New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

zkncj · Fri Apr 08, 2016 5:52 am

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 49):
The "no more 1-stop" argument doesn't really apply. The AKL-MEL flights would replace existing widebody services, so you are effectively just adding a single sector MEL-JNB return.

Its not just an simple widebody swap on AKL-MEL-AKL, NZ123/124 are an daily 77W are cont onto LAX/SFO and provide an seamless connection for this. Playing around with this wouldn't be simple, you'd need to time it correctly so that connections still worked.

ZK-NBT · Fri Apr 08, 2016 6:06 am

Quoting zkncj (Reply 50):

You could schedule it something like

AKL 2000 MEL 2200
MEL 2345 JNB 0600
JNB 1110 MEL 0730
MEL 0915 AKL 1445

Which could replace the current AKL-MEL-AKL evening morning A320. My times could be a bit out. There is sometimes a second 777 on AKL-MEL or a 763 in the afternoon.

zkncj · Fri Apr 08, 2016 6:57 am

Quoting ZK-NBT (Reply 51):

You could schedule it something like

AKL 2000 MEL 2200
MEL 2345 JNB 0600
JNB 1110 MEL 0730
MEL 0915 AKL 1445

Heck of of allot of aircraft usage for new flight that would be high risk, with around 40-48 worth of usage per trip. 3x weekly would use approximately 1 aircraft.

AKL-MNL-AKL would use around .5 of an 767

Kiwirob · Fri Apr 08, 2016 7:50 am

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 44):
That being the case, there must be an overwhelming argument in favour of South Africa!

I know quite a few South Africans, what I don't know is any South Africans who have been back to South Africa since they moved to NZ. Most appear to be happy to have gotten out and don't want to go back.

cityairline · Fri Apr 08, 2016 8:12 am

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 44):

That being the case, there must be an overwhelming argument in favour of South Africa!

Eh, why? Air New Zealand, as many other airlines, are interested in markets were there's future potential, hence the launch of (Vietnam and) the Philippines.
The South African economy has only grown by 1-2% the last years, while the Philippines has grown by 6-7%. These are facts and you need to look at these instead of making a few statements that are not based on anything other than your opinions.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 46):

The bottom line, not that anyone is game to say it, is that the market is comprised of low-yield VFR, sex tourists and one-off low-yield outbound travellers, probably statistically in that order. That's a pretty depressing looking business model.

Yes, that sounds very depressing indeed!
You make it sound like the ratio of sex tourism/regular travellers is 70/30. Wake up and check your facts before writing disgusting facts like that.
I'm not sating there are no sex tourists there, because there absolutely are! But more than 95% are not!
Even though it's hard to see who is and who is not, we can all have our guess. When I flew IST-MNL in January I expected it to be full of Filipinos and a few westerners (including older single males). But around 300 of the 350 onboard were Europeans in the ages of 20-40, almost everyone travelling as couples or in groups.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 46):
Hawaiian left a couple of years ago in spite of having a massively bigger VFR customer base.

Yes, and what's you point? Since then, I can think of almost ten airlines entering the MNL market instead. One left, and ten came, that's the loss of Hawaiian, not Manila.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 46):
I'm unconvinced by Manila.

Well, I'm not. While the growth of the Philippines is almost at pair with the one of China, the South African is not.
And Air New Zealand seems to acknowledge that.

/Alex

PA515 · Fri Apr 08, 2016 10:20 am

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 46):
........then perhaps there is an argument for Air NZ to use the 789 to fly AKL-MEL-JNB, in partnership with BOTH SA and VA.

I wondered about this last year, but it would divert some pax from AKL-PER which may be more important to Air NZ for now.

The seasonal AKL-PER / PER-AKL schedule now has better connections to SA's PER-JNB / JNB-PER and at AKL to / from HNL/YVR/SFO/LAX/IAH/EZE. And there's space in the 2016/17 schedule for a Wed & Sun evening AKL-PER and Mon & Thu morning PER-AKL, which would bring it up to 12 weekly.

Quoting ZK-NBT (Reply 51):
You could schedule it something like

AKL 2000 MEL 2200
MEL 2345 JNB 0600
JNB 1110 MEL 0730
MEL 0915 AKL 1445

Or a morning departure from AKL with CHC-MEL and WLG-MEL connections, and an evening arrival with MEL-CHC and MEL-WLG connections.
AKL-MEL 0730/0935, MEL-JNB 1120/1535
JNB-MEL 1750/1400, JNB-AKL 1520/2055

That would utilise time between overnight arrivals and overnight departures to other destinations like PVG or the 3 weekly seasonal NRT.

PA515

sunrisevalley · Fri Apr 08, 2016 10:44 am

re JNB via MEL. The total SYD/PER /JNB passenger traffic was about 300,000 y/e June 30th 2015 according to BITRE. The L/F was ~ 74%. Seems to me it would need ~40,000 of this total to make MEL/JNB/MEL a possibility on a 3X weekly basis. NZ with their 300 min EDTO 789 or 77E have the ability to fly the route Typical flight time would be about 13 hrs. westbound well within the capability of either aircraft,

aerorobnz · Fri Apr 08, 2016 11:15 am

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 46):
I'm unconvinced by Manila.

In fairness to NZ, your track record of the past few years would indicate you would be unconvinced by NZ flying anywhere except where you personally want to fly. You naysay every new route NZ announces by default because they steered themselves away from your personal travel preferences. Their track record for new routes has shown their selections to be astute and up to the minute with their demographic markets as opposed to your dated colonial world view.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 49):
I'd operate it via Melbourne in order to grow both yields and volume.

But why bother serving JNB via Australia?? There is not really any advantage for the airline to operate the whole route via Australia (with all the added expense of setting up a new station and operating costs that incurs), they already do that via PER with their partner who operates the rest of the way,nor is there an advantage for the passengers as they would still have to stop.

You're right in that I don't think the one stop issue applies so much now Rob Fyfe has gone, but it is still is attractive to only a bare minimum of route options.

Quoting cityairline (Reply 54):
The South African economy has only grown by 1-2% the last years

And is circling the drain politically. Whn I was there a couple of years ago they were all concerned by hat was happening politically.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 49):
But Virgin Australia tried to do it with an enormous 77W

Just one of many poor decisions made in the last few years by Borghetti.and his team.

Quoting cityairline (Reply 32):
Seems like a lot of people are still stuck in the old image of Manila and the Philippines

Totally agree.

Gasman · Fri Apr 08, 2016 11:44 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 57):
In fairness to NZ, your track record of the past few years would indicate you would be unconvinced by NZ flying anywhere except where you personally want to fly.

We all have a tendency to do that a bit.

And in fact, NZ themselves probably remain unconvinced by MNL but as has been pointed out several times, the risk is minimal.

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 48):
I know someone who was a business analyst with them, and while they obviously did not share any confidential details with me, they have previously indicated to me the huge amount of modelling and data used in consideration of new routes,. They clearly believe that they can make this work, and the current Air NZ is a lot more hard headed than the airline of the past.

This is an important point. NZ is a well run airline (unlike VA) and currently just isn't making mistakes. In many ways, their decisions render our pontifications superfluous, as they originate from a team with far more competence and resources than what we have with a recent exemplary track record.

aerorobnz · Fri Apr 08, 2016 12:36 pm

Quoting Gasman (Reply 58):
We all have a tendency to do that a bit.

Some of us more than others. It's about balance though.

Oh and btw UA will operate the 772 from Oct SFO-AKL after initially starting with the 788. It appears the 789 is not available as soon as they expected.

Nouflyer · Fri Apr 08, 2016 12:43 pm

Quoting Gasman (Reply 58):

This is an important point. NZ is a well run airline (unlike VA) and currently just isn't making mistakes. In many ways, their decisions render our pontifications superfluous, as they originate from a team with far more competence and resources than what we have with a recent exemplary track record.

I am inclined to agree with you, I must admit.

But, as you have written, the risk is minimal, using a fully paid-off, fully depreciated medium-sized aircraft.

But I would argue that the use of the 763 and 789 would be profitable pretty much wherever they were deployed, yet:

1) Are high volume low-yield routes really the best use of the 789 fleet?
2) Are long-haul, ultra low-yield routes really the best use of the 763 fleet? Other airlines have entered markets like San Francisco and Vancouver to Europe and the U.K. which could have been operated by that fleet. With the same low risk as Manila and Bali, but with much higher yields available.

I am not really convinced that Air New Zealand's economic success is due to them pioneering the long-haul low-yield market. I would argue instead that Luxon is a genius at positioning the carrier in international monopolies, even when carriers like SQ, CX and UA would usually be competitors rather than monopoly partners.

I suspect that much the same is true of what Emirates brings to Qantas. I'm sure that on the Kangaroo Route there is barely any traffic to Algiers, Vienna, Larnaca, Prague, Lyon, Düsseldorf or Hamburg, and I've only gone a third of the way through the alphabet! But the Emirates tie-up has turned a competitor into a collaborator, and that reduction in competition can only grow profits.

Gasman · Fri Apr 08, 2016 6:25 pm

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 60):
But I would argue that the use of the 763 and 789 would be profitable pretty much wherever they were deployed, yet:

The 763 yes, but the 789? Not so much. The 789 has to generate more revenue to be profitable, because they need to rcoup their purchase price. Whereas if the 763 isn't flying at all, it doesn't really matter. And if it is flying, it's more likely to be profitable than 5 years ago due to today's fuel prices.

With the benefit of hindsight, I'm sure NZ management wish they'd held off purchasing the 77Ws, and kept the 744s on instead - as KL and QF have. But no one could have predicted that fuel prices would do what they did.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 60):
I am not really convinced that Air New Zealand's economic success is due to them pioneering the long-haul low-yield market. I would argue instead that Luxon is a genius at positioning the carrier in international monopolies, even when carriers like SQ, CX and UA would usually be competitors rather than monopoly partners.

Me neither. I would argue NZ's success is largely due to fuel prices, clever management and exploiting monopoly routes to the maximum while they could. Luxon is a clever guy, and his prime responsibility is to the shareholders. Unfortunately for me, when I fly NZ that is the feeling I get - that I am coming second to the shareholders. Alan Joyce is also primarily answerable to his shareholders; but on his product he manages to brainwash me into believing I'm more important. Which is why I fly QF over NZ.

[Edited 2016-04-08 11:48:47]

mariner · Fri Apr 08, 2016 7:34 pm

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 60):
I am not really convinced that Air New Zealand's economic success is due to them pioneering the long-haul low-yield market. I would argue instead that Luxon is a genius at positioning the carrier in international monopolies, even when carriers like SQ, CX and UA would usually be competitors rather than monopoly partners.

That's a bit revisionist.

Air NZ was profitable in 2008 and 2009 for example, the peak years of the GFC, when oil hit $140 a barrel (2008) and there was certainly competition - Qantas on the plum route AKL-LAX and Pacific (Virgin) Blue on domestic and before the days of the alliance with Virgin.

It works with what it's got. It's a small airline at the arse end of the world working with a comparatively tiny home market base. Just as it has to cop every competitive disadvantage of NZ's extremely liberal aviation policies so it has to leverage every advantage that is available to it.

mariner

ZK-NBT · Fri Apr 08, 2016 7:45 pm

Quoting Gasman (Reply 61):

As much as we all love the 744 I seriously think NZ wanted to get rid of them asap partly because of the environment which I personally call some PR rubbish. Why they didn't order the extra 2 77Ws earlier I'm not sure though the last 2 744s were going to be replaced by 789s originally. The initial 77W order was placed in 2007 just before fuel prices skyrocketed and the GFC hit.

KL and QF had much larger fleets that couldn't have been replaced that quickly and a lot more routes they could profitably run than NZ's 1 or 2 routes LAX/LHR.

kiwiandrew · Fri Apr 08, 2016 8:02 pm

^ In addition, QF were more hamstrung by the old ETOPS rules as the Australian regulatory body was (is? ) very conservative. This ( together with the relative size of their 744 fleet) made hanging on to quads more desirable for QF. NZ were down to two 744 towards the end, a reliability nightmare.

I loved the dear old 747, but NZ is a small airline, and simplifying its fleet / crewing / maintenance / spares has been an important factor in improving/maintaining efficiency. By the time the 767 and Beechcraft disappear the airline will be down to 3 types and 2 pools of flight crew for mainline, and 2 types / crew pools in their regional subsidiaries.

Unclekoru · Fri Apr 08, 2016 8:35 pm

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 57):
Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 49):
But Virgin Australia tried to do it with an enormous 77W

Just one of many poor decisions made in the last few years by Borghetti.and his team.

Pretty sure that was well before Borghetti's time.

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 64):
I loved the dear old 747, but NZ is a small airline, and simplifying its fleet / crewing / maintenance / spares has been an important factor in improving/maintaining efficiency. By the time the 767 and Beechcraft disappear the airline will be down to 3 types and 2 pools of flight crew for mainline, and 2 types / crew pools in their regional subsidiaries.

Three pools of crew at "mainline". In spite of NZ's initial wishes, 777 and 787 will remain seperate for the foreseeable future.

ZK-NBT · Fri Apr 08, 2016 9:41 pm

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 64):

I'm not sure it was that bad but they certainly couldn't get rid of them fast enough, they did look at leasing more 777s I think 77Es? but decided it was better to hang onto the 744s and get the long term replacement 77W, as I said initially they were going to replace the last 2 with 789s which I think is why the last 2 77Ws weren't ordered earlier and they could have replaced the 744 by late 2012 which was the initial plan.

mariner · Sat Apr 09, 2016 12:43 am

I have a very soft spot for Philippine Airlines.

In my heavy travelling days, I flew with them three or four times, up the front - the service was always exemplary and the food terrific. I can still remember a Chicken Szechuan they served as being one of the best I've ever tasted. I wondered, aloud, about a second portion, and lo - they found one,

The airline has had problems, and I'm hoping that the new Air NZ non-stop doesn't beat up their one-stop too much. In my ideal world, I'd hope the two airlines would do a code share deal, giving pax more options.

I'm not holding my breath but I'd be pleased to see it.

mariner

Unclekoru · Sat Apr 09, 2016 1:03 am

Quoting ZK-NBT (Reply 66):
Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 64):

I'm not sure it was that bad but they certainly couldn't get rid of them fast enough, they did look at leasing more 777s I think 77Es? but decided it was better to hang onto the 744s and get the long term replacement 77W, as I said initially they were going to replace the last 2 with 789s which I think is why the last 2 77Ws weren't ordered earlier and they could have replaced the 744 by late 2012 which was the initial plan.

For some time the company was quite vocal (at least internally) about not wanting to order any additional 777-300ERs. I assume that meant their thinking was that the final two 747-400s would essentially be replaced in a cascade fashion by 777-200's as 787-9s were delivered. What changed their mind I don't know.

aerorobnz · Sat Apr 09, 2016 1:56 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 67):
I have a very soft spot for Philippine Airlines.

Me too. I think their inflight service is excellent. They offer competitive fares longhaul but their lack of alliance hampers them as does their congested and ATC restricted MNL hub. (Should be a warning for NZ vs AKL)
I expect PR to use their A330/A350 as was mooted from before the outset by the PR delegation that brought the President down a few years ago to sign the air service agreement. Their issue is currently available aircraft for them

NZ107 · Sat Apr 09, 2016 7:25 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 59):
Oh and btw UA will operate the 772 from Oct SFO-AKL after initially starting with the 788. It appears the 789 is not available as soon as they expected.

Ouch.. That J product is certainly not up to scratch (I presume UA only has pmUA 772s based in SFO). Doesn't seem to be in the system yet. I wonder if that whole staffing/union issue is playing a part in this.

Gasman · Sat Apr 09, 2016 4:40 pm

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 70):
Ouch.. That J product is certainly not up to scratch

That's disappointing - although UA's return to the scene is very much a sideshow anyway, with its codeshare agreement with NZ. AA on AKL-LAX is where shit is about to get real.

zkojq · Sat Apr 09, 2016 9:58 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 53):
I know quite a few South Africans, what I don't know is any South Africans who have been back to South Africa since they moved to NZ. Most appear to be happy to have gotten out and don't want to go back.

What? Most South Africans of the North Shore variety return there every two years or so. Upon their return to New Zealand they keep telling the rest of us about how Auckland is like Cape Town in the 1980s; something I find quite insulting.

Quoting Gasman (Reply 61):
Alan Joyce is also primarily answerable to his shareholders; but on his product he manages to brainwash me into believing I'm more important. Which is why I fly QF over NZ.

Exactly. QF has been making all the right moves with regards to product over the last five years or so. The new free onboard WiFi is yet another step in the right direction (you can be sure that NZ would charge an arm and a leg if they ever bothered to install a similar system). As I see it a lot of QF's recent improvements are probably down to Virgin Australia going upmarket. I guess JB's dream of an ever improving QF came to fruition after all - just not with him at the helm.

Quoting Unclekoru (Reply 65):
In spite of NZ's initial wishes, 777 and 787 will remain separate for the foreseeable future.

A single type only in the eyes of Boeing.

sunrisevalley · Sun Apr 10, 2016 12:13 am

There seems to be an opinion in this thread that NZ needs additional 77W's. Unless there is a shortage of premium seats additional 77W's add very little . My interest is how long the 8-77E's can be usefully deployed. There are six additional 789 to arrive which must cut into the 77E utilization. That they burn > 21% more fuel than the 789 must be making them less and less attractive to operate. And we see additional new city pairs added that are probably best served by three 763's for the next two or three years,

mariner · Sun Apr 10, 2016 12:14 am

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 72):
Upon their return to New Zealand they keep telling the rest of us about how Auckland is like Cape Town in the 1980s; something I find quite insulting.

I'd see that as a compliment to Auckland. People often remember when they were younger - and where - through rose-coloured glasses. The question is, do those people want to go back permanently?

I remember Auckland in the 1960's as being pretty magic, I had a wonderful life, but I wouldn't want to live in that "old" Auckland now - except to buy the 10 Waitakere acres I was offered for 2000 quid - LOL.

Still, Cape Town has always been the most attractive city in South Africa, and despite the problems remains that. According to Wiki Cape Town is not only the most popular international tourist destination in South Africa, but Africa as a whole.

So I'm always puzzled when debate about service to South Africa comes up in these threads because it's always to JNB (as a one stop). I doubt South Africa will ever happen on Air NZ metal, but if it did I'd vote for AKL-XXX-CPT.

mariner

sunrisevalley · Sun Apr 10, 2016 12:24 am

Quoting Unclekoru (Reply 65):
777 and 787 will remain seperate for the foreseeable future.

Is this an edict from the regulator?

dash8 · Sun Apr 10, 2016 12:40 am

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 72):
Exactly. QF has been making all the right moves with regards to product over the last five years or so. The new free onboard WiFi is yet another step in the right direction (you can be sure that NZ would charge an arm and a leg if they ever bothered to install a similar system). As I see it a lot of QF's recent improvements are probably down to Virgin Australia going upmarket. I guess JB's dream of an ever improving QF came to fruition after all - just not with him at the helm.

The new free WIFI isn't exactly great, and only allows you to to watch movies, listen to music etc. It is still very limited, and does not offer the same amount of selection compared to seat back entertainment which they have available on some aircraft. VA is much the same. Its not a product NZ should be threatened by.

ZK-NBT · Sun Apr 10, 2016 1:19 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 73):

Well there are 6 789s to arrive and 5 763s to depart though I wonder if some of these 763s might live a little longer. As to the 77E fleet the owned ones must be close to paid off by now? While there doesn't seem to be a huge market for leased second hand ones given how many seem to be getting scrapped so I'd say the rates might be quite favourable for NZ to hang onto them given the recent refits also. I think we could see some shuffling of the current fleet to best suit the routes they are configured for.

As to replacements they may be waiting to see how the 78J turns out? It's a 10 hour plane atm so pretty useless to NZ bar 3-4 medium haul routes. It has a new engine though? Maybe it could be fitted on future 789s giving them more range and efficiency? Then the 777X series which I think NZ will get some of most likely the 779. I think NZ will keep the 77E for another 5 or so years.

zkncj · Sun Apr 10, 2016 1:35 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 73):
There seems to be an opinion in this thread that NZ needs additional 77W's. Unless there is a shortage of premium seats additional 77W's add very little . My interest is how long the 8-77E's can be usefully deployed. There are six additional 789 to arrive which must cut into the 77E utilization. That they burn > 21% more fuel than the 789 must be making them less and less attractive to operate. And we see additional new city pairs added that are probably best served by three 763's for the next two or three years,

There is noway the 772 will be going anywhere soon, they just spend $200 million on there cabin refits on them.

If anything the short-haul use of them will increase, as seen recently that 763 service on the Tasman/Pacific have started to become 772s more often.

Zkpilot · Sun Apr 10, 2016 1:48 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 73):

There seems to be an opinion in this thread that NZ needs additional 77W's. Unless there is a shortage of premium seats additional 77W's add very little . My interest is how long the 8-77E's can be usefully deployed. There are six additional 789 to arrive which must cut into the 77E utilization. That they burn > 21% more fuel than the 789 must be making them less and less attractive to operate. And we see additional new city pairs added that are probably best served by three 763's for the next two or three years,

I have heard through the grapevine that the YVR service isn't exactly a money maker for NZ. Mostly due to the fuel burn on such a long flight by the 77E (probably not so bad right now with low fuel prices). I imagine NZ would be looking to get the 789 onto this route ASAP for a few reasons : 1) Lower fuel burn, 2) slightly less seats to sell/better config, 3) get it daily to improve the frequency for pax and to reduce sunk costs (crew longer stays and port costs).

Also makes me wonder about the IAH service since that is even longer... Brings me back to the 77W... NZ is ramping up IAH so I think if they had more 77W it could go to that soon since it has pretty much the same trip costs as the 77E but can carry so much more payload.

ZK-NBT · Sun Apr 10, 2016 2:13 am

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 79):

It had been mentioned here and elsewhere that YVR was a candidate for 789 service, and a frequency increase, it's now 4 weekly most of the lowest time of year and 5 weekly for June September with daily over December January. The 789 they could get to close to daily most of the year with its lower operating costs.

I think maybe IAH might generate higher yielding traffic some of which might have gone via LAX/SFO to the east coast. As to weather the 77W goes to IAH weather through purchasing more or redeploying existing frames I don't no.

Unclekoru · Sun Apr 10, 2016 4:53 am

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 72):
Quoting Unclekoru (Reply 65):
In spite of NZ's initial wishes, 777 and 787 will remain separate for the foreseeable future.

A single type only in the eyes of Boeing.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 75):
Quoting Unclekoru (Reply 65):
777 and 787 will remain seperate for the foreseeable future.

Is this an edict from the regulator?

I believe so.

747m8te · Sun Apr 10, 2016 6:58 am

Quoting dash8 (Reply 76):
Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 72):
Exactly. QF has been making all the right moves with regards to product over the last five years or so. The new free onboard WiFi is yet another step in the right direction (you can be sure that NZ would charge an arm and a leg if they ever bothered to install a similar system). As I see it a lot of QF's recent improvements are probably down to Virgin Australia going upmarket. I guess JB's dream of an ever improving QF came to fruition after all - just not with him at the helm.

The new free WIFI isn't exactly great, and only allows you to to watch movies, listen to music etc. It is still very limited, and does not offer the same amount of selection compared to seat back entertainment which they have available on some aircraft. VA is much the same. Its not a product NZ should be threatened by.

I think you are mistaking the current wifi streaming service on B737s and A330s that don't have seat back IFE, with the new free inflight wifi internet access QF will be rolling out across their B737 and A330 fleet.

sunrisevalley · Sun Apr 10, 2016 7:35 pm

Am I dreaming or did I see that NZL has updated their bi-lateral with Turkey. If so, how might this play out in the future. I believe the closest TK metal gets to NZL is SIN.

mariner · Sun Apr 10, 2016 7:45 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 83):
Am I dreaming or did I see that NZL has updated their bi-lateral with Turkey. If so, how might this play out in the future. I believe the closest TK metal gets to NZL is SIN.

You're not dreaming:

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/new...ticle.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11616679

"A negotiation with Turkey to permit airlines from each country to commence services using their own aircraft, where previously airlines were only allowed to code-share. New arrangements allow the airlines to operate up to 14 passenger and seven cargo services per week."

The codeshare has been in place for about three years:

http://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/press...airlines-sign-code-share-agreement

"Air New Zealand and Turkish Airlines sign code share agreement"

mariner

DavidByrne · Sun Apr 10, 2016 8:03 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 83):
Am I dreaming or did I see that NZL has updated their bi-lateral with Turkey. If so, how might this play out in the future. I believe the closest TK metal gets to NZL is SIN.

TK has medium-term plans to serve Australia, though these keep being put back. Not sure what the current expectation of a launch might be.

sunrisevalley · Sun Apr 10, 2016 9:08 pm

Quoting davidbyrne (Reply 85):
TK has medium-term plans to serve Australia, though these keep being put back. Not sure what the current expectation of a launch might be

It is difficult to see how the own metal rights might play out . SYD-IST would be well north of 17 hrs. Would seem the present stop in SIN would have to stay. It is hard to imagine NZ doing AKL-SIN-IST with their own metal although the connections onward from IST are probably second to none. With the present code share NZ can transfer passengers to TK and SIN but the present NZ schedule is pretty unfriendly for a connection in SIN to IST.

sunrisevalley · Sun Apr 10, 2016 9:10 pm

Quoting davidbyrne (Reply 85):
TK has medium-term plans to serve Australia, though these keep being put back. Not sure what the current expectation of a launch might be

It is difficult to see how the own metal rights might play out . SYD-IST would be well north of 17 hrs. Would seem the present stop in SIN would have to stay. It is hard to imagine NZ doing AKL-SIN-IST with their own metal although the connections through IST are probably second to none. With the present code share NZ can transfer passengers to TK and SIN

PA515 · Mon Apr 11, 2016 5:14 am

Looks like Air NZ 763 ZK-NCK is now retired. The last flight was NZ108 SYD-AKL on Fri 08 Apr.

PA515

aerorobnz · Mon Apr 11, 2016 5:52 am

Quoting PA515 (Reply 88):
Looks like Air NZ 763 ZK-NCK is now retired. The last flight was NZ108 SYD-AKL on Fri 08 Apr.

I think it may well remain in serviceable ground spare condition for a little while longer before the final end of service checks begin..

sunrisevalley · Mon Apr 11, 2016 12:49 pm

Quoting PA515 (Reply 88):
Looks like Air NZ 763 ZK-NCK is now retired. The last flight was NZ108 SYD-AKL on Fri 08 Apr.

so that leaves four?

777ER · Mon Apr 11, 2016 2:42 pm

SQ will operate 10 round-trip flights a week for the summer peak travel period — adding an extra 8,130 seats over the course of the operation.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/7...o-and-from-christchurch-for-summer

Zkpilot · Tue Apr 12, 2016 12:00 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 89):

Quoting PA515 (Reply 88):
Looks like Air NZ 763 ZK-NCK is now retired. The last flight was NZ108 SYD-AKL on Fri 08 Apr.

I think it may well remain in serviceable ground spare condition for a little while longer before the final end of service checks begin..

Would make sense since older aircraft do have a habit of having issues. Prevents disruption.

Mr AirNZ · Tue Apr 12, 2016 12:15 am

Quoting PA515 (Reply 88):
Looks like Air NZ 763 ZK-NCK is now retired

Remainder of the month still to go. Doing a Melbourne return this afternoon.

zkojq · Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:07 am

Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce says subsidiary Jetstar gets a disproportionately hard time in public because of poor perception of budget carriers:

Quote:

"There's a little bit of a thing around low-cost carriers," he said in Auckland today.

"All airlines around the world have customer service issues - you learn from them you improve on them but to say they're unique to Jetstar is misinforming the public."

Jetstar had operational issues leading to delays when it first started flying jets domestically in New Zealand and its regional operations had a bumpy start during summer. Low cost carriers generally have fewer aircraft at their disposal and leaner staffing meaning operational, mechanical and weather problems could have a greater impact on schedules than for full service carriers.

Joyce said full service airlines also have issues. "It will happen with Air New Zealand and Qantas . I see them all the time - it's what you do to improve and learn from it.

Jetstar does take these issues seriously, he said.

"When it gets it wrong it does apologise."

Joyce said the regional flights had been affected by teething problems around new crew, ground handling and unfamiliar airports but on time performance had recovered to 80 per cent during the past week and all flights were on time yesterday.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ticle.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11621056

More interestingly, he talks about expansion:

Quote:
Joyce said on Tuesday that once the regional operation was bedded down, growth options would be considered.

"When we see the opportunity is right for potential growth we'll take that," Joyce said.

"More regions are calling out for Jetstar services so when the time is right we'll be approaching them again."

He would not say how long it would be before the operation expanded.

"I'm not going to put a time frame on it but I'm very happy with the performance of the New Zealand regional operation."

Load factor on the regional flights was more than 80 per cent and on time performance had been 80 per cent the past two weeks, he said.

Before airfares went on sale last year Joyce said regional fares could be slashed by 40 per cent with Jetstar's arrival.

He said airfares were now very close to 40 per cent cheaper.

Last year 1.75 million people flew on Jetstar's New Zealand domestic operation with more 70 per cent travelling at $100 or less.

That statistic about sub $100 fares is quite interesting.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...eding-expectations-says-qantas-ceo

Quoting 747m8te (Reply 82):
I think you are mistaking the current wifi streaming service on B737s and A330s that don't have seat back IFE, with the new free inflight wifi internet access QF will be rolling out across their B737 and A330 fleet.

Quoting PA515 (Reply 88):
Looks like Air NZ 763 ZK-NCK is now retired. The last flight was NZ108 SYD-AKL on Fri 08 Apr.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 89):
I think it may well remain in serviceable ground spare condition for a little while longer before the final end of service checks begin..

Quoting Mr AirNZ (Reply 93):
Remainder of the month still to go. Doing a Melbourne return this afternoon.

Noooooo. She's my favorite 767....I still remember the day she was delivered, which makes me feel very old.

ZaphodHarkonnen · Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:07 am

So Alan Joyce has come out saying Qantas will not do any long haul out of Wellington with the runway extension.

Qantas rules out Wellington long-haul flights if the runway extension goes ahead

Quote:
CEO Alan Joyce told RNZ on Tuesday that the airline was not interested in utilising Wellington as a hub for anything other than domestic and trans-Tasman flights.

"We believe that airports shouldn't over-invest in terminals, in runways, in capability - they're going to be hard to make a return on," Joyce said.

I think the interesting thing that was not said is ruling out using the extension at all. Trans tasman flights are payload limited as it is currently. And any runway extension would allow any B747 or A320 aircraft to take off at MTOW. Which may make it worth to pay to use even if they aren't going any further than Aus.

Anyways it makes sense for Qantas. I'm sure they wish to maintain their current hubs and see no advantage going anywhere else. It's the non local airlines that will likely benefit most from a runway extension.

Motorhussy · Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:24 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 91):
SQ will operate 10 round-trip flights a week for the summer peak travel period

Between SIN-CHC.

Quoting ZaphodHarkonnen (Reply 95):
And any runway extension would allow any B747 or A320 aircraft to take off at MTOW.

B737 presumably

The point I'd make re QF is that their flights out of WLG are to either go to their hubs or feed their hubs so of course they're not going to do any long-haul out of WLG; where would they fly?

ZaphodHarkonnen · Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:39 am

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 96):
B737 presumably

Nah, I have it on good confidence that Qantas is about to purchase 42 B748s. :p

Yes, B737. :p Though just imagine B748s flying out of WLG. Mmmmmmmmm.

777ER · Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:59 am

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 94):

Will be nice to see further JQ expansion and maybe the addition of Q400s for higher demand routes like PMR, HLZ, ROT and adding further capacity/frequency to routes like WLG-CHC, WLG-DUD and maybe re-introducing WLG-ZQN services. I'm nearly on the verge of changing my NZ FF and NZ credit card to QF FF and their ANZ credit card as NZ is certainly more expensive and I can't justify personal travel like that. I'm about to purchase my first QF long haul ticket via SYD to DTW.

Gone for me are the days of where I was 100% loyal to NZ and only booked NZ tickets as I didn't think of looking for other options, so having an expanded JQ operation is amazing

aerorobnz · Tue Apr 12, 2016 9:34 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 98):
Gone for me are the days of where I was 100% loyal to NZ and only booked NZ tickets as I didn't think of looking for other options

As tempting as $750 rtn to asia or $1300 to EU or US on CZ/MU is, I like to be able to burn mileage when I feel like it on every day routes so skyteam is less than ideal and oneworld perhaps harder to get seats on every flight. I'm just organising my next mileage run now, I will use NZ on a couple of sectors, but not expecting the real points until I fly on the other carriers. Will just collect the airpoints on the NZ fares, which along with my credit card pay for my domestic sectors. That is the reason I stick with NZ over JQ

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net