Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
qfvhoqa
Posts: 867
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:50 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Wed Aug 26, 2015 4:17 am

Quoting allrite (Reply 148):
For example, a passenger from Melbourne could fly to Vancouver

They've chosen an odd example of MEL-YVR, when it's already possible for MEL pax to fly not only MEL-SYD-YVR seasonally, but they can fly MEL-LAX-YVR year-round.

Quoting allrite (Reply 148):
Houston

And how many pax will actually be ending their journey at IAH? It's still most likely going to be a double connection MEL-AKL-IAH-XXX like MEL-SYD-DFW-XXX.

They could have at least talked up the single terminal transfer and not needing to collect baggage as in QF SYD transfers. And their "Air Sydney" claim is a bit much - you may as well call NZ "Air Auckland".
 
tullamarine
Posts: 2961
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:14 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Wed Aug 26, 2015 4:27 am

Quoting qfvhoqa (Reply 150):
And how many pax will actually be ending their journey at IAH?

Probably about the same that terminate in DFW on QF. I've been to both Dallas and Houston and neither of them are great cities. Both QF and NZ are going there because they are hubs for their respective US partners. It has nothing to do with pax who actually want to visit these cities.
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8785
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Wed Aug 26, 2015 4:43 am

Quoting qfvhoqa (Reply 146):
I'm thinking this may be restricted by the HK-AU & China-AU bilaterals. Australia/China based airlines cannot carry traffic between Australia & China via HKG.

While it is true that they don't codeshare, QF and MU have a pretty significant interline agreement over HKG. I have seen it come up on Qantas.com many times, but even if it doesn't I can 100% guarantee you that it is a permitted routing.

Quoting allrite (Reply 148):
a passenger from Melbourne could fly to Vancouver or, soon, Houston or Buenos Aires via Auckland with Air NZ. With Qantas, those flights would require a Melbourne passenger to make one or two stops along the way.

A statement riddled with logical inconsistency. Connecting in AKL stills counts as "making one or two stops along the way".

Quoting DeltaB717 (Reply 149):
Not to mention there are, once again, parts of the year during which a MEL pax need only make a single stop enroute to YVR

You can get to YVR one-stop all year round. If not with QF or UA via LAX, QF and AC have a fairly extensive interline agreement which means that you can connect QF MEL-SYD AC SYD-YVR on the same ticket.

The same applies with IAH. Mr Luxon is definitely clutching at straws as the only route from MEL or BNE which is fewer stops via AKL is EZE.

Quoting allrite (Reply 148):
Mr Luxon said the number of Australian members of Air NZ's frequent flyer points program, Airpoints, had grown by 20 per cent over the past year

This surprises me, as I would have thought that anyone in Australia would be better off in Velocity unless they fly on NZ metal a lot. I used to have KrisFlyer and Skywards accounts once upon a time, they presumably still exist on a computer somewhere, but I haven't used them in years. Qantas Frequent Flyer and Velocity plus United MileagePlus for the other Star Alliance carriers covers the field for me.
 
TruemanQLD
Posts: 1346
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:09 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Wed Aug 26, 2015 5:01 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 147):
Who ever amongst the capable companies provides the cheapest realistic quote  

Thanks for the lesson in business   My question was which actual companies do it at each hub? i.e. Menzies, Dnata etc
 
VapourTrails
Posts: 3939
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2001 9:30 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Wed Aug 26, 2015 5:15 am

Quoting TN486 (Reply 143):
In a very relaxed mood tonight as I celebrate my 68th year on this planet, I was looking for a source to confirm my thoughts Kendall airlines (now REX) operated the Challenger jet airliner into DPO when I came across this magnificent site. Hours and hours (time I really don't have at the moment) could be spent reading and researching.

Some very funny stories, as well as a lot of well researched info, and of course plenty of memories.

Still can't come up with a fool proof source though.

Enjoy, cheers.

Hi TN486, Happy Birthday.   I cannot help you with the Kendall airlines (now REX) operated the Challenger jet airliner into DPO, unfortunately. Thanks for the Ansett link, was great to have a browse through that. Agree with your comments. Great that they had the reunion in 2011, and also paid tribute on the site to some of their former employees.

Here is a vid from the good ol' days.. I was tempted to type in all caps then.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z412qiDfRio ~ Ansett AN22 14 June 1987.

Cheers =   
 
DeltaB717
Posts: 1730
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:49 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Wed Aug 26, 2015 5:16 am

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 152):
You can get to YVR one-stop all year round. If not with QF or UA via LAX, QF and AC have a fairly extensive interline agreement which means that you can connect QF MEL-SYD AC SYD-YVR on the same ticket.

Haha yeah my bad, I was thinking of the QF seasonal non-stop and neither LAX nor AC occurred to me when I posted!

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 152):
While it is true that they don't codeshare, QF and MU have a pretty significant interline agreement over HKG. I have seen it come up on Qantas.com many times, but even if it doesn't I can 100% guarantee you that it is a permitted routing.

Interlining isn't covered in air services agreements whereas codesharing is.
 
User avatar
qfvhoqa
Posts: 867
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:50 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Wed Aug 26, 2015 5:30 am

Quoting tullamarine (Reply 151):
Probably about the same that terminate in DFW on QF

That's exactly my point. Why would NZ use MEL-AKL-IAH as an example of a one-stop routing when hardly anyone is ending their journey there?

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 152):
I can 100% guarantee you that it is a permitted routing.

There would be many permissible interline routings, as the pax aren't considered to be carried by the one airline. However some countries restrict the ability to codeshare - QF has codeshares on EK metal to FCO & MXP, but only interlines to VCE (& soon BLQ). I believe the number of codeshare seats are limited by Italy, and since VA got some of the allocation QF needs to interline to circumvent the limit.
So if China limits the ability of Chinese/Australian carriers to carry pax over HKG, perhaps they also limit the ability to codeshare over HKG too.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 152):
the only route from MEL or BNE which is fewer stops via AKL is EZE.

PPT?
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8785
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Wed Aug 26, 2015 5:45 am

Quoting qfvhoqa (Reply 156):

I was referring to the Americas which was the area Mr Luxon was discussing. If you bring in the Pacific then you are correct about PPT, also IUE. And it would generally make more sense to go through AKL to RAR, APW and TPU as well due to the higher frequencies.

Regarding Italy, Australia is limited to 600 code share seats per day. Previously QF had the entire allocation, but VA appealed that so that they could put their code on EY flights. Both carriers are no doubt watching the other like a hawk and if they fail to max out their weekly allocation you can be sure the other carrier would appeal it immediately.

Quoting DeltaB717 (Reply 155):

That's an interesting point about interlines not being covered by bilaterals, I never knew that.

Either way, the point remains that QF and MU do shift passengers to each other over HKG.

In the absence of a formal code share it is of course favorable for QFFs that they go with CX/KA as they earn status credit as opposed to points only on MU coded flights.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Wed Aug 26, 2015 5:55 am

Quoting tullamarine (Reply 151):
Probably about the same that terminate in DFW on QF. I've been to both Dallas and Houston and neither of them are great cities. Both QF and NZ are going there because they are hubs for their respective US partners.

He had some interesting comments on IAH and EZE:

http://australianaviation.com.au/201...per-cent-lift-in-full-year-profit/

"Air NZ flags double-digit capacity growth after reporting 24 per cent lift in full year profit

Luxon said Air NZ’s new Auckland-Houston and Auckand-Buenos Aires services, which kick off in December, were selling “incredibly well”, particularly in Australia.

“We are already starting to talk about how we would get increased capacity into those routes,” Luxon said.

“We think Australia is underserved and we think there is a huge opportunity to haul Australians through Auckland, which is a great geographic hub into Latin America.

“Already we are seeing our mix of Australian customers more than meeting our original assumptions.”


More service to both? Or - more service to Latin America?

mariner
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8785
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Wed Aug 26, 2015 6:02 am

I wouldn't neccessarily be surprised if the IAH was getting more than it's fare share of Australians, after all if I was locked into NZ or UA I'd rather connect in AKL and IAH to reach secondary markets on the East Coast rather than LAX and IAH.

It just seemed to me laughable that he would suggest that NZ are suddenly providing one stop connections to a destination that has been reachable in one stop for over a decade.
 
qf002
Posts: 3698
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Wed Aug 26, 2015 6:09 am

Quoting qfvhoqa (Reply 156):
That's exactly my point. Why would NZ use MEL-AKL-IAH as an example of a one-stop routing when hardly anyone is ending their journey there?

IAH was number 10 on QF's list of highest corporate spend destinations, so I think there is probably more traffic than you might think.
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3529
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Wed Aug 26, 2015 6:42 am

Quoting qf002 (Reply 160):
IAH was number 10 on QF's list of highest corporate spend destinations, so I think there is probably more traffic than you might think.

I was going to say that. My brother is based in Brisbane but flies 3 to 4 times a year to Houston to Headquarters on the Corporate Account. Previously he was on BNE-LAX-IAH and at the moment is booked on there until the end of the year. Next year they've switched him and everyone else to BNE-AKL-IAH. They always travel business and there are about 20 people in the office doing that at the same rate he does. So there is more Corporate Traffic between OZ and IAH than what most people would think.

Quoting mariner (Reply 158):
“Already we are seeing our mix of Australian customers more than meeting our original assumptions.”

More service to both? Or - more service to Latin America?

That doesn't surprise me because most Australians heading to South America are making the transit stop in SCL to go somewhere else. If Buenos Aires can be accessed directly without the stopover then that is an advantage over the QF schedule where you currently have a 3 hour wait for a connection. (Or a 5 hour one like i had back in February) The unfortunate thing is that QF can't codeshare through to Argentina due to the protectionist policies of the Argentine Government. (For the same reason QF couldn't codeshare onto LAN Argentina when they were flying into EZE).
 
zkncj
Posts: 4368
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Wed Aug 26, 2015 6:45 am

Quoting qfvhoqa (Reply 150):
They've chosen an odd example of MEL-YVR, when it's already possible for MEL pax to fly not only MEL-SYD-YVR seasonally, but they can fly MEL-LAX-YVR year-round.

MEL-SYD-YVR requires an pain-full terminal change in Sydney (that at the best of times can be slow), then on the way back you're require to collect your bags, then re-check them for you SYD-MEL service.

Where as MEL-AKL-YVR, is simple transfer in Auckland we're you stay Intentional airside bothways and don't have to collect your bags on the return.

In Auckland its get off the plane, head to transit screening then back to your next gate. Also from BNE/MEL these services at 77Ws so you get your long-hual product the whole way.
 
747m8te
Posts: 440
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:14 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Wed Aug 26, 2015 7:11 am

Quoting zkncj (Reply 162):
MEL-SYD-YVR requires an pain-full terminal change in Sydney (that at the best of times can be slow), then on the way back you're require to collect your bags, then re-check them for you SYD-MEL service.

It is not painful, it is easy, you just jump on the transfer bus in SYD which leaves airside and takes you the short distance to the international terminal.

Yes the return you have to clear your bags through immigration, but they should be tagged through so you can drop them off at the international domestic transfer counter.

Quoting zkncj (Reply 162):
In Auckland its get off the plane, head to transit screening then back to your next gate. Also from BNE/MEL these services at 77Ws so you get your long-hual product the whole way.

10 abreast 77W is nothing special. Anyway, connecting MEL-SYD you can get on QF A330s.
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3529
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Wed Aug 26, 2015 7:41 am

Quoting zkncj (Reply 162):
MEL-SYD-YVR requires an pain-full terminal change in Sydney (that at the best of times can be slow), then on the way back you're require to collect your bags, then re-check them for you SYD-MEL service.
Quoting 747m8te (Reply 163):
It is not painful, it is easy, you just jump on the transfer bus in SYD which leaves airside and takes you the short distance to the international terminal.

Exactly! It's not remotely painful, compared to many other airports, if you're flying Qantas. The terminal change from QF domestic to international is easy, quick and painless. (I did it plenty of times before I moved to Sydney and never had an issue)
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Posts: 12021
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Wed Aug 26, 2015 8:11 am

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 164):
Quoting zkncj (Reply 162):MEL-SYD-YVR requires an pain-full terminal change in Sydney (that at the best of times can be slow), then on the way back you're require to collect your bags, then re-check them for you SYD-MEL service. Quoting 747m8te (Reply 163):It is not painful, it is easy, you just jump on the transfer bus in SYD which leaves airside and takes you the short distance to the international terminal.
Exactly! It's not remotely painful, compared to many other airports, if you're flying Qantas. The terminal change from QF domestic to international is easy, quick and painless. (I did it plenty of times before I moved to Sydney and never had an issue)

Agreed. I really don't know why some make an issue of the transfer between terminals at SYD. Having done it for the first time last year it was quick and easy. I will also say that I transferred from a BA international flight to a BA domestic flight at LHR T5 last year and that took longer than what it did at SYD. I'd suggest anyone who thinks SYD is painful transferring between terminals should come to PER and transfer between T1/T2 to T3/T4, with transfer buses on operating twice an hour, 20 minutes past the hour and 40 minutes past the hour.

Luxon also pleased with VA forecast to profitability

http://australianaviation.com.au/201...-forecast-return-to-profitability/
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8785
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Wed Aug 26, 2015 8:26 am

I honesty have no complaint with the connection experience at SYD. If you are flying QF then it is set up as well as could possibly be expected, and personally I'd rather spend my two hour connection clearing customs and quarantine so that when I reach my destination I can be at the kirb within 10 minutes of arriving at the gate. That strikes me as prerable to spending 2 hours browsing the duty free range to then spend another hour getting out of international arrivals.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Wed Aug 26, 2015 9:46 am

Quoting qf789 (Reply 165):
Luxon also pleased with VA forecast to profitability

Sure, he is. Air NZ took a $29 million write-down on its Virgin investment.

mariner
 
User avatar
allrite
Posts: 2617
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Wed Aug 26, 2015 12:00 pm

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 161):
That doesn't surprise me because most Australians heading to South America are making the transit stop in SCL to go somewhere else.

I'm sure, as usual, you have appropriate figures to backup the statement, but I was under the impression that there is more corporate business between Chile and Australia than with Argentina.

Would SCL provide better connectivity into Brazil for Qantas than EZE would for Air NZ?
 
User avatar
qf2220
Posts: 2109
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:16 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Wed Aug 26, 2015 12:46 pm

Quoting allrite (Reply 168):
but I was under the impression that there is more corporate business between Chile and Australia than with Argentina.

Correct. But Sydscott is probably on the money too. SCL is not a destination for a lot of Australians getting off QF17/321

Quoting allrite (Reply 168):
Would SCL provide better connectivity into Brazil for Qantas than EZE would for Air NZ?

Probably yes. SCL is a single terminal and LAN/TAM have a bunch of flights so its probably a better connection logistically. You'd still probably have to go via GIG or GRU though to get to secondary ports (though I think Florianopolis and Puerto Alegre have flights, not 100% sure). EZE and AEP probably offer similar (with some better and some worse) connections but the airport split is a problem. I can't say much about specific departures, thats another exercise.
 
timtam
Posts: 314
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:02 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Wed Aug 26, 2015 2:00 pm

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 164):

Not to mention the excellent Qantas Club lounge in the Qantas international terminal. I would take the bus ride every time to take advantage of Qantas Club lounge in the international terminal in Sydney.
 
ben175
Posts: 858
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:44 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Wed Aug 26, 2015 2:58 pm

Picked a friend up from T4 at Melbourne tonight and it's a bland mess at the moment. Definitely a cheap fitout and complicated to get to and from the drop off area.
 
zkncj
Posts: 4368
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Wed Aug 26, 2015 6:49 pm

Quoting timtam (Reply 170):
Not to mention the excellent Qantas Club lounge in the Qantas international terminal. I would take the bus ride every time to take advantage of Qantas Club lounge in the international terminal in Sydney.

NZ's new AKL lounge is about to open, and later on this year MEL/BNE will be getting an new Lounge. All to the same started of the new NZ Lounge in Sydney, which is on par with the Qantas Business Lounge.
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8785
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Wed Aug 26, 2015 8:40 pm

I'm sure some Air New Zealand apologist was take issue with me pointing out the obvious, but BUE is an absolutely awful connecting point. Either you need to make a cross-town connection to AEP or deal with the handful of flights from EZE. Take GIG-EZE, there is a one flight per day with AR which is a redeye that arrives at about 05:30. Hardly convenient for a 23:00 departure.

And connections between QF27/28 and EZE are really well timed. Don't take LAN unless you want to wait 4 hours, you take AC from SCL-EZE and KL from EZE-SCL. The connections are around the two hour mark and when priced ex-SYD actually work out slightly cheaper than LAN.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Wed Aug 26, 2015 9:18 pm

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 173):
I'm sure some Air New Zealand apologist was take issue with me pointing out the obvious, but BUE is an absolutely awful connecting point.

At the risk of seeming like an apologist - yes. This has always been the criticism levelled at Air NZ's AKL-EZE.

The Air NZ route map, for example, shows many potential onward connections at LAX, SFO and IAH (and, the other way, SIN), but none at all for EZE. Although other SA cities do appear on the map, it's EZE, that's it.

It does show onward connections the other way, at AKL (to Oz) from EZE.

http://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/sched...spx?countrycode=NZ&language=EN

But based on what CEO Luxon said, it doesn't seem to be impeding bookings - at least so far - so perhaps there is something else going on?

mariner
 
User avatar
qf2220
Posts: 2109
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:16 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Wed Aug 26, 2015 9:26 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 174):
The Air NZ route map, for example, shows many potential onward connections at LAX, SFO and IAH (and, the other way, SIN), but none at all for EZE. Although other SA cities do appear on the map, it's EZE, that's it.

Without drilling through the press releases, does NZ have the same problem as QF had, lack of Argentine government approval of codeshares so as not to compete with AR? I think i recall NZ and AR did enter into some sort of agreement, but is it as user friendly as it could be?
 
Sylus
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 10:14 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Wed Aug 26, 2015 9:44 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 174):
But based on what CEO Luxon said, it doesn't seem to be impeding bookings - at least so far - so perhaps there is something else going on?



Lets not forget that AR operated to AKL for many years (albeit on to SYD) with similar capacity and similar connections from EZE (With the NZ-AR deal). I feel it was the lack of suitable aircraft that caused AR to drop AKL, rather than the lack of demand from both Australia and NZ. Perhaps there is more demand from NZ and Aussie to Argentina than we realise?
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3529
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Wed Aug 26, 2015 10:11 pm

Quoting allrite (Reply 168):
I'm sure, as usual, you have appropriate figures to backup the statement, but I was under the impression that there is more corporate business between Chile and Australia than with Argentina.

I'm sure they're out there if you wanted to have a look.   Having been on that flight twice this year and talking to the crew both times, and knowing a couple of QF crew members who basically only do the SCL run, I'm comfortable enough in making that statement.

Quoting allrite (Reply 168):
Would SCL provide better connectivity into Brazil for Qantas than EZE would for Air NZ?
Quoting QF2220 (Reply 169):
EZE and AEP probably offer similar (with some better and some worse) connections but the airport split is a problem. I can't say much about specific departures, thats another exercise.

As others have said, EZE isn't really set up for connections with their being far more frequent service into Brazil from AEP than SCL. But you certainly wouldn't want to be connecting from EZE to AEP!

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 173):
Don't take LAN unless you want to wait 4 hours, you take AC from SCL-EZE and KL from EZE-SCL. The connections are around the two hour mark and when priced ex-SYD actually work out slightly cheaper than LAN.

On the flight I was on in February, the lady sitting next to me in Premium Economy was part of a tour group of about 18 who were all in QF Premium Economy. All of them were connecting to the AC flight.

If you also want an interesting intra South America flight there is also an AF flight between MVD and EZE operated by a 77W which I took back to EZE just for the hell of it.  
Quoting QF2220 (Reply 175):
Without drilling through the press releases, does NZ have the same problem as QF had, lack of Argentine government approval of codeshares so as not to compete with AR? I think i recall NZ and AR did enter into some sort of agreement, but is it as user friendly as it could be?

AR and NZ have an agreement in place where NZ will codeshare with AR. So they won't have the same issues as QF had wanting to code on LAN Argentina.

Quoting Sylus (Reply 176):
I feel it was the lack of suitable aircraft that caused AR to drop AKL, rather than the lack of demand from both Australia and NZ. Perhaps there is more demand from NZ and Aussie to Argentina than we realise?

There definitely is. During the Summer it is apparently quite easy to come across Aussie's in Buenos Aires. Hence QF increasing services to SCL and the NZ service to EZE. Overall SCL is the much better hub of the 2 but, as I said, the lack of QF codeshares into Argentina due to the Argentine Government makes it a bit more difficult for QF to market Argentina. As Ryanairguru said, the connections to GIG and GRU from SCL are perfectly timed!
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4631
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Wed Aug 26, 2015 10:55 pm

Quoting DeltaB717 (Reply 149):
A CHC, ZQN or WLG customer can reach LHR with the same number of stops on QF as on NZ, but via a shorter routing.

Same number of stops yes. Shorter routing? technically yes but not when taking into account routing over Europe from DXB also longer duration due to winds on the way to LHR and about even on the return.
WLG is shorter routing and faster via AKL on NZ.
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8785
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Wed Aug 26, 2015 11:33 pm

NZ and AR don't have an official code share but NZ do have an interline beyond BUE with AR. You can book NZ to GRU and GIG, but as I said the connections are terrible.

And personally I don't think that AKL was a successful market for AR. After all they dropped AKL and tried to operate SYD nonstop before exiting the market completely.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 178):

To LHR it is marginal, to anywhere else in Europe you are better going the other way around.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Thu Aug 27, 2015 12:04 am

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 179):
NZ and AR don't have an official code share but NZ do have an interline beyond BUE with AR. You can book NZ to GRU and GIG, but as I said the connections are terrible.

Um - this article says they do, albeit a very limited one and effectively to the advantage of Aerolineas, although I guess it will help to fill up the plane.

http://airlineroute.net/2015/03/30/arnz-codeshare-dec15/

"Aerolineas Argentinas to Start Air New Zealand Codeshare Service from Dec 2015

Aerolineas Argentinas operated by Air New Zealand
Auckland – Buenos Aires
Auckland – Melbourne
Auckland – Sydney"


I tried booking AKL-(EZE)-GIG on the Air NZ website (for January/February) and it said no flights available on any day, although it did offer me the return - GIG-(EZE)-AKL - a couple of days each week.

So I find myself questioning the issue of connections at EZE.

mariner
 
User avatar
qfvhoqa
Posts: 867
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:50 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Thu Aug 27, 2015 12:06 am

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 177):
But you certainly wouldn't want to be connecting from EZE to AEP!

It's a shorter distance between the two than a NRT-HND or LHR-LGW transfer, but the BUE transfer lacks public transport options.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 179):
NZ and AR don't have an official code share but NZ do have an interline beyond BUE with AR. You can book NZ to GRU and GIG, but as I said the connections are terrible.

AR are codesharing on NZ metal, but NZ has not codeshared beyond BUE. The codeshare between NZ & AR only exists on the TPAC legs.
Interestingly all the options that the AR website gave for flying to GRU were cross-town transfers from EZE to AEP. And NZ's website wanted to sell a fare with TK metal GRU-EZE.
 
Ditzyboy
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:15 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Thu Aug 27, 2015 1:18 am

The previous seperate topic on reconfigured Qantas 332s has been archived, so I thought I'd mention it here. The crew rest seat at 7A on reconfigured -200s is for cabin crew use as 9 cabin crew are required for international services, necessitating an additional rest seat. This is a temporary measure until a third row of two seats is provisioned for cabin crew rest on international flights.

It was speculated that 7A was blocked for pilot rest, which will not be the case. It looks like the -reconfigured 200s will only fly as far as two pilot operation allows (for now - anything can change!).
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Thu Aug 27, 2015 1:43 am

Quoting TruemanQLD (Reply 153):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 147):Who ever amongst the capable companies provides the cheapest realistic quote

Thanks for the lesson in business My question was which actual companies do it at each hub? i.e. Menzies, Dnata etc

Oops - my bad!  
Quoting mariner (Reply 158):
Luxon said Air NZ’s new Auckland-Houston and Auckand-Buenos Aires services, which kick off in December, were selling “incredibly well”, particularly in Australia.

Great to hear!

I hope NZ does well on these new routes, especially AKL-IAH which will be my preferred route back to Texas  
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 159):
I wouldn't neccessarily be surprised if the IAH was getting more than it's fare share of Australians, after all if I was locked into NZ or UA I'd rather connect in AKL and IAH to reach secondary markets on the East Coast rather than LAX and IAH.

  

Well said!

Given that I'd rather fly NZ than UA, and connect in AKL instead of LAX, when flying to Texas or connecting at IAH - NZ on AKL-IAH will be a no-brainer for me in the future!

How many abreast in Y is the NZ 777 that will fly the route, 9 or 10?

If NZ use a 10 abreast 777 on the route and I can fly a 9 abreast 777 on UA via LAX then that is something that might make me pick UA via LAX instead - but that's really all.

If the abreast in Y configs are similar it's NZ for me!
 
747m8te
Posts: 440
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:14 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Thu Aug 27, 2015 2:00 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 183):
If NZ use a 10 abreast 777 on the route and I can fly a 9 abreast 777 on UA via LAX then that is something that might make me pick UA via LAX instead - but that's really all.

10 abreast on most of NZ 777s, some of their older 777s had 9 abreast.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Thu Aug 27, 2015 2:08 am

Quoting 747m8te (Reply 184):
10 abreast on most of NZ 777s, some of their older 777s had 9 abreast.

Hmmmm...

Then a 9 abreast UA 777 via LAX to get to TX is still on the cards  
 
DeltaB717
Posts: 1730
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:49 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Thu Aug 27, 2015 2:18 am

Someone posted this link in a group on facebook so I'm sharing here. UA to switch both SYD flights from B772 to B789 by (Northern) Summer 2016.

https://twitter.com/airlineroute/status/636638835116367872
 
vhebb
Posts: 350
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 5:37 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Thu Aug 27, 2015 2:30 am

Whats the UA B772 config vs the B789?
 
IndianicWorld
Posts: 3436
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:32 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Thu Aug 27, 2015 2:35 am

^^ That will see the loss of F into SYD for UA.

Previous comments from their CEO have pointed to removing F in future from their offering so it makes sense.

There is apparently some internal chat/rumours at UA that MEL may well see UA service to SFO in the not too distant future but we will wait and see. This move would allign with that too really, as smaller aircraft into SYD would allow for more of a spread of the capacity mix into MEL, offering non-stop LAX and SFO services from each city.

Intetesting times.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Posts: 12021
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Thu Aug 27, 2015 2:44 am

Quoting vhebb (Reply 187):

UA 772 269 seats 8F40C113W108Y
UA 789 252 seats 48C88W116Y
 
User avatar
qfvhoqa
Posts: 867
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:50 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Thu Aug 27, 2015 2:48 am

Quoting vhebb (Reply 187):
Whats the UA B772 config vs the B789?

The 77Es sent to SYD are 8F/40J/113Y+/108Y and the 789s are 48J/88Y+/116Y. As IndianicWorld says, there will be no more F to SYD. There's a loss of 25 Y+ seats with a small gain of 8 J & 8 Y.

It's going to be a better seat for those in J, Y+ & Y lose their wider Y seat but both gain an inch of pitch. The IFE will be much improved over the current 77E.

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 188):
Previous comments from their CEO have pointed to removing F in future from their offering so it makes sense.

If they see SYD as not needing F, then I guess F doesn't have much life left at UA.

[Edited 2015-08-26 20:22:00]
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8785
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Thu Aug 27, 2015 3:12 am

Quoting qfvhoqa (Reply 190):

Agreed, this is an improvement IMHO for J and depending on which way you look at it is also an improvement for Y. The 787 seats are narrower as all longhaul UA 777s are 9 abreast, but I did really notice the extra inch of legroom when I flew SYD-SFO, MEL-LAX. To me that was more important than the loss of width. The IFE on the sCO frames is much better than on the sUA aircraft.

It looks like you are back to NZ, 777Jet! It's pretty much a wash between a 10 abreast 777 and a 9 abreast 787.
 
DeltaB717
Posts: 1730
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:49 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Thu Aug 27, 2015 4:20 am

TT to commence 3x weekly (Mo, We, Fr) MEL-CFS service from 9 December:

http://australianaviation.com.au/201...-launches-melbourne-coffs-harbour/
 
qf002
Posts: 3698
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Thu Aug 27, 2015 4:23 am

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 188):
^^ That will see the loss of F into SYD for UA.

Meanwhile, QF/AA are growing their F capacity this summer -- it will be interesting to see if QF can fill those extra 8 seats each day or whether they just end up filled by AA frequent flyers until AA has a suitable two-class aircraft to replace the 77Ws.

It also removes one of the barriers to future 77W service. I realise that the general expectation is that those aircraft will be based at EWR, but it could make sense to do EWR-LAX-SYD for a couple of months around Christmas when TATL loads are down and loads into Australia are up.
 
zkncj
Posts: 4368
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Thu Aug 27, 2015 6:24 am

NZ vs QF ex-MEL 15 December 2015

MEL-SFO

NZ (MEL-AKL-SFO) travel time 18hr 15m
QF (MEL-LAX-SFO) travel time 18hr 52m *AA

MEL-YVR

NZ (MEL-AKL-YVR) travel time 19h25m
QF (MEL-LAX-YVR) travel time 22hr 08m *WestJet

MEL-IAH
NZ (MEL-AKL-IAH) travel time 18h25m
QF(MEL-LAX-IAH) travel time 25hr19m *AA

MEL-EZE
NZ (MEL-AKL-EZE) travel time 17h10m
QF(MEL-AKL-SCL-EZE) travel time 23hr23m *LAN


Going by this it faster for an Melbourne based travel that is wanting to head to YVR/SFO/IAH/EZE to travel via Auckland on Air New Zealand, often by 2-5hours shorter. The via AKL option has the bonus that you've got the same product the whole way, and don't require to change airlines.
 
timtam
Posts: 314
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:02 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Thu Aug 27, 2015 7:02 am

Quoting zkncj (Reply 194):

Yes same LCC type product all the way 

Some may prefer to fly a premium airline to the US before switching to an LCC type product for the last leg 
 
747m8te
Posts: 440
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:14 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Thu Aug 27, 2015 7:22 am

Quoting zkncj (Reply 194):
MEL-SFO

NZ (MEL-AKL-SFO) travel time 18hr 15m
QF (MEL-LAX-SFO) travel time 18hr 52m *AA

MEL-YVR

NZ (MEL-AKL-YVR) travel time 19h25m
QF (MEL-LAX-YVR) travel time 22hr 08m *WestJet

MEL-IAH
NZ (MEL-AKL-IAH) travel time 18h25m
QF(MEL-LAX-IAH) travel time 25hr19m *AA

MEL-EZE
NZ (MEL-AKL-EZE) travel time 17h10m
QF(MEL-AKL-SCL-EZE) travel time 23hr23m *LAN


Going by this it faster for an Melbourne based travel that is wanting to head to YVR/SFO/IAH/EZE to travel via Auckland on Air New Zealand, often by 2-5hours shorter.

Just a random search on the Qantas website from Jan next year reveals...

MEL-SFO: (Once QF starts SYD-SFO
QF (MEL-SYD-SFO) travel time 16hr 00m

MEL-YVR: (Several options with or without QF seasonal flights)
QF (MEL-SYD-YVR) travel time 16hr 30min (Seasonal...but when demand is highest and most people fly the route)
QF/AC (MEL-LAX-YVR) travel time 19hr 47m

Sure EZE/IAH may be quicker on NZ...assuming people want to terminate there, but as for anywhere else, there are plenty of other viable options...
 
User avatar
NZ107
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:51 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Thu Aug 27, 2015 7:55 am

AusBT has been informed that UA will swap the 772s which currently operate to SYD to 789s in March next year.
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3529
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Thu Aug 27, 2015 8:13 am

Quoting zkncj (Reply 194):
MEL-EZE
NZ (MEL-AKL-EZE) travel time 17h10m
QF(MEL-AKL-SCL-EZE) travel time 23hr23m *LAN
Quoting 747m8te (Reply 196):
Sure EZE/IAH may be quicker on NZ...assuming people want to terminate there, but as for anywhere else, there are plenty of other viable options...

Well if we're going to do this:

MEL-GIG
QF - MEL-SYD-SCL-GIG 21 hours and 30 minutes;
NZ - MEL-AKL-EZE-GIG 25 hours 40 minutes

MEL-GRU
QF - MEL-SYD-SCL-GRU 21 hours and 20 minutes;
NZ - MEL-AKL-EZE/AEP - GRU 24 hours and 25 minutes.

MEL-LIM
QF - MEL-SYD-SCL-LIM 22 hours and 50 minutes
NZ - MEL-AKL-EZE-LIM 25 hours and 5 minutes

MEL-SCL
QF - MEL-SYD-SCL 15 hours and 20 minutes
NZ - No options at all to SCL

In other words if you're going somewhere in South America other than Buenos Aires it's quicker to do so via SCL.

Also of note
MEL-JFK
QF - MEL-LAX-JFK 21 hours and 10 minutes
NZ - MEL-AKL-IAH-JFK 23 hours and 25 minutes
 
747m8te
Posts: 440
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:14 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 127

Thu Aug 27, 2015 8:27 am

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 198):
Well if we're going to do this:

MEL-GIG
QF - MEL-SYD-SCL-GIG 21 hours and 30 minutes;
NZ - MEL-AKL-EZE-GIG 25 hours 40 minutes

MEL-GRU
QF - MEL-SYD-SCL-GRU 21 hours and 20 minutes;
NZ - MEL-AKL-EZE/AEP - GRU 24 hours and 25 minutes.

MEL-LIM
QF - MEL-SYD-SCL-LIM 22 hours and 50 minutes
NZ - MEL-AKL-EZE-LIM 25 hours and 5 minutes

MEL-SCL
QF - MEL-SYD-SCL 15 hours and 20 minutes
NZ - No options at all to SCL

In other words if you're going somewhere in South America other than Buenos Aires it's quicker to do so via SCL.

Also of note
MEL-JFK
QF - MEL-LAX-JFK 21 hours and 10 minutes
NZ - MEL-AKL-IAH-JFK 23 hours and 25 minutes

Exactly right!

Plenty of other options which are faster than flying NZ via AKL. Unless you were solely a Star Alliance FF, there are plenty of better options than having to go via AKL. And even then that is only if you wanted to go to South America with Star Alliance...as for North America you would fly UA from MEL. The only way NZ could encourage Australians to fly them is by selling significantly cheaper fares to offset the longer travel time.

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