New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 173

Zkpilot · Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:36 am

#172 New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 172 (by Zkpilot Feb 7 2016 in Civil Aviation)
went quickly so on to #173!

Main points from previous thread:
Air NZ announces a massive profit increase and goes into detail about how the programmes they have put into place have helped get this result. They expect full year profit to be north of $800m.
NZ also hinting at another Asia destination (long rumoured to be MNL or ICN) one of which would account for half the planned long haul growth so that means that there is one more destination outside of Asia to be announced.

On the other side of the Tasman QF also had a record profit and VA is improving.
QF growing JQ in NZL and also increase TT services.

mariner · Fri Feb 26, 2016 3:46 am

Here's a radio interview with Mr. Luxon on Bloomberg:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos...gy-is-participating-in-tourism-ceo

He doesn't really say anything much new, but he does provide some colour, such as a 16% increase in flying with only a 12% increase in fuel consumption. He talks about fuel hedging in a very rational way.

He reiterates the success of EZE and IAH, saying they have been "positive to the network from Day 1" and he does confirm that a new route will be announced in a couple of months, although he gives no clues a to where.

mariner

[Edited 2016-02-25 19:48:07]

PA515 · Fri Feb 26, 2016 4:50 am

The Air NZ 2016 Interim has a previously unannounced 17th domestic A320 for delivery between 01 Jul and 31 Dec 2016. The 16th domestic A320 (ZK-OXL (c/n 7086), is due in May 2016.

Slide 22: Aircraft capital expenditure, 'Fleet on order'
Airbus A320 --- 2. (2H2016FY --- 1, 2017FY --- 1)
http://airnewzealand.co.nz/assets/PD...6-interim-analyst-presentation.pdf

Page 13: Capital Commitments. "two Airbus A320s (delivery in 2016 calendar year)"
http://airnewzealand.co.nz/assets/PD...016-interim-shareholder-review.pdf

PA515

Zkpilot · Fri Feb 26, 2016 7:27 am

With the success of IAH in particular along with other new destinations/up gauging etc how long until we see another 77W or 2? I'd imagine IAH would be a good candidate to move up to the 77W with its extra range and greater payload capabilities.
Say daily AKL-LAX-LHR, AKL-LAX, AKL-IAH, AKL-SFO for the 77W fleet.

aerorobnz · Fri Feb 26, 2016 8:16 am

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 3):
Say daily AKL-LAX-LHR, AKL-LAX, AKL-IAH, AKL-SFO for the 77W fleet.

May as well go the whole hog and get another 8 and wipe out the leases on the 772. The demand for IAH/YVR/EZE/HKG/SIN would be sufficient to warrant the switch provided the 77Ws came delivered with revised PE not space seats, as they are delivered they can continue to use the 77E while they retrofit the existing fleet, then retire the 772 and hey presto, bigger aircraft with equal costs = more competitive prices across the already expanding network.

Alternative to retirement of 772s is they can make the 772 denser and with fewer premium seats for SYD,BNE,MEL,RAR, NAN, APW, DPS, MNL

Motorhussy · Fri Feb 26, 2016 8:54 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 4):
Alternative to retirement of 772s is they can make the 772 denser and with fewer premium seats for SYD,BNE,MEL,RAR, NAN, APW, DPS, MNL

Wonder if a weekly AKL-APW-LAX will be on the cards again at some point. And is there demand on YVR and EZE for a daily 77W or would the 789 be better?

Zkpilot · Fri Feb 26, 2016 9:26 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 4):
May as well go the whole hog and get another 8 and wipe out the leases on the 772. The demand for IAH/YVR/EZE/HKG/SIN would be sufficient to warrant the switch provided the 77Ws came delivered with revised PE not space seats, as they are delivered they can continue to use the 77E while they retrofit the existing fleet, then retire the 772 and hey presto, bigger aircraft with equal costs = more competitive prices across the already expanding network.

Good point. I guess there are a few factors:
1) Cost... 77W aren't the cheapest aircraft to buy especially compared to a depreciated 77E.
2) Availability... Would 8 even be available in the next 3 years? After 3 years no point might as well wait for the 779.
3) Operating costs... Yes there is more revenue to be made if you can sell the seats/freight but if you can't then it does still cost more to operate (things like landing charges, insurance etc too).

On the flip side it would standardise the fleet further and provide capacity growth etc. a good option to consider.

aerokiwi · Fri Feb 26, 2016 10:48 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 1):
He reiterates the success of EZE and IAH, saying they have been "positive to the network from Day 1" and he does confirm that a new route will be announced in a couple of months, although he gives no clues a to where.

Ooooo have they finally got around to assessing a route's merit on its contribution to the overall network rather than simply as a stand-alone route? Hope so, makes far more sense.

PA515 · Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:04 pm

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 3):
Say daily AKL-LAX-LHR, AKL-LAX, AKL-IAH, AKL-SFO for the 77W fleet.

AKL-SFO could be about to lose the 77W to AKL-IAH.

From 01 Aug to 29 Oct 2016 there's only one 77W used on AKL-SFO. The NZ schedule after 29 Oct has not been fully updated. For instance AKL-IAH shows as a We Fr Su 77E when it is already a five weekly 77E in the low season.

UA's SFO-AKL We Fr Su 788 eff. 01 Jul changes to a daily 789 eff. 29 Oct, so a significant increase in capacity.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 4):
use the 77E while they retrofit the existing fleet

As only six of the seven 77W's are in use Aug - Oct, there is an opportunity to do that.

PA515

sunrisevalley · Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:14 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 1):
such as a 16% increase in flying with only a 12% increase in fuel consumption

This is the effect of the 789 in the overall flying schedule. For an identical payload/sector time the 789 fuel burn is between 21 and 25% better than the 77E. And this will get better as the RR TEN engine is introduced to the 789.

sunrisevalley · Fri Feb 26, 2016 2:29 pm

Quoting PA515 (Reply 8):
AKL-SFO could be about to lose the 77W to AKL-IAH.

I have wondered about a reduction in 77W frequency should IAH siphon off some of the load from SFO and LAX to the extent that a 77E would suffice as the second flight on many days.
It will be interesting to see how the three 789's to be delivered are utilized. Certainly there is 767 flying to be replaced but I would think the 789 new capacity exceeds this need.

zkncj · Fri Feb 26, 2016 5:54 pm

Quoting PA515 (Reply 2):

The Air NZ 2016 Interim has a previously unannounced 17th domestic A320 for delivery between 01 Jul and 31 Dec 2016. The 16th domestic A320 (ZK-OXL (c/n 7086), is due in May 2016.

Was that not the extra single A320CEO they ordered with A321/320NEO?

Also noticed this hidden at bottom of that page: * Excludes orders of up to five A320/A321 NEOs with purchase substitution rights.

So the A321/320 NEO order is more likely to be 18 than 13?

Mr AirNZ · Fri Feb 26, 2016 7:43 pm

Quoting PA515 (Reply 8):
AKL-SFO could be about to lose the 77W to AKL-IAH.

Don't get too excited, painting and other maintenance activities. The schedules (if they don't already) will at some point reflect a 77W out for April, May and August. Some painting of 200s mid yearish and the bulk from September onwards (although everytime I mention painting, someone goes and changes the plan it seems!).

Quoting zkncj (Reply 11):
Was that not the extra single A320CEO they ordered with A321/320NEO?

The single extra they ordered was OXK so we're up another two additional domestic frames now. OXL in May, OXM in October.

ZK-NBT · Fri Feb 26, 2016 8:33 pm

Quoting Mr AirNZ (Reply 12):

Yep NZ6 only operates 4 weekly some weeks in April May only 2 77W 2 77E.

Quoting PA515 (Reply 8):

I'd think they would get IAH to a daily 77E first which could be next northern winter unless premium demand is super high.

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 5):

APW-LAX was subsidised I doubt that will come back.

NZ107 · Fri Feb 26, 2016 10:24 pm

Quoting PA515 (Reply 8):
From 01 Aug to 29 Oct 2016 there's only one 77W used on AKL-SFO. The NZ schedule after 29 Oct has not been fully updated. For instance AKL-IAH shows as a We Fr Su 77E when it is already a five weekly 77E in the low season.

Well it makes sense to me, seeing UA is coming online.

PA515 · Fri Feb 26, 2016 11:33 pm

Quoting Mr AirNZ (Reply 12):
Don't get too excited, painting and other maintenance activities. The schedules (if they don't already) will at some point reflect a 77W out for April, May and August. Some painting of 200s mid yearish and the bulk from September onwards (although everytime I mention painting, someone goes and changes the plan it seems!).

About a month ago it was a 77W out 06 Mar - 28 Mar, but now it's 06 Mar - 17 Jun and 01 Aug - 29 Oct. So, six and a half months to repaint OKM, OKP and OKQ (14 days each?) and do some maintenance (12 days each?). Could be some time left over.

The gap between the two 77W downtimes coincides with a 77E replacing the 789 on AKL-SIN 17 Jun - 30 Jul.

So far nothing in the website schedule for the SIN 789 from 17 Jun or the 7th 789 for delivery in mid July, but putting the two together means a 789 would be available for another route from 17 Jun.

PA515

sunrisevalley · Sat Feb 27, 2016 12:04 am

Quoting PA515 (Reply 15):
but putting the two together means a 789 would be available for another route from 17 Jun.

If we are talking a long term commitment of a 789 to a route I would call EZE. EDTO-330 will be earned by that time. But time will tell.

NZ107 · Sat Feb 27, 2016 12:06 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 16):

I guess we'll see.. Interesting times ahead.

[Edited 2016-02-26 16:07:56]

ZK-NBT · Sat Feb 27, 2016 12:14 am

Quoting PA515 (Reply 15):

The 789 will be maintanence on the first 3 as they approach a 2 year check I'd imagine.

With UA though it would seem SFO could change to a 772?

NZ107 · Sat Feb 27, 2016 12:52 am

Quoting ZK-NBT (Reply 18):
With UA though it would seem SFO could change to a 772?

I highly doubt it. SYD is moving to all 789s in a few weeks. AKL doesn't warrant F; and I believe SFO isn't a base for any pmCO 772s. They'd also want to make sure their J product is decent, and not the 2-4-2 in the pmUA 772s.

sunrisevalley · Sat Feb 27, 2016 1:11 am

Quoting ZK-NBT (Reply 18):
The 789 will be maintanence on the first 3 as they approach a 2 year check I'd imagine.

are you talking a 2 year check in the context of say, a 77E. Much of the 789 maintenance can be done during time between flights. If a schedule is being used the FAA have approved an interval of 3-years

[Edited 2016-02-26 17:19:18]

[Edited 2016-02-26 17:20:50]

ZK-NBT · Sat Feb 27, 2016 1:13 am

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 19):

Sorry I wasn't clear I meant NZ change SFO to a 772 with UA entering so I was agreeing with you.

NZ107 · Sat Feb 27, 2016 1:19 am

Quoting ZK-NBT (Reply 21):

I wonder if they'd push on and look at opening AKL-SFO-LHR.. In such a situation, they'd need the 77W on that route. And they probably need a few more larger planes. C'mon Boeing, make an offer for the 748 they can't refuse.

sunrisevalley · Sat Feb 27, 2016 1:26 am

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 22):
I wonder if they'd push on and look at opening AKL-SFO-LHR..

as, when and if NZ get 789's with a higher % of premium seating would AKL-SFO-LHR be a possible route.

ZKOJH · Sat Feb 27, 2016 3:19 am

"If" NZ consider a return to Europe - then they would have to change the rules which allow them to fly between the US and the UK, at the moment they are only permitted to fly 7 flights a week - hence the LAX -LHR route, so they can't open up SFO-LHR unless they reduce LAX. A return via Asia again has long gone to much competition. - so one possibility could be to operate into MAN? an extension of the LAX OR SFO service, the problem with this is there is no onward connections from MAN.

mariner · Sat Feb 27, 2016 3:27 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 23):
as, when and if NZ get 789's with a higher % of premium seating would AKL-SFO-LHR be a possible route.

Given the Pacific Rim strategy, together with the reluctance for international one-stops, it seems unlikely.

mariner

Gemuser · Sat Feb 27, 2016 6:58 am

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 24):
rules which allow them to fly between the US and the UK, at the moment they are only permitted to fly 7 flights a week

I believe that this is contained in the UK/NZ bi-lateral, and it may apply to LHR only [not sure about that bit, but I've heard it a couple of times]. Which means NZ could fly to other airports in Europe, if they want to is another question

Gemuser

ZK-NBT · Sat Feb 27, 2016 7:42 am

Quoting gemuser (Reply 26):

I think just the UK not Europe not sure if just LHR. NZ have been daily at LHR via LAX since 1998 they served LAX-FRA until 2001 2/3 weekly.

However I'm not sure NZ will change their minds and add more Europe flights that tie up more aircraft that could offer additional US, Asia services.

sunrisevalley · Sat Feb 27, 2016 1:12 pm

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 24):
the problem with this is there is no onward connections from MAN.

Are you suggesting there are no connections at MAN to and from other cities in Europe?

Kaiarahi · Sat Feb 27, 2016 3:45 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 23):
as, when and if NZ get 789's with a higher % of premium seating would AKL-SFO-LHR be a possible route.

AKL-YVR-LHR would give pax the option of avoiding LAX transit zoo.

sunrisevalley · Sat Feb 27, 2016 4:07 pm

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 29):
AKL-YVR-LHR would give pax the option of avoiding LAX transit zoo.

Would this require changes to the Canada-NZL bilateral? What could NZL offer Canada as an offset? I expect AC could service NZL right now if they wished.

Zkpilot · Sat Feb 27, 2016 8:56 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 30):

Would this require changes to the Canada-NZL bilateral? What could NZL offer Canada as an offset? I expect AC could service NZL right now if they wished.

I guess AC could do MEL-AKL-YVR. Although they could probably do that now if Australia allowed the extra flights.
I guess allowing NZ to do this route would provide public benefit in terms of competition and capacity and that NZ would never be a threat to Canada's interests unlike EK for example.

zkeoj · Sat Feb 27, 2016 9:33 pm

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 29):
AKL-YVR-LHR would give pax the option of avoiding LAX transit zoo.

To be honest, since the new TBIT, and NZ's move there, it is not a big deal anymore. Yes, you have to go through immigration and customs, but it is pretty quick and easy.
On the other hand, last time we landed in YVR (Dec 2014), that WAS a zoo. Man, we were herded into holding pens because immigration queues were so long. I always loved YVR, but the arrival is a nightmare...

And for iternational to/from domestic transfers, this is a massive improvement: http://www.briansumers.com/home/2016...bout-to-get-a-lot-easier-heres-why

[Edited 2016-02-27 13:38:19]

Gasman · Sat Feb 27, 2016 10:44 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 23):
as, when and if NZ get 789's with a higher % of premium seating would AKL-SFO-LHR be a possible route.

Quoting mariner (Reply 25):
Given the Pacific Rim strategy, together with the reluctance for international one-stops, it seems unlikely.

Indeed. And there's no getting away from the fact that LAX remains the cash-cow of the entire Western seaboard, and will be for the foreseeable future. That's how they've been able to get away with facilities worse than you'd typically see at Guantanamo Bay for so long although as zkeoj says, things have recently significantly improved. But SFO-LHR (or anywhere) would be an extremely risky move for NZ.

mariner · Sat Feb 27, 2016 11:45 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 33):
Indeed. And there's no getting away from the fact that LAX remains the cash-cow of the entire Western seaboard, and will be for the foreseeable future. That's how they've been able to get away with facilities worse than you'd typically see at Guantanamo Bay for so long although as zkeoj says, things have recently significantly improved. But SFO-LHR (or anywhere) would be an extremely risky move for NZ.

I think a one-stop is extremely unlikely as the next announcement, but I don't have a long list of cities as to where it might be. Grant Bradley at the Herald keeps saying MNL and he has pretty good sources, so yeh, maybe, why not?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ticle.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11545104

"Beyond Vietnam - Air NZ's next stop

Direct flights to Manila are likely to be added as part of airline’s robust growth strategy."

If IAH is living up to expectations as a virtually untapped market, though, I wouldn't fall over in shock if they added a new US destination at some point in the not too distant future.

mariner

[Edited 2016-02-27 15:51:05]

sunrisevalley · Sun Feb 28, 2016 12:29 am

IAH has pretty good passenger statistics but thus far they do no have NZ up for December and January. I guess they will get them up in due course.

Gasman · Sun Feb 28, 2016 1:08 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 34):
If IAH is living up to expectations as a virtually untapped market, though, I wouldn't fall over in shock if they added a new US destination at some point in the not too distant future.

But where?? ORD is too close to IAH, same goes for DFW. If there is a market for DEN, I really would fall over in shock. Existing aircraft don't have the range for JFK.

If I was instructed to come up with the next NZ destination to the US I'd actually pick LAS, with something like a thrice-weekly 789. It's a fantastic destination in and of itself, with reasonable onward connections to Europe.

aerokiwi · Sun Feb 28, 2016 1:47 am

I'm sort of surprised that MNL would come before Seoul or Taipei. Great that they're experimenting but I'd have thought an established demand base with higher incomes would be more appealing. Or perhaps this is more to do wit where they can send dated 767s, which aren't competitive with airlines out of Korea and Taiwan.

ZK-NBT · Sun Feb 28, 2016 1:55 am

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 37):

I can't see ICN when KE dominate, OZ are there sure but I don't no there's enough demand for 2 carriers on AKL-ICN. TPE is the same with CI though they are 1 stop, BR are based in TPE but does TPE offer anything over HKG? Sure MNL has PR 1 stop but it is a new market with a narrow body and maybe a bigger local market than AKL-TPE?

mariner · Sun Feb 28, 2016 2:41 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 36):
But where?? ORD is too close to IAH, same goes for DFW. If there is a market for DEN, I really would fall over in shock. Existing aircraft don't have the range for JFK.

Not that I'm advocating it, but ORD is1500 km from IAH and it is almost a different world, in a similar way that SFO is different from LAX.

If the trick is to stimulate new markets, then I think ORD would be a go. Or DEN, which has the advantage of being more of a two-way street, a place that Kiwis might want to go for a vacation. I could easily see the glitterati of Auckland invading Aspen - LOL.

Quoting gasman (Reply 36):
If I was instructed to come up with the next NZ destination to the US I'd actually pick LAS, with something like a thrice-weekly 789. It's a fantastic destination in and of itself, with reasonable onward connections to Europe.

No argument from me.

mariner

aerorobnz · Sun Feb 28, 2016 3:19 am

Quoting ZK-NBT (Reply 38):
I can't see ICN when KE dominate

Yep, in the same way that DL dominate ATL or MSP. ICN without assistance from KE has little to offer NZ when they already have links via PVG (NH), PEK (CA) NRT (OZ/NH) and SYD (OZ)..

TPE maybe made sense at one time, but now CI have reestablished TPE-BNE/SYD-AKL and TPE-SYD/MEL-CHC there is little to offer an airline outside Taiwan from flying. CI makes it work by routing via Australia and killing 2 birds with one stone. Nonstop makes less sense.

MNL is more untapped and offers possibilities on VFR, kiwi tourism and business traffic, The Philippines are keen to join the TPPA and are being groomed actively by members. CEB offers a less restricted airport and the ability to start with any of the aircraft in he current fleet.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 37):
perhaps this is more to do wit where they can send dated 767s, which aren't competitive with airlines out of Korea and Taiwan.

Fleet wise I agree, , There is flexibility in the 763 fleet that would allow for this to start straight away . I don't think the dated product has so much to do with it as perhaps you suggest, Even if they had the latest lie flats/IFE they still need to utilise these aircraft or they will sit around doing nothing. They could just as easily take the next few 787s if they so desired and were willing to wait, I think if they will start before PR go nonstop with better slots it is still more likely(MNL is like 0345 arrival)

I increasingly wonder if BKK will feature. TG continues to muddle along, and I think with N.Z originating flight schedules and local carrier advantage the route might improve. If NZ start will TG stay? You can't say the same about KE/ICN, probably not for CI/TPE

I do feel that South America has surprised them for demand, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was another route there soon (not Brazil). The potential for really taking a market and growing it applies to South America almost more than anywhere else that is on the radar.. That for me indicates that it might be sooner rather than later.

Zkpilot · Sun Feb 28, 2016 4:19 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 40):

I increasingly wonder if BKK will feature. TG continues to muddle along, and I think with N.Z originating flight schedules and local carrier advantage the route might improve. If NZ start will TG stay? You can't say the same about KE/ICN, probably not for CI/TPE

Certainly if TG go then NZ would be quite likely to give it a go (especially if TG cooperate). It helps with the hub to South America thing.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 40):

I do feel that South America has surprised them for demand, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was another route there soon (not Brazil). The potential for really taking a market and growing it applies to South America almost more than anywhere else that is on the radar.. That for me indicates that it might be sooner rather than later.

Yes if they can get another route going there then that would solidify the hub between Asia/Australia and South America.

QF175 · Sun Feb 28, 2016 4:46 am

I'd really like to see NZ do something like AKL-BNE-HKT. The latter is a proven market currently devoid of a nonstop option.

ZKOJH · Sun Feb 28, 2016 6:21 am

"sunrisevalley"

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 24):
the problem with this is there is no onward connections from MAN.

Are you suggesting there are no connections at MAN to and from other cities in Europe?

I put this because when I worked for NZ and Rob Fyfe was in charge I asked him this question, why don't you fly to MAN? he replied "we have had a good look at Manchester. The challenge for us is the through traffic – we are at a material disadvantage flying a route where we don’t have a home market at one end of the route. The home market carriers at either end of the Hong Kong – UK market have a material advantage over Air New Zealand in terms of feed, contracted Corporate customers and loyalty schemes and the through traffic to New Zealand is far lower value than the sector traffic "

I was hoping they would pick up the HKG route to MAN but they shot it down, now it's out of the question. CX have it, Onwards from PVG won't happen now has CA are about to start it , if you now look at both LAX/SFO to MAN both of theses routes will start this year flown by Thomas Cook airlines. so there is no real good route for them to try.

Maybe times have changed... but what ever comes out a lot of people will be happy.

aerokiwi · Sun Feb 28, 2016 6:45 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 40):
Yep, in the same way that DL dominate ATL or MSP. ICN without assistance from KE has little to offer NZ when they already have links via PVG (NH), PEK (CA) NRT (OZ/NH) and SYD (OZ)..

It's true that NZ seems to have a preference for competition-free routes, which is understandable and appears to have paid off. But that doesn't mean you can't carve out a niche. These are pretty impressive markets and Korea, at least, as a hometown airline that should partner with NZ nicely (OZ).

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 40):
Fleet wise I agree, , There is flexibility in the 763 fleet that would allow for this to start straight away . I don't think the dated product has so much to do with it as perhaps you suggest, Even if they had the latest lie flats/IFE they still need to utilise these aircraft or they will sit around doing nothing.

Or just park and dispose? Or charters? Say to other Japanese cities? Korea and Taiwan are probably just far away enough that you really have to have a viable premium product, which the 767s clearly do not. Economy is fine though. I wish the intra-Pacific Island markets were viable, though. AKL-TBU-APW-LAX being my favourite. Or maybe outbound-Australia like they're doing with SYD-RAR?

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 40):
I increasingly wonder if BKK will feature.

Not sure I get this logic - Korea is a no because of hometown airline dominance, Thailand is viable despite hometown airline dominance? But you're right - it probably is a very good option for the 767 product, albeit higher risk. Thailand, like Indonesia, really has gone anywhere of late for the New Zealand market. Actually, for quite some time.

aerorobnz · Sun Feb 28, 2016 7:25 am

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 44):
Korea is a no because of hometown airline dominance

TG is a basket case. KE is well run, profitable and hugely popular with their home demographic. It's a matter of picking your targets carefully.

Nouflyer · Sun Feb 28, 2016 9:35 am

Just for the record, and John Macilree might correct me, but my understanding is that in around 2008 the traffic rights were acquired for additional services from the USA to the UK.

I could be wrong - probably am - but I believe that Air NZ cannot operate any more than 7 LAX-LHR services per week, but that there are no longer any other practical restrictions.

I seem to recall that HKG-LHR was tossed up with SFO-LHR - and that the wrong one won.

SelandiaBaru · Sun Feb 28, 2016 11:34 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 45):
TG is a basket case. KE is well run, profitable and hugely popular with their home demographic. It's a matter of picking your targets carefully.

Indeed they are. I flew them last year on a return trip from France to New Zealand. All legs were pretty full A380 and 777 but that might not be saying much given my ticket was a failry sharp price. The 777 need refurbs as do their lounges in BKK. Keeping abreast of their financial situation I was actually worried that my return flight could be cancelled.

While they are trying to turn it around and I'm sure if fuel stays low they have a fighting chance I think NZ would be smart to be lying in wait. As a Star Alliance carrier they could easily pick up the BKK-AKL slack.

Jetstar315 · Sun Feb 28, 2016 2:27 pm

It's interesting to read of the ideas of people as to new routes via the USA/Canada to LHR for Air NZ.

Maybe the time has come to think outside the square and introduce the idea of something completely new! NZ has a good relationship with Etihad Airways through their joint ownership of Virgin Australia, and code shares with them on all Trans Tasman flights operated by NZ, and Australia-AbuDhabi on EY services.

Maybe Air NZ should think of obtaining some suitable aircraft to operate daily AKL-AUH-LHR flights, with EY code sharing on the AKL-AUH sector. Air NZ could then code share with EY on their flights from AUH to a dozen or more major European cities, therefore offering 1 stop services AKL-Europe rather than 2 stop services via LAX and LHR.

QF have proven that their alliance with EK can work very successfully, andy an NZ/EY arrangement could prove equally fruitful to both carriers. They would be perfectly matched in terms of being fish standard legacy carriers.

The route could be reasonably quickly started by leasing in B777-200LRs and swapping them out for B777-8s as soon as they are available. Alternatively some of the B787-9s still to be delivered could be suitably configured to allow operation of these aircraft on this long haul route.

Just an idea……!

Jetstar315 · Sun Feb 28, 2016 2:29 pm

Sorry - typo in 2nd to last paragraph should read "High" standard legacy carrier

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net