aerokiwi
Posts: 2714
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Sun Jul 05, 2015 2:36 am

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 147):
So many misconceptions etc - where to start?

How about by actually living in a city with trams and experiencing first hand how they work? I also note you don't address the inherent cost and inefficiencies of introducing another transport mode.

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 147):
Again, we have to not think of this as the "Airport Line" but as the South-Western Line,

In that case, given the volumes you'd be adding to the mix, you may as well go train, probably elevated.

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 147):
Truth is that Auckland's trains are not fully grade separated from road traffic,

They have right of way at any level crossing and grade separation can be achieved without eating into road capacity.

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 147):
Cheap shot -

Cheap shot for a crappy transport system. I think Aucklanders are entitled to a few low blows after decades of rubbish PT.

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 147):
It may well be that there is separation on some key bus routes as a "prequel" to light rail.

So what route would you take? Seriously. Dominion Rd - local residents and shop keeps scream bloody murder every time there's even a hint that roadside parking might be removed.

And how long would it take for a tram to get from the CBD to Onehunga alone? Are you assuming 20 minutes? On a local route where non-airport users will be getting on and off? Yeah good luck. Or is the entire route supposed to be for airport only - expense, space, practicalities play an even bigger factor then, because all the proposed rooutes to date are there for local traffic.

There's a reason the Airbus doesn't exist for local passengers (though does pickups and drop offs for Airport pax).

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 147):
And as for "lack of seating" -

Nup. Airport travellers = luggage. To make trams viable = maximise capacity, both seated and standing, as you pointed out. You won't get many seats for your shiny new toy.

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 147):
Remember that light rail has the ability to shift significantly greater volumes of passengers than buses do.

But at far greater cost and, potentially, lower frequency as a result of that cost. It's like aviation - frequency v capacity.

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 147):
It is absolutely expected that light rail would be separated from other traffic except at key intersections,

"Expected"? Have you asked the locals that? And if it's going to be grade separated, again, why not just cheaper buses, like the Northern Express, which has been a raging success using grade separated buses. We didn't need shiny trams to make that work.

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 147):
Absolutely wrong

Mike Lee would disagree with you there. And AT has been around a few years. Advocates of trams, who just happen to sit on the AT board, have been around for yonks. And if you believe AT will do anything without a. local government funding and b. central government funding, then ...? And who is responsible for that funding? Politicians.

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 147):
And as for "indebted to the eyeballs"

Sure, it's not Greece. But comparatively. Auckland is in the poop. I hope everyone is enjoying their 10% annual rate increases. And how much of that is going towards paying off debt interest?

PT fanboys always go ga-ga over trams, usually because they've had a holiday in Europe and spent a few days enjoying themselves in a leisurely way in pretty cities. But living with them is entirely another matter - you see the failures, the costs, the bizarre limitations (even with just a few intersections) and unforeseen whoopsies.

Auckland's eventual airport connection should be rail, and yes it should absolutely service the wider Mangere corridor, reinforcing that it should be rail (the volumes to justify it). In the meantime (let's get the city loop built first), given the expense and need, buses with dedicated routes will suffice.

And let's face it - this is all probably moot anyway because the chances of a compliant airport company, competent local government, supportive central government and support from affected residents and businesses is effectively nil any time soon.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Sun Jul 05, 2015 2:47 am

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 150):
PT fanboys always go ga-ga over trams, usually because they've had a holiday in Europe and spent a few days enjoying themselves in a leisurely way in pretty cities.

I like trams but I don't think I'm a "fanboy" of them - LOL.

I'm not advocating them for Auckland - and not disparaging them for Auckland - I'm not an expert in public transport. All I know is that I lived in Melbourne for twenty years, enjoyed the trams and they served me very well.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
coolian2
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:34 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Sun Jul 05, 2015 2:59 am

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 147):
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).

I grant it's worst case, and we need the CRL done first.

It does seem nice that AT have realised you can't squeeze much more blood out of the motorway stone, and going into the future heavy rail is our best chance at mass transit - hopefully someone gets around to telling NZTA.

(Additionally it's our best chance at heavy freight which is why I'd advocate building the Avondale-Southdown line before another horrid, truck filled motorway.....but that's another story for another day).
Q300/ATR72-600/737-200/-300/-400/-700/-800/A320/767-200/-300/757-200/777-300ER/
747-200/-300/-400/ER/A340-300/A380-800/MD-83/-88/CRJ-700/-900
 
Gasman
Posts: 2127
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Sun Jul 05, 2015 4:04 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 151):
All I know is that I lived in Melbourne for twenty years, enjoyed the trams and they served me very well.

Melbourne's quite a bit flatter than Auckland though, with a greater population density close to the CBD. I suspect both of those things would be an issue?
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Sun Jul 05, 2015 4:26 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 153):
Melbourne's quite a bit flatter than Auckland though, with a greater population density close to the CBD. I suspect both of those things would be an issue?

Maybe. I've no idea. As I said, I'm not an expert in public transport, although I like the cable cars of San Francisco - I love the almost hop-on/hop-off approach.

If I lived in Auckland I'd probably vote for almost anything that inhibited even more motorways cutting through a city that was once amiable and user-friendly.

Since I don't live in Auckland, it doesn't really concern me and my opinion doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

But - I do like trams.  

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1180
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Sun Jul 05, 2015 5:13 am

I thought I'd never say this, but I am currently editing some of my photos, and found that the "old" teal colours (sans Pacific wave) on the A320s looks boring and dated, compared to the new b/w fern colour scheme.

Happy Sunday
micha
 
nz2
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:38 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Sun Jul 05, 2015 6:38 am

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 115):
it might even be possible to run express services between the airport and CBD

You cant have express services without a third rail

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

That's because the specifications called for the line to be rehabilitated Penrose to Onehunga, no other thought given in the brief like double track etc, that according to the person in charge of the project. Now in the background no doubt there was thought of the airport connection but that had no impact on the initial requirement. Would have been cheaper to provide a free bus shuttle service Onehunga to Penrose for 20 years than put the line back in, but that was Mike the moron Lee for you. BTW I am a fan of trains but not of wasting money, you need to be realistic sometimes.....I would love to see trains to the airport, as I have mentioned here previously I always take the train from SYD airport to the city every few weeks, it is great value and very quick. Trains in AKL only reach a very small percentage of population hence the lack of critical mass, unfortunately. I live 1200m from a station and that is too far, easier to take the car except for a once a year novelty excursion for a game at Eden Park .

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 130):
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.

Other rail units can shunt the US unit or a diesel loco sent to pick it up. Traffic on the other track can be held to allow for the small amount of periods the loco needs to leap frog other units

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.

Well I live in the eastern bays and make it easily inside 30, most often 25 minutes. You need to know the best route options, which is not the main roads

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 147):
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.

The new Mangere bridge was future proofed with rail in mind, and the Kirkbride road intersection is also being future proofed to have both road and rail going under the intersection

Quoting mariner (Reply 154):
If I lived in Auckland I'd probably vote for almost anything that inhibited even more motorways cutting through a city that was once amiable and user-friendly.

Well I have lived in AKL for 50 odd years and find it very easy to get around, true it depends where you live and I am lucky being close to my place of work in Queen St, but as I mentioned earlier you need to know the patterns and best routes according to time of day, if it is peak hour, plan for it. It is very manageable for the people I know and work with, its called planning.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8328
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Sun Jul 05, 2015 8:41 am

Quoting zkeoj (Reply 155):

I thought I'd never say this, but I am currently editing some of my photos, and found that the "old" teal colours (sans Pacific wave) on the A320s looks boring and dated, compared to the new b/w fern colour scheme.

I would have liked to continue with the Teal and Navy with the current "New" motif and fern. Or have each fleet with a different colour.

1900D Orange "Eagle"
Q300 Maroon "Air Nelson" or "Grabaseat" Lime
A320D Red "NAC"
A320R Black
767 Navy
787 Green
777 Teal
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1180
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Sun Jul 05, 2015 10:20 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 157):
I would have liked to continue with the Teal and Navy with the current "New" motif and fern. Or have each fleet with a different colour.

1900D Orange "Eagle"
Q300 Maroon "Air Nelson" or "Grabaseat" Lime
A320D Red "NAC"
A320R Black
767 Navy
787 Green
777 Teal

Oh, that would have been amazing!
  
 
keen2fly
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 2:10 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Sun Jul 05, 2015 10:29 am

Quoting zkeoj (Reply 155):

I agree actually, I don't like the wide bodies very much in the new livery, but the A320s seem to pull it off quite well.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1501
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Sun Jul 05, 2015 11:31 am

In our discussion of rail to the airport, there are two quite separate elements which have become conflated. The first is the merits of light rail generally. There are arguments for an against, but for those who are keen to see the arguments, I can suggest the City Centre Future Access Study (v2).

The second issue is whether any link to Mangere and the Airport should be light rail or heavy rail. Personally, I'm a strong advocate of heavy rail, but it may be for financial reasons a choice between light rail and nothing at all. That's why I don't think that light rail can just be trashed as an option. And as I've said before, the airport is a MAJOR employer, and the proposed route runs via a populous and PT-poor suburb. Take away the word "airport" and there would still be a case for a rail link based on the employment and population alone.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 150):
How about by actually living in a city with trams and experiencing first hand how they work? I also note you don't address the inherent cost and inefficiencies of introducing another transport mode.

Respectfully, I lived for many years without a car in a European city that had a superb tram system, which I used daily.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 150):
you may as well go train, probably elevated

Do you have any sense of what it would cost to build an elevated railway? Absolutely not going to happen. Never.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 150):
They have right of way at any level crossing and grade separation can be achieved without eating into road capacity.

Grade separation is going to be horrendously expensive, and is not even in current thinking in a practical sense. Lip service is being paid to it, but that's all. Think about the BCR that grade separation might attract.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 150):
Cheap shot for a crappy transport system. I think Aucklanders are entitled to a few low blows after decades of rubbish PT.

Clearly you're not a public transport user. If you were, you'd have experienced huge improvement in both the rail and bus network over the last decade or so, with much more in the pipeline.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 150):
Dominion Rd - local residents and shop keeps scream bloody murder every time there's even a hint that roadside parking might be removed.

This is the future for the isthmus, whether rail or bus, and it's already started. Parking will be removed from most arterials over the next few years and for increasingly long periods during the day if not 24/7. The alternative is gridlock. There will be no other way of moving people along these routes. When trying to squeeze a quart into a pint bottle, something has to give.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 150):
[Remember that light rail has the ability to shift significantly greater volumes of passengers than buses do.]

But at far greater cost and, potentially, lower frequency as a result of that cost. It's like aviation - frequency v capacity.

Actually, no. Dominion Rd currently has buses every 5 minutes off-peak during the day. Expect light rail every 6 min according to published material - assuming it gets the go-ahead. Yes, initial capital cost is high, but operating cost is way down when considering the numbers of passengers anticipated on some of these corridors. Both lower staff costs per pax, and lower motive power costs (electricity vs diesel)

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 150):
Auckland is in the poop. I hope everyone is enjoying their 10% annual rate increases. And how much of that is going towards paying off debt interest?

Easy to throw such language about without any justification. A good portion of the "extra" rates rise comes about because of a flat refusal of central government to fund the preliminary works for the CRL. Auckland was faced with a choice of either coughing up the government's share itself, or waving goodbye to any prospect of the CRL when the new high-rise is built on the Downtown Shopping Centre site (which is imminent).

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 150):
Auckland's eventual airport connection should be rail, and yes it should absolutely service the wider Mangere corridor, reinforcing that it should be rail (the volumes to justify it).

Hey, we agree! I personally think that taking light rail to the airport via Dominion Rd would be a nightmare. But if that was the only game in town, as it may turn out to be for financial and political reasons, it deserves serious attention.

Quoting nz2 (Reply 156):
That's because the specifications called for the line to be rehabilitated Penrose to Onehunga, no other thought given in the brief like double track etc

Rehabilitating the Onehunga Line was a job done at the minimum cost because no one other than Mike Lee thought it would be a success. Double tracking was never even an option. History shows that Mike Lee was right and everyone else was wrong - the line's patronage exceeded all expectations from the outset and continues to grow fast.

Quoting nz2 (Reply 156):
Trains in AKL only reach a very small percentage of population hence the lack of critical mass, unfortunately. I live 1200m from a station and that is too far, easier to take the car except for a once a year novelty excursion for a game at Eden Park .

I live 1500m from a station and welcome the 20-minute walk in the morning and evening - it's become an essential part of my exercise regime. Thankfully, there are sufficient people who don't share your perspective to enable the trains to return around 20% growth year on year at present. Expect this to continue as the final roll-out of the EMUs happens, and then in the next couple of years when the bus network is completely reconfigured to feed the rail network as a priority.

Quoting nz2 (Reply 156):
Other rail units can shunt the US unit or a diesel loco sent to pick it up. Traffic on the other track can be held to allow for the small amount of periods the loco needs to leap frog other units

Tell that to the hapless commuters who until recently were suffering daily breakdowns of the aged DMUs. Traffic can be held for the small periods . . . yeah, right!
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
PA515
Posts: 1562
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Sun Jul 05, 2015 5:34 pm

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 148):
Quoting PA515 (Reply 149):

ANA9410 departed AKL for TBU about 20 mins ago.

PA515
 
Gasman
Posts: 2127
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Sun Jul 05, 2015 7:19 pm

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 160):
Respectfully, I lived for many years without a car in a European city that had a superb tram system, which I used daily.

I think we need to not use overseas cities as our benchmark. Unless we use other sprawling, hilly, extremely low population density cities without much of an existing infrastructure for comparison......... and nothing really springs to mind.
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3649
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Sun Jul 05, 2015 7:59 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 162):
Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 160):
Respectfully, I lived for many years without a car in a European city that had a superb tram system, which I used daily.

I think we need to not use overseas cities as our benchmark. Unless we use other sprawling, hilly, extremely low population density cities without much of an existing infrastructure for comparison......... and nothing really springs to mind.

I think the modern city we can compare to Auckland in terms of the above description, and that has overcome its previous public transport woes, is Perth. Three decades ago it was a commuter nightmare of a city, dependent on cars and roads. Today it has well synchronised system of trains, buses and ferries - and the next stage in development is light-rail... aka trams.
come visit the south pacific
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8328
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Sun Jul 05, 2015 11:14 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 162):
Unless we use other sprawling, hilly, extremely low population density cities

New Zealand "aviation" thread not withstanding, the population thing is actually an excuse used by town planners with not enough long term vision because if you set the infrastructure up to cope for more than necessity it will fill up the population repidly. Say it was set up, New Zealand could fight high unit costs with high immigration for Permanent residents from overseas and build the population of AKL rapidly to 4-5 million (instead of actively sending immigrants away from AKL as they do now) and increasing the demand for additional air services for all the VFR traffic visiting family and then and only then will the AKL Airport get the expansion it needs. There we are back on aviation topic now ... 
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10066
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Sun Jul 05, 2015 11:22 pm

A majority of the discussion about public transport is now turning non aviation. Please keep the discussion of transport to/from AKL only and not about your own public transport to/from work etc.

Next step will be deletions.

Thanks
777ER
Head Forum Moderator
[email protected]
Flown: 1900D,S340,Q300,AT72-5/6,DC3,CR2/7,E145,E70/75/90,A319/20/21,A332/3,A359,A380,F100,B717,B733/4/8/9,B742/4,B752/3,B763,B772/3, B789
With: NZ,SJ,QF,JQ,EK,VA,AA,UA,DL,FL,AC,FJ,SQ,TG,PR
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10066
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Sun Jul 05, 2015 11:50 pm

Even in the face of increasing competition Air New Zealand has been given a credit rating upgrade by Moody's investor service.

The credit rating agency upgraded the airline's credit rating to Baa2 from Baa3 on Friday following a review on June 16.

Air New Zealand spokeswoman Marie Hosking said the only other airline to have Moody's Baa2 rating was United States carrier Southwest while British budget airline Ryanair had the equivalent rating from Standard & Poor's.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...ade-air-new-zealands-credit-rating

Air New Zealand, which is locked in a fierce battle with Qantas Airways on two fronts, is seeking to delay a co-ordinated increase in capacity from Qantas and American Airlines on the trans-Pacific route beyond the planned peak season start in December.

Qantas has placed pressure on Air NZ by announcing the launch of Jetstar services to regional cities in New Zealand and through a deeper alliance with American.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/6...-from-qantas-and-american-airlines
Head Forum Moderator
[email protected]
Flown: 1900D,S340,Q300,AT72-5/6,DC3,CR2/7,E145,E70/75/90,A319/20/21,A332/3,A359,A380,F100,B717,B733/4/8/9,B742/4,B752/3,B763,B772/3, B789
With: NZ,SJ,QF,JQ,EK,VA,AA,UA,DL,FL,AC,FJ,SQ,TG,PR
 
User avatar
eta unknown
Posts: 2485
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 5:03 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Mon Jul 06, 2015 12:17 am

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 146):
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.

I've thought about that too. But it's not all wonderful at EK BNE... they have just appointed their fouth BNE GM in five years... everybody keeps leaving "to pursue other interests". There is most likely a revenue target and BNE isn't hitting it, so heads roll.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Mon Jul 06, 2015 3:47 am

Unsurprisingly, Air NZ has made some objections with the ACCC to the Qantas/American JV, wanting to delay the start of it.

I'm not totally persuaded by the objections, but they've gotta try. LOL.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/6998...-and-american-airlines-competition

"Air New Zealand moves to delay Qantas and American Airlines competition"

Qantas and American have - not surprisingly - objected to the objections:

http://australianaviation.com.au/201...s-for-delay-to-accc-authorisation/

"Qantas, American reject Air NZ’s objections for delay to ACCC authorisation

Qantas and American Airlines say the planned launch of their new services between Australia and the US cannot proceed without the green light from regulators and have described Air New Zealand’s objections as “misunderstanding the nature of the proposed conduct”.


I;m reluctant to try and second guess the ACCC - I never really understood their objections to the Qantas/China deal - but I think this JV should go through like butter.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4386
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Mon Jul 06, 2015 9:55 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 164):

Quoting gasman (Reply 162):
Unless we use other sprawling, hilly, extremely low population density cities

New Zealand "aviation" thread not withstanding, the population thing is actually an excuse used by town planners with not enough long term vision because if you set the infrastructure up to cope for more than necessity it will fill up the population repidly. Say it was set up, New Zealand could fight high unit costs with high immigration for Permanent residents from overseas and build the population of AKL rapidly to 4-5 million (instead of actively sending immigrants away from AKL as they do now) and increasing the demand for additional air services for all the VFR traffic visiting family and then and only then will the AKL Airport get the expansion it needs. There we are back on aviation topic now ... 

If done right and with quality immigrants then sure. However at present we are letting in mostly low quality (lack of skills, education, knowledge) immigrants from third world countries which would undoubtedly be even worse under extra immigration... no thanks! I prefer to live in a relatively uncrowded, unpolluted country rather than turning Auckland into Mumbai, Shanghai, Manilla, Jakarta, KL, Rio, BA etc.
64 types. 44 countries. 24 airlines.
 
xiaotung
Posts: 1020
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:58 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Mon Jul 06, 2015 10:08 am

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 169):
However at present we are letting in mostly low quality (lack of skills, education, knowledge) immigrants from third world countries which would undoubtedly be even worse under extra immigration... no thanks! I prefer to live in a relatively uncrowded, unpolluted country rather than turning Auckland into Mumbai, Shanghai, Manilla, Jakarta, KL, Rio, BA etc.

Perhaps you should ask yourself where "high quality" immigrants are going? Australia, United States, Canada, you name it. Your statrment is simply invalid as your interpreted high quality people probably would consider New Zealand a pretty boring place to live.
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2714
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Mon Jul 06, 2015 1:54 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 168):
I'm not totally persuaded by the objections, but they've gotta try. LOL.

Yeah this is beyond rich by NZ. There's some pretty tortuous logic to get to their conclusion. The sooner New Zealand has competition on AKL-LAX, the better.
 
keen2fly
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 2:10 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Tue Jul 07, 2015 12:23 am

Got a question, how bad is the Y class on NZ's 787? I'm flying SIN-AKL later on in the year and want to know whether I should take my first 787 flight ever or my first A380 flight into AKL. Curious to try the 787 but can't help but think it might be better if I wait until I can score an upgrade if the Y class is terrible.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 171):

After so many years of seeing NZ management get so comfortable in their monopoly position, it's good to see they're squirming, I just hope they see that they need to improve their products to compete, not just cheapen them more. Qantas is having a real crack at NZ here from so many angles, the QF FF programme is looking ever more attractive as one can get points on JQ domestic flights, obviously over the tasman, and to Asia and beyond with CX. If AA starts AKL, they've got frequent flyers from New Zealand effectively covered on all bases apart from the pacific islands, I could be tempted.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8328
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Tue Jul 07, 2015 12:53 am

Quoting keen2fly (Reply 172):
Curious to try the 787 but can't help but think it might be better if I wait until I can score an upgrade if the Y class is terrible.

The 787 for any airline is not a patch on the A380 passengerwise (except maybe 8 abreast NH 787) It it is between SQ388 and NZ789 there is really no decision to be made.

If you are going to do it do A388 up and 789 back on the daytime flight (where sleep isn't a factor)
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
aerohottie
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:52 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Tue Jul 07, 2015 1:52 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 168):
I;m reluctant to try and second guess the ACCC - I never really understood their objections to the Qantas/China deal - but I think this JV should go through like butter.

I hope this opens the way for a three-way JV between AC, UA and NZ for flights between NZ/AU - CA/US.

That would be interesting... AC/UA/NZ vs QF/AA vs VA/DL
What?
 
keen2fly
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 2:10 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Tue Jul 07, 2015 1:52 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 173):

I will have gone up to LHR via North America and done LHR-SIN on either a 388 or 77W. So I might just give the 789 a try if sleep isn't a factor. Cheers  
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Tue Jul 07, 2015 2:11 am

Quoting keen2fly (Reply 172):
After so many years of seeing NZ management get so comfortable in their monopoly position, it's good to see they're squirming,

I wouldn't have described it as "squirming" - LOL.

I think the objection to the ACCC is almost token. They've gotta say something, they can't just lie back and pretend it isn;t happening, this "delay" tactic might be their best shot.

It isn't a great shot, I can't think it will work, but it's probably the only one they have.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
Mr AirNZ
Posts: 914
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2002 10:24 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Tue Jul 07, 2015 3:15 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 176):
I wouldn't have described it as "squirming" - LOL.

I think the objection to the ACCC is almost token. They've gotta say something, they can't just lie back and pretend it isn;t happening, this "delay" tactic might be their best shot.

A token objection is exactly how I'd also describe it as. They have to be seen to do something.

If one goes back and has a look, you can quickly see that various airlines regularly object to deals by other various airlines. EK lodged objections over the most recent NZ/VA agreement. SQ lodged objections over EK/QF and so the list goes on and on and on. It's not squirming, it's business tactics.
 
keen2fly
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 2:10 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Tue Jul 07, 2015 3:21 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 176):
I wouldn't have described it as "squirming" - LOL.


Meh, grasping? At straws? Yeah, probably was a better way of saying it. Anyhow, there's not a huge amount they can do, but things are getting a shake up hopefully in the NZ aviation market hopefully. From what I can see it's mainly for the better.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2127
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Tue Jul 07, 2015 5:10 am

Got a question, how bad is the Y class on NZ's 787?
I recently flew AKL-PVG on the 789 in J, but at the end of the flight I had a walk through to Y. The cabin was full of people who looked as though they would surely have committed suicide if they could have summoned the will to do so. I'd avoid it if at all possible for anything over 4 hours.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8328
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Tue Jul 07, 2015 5:54 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 179):
The cabin was full of people who looked as though they would surely have committed suicide if they could have summoned the will to do so. I'd avoid it if at all possible for anything over 4 hours.

That accounts for longhaul Y Class in general. Admittedly I haven't flown #1,#4 or #10 of the Sky Trax winners for 2015 but Y class on any of the others in the top 10 would still not be a pleasure if I wasn't an aviation enthusiast who has long since found my flight rhythm and who doesn't get hugely affected by jetlag.

1 Asiana Airlines
2 Singapore Airlines
3 Qatar Airways
4 Garuda Indonesia
5 Cathay Pacific Airways
6 ANA All Nippon Airways
7 Emirates
8 Turkish Airlines
9 Thai Airways
10 EVA Air
(15 Air New Zealand - for reference)
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2127
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Tue Jul 07, 2015 6:23 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 180):
has long since found my flight rhythm and who doesn't get hugely affected by jetlag

Interesting words. I think I know what you mean. I have had many flights in Y that I've enjoyed more, and relaxed more, than I have sometimes been able to in J. In fact one of my worst flights was from AKL-AMS in F on EK! The timing was awkward, I couldn't sleep, service was off and I felt pissy.

I think once you have a basic level of product quality (something around Y on a 744 with reasonable pitch) flight experience has more to do with what's going on in your head than anything else. Anyone with me on this?
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4386
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Tue Jul 07, 2015 6:54 am

Quoting xiaotung (Reply 170):

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 169):
However at present we are letting in mostly low quality (lack of skills, education, knowledge) immigrants from third world countries which would undoubtedly be even worse under extra immigration... no thanks! I prefer to live in a relatively uncrowded, unpolluted country rather than turning Auckland into Mumbai, Shanghai, Manilla, Jakarta, KL, Rio, BA etc.

Perhaps you should ask yourself where "high quality" immigrants are going? Australia, United States, Canada, you name it. Your statrment is simply invalid as your interpreted high quality people probably would consider New Zealand a pretty boring place to live.

They're struggling to get into NZL due to policies that favour the likes of China (investment category and China's 1 child policy - meaning repatriating families, or Indians coming in under student visa guise then simply staying on and getting permanent residency). Both of those examples a) discourage otherwise great immigrants due to the slow process etc because of the volume and cost of those other immigrants, and B) because their place in the category quotas are taken up by the above immigrants. Having $2m to "invest" as an investor immigrant and just buying a $1.5m house with it is not what should be considered useful investment.

[Edited 2015-07-06 23:55:20]
64 types. 44 countries. 24 airlines.
 
keen2fly
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 2:10 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Tue Jul 07, 2015 7:17 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 181):
I think once you have a basic level of product quality (something around Y on a 744 with reasonable pitch) flight experience has more to do with what's going on in your head than anything else. Anyone with me on this?

Yes, it's also about what you expect before your flight. Like when I first went on the NZ 77W in Y I was expecting the worst, and things really weren't as bad as I thought it was going to be. Unpopular opinion, but I actually don't mind flying in Y on a 10 abreast 77W with NZ, I once flew on an EK 77W and was really disappointed, so I haven't done it again. It's all a question of expectation for me, I don't generally have great expectations of NZ, so I'll forgive a few shortcomings, but with EK, I'd heard from friends that it was amazing, but was disappointed in almost every respect. I had great expectations when I was about to fly SQ, and they were all met, which I guess it what you really want when flying. Then there's tiredness, illness etc that can shorten your fuse and taint your memory of everything.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8328
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Tue Jul 07, 2015 8:31 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 181):
Interesting words. I think I know what you mean.

My rhythm doesn't really change, regardless of booking class, but it took a booked trip with 3.5 days of flights back from Africa (EBB-JNB-ZRH-LHR-HKG-AKL) before I learned what I needed to do for me to feel comfortable. One only ets good at it with practice.

My favourite time to nap for example after boarding first, I fall asleep until just after pushback (around 30min nap), then you get the added bonus you skip out the emergency briefing video which you have all seen so many times before you can recite them anyway.

People who are beginners to air travel always do is pack too much in their handcarriage full of unnecessary things to do, they don't allow themselves their own consciousness, their thoughts, their own boredom to learn to tune themselves in and out, to be able to sleep on command and then they struggle because they stare at glowing screens, run out of battery, or reading material and struggle to cope with long flights as a result.
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10066
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Wed Jul 08, 2015 12:35 am

Has anyone heard anything more about PH re-starting international services?
Head Forum Moderator
[email protected]
Flown: 1900D,S340,Q300,AT72-5/6,DC3,CR2/7,E145,E70/75/90,A319/20/21,A332/3,A359,A380,F100,B717,B733/4/8/9,B742/4,B752/3,B763,B772/3, B789
With: NZ,SJ,QF,JQ,EK,VA,AA,UA,DL,FL,AC,FJ,SQ,TG,PR
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Wed Jul 08, 2015 12:45 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 185):
Has anyone heard anything more about PH re-starting international services?

Apparently, not everyone in Samoa thinks it is a great idea, and - I gather - a feasibility study is underway:

http://www.radionz.co.nz/internation...oa-pm-brushes-aside-airline-advice

"The Samoan Prime Minister has downplayed calls for his government to defer plans to start international Polynesian Airlines flights.

The Samoa Observer reports a senior Government official cautioned Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi, about the plan to lease a Solomon Airlines Airbus to fly the Nadi-Apia-Auckland route.

In a letter, leaked to the newspaper, the official tells the PM the move is too risky and the government is still paying off the debts from the failed airline.

Tuilaepa (PM) says an analysis is underway but the plan is financially viable. He says part of the analysis is to review the joint agreement between the government and Virgin Australia."


Some way to go, I guess and I'm not sure what the potential implications are for Virgin.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8328
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Wed Jul 08, 2015 12:56 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 185):
Has anyone heard anything more about PH re-starting international services?

It has gone quiet. Anecdotally, I saw no mention of it on the latest gate allocation sheets for the Summer Season (it had PR though) so I don't think we will have anything before then.

I do know that there will be 767/777 operations for the week leading up to Christmas to both TBU/APW. Given that this is the high season for Island travel, if they don't start then they have probably missed the boat for another year
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10066
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:08 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 187):
Quoting 777ER (Reply 185):
Has anyone heard anything more about PH re-starting international services?

It has gone quiet. Anecdotally, I saw no mention of it on the latest gate allocation sheets for the Summer Season (it had PR though) so I don't think we will have anything before then.

Is there room for an additional flights at current levels and if so around what times?
Head Forum Moderator
[email protected]
Flown: 1900D,S340,Q300,AT72-5/6,DC3,CR2/7,E145,E70/75/90,A319/20/21,A332/3,A359,A380,F100,B717,B733/4/8/9,B742/4,B752/3,B763,B772/3, B789
With: NZ,SJ,QF,JQ,EK,VA,AA,UA,DL,FL,AC,FJ,SQ,TG,PR
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2714
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:38 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 185):
Has anyone heard anything more about PH re-starting international services?

Funny you bring this up - I've just been investigating a few weeks in the US with a 4-5 day stop over in the islands. Samoa is my preference but without the direct connection to LAX that NZ used to provide, it really is no longer an option - the backtracking involved is insane so sadly, meh. The Cooks don't appeal so that really just leaves Fiji. But a real loss to Samoa - love the place but it looks like I'll just have to do it as a stand alone flight.

Re the economy discussion - worst: KLM and LH, hands down the worst economy products I've ever experienced; best: SQ, 77W, 9-abreast with Singapore Slings all the way. And yes the Slings absolutely helped.
 
texan
Posts: 4070
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:23 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Wed Jul 08, 2015 3:24 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 187):
I do know that there will be 767/777 operations for the week leading up to Christmas to both TBU/APW. Given that this is the high season for Island travel, if they don't start then they have probably missed the boat for another year

Is the 777 able to operate out of TBU? I thought that the 777's ACN might be greater than the PCN (TBU's PCN is 59).

Texan
"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1180
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Wed Jul 08, 2015 5:40 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 179):
Got a question, how bad is the Y class on NZ's 787?
I recently flew AKL-PVG on the 789 in J, but at the end of the flight I had a walk through to Y. The cabin was full of people who looked as though they would surely have committed suicide if they could have summoned the will to do so. I'd avoid it if at all possible for anything over 4 hours.

We did AKL-NRT-AKL in May, and it was pretty good. Much better than the 77W we did AKL-LAX in December, and on par with the 772 we did YVR-AKL. I just mention those flights because I travelled on those with my parther (i.e. not for work), which makes a difference. We both liked the screens: Very responsive, large touch screens, and the headphone jack next to the screen.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 189):
Re the economy discussion - worst: KLM and LH, hands down the worst economy products I've ever experienced; best: SQ, 77W, 9-abreast with Singapore Slings all the way. And yes the Slings absolutely helped.

I disagree on LH - it is my second most flown carrier, both long and short haul, and I yet have to have a bad experience. Did LAX-FRA on 78i and FRA-YVR on 744, and both were very pleasant flights. They still do a drinks round between take off and meal, and they serve cognac and Bailey's after the meal. Seats are not better or worse than most other carriers. SQ, in contrast, has disappointed me on my flights last year. our 77W AKL-SIN was dirty, worn, and service was ok, but not great. On the way back the food was virtusally inedible (and I know what you can expect from a Y meal, and thus never really complain about it). The A330 flights SIN-MLE-SIN were very nice though. Customer service at irrops in SIN was atrocious - something VERY unusual for SQ, but it was more than one person/counter. That trip was a huge disappointment for me. I will be on AKL-SIN-LHR in October, so will see how that goes  
I did KL almost exclusively short haul and those flights were all very nice. Had two long hauls (AMS-YUL-AMS) to fly the MD11 before they were retired, and AMS-YUL got a last minute equipment change to B744M, and back I was on the MD11. Nothing great, but also quite pleasant flights.

Cheers
micha
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8328
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Wed Jul 08, 2015 7:06 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 188):
Is there room for an additional flights at current levels and if so around what times?

The gaps 0000--0500, 1000-1200 and around 2000-2300. From an airline perspective there are now few gaps worth bothering with. The hubs are rammed and the only viable options around those times are bus operations and narrowbodies

Quoting texan (Reply 190):
Is the 777 able to operate out of TBU? I thought that the 777's ACN might be greater than the PCN (TBU's PCN is 59).

The 777s are for APW the 763s TBU.
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4029
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:03 pm

ZK-NZD is now painted:
http://paineairport.com/kpae11405.htm

ZK-OXJ has been ferried to Hamburg:
http://xfw-spotter.blogspot.co.nz/20...2sl-air-new-zealand-f-wwix-zk.html

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 134):
If it does go I think it might be the cue QR needs to start DOH-KUL-AKL.

Hmmm, that would be interesting. I don't know what equipment QR fly to KUL (presumably 777s?), but this seems like a good route for a 787-8. I expect that QR will serve AKL sometime in the five to eight years. SIN, CGK, and DPS are potential cities that we might get service via.

Quoting zkeoj (Reply 155):
I thought I'd never say this, but I am currently editing some of my photos, and found that the "old" teal colours (sans Pacific wave) on the A320s looks boring and dated, compared to the new b/w fern colour scheme.

On some of the aircraft (eg NCK), the Pacific Wave seems to have faded and looks rather dull.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 157):
Or have each fleet with a different colour.

1900D Orange "Eagle"
Q300 Maroon "Air Nelson" or "Grabaseat" Lime
A320D Red "NAC"
A320R Black
767 Navy
787 Green
777 Teal

Yes please!

Quoting xiaotung (Reply 170):
Your statrment is simply invalid as your interpreted high quality people probably would consider New Zealand a pretty boring place to live.

No one is forcing people to migrate to 'low quality' New Zealand.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 182):
Having $2m to "invest" as an investor immigrant and just buying a $1.5m house with it is not what should be considered useful investment.

Wasn't aware that this was even allowed. Very stupid policy.

Quoting zkeoj (Reply 191):
We did AKL-NRT-AKL in May

Was this the 'mystery break' that you won?
First to fly the 787-9
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2714
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Wed Jul 08, 2015 2:26 pm

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 193):
Wasn't aware that this was even allowed. Very stupid policy.

Don't worry, it's not. The conditions for an "acceptable investment" are:

Broadly speaking, acceptable investments can be:

Equity in NZ firms, public or private. An equity investment can be active or passive and direct or via managed funds (only the proportion of the Fund that is invested in NZ is counted as acceptable)
Bonds, issued by the NZ Government, NZ local authorities or approved NZ banks, finance companies or firms
New residential property development that is not for the investor’s personal use and designed to make a commercial return on the open market.
Generally, to be considered acceptable an investment must:

Be capable of a commercial return under normal circumstances
Be invested in New Zealand in New Zealand currency
Have the potential to contribute to New Zealand’s economy
Not be for the personal use of the investor.

But this all seems wildly off-topic and really about pushing individual agendas on non-aviation issues.

Quoting zkeoj (Reply 191):
I disagree on LH - it is my second most flown carrier, both long and short haul, and I yet have to have a bad experience. Did LAX-FRA on 78i and FRA-YVR on 744

Ah yes, LH 744s - three separate aircraft between 2009 and 2012 and none had been touched since 1989, seemingly.

Quoting zkeoj (Reply 191):
Nothing great, but also quite pleasant flights.

Then you've yet to experience the "joy" of a KL, fully paxed 744. Makes complaints about NZ's 77Ws at 10-abreast seem almost quaint.

So it appears we've had diametrically opposite experiences on LH, KL and SQ. Goes to show how variable and subjective airline experiences can be.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2127
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Wed Jul 08, 2015 9:14 pm

This is intriguing.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/travel/new...ticle.cfm?c_id=7&objectid=11476969

Delayed 15 minutes after formalities of speeches, fire engines using water cannons - and the flight being allocated the far runaway.

I'm not sure what a "runaway" is, in aviation terms, but it would appear that WLG has more than one of them.
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10066
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Wed Jul 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 195):

I believe what the author is talking about, is the flight being allowed to go to the far end of the main runway, ie go off the navigation lines and turn at the edge of the runway.

The trip report totally smells of a paid advertising advert for FJ. FJ isn't competitive as NZ is cheaper to NAN.
Head Forum Moderator
[email protected]
Flown: 1900D,S340,Q300,AT72-5/6,DC3,CR2/7,E145,E70/75/90,A319/20/21,A332/3,A359,A380,F100,B717,B733/4/8/9,B742/4,B752/3,B763,B772/3, B789
With: NZ,SJ,QF,JQ,EK,VA,AA,UA,DL,FL,AC,FJ,SQ,TG,PR
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2714
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Thu Jul 09, 2015 1:56 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 157):
1900D Orange "Eagle"
Q300 Maroon "Air Nelson" or "Grabaseat" Lime
A320D Red "NAC"
A320R Black
767 Navy
787 Green
777 Teal

Agreed, that would be cool, though with a much, much better integrated fern motif.

I just love the old NAC red and orange scheme. Reminds me of the NZ seating of the 1990s when they had whole sections of Y seating on 747s with red seats - broke up the tedious blues and greys and blacks of today and actually served a purpose - finding your damn seat.

Ugh and now I'm remembering the lambskin covers on first class seats (business too?). Ahhhh nostalgia.
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1180
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Thu Jul 09, 2015 3:07 am

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 193):
Was this the 'mystery break' that you won?

Nope, that was the $500 return 75 year anniversary fare (I think they called them lollipop fares). The Mystery Break went to Nelson (they are always domestic)  
Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 194):
Ah yes, LH 744s - three separate aircraft between 2009 and 2012 and none had been touched since 1989, seemingly.

%They are now all upgraded, with PTV etc...

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 194):
Goes to show how variable and subjective airline experiences can be.

Not only how subjective it can be, but also how service and experience can vary from flight to flight on the same airline.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 194):
Then you've yet to experience the "joy" of a KL, fully paxed 744

Well, it was a 74M, so pretty much the same. Again, nothing to write home about, but not bad either - pleasant is the word I would use  

Cheers
micha
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12477
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161

Thu Jul 09, 2015 7:49 am

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

An EMU lasts 50 years or longer, so I doubt it.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 150):
And if it's going to be grade separated, again, why not just cheaper buses, like the Northern Express, which has been a raging success using grade separated buses. We didn't need shiny trams to make that work.

The Northern Express Way was future proofed for conversion to light rail, I think that was a mistake, it should have been built with conversion to heavy rail in mind.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 150):
I hope everyone is enjoying their 10% annual rate increases. And how much of that is going towards paying off debt interest?

I think this was a huge mistake, the council should have instigated a toll ring around the CBD instead of raising rates. That way people like my parents and grandparents don't have to pay for something they will never use.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 150):
let's get the city loop built first

It's not a loop, it will never be a loop the way it's being planned, the Auckland rail will not be able to run circular services around it, this I think is a mistake.

Quoting nz2 (Reply 156):
You cant have express services without a third rail

You can, with track switching you can pass non express trains

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