New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172

Zkpilot · Sun Feb 07, 2016 7:34 pm

#171 New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 171 (by NZ1 Jan 21 2016 in Civil Aviation)
has quickly passed 200 posts so on to #172.

In #171 there was discussion about CX bringing the A350 to AKL.
Great Barrier and Kiwiair linking up with each other.
NZ to bring RNP in a world first to their ATRs in a $15m deal.

[Edited 2016-02-07 11:35:39]

[Edited 2016-02-07 11:37:44]

Andrensn · Sun Feb 07, 2016 8:18 pm

Why is it the cross runways 11 and 29 at CHC that have RNP approaches while the main runways 02 and 20 do not?

zkncj · Sun Feb 07, 2016 8:21 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 203):
As I understand RNP, it is desirable at NZQN , Aotearoa has referred to one developed by NZ and the regulator for OEI out of WLG towards Haywards. That makes sense.But why NZRO and NZCH ? At this time is RNP into NZQN confined to the A320?

ZQN RNP can currently be used 737/A320 families provided the operating airline has the relevant equipment/approval todo so.

Currently RNP into ZQN, can be used by
NZ A320 (Domestic & Intentional Configuration)
JQ A320
VA 738
QF738

Previous to that NZ have RNP on an couple of the 733s that we're used into ZQN, can't remember if JetConnect had it on the 733/734 into ZQN.

With the likes of ROT & CHC, RNP will provide the airline with add flexibility to keep operating in weather conditions that will currently limit operations e.g. Fog.

Most New Zealand airports don't have the likes of ILS (only AKL,WLG,CHC,DUD), so by having more RNP across the fleet it will help improved performance in bad weather, when the Jetstar Q300 gets grounded.

zkncj · Sun Feb 07, 2016 8:33 pm

Quoting Andrensn (Reply 1):
Why is it the cross runways 11 and 29 at CHC that have RNP approaches while the main runways 02 and 20 do not?

Likely that have something thing todo with 02/20 having ILS, when 11/29 don't have ILS.

http://aip.net.nz/pdf/NZCH_41.1_41.2.pdf

mariner · Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:20 pm

I've been debating the Singapore WLG-CBR with myself and it achieved a personal resonance this week.

I have to go to a family and chums reunion near Albury, NSW, at the end of April, not a long drive from Canberra. The answer seemed easy - go to Wellington to see old chums there and then hop over to Canberra on SQ. It would be very leisurely and attractive to me.

It was a sweet dream, but only a dream and very brief, because the route won't have started by then.

I very much hope that Air NZ does come to the party on this, by way of codeshare, because unless I'm going to central Sydney (which isn't often) I'd probably use CBR as my preferred NSW airport (absent NTL) even if is from WLG, and I'm still puzzled that it's taken a foreign airline to come up with anywhere in NZ to CBR.

mariner

zkncj · Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:37 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 4):
I very much hope that Air NZ does come to the party on this, by way of codeshare, because unless I'm going to central Sydney (which isn't often) I'd probably use CBR as my preferred NSW airport (absent NTL) even if is from WLG, and I'm still puzzled that it's taken a foreign airline to come up with anywhere in NZ to CBR.

Interesting one as an quick look on VA website for OCT-NOV doesn't look like they are selling the codeshare on the SQ WLG-CBR service that was announced.

The VA website seems to want to still sell you either WLG-SYD-CBR or WLG-SYD-CBR. I wonder if it has become an complicated mess between NZ/VA and SQ on the side? and wether the NZ/VA agreement prevents VA codeshareing on the Tasman with NZ's approval?

mariner · Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:57 pm

Quoting zkncj (Reply 5):
Interesting one as an quick look on VA website for OCT-NOV doesn't look like they are selling the codeshare on the SQ WLG-CBR service that was announced.

It seems that the Virgin codeshare is only to be on CBR-SIN, at least initially:

http://newsroom.virginaustralia.com/...ore-airlines-new-canberra-services

"As part of the alliance between the two airlines, Virgin Australia will codeshare on Singapore Airlines flights between Canberra and Singapore, providing Virgin Australia customers with greater access to Asia and Europe."

I don't understand the technicalities - or legalities - of it, but if Air NZ hasn't yet put its code on WLG-CBR, I guess that may inhibit Virgin?

For me, the destination trumps the airline and the aircraft. I'd even forgo my favourite ride - the A380 on Emirates - in favour of CBR.

NTL would be up there in my book, too, on anywhere on the central NSW coast.

mariner

[Edited 2016-02-07 14:02:45]

zkeoj · Sun Feb 07, 2016 10:14 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 4):
because the route won't have started by then.

Do you know when they will start? I just looked July/August, and get the message "There are no flights and/or seats available for the journey you've selected. Change your selections or get in touch with your local Singapore Airlines office."

Cheers
micha

OOPS, found it - from September onwards Sad

The good news I found while looking is that they'll start SIN-DUS on the A350 - that is very attractive to me!

[Edited 2016-02-07 14:17:26]

zkncj · Sun Feb 07, 2016 10:27 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 6):
NTL would be up there in my book, too, on anywhere on the central NSW coast.

Surely AKL-NTL-AKL could probably work 2-3 weekly with an A320 or E190? if AKL-MCY-AKL seems to be doing ok, maybe 2016 is time for NZ/VA to add another Tasman route?

mariner · Sun Feb 07, 2016 10:36 pm

Quoting zkncj (Reply 8):
Surely AKL-NTL-AKL could probably work 2-3 weekly with an A320 or E190? if AKL-MCY-AKL seems to be doing ok, maybe 2016 is time for NZ/VA to add another Tasman route?

If I had my druthers, they'd have a small subfleet of A319Neo - five, maybe - specifically for routes like NTL, CBR and HBA, maybe some domestic.

Assuming A320 family already in the fleet, the A319Neo is a good aircraft for thinner routes and they'd get 'em for a comparative song from Airbus.

mariner

sunrisevalley · Sun Feb 07, 2016 11:21 pm

Gasman from previous thread...on SH1

I'm going to take an alternate view. I think there is justification, and it probably could have and should have happened a long time ago

If the leaders of the first NZL Labor Govt. had not been such idealogues they would have accepted the offer of the US Military to build a new road from Auckland to Wellington during WW 2.

zkncj · Sun Feb 07, 2016 11:32 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 10):
I'm going to take an alternate view. I think there is justification, and it probably could have and should have happened a long time ago

Who is going to pay for it? Air travel costs to government nothing its completely user pays, and infact the New Zealand earn an nice little divined from NZ every year.

To build an new road between Auckland and Wellington, it would cost billions of dollars that they would have to fork for. Where as with Auckland and Wellington airport both being privately owned, they don't have pay for any infrastructure towards it. NZ & JQ both fund the purchases of there own A320s, and pay Airways fee's to cover the cost of the ATC.

There's probably more important things for the country to pay for than, and road between Auckland and Wellington that doesn't provide much commercial return.

sunrisevalley · Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:27 am

Quoting zkncj (Reply 11):
To build an new road between Auckland and Wellington, it would cost billions of dollars that they would have to fork for

Nope, it could be a Toll road built by the private sector. Let them risk their capital and take a chance that motorists will pay in tolls what is need to retire the debt and provide a return commensurate with the risk.

aerokiwi · Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:42 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 12):
Nope, it could be a Toll road built by the private sector. Let them risk their capital and take a chance that motorists will pay in tolls what is need to retire the debt and provide a return commensurate with the risk.

Except under NZ legislation (I think - happy to be corrected) tolls can only be imposed on a road where there is a free alternative available.

So you'd end up with a situation similar to France - a tolled autoroute with a "free" national highway. Except in New Zealand, you'd have nowhere near the traffic volumes to justify this kind fo duplicaiton. So there'd be little propsect of profit and, thus, little likelihood of private sector interest.

Quoting mariner (Reply 9):
If I had my druthers, they'd have a small subfleet of A319Neo - five, maybe - specifically for routes like NTL, CBR and HBA, maybe some domestic.

Assuming A320 family already in the fleet, the A319Neo is a good aircraft for thinner routes and they'd get 'em for a comparative song from Airbus.

But isn't it the old adage that you get extra revenue earning potential for theprice of an extra flight attendant? I'd love to see these routes too but I don't think you need a sub-type to service them. Especially, as I suspect, most of the NEOs on order will become 321s.

PA515 · Mon Feb 08, 2016 1:53 am

Are Air NZ 77W's ZK-OKM and ZK-OKP getting repainted in SIN next month?

From the schedule it's looking like:
First one ------ AKL-SIN Su 06 Mar, SIN-AKL Fr 18 Mar (12 days)
Second one -- AKL-SIN We 16 Mar, SIN-AKL Mo 28 Mar (12 days)

PA515

mariner · Mon Feb 08, 2016 2:26 am

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 13):
But isn't it the old adage that you get extra revenue earning potential for theprice of an extra flight attendant?

Oh, probably, there are a lot of old adages. But you need to be able to fill the extra seats.

An airline can make more money with the A321 than the A320 and more money with the A320 than with the A319, but in each case, they have to be able to fill the extra seats, and on thin routes that can be problematic.

The A319 isn't going to happen at Air NZ - I know that - but it's something I'd love to see.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 13):
Especially, as I suspect, most of the NEOs on order will become 321s.

I'd be surprised about that. The A321Neo is selling (1000 plus) like hot cakes - but the A320Neo is still the top seller (3000 plus) and partly for the reason given above.

mariner

aerokiwi · Mon Feb 08, 2016 3:24 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 15):
I'd be surprised about that. The A321Neo is selling (1000 plus) like hot cakes - but the A320Neo is still the top seller (3000 plus) and partly for the reason given above.

I guess in terms of incremental growth. I think the Tasman and Pacific Island routes could undoubtedly handle another 30-40-odd seats per flight. Probbaly preferable for the airlines than upping frequencies.

Quoting mariner (Reply 15):
An airline can make more money with the A321 than the A320 and more money with the A320 than with the A319, but in each case, they have to be able to fill the extra seats, and on thin routes that can be problematic.

I always hoped they would've got a subfleet too, I love those little guys. But I guess weighing up the benefits of standardising on one type versus the cost of empty seats makes standardisation a preferable outcome. Which kinda contradicts the 321 argument, but oh well

mariner · Mon Feb 08, 2016 3:56 am

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 16):
guess in terms of incremental growth. I think the Tasman and Pacific Island routes could undoubtedly handle another 30-40-odd seats per flight. Probbaly preferable for the airlines than upping frequencies.

Oh, sure. I fully expect them to order more A321's. Just - not all of them.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 16):
I always hoped they would've got a subfleet too, I love those little guys. But I guess weighing up the benefits of standardising on one type versus the cost of empty seats makes standardisation a preferable outcome.

A number of airlines around the world have longed for an economically feasible (stand-alone) sub-100 seat jet, which is why there was so much hope for the E190. It hasn't really worked out because it's slightly more expensive (seat/mile) to run than the A320, but can't earn as much, at least at JetBlue.

The best choice for any airline that operates the A320 family would be the A319 because it has complete commonality with the A320/A321 - they can mix and match at will - but I think that ship sailed some time ago. The A319Neo is presently "out of favour" and is the worst seller of the Neo family - even the 50 sold in Wiki is 2 frames too high - so Airbus would likely be open to a great deal on price.

mariner

[Edited 2016-02-07 20:24:27]

PA515 · Mon Feb 08, 2016 4:11 am

ZK-OKF has had a problem soon after takeoff and is returning to EZE after dumping fuel off the coast.

PA515

PA515 · Mon Feb 08, 2016 6:45 am

Quoting PA515 (Reply 18):

ZK-OKF has just departed EZE again as ANZ31D. Thought they might be out of crew time after wasting 3 hrs 20 min.

Tried posting the link but flightradar24 says the flight has already landed or is out of the coverage area!

PA515

zkojq · Mon Feb 08, 2016 7:19 am

I finally finished my 737 Retirement Flight trip report:
Air New Zealand's 737 Retirement Flight (by zkojq Feb 4 2016 in Trip Reports)

Apologies that it took so long, but I've been rather busy since then.

sunrisevalley · Mon Feb 08, 2016 3:57 pm

Quoting PA515 (Reply 19):
ZK-OKF has just departed EZE again as ANZ31D. Thought they might be out of crew time after wasting 3 hrs 20 min.

The ANZ news makes no reference to NZ31 returning to EZE; it simply says there was a delay in departure. I don't know how accurate this source is considered to be.

SXI899 · Mon Feb 08, 2016 4:54 pm

Quoting Unclekoru (Reply 202):
Runway 11 at NZCH also has an RNP AR approach.

Is this an operator specific one? I didn't see it in the AIP or our Jeppesen coverage.

I can see RNP approaches providing a great advantage for operations into the regional ports where adding a ground based precision approach is not cost effective. Additionally, is JQs Q300s are not RNP capable, that'll give NZ a jump on them when the weather is below the minima for non-precision approaches.

PA515 · Mon Feb 08, 2016 5:19 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 21):
The ANZ news makes no reference to NZ31 returning to EZE; it simply says there was a delay in departure. I don't know how accurate this source is considered to be.

Don't know where http://www.thenzsource.com gets it's info from. NZ31 is 'delayed' but that's not the whole story.

ANZ31 & ANZ31D can be played back here:
http://www.flightradar24.com/data/airplanes/zk-okf

ANZ31 did not go above 6,000 ft and the aircraft was on it's way again after 1 hr 50 min on the ground.

PA515

sunrisevalley · Mon Feb 08, 2016 6:20 pm

Quoting PA515 (Reply 23):
ANZ31 did not go above 6,000 ft and the aircraft was on it's way again after 1 hr 50 min on the ground.

almost sounds like an EDTO requirement that went wrong during takeoff that was fixable quite quickly.

SXI899 · Mon Feb 08, 2016 6:31 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 24):
Quoting PA515 (Reply 23):
ANZ31 did not go above 6,000 ft and the aircraft was on it's way again after 1 hr 50 min on the ground.

almost sounds like an EDTO requirement that went wrong during takeoff that was fixable quite quickly.

Avherald has the reason as being the landing gear failing to retract. Rumour is someone forgot to remove the pins!

sunrisevalley · Mon Feb 08, 2016 6:50 pm

Quoting SXI899 (Reply 25):
Rumour is someone forgot to remove the pins!

if this is so, at what point in the process should this have happened?

SXI899 · Mon Feb 08, 2016 7:20 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 26):
Quoting SXI899 (Reply 25):
Rumour is someone forgot to remove the pins!

if this is so, at what point in the process should this have happened?

The downlock gear pins (to prevent retraction while on the ground) are part of the preflight inspection with most companies that I know of, and are supposed to be stowed in the cockpit (should also be part of the cockpit preparation checklist). For those two reasons, I can't imagine that these were the culprits.
Best bet is the steering bypass pin, which is inserted for pushback. The pushback crew is supposed to remove and display it to the crew, but late at night it could have been forgotten and missed. That would prevent the nose gear from retracting.

aerorobnz · Tue Feb 09, 2016 12:00 am

Quoting PA515 (Reply 19):
Thought they might be out of crew time after wasting 3 hrs 20 min.

It won't have been crew hours. If they had replaced the crew in an outstation like EZE with only one crew it would have been a minimum of 12h.
They would have burned some fuel, landed, and then the issue was a pin would have been easy to resolve, inspect for damage and then top up fuel. A hydraulic leak or something like that in the gear would have taken substantially more time,

sunrisevalley · Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:27 pm

So far as I can see and for whatever reason the IAH passenger statistics report for December does not include AirNZ. Has anyone had better luck than I on this search?
Does anyone know where to look for EZE passenger statistics ?

Gasman · Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:55 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 4):
I'm still puzzled that it's taken a foreign airline to come up with anywhere in NZ to CBR.

I know. Whenever a New Zealand to CBR route was mooted previously by QF or NZ, it would be rapidly dismissed with a slight element of contempt. Who'd therefore have thought that the route would somehow make *more* sense to a third party national carrier??

But someone at SQ saw the big picture - and I'd love to have been a fly on the wall when the idea was mooted. Take an under-served international airport (WLG) and provide a service to SIN that is at least no more inconvenient than existing options; and at the same time with the same aircraft tap into two other markets in waiting - ie. WLG-CBR and CBR-SIN. Brilliant.

sunrisevalley · Tue Feb 09, 2016 11:15 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 30):
Who'd therefore have thought that the route would somehow make *more* sense to a third party national carrier??

very much for FWIW. First I believe SIN is in a great position to evaluate the outbound traffic potential for CBR and WLG given all the feeds they have coming into Changi. QF/NZ would not have this advantage in my view. If you believe what has been coming out of WIAL they have had SIN interested for a number of years. Probably CBR have been working on SIN for a considerable period also. SIN's service to CHC suggests they are not adverse to serving smaller markets and are likely to continually monitor identified potential city pairs. I am not sure if the putting together the two city pairs into one route is a stroke of genius or whether it is the result of looking at two city pairs of interest , in front of a map and realizing they can be connected. I believe SIN is playing the odds that there will be a runway extension and this is an opportunity to get their foot in the door at little or no expense and build a base of support.

zkncj · Wed Feb 10, 2016 7:14 am

Looks like Jetstar New Zealand, has finally published its December 2015 and January 2016.

December: 64.4%
January: 65.2%

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

Air New Zealand, hasn't published January yet.

December Jet: 90.8%
December Prop: 84.6%

Top

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net