Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 48): Guaranteed, if you have the good scenarios listed your flight will be perceived more positively, conversely if you had all the bad scenarios it can be the perfect storm and be exceedingly unpleasant and no skytrax or airlinerating grade is going to count for anything.

  

To which I would add the externals - what happened to the passenger that day, even before arriving at the airport. If you're in a grumpy mood, you are more likely to be less satisfied than if you are in a good mood. And vice versa.

We all tend to blame others if things go wrong, but sometimes we should point the finger at ourselves.

Quoting gasman (Reply 49): With crew from all those different cultures, trying to achieve a slick, choreographed inflight service product must be harder than herding cats.

And yet they achieve it, much more often than not. To a one-worlder like myself, that's no small achievement.

mariner

Quoting mariner (Reply 50): To which I would add the externals - what happened to the passenger that day, even before arriving at the airport. If you're in a grumpy mood, you are more likely to be less satisfied than if you are in a good mood. And vice versa. We all tend to blame others if things go wrong, but sometimes we should point the finger at ourselves.

Agree. Headspace is almost more important than anything else. My most enjoyable inflight experiences have actually been between AKL and LAX in Y. (although I hasten to add only on a 744)

[Edited 2016-01-24 12:18:40]

Now the NZ Herald has the story about Qatar coming to New Zealand.

Middle Eastern carrier Qatar Airways has plans to fly to New Zealand.

The airline has eyed this market before and Bloomberg reports its chief executive Akbar Al Baker as saying flights to
Auckland were part of new expansion plans. Al Baker said at the Bahrain Air Show last week that it would use
long-range Boeing 777 aircraft to fly to this country and to Chile.

An air services agreement signed late last year allows flights between New Zealand and Qatar.



AirAsia X is resuming flights to New Zealand in March with services to the Gold Coast and on to Singapore,??!! they mean KUL!

Another new airline? South-west China based Sichuan Airlines is eyeing flights here also..?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ticle.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11579335

Did we know about this video on here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVtllgMagVw

Love those old '8s  

Quoting gasman (Reply 53):

Crikey, I'd forgotten how loud they were.

Air New Zealand celebrates new Vietnam route with special $599 offer

Bookings go live today 25/1


Air New Zealand’s new non-stop service from Auckland to Vietnam’s Ho Chi Minh City goes on sale today with special introductory fares available from just $599 one-way.


The airline will fly three times a week between Auckland and Ho Chi Minh City’s Tan Son Nhat International Airport
on a seasonal basis from 4 June to 29 October using a Boeing 767-300 aircraft, with the potential to extend the season
in subsequent years.

Ho Chi Minh City is Air New Zealand’s 30th international destination and further expands the airline’s Pacific Rim footprint.

http://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/press...w-vietnam-route-with-special-offer

NZ269
Auckland to Ho Chi Minh City 4 Jun - 24 Sep 2016 12:45 19:45

NZ268
Ho Chi Minh City to Auckland 4 Jun - 22 Sep 2016 21:45 13:35 +1

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 54): Crikey, I'd forgotten how loud they were.

Yes, and that high approach speed must've caused the odd interesting moment at WLG.

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 55): Ho Chi Minh City is Air New Zealand’s 30th international destination and further expands the airline’s Pacific Rim footprint.

Is that including VLI?  

[url]http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/76272277/air-nz-signals-big-drops-in-domestic-and-international-airfares[/url}

[qoute]
Air New Zealand is signalling big drops in domestic and international airfares driven by lower fuel prices and greater seat numbers.

Chief executive Christopher Luxon told a parliamentary select committee today that there was downward pressure on prices because of falling fuel costs, which made up between 15 and 20 per cent of the airline's outgoings, and prices would fall substantially.

He said Air NZ had increased its capacity by 12 per cent but it was selling into economies that were growing by 2-3 per cent so it needed to work to sell those seats.

Luxon told reporters he could not say how much prices would drop by, because there were a large number of variables including fuel costs.
[/qoute]

Will be interesting to see how this pans out? price/capcity war with Jetstar on Domestic maybe?

Quoting zkncj (Reply 58):

Amazing how this comes out at a time when other carriers are starting in on 'their' turf. AA in June and SQ in September. Good news for the die hard loyal NZ fan I guess.

[Edited 2016-01-25 20:37:36]

Quoting WSTAKL (Reply 59): Amazing how this comes out at a time when other carriers are starting in on 'their' turf. AA in June and SQ in September. Good news for the die hard loyal NZ fan I guess.

They must remain competitive, and all this competition couldn't be coming at a more convenient time. As competition puts downward pressure on prices in order to maintain market share, the lower fuel prices allow a little bit more leeway to further decrease prices a little, with hopefully some good profit still to be made. The timing of low fuel prices couldn't come at a better time for NZ to lower prices and experiment with some new routes such as SGN with the 767, an aircraft that has a new lease on life for the time being.

Apologies if this isn't the right place to ask, but I'm new to Wellington after finally escaping AKL, and I'm wanting to meet and talk to some WLG based pilots. If this applies to anyone, feel free to dropme a line, it'd be really good to meet some people down here  

Quoting zkncj (Reply 58): Will be interesting to see how this pans out? price/capcity war with Jetstar on Domestic maybe?

What lower fuel prices are doing, is that airlines all over are suddenly becoming interested in routes and destinations (such as New Zealand) that they previously weren't. As a niche company that was enjoying a largely monopolistic route network, this actually isn't great news for NZ.

I'd expect routes like EZE and SGN to be flashes in the pan as their profit margins become lost in the margin of error.

I'd also expect a realignment of the long haul product in terms of competitive (but not rock bottom) pricing and an upguaging in hard product quality. NZ is going to need something to set it apart again. In a race to the bottom in terms of price and quality, they would lose.

[Edited 2016-01-26 00:20:09]

Quoting gasman (Reply 62): NZ is going to need something to set it apart again. In a race to the bottom in terms of price and quality, they would lose.

What would you suggest...    lol

Quoting ZKSUJ (Reply 63): What would you suggest

He already said…

Quoting gasman (Reply 62): an upguaging in hard product quality.

Quoting skygirl1990 (Reply 61): I'd also expect a realignment of the long haul product in terms of competitive (but not rock bottom) pricing and an upguaging in hard product quality. NZ is going to need something to set it apart again. In a race to the bottom in terms of price and quality, they would lose.

You mean, do a Virgin Australia, with their profit history?

mariner

Quoting zkncj (Reply 58): Luxon told reporters he could not say how much prices would drop by, because there were a large number of variables including fuel costs

The fuel surcharge to North America from AKL for March travel is now $35 round trip. yet NZ LAX-LHR is $ 458 for Feb. travel.!! .

[Edited 2016-01-26 06:19:28]

The cost of fuel has dropped and stayed low for some time. You may say this is solely because of competition, but I think not - it is that crude has stayed low and is in oversupply, and the airline can in turn lower prices with some confidence that 3 months later it won't be much higher again. NZ have lowered their running costs in terms of admin,crew,fleet,IT and every other aspect of their business, if this was a manufacturing business you guys wouldn't question why they could pass on their own savings to the consumer because they had lowered production costs per unit. (or per seat in the case of NZ)

Domestic fares are dropping not because of competition (it's a factor) because they now solely use 171 seat 320s in lieu of 133 seat 733s, and likewise the savings of a 68 seat ATR over the smaller more costly BEH/DH8 can also lower the cost per seat of operation. Routes without competition have also lowered costs too. They will do the same with delivery of A321s and 787s in lieu of 321s and 763s.

Quoting gasman (Reply 62): In a race to the bottom in terms of price and quality, they would lose.

Can't get much lower in quality than UA or AA.. 

Quoting keen2fly (Reply 60): They must remain competitive

They are, they have grown marketshare in the most competitive market they are in, they have grown markets and loadfactors and gained marketshare on longhaul and they are looking like exceeding their own expectations again, They are considered blue chip airline investment wise alongside WN and FR.

I fail to see how a well run airline that has focused on lowering overheads is all of a sudden going to change their ways because a few airlines are entering the market. Especially If you read your press releases you will realise that UA is expanding their partnership with NZ in a similar manner to SQ so what UA makes NZ makes and visa versa. If UA is making good money on the route so is NZ....They will even be promoting each others services...

Quoting gasman (Reply 62): and an upguaging in hard product quality. NZ is going to need something to set it apart again

On this theme, I wonder what the cost spread is between a meal of the quality of 15-years ago on NZ and todays meal. I will never forget the delicious suppers they served out of HNL in the DC10 days. Nothing close to it today. The actual ingredients cost of the total catering cost for each flight differs little for a high quality meal compared to a just so-so meal. I would give up a meal choice on board if I could select a higher quality meal prior to the flight. Record my selection on the Boarding pass.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 66): The fuel surcharge to North America from AKL for March travel is now $35 round trip. yet NZ LAX-LHR is $ 458 for Feb. travel.!! .

Could it be the fare are structured differently? in the New Zealand market fuel surcharges we're publicly as big as in some markets.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 68): I will never forget the delicious suppers they served out of HNL in the DC10 days. Nothing close to it today

Yes, catering on NZ in the DC-10 days was amazing even in Y. It was something to always look forward to, and was more about dish quality than being particularly exotic.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 67): I fail to see how a well run airline that has focused on lowering overheads is all of a sudden going to change their ways because a few airlines are entering the market.

Because NZ's business model has to some extent relied on its monopoly routes to subsidise its other routes. But the cash cow that was AKL-USA is about to have its teets clipped. There's nothing really to separate NZ with UA and AA in terms of hard product quality but those airlines have better loyalty schemes and a vast network of connections. Progressively they could significantly erode NZ's market share.

In the other direction you have the likes of SQ grabbing routes like WLG-CBR-SIN, Air Asia returning, EK steaming ahead and QR talking about joining the fray. And let's not forget QF. What would it do to NZ if, for example, fuel prices dropped to a point where QF decided they could economically operate a lightly loaded A380 AKL-LAX?

Lower fuel prices bring savings, which can be shared by the shareholder and the consumer but they also bring increased competition. We're seeing at the moment a trickle turn into a stream. If it turns into a torrent, NZ are going to need to be smart, and offer the consumer some point of difference if they are to succeed. Hobbit aircraft and safety videos won't cut it.

Quoting gasman (Reply 70): We're seeing at the moment a trickle turn into a stream. If it turns into a torrent, NZ are going to need to be smart, and offer the consumer some point of difference if they are to succeed. Hobbit aircraft and safety videos won't cut it.

I'm not sure why you so determined that Air NZ must be the loser here.

If it turns into a torrent, then some of those airlines are going to lose their shirts, and I have to wonder how long they'll stay. Foreign airline have left our skies before, Air NZ has had those monopoly routes because the competition has fallen away, and not because Air NZ is "protected" in some way, except by the natural advantage of the home team.

We're agreed, I think, that WLG-CBR-SIN is a good idea, but I note that it needed a subsidy to bring it about.

I'm not sure why NZ has suddenly turned into this very desirable market, but it is - like all markets - eventually finite. How much air service can a nation of 4 million support, especially at the premium end? So I think it's a mistake to start a route thinking it can survive only by stealing from the existing players - the new routes will work if they add to the customer base, as I think it is likely American will.

If Qatar does start DOH-AKL, then I doubt it can rely solely on the NZ passenger base and stealing from Emirates/Qantas and Etihad/Virgin Australia. If it does happen and if it survives it will be because it brings new, previously untapped traffic to NZ. In which case, we all win.

mariner

Quoting mariner (Reply 71): I'm not sure why you so determined that Air NZ must be the loser here.

"Loser" is perhaps too strong a word, but I believe NZ to be a bit more vulnerable than the larger carriers with their greater economies of scale, route networks and customer bases who can afford to enter a market like New Zealand when fuel prices are low, create some havoc in the market and if it doesn't really work suck up a price bottoming loss for a while before disappearing again.

Quoting mariner (Reply 71): We're agreed, I think, that WLG-CBR-SIN is a good idea, but I note that it needed a subsidy to bring it about.

Yes, and that subsidy took a little of the gloss off for me. Still, kudos to SQ; but a subsidy? Hmmmm

Quoting mariner (Reply 71): I'm not sure why NZ has suddenly turned into this very desirable market, but it is - like all markets - eventually finite

Precisely why I think a rapid influx of new carriers and services driven by low fuel prices will ultimately not be good for NZ. That finite market is NZs lifeblood.

Quoting mariner (Reply 71): Air NZ has had those monopoly routes because the competition has fallen away, and not because Air NZ is "protected" in some way, except by the natural advantage of the home team.

Yup but would it be fair to say (IMO) that in the past NZ has been ahead of the competition in terms of service levels & in some respects the hard product that was to come, where as now they are not. (Just an opinion)

I note in the Australian thread a Ben Sandilands piece is reporting that QF are fitting (some?) of their 789's out at 42J/28Y+/165Y for routes such as DFW-MEL. Sent me to the 789 seat layout with my ruler to see how this might work. I think they have a good chance of doing Y at 8-abreast with 7- abreast in Y+. If they can pull this off it will set a new standard ( besides the JL layout) for ULH. If NZ is considering a more premium layout for the 789 I wonder how much notice they will need to take of the QF approach.

Quoting gasman (Reply 72): Yes, and that subsidy took a little of the gloss off for me. Still, kudos to SQ; but a subsidy? Hmmmm

Its actually nothing unusual in the aviation industry nowadays. Think of it as a commitment for Wellington to marketing and promote the destination in the markets that SQ operates in. The quoted figure of $800k per annum is nothing compared to the cost of operating the route circa $100-150M an annum I would guess, and has little impact on the viability of the route. The "subsidy" wouldnt have suddenly made an unviable route viable.... As whether its a cash payment to the airline or the city committing to spend $800k in the market doesnt really matter.

Do you think when AKL got CZ/PR/AA/MU etc. that Ateed isn't putting marketing money into the route (subsidy), or when CZ/D7/CI came to CHC. In fact the New Zealand government put money into teh CZ charters to CHC over the last few years via the Tourism Growth Partnership. Plus tourism NZ works with all these airlines as well putting money into marketing the route. Its just its not made public in these situations as you don't have petty councilors with an anti runway extension agenda wanting to pour cold water on the news by leaking commercially sensitive information.

The airlines realise they bring strong economic benefits to cities they operate into, and ask for this to be recognised in partnership with airports and local government. Its a way that everyone is committed for the route to be success.

And to me if it is $9 per passenger its a pretty good result for Wellington.

Quoting gasman (Reply 72): Loser" is perhaps too strong a word, but I believe NZ to be a bit more vulnerable than the larger carriers with their greater economies of scale, route networks and customer bases who can afford to enter a market like New Zealand when fuel prices are low, create some havoc in the market and if it doesn't really work suck up a price bottoming loss for a while before disappearing again.

But those customer bases are key to it, as I said.

I think it would be pretty stupid for American - or Qantas (international)- to come in thinking they can survive just by stealing from Air NZ and I remember that Qantas failed on AKL-LAX before. The only difference now is lower fuel, but that works for Air NZ as well, as Mr. Luxon has just said, in another context.

American has an enormous customer base - tens of millions - in the US, and the route is of value to them if they can bring enough of that customer base to NZ. If they can't, then it's slim pickings.

Quoting gasman (Reply 72): Precisely why I think a rapid influx of new carriers and services driven by low fuel prices will ultimately not be good for NZ. That finite market is NZs lifeblood.

It's the NZ market that is finite, not the US market. The only thing finite there may the number of people who want to come to NZ, but the limits of that have never been explored.

And sure, Air NZ may be in for a rough patch while it all sorts itself out, but that's the nature of competition, and no other airline has the home team advantage.

Quoting ZKSUJ (Reply 73): Yup but would it be fair to say (IMO) that in the past NZ has been ahead of the competition in terms of service levels & in some respects the hard product that was to come, where as now they are not. (Just an opinion)

The move around the world is to lower service standards - unless you pay for it - which is why Virgin Australia's metamorphosis from Virgin Blue is such an outlier.

If there is any real threat, then in my mind it's Air Asia X, a genuine ULCC. But that's one route 1 x daily. It's a very popular leisure route and it's difficult to see much market stimulation through lower fares, it may already be stimulated. But in that case, Air NZ isn't the only target - it affects Jetstar and Virgin Australia as well. And again, it is Air Asia X who has failed in NZ before.

I'm not looking at this through rose-coloured glasses, Air NZ may yet prove to be competitively incompetent, although I strongly doubt it. I'm just looking at the way airlines are coping with the changed times, and how the majors have reacted to LCC's and and are reacting to ULCC"s.

Southwest Airlines for example, "invaded" many hubs of the US majors, yet it didn't steal much traffic, it created its own market through lower fares. It has a name - it's called "the Southwest Effect."

mariner

[Edited 2016-01-26 13:35:22]

Quoting mariner (Reply 76): And sure, Air NZ may be in for a rough patch while it all sorts itself out, but that's the nature of competition, and no other airline has the home team advantage.

So we're agreed fuel prices are changing the playing field somewhat; what we're debating is how the cards will fall and how the carriers will respond. I guess we'll have to wait and see. My guess, as I suggested above is that NZ won't attempt to compete as a true LCC, but will instead seek to re-invent itself somewhat as the premium carrier to the US and UK.

Quoting gasman (Reply 77): So we're agreed fuel prices are changing the playing field somewhat; what we're debating is how the cards will fall and how the carriers will respond. I guess we'll have to wait and see. My guess, as I suggested above is that NZ won't attempt to compete as a true LCC, but will instead seek to re-invent itself somewhat as the premium carrier to the US and UK.

Sure, we're agreed, fuel is changing the equation all over the world.

As for the rest, I don't tend to think of Air NZ as LCC now.

EDIT:

News item that caught my eye:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/7...nd-flights-to-the-us-for-under-800

"Kiwis snapping up return Air New Zealand flights to the US for under $800"

mariner

[Edited 2016-01-26 17:07:58]

Quoting gasman (Reply 77): will instead seek to re-invent itself somewhat as the premium carrier to the US and UK.

It has lie flat beds and a premium economy offering that has won best PE and winning industry awards year after year. It isn't really reinventing itself, merely continuing on a trajectory. 10 abreast like it or not (I'm not a huge fan, but..) is the means of keeping the costs low so the fares can be low enough to grow the market - the IFE is still very good, the service far better than being barked at by a UA retired prison warden. You will note of course that airlines including 77Ws in their fleets are 10 abreast these days and are the very competition we are talking about starting to AKL such as UA/AA/QR. Even CX is seriously considering it.as It has become the industry standard

A 9 abreast 777 carrier is at a disadvantage on a route against a 10 abreast 777 carrier or 8 vs 9 abreast 788/789 because their costs are higher per seat, and while potentially their yields per seat might be higher (no guarantee of that though - fares are more often going to match) they have fewer people onboard paying fares so they have to be able to find revenue in other ways. sometimes 9 abreast Y 234 x 1200 (280,400) does not beat 10 abreast Y 260 x 1150 (299,000). By the same token, operating a 788 vs a 789 the 788 operator is at a disadvantage for the same reasons.

As you know, I have been critical where it is due with NZ over many years, but this strikes me as unbridled bitterness towards NZ. NZ consciously grew the markets they fly, they know the markets well and they have known about this and discussed for many years what competition would mean for their business. So far I have seen nothing to indicate this has changed. There will be some changes sure, but nothing as rash or drastic as you suggest.

Once the novelty value of having a new airline wears they will slip out of the collective consciousness as the year on year grind sinks in (like HA,CI for example). during the Northern high season the loads/fares on all carriers will still be high and the Northern winter fares/loads will be low with promos trying to entice people to a frigid winter in the states.

Quoting mariner (Reply 76): which is why Virgin Australia's metamorphosis from Virgin Blue is such an outlier.

It certainly hasn't helped their profits any, and besides which VA is far from premium anyway..They are still very much the no frills pay for what you want service kind of airline whether or not they have an empty J class up the front or not..

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 79): As you know, I have been critical where it is due with NZ over many years, but this strikes me as unbridled bitterness towards NZ.

Cheers. Although I have expressed bitterness to NZ before, I'm not sure where I did it in this thread. All I'm saying is that low fuel prices are a trade-off. On one hand you have lower operating costs but on the other it encourages potentially fierce competition whereas there was previously little or none. On balance, I think NZ and it's shareholders would have preferred fuel prices to be higher and the competition staying out. Purely because pretty much all the potentially competing carriers are better placed to absorb a loss making route than NZ are.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 79): It has lie flat beds and a premium economy offering that has won best PE and winning industry awards year after year. It isn't really reinventing itself, merely continuing on a trajectory.

None of the awards are unbiased and scientific. I take them with a grain of salt. EK, SQ and arguably QF have a better J class product. NZ's herringbone config is lacking in width, lacking in privacy and lacking in storage space. Sure, it's on an approximate par with UA and AA. But I think now is the time for it to be better - and to be marketed as such.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 79): the IFE is still very good,

No, I'd say these days it's substantially below par in terms of screen size and resolution. Content choice is ok.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 79): the service far better than being barked at by a UA retired prison warden.

Have you flown internationally on UA recently? I only ask because while during the 90's and early 2000's they were crewed almost exclusively by ex. prison wardens who had been fired from that role for being too fat & lazy; they seem to have had a recent improvement in customer focus.

So if NZ isn't really perceived to be any "better" than UA or AA to the continental USA, New Zealand based flyers will eventually notice those airlines' loyalty programs, route networks and seamless connections, and begin to drift over. NZ can ill afford this. How they will meet this challenge is anyone's guess. As I said above, my guess is that they'll try to edge out the competition in customer focus and hard product. Expect also to see marketing campaigns along the lines of NZ being "our" airline.

Anyone know why NZ644 ZQN-AKL has diverted to TRG

[url]https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ANZ644[url]

There is an bit of storm could building over the city at the moment, maybe short on fuel? Looks like it got pretty much all the way to AKL.

We've got some pretty impressive storms crossing the Manukau Harbour. Been most of the afternoon.

Night flights into ZQN from July 2016 apparently. This will be a hit with Aucklanders making a long weekend in ZQN. I bet there'll be a nice little premium for those flights.. Although the Stuff article suggests capacity on AKL-ZQN will increase by 15%. Tickets go on sale next week.

http://www.guide2.co.nz/money/news/b...-queenstown-night-flights/11/29328

http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/7...-night-flights-rolling-out-in-July

[Edited 2016-01-27 00:34:15]

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 83): Night flights into ZQN from July 2016 apparently. This will be a hit with Aucklanders making a long weekend in ZQN. I bet there'll be a nice little premium for those flights.. Although the Stuff article suggests capacity on AKL-ZQN will increase by 15%. Tickets go on sale next week.

Allot of extra capacity, looking at it they claim to add 100,000s a year is this each way or 50,000/50,00.0

Monthly - 8333
Weekly - 2083
Daily - 277

Qantas bites back - at Singapore's WLG-CBR-SIN:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/7...ellington-route-with-sharp-pricing

"Qantas responds to Singapore Airlines' Wellington route with sharp pricing

Singapore Airlines' planned Wellington service has been meet with aggressive pricing by Qantas offering Wellington to Singapore flights for $800 return.

On Monday the Australian national carrier began offering fares from Wellington to Singapore, Bangkok, Hong Kong and Shanghai from $799 return.

The sale launched on the same day tickets for Singapore Airlines new service between Wellington and Singapore via Canberra went on sale from $1808 return."

Interesting.  

mariner

"Air New Zealand to start Queenstown night flights"


Air New Zealand will commence night flying into and out of Queenstown from July 2016, offering more options and greater
flexibility for travellers.


Subject to regulatory approval, the airline will operate services between Queenstown and Auckland
between 7am to 9.30pm daily using A320 aircraft.

Air New Zealand Chief Flight Operations and Safety Officer Captain David Morgan says the airline has been working
closely with industry stakeholders on a plan to implement night operations for some time.

Service will operate up to 7 Daily flights! between AKL-ZQN.

http://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/press...-to-start-queenstown-night-flights

Auckland – Queenstown

1935* 2125
* Operates Tues, Wed, Thurs, Fri, Sun.
Subject to regulatory approval.

Queenstown - Auckland

1930* 2120

Air Asia X considering returning to CHC or even launching WLG services once AKL is established.

Air Asia X CEO states in the article below even mentioned reducing AKL to two flights per week and WLG getting four flights per week as an option

http://i.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/760...gton-and-Christchurch-on-its-radar

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 86):

Good move by NZ. Need that to maximise capacity into ZQN and to allow for weather. Provided they keep a curfew of 10pm-6am or so then everyone wins.

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 86): Auckland – Queenstown 1935* 2125 * Operates Tues, Wed, Thurs, Fri, Sun. Subject to regulatory approval. Queenstown - Auckland 1930* 2120

Now just to be hopefully they add an AKL-ZQN 0530-0730 next year, while its early the currently 0700 flight gets you there at around 0900, which isn't good if you're there for the weekend.

Uh, so this happened... http://www.emirates.com/media-centre...on-stop-dubai-auckland-from-march#

Wow, that was a quick response to a thought bubble from QR. Is this the first 77L to New Zealand?

Also...

Quoting 777ER (Reply 87): Air Asia X CEO states in the article below even mentioned reducing AKL to two flights per week and WLG getting four flights per week as an option

Heh, maybe forward bookings aren't looking too hot already. Somehow I doubt the scenario above.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 90): Uh, so this happened... http://www.emirates.com/media-centre...on-stop-dubai-auckland-from-march# Wow, that was a quick response to a thought bubble from QR

I've been thinking that EY/NZ/VA need to pull together and make a response or risk being swamped by overwhelming competitive capacity...

This could be the next step...

EK maybe... DXB-AKL-GRU-DXB RTW

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 90): Wow, that was a quick response to a thought bubble from QR. Is this the first 77L to New Zealand? Also...

How does the 21.30hr departure impact on gate space available at AIA ?

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 92): How does the 21.30hr departure impact on gate space available at AIA ?

timings fit reasonably well with the downtime actually. better than most of the latest schedules actually. The issue is layover space during the day more. They should just send to NAN in downtime

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 93): They should just send to NAN in downtime

Or HLZ/ CHC . But this would need an additional crew and a lay over location for them.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 94): Or HLZ/ CHC . But this would need an additional crew and a lay over location for them.

Assuming that EK A380 Cabin Crew, are cross role with the 777ULH fleet? Then it wouldn't be to hard to work in with there current operations, with AKL being 4x daily to DXB 3x A380 and 1x 77L.

AKL-NAN-AKL can be done in 7.5 hours, with an stop in NAN to turn around an re-board etc its only 2 hours each-way. Crew would simply just need to overnight in AKL, they wouldn't needed to change in NAN.

Quote aerokiwi, reply 90 Wow, that was a quick response to a thought bubble from QR. Is this the first 77L to New Zealand?

Or more likely, QR's thought bubble was a response to this impending announcement of which they had inside knowledge.

On another note, I've been informed by an NZ staff member that they are receiving a lot of flak from Vanuatu - the government and populace alike - for pulling out of Vila. Legal action has been threatened. It seems utterly unreasonable given a) NZ is a company and and can fly where it damn well likes and b) it was an unequivocal safety issue.

[Edited 2016-01-28 10:35:56]

Quoting gasman (Reply 96): On another note, I've been informed by an NZ staff member that they are receiving a lot of flak from Vanuatu - the government and populace alike - for pulling out of Vila. Legal action has been threatened. It seems utterly unreasonable given a) NZ is a company and and can fly where it damn well likes and b) it was an unequivocal safety issue.

I'm obviously sympathetic to the people of Vanuatu, it's a bit of an economic disaster for them, but Virgin Australia has now dropped flights there as well:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviat...fety-concerns-20160128-gmg4hn.html

"Virgin Australia halts Vanuatu flights over runway safety concerns"

The World Bank had $59 million standing by for the runway improvements so my hope is that Australia and NZ - the governments - can bring some pressure to bear on the Vanuatu government and fix this.

mariner

Well, what did I say in the last thread..  

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 90): Is this the first 77L to New Zealand?

No. EK flew the 77L here 3x weekly while they got enough 380s to go daily.

Quoting mariner (Reply 97): I'm obviously sympathetic to the people of Vanuatu, it's a bit of an economic disaster for them

Don't be too sympathetic. Sure, spare a thought for the hotel worker that could lose their job; but the Vanuatu administration is nepotistic and corrupt to the extent it makes some Central African Republics look like icons of democracy and integrity. The amount of aid that has been poured into Vanuatu from the New Zealand, Australian and French governments that has either been wasted or simply disappeared has run into the hundreds of millions over the last two and a half decades.