Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4613
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Thu Jan 28, 2016 8:49 pm

Quoting zkncj (Reply 95):
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

AFAIK they aren't cross-rated. A380 crews are dedicated to that aircraft type. I think for the other aircraft crews are cross-rated though.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:00 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 99):
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.

I'm fully aware pdf that, I'm not a dumb blond - I'm not even blond these days.

My sympathy, as I said, is for the "people" of Vanuatu - not least the many hotel workers, and all the ancillary and support service providers.

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

Since this isn an aviation forum, I tried to get the politics out of it.

mariner
 
User avatar
afterburner33
Posts: 205
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 8:46 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:46 pm

Will DXB-AKL be the world's longest flight? The Great Circle mapper site shows it as being approximately 250 miles further than DFW-SYD, so I presume so.

If I didn't have the kids, I would definitely have tried it on the next trip home.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2204
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Thu Jan 28, 2016 10:02 pm

Quoting afterburner33 (Reply 102):
Will DXB-AKL be the world's longest flight? The Great Circle mapper site shows it as being approximately 250 miles further than DFW-SYD, so I presume so.

If I didn't have the kids, I would definitely have tried it on the next trip home.

Apart from the av-geek factor, I'm not really sure it adds all that much because of the timing.

Westbound, you have a 2130 departure time out of AKL, as opposed to an 1800-ish departure time going via Australia. Will the later departure time make much difference to your tiredness/productivity that day/feel good factor? For me, no, I hate long haul nighttime departures; usually by 1500 on the day in question I'm pacing around waiting to leave for the airport. You also forsake the A380 to travel on a 77L (I'd prefer a 380 over a 777 any day) and when all is said & done you still arrive at DXB at the same time you would if you'd gone via Australia.

Coming back it's perhaps a slightly different story - that stop in BNE/SYD/MEL when you're so close to home feels utterly superfluous. But on the non stop service you still arrive at AKL only an hour or so earlier than you would if travelling through Australia.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Thu Jan 28, 2016 10:09 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 103):
Apart from the av-geek factor, I'm not really sure it adds all that much because of the timing.

What it says is that Emirates has sufficient faith in the traffic to give it a go.

You find me on it - I prefer the A380 and I detest very long flights - but I'm a not typical flyer.

I'm mildly that there might be such traffic, but hey, what it means is not just traffic from NZ but more traffic to NZ which can only be good news for the country.

mariner
 
Gasman
Posts: 2204
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Thu Jan 28, 2016 10:21 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 104):
What it says is that Emirates has sufficient faith in the traffic to give it a go.

It's incredible. 3 daily A380s, plus the CHC flight and now this.

Not even their staunchest critics are going "humph - they're just dumping capacity on the Tasman" any longer.

And given current oil prices, it's getting harder to play the "fuel subsidy!" card these days also.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8435
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Fri Jan 29, 2016 1:05 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 105):
And given current oil prices, it's getting harder to play the "fuel subsidy!" card these days also.

I wonder if EK have finally realised that Australia-DXB flights are filled to the gunnels and a good way of opening up some more seats on existing flights out of Australia is to make the new zealand market to fly direct. ie: 50 passengers off each SYD-BNE/MEL they will have 150 pax + room for some growth. This is similar to what NZ did for NZ1/2. Redirect the AKL-LHR traffic over SIN and pick up AKL-LAX and LAX-LHR traffic

Quoting gasman (Reply 96):
they are receiving a lot of flak from Vanuatu

As you indeed suggested, That's just pouring mud into the water to distract everyone from the blatent criminal corruption of Vanuatu's Government in an attempted to make it back after the election.. The other issue is of course that VLI is privately owned, which as we know in airports is the worst possible thing for airport development. When you're brushing up 20KG of asphalt debris after every jet movement it only becomes a probable likelihood of this happening (it describes an earlier issue as well)
https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20151224-1

With the sole airline now NF direct or via NAN/NOU with ATRs it is firmly weighted in the favour of NZ. VLI was profitable in its own right, it was not subsidised by Vanuatu so they don't have a leg to stand on.

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

Apart from the EK mentioned flights, the Boeing demonstrator visited in the blue livery.
I'm chuffed, the -LR is still more amazing than either the A350 or the 787. It's a beast, and it didn't cost much in the way of development beyon the -777F costs. I'm still trying to fly one for my log, as my ET sectors keep getting changed to -788s. Hopefully they will announce QR soon, so I can fly AKL-DXB-DOH-AKL to get my -LR sectors
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Fri Jan 29, 2016 3:24 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 105):
Not even their staunchest critics are going "humph - they're just dumping capacity on the Tasman" any longer.

According to BITRE for Sept. 2015 they operated at ~70% LF on the TT. Not too bad for the number of seats they are offering each day. Also they are hauling ~ 7t of freight on each flight TT. Seems to me they are making good inroads into this market as well and suggests that they could be a real force into Europe. Not too hard to imagine on a 85% LF day for passengers, they could be hauling 20t of freight into Dubai. Any chance they may have picked up a good sized air freight contract which accelerated their entry into this city pair?

[Edited 2016-01-28 19:26:55]
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 1015
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Fri Jan 29, 2016 3:35 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 106):
Apart from the EK mentioned flights, the Boeing demonstrator visited in the blue livery.
I'm chuffed, the -LR is still more amazing than either the A350 or the 787. It's a beast, and it didn't cost much in the way of development beyon the -777F costs. I'm still trying to fly one for my log, as my ET sectors keep getting changed to -788s. Hopefully they will announce QR soon, so I can fly AKL-DXB-DOH-AKL to get my -LR sectors

Interesting that the LR is always bagged by people because it never sold well / is heavy etc but it seems to be coming into its own these days.

Emirates is even looking at a top up order or so I have heard. I think low fuel may have improved the LR business case.

I reckon NZ could even use a few TBH.
 
zkncj
Posts: 4279
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Fri Jan 29, 2016 4:31 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 107):
According to BITRE for Sept. 2015 they operated at ~70% LF on the TT. Not too bad for the number of seats they are offering each day

We're as according to the September investor update from NZ, there Tasman Load Factor is 87%.

BITRE reports in October 2015, Air New Zealand carried 224,830 across the Tasman and Emirates carried 69,000 passengers.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Fri Jan 29, 2016 4:42 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 107):
According to BITRE for Sept. 2015 they operated at ~70% LF on the TT. Not too bad for the number of seats they are offering each day. Also they are hauling ~ 7t of freight on each flight TT.

In 2010, Emirates claimed that the BITRE data misrepresented its TT performance.

The following is from their submission to the ACCC:

"Emirates considers that other carriers occasionally use BITRE data to misrepresent Emirates' performance on NZ routes. Data produced by BITRE only captures one component of traffic - Australian passenger upliftldischarge only, without taking into account connecting passengers.

BITRE also treats seat factors as a constant. As a result the data understates load factors and does not accurately reflect the commercial performance of the flights. Some have used BITRE data to incorrectly suggest that Emirates flights have under- utilised capacity on the routes. Actual load factors on a route are up to 24% higher than reported by BITRE if the number of connecting passengers is added to the point to point passengers. Overall Emirates load factors on the trans-Tasman are in the mid- high 70s."


mariner
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8435
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Fri Jan 29, 2016 5:16 am

Quoting 77west (Reply 108):
I reckon NZ could even use a few TBH.

I have always said NZ should never have taken up -200ERs, at the time they were being delivered they should have been -200LR, The fleet should have been -200LR/-300ERs from the beginning.
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2823
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Fri Jan 29, 2016 5:19 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 106):
I wonder if EK have finally realised that Australia-DXB flights are filled to the gunnels and a good way of opening up some more seats on existing flights out of Australia is to make the new zealand market to fly direct. ie: 50 passengers off each SYD-BNE/MEL they will have 150 pax + room for some growth. This is similar to what NZ did for NZ1/2. Redirect the AKL-LHR traffic over SIN and pick up AKL-LAX and LAX-LHR traffic

That's a really good point.

NZ and VA are finally upgauging capacity on the Tasman after years of stagnation, so perhaps this is a clever way of QF/EK doing the same without throwing in more QF planes.

Oh and look... no subsidy  
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 1015
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Fri Jan 29, 2016 7:58 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 111):
I have always said NZ should never have taken up -200ERs, at the time they were being delivered they should have been -200LR, The fleet should have been -200LR/-300ERs from the beginning.

I thought due to the initial delay in getting the -200LR out, and its relatively higher price, NZ had no choice but to get the -200ER. The -200LR would really allow some decent payloads and perhaps some interesting new routes.
However, at this point, a mix of -8X and -9X seems more likely. Perhaps a 10 -8X and 10 -9X order, with options?
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Fri Jan 29, 2016 7:34 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 104):
I prefer the A380 and I detest very long flights - but I'm a not typical flyer.

Ditto. After experiencing EK A380's, most 777's, including EK's, are akin to roughing it, especially on long flights.

And detesting long flights. That comes with too much familiarity, and ageing.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Fri Jan 29, 2016 7:45 pm

Quoting Planesmart (Reply 114):
And detesting long flights. That comes with too much familiarity, and ageing.

Apart from the fact that I get claustrophobia on any aircraft after about seven hours - except on the A380 - I also don't see the point of very long flights.

For me, brought on DC-3's and Dragon Rapides, flying is an adventure, I've never lost that. I want to see as many places along the way as I can - even if only the airports.

I don't want to pay all that money just to get there.  

mariner
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Fri Jan 29, 2016 8:56 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 115):
I want to see as many places along the way as I can - even if only the airports.

Showing our age.

Different when travel is for business, and the client is paying.

Agree with stopping off at all the places on the way. Same when we travel by train and car. Many people and places to visit before the senses and inclination fade.

Short time alive - long time dead.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8435
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Fri Jan 29, 2016 10:58 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 115):
I don't want to pay all that money just to get there

That's why I always like to search for my destination, find the lowest fare for reference, then take out the direct and one stop options.... If the 2+stop option is not horrendous I take that. The other option I often take is buying two tickets each with an extra stop. That way I get some good midpoint options with airlines that don't serve my home market.

Quoting 77west (Reply 113):
I thought due to the initial delay in getting the -200LR out, and its relatively higher price, NZ had no choice but to get the -200ER

Really the -300ERs should have been delivered in the place of the -200ERs and the -200LRs in place of the 300ERs, by that time they could have qualified for EDTO 330 off the bat for the -LR and subsequently 787s and been able to start straight away with EZE/GRU/IAH/YVR and more besides.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1910
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Fri Jan 29, 2016 11:15 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 115):
For me, brought on DC-3's and Dragon Rapides, flying is an adventure, I've never lost that. I want to see as many places along the way as I can - even if only the airports.

I don't want to pay all that money just to get there.

Kindred spirits - the same childhood experiences and the same attitude to travel!

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 117):
That's why I always like to search for my destination, find the lowest fare for reference, then take out the direct and one stop options.... If the 2+stop option is not horrendous I take that. The other option I often take is buying two tickets each with an extra stop. That way I get some good midpoint options with airlines that don't serve my home market.

I often use a well-known comparative booking site to find me the cheapest en route possibilities and then take that as a serendipitous way of getting from A to B, often with multiple stops being cheaper (flying-wise) than a direct routing. And the serendipitous stops are often the real travel experience and well worth the hotel and the extra few days. A bit of playing round with the web site and you can come up with some weird and wonderful routings - and some wonderful travel experiences.

[Edited 2016-01-29 15:21:09]
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Sat Jan 30, 2016 1:34 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 117):
Really the -300ERs should have been delivered in the place of the -200ERs and the -200LRs in place of the 300ERs, by that time they could have qualified for EDTO 330 off the bat for the -LR and subsequently 787s and been able to start straight away with EZE/GRU/IAH/YVR and more besides.

The RR -200ER's were very slow getting FAA >180-min. ETOPS approval. Something like 3-years after the GE powered version. Not sure why that was since there was no GE operator who needed more than 180-min yet there was NZ operating the RR version who could have used it. For whatever reason NZ was slow off the EDTO mark with the 787. With their years of 180-min. experience they could have been at 240-min virtually at 787 EIS in the fall of 2014 but didn't get there till about May 2015. If QF have early plans to use their 789's on DFW-MEL ( the clue will be when they announce the seat layout) I would expect them to have 240-min. approval pretty much at EIS.
I have wondered if NZ passed on the 77L because they got the 77E for such a good price and if they had any thoughts of switching , their power-by-the- hour contract with RR might have been too expensive to get out of.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2204
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Sat Jan 30, 2016 2:17 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 119):
I have wondered if NZ passed on the 77L because they got the 77E for such a good price and if they had any thoughts of switching , their power-by-the- hour contract with RR might have been too expensive to get out of.

Good thought. In passing up the 77L, they lost the option of flying AKL-JFK non-stop which I think would have attracted significant O&D New Zealand traffic and also a lot of Australian based traffic who currently fly the route via LAX on QF. It would also have lent itself to the possibility of LHR via PER. There is such type commonality between the 777s there really is no reason why they couldn't have bought just a few frames for a few niche routes
 
coolian2
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:34 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Sat Jan 30, 2016 2:31 am

I will admit that when I post I can be almost unfairly critical of NZ. That mostly seems to come from being a bit rebellious and past employment with a red airline.

That said they missed on the 77L. They might fix it withas the 77X but I wouldn't count the A350 out now. Airbus have an uncanny knack for their narrow body customers getting into the wide body order book.

I also wouldn't be blown away by domestic 787-8s Population growth and no airport growth points one way. Especially with Jetstar nipping away - and VA or Tiger will jump if they see the yields.

I'm likely wrong, but who wouldn't love it?
 
zkncj
Posts: 4279
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:14 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 119):
For whatever reason NZ was slow off the EDTO mark with the 787. With their years of 180-min. experience they could have been at 240-min virtually at 787 EIS in the fall of 2014 but didn't get there till about May 2015

The first 789s couple of 789s very to release the 767s off the Asian routes, which didn't need the 240 EDTO. Keeping aircraft to an 240 EDTO standard can be costly when its not needed, the higher the EDTO level the high the standard to mx needs to be.

It would be like say the whole A320 fleet needed to be EDTO, when some of them never leave the country hence why there is an sub fleet for domestic. Same with the 772 half an 240, and the other half have 330 for EZE/IAH.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:17 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 120):
In passing up the 77L, they lost the option of flying AKL-JFK non-stop which I think would have attracted significant O&D New Zealand traffic and also a lot of Australian based traffic who currently fly the route via LAX on QF.

At that time, oil/fuel was through the roof and the few ultra long hauls that existed were flying deep in the red.

If Singapore couldn't make SIN-EWR work, I wouldn't have fancied NZ's chances with AKL-JFK.

mariner
 
PA515
Posts: 1673
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:29 am

There could be another Air NZ 789 route about the 17 Jun 2016.

From 17 Jun to 30 Jul AKL-SIN is a 77E instead of a 789. This may be due to 77E repaints in SIN. Five 77E's can be repainted at 14 day intervals between 03 Jun and 13 Aug with only one positioning flight in each direction necessary.

The 7th 789 ZK-NZI is due to be delivered on 15 Jul, so probably arrives AKL 17 Jul and starts off with a few AKL-SYD/BNE about 24 Jul and is ready for long haul by 31 Jul when AKL-SIN reverts back to a 789.

This means that from 17 Jun a 789 is available for another long haul route. This is how the nine 789's are looking.

01. AKL-PER-AKL -- Daily ----- 1 aircraft

02. AKL-NRT-AKL -- Daily ----- 1 aircraft

03. AKL-PVG -------- Daily ------1 aircraft

04. PVG-AKL -------- Daily ----- 1 aircraft

05. AKL-SIN-AKL --- Daily ----- 1 aircraft
(except 17 Jun to 30 Jul)

06. AKL-HNL-AKL -- 3/5 pw --- 1 aircraft
(eff. 10 May replacing the seasonal AKL-NRT-AKL 3/2 pw ending 07 May)

07. AKL-???-AKL --- 3/4 pw --- 1 aircraft
(eff. 17 Jun -- EZE?) not IAH or YVR which are 5 pw. HNL is up to 5 pw so only 2 aircraft days available.
(del. 15 Jul, available for long haul by 31 Jul ?)

08. AKL-PER-AKL -- 3 pw ----- 1 aircraft
(eff. 17 Sep, plus PER-CHC 2 pw eff. 09 Dec ??)
(del. 16 Aug, available for long haul by 01 Sep ?)

09. AKL-NRT-AKL -- 3 pw ----- 1 aircraft
(eff. 01 Dec ? overnight in each direction, so 6 aircraft days required)
(del. 21 Oct, available for long haul by 06 Nov ?)

From what 'sunrisevalley' said about EDTO 240 on the 789 being approved about May 2015, then EDTO 330 should be achieved 12 months later about May 2016.

PA515
 
zkncj
Posts: 4279
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Sat Jan 30, 2016 5:21 am

Quoting PA515 (Reply 124):
07. AKL-???-AKL --- 3/4 pw --- 1 aircraft
(eff. 17 Jun -- EZE?) not IAH or YVR which are 5 pw. HNL is up to 5 pw so only 2 aircraft days available.
(del. 15 Jul, available for long haul by 31 Jul ?)

Maybe AKL-ORD-AKL? long shot, but with the increase of others into the market. By starting an new route, would help them maintain some of the market share.

Would ORD provide some decent 1-stop connections to the EU?
 
zkncj
Posts: 4279
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Sat Jan 30, 2016 5:31 am

http://www.jetstar.com/nz/en/about-us/our-performance

Looks like JQNZ still haven't published there December 2015, anyone know whats up with that?

Are trying to avoid there Q300 OTP being published?
 
ZKSUJ
Posts: 6888
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 5:15 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Sat Jan 30, 2016 5:41 am

Quoting PA515 (Reply 124):

YVR, surely
 
zkncj
Posts: 4279
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Sat Jan 30, 2016 5:56 am

Quoting ZKSUJ (Reply 127):
YVR, surely

Isn't YVR now daily? also if they gave YVR an 789 were would he 772 go, maybe another new route?
 
PA515
Posts: 1673
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Sat Jan 30, 2016 6:35 am

Quoting zkncj (Reply 125):
Maybe AKL-ORD-AKL? long shot, but with the increase of others into the market. By starting an new route, would help them maintain some of the market share.

Probably an existing route changing to a 789. My first thought was EZE, but with AKL-SFO getting a daily UA 789 and AKL-LAX getting a daily AA 789, maybe Air NZ will use a 789 3 or 4 pw on one of these routes.

There's still a new route to be announced 'in the new year'.

ZK-MCA has finally been repainted and is presently BNE-CHC.

http://fnqskies.blogspot.co.nz

PA515
 
User avatar
NZ107
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:51 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Sat Jan 30, 2016 7:04 am

Quoting PA515 (Reply 129):
AKL-LAX getting a daily AA 789

Only 788 to start.
 
ZKOJH
Posts: 1504
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:51 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Sat Jan 30, 2016 7:31 am

I just love the thrills of guess where the 772 will go as more and more 787's arrive , plans are to up YVR to daily on the 787 and release the 772 back into the network,
with the likes of EZE to get an increase maybe 5x weekly - this route seems to be doing well,

I think they need to bed down the IAH route first before thinking about expanding the US market.

Vietnam is going to be a 763 could they change it ? how are forward bookings doing so far?

Think we are looking at more then "1" new route this year. MNL and XXX just looking at the "Pacific Rim" where can you fly a 772 too?!

1) Papua new Guinea 2) Indonesia 3) South Korea 4) Taiwan - but think BR might have plans here.

Maybe something will come to light next month.
 
kiwiandrew

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Sat Jan 30, 2016 8:40 am

^ I can potentially see PNG down the track with the A320NEO. I am not sure it would need to start with a widebody.
 
ZKSUJ
Posts: 6888
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 5:15 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Sat Jan 30, 2016 11:31 am

ICN would be up there I would imagine, With KE twice daily atm. CGK, a return to KIX? Who knows
 
zkncj
Posts: 4279
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Sat Jan 30, 2016 5:14 pm

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 131):
1) Papua new Guinea 2) Indonesia 3) South Korea 4) Taiwan - but think BR might have plans here.

NZ already fly to Indonesia, they have a couple times an week AKL-DPS service sessionally with an 763.
 
User avatar
SelandiaBaru
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 2:39 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Sat Jan 30, 2016 5:51 pm

Quoting zkncj (Reply 134):
Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 131):

GA had a MOU with AIAL to establish service to Auckland. That was in 2014. GA overextended themselves and got behind the curve somwhat which as the economy has faltered in Indonesia they have had to adjust.

There is capacity though with the A330 to give AKL a tilt and NZTE and the Embassy have certainly put in the work to encourage it, the market is there. But at the moment with the way the Indonesian economy is it's probably too much of a gamble for GA or NZ as far as AKL-CGK is concerned.

DPS works well for NZ as I always thought it would because there always was the traffic there to support it. I think it will continue to grow. But with CGK the relationship with SQ may restrict it for NZ. SQ runs around 10 flights a day on SIN-CGK, all 777s and there has always been a respectable amount of connecting traffic off the AKL flights onto the CGK hops.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Sun Jan 31, 2016 12:31 am

Quoting PA515 (Reply 129):
My first thought was EZE

I think you are right .



Quoting zkncj (Reply 125):
Maybe AKL-ORD-AKL

If ORD is to happen then I believe it must wait for a version with more premium seats.

Perhaps ICN would work with the present seat layout.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2204
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Sun Jan 31, 2016 3:04 am

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 131):
I just love the thrills of guess where the 772 will go as more and more 787's arrive

Weren't the 787s intended to replace the 772s in the fleet? Should we expect to see some 772s being retired??

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 136):
Perhaps ICN would work
Quoting ZKSUJ (Reply 133):
ICN would be up there I would imagine, With KE twice daily atm. CGK, a return to KIX? Who knows
Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 132):
I can potentially see PNG down the track

All of course, entirely possible and potentially viable. But I'm not getting the impression that any of these markets are goldmines waiting to be tapped. Cheap airfares on existing services to all these destinations are already readily available. I think we can forget about any new North America routes now that IAH has come online.

It'd be nice if NZ could come up with something tangential like SQ did with WLG-CBR-SIN. PVG-BNE-ZQN anyone?  
 
zkncj
Posts: 4279
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Sun Jan 31, 2016 3:15 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 137):
Weren't the 787s intended to replace the 772s in the fleet? Should we expect to see some 772s being retired??

The original 787 orders we;re to replace the 763, in fact they ordered first two 7E7-8 at the same time they placed he order for the 772.

Quoting gasman (Reply 137):
It'd be nice if NZ could come up with something tangential like SQ did with WLG-CBR-SIN. PVG-BNE-ZQN anyone?  

ZQN can't take anything larger that an A320/738, and I'm sure you don't want to fly ZQN-BNE-DRW-PVG on an A320?
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8435
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Sun Jan 31, 2016 5:56 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 136):
Perhaps ICN would work with the present seat layout.

NZ is unlikely to go up against KE. That would be foolish fighting for the crumbs on that market.. KE has that mature market and they have home market advantage. NZ is obviously looking for developing markets they can grow without such formidable opposition.

The 77W and 789 won't be far from seeing a new/additional configuration I don't think..

The upgrade to the 77E fleet of 4 to cope with EDTO330/EZE was a considerable investment, so I don't think we're talking EZE. I think it's more likely to be utilised on removing any 77E shorthaul sectors to RAR/NAN/BNE/SYD if it isn't utilised on a new route.
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 1140
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:05 am

Quoting coolian2 (Reply 121):

I also wouldn't be blown away by domestic 787-8s Population growth and no airport growth points one way. Especially with Jetstar nipping away - and VA or Tiger will jump if they see the yields.

I'm likely wrong, but who wouldn't love it?

I doubt we'll see widebodies on the trunk routes anytime before 2030. We'd have to see basically all AKL-WLG-CHC routes done by A321s before widebodies will be considered.

But yeah, I can totally see AKL-CHC turning into a widebody route before I'm dead. AKL-WLG by that time would likely be staring down a high speed rail route depending on the government in power at the time. If you can fill multiple B788s or A332s then it's probably worth considering high speed rail between the two.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8435
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Sun Jan 31, 2016 1:09 pm

Quoting ZaphodHarkonnen (Reply 140):
I doubt we'll see widebodies on the trunk routes anytime before 2030

I don't think it will. for a number of reasons.

- The A321NEO or equivalent will slaughter the economics of widebodies on 45min-90min flights. 4 crew vs 9 crew for example, 70% of seat capacity for half the fuel burn, lack of belly cargo (can be served by 321s easily). Take the Philippines for example. Manila 10-12million, Cebu 2-3 million. I used to fly MNL-CEB on A330-300s, 747-400s and A340s, 777-300s also reasonably common even 3-5 years ago. Cue the A321 deliveries, now the widebodies are gone from this routing..

- The cost of using longhaul aircraft on short rotations is that you have to replace them so much faster. The reason the 762 ended up on domestic was because they were at the end of their operational lives so it didn't matter any more.

- Fuel is low for the moment. That will not last indefinitely

- AKL/WLG are tiny little airports which don't have space for such aircraft, nor the inclination to build bigger and better things. Better to have 6 A321 gates than 3 787 gates to serve more markets

- The population of New Zealand would need to be far more than what it is now to even stand a chance of widebodies on some markets. AKL would need to be 6-8million, CHC 3 million and WLG 2 million TRG/HLZ/PMR/NPE/DUD 1million
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Sun Jan 31, 2016 4:02 pm

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 139):
The 77W and 789 won't be far from seeing a new/additional configuration I don't think..

come again on this, please....  
 
Gasman
Posts: 2204
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Sun Jan 31, 2016 8:36 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 142):
Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 139):
The 77W and 789 won't be far from seeing a new/additional configuration I don't think..

come again on this, please....  

He probably means a step away from the high density config to cater for high yielding routes. If so, I would agree.

On the 77W the Y product, apart from being too cramped, is pretty competitive. The Y+ seat was an experiment that while it is unlikely to be repeated, still seems to be commanding high fares and loadings. J, on the other hand, across the fleet is starting to look decidedly "last decade". Positives - as a lie flat it's pretty comfortable. Every seat has direct aisle access. Negatives - it lacks privacy, lacks width and lacks storage space. In seat mode the recline is inadequate. Screen size and resolution are below par. There's no massive urgency but I would bet we'll see the rollout of a completely new J product within the next five years.

On the 789, J manages to feel even more cramped. Y+ is a winner. And 9 abreast on Y (haven't flown it) looks every bit as inhumane as 10 abreast on the 77W.

In my opinion, with the flood of new carriers and new routes entering the market, NZ are going to have to start competing with hard & soft product improvements.
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 1140
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Sun Jan 31, 2016 9:12 pm

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 141):

- AKL/WLG are tiny little airports which don't have space for such aircraft, nor the inclination to build bigger and better things. Better to have 6 A321 gates than 3 787 gates to serve more markets

I think this would be the biggest restriction. If traffic grows large enough then both are going to need to expand the terminals as WLG is nowhere near runway movement capacity yet. Though AKL is supposed to have a second runway at some point in the medium term.

But I also think for AKL-WLG if the load is getting to that point a non National government would seriously explore high speed rail. Not only would you connect AKL and WLG but you could link up Hamilton and Palmerston North as well. Which would take a big chunk out of the AKL-WLG market as long as travel time was similar.

However that's at least a couple decades away so no point in exploring it any further right now.  

As for CHC-anywhere then air is going to rule for at least a hundred years more. You'd have to put in a tunnel under the Cook Strait and that isn't happening even in my lifetime. And CHC has more room to expand their terminals than WLG.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1910
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Sun Jan 31, 2016 9:19 pm

Quoting ZaphodHarkonnen (Reply 144):
But I also think for AKL-WLG if the load is getting to that point a non National government would seriously explore high speed rail.

Seriously cannot see that. The terrain is such that to achieve anything remotely like "high speed" would require huge amounts of capital expenditure that would dwarf any other civil engineering project hands down. I cannot imagine any government - left or right - would have the kind of money that might be needed.
 
zkncj
Posts: 4279
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Sun Jan 31, 2016 9:29 pm

Quoting ZaphodHarkonnen (Reply 144):
But I also think for AKL-WLG if the load is getting to that point a non National government would seriously explore high speed rail. Not only would you connect AKL and WLG but you could link up Hamilton and Palmerston North as well. Which would take a big chunk out of the AKL-WLG market as long as travel time was similar.

Don't think it would be very cost effective, with the current air model it costs the government zero capital investment with an 15% return (GST).

AKL-WLG on an Typical Monday.

NZ x20
0600
0700
0730
0810
0840
0900
0945
1045
1200
1200
1335
1425
1525
1700
1730
1755
1840
1910
2015

JQ x7
0525
0700
0730
1005
1335
1645
1845

With Air New Zealand at 20x Daily, and Jetstar 7x times daily can the route handle much more?

NZ - 3,420 Seats
JQ - 1,239 Seats
Total 4479 Daily Seats
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 1140
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Sun Jan 31, 2016 10:03 pm

Quoting zkncj (Reply 146):
Don't think it would be very cost effective, with the current air model it costs the government zero capital investment with an 15% return (GST).

If it gets to the point of any major runway investment being required then central government will likely be roped in.

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 145):
Seriously cannot see that. The terrain is such that to achieve anything remotely like "high speed" would require huge amounts of capital expenditure that would dwarf any other civil engineering project hands down. I cannot imagine any government - left or right - would have the kind of money that might be needed.

I'm not saying it would be cheap.   As for the terrain high speed rail can ascend and descend much steeper slopes compared to normal rail.

But I agree that it isn't going to even be thought about for ages. AKL and WLG would basically have to be bursting at the seams before HSR would be considered by anyone. And even if you do increase the terminal size at WLG you're eventually going to run into the problem of space as there's basically none in WLG. At that point there would have to be serious discussions of moving the airport. Then you would have to explore how to get people into the CBD quickly from all the way out by Paraparaumu or Wairarapa.

But again, we're looking so far into the future a crystal ball would tell us to be careful.  
 
coolian2
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:34 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Sun Jan 31, 2016 10:17 pm

I'm of the belief that in the mid future we should focus on rail being for freight and getting trucks off the road.

Once it's a viable option for rail to be a choice vs flying we're more likely going to be able to cater to passengers and freight.
 
zkncj
Posts: 4279
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171

Sun Jan 31, 2016 10:23 pm

Quoting ZaphodHarkonnen (Reply 147):
But I agree that it isn't going to even be thought about for ages. AKL and WLG would basically have to be bursting at the seams before HSR would be considered by anyone. And even if you do increase the terminal size at WLG you're eventually going to run into the problem of space as there's basically none in WLG. At that point there would have to be serious discussions of moving the airport. Then you would have to explore how to get people into the CBD quickly from all the way out by Paraparaumu or Wairarapa.

Wouldn't the golf course just make way for the airport to expand if needed?

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