If you grade separate, which is the only way trams would be close to being effective



It is absolutely expected that light rail would be separated from other traffic except at key intersections, and once you reach SH20, there would be no vehicular conflicts at all. By the way, "grade separation" means separation vertically, not horizontally.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 144):
Auckland, indebted to its eyeballs, has to start going for the big and shiny because it looks good for the politicians to cut a ribbon.

Absolutely wrong - it was Auckland Transport that came up with the idea of light rail on some isthmus routes as an antidote to bus congestion on key arterials because of light rail's ability to shift signficantly larger numbers of people than buses. The politicians claimed they were blind-sided, notwithstanding that the AT CEO had been dropping hints for about 12 months before the plan came to public attention. The notion of extending it to the airport was a response to the demand by NZTA for a massive payment to future-proof the Kirkbride Rd-SH20A intersection for heavy rail.

And as for "indebted to the eyeballs" - that's just another media and politician shibboleth. Auckland isn't unduly in debt.

Quoting coolian2 (Reply 145):
Given the airport line is being pushed out to 2045 I'd hope we're at least onto EMU Mk2s

I appreciate that people are starting on this thread to bandy around the 2045 date, but I can assure you that this is just A-net talk - repeat something often enough and people start to believe it. In truth, there has been no date set (except that it won't be in the 2015-25 period).
 
kiwiandrew

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Sat Jul 04, 2015 9:29 pm

Yesterday my brother sent me a couple of photos of a wingletted NH 767 at AKL . Does anyone know why it was here?
 
PA515
Posts: 1687
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Sat Jul 04, 2015 9:47 pm

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 148):
Yesterday my brother sent me a couple of photos of a wingletted NH 767 at AKL . Does anyone know why it was here?

Arrived via TBU after dropping off the Japanese Crown Prince and Princess for the coronation of the Tongan King.

http://mrcaviation.blogspot.co.nz/20.../07/ana-boeing-767-300-ja627a.html

PA515

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos