Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 99):

Your reasons for using Airpoints is totally different compared to my reasons. My reason is for the status points so I can use the lounges, priority services and using the points for an upgrade. Based on this I don't believe changing to QF/OneWorld will impact me. On the bonus you also get bonus points from silver status upwards

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 94): Noooooo. She's my favorite 767....I still remember the day she was delivered, which makes me feel very old.

She has a couple more missions before she goes to pastures new.. I checked her schedule today. No idea where she's going to yet, although if I had to hazard a guess I'd go with Westjet. I think they might like 763s with the spec of NZ's for their HNL ops.

Apparently AR has re-timed certain flights (Rio De Janeiro/Sao Paolo) to connect better with the NZ service (as we were expecting/hoping they would do).

Nelson airline Originair has ended its association with former operator Air Freight NZ but expects to by flying again before long, says managing director Robert Inglis.

It intended to operate mainly in the charter market and to resume the Nelson-Palmerston North run, he said, either with another operator or by gaining its own operating certificate

http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel...ng-should-be-over-soon-says-inglis


Long-haul flights out of Wellington are a pipe dream, according to New Zealand's national carrier.

But Wellington Airport is already in talks to hook up with Asian airlines to fly direct out of the city, it has been revealed.

On Tuesday Air New Zealand and Qantas savaged plans for a $300 million runway extension at Wellington airport, saying no airline could make money out of it.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...if-the-runway-extension-goes-ahead

Quoting 777ER (Reply 103): On Tuesday Air New Zealand and Qantas savaged plans for a $300 million runway extension at Wellington airport, saying no airline could make money out of it.

So exactly what is WLG's the deal with SIN.? $9 a passenger in or out or both ways ? Any break on landing fees? Anything else?

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 104): So exactly what is WLG's the deal with SIN.? $9 a passenger in or out or both ways ? Any break on landing fees? Anything else?

My understanding is that it's a time limited subsidy and nothing else. However that's also with just the current runway, no extension included.

As noted in the article, WIAL was never planning on Qantas or Air NZ on starting long haul flights out of WLG. As someone on another site pointed out, Qantas doesn't even do long haul out of AKL, so of course WLG is a no go for them.

The obvious first cab off the rank is being a feeder for SIN and HKG hubs. Not turning WLG into a long haul hub itself.

Quoting ZaphodHarkonnen (Reply 105): As noted in the article, WIAL was never planning on Qantas or Air NZ on starting long haul flights out of WLG. As someone on another site pointed out, Qantas doesn't even do long haul out of AKL, so of course WLG is a no go for them.

I think there are two appropriate examples where foreign airlines can make long haul routes work when a "national carrier" cant:

- CHC which is now served by SQ, EK, CI, CZ (and no long haul NZ)
- ADL which is now served internationally by NZ, SQ, EK, CX, MH and soon QR (but no international QF - although I think JQ and VA do some flying?).

NZ or QF's lack of interest is not reflective of the market opportunity for other carriers and WLG are right to be targeting the hub carriers in Asia and North America. One would hope they would support a partner airline if one was to do it.

Quoting a7ala (Reply 106):

Its always been so obvious that NZ and QF wasn't going to ever be interested in long haul out of WLG as NZ prefer to funnel through AKL and QF through Australia. QF Group doesn't seem interested in flying their own aircraft long haul out of New Zealand as per the upcoming arrival of AA.

For NZ and QF to come out of the woods and savage a plan that they have never intended of operating from is really bizarre and can only be put down to trying to reduce the chances of competition and the eventual loss of passengers on their own routes out of WLG to AKL and Australia.

Just need to look at what happened to NZ and QF fares once SQ announced WLG services. Both airlines instantly offered sales and this will only continue as all airlines (NZ, QF, JQ, VA and SQ) vie for a bigger share of the pie.

Quoting a7ala (Reply 106): ADL which is now served internationally by NZ, SQ, EK, CX, MH and soon QR (but no international QF - although I think JQ and VA do some flying?).

JQ and VA don't do any long haul flying from ADL. QF only do medium haul flying from ADL

Quoting 777ER (Reply 107): For NZ and QF to come out of the woods and savage a plan that they have never intended of operating from is really bizarre and can only be put down to trying to reduce the chances of competition and the eventual loss of passengers on their own routes out of WLG to AKL and Australia.

I think they just want to make it clear that they have no interest in being expected to foot the bill for Wellington Airport's white elephant. I don't think either NZ or QF can be blamed for not wanting to stump up for a project they did not ask for and do not need.

I also suspect that whether they want/need it or not, as the two biggest users of the airport they will end up stuck paying for this after the folly of 'build it and they will come' is demonstrated when the influx of longhaul carriers completely fails to eventuate ( to the surprise of absolutely no one except the Wellington Airport company).

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 108): I also suspect that whether they want/need it or not, as the two biggest users of the airport they will end up stuck paying for this after the folly of 'build it and they will come' is demonstrated when the influx of longhaul carriers completely fails to eventuate ( to the surprise of absolutely no one except the Wellington Airport company).

The airport company has repeatedly said publicly they will not be asked to pay for it if they dont use it. Given that assurance, you do have to presume the opposition is based on the possibility of increased competition. Like I said, it may not make sense for either of them to use their own metal, but QF should be supporting EK were they to come in, and NZ should be supporting say SQ or CX or any other of their alliance partners in the face of the other side possibly doing it.

Quoting a7ala (Reply 109): The airport company has repeatedly said publicly they will not be asked to pay for it if they dont use it.

The airport company says that now... but at some point, the bills will come due... and when no new carriers turn up to pay for the extension the existing airlines are almost certainly going to find their own charges will be increased. Costs which they will then have to pass on to their own customers.

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 108):

Sure they may say they won't use it for longer flights but are you also saying that they won't take advantage of being able to have higher loads on their current flights? Its worthy of noting that both QF and NZ have remained silent over increasing their current loads and taking advantage of the possible increased length on offer, which leads me to believe that they are fully intending of taking advantage of it.

Sure you may say its a white elephant and you have every right to say that but you can't deny that the current airlines who fly to WLG will benefit from the longer runway load wise. That to me says that they intend to use the benefits of the newer runway length and that brings economic benefit to the city AND New Zealand through the business links.

The longer runway also enables WLG to be used more as a diversion airport over OHA. I know I would rather divert to WLG over OHA if it ends up being a longer diversion with the possibility of being able to disembark compared to the Military restrictions preventing it.

Quoting a7ala (Reply 109): supporting EK were they to come in

EK have stated in the past that they looking at WLG but couldn't due to runway length. They have stated publicly that if the runway was extended and they got approval for further flights then WLG would get service. Yes its only via BNE/SYD/MEL but it provides excellent cargo options which NZ/QF/JQ wouldn't provide. SQ service will provide SQ with a gold mine for the extra cargo capabilities. A Vietnam carrier has publicly stated possible WLG service from 2020. That couldn't happen unless they decided to operate here via Australia

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 110): when no new carriers turn up to pay for the extension

No one knows what airlines have shown interest so its a bit rich and childish to state that. AIAL is facing massive capacity constraints which in turn will result in complaints by passengers to the airlines. All AIAL seem interested in is increasing bus operations which feels like a LCC service. Just look at how constrained AKL is now during the peak periods and how worse its going to get. WLG and CHC stand to benefit from this.

Before any massive projects start a business case always has to be made. Those business cases include confirmed users. If the runway extension was built as no one came then people would loose their jobs over it which no ones wants.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 111): The longer runway also enables WLG to be used more as a diversion airport over OHA. I know I would rather divert to WLG over OHA if it ends up being a longer diversion with the possibility of being able to disembark compared to the Military restrictions preventing it.

This isn't really that relevant to airlines. For planning purposes they use whichever airfield is closest and has a suitable approach and runway. For example, CX uses OHA as an alternate for AKL despite it not having passenger handling facilities. We also use ONT for LAX despite having an online port at SFO just an hour away, this saves carrying an extra ~5t fuel and burning an extra ~1t every flight. It's worth the inconvenience during a rare diversion from near the destination for the massive fuel saving over the course of many flights.

For the WLG example, an airline flying long haul into AKL would need to carry an extra ~500kg alternate fuel plus burn an extra ~200kg to carry the extra fuel to have WLG as an alternate over OHA. For a daily flight over the course of a year that's an extra 73t fuel burnt for the benefit of saving your passengers sitting on an aircraft for a couple of hours while you refuel. It's not a compelling case.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 111): Sure you may say its a white elephant and you have every right to say that but you can't deny that the current airlines who fly to WLG will benefit from the longer runway load wise.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 111): The longer runway also enables WLG to be used more as a diversion airport over OHA. I know I would rather divert to WLG over OHA if it ends up being a longer diversion

Absolutely agree. And as a passenger, knowing that WLG is a challenging airport by any standards, the added security of a few hundred metres of runway is not unwelcome.

Ultimately, this is just free enterprise in action - whatever one's politics, it's the system that prevails. NZ and QF see commercial disadvantage to themselves through potentially higher costs and more direct competition on routes to Asia. They therefore oppose the extension. However, the company can see that an airport like CHC can grow long-haul business, and back themselves to attract airlines which will look at a catchment of maybe a million people and see the potential. If the extension is built, NZ and QF have the option of (a) sucking it up, (b) taking advantage of the operating benefits and embracing it, or (c) focusing their resources elsewhere. Just another commercial decision forced to be taken as a consequence of a decision by another player in the same industry.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 107): For NZ and QF to come out of the woods and savage a plan that they have never intended of operating from is really bizarre and can only be put down to trying to reduce the chances of competition and the eventual loss of passengers on their own routes out of WLG to AKL and Australia.

They do have an reason to have conercen, they don't want to have any extra costs from the runway extension to be passed onto them. When you operate as many flights as the two of them do into WLG, you can understand how much extra costs will hit them.

Would you be happy to pay an extra $10 on your WLG-AKL flight to go towards an longer runway?

Quoting zkncj (Reply 115): Would you be happy to pay an extra $10 on your WLG-AKL flight to go towards an longer runway?

I'd be certainly be okay with $5 and probably $10.

I don't think domestic airfares are expensive these days and I very much believe in the idea of "user pays."

mariner

Quoting CHCalfonzo (Reply 113): It's not a compelling case.

Oh it certainly is a compelling case especially since OHA is only to be used in emergencies so how can CX always rely on OHA being available? Add in the fact that the Government has considered further restrictions on OHA being used.

Quoting zkncj (Reply 115):

What about the benefits to the airlines of being able to operate with less restrictions?

As a person with insider knowledge I'm not concerned one bit about facing extra costs as I know the numbers are there to support a minimum of a daily service. Even if it did end up with some costs being passed on (which I highly doubt), I know it won't result in extra fares as high as $10 as the higher operating benefits to the airlines will offset extra costs and extra passengers being carried will result in higher income for the airport company. NZ is increasing passenger capacity on daily flights with the introduction of further ATR aircraft which increases daily seats.

Having an extended runway brings a safer operating environment and any small increase in costs should outstrip the airlines cries

Ahhhh my favourite topic.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 112): No one knows what airlines have shown interest so its a bit rich and childish to state that.

Yeah, so a little rich to ask for a two-thirds donation from the tax/ratepayer then, eh? No one knows - so why should the public front up?

Quoting 777ER (Reply 112): Yes its only via BNE/SYD/MEL but it provides excellent cargo options which NZ/QF/JQ wouldn't provide.

They can all provide this already if there was a market. But there's not, so they're not throwing widebodies on the Tasman. I'm not sure what Wellington produces that is so bulky requiring widebody pallets. NZ has struggled to even offer a daily Melbourne connection in the recent past.

Quoting a7ala (Reply 109): The airport company has repeatedly said publicly they will not be asked to pay for it if they dont use it.

Disingenuous. The user-fees structure is based on asset values. So by increasing the asset value with a lengthened runway, the fees will reflect this. Unless there is some carve-out dispensation - by whom I'm not sure - then you open the possibility of this occuring in airports all over the country and airlines demanding that it becomes purely user-pays. Problem is that airport infrastructure devleopment is usually so hefty that it relies on a contribution from carriers even if they don't directly benefit.

Can. Of. Worms.

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 114): Ultimately, this is just free enterprise in action - whatever one's politics, it's the system that prevails.

Hardly - it's Infratil trying to rort the rate/taxpayer. Even the SQ service required public monies at $8 million over ten years. More like corporate welfare.

Quoting mariner (Reply 116): I'd be certainly be okay with $5 and probably $10.

Well that makes one. Now for the other 7 million passengers a year.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 117): What about the benefits to the airlines of being able to operate with less restrictions?

Well apparently, so far, those very airlines believe the benefits of lower fees outweigh the supposed benefits of fewer restrictions.

[Edited 2016-04-13 23:41:10]

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 118): Well that makes one. Now for the other 7 million passengers a year.

I can't speak for the other 7 million, of course, only for myself.

I've had some rough landings at WLG in my time and if a longer runway made me feel a little more comfortable or a little less anxious - if only as a concept - I'd pay it.

mariner

Quoting 777ER (Reply 117): What about the benefits to the airlines of being able to operate with less restrictions?

Currently both NZ/QF are operating there A320/738 on many Tasman routes that are near the MTOW, if anything only AKL-CNS needs the runway length and MTOW.

The current runway is fit of the main purpose of the airport, which is an Domestic Hub and short-hual Intentional.

Quoting mariner (Reply 116): I'd be certainly be okay with $5 and probably $10. I don't think domestic airfares are expensive these days and I very much believe in the idea of "user pays."

I'm ok with user pays, but it should only apply to passengers on flights that need the extra runway. It should be forced on passengers flights that aren't needing it.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 118): Quoting 777ER (Reply 112): No one knows what airlines have shown interest so its a bit rich and childish to state that. Yeah, so a little rich to ask for a two-thirds donation from the tax/ratepayer then, eh? No one knows - so why should the public front up?

Why not if it results in a direct contribution to the local and national economy? Like it or not but Wellington is one of the major players in the national economy and I can't see why a private company should 100% pay for the upfront costs when the country benefits. Going by what you believe, its like you would also expect the company that is building the Transmission Gully motorway in Wellington to fully pay for the upfront costs when it will benefit the national economy - that is why its a public/private partnership. If the runway extension was ONLY going to benefit the airport company and not the national economy like it will then yes I believe the airport company should fully pay for it, but since it would benefit the economy then it should be public/private partnership. There is no harm in AIAL having more competition to keep it honest and there is certainly no harm in NZ having competition for other parts. Anyone that believes AIAL and NZ shouldn't have competition needs to get their heads out of the sand as they clearly support anti competition.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 118): Quoting 777ER (Reply 112): Yes its only via BNE/SYD/MEL but it provides excellent cargo options which NZ/QF/JQ wouldn't provide. Eh? They can all provide this already if there was a market. But there's not, so they're not throwing widebodies on the Tasman. I'm not sure what Wellington produces that is so bulky requiring widebody pallets. NZ has struggled to even offer a daily Melbourne connection in the recent past.

Remember the days of when NZ and QF operated widebody services from WLG? QF operated B763s to WLG till around 2002/3 and on the days a widebody operated, the cargo loads were much bigger then what the B737s/A320s carried. Cargo is the real bread and butter for an airline. When widebody services stopped that forced many Wellington companies to road or rail their goods to Auckland. The transport industry have stated it many times over the years and one major transport player has also opposed the extension on the basis it would result in job losses.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 118): Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 114): Ultimately, this is just free enterprise in action - whatever one's politics, it's the system that prevails. Hardly - it's Infratil trying to rort the rate/taxpayer. Even the SQ service required public monies at $8 million over ten years. More like corporate welfare.

So do you clearly believe that new services shouldn't get support to build up the services and airports shouldn't offer discounts to encourage new services? Heck you better tell AIAL and CIAL that if you believe it as they have done it and still do it. All of your comments are only painting one picture, and that picture is your anti Wellington services on a basis that someone who doesn't have a clue about how all of this works out, unless of course you've got inside knowledge of airlines that WIAL have spoken to, which if you do then I'm perfectly happy to be proven wrong and of course change my views

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 118): Quoting 777ER (Reply 117): What about the benefits to the airlines of being able to operate with less restrictions? Well apparently, so far, those very airlines believe the benefits of lower fees outweigh the supposed benefits of fewer restrictions.

Is that what you believe or have the airlines publicly stated that? I haven't seen any airline publicly state that which leads me to believe its what you believe

Quoting zkncj (Reply 120): Quoting 777ER (Reply 117): What about the benefits to the airlines of being able to operate with less restrictions? Currently both NZ/QF are operating there A320/738 on many Tasman routes that are near the MTOW, if anything only AKL-CNS needs the runway length and MTOW.

Would love to know where your getting your information from as its been reported by the airlines many times that WIAL's runway length causes them issues on Tasman/Island flights. FJ wanted to operate the B738 into WLG but due to its length and flight times the B73G provides better options due to its increased operational benefits for challenging runways

Quoting zkncj (Reply 120): Quoting mariner (Reply 116): I'd be certainly be okay with $5 and probably $10. I don't think domestic airfares are expensive these days and I very much believe in the idea of "user pays." I'm ok with user pays, but it should only apply to passengers on flights that need the extra runway. It should be forced on passengers flights that aren't needing it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for fairness and ensuring the correct service pays and I'm sure the airlines are going to ensure all fairness when the airlines/airports talk. The airlines alliances can also assist the airlines here when it comes for renewal

Quoting 777ER (Reply 117): Oh it certainly is a compelling case especially since OHA is only to be used in emergencies so how can CX always rely on OHA being available? Add in the fact that the Government has considered further restrictions on OHA being used.

OHA is not "only to be used in emergencies." Various agreements between airlines and the RNZAF exist regarding the use of Ohakea. Wellington provides very little compelling case over and above what already exists.

Quoting Mr AirNZ (Reply 123):

All the information I've seen/heard says that cause OHA is an Air Force base and hence is a national security zone, it can only be used by commercial aircraft in an emergency situation. Do you have any links/source for these agreements

Quoting 777ER (Reply 124):

Project Alternate

Rough Auckland weather forces international flight to land at Ohakea

http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/repo...f-ohakea-alternate-airfield%20.pdf
To quote the executive summary "The nomination and use of an aerodrome as an Alternate is not associated with its use by an aircraft declaring an emergency."

An example from last year http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel...rnational-flight-to-land-at-Ohakea

"Project Alternate is a standing arrangement whereby aircraft can divert to Ohakea in this sort of circumstance."

Edit: I should just add the above document is five years old and for the most part explains what happens but they're are some added things not outlined but frankly for the purpose of the discussion aren't relevant.

[Edited 2016-04-14 03:56:30]

Quoting 777ER (Reply 122): FJ wanted to operate the B738 into WLG but due to its length and flight times the B73G provides better options due to its increased operational benefits for challenging runways

Interesting, I've only ever seen FJ 738 on both the tarmac and FR24.

I know I don't often share my thoughts, but I've always viewed WLG as a very limited International airport in relation to it's population catchment size. I mean, I've been at ZQN when there was 11 international flights departing in 6 hours, you'd be hard pressed to find anything similar at WLG. I know the market is entirely different, but for an airport with a (very) wide catchment population of roughly 1m, it seems questionable that NZ struggles to sustain a daily MEL and twice daily SYD. NZ's weak WLG trans-tasman service combined with a lack of competition on WLG-BNE raises some serious questions in my head over the viability of international WLG serivce in it's entirety. Lets not forget that EK could have, a long time ago, added WLG via SYD (or MEL,BNE). They still could now without a runway extension. Those original A340-500 NZ services would have rocketed off WLG's short runway.

Additionally, I know this is controversial, but for a country of our size, doesn't it make sense to have two large international airports - one on each island with decent connectivity throughout the domestic network? A one hour flight to an airport with a ton of options is nothing to be ashamed of, infact, many similar cities worldwide would be envious (eg. PLZ ) .

[Edited 2016-04-14 04:02:59]

[Edited 2016-04-14 04:05:15]

[Edited 2016-04-14 04:07:45]

[Edited 2016-04-14 04:08:25]

Maybe 777ER can help me with this . Going through the WIA airport landing fees there is a rate upto MCTOW of 100t. Then it appears it is incremental above that. My question is , where a type is weight limited out of WLG , is that its MCTOW or does the published MCTOW apply (for example 737-800 174200 lbs.) . My view is that with the extended runway load limited operators will be paying at least more by virtue of the extra passengers enplaned. Any elaboration would be appreciated......

Quoting 777ER (Reply 124): All the information I've seen/heard says that cause OHA is an Air Force base and hence is a national security zone, it can only be used by commercial aircraft in an emergency situation. Do you have any links/source for these agreements

In saying that, in theory BHE shouldn't be allowed flights then? NZ use the BHE air force base runway

The main issues with OHA is the lack of Customs, hence the lack of being allowed of the aircraft.

A few years back when an NZ 733 (Domestic) made an emergency landing in OHA passengers we're allowed off, and let into an Hanga to wait.

Quoting Sylus (Reply 127): Interesting, I've only ever seen FJ 738 on both the tarmac and FR24.

FJ have to block out at least 30 seats WLGNAN when they fly the B738.

Quoting Sylus (Reply 127): I know I don't often share my thoughts, but I've always viewed WLG as a very limited International airport in relation to it's population catchment size. I mean, I've been at ZQN when there was 11 international flights departing in 6 hours, you'd be hard pressed to find anything similar at WLG. I know the market is entirely different, but for an airport with a (very) wide catchment population of roughly 1m, it seems questionable that NZ struggles to sustain a daily MEL and twice daily SYD. NZ's weak WLG trans-tasman service combined with a lack of competition on WLG-BNE raises some serious questions in my head over the viability of international WLG serivce in it's entirety. Lets not forget that EK could have, a long time ago, added WLG via SYD (or MEL,BNE). They still could now without a runway extension. Those original A340-500 NZ services would have rocketed off WLG's short runway.

Circa 500k residents in the region and 750k residents when you include Manawatu/Wanganui drive market. FYI WLG does 900k international pax vs ZQN's 450k (ZQN will always be limited by its small local population). NZ struggles to maintain daily MEL and 2xdaily SYD as they put all the connecting traffic via AKL. EK couldnt use an A340-500 at WLG - even the -300 would be a stretch - the issue with most of these aircraft is landing distance, not takeoff. The only aircraft they could possibly use would be a B777-200LR which would be a waste on a short sector Tasman.

Quoting a7ala (Reply 130): The only aircraft they could possibly use would be a B777-200LR which would be a waste on a short sector Tasman.

But would do WLG-SIN or WLG-PER with a typical 270 seat passenger load.

Quoting a7ala (Reply 130): EK couldnt use an A340-500 at WLG - even the -300 would be a stretch - the issue with most of these aircraft is landing distance, not takeoff. The only aircraft they could possibly use would be a B777-200LR which would be a waste on a short sector Tasman.

How is SQ doing CBR-WLG with a 777-200A then? Not 100% sure, but wouldn't a A340-500 have better runway performance than an old 777-200A?

Quoting Sylus (Reply 132): How is SQ doing CBR-WLG with a 777-200A then

Aren't they doing WLG-CBR ? Can't see the -200A doing WLG-SIN

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 133): Aren't they doing WLG-CBR ? Can't see the -200A doing WLG-SIN

Yes they are doing WLG-CBR (and vice versa) - thats my point, I was saying earlier that EK could have a long time ago served WLG from SYD,MEL,BNE. a7ala pointed out that the A345 couldn't do it, only the 77L. I was thus suprised to hear this since SQ is serving a similar length route with an old 772.

[Edited 2016-04-14 16:40:38]

so the routing is SIN-CBR-WLG-CBR-SIN. The 772A MTOW out of WLG is ~225t . Its range at this TOW with ~270-passengers is about 2000nm. Fine for TT services but little more.

Quoting Sylus (Reply 132): How is SQ doing CBR-WLG with a 777-200A then? Not 100% sure, but wouldn't a A340-500 have better runway performance than an old 777-200A?

As I say I think it would be a wet landing issue rather than takeoff (the A340-500 is quite a bit longer?). Most widebodies can achieve good payload to Australia on takeoff, but for the larger aircraft its the landing that's the issue.

Quoting a7ala (Reply 136): but for the larger aircraft its the landing that's the issue.

Lets assume the landing weight is DOW @ 162t plus 270-passengers ( 30t ) plus fuel (10t) The Boeing ACAP tables show a landing distance needed of 5000ft. The tables show no difference between wet and dry conditions at sea level. An average of 10k wind on the nose will help No problem I would say.

[Edited 2016-04-14 18:24:30]

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 137): Lets assume the landing weight is DOW @ 162t plus 270-passengers ( 30t ) plus fuel (10t) The Boeing ACAP tables show a landing distance needed of 5000ft. The tables show no difference between wet and dry conditions at sea level. An average of 10k wind on the nose will help No problem I would say.

Airbus planning manual has 200T landing at sea level requiring around 1750-1800m landing field length for A340-500. It doesnt distinguish between dry and wet, but I would suspect this is dry. WLG's runway is LDA 1814m.

AA are really going out on the attack with their new LAX-AKL route -

"Airfares plunge: US-NZ flights as low as $328"

Increased airline competition on routes between Los Angeles and New Zealand has pushed fares down as low as NZ$328 return when booked in the United States.

Travel websites in the US say that although the fare on American Airlines has sold out, there were a a number sold at this super low level. Of the US225 price, taxes make up $US109.

From late June, American will fly between Los Angeles and Auckland using a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner.

When American Airlines announced last November it was flying the route, Air New Zealand cut some Grabaseat airfares to Los Angeles from about $785 to $499.
Fares have typically ranged around $1500 to $1600 in the past, depending on time of travel.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ticle.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11623081

How will NZ reply to this?

Quoting Sylus (Reply 127): Quoting 777ER (Reply 122): FJ wanted to operate the B738 into WLG but due to its length and flight times the B73G provides better options due to its increased operational benefits for challenging runways Interesting, I've only ever seen FJ 738 on both the tarmac and FR24.

FJ have the 73G listed for the dates I was looking at using them for an upcoming DTW trip, but its common knowledge that the 73G has superior performance over a B738/739ER/A320/A321 using the same length

Quoting Sylus (Reply 127): I know the market is entirely different, but for an airport with a (very) wide catchment population of roughly 1m, it seems questionable that NZ struggles to sustain a daily MEL and twice daily SYD. NZ's weak WLG trans-tasman service combined with a lack of competition on WLG-BNE raises some serious questions in my head over the viability of international WLG serivce in it's entirety

Yes ZQN is a totally different market compared to WLG so its like comparing apples with oranges. ZQN and WLG yearly passenger count is totally different and even ZQN struggles with so many arrivals at once.

QF group can maintain 11x weekly WLG-MEL and double daily SYD. NZ have always struggled to maintain their WLG TT schedule at various times of the year but QF doesn't seem to have issues, so clearly its not a WLG issue but an NZ issue. QF tested the waters with BNE this summer season so hopefully we'll see a return again during this years upcoming summer season.

Quoting Sylus (Reply 127): Lets not forget that EK could have, a long time ago, added WLG via SYD (or MEL,BNE). They still could now without a runway extension. Those original A340-500 NZ services would have rocketed off WLG's short runway.

Yes EK have if they felt they could operate into WLG but EK have publicly stated in the past that safety implications due to runway length played a big part in their decision to fly to CHC instead. EK also stated that if the runway length wasn't as issue then EK would be flying to WLG. The codeshare deal with QF gives EK a foot into the WLG market which works for them.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 128):

I don't know the full charging but pax counts on each flight helps to determine the fees each flight is charged

Quoting zkncj (Reply 129): Quoting 777ER (Reply 124): All the information I've seen/heard says that cause OHA is an Air Force base and hence is a national security zone, it can only be used by commercial aircraft in an emergency situation. Do you have any links/source for these agreements In saying that, in theory BHE shouldn't be allowed flights then? NZ use the BHE air force base runway

RNZAF Woodbourne isn't a major Air Force base compared to what OHA is. Woodbourne only has a RNZAF training center now.

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 139): How will NZ reply to this?

Maybe they won't.

The American sale fares are unsustainable, except on a limited basis as a seat filler, so I'm not sure that Air NZ needs to do anything.

mariner

How often does JQ have the 787 on their AKL-SYD service? Noticed the 787 is scheduled for several flights next week

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 139):

This has been happening for the last 8 weeks on Australian routes and recently with UA offering return Australian fares from DL hubs (ATL, SEA, SLC, DTW) for under $500. QF offered AKL for even cheaper several hours later either direct with AA or via Australia. These fare wars have mainly been between UA and DL but AA have now joined. The fares are only considered as a 'flash sale' to avoid the eyes of the law makers and aren't for sale for several days as normal sale fares sell for

Air New Zealand has won a court battle over pilot pay.

Its pilots can belong to one of two employee associations, either New Zealand Airline Pilots' Association (ALPA) or the Federation of Air New Zealand Pilots (FANZP).

ALPA has a clause in its contract that says any more favourable agreement the airline enters into with another group will be passed on, on request.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/7899...d-wins-court-battle-over-pilot-pay

Quoting 777ER (Reply 142): How often does JQ have the 787 on their AKL-SYD service? Noticed the 787 is scheduled for several flights next week

Its now a couple times an week, AKL-MEL now also gets a couple of weekly services on JQ with the 788.

Been looking at Air Chathams Whakatane services and been informed by an Air Chathams staff member that the Metroliners operate the majority of the services with the CV580 only being used during very high demand periods due to its commitment to the Chatham routes

Quoting zkncj (Reply 144):

Thank you.

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 139): AA are really going out on the attack with their new LAX-AKL route -

Promo fares due lack of demand/interest in bookings from the USA end until now. Probably due to lack of market awareness/advertising from that end. You note that the fares from this end, where everyone is aware AA is flying the fares are fairly much normal. It won't last unless load factors stay really low, which of course when you're talking about fares this low is unlikely.

Quoting zkncj (Reply 144): Its now a couple times an week, AKL-MEL now also gets a couple of weekly services on JQ with the 788.

I think it's a bit ironic that QF doesn't serve AKL with any widebodies (except the odd swap and the PER flights) yet JQ is doing so..

From the IAH passenger statistics we learn that the inbound passenger count for January from AKL was 5527 and outbound 6030.
February was 4687 and 5338 respectively.
How many flights per week were there? 5 in each direction? If so the load factors were pretty good!

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 148):

Yep 5 weekly looks like a pretty solid start for a new route which will daily in December January this year. Average of 250 odd pax for those 2 months is pretty good.

Quoting zkncj (Reply 144):

School holidays and peak times, I don't think it operates year round.