Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Nouflyer
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 9:38 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Tue Feb 16, 2016 12:20 pm

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 75):
Yay lets waste everyone's time listening to something that pretty much no-one on the flight will understand (when it is hard enough as it is to get passengers to pay attention to safety demonstrations etc)!

I don't really dispute your assertions, but unfortunately they are in direct conflict with the law of the land.

The Waitangi Tribunal's deliberations are binding for all matters up to 1840. And in 1986 it found that Te Reo Maori was one of the Taonga whose role is protected by and enshrined within the Treaty of Waitangi.

By that time only around 50,000 people could speak Maori, but really you should be grateful that common sense means that you don't in reality endure a Quebec style language dictatorship, including on board aircraft. Because if the law prevailed over common sense you would!
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2797
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Tue Feb 16, 2016 1:27 pm

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 96):
The market has already spoken otherwise and the market wants cheap over a meal - well over half a flight can be of the no meal variety. The full carriers across the ditch are the ones which at least offer the option.

I find the current NZ fares frustrating because they don't really provide a choice. Make everything an add-on, I reckon. That way, I can get a meal if I want, but not pay for baggage. Or I can opt for movies and a bag, but no meal. Or full ticket flexibility, but no other additions.

Instead, what you have now is prescribed categories that they market as "greater choice", when in fact it's no such thing.

So either revert back to the old system (unlikely) or make everything beyond the seat an optional add-on.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Tue Feb 16, 2016 8:03 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 94):
-Shorthaul - I'd get rid of the entire "works" model. Every seat gets a meal & movies. Return to a J product in the A320s along the lines of the product they had previously.

We've had this debate before but I love the Works.  
Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 101):
I find the current NZ fares frustrating because they don't really provide a choice. Make everything an add-on, I reckon. That way, I can get a meal if I want, but not pay for baggage. Or I can opt for movies and a bag, but no meal. Or full ticket flexibility, but no other additions.

I'm sympathetic to the idea. The US ULCC Spirit Airlines has - or had - an interesting breakdown of what people don't take up:

http://ir.spirit.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=922290

"Other results of the survey, conducted by Toluna Research for Spirit Airlines:

25% of air travelers did not bring a carry-on
20% skipped the snack (peanuts, chips, etc.)
21% said no to coffee, tea, or soda
40% didn't read the in-flight magazine
41% didn't check-in with an agent
52% didn't use WiFi (however other surveys suggest WiFi usage is below 10%)"


I don;t usually take a carry on (except what is called a "personal item"). But a number of the ULCC's are turning to a form of bundling - the basic fare plus certain options, not unlike the Works.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 97):
Token multiculturalism is a problem all over NZ. Multiculturalism should come naturally not something which is forced, and boy do we love forcing it down people throats.

Token? Perhaps minorities see it differently, some of us at least.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Topic Author
Posts: 4549
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Tue Feb 16, 2016 8:47 pm

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 89):

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 83):
It's not a matter of harm, more that it is unnecessary and just more verbal diarrhoea

I think I would take strong offence if an announcement in my preferred language was described by other, non-speakers as "verbal diarrhoea", whatever the necessity or otherwise of the announcement. Perhaps a little cultural sensitivity is called for . . . ?

More referring to the overall waffle that comes out.... as in anything that adds to that is more verbal diarrhoea. In this case te reo would be adding to that as it is unnecessary in this context.

Man people just love to take (and find) offence in EVERYTHING these days!   
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Topic Author
Posts: 4549
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Tue Feb 16, 2016 8:56 pm

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 100):
The Waitangi Tribunal's deliberations are binding for all matters up to 1840. And in 1986 it found that Te Reo Maori was one of the Taonga whose role is protected by and enshrined within the Treaty of Waitangi.

The Waitangi Tribunal is a Kangaroo Court who's only purpose is to promote Maori interests. It virtually never makes a ruling against Maori no matter the circumstance. It should be disbanded immediately.

Just because te reo is enshrined does not mean it has to be used by anyone at all except for the government (and even the government only needs to use it in certain circumstances). Air NZ is a private company so it is not required.
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:08 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 102):
I love the Works
We know, but we were talking about NZ's inflight product  

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 104):
The Waitangi Tribunal is a Kangaroo Court who's only purpose is to promote Maori interests. It virtually never makes a ruling against Maori no matter the circumstance. It should be disbanded immediately

Completely agree. The word "tribunal" implies professionalism and impartiality. As far as that outfit is concerned, none exists.

Quoting mariner (Reply 102):
I don;t usually take a carry on (except what is called a "personal item"). But a number of the ULCC's are turning to a form of bundling - the basic fare plus certain options, not unlike the Works.

I understand the philosophy behind unbundling - I do. Why should passenger X be forced to pay for a meal when he doesn't want one??

However - it's not that simple. With meals, for example, what is really happening is that the airline is giving a passenger a discount to pay lip-service to the passenger's perceived need for self determination. The "meal infrastructure" still exists, the major costs still have to be met by the airline. Does the airline really save $20 because the passenger in 26D doesn't want a meal? Hardly.

A similar argument goes for checked bags, but that can be taken even further. Why should user pays exist for weight in that format, but I still have to subsidise the passenger who is carrying on 50kg more biomass than I am??

There will never be a completely fair system, and there will come a point where the act of unbundling creates a layer of huge complexity in itself, and actually will do nothing except to satisfy peoples' need to know they are not subsidising some other bastard's meal/baggage/movies.

Which is why I tend towards the other extreme. Create one product, one offering (within the boundaries of Y/Y+/J/F). Accept that not everything I've paid for I want or need, but it'll all come out in the wash in the end. And if I perceive I'm not getting value for money, I'm welcome to try what's on offer from another airline.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:28 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 105):
Which is why I tend towards the other extreme. Create one product, one offering (within the boundaries of Y/Y /J/F). Accept that not everything I've paid for I want or need, but it'll all come out in the wash in the end. And if I perceive I'm not getting value for money, I'm welcome to try what's on offer from another airline.

Well - perhaps. It may work but it flies in much of the face of the US and European experience and, like others, I think the market has spoken - given that there can always be tinkering.

I'm happy with he choices I have now, given that I wish Air NZ would tutu with its catering and take it up a notch. But I also wish Emirates would take its J catering up a notch, too. Maybe I've been unlucky.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
Gasman
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:40 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 106):
I also wish Emirates would take its J catering up a notch, too. Maybe I've been unlucky.

You haven't.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Topic Author
Posts: 4549
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Wed Feb 17, 2016 1:07 am

NZ upping flights between AKL and WLG/CHC

CHC will be an extra 18% capacity while WLG will be an extra 3%. Simplifies and tidies up the schedule too.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...land-enhances-main-trunk-schedules
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 973
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Wed Feb 17, 2016 1:14 am

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 108):
NZ upping flights between AKL and WLG/CHC

CHC will be an extra 18% capacity while WLG will be an extra 3%. Simplifies and tidies up the schedule too.

I smell some domestic A321's in time.
77West - AW109S - BE90 - JS31 - B1900 - Q300 - ATR72 - DC9-30 - MD80 - B733 - A320 - B738 - A300-B4 - B773 - B77W
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Topic Author
Posts: 4549
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Wed Feb 17, 2016 1:49 am

Quoting 77west (Reply 109):
I smell some domestic A321's in time.

That's almost a certainty! In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of AKL-WLG/CHC flights aren't operated by A321NEO in 10 years time... The sector distances are quite short so range isn't an issue and an A321NEO costs pretty much the same as an A320NEO to operate yet has a bigger capacity (particularly for freight). It's a bit of no-brainer really.
10 frames should do it.
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Wed Feb 17, 2016 1:50 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 107):
You haven't.

which EK sectors have you found the J catering to be below par? Just TT ?
 
Gasman
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Wed Feb 17, 2016 3:47 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 111):
which EK sectors have you found the J catering to be below par? Just TT

Trans Tasman, AMS-DXB, DXB-SYD. And don't get me started on the wine selection. I know, I know, one doesn't travel to the Gulf states for their appreciation of the finer nuances of the fermented grape; but a chilled Cabernet Sauvignon???

Quoting xiaotung (Reply 95):
Is herringbone config the problem? The Zodiac seats are one of the best seats I have experienced on the likes of BR and CX. I look forward to VA's new seats on their 77W's as well. If NZ would use these seats in their next upgrade, I would be thrilled.

Herringbone is part of the problem. It's a way of cramming in J seats while still providing direct aisle access which is why airlines like NZ do it (and why airlines like SQ don't). It lacks privacy, you're staring into the aisle at a row of faces and feet; and if someone starts a conversation anywhere near you, you can throw your serenity out the window (in the herringbone config, you'd have to twist yourself around to do that). The privacy issue could be helped on NZ if the partitions between seats were 6 inches or so higher.

And yes, the seat product itself is starting to look decidedly last decade. It doesn't recline far enough in seat mode, there's insufficient storage space, and the IFE is low-res and smaller than most.

The hard products on EK (A380), SQ and arguably even QF leave NZ's for dead. Even KL's new J product is better. I'd expect a renewal of NZ's to be announced sometime in the next 18 months.

[Edited 2016-02-16 19:47:57]

[Edited 2016-02-16 19:49:11]
 
nz2
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:38 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Wed Feb 17, 2016 4:21 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 93):
Longhaul
- Simplify the special meal options and tie it in with a rollout of a paid meal option at a higher spec. If you want special meals it should be at the higher spec.
- Get rid of the Y+ Space Seats on the 77W and replace them with the newer 787 style seats.
- Get rid of the herringbone C Cls
- Reduce the front sky couch rows and add 5 rows of 3-3-3 Economy priority seat rows for elite recognition
- Add inflight WIFI to compete with the best airlines

Sounds good, esp the herring bones, or at least turn them to face the window like CX have done, this will provide good privacy, that is one aspect of the space seat I did like in a window seat
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 973
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Wed Feb 17, 2016 4:33 am

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 110):
That's almost a certainty! In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of AKL-WLG/CHC flights aren't operated by A321NEO in 10 years time... The sector distances are quite short so range isn't an issue and an A321NEO costs pretty much the same as an A320NEO to operate yet has a bigger capacity (particularly for freight). It's a bit of no-brainer really.
10 frames should do it.

I wonder how many of their upcoming order will be changed to A321. They said 3 will definitely be A321 but I expect more.

That said, the upcoming order is supposed to be for Intl. fleet

PS - Is anyone here using the Westpac World Airpoints card? I got mine today and am pretty impressed at the airpoints earning rate!
77West - AW109S - BE90 - JS31 - B1900 - Q300 - ATR72 - DC9-30 - MD80 - B733 - A320 - B738 - A300-B4 - B773 - B77W
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Wed Feb 17, 2016 5:32 am

Quoting 77west (Reply 114):
They said 3 will definitely be A321 but I expect more.

The A321 will clean up a large chunk of worldwide NEO orders long term in the same way that the 77W did over the 77E. I expect two-thirds+ of NZ international fleet will be A321s,. Domestic A321 use will likely depend on using spare Intl capacity at domestic peaks rather than a specially ordered fleet. I'm sure there will be two Intl configurations of A321, one all Y220 (like LA use theirs on routes like SCL-EZE) for use to BNE/OOL/ADL/NAN/APW/TBU etc and the other will be more in line with a 763 replacements with say 12J/15U/180Y for T-T Intl connection flights to SYD/MEL. The remainder will be A320s for routes like AKL-NLK(which I want to see become an ATR72-600) WLG/CHC-BNE, AKL-VLI (runway rebuild permitting), AKL-NOU,WLG-NAN
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 973
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Wed Feb 17, 2016 5:42 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 115):
The A321 will clean up a large chunk of worldwide NEO orders long term in the same way that the 77W did over the 77E. I expect two-thirds+ of NZ international fleet will be A321s,. Domestic A321 use will likely depend on using spare Intl capacity at domestic peaks rather than a specially ordered fleet. I'm sure there will be two Intl configurations of A321, one all Y220 (like LA use theirs on routes like SCL-EZE) for use to BNE/OOL/ADL/NAN/APW/TBU etc and the other will be more in line with a 763 replacements with say 12J/15U/180Y for T-T Intl connection flights to SYD/MEL. The remainder will be A320s for routes like AKL-NLK(which I want to see become an ATR72-600) WLG/CHC-BNE, AKL-VLI (runway rebuild permitting), AKL-NOU,WLG-NAN

I agree the A321 and especially the NEO version is a beast of a plane. I would not count some domestic only A321 out of the mix, perhaps after the international fleet is all delivered. By that stage domestic traffic could warrant a few dedicated frames.

Why do you want NLK to become an ATR? I just had a fried spend a week there and even though the outbound flight on sunday was cancelled due to fog / WX the eventual return was pretty full, as was the inbound, apparently.

Are the ATR's even ETOPS certified? What would their diversion airports be for NLK?
77West - AW109S - BE90 - JS31 - B1900 - Q300 - ATR72 - DC9-30 - MD80 - B733 - A320 - B738 - A300-B4 - B773 - B77W
 
kiwiandrew

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Wed Feb 17, 2016 5:42 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 115):
I'm sure there will be two Intl configurations of A321, one all Y220 (like LA use theirs on routes like SCL-EZE) for use to BNE/OOL/ADL/NAN/APW/TBU etc and the other will be more in line with a 763 replacements with say 12J/15U/180Y



You are expecting NZ to have a 3 class narrowbody ? That seems at odds with surveys they reportedly sent out to some high value customers where it appeared they were talking about the possibility of either a small J or U product , but not both.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Wed Feb 17, 2016 5:53 am

Quoting 77west (Reply 116):
Why do you want NLK to become an ATR?

4-5 a week rather than rather than a weekly flight....

Quoting 77west (Reply 116):
What would their diversion airports be for NLK?

AKL. and SYD-NLK is AKL too.

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 117):
You are expecting NZ to have a 3 class narrowbody ?

When I say U Class I mean basically Y class with a bit more room
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 973
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Wed Feb 17, 2016 6:02 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 118):
4-5 a week rather than rather than a weekly flight....

Right, I thought it was daily. Sadly I hadn't actually heard of NLK until my mate went over...

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 118):
AKL. and SYD-NLK is AKL too.

Could an ATR carry enough fuel to get to NLK and back to AKL if need be? Seems pushing it. That would be a 5 hour flight...

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 118):
When I say U Class I mean basically Y class with a bit more room
Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 117):
You are expecting NZ to have a 3 class narrowbody ?

I expect if they do go 3-class, it wont be anything like the 787 or 77W PE, but more like what Rob suggests, normal 3-3 Y with a bit more leg room.

The J would probably be more like the 787 PE.
77West - AW109S - BE90 - JS31 - B1900 - Q300 - ATR72 - DC9-30 - MD80 - B733 - A320 - B738 - A300-B4 - B773 - B77W
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Wed Feb 17, 2016 7:21 am

Quoting 77west (Reply 119):
That would be a 5 hour flight...

flight time was only 1h45 last week which is a little shorter than usual.. Gambier to Papeete by Air Tahiti has a sector time of 4h over water!! Payload restricted possibly, but the aircraft is capable
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 973
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Wed Feb 17, 2016 9:05 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 120):
flight time was only 1h45 last week which is a little shorter than usual.. Gambier to Papeete by Air Tahiti has a sector time of 4h over water!! Payload restricted possibly, but the aircraft is capable

But that's 1.45 on an A320... an ATR72 may take 2.5hr for the same trip (just spitballing here)

EDIT: Meaning a 5hr return trip if the weather goes to crap.

[Edited 2016-02-17 01:06:56]
77West - AW109S - BE90 - JS31 - B1900 - Q300 - ATR72 - DC9-30 - MD80 - B733 - A320 - B738 - A300-B4 - B773 - B77W
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4444
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Wed Feb 17, 2016 9:21 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 115):
I'm sure there will be two Intl configurations of A321, one all Y220

Only 220 in Y, when the aircraft can hold 240? That'd be awfully generous of them.  
First to fly the 787-9
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Wed Feb 17, 2016 10:58 am

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 122):
Only 220 in Y, when the aircraft can hold 240? That'd be awfully generous of them.

Using LA as an example.
http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/LAN...lines/LAN_Airlines_Airbus_A321.php

Quoting 77west (Reply 121):
an ATR72 may take 2.5hr for the same trip

yes probably, an e175 is probably about the right size and spec for NLK.
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3976
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Wed Feb 17, 2016 4:35 pm

Quoting 77west (Reply 119):
Could an ATR carry enough fuel to get to NLK and back to AKL if need be? Seems pushing it. That would be a 5 hour flight...
Quoting 77west (Reply 121):
But that's 1.45 on an A320... an ATR72 may take 2.5hr for the same trip (just spitballing here)

Its doable the F27 used to do it before the 732/733/320 did it, also when they have send the ATR to Townvisle for an repaint they flew AKL-BNE dirrect in around 5-6hours.
 
Jetstar315
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 5:54 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Wed Feb 17, 2016 10:42 pm

I used to crew the F27 and subsequent jets from AKL to NLK and return.
On a number of occasions we would call at Kaitaia in NZ's far north on the outbound leg to top up with fuel before leaving NZ. However that was only if we faced high winds on the northbound leg.
 
User avatar
csturdiv
Posts: 1996
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 10:33 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Wed Feb 17, 2016 10:45 pm

This might have been covered before, but the search tools here are not the best. Why does NZ seem to keep their A320sl examples on domestic routes? I would've thought they would use the sharkletted examples on their longer international routes.
An American expat from the ORD area living and working in SYD
 
Jetstar315
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 5:54 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Wed Feb 17, 2016 10:45 pm

I meant to add in my previous post, out alternate for NLK on the F27 was Noumea which was closer than returning to AKL.
 
Jetstar315
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 5:54 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Wed Feb 17, 2016 10:51 pm

In reply to csturdlv:
the sharklet equipped examples are CEOs which will be the standard domestic aircraft (fitted with a few more seats than the non-sharklet examples), and the international fleet is being replaced with a mix of sharklet equipped A320/A321 NEOs with deliveries commencing Aug 17.
 
User avatar
csturdiv
Posts: 1996
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 10:33 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Wed Feb 17, 2016 10:53 pm

Cheers for the info Jetstar315
An American expat from the ORD area living and working in SYD
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Topic Author
Posts: 4549
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Wed Feb 17, 2016 11:35 pm

Quoting csturdiv (Reply 129):
Cheers for the info Jetstar315

They are also missing a few other things that the intl birds have installed apparently (IIRC some comms equipment)
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
Nouflyer
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 9:38 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Thu Feb 18, 2016 12:21 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 120):
flight time was only 1h45 last week which is a little shorter than usual.. Gambier to Papeete by Air Tahiti has a sector time of 4h over water!! Payload restricted possibly, but the aircraft is capable

Auckland to Norfolk is shorter than Air Tahiti's ATR-72 flight to Rarotonga and Brisbane-Norfolk is shorter than Air Tahiti's Marquesas and Gambier ATR flights.

But those flights overfly countless alternates, including Hao in French Polynesia where the Rainbow Warrior bombers were supposedly imprisoned and where Concorde once stopped!

But why operate an ATR to the limits of its range with all the risks involved, when an A320 can operate the same flight quickly and efficiently?
 
PA515
Posts: 1614
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Thu Feb 18, 2016 1:22 am

Quoting Jetstar315 (Reply 125):
I used to crew the F27 and subsequent jets from AKL to NLK and return.

Did you crew with Peter C of Campbells Bay? Went to his place about 1978 to get some fish he brought back from NLK.

Only F27-500's ZK-NAN and ZK-NAO did NLK. I believe there was a large life raft at the front of the pax cabin and reduced seating as a result.

From memory the schedule was Tue Thu Sun departing AKL about 1000 and returning about 1530, so the aircraft was available for morning and evening peak services. There were some extra flights around school holidays as quite a few NLK kids went to boarding school, university etc in NZ.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 131):
But why operate an ATR to the limits of its range with all the risks involved, when an A320 can operate the same flight quickly and efficiently?

Frequency. One flight a week is unsatisfactory. Any visitors from NZ have to stay a week, when three or four days might be all they want. And for the NLK locals, only one international connection via AKL.

PA515
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1231
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:26 am

OK, here is my Jetprop and OTP experience yesterday:

Booked and scheduled:
JQ 373 AKL-NSN 08:50 10:15
JQ 376 NSN-AKL 17:25 18:50

Actual:
JQ 373 pushed back at 12:35 and JQ 376 just before 21:00! Granted, the weather was nasty, and NZ had delays at NSN as well, but none that bad, except one cancellation NSN-WLG (and put passengers on NSN-AKL-WLG!). I was a dreadful day.

The positve: JQ's often criticised customer service was not bad. They were friendly, helpful and apologetic. At both sides they handed out refreshment vouchers (which NZ didn't in NSN - not sure about AKL since they are at the other end of the terminal).

Cheers
micha
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Thu Feb 18, 2016 6:07 am

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 131):
But why operate an ATR to the limits of its range with all the risks involved, when an A320 can operate the same flight quickly and efficiently?

The A320 is far too big for the average flight from AKL. The SYD/BNE-NLK flights are subsidised on behalf of the Norfolk govt/ in lieu of Norfolk jet express. If they put the contract up for tender to another arline they wouldn't be continued by NZ I'm sure.
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2797
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Thu Feb 18, 2016 8:11 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 105):
However - it's not that simple.

I understand your point about economies of scale and fixed costs etc, but Easyjet, Ryanair etc are proving it can be simplified. Perhaps because they built it from the ground up?

Quoting gasman (Reply 112):
Herringbone is part of the problem.

I never understood why they chose to face the window seats inwards.

Quoting Jetstar315 (Reply 125):
I used to crew the F27 and subsequent jets from AKL to NLK and return.
On a number of occasions we would call at Kaitaia in NZ's far north on the outbound leg to top up with fuel before leaving NZ. However that was only if we faced high winds on the northbound leg.

Wow I never knew that. Thanks!
 
Gasman
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Thu Feb 18, 2016 7:13 pm

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 135):
Quoting gasman (Reply 105):
However - it's not that simple.

I understand your point about economies of scale and fixed costs etc, but Easyjet, Ryanair etc are proving it can be simplified. Perhaps because they built it from the ground up?

That would be my explanation, yes.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 135):
Herringbone is part of the problem.

I never understood why they chose to face the window seats inwards.

Because otherwise you'd be sleeping with your head in the aisle, and I personally would find that disconcerting. So would the flight crew be excessively nervous about bumping heads as they walked past. It wouldn't work.

It could be made better if they provided a bit more seat width and storage, and raised the height of the partitions between seats. But on the 777, I'd actually prefer a good forward facing 2-2-2 (or bliss! - SQ's 1-2-1) config than anything herringbone.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Thu Feb 18, 2016 10:19 pm

Although it verges on being a puff piece, this article about the new Emirates non-stop AKL-DXB has some quite interesting stuff in it. I'm intrigued by the idea they may put a longer range A380 on the route - assuming they get 'em.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ticle.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11592100

"Emirates readies for NZ's longest haul"

But I was more intrigued by this:

"Many passengers from the sub-continent, Africa and the Middle East need transit visas for the 90-minute stop in Australia which deterred them from travelling here."

I've been aware, for years, that the US can be fussy about transit visas but I didn't know about Australia, I had no reason to know. Does anyone know if they are required here in NZ, if only for certain nationalities?

mariner

[Edited 2016-02-18 14:37:59]
aeternum nauta
 
Jetstar315
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 5:54 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Thu Feb 18, 2016 10:49 pm

In reply tp PA515:
Yes I crewed with Peter - He was a Captain and I was a flight attendant.
ZK-NAN and ZK-NAO were fitted with 2 rows in 2+2 config. Rows11 and 12 at the front were removed for the NLK service and replaced with galleys on both sides as we had to take return catering. The liferaft pallet was strapped onto 1AB at the rear so it was near the door just in case!! Two return services a week were for Air NZ and 2 for Qantas as we had replaced their DC4 services.

So pax load was 38 when full - luxury!!
We did several rounds of pre lunch drinks, poured fresh cream from a silver jug on passenger desserts, bought fresh bread and cream to take to the NLK staff etc etc - oh those were the days!!
 
kiwiandrew

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Thu Feb 18, 2016 10:53 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 137):
I've been aware, for years, that the US can be fussy about transit visas but I didn't know about Australia, I had no reason to know.

When Thai used to fly AKL-SYD-BKK it used to be a nightmare for agents and travellers as the transit stop did not show on the ticket, but many nationalities (Lao/Cambodian/Vietnamese and Russian in particular spring to mind from memory) required transit visas for the privilege of spending 90 minutes at SYD airport.

I imagine for EK it is even worse due to their vast network. They are the only online carrier for many destinations out of NZ and as many travellers prefer to stick to one airline for their whole journey as much as possible that makes them very attractive to lots of travellers ( wouldn't touch the airline with a bargepole, myself - I was very unimpressed with them) .

Quoting mariner (Reply 137):
Does anyone know if they are required here in NZ, if only for certain nationalities?

I read something the other day on another website which said that Chinese nationals travelling SCL-SYD vv on LAN require transit visas for New Zealand.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Thu Feb 18, 2016 11:11 pm

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 139):
I read something the other day on another website which said that Chinese nationals travelling SCL-SYD vv on LAN require transit visas for New Zealand.

Thanks. I suppose it can be justified but it seems bit odd to me as long as they don't "enter" the country.

I haven't transmitted at AKL for yonks and wouldn't need a visa anyway, but years ago, when I lived in Australia and flew to the US via AKL, transits were kept in what - I assumed - was a sterile area, but maybe my memory is faulty. I do remember a pleasant lounge, though, and not having to go through border control.

mariner

[Edited 2016-02-18 15:12:07]
aeternum nauta
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1231
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Fri Feb 19, 2016 12:28 am

Quoting Jetstar315 (Reply 138):
Yes I crewed with Peter - He was a Captain and I was a flight attendant.
ZK-NAN and ZK-NAO were fitted with 2 rows in 2+2 config. Rows11 and 12 at the front were removed for the NLK service and replaced with galleys on both sides as we had to take return catering. The liferaft pallet was strapped onto 1AB at the rear so it was near the door just in case!! Two return services a week were for Air NZ and 2 for Qantas as we had replaced their DC4 services.

So pax load was 38 when full - luxury!!
We did several rounds of pre lunch drinks, poured fresh cream from a silver jug on passenger desserts, bought fresh bread and cream to take to the NLK staff etc etc - oh those were the days!!

Thanks so much for sharing, Peter! I could listen to you all day long (with great envy   )!

Cheers
micha
 
PA515
Posts: 1614
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Fri Feb 19, 2016 12:31 am

Quoting Jetstar315 (Reply 138):

Sounds like fun. One of my flatmates was from NLK and his parents knew Peter quite well. He once did a wing waggle over the Orakei basin for him on a return flight.

Did you have two F/A's for 38 pax? And were the days of operation Tu Th Sa Su?

Anyway, an ATR72-600 would need some modifications for NLK. HF radio, larger galley, liferaft, extra cargo space. But good use of an aircraft during the off peak hours.

PA515
 
Jetstar315
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 5:54 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Fri Feb 19, 2016 2:47 am

Yes, I'm almost certain those days are correct and yes we operated with 2 FA's - In the days of the F27 it was definitely my favourite duty! The ONLY difference in the catering when operated for QF was that we had QF paper napkins and on the NZ days we had NZ paper napkins!!! I remember doing one trip and as a lady got off at NLK she suddenly realised she had forgotten to buy a ticket in that night's NZ lottery and it was an unusually big first prize up for grabs. I suggested to her that we'd be back in AKL in time for me to buy it for her, so she gave me the cash and I bought it on the way home later that afternoon. The next Saturday I went to NLK and she joined the flight there back to AKL. She was thrilled when I handed over her ticket but of course never heard whether or not she had a win!! The F27 gave us the opportunity to offer a very personal service with only 38 pax and up to 3 hours flight time each way!
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2797
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Fri Feb 19, 2016 3:57 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 136):
Because otherwise you'd be sleeping with your head in the aisle, and I personally would find that disconcerting. So would the flight crew be excessively nervous about bumping heads as they walked past. It wouldn't work.

Wait, what? I'm pretty sure there are airlines with window-facing herringbone. Cathay Pacific and American, I think. No?

Quoting Jetstar315 (Reply 143):
Yes, I'm almost certain those days are correct and yes we operated with 2 FA's - In the days of the F27 it was definitely my favourite duty! The ONLY difference in the catering when operated for QF was that we had QF paper napkins and on the NZ days we had NZ paper napkins!!! I remember doing one trip and as a lady got off at NLK she suddenly realised she had forgotten to buy a ticket in that night's NZ lottery and it was an unusually big first prize up for grabs. I suggested to her that we'd be back in AKL in time for me to buy it for her, so she gave me the cash and I bought it on the way home later that afternoon. The next Saturday I went to NLK and she joined the flight there back to AKL. She was thrilled when I handed over her ticket but of course never heard whether or not she had a win!! The F27 gave us the opportunity to offer a very personal service with only 38 pax and up to 3 hours flight time each way!

Wow that's a fantastic story! Ha! Kind of plays into the "small world" vibe of New Zealand back then. Must have been very cool compared to how impersonal things get now.
 
xiaotung
Posts: 1087
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:58 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Fri Feb 19, 2016 4:40 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 136):
Because otherwise you'd be sleeping with your head in the aisle, and I personally would find that disconcerting. So would the flight crew be excessively nervous about bumping heads as they walked past. It wouldn't work.

It could be made better if they provided a bit more seat width and storage, and raised the height of the partitions between seats. But on the 777, I'd actually prefer a good forward facing 2-2-2 (or bliss! - SQ's 1-2-1) config than anything herringbone.



If you have a look at the design of the window facing Zodiac seats used on CX, AA, BR, VA, etc you will find that your head is protected by the seat frame and it would be extremely difficult to put your head in the aisle. What I like about these seats above NZ and SQ is that you don't have to get up to convert your seat into a lie flat bed so that you don't need to bother the flight attendants to set it up especially if you need to do it more than once, perhaps when you find you can't fall in sleep straightaway and maybe want a movie before going down again later.

What I don't like about 2-2-2 configuration is that the window seats have no direct aisle access.
 
ZKOJH
Posts: 1502
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:51 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Fri Feb 19, 2016 9:35 am

"Air NZ $4 fares sold out in minutes"

More than 100 Air New Zealand $4 flights were snapped up within minutes by keen domestic travellers this afternoon.
The airline's Grabaseat website had flights one-way flights between Auckland and Gisborne, Blenheim and Christchurch,
Wellington and Christchurch and the capital and Napier.


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ticle.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11592466
Air New Zealand ~ dreams of flying
 
PA515
Posts: 1614
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Sat Feb 20, 2016 12:38 am

Quoting Jetstar315 (Reply 143):

Thanks for the memories. Found some photos of ZK-NAN and ZK-NAO at NLK.

ZK-NAN:
http://www.aussieairliners.org/f-27os/new%20zealand/zknan.html

ZK-NAO:
http://www.aussieairliners.org/f-27os/new%20zealand/zknao.html

PA515
 
ZKOJH
Posts: 1502
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:51 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Sat Feb 20, 2016 1:48 am

"Passenger count boosts airport profit"

Auckland International Airport reported muscular interim results yesterday, with profit and revenue experiencing
double-digit rises, and brushed aside disclosures this week that it was chasing a former employee over $1.84 million in "unexplained transactions".
The country's largest airport reported a 25 per cent lift in first-half profit due to increasing passenger numbers from a rise
in tourism, as it plans to spend up to $260 million this financial year to expand facilities.

Net profit rose to $115.8 million in the six months ended December 31, from $92.8 million a year earlier, the
Auckland-based company said in a statement. Revenue for the national gateway rose 12 per cent to $280.6 million.

On Wednesday the company issued a statement to the NZX reporting that an investigation by auditors
EY had discovered at least $1.84 million in unexplained transactions, resulting in a complaint to authorities and the
start of civil action against a former employee. The Serious Fraud Office is now investigating the case.


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ticle.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11592547
Air New Zealand ~ dreams of flying
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Sat Feb 20, 2016 2:27 am

So a Capex of $260m but none of it for gates or air bridges, Sounds like they are in the duty free business, not in the efficient movement of passengers business.

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