New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 173

aerorobnz · Wed Mar 02, 2016 6:39 pm

Quoting VirginFlyer (Reply 99):
While flying AKL-PMR on Saturday, I noticed there were two DHL 757s parked on the DHL apron. Is this normal these days?

One was substituting the other during maintenance which has now been completed. The G- reg left for Darwin and Leipzig last night.

ZKSUJ · Wed Mar 02, 2016 7:17 pm

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 98):
This airport is at least half a decade behind where it needs to be, some would argue more. A shame that blights New Zealand's image

YOu're being mighty kind with half a decade

With Air Asia, AA, UA etc not far away it's gonna get tight!!!

axio · Wed Mar 02, 2016 7:46 pm

I also struggle to see what is hard about building gates 17,18, 19.
Sure, everything requires planning and permission (and money) - but we're not talking about an innovative process here: just copy 15 and 16 and extend it a bit. The tarmac appears ready for it, and presumably the rest of the terminal (security, baggage, retail) can handle it if they are already handling the passengers, but by bus.

NZ107 · Wed Mar 02, 2016 7:57 pm

Quoting axio (Reply 102):

Well it's only going to be 17 and 18... But then they can just build the other side and add another 4 gates. I also don't see what's so hard about that... It's such a letdown to having to use bus gates and I had 2 friends arrive yesterday afternoon on hard stands. They also saw a JQ A320 dock.

NZ107 · Wed Mar 02, 2016 7:58 pm

Air NZ returns seasonally to KIX, 763.

http://www.voxy.co.nz/business/5/245276

Gasman · Wed Mar 02, 2016 7:59 pm

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 98):
This airport is at least half a decade behind where it needs to be, some would argue more. A shame that blights New Zealand's image.

It's become afflicted with the same arrogance for which LAX is renowned. Don't like it?? You can go elsewhere. Oh, wait a moment - you can't.

Zkpilot · Wed Mar 02, 2016 7:59 pm

NZ to resume Osaka flights on a seasonal basis using 763ER (Nov-Mar).

"Air New Zealand to resume Osaka flights
Air New Zealand is pleased to announce it will resume a non-stop seasonal service between Auckland and Osaka, Japan from November 2016.

Using Boeing 767-300 aircraft, the airline will operate three return services per week on Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays between November 2016 and March 2017, subject to government and regulatory approvals.

With a flight time around 11 hours, the outbound service will depart Auckland at 10.25am and arrive at Kansai International Airport in Osaka at 6.00pm, the same day. The inbound flight will depart Osaka at 9.00pm and arrive in Auckland at 12.05pm the following day.

In 2013 Air New Zealand consolidated its services to Japan, suspending the Osaka route and refocusing on growing its Tokyo Narita services. Since that time, Air New Zealand has significantly grown traffic between New Zealand and Japan, creating new demand for a seasonal Osaka service.

Tickets will go on sale soon." - Air New Zealand

thread here: NZ To Resume Flights To KIX (by Zkpilot Mar 2 2016 in Civil Aviation)

[Edited 2016-03-02 12:03:39]

DavidByrne · Wed Mar 02, 2016 8:02 pm

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 106):
NZ to resume Osaka flights on a seasonal basis using 763ER (Nov-Mar).

How many predicted that?

Zkpilot · Wed Mar 02, 2016 8:06 pm

Quoting axio (Reply 102):
I also struggle to see what is hard about building gates 17,18, 19.
Sure, everything requires planning and permission (and money) - but we're not talking about an innovative process here: just copy 15 and 16 and extend it a bit. The tarmac appears ready for it, and presumably the rest of the terminal (security, baggage, retail) can handle it if they are already handling the passengers, but by bus.

Yes exactly. Should have been built almost immediately after 15 and 16 were built.

Quoting davidbyrne (Reply 107):

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 106):
NZ to resume Osaka flights on a seasonal basis using 763ER (Nov-Mar).

How many predicted that?

Yes it's a little bit out of left field. I mean it was always a possibility being that they had operated it before and all but the general presumption is that a route that has been canned was canned for a reason and that they had their eye's on other routes. This opens up the possibility of TPE.

nascarnut · Wed Mar 02, 2016 9:51 pm

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 106):
Air New Zealand to resume Osaka flights

Is this the NEW city or is there another New city to come

nz2 · Wed Mar 02, 2016 10:48 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 91):
I've seen nicer stockyards. The interior is okay, basic holding pen, but the gate area itself a a mass of corrugated iron, doors that are open to the wind and gate numbers that are in descending order, I dread to think how it is in winter

I have used the regional services from AKL quite intensively over the last 7 years and never had any issues, yes you do need to be aware of which way you need to turn coming out the door but it is hardly difficult. The "corrugated iron and doors open to the wind" are certainly better than the zero protection you get at the regional airports! I too enjoy being out in the elements, reminds me of how it was back in the late 60/70's when I flew periodically as a kid but mainly came to see people off, those days only had a roof and chicken wire fences!

zkojq · Wed Mar 02, 2016 11:25 pm

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 98):
AIAL chose to prioritise advertising of EK over operational integrity

How bad was it for other airlines? I noticed that EK had all their A380s lined up at their side of the terminal, presumably meaning that Gate 10 wasn't in use? Or did that just mean that EK were using all the buses, to the detriment of everyone else at a bus gate?

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 106):
Since that time, Air New Zealand has significantly grown traffic between New Zealand and Japan

Really? Not so long ago, the airline was sending 747s there.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Pinkteam

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ryotaro Shinozaki

coolian2 · Wed Mar 02, 2016 11:38 pm

Quoting nz2 (Reply 110):
reminds me of how it was back in the late 60/70's

Back in my day is a bullshit defence, not acceptable.

mariner · Wed Mar 02, 2016 11:45 pm

Quoting nz2 (Reply 110):
I have used the regional services from AKL quite intensively over the last 7 years and never had any issues, yes you do need to be aware of which way you need to turn coming out the door but it is hardly difficult.

It isn't "difficult" at all, and as with many things in NZ, I'm sure it's okay for the people who know the system.

For those you don't know - me - it was confusing, frustrating and time-consuming. I was flying Air NZ, so why would I think I was on a "regional airline," unless I was familiar with the Air NZ corporate structure, of which I'm only vaguely aware and why would a tourist know at all? On the first flight we were told we were on a Star Alliance flight operated b y Air New Zealand - Air Nelson (or whoever it was), never got a mention.

No one - and no piece of paper - suggested to me that it was a separately named terminal, until I asked the kindly pilot.

The fact that the corrugated iron "structure" is better than at some regional airports doesn't make it good, especially for a city the size and wealth of Auckland. You have walk through the open air, in all weathers, at WRE, but at least it's obvious where you're going.

But what the hey, I got there, I survived the Valkyries, I didn't miss any of my flights and I'll know better next time. But I'll still feel a bit sorry for the poor sods who don't know and I'll continue to wonder why is it so hard to let people who are strangers to the system know what the system is.

mariner

[Edited 2016-03-02 16:02:58]

Gasman · Thu Mar 03, 2016 12:14 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 113):
For those you don't know - me - it was confusing, frustrating and time-consuming.

And as you've sanctimoniously said in the last thread, delays don't bother you, you don't own a watch and rarely know what the time is. So "time consuming' I would have thought, would not cause a ripple in your feng-shui? (No - I'm just not going to let it go

)

Quoting mariner (Reply 113):
Air NZ, so why would I think I was on a "regional airline," unless I was familiar with the Air NZ corporate structure, of which I'm only vaguely aware and why would a tourist know at all?

Yes this is interesting. You have an NZ ticket, unadulterated NZ livery is on the aircraft but on every trip at some point you are subtly reminded that you are somehow expected to be aware it isn't really Air New Zealand at all. As if they're saying "it might not matter to you, but it matters to us............"

I actually think the regional facilities at AKL are fine. I don't mind being exposed to the elements for a few seconds (in fact I enjoy walking out onto the tarmac) and although I only use the facilities once or twice a year, I've never had a problem working out which way to turn. But if mariner did, then others must too........ ergo, the signage needs to be better.

mariner · Thu Mar 03, 2016 2:21 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 114):
And as you've sanctimoniously said in the last thread, delays don't bother you, you don't own a watch and rarely know what the time is. So "time consuming' I would have thought, would not cause a ripple in your feng-shui? (No - I'm just not going to let it go &nbsp

I shrug, because I don't understand what point you're trying to make, other than trying for some "gotcha" moment. I don't wear a watch. I arrived for the first WRE flight (knowing it was delayed) more than two hours before departure - I would have been able to catch the original 9.40 flight if it had been leaving on time. Instead, I spent the two hours chatting with some very interesting people.

I didn't really care when I arrived in Wellington, but hopefully before 6 pm for the function I was attending, so mid-afternoon, late afternoon - I had no other reason than the function to be in Wellington. But if I am booked on a flight and it is departing on time, I endeavour to catch it, and the schlep between the R. A. T. and the mainline departure gate made that dicey ("you'd better get a move on"). If I had missed it - as I nearly did - I would likely have got to Wellington at some point that day, even though Air NZ had already made a few bucks out of me on the mater of the "preferred seat" that I didn't get.

It was the unnecessary complication that was frustrating, and it could so easily have been fixed with half way decent signage.

Quoting gasman (Reply 114):
Yes this is interesting. You have an NZ ticket, unadulterated NZ livery is on the aircraft but on every trip at some point you are subtly reminded that you are somehow expected to be aware it isn't really Air New Zealand at all. As if they're saying "it might not matter to you, but it matters to us............"

In the US the airline actually operating the flight must be widely advertised, no matter the brand. So I would have expected the first announcement out of WRE to be "Welcome to this Star Alliance flight operated by Air Nelson." But - it wasn't, they said it was operated by Air New Zealand even though it wasn't. If you don't think that's mildly confusing, you are suddenly being unusually generous to Air NZ.

Quoting gasman (Reply 114):
But if mariner did, then others must too........ ergo, the signage needs to be better.

LOL - even the kindly pilot said it was confusing and I know that at least one other (American) passenger shared my frustration.

mariner

777ER · Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:48 am

Quoting ZKSUJ (Reply 97):
Let's face it AKl is the only real gateway to NZ (CHC is in drabs) and AKL is an embarassment

AKL as the main gateway is certainly an embarrassment and its going to get worse - yet AIAL doesn't care! Its better then IMHO that CHC and WLG get more services (secondary services) which will hopefully force AIAL to up their game.

PlanesNTrains · Thu Mar 03, 2016 6:29 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 114):
And as you've sanctimoniously said in the last thread, delays don't bother you, you don't own a watch and rarely know what the time is. So "time consuming' I would have thought, would not cause a ripple in your feng-shui? (No - I'm just not going to let it go &nbsp

He's not a vagabond, he's just relaxed. lol Still, he doesn't want to miss the flight. He can deal with a delay, not missing his event.

-Dave

SXI899 · Thu Mar 03, 2016 8:21 am

Did a quick comparison between the routings of the first two B77L operated EK448 flights.
Interesting to see the effects of the forecast winds on the routes flown:

The more southerly routing is the 2 March flight, and the northerly one today's (3 March).

NZ107 · Thu Mar 03, 2016 8:45 am

Quoting SXI899 (Reply 118):

The route the A380 took was crazy. It's almost as if it was looking for MH370. But there were very strong tailwinds in that direction today - one MEL-CHC flight arrived 25 min early.

SXI899 · Thu Mar 03, 2016 9:15 am

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 119):

The route the A380 took was crazy. It's almost as if it was looking for MH370. But there were very strong tailwinds in that direction today - one MEL-CHC flight arrived 25 min early.

That southern routing is the first B77L flight. The inaugural flight wasn't quite as far south (routing overhead Perth and just south of Melbourne).

hkcanadaexpat · Thu Mar 03, 2016 9:28 am

Does anyone know whether ZK-NCI (763ER) was retired on Monday? It hasn't flown since and i'm pretty sure one of the 763s was due to retire in or about February.
Thanks
A

Mr AirNZ · Thu Mar 03, 2016 9:45 am

Quoting hkcanadaexpat (Reply 121):

No, NCG, NCI and NCJ stick around at present. NCK and NCL depart this year.

ZKOJH · Thu Mar 03, 2016 11:04 am

"Mysterious Chinese plane flies in Hawke's Bay Airport, Napier,"

Mystery surrounds the Chinese airbus which arrived at Hawke's Bay Airport on Tuesday.

Airport Company chief executive Nick Story said all he could say was the Beijing Capital Airlines plane was a charter. He said as with any Jetstar or Air New Zealand planes, there was confidentiality for the passengers of the flight.

An airport representative said the plane would be staying at the airport for the rest of the week. Representatives from Hastings District Council, Napier City Council, Horse of the Year, and Cape Kidnappers said they did not know why the plane was here.
Hastings mayor Lawrence Yule said he had no knowledge about any business allocations happening, but thought maybe those on board were just golfers playing at Cape Kidnappers.

The plane is an Airbus A319-100 and the airline has one such aircraft in VIP configuration.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11599212

aerokiwi · Thu Mar 03, 2016 1:15 pm

Quoting 777ER (Reply 95):
If WIAL wasn't owned by Infratil then what would your answers be?

It would still be extremely skeptical. The gumption of Infratil demanding public money over and above the relative shareholding is the most galling element.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 98):
And today it was definitely so. The extra A380 exaggerated the existing flaws and limitations and it did cause delays to other airlines because AIAL chose to prioritise advertising of EK over operational integrity, This airport is at least half a decade behind where it needs to be, some would argue more. A shame that blights New Zealand's image.

Yeah I saw the promotional pic of the four 380s, two without actual gates. Pathetic.

VirginFlyer · Thu Mar 03, 2016 6:39 pm

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 123):
Mysterious Chinese plane flies in Hawke's Bay Airport, Napier

Haha I love how it is "mysterious". Just like every other private jet. I wonder if we'll have similar articles on other private jets. Not sure if "Mysterious Bermudan plane" has quite the same ring to it.

Incidentally, I believe I saw this aircraft on the corporate apron at Auckland on Saturday morning.

V/F

zkncj · Thu Mar 03, 2016 6:46 pm

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 123):
The plane is an Airbus A319-100 and the airline has one such aircraft in VIP configuration.

Next the media of Napier will be saying that since the A319 could get in there, that NZ/JQ should give them some A320 services.

aerorobnz · Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:04 pm

Quoting VirginFlyer (Reply 125):

Incidentally, I believe I saw this aircraft on the corporate apron at Auckland on Saturday morning.

It was in AKL for a number of days too arriving from Indonesia on 27th Feb.. It's a standard old "deerjet" bizjet which has been many times.. It wasn't even the first chinese bizjet of the month. B-8205 7X visited WLG/PMR/AKL 02-8FEB

Sometimes it cracks me up how "small town" this country is.

ZaphodHarkonnen · Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:42 pm

Quoting VirginFlyer (Reply 125):

Haha I love how it is "mysterious". Just like every other private jet. I wonder if we'll have similar articles on other private jets. Not sure if "Mysterious Bermudan plane" has quite the same ring to it.

Incidentally, I believe I saw this aircraft on the corporate apron at Auckland on Saturday morning.

To be fair most private jets are dinky little things in comparison to an A319. So it sticks out a bit more than normal.

ZaphodHarkonnen · Thu Mar 03, 2016 11:41 pm

Tried to edit my previous post to avoid a double post but the edit button went hiding.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 78):

So NZ may never receive an ounce of benefit out of the runway extension (though perhaps they will on payload to Australia - how often is that restricted?), while having to pay for it.

On this I'm actually on NZ's side.

From the WIAL commissioned reports it's mentioned the trans Tasman flights are payload restricted. So airlines could make use of any extension even for hopping across the ditch. Whether they would first depends on the thing being built.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 89):
Nope. Adds to the asset base so contributes to fees. Unless a specific carve-out is made, which sets a precedent and opens a whole other can of worms.

It was either the council or airport that said *IF* approved they would look to set up a system where only operators that use the extra length would pay for it. But they said that until approval on building the extension was made they could not make any binding promises.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 89):
And if anything, the SQ flight demonstrates the lack of requirement for any runway investment. Look, WLG, you got your long-haul carrier. Sure it requires a subsidy and is effectively just a trans-Tasman flight, but what does that logic matter when $200-million odd of public money is at stake?

Whereas I think it supports the suggestion from WCC and WIAL that the Wellington and upper South Island region is big enough to support a handful of long distance flights.

There's a long way to go with this whole process as it's early days. I doubt we'll have any binding decisions until after the national election. In the meantime I expect WCC and WIAL to be having lots of quiet conversations with airlines and other local councils. The Hutt and Porirua councils will want to pitch in for this. And I could even see the Nelson council throw in a bit.

aerokiwi · Fri Mar 04, 2016 1:20 am

Quoting ZaphodHarkonnen (Reply 129):
The Hutt and Porirua councils will want to pitch in for this. And I could even see the Nelson council throw in a bit.

Why would they? I'd imagine it would be far easier to just freeload off a larger council's contribution. Hutt and Porirua would apparently "benefit" regardless of their input. What additional benefit would and extra dollar of ratepayer's money bring them?

Quoting ZaphodHarkonnen (Reply 129):
Whereas I think it supports the suggestion from WCC and WIAL that the Wellington and upper South Island region is big enough to support a handful of long distance flights.

Based on a subsidised short-haul flight? Can you explain how this proves longhaul is viable when arguably SQ is just testing the waters itself?

Quoting ZaphodHarkonnen (Reply 129):
It was either the council or airport that said *IF* approved they would look to set up a system where only operators that use the extra length would pay for it. But they said that until approval on building the extension was made they could not make any binding promises.

And there's the can of worms. Implementing this would be hugely complex - how do you determine who is benefiting from it? What if NZ is exempted but starts upping its payloads on existing flights? What happens when NZ takes this to other airports (I'm looking at you, AIAL) and we conceivably end up with a seat-to-suit style approach - you only pay for what you use? Airport development would grind to a halt because of the lack of critical mass in aviation related income. Kiss goodbye to Gates 17 and 18 anytime soon.

Quoting ZaphodHarkonnen (Reply 129):
Whether they would first depends on the thing being built.

I'm sure they have the data now as to whether they would benefit from the lifting of payload restrictions from a runway extension. They know the maximum they could get on a given flight and how much they are foregoing. And it would seem they're happy with the existing arrangement of foregoing that extra payload.

Build it and they will come is pretty much the highest risk option.

a7ala · Fri Mar 04, 2016 1:50 am

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 130):
Based on a subsidised short-haul flight? Can you explain how this proves longhaul is viable when arguably SQ is just testing the waters itself?

All new routes have some sort of subsidy/support - there is nothing unusual about that nor about the quantum. The other way of looking at it is that SQ know that once the runway extension is built there will be a lot of interest from other airlines and so they are just setting up their market position in advance the only way they can, and will turn on the direct when the runway allows.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 130):
And there's the can of worms. Implementing this would be hugely complex - how do you determine who is benefiting from it? What if NZ is exempted but starts upping its payloads on existing flights? What happens when NZ takes this to other airports (I'm looking at you, AIAL) and we conceivably end up with a seat-to-suit style approach - you only pay for what you use? Airport development would grind to a halt because of the lack of critical mass in aviation related income. Kiss goodbye to Gates 17 and 18 anytime soon.

Again nothing unusual about airports and airlines agreeing to carve out pieces of infrastructure. Think about a terminal when some of it is for retail purposes. Airlines dont pay for that. As long as the mechanism is clear, wheres the problem?

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 130):
Build it and they will come is pretty much the highest risk option.

I can pretty much guarantee that if they dont build it then they wont be able to achieve what they want.

DavidByrne · Fri Mar 04, 2016 2:48 am

Quoting A7ALA (Reply 131):
All new routes have some sort of subsidy/support

Maybe in Slovakia, but certainly not in New Zealand! Some routes, including SQ's WLG-CBR-SIN are subsidised, but only a handful.

a7ala · Fri Mar 04, 2016 3:04 am

Quoting davidbyrne (Reply 132):
Maybe in Slovakia, but certainly not in New Zealand! Some routes, including SQ's WLG-CBR-SIN are subsidised, but only a handful.

Sorry I should have said "initially". Have a look at AIAL's and CIAL's disclosures to see the many millions of $$$ they spend on airline incentives and marketing.

zkncj · Fri Mar 04, 2016 3:30 am

Quoting A7ALA (Reply 133):
Sorry I should have said "initially". Have a look at AIAL's and CIAL's disclosures to see the many millions of $$$ they spend on airline incentives and marketing.

Which would typically only be an reduction in airport fees for the first year of service, and I wouldn't say NZ would have got anything from AIAL for all the new routes they have started.

Last year they started EZE/IAH, this year KIX/SGN/ + 1 more yet to be release.

aerokiwi · Fri Mar 04, 2016 4:43 am

Quoting A7ALA (Reply 133):
Sorry I should have said "initially". Have a look at AIAL's and CIAL's disclosures to see the many millions of $$$ they spend on airline incentives and marketing.

That's different to ratepayers (not the airport) paying up to $800,000 in direct financial support for ten years.

Quoting A7ALA (Reply 131):
I can pretty much guarantee that if they dont build it then they wont be able to achieve what they want.

Infrastructure is built to satisfy anticipated future demand. The debate is the extent of that future demand. And one short-haul flight that connects to a longer haul flight does not, in my opinion (and many others, I might add) demonstrate sufficient demand for (a) runway lengthening and (b) ratepayer input at double its shareholding in the airport.

Quoting A7ALA (Reply 131):
As long as the mechanism is clear, wheres the problem?

But that's my point - how would the mechanism be clear? How do you assign the cost to the beneficiary? All airlines benefit from an efficient and effective domestic service, but international operators aren't immediate users of it. So should they receive a discount? And if so, how does the airport fund future expansion - outsized demand of local ratepayers?

zkncj · Fri Mar 04, 2016 4:50 am

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...nsidering-switch-to-nz-aoc-422678/

Looks like Alliance is looking into the option of move its fleet on an New Zealand AOC, due to an disagreement with CASA.

mariner · Fri Mar 04, 2016 5:42 am

Good news for Nelson:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/7756...nd-adds-25-jobs-in-nelson-facility

"Air New Zealand adds 25 jobs in Nelson facility

Nelson is set to get another 25 jobs after Air New Zealand signed a contract provide turboprop maintenance to its first international customer Air Caledonie, the domestic airline of New Caledonia.

Under the contract, Air New Zealand Regional Maintenance will carry out heavy maintenance for Air Caledonie's three ATR72s and one ATR42 aircraft at its base in Nelson.

The first Air Caledonie ATR42-500 is due to arrive in Nelson on Sunday. Work starts the next day."

mariner

Gasman · Fri Mar 04, 2016 7:55 pm

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 135):
Infrastructure is built to satisfy anticipated future demand. The debate is the extent of that future demand. And one short-haul flight that connects to a longer haul flight does not, in my opinion (and many others, I might add) demonstrate sufficient demand for (a) runway lengthening and (b) ratepayer input at double its shareholding in the airport

Perhaps there's more to it than we know. Maybe operators are lobbying the central government and WIAL with firm expressions of intent which, being commercially sensitive are not in the public domain. Because otherwise, it just doesn't make sense. Maybe existing operators will sometimes benefit from increased payload; occasionally it might be useful in a diversion, and you never know, someone might one day start direct long haul services.

There isn't fifty million, let alone three hundred million, in any of these arguments individually or taken together as a whole. Based on that, I don't even know why there's a debate - which leads me to be believe there must be more to it. I hope so.

PA515 · Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:59 pm

Re the proposed WLG runway extension and Air NZ.

The improved takeoff performance of the A320NEO / A321NEO would reduce and possibly eliminate the payload restrictions on some flights from WLG. The NEO's start arriving next year.

PA515

sunrisevalley · Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:06 pm

Quoting PA515 (Reply 139):
The improved takeoff performance of the A320NEO / A321NEO would reduce and possibly eliminate the payload restrictions on some flights from WLG

It is worth noting that CAA figure on an improvement in runway length of 1.5% for each knot of wind upto 20k. Thus on a 10k day this means about 950 ft. in runway length. So payload limitations from WLG can be very dependent on winds at takeoff.

777ER · Sat Mar 05, 2016 12:02 am

Quoting zkncj (Reply 136):

Pity Alliance won't operate here also!

zkncj · Sat Mar 05, 2016 7:22 pm

Quoting 777ER (Reply 141):
Pity Alliance won't operate here also!

They do charters here now, have already seen the F100/F70 in Auckland an couple of times this year.

There is also an F50 that is based her for charters.

sunrisevalley · Sat Mar 05, 2016 7:41 pm

I would like to come back the matter of pilot groups mentioned in the half-year report. I believe three were mentioned , was the reference to domestic , international or both?

SelandiaBaru · Sat Mar 05, 2016 9:20 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 143):
I would like to come back the matter of pilot groups mentioned in the half-year report. I believe three were mentioned , was the reference to domestic , international or both?

Jet fleet. Was 5 - 747, 777, 767, A320 & 737 to 3 - 777, 787 & A320.

777ER · Sat Mar 05, 2016 9:53 pm

Quoting zkncj (Reply 142):

Yes I know about the charters, but its hard and expensive to get on those flights. I'm talking about Alliance operating scheduled flights like what Air Chathams are doing to WHK

sunrisevalley · Sat Mar 05, 2016 10:07 pm

Quoting SelandiaBaru (Reply 144):
Jet fleet. Was 5 - 747, 777, 767, A320 & 737 to 3 - 777, 787 & A320.

so where do the 767 pilots fit into the grouping?

zkncj · Sat Mar 05, 2016 10:46 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 146):
so where do the 767 pilots fit into the grouping?

The 767 is gone by next year, so seems to have dropped of the radar. They currently are medium hall

sunrisevalley · Sun Mar 06, 2016 12:01 am

Quoting zkncj (Reply 147):
The 767 is gone by next year, so seems to have dropped of the radar. They currently are medium hall

But someone is still flying them . So what pilot group are they in?

SelandiaBaru · Sun Mar 06, 2016 12:13 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 148):
But someone is still flying them . So what pilot group are they in?

Yeah they seem to be kind of an unaccounted 4th group until fleet withdrawal.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net