Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
zkncj
Posts: 3914
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Sat Apr 16, 2016 2:22 am

Quoting ZK-NBT (Reply 149):
School holidays and peak times, I don't think it operates year round.

It has been for the past couple of months, maybe there are just trying it out and keep extending it?

Could also be taking cargo for the Qantas Group, e.g. some of the flights to MEL are overnight.
 
HLZCPH
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 1:35 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Sat Apr 16, 2016 2:48 am

Quoting zkncj (Reply 150):
It has been for the past couple of months, maybe there are just trying it out and keep extending it?

Could also be taking cargo for the Qantas Group, e.g. some of the flights to MEL are overnight.

Perhaps also for crew training being a short hop? More 787s are coming for the QF group.

Issues with Jetstar in AKL last night? Family member had a huge delay with a flight to CHC (JQ245). Perhaps they were unaware of the school term break?!
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2793
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Sat Apr 16, 2016 4:05 am

Ahhhhhhh, nothing like lazy Saturday afternoons for an ANet rant.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 121):
Why not if it results in a direct contribution to the local and national economy?

A. These "benefits" are often lauded, rarely proven. Independent analysis has raised serious questions around this, but apparently even that doesn't stand whatever litmus test you have. The purported "wider economic benefits" of saving a few hundred pax a day (if that, remember, they're not all going to one destination) a couple of hours transit time - quantify that.

B. Lots of things pursued by private interests benefit the wider economy. Fonterra upgrading processing plants, NZ expanding a maintenance facility, Microsoft establishing a local support centre. Government's role is, I believe, to facilitate this by providing the supporting infrastructure - roading, power, skilled labour force etc - rather than direct subsidy. And that seems to be the model pursued in New Zealand generally (aside from some widely regarded clunkers such as the Bluff refinery corporate welfare muck up).

Quoting 777ER (Reply 121):
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.

This isn't a slight against Wellington. It's a fact that New Zealand already has a significant number of international airports by any measure - population, GDP, probably even landmass. And I don't think anyone here has claimed Infratil should front up 100%, just the proportion that reflects their two thirds ownership of the facility.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 121):
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.

Now you're confusing a tendering and contract model with ownership. PPPs are pursued for vastly different reasons than what is proposed for WIAL - an established asset whereby one owner is seeking expansion of assets to net additional returns. PPPs are generally pursued to fund and operate entirely new assets where technical/construction/tender management/operational expertise from a private operator is deemed more beneficial than public monies alone under a more standard contract model. And PPPs are a mixed bag at that, if you take a gander at examples around the world.

Actually, under PPPs, private partners usually assume outsized risk from the delivery of a project, in return for a greater share of returns. Which in WIAL's case, suggests Infratil should shoulder more than 66% of the bill than its ownership implies.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 121):
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.

But the only independent analysis of this suggests it won't benefit as Infratil purports. Actually, if Infratil's claims are true, then it would have a negative impact elsewhere in the economy, sucking traffic from AKL and CHC.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 121):
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.

Where did this come from? No one is claiming that they shouldn't be subject to competition. Hell I'm a big fan of Whenuapai, if only moderately developed to get AIAL to up its game and spook NZ. But the claimed benefits of the WLG extension are in dispute by just about everyone other than Infratil, suggesting it's more likely there won't be competitive pressure because the flurry of services won't result from the extension and hundreds of millions of dollars would have been wasted.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 121):
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.

So you're saying that for whatever this freight is (still unidentified), there is a current, economically viable solution? And didn't those widebodies operate at significantly reduced frequency?

Quoting 777ER (Reply 121):
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?

Pretty much, yeah, unless the airport is fully privately held and is only using private interests' money. Wellington Council seems to throw ratepayers' money around pretty freely these days, without much of a mandate - hell they can't even get the Island Bay cycle path right. And my direct experience with a programme to attract airlines to an Australian city saw vast sums allocated to very shaky agreements. The net benefits never eventuated.

Not to mention it kinda undermines the argument that there is this mass of pent up, high-yielding demand for traffic to and from Wellington. Apparently that only exists when Council fronts up with $8 million.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 121):
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

I don't quite follow this. My argument is that if the project requires an outsized investment from Council/Government, Infratil should show their hand, reveal the airline negotiations underway and this should be taken to local elections or even a referendum. Where I do have "inside knowledge" is the basis for which these decisions are made - assuming no political interference. And that requires evidence, modelling, analysis, expert opinion. Whihc all requires data and information.

If Infratil had just asked for funding proportional to each owner's share of the facility, then that's different. But they've asked for much more than that. Which should rightly drive a lot of healthy skepticism.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 121):
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

It's a logical conclusion to their behaviour. Both QF and NZ have both said they don't see the need for the extended runway and they don't want to pay for it. Ergo, they see the oft-claimed (on here) benefits of increased range/payload etc touted here has less valuable than the lower fees and operational flexibility afforded by the existing facility.

I would have thought that was fairly obvious but I'm happy to hear an alternative logic. Feel free.
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10117
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Sat Apr 16, 2016 5:48 am

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 152):

Thank you for your in-depth reply.

In terms of WIAL Vs Airlines as you could put it, only QF and NZ have spoken out against it - yes they are the biggest airlines at WLG but both of them have their main operations at AKL/SYD. I haven't seen any comment from VA or FJ over the runway plans. For FJ it would benefit them by enabling them to operate B738s with no seat restrictions compared to what they currently have when operating B738s instead of B73Gs. BARNZ have spoken out claiming to represent all the airlines operating here but look at SQ who decided to launch services much to NZs obvious surprise. Yes its being done with support of $7 per passenger but if it enables SQ to grow the market till when it doesn't need the support any more then I'm happy with my Wellington based taxes being used for it. I'm not surprised NZ and QF have said they wouldn't be operating widebody flights as they have their focus elsewhere but surprised NZ have gone to the extremes of getting a company in to do their own risk assessment. How can we take with a grain of salt what a company employeed by NZ says? Yes the same can be said about WIAL and I do have some questions over their assessment but they hold all the key information where NZ wouldn't have all the full information. Lets look at Fiji who for their population size (881,065 in 2013) have two international airports on the same Island which are 215kms away from each other. Suva has 3 airlines operating to 7 international destinations. This to me is pointless having two international airports for their population size. New Zealand's population is currently around 4.6million which amounts to 1.53m per main international airport.

IMHO New Zealand can sustain having AKL, WLG and CHC as main international airports with ZQN being a secondary tourist focused one. AKL is currently at breaking point and has been for the last several years due to AIAL's blatant refusal to grow the airport to where there is still enough room for more services.

Having a long haul operator at WLG could take money away from either AKL or CHC if the operator currently flies there but if the operator decides to fly also to WLG on top of their current AKL or CHC service then its not really a loss to the other airport. If there was money removed from that local economy, then it would still flow into the national economy. Going by your argument of having lost money from either AKL or CHC, then what about the cruise ships that visit say Lyttelton but not Wellington or visit all the ports? Wouldn't it be better if that cruise ship just visits one port here and the passengers spend more money in that city? There is nothing wrong with having an airline fly to two or more different ports just like SQ, EK, NZ and QF currently do as its still benefiting the national economy.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 152):
Quoting 777ER (Reply 121):
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?

Pretty much, yeah, unless the airport is fully privately held and is only using private interests' money. Wellington Council seems to throw ratepayers' money around pretty freely these days

The same can be said for AKL or CHC which have Council backing. Benefits are paid to some airlines so they can grow their services and once enough support is there, the payments stop.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 152):

So you're saying that for whatever this freight is (still unidentified), there is a current, economically viable solution? And didn't those widebodies operate at significantly reduced frequency?

Having to send the freight by road or rail to say AKL adds further costs to the consumer/purchaser and in a world where the cheapest price wins that can hurt our economy if freight costs to AKL have to be included as another business in say Asia could win the contract. Having a major sea port in Wellington is helping a multi million dollar fire appliance building company in Wellington win contracts from Australia, Pacific Islands and recently in Asia. All of the new Scania, MAN and Iveco fire trucks on our roads come from the Wellington company but its not just the New Zealand Fire Service keeping the company is business or laying off staff, its the international contracts that account for over half of their annual sales. The sea port here enables the company to win contracts and having to send those trucks to a different port and the extra costs involved would result in the company loosing some contracts. Having a capable airport of handling wide bodies would enable more Wellington companies to win contracts as freight would be easier and cheaper. What is so wrong with that? Yes it would result in loss money elsewhere but it would result in more benefits for Wellington like jobs.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 152):
reveal the airline negotiations underway

Wouldn't that breach an airlines request to privacy before they can announce anything? Wouldn't that give the competition knowledge about plans? We all know airlines like to keep their plans quiet till announcements are made but obviously the airline information is being handed round Council and all required parties, but not the public domain.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 152):
And that requires evidence, modelling, analysis, expert opinion. Whihc all requires data and information.

Which has been gathered since 2003 when WIAL started questioning passengers and gathering their flight information/history. Something like this is obviously not done overnight.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 152):
Which should rightly drive a lot of healthy skepticism.

Yes it certainly has created a big discussion in the Wellington region and the feedback from the majority have stated they support the plans. The ones who mainly object are the ones surrounding the airport but they all decided to live near an airport as the airport was built first
Head Forum Moderator
[email protected]
Flown: 1900D,S340,Q300,AT72-5/6,DC3,CR2/7,E145,E70/75/90,A319/20/21,A332/3,A359,A380,F100,B717,B733/4/8/9,B742/4,B752/3,B763,B772/3, B789
With: NZ,SJ,QF,JQ,EK,VA,AA,UA,DL,FL,AC,FJ,SQ,TG,PR
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Sat Apr 16, 2016 1:52 pm

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 152):
And I don't think anyone here has claimed Infratil should front up 100%, just the proportion that reflects their two thirds ownership of the facility.

It seems to me Infratil is willing to be in to the extent that they forsee getting an acceptable return on investment. That seems fair to me. Any benefits beyond that will accrue to the community at large who I believe should pay for them.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 153):
Yes its being done with support of $7 per passenger

This is like taking money out of one pocket and putting it in another. Don't forget this $7 payment should be looked at in terms of the $15.96 received by WIAL as its passenger levy. I worked my way through the WIAL schedule of charges for a -200A . SIN can expect to pay ~ $190 for each visit plus $15.96 for each passenger in and out.
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Sat Apr 16, 2016 8:49 pm

Quoting zkncj (Reply 120):
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.

On that basis, affected passengers would incur a $100 plus surcharge per flight.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 121):
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.

Infratil don't see sufficient financial benefit to contribute on the basis of their pro rata shareholding (in fact they want to contribute significantly less),. If they don't see the benefits, surely that should be a warning to Government / quasi Government organisations keen to throw in tax payer money.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Sat Apr 16, 2016 10:04 pm

Quoting Planesmart (Reply 155):
surely that should be a warning to Government / quasi Government organisations keen to throw in tax payer money.

It should tell them that they need to have reasons other than an early return on investment to support their position. I believe as time goes on the investment will be worthwhile. Growth in the industry virtually guarantees this over time. As the market grows it will become attractive to more and more operators to use WLG. In other words the demand will expand to utilize the capability of the facility. It is unlikely to be NZ , it makes no sense cost wise to duplicate their AKL or CHC capability. QF will for the forseeable future use WLG to feed their Australian hubs, there is no economic reason for them to do otherwise.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Sat Apr 16, 2016 10:30 pm

Quoting Planesmart (Reply 155):
Infratil don't see sufficient financial benefit to contribute on the basis of their pro rata shareholding (in fact they want to contribute significantly less),. If they don't see the benefits, surely that should be a warning to Government / quasi Government organisations keen to throw in tax payer money.

Very few non-government organisations are going to put up more money than they have to if they think there's a good chance of government or ratepayer funding.

SjyCity may be funding the cost of the new convention centre itself, but it squeezed the government for everything it could get in the way of extra revenue - more pokies and gaming tables.

I have no horse in this race, the WLG runway extension will happen or not without my say-so, and really won't affect me much, if at all, but the Qantas position is a little disingenuous.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 156):
It is unlikely to be NZ , it makes no sense cost wise to duplicate their AKL or CHC capability.

And doesn't fly long-haul out of CHC anyway, unless you count PER as long-haul. While some of Air NZ's concerns about the WLG costs may well be justified, I assume their objections may also be about the protection of the AKL hub.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 156):
QF will for the forseeable future use WLG to feed their Australian hubs, there is no economic reason for them to do otherwise

  

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Sat Apr 16, 2016 11:17 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 157):
the Qantas position is a little disingenuous.

My take on QF is that they are getting quite a feed from WLG. BITRE shows the total passenger count to and from WLG -SYD y/e June 30th 2015 at 321454. I would hazard a guess that QF's share of this is significant, probably 60% and of that share, feed traffic is probably in excess of 100,000 maybe more.
 
coolian2
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:34 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Sun Apr 17, 2016 12:27 am

Just stepped out to see SQ286 climbing out with landing gear still extended. There's something you don't see every day!
Q300/ATR72-600/737-200/-300/-400/-700/-800/A320/767-200/-300/757-200/777-300ER/
747-200/-300/-400/ER/A340-300/A380-800/MD-83/-88/CRJ-700/-900
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10117
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:20 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 154):
Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 152):And I don't think anyone here has claimed Infratil should front up 100%, just the proportion that reflects their two thirds ownership of the facility.It seems to me Infratil is willing to be in to the extent that they forsee getting an acceptable return on investment. That seems fair to me. Any benefits beyond that will accrue to the community at large who I believe should pay for them.

  

Quoting Planesmart (Reply 155):
Quoting zkncj (Reply 120):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. On that basis, affected passengers would incur a $100 plus surcharge per flight.

$100 is basically what you would pay to fly to AKL or CHC for a connecting domestic > long haul flight anyway

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 156):
It is unlikely to be NZ , it makes no sense cost wise to duplicate their AKL or CHC capability. QF will for the forseeable future use WLG to feed their Australian hubs, there is no economic reason for them to do otherwise

   Which is fully understandable but I doubt their claims that they won't fully use the longer runway for their Tasman flights. Why would they want to fly with a lower load when they don't have to?

Quoting mariner (Reply 157):
I assume their objections may also be about the protection of the AKL hub.

Which can be considered as anti-competition. NZ and any other airline do this when other airlines want to do something, ie the QF/EK codeshare. Just look at NZs reaction to SQ announcing WLG, at first they were going to refuse to codeshare or allow FF earning on the route (typical NZ reaction for when another Star carrier with a better offering flies a Tasman route) but now they say will consider codesharing on SQ

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 158):
BITRE shows the total passenger count to and from WLG -SYD y/e June 30th 2015 at 321454. I would hazard a guess that QF's share of this is significant
QF certainly have the better product out of WLG, especially the lowest fare bracket. From what I've seen NZ has always lagged behind QF from WLG. I've now done the deed and booked a QF flight WLG-SYD-DFW-DTW return. For me that now ends my loyal NZ useage and QF FF programme is now my main FF base. I'll most likely keep my NZ Airpoints Kiwibank card but might consider downgrading to the Gold as the Qantas ANZ card doesn't have any that earn status points. I'll only use NZ when I can't fly somewhere with JQ or QF like WLG-TRG or WLG-ROT. One of the main decisions for me was the fact that with NZ Tasman you have to pay more to take luggage. QF match any NZ sale fare (Grab a Seat excluded) so the decision wasn't that hard to make. On the plus I'm really looking forward to my first A380 flight.

[Edited 2016-04-16 20:29:42]
Head Forum Moderator
[email protected]
Flown: 1900D,S340,Q300,AT72-5/6,DC3,CR2/7,E145,E70/75/90,A319/20/21,A332/3,A359,A380,F100,B717,B733/4/8/9,B742/4,B752/3,B763,B772/3, B789
With: NZ,SJ,QF,JQ,EK,VA,AA,UA,DL,FL,AC,FJ,SQ,TG,PR
 
User avatar
ZKNCL
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:00 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Sun Apr 17, 2016 11:48 am

Quoting coolian2 (Reply 159):
Just stepped out to see SQ286 climbing out with landing gear still extended. There's something you don't see every day

Mother Mary, I was on that flight!
FYI we also had a pretty average landing  

ZKNCL
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Sun Apr 17, 2016 4:13 pm

Quoting 777ER (Reply 160):
but I doubt their claims that they won't fully use the longer runway for their Tasman flights. Why would they want to fly with a lower load when they don't have to?

But they or their customers will pay for it. Every extra passenger that their increased TOW allows will cost them $15.96 in fees. I am sure they will be very happy to pay this in exchange for the additional TOW !
 
PA515
Posts: 1610
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Sun Apr 17, 2016 6:02 pm

Quoting 777ER (Reply 160):
Which is fully understandable but I doubt their claims that they won't fully use the longer runway for their Tasman flights. Why would they want to fly with a lower load when they don't have to?

Because Air NZ probably won't need to fly with a lower payload. The A320NEO will have a better performance from the present WLG runway. Air NZ's first A320NEO will be delivered in Aug 2017, before the runway extension is likely to be built.

I expect the same scenario for QF and JQ. The Qantas group has a large A320NEO order originally intended for various Jetstar franchises. Some are now likely to end up in QF colours.

PA515
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Sun Apr 17, 2016 6:16 pm

Quoting PA515 (Reply 163):
The A320NEO will have a better performance from the present WLG runway.

Do you have a link to the A320NEO runway length table ?
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Sun Apr 17, 2016 8:08 pm

Quoting 777ER (Reply 160):
$100 is basically what you would pay to fly to AKL or CHC for a connecting domestic > long haul flight anyway

That's assuming airlines will be offering Dubai, Singapore, HK, LA from Wellington, which I very much doubt.

Infrastructure like an airport, needs to be viewed very much as a NZ Inc asset and investment.

If the net effect, is construction erodes volumes from existing infrastructure, the benefits need to be discounted by this impact.

NZ being small, in a commercial sense, it's always amusing how global, and even some local businesses, are able to play off local government for development incentives, who are effectively in competition with each other. It's like an auction.

Easy to be generous, when it's not your money,
 
a7ala
Posts: 359
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Sun Apr 17, 2016 9:10 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 158):
My take on QF is that they are getting quite a feed from WLG. BITRE shows the total passenger count to and from WLG -SYD y/e June 30th 2015 at 321454. I would hazard a guess that QF's share of this is significant, probably 60% and of that share, feed traffic is probably in excess of 100,000 maybe more.

BITRE is significantly wrong (low) for New Zealand airports, and in particular WLG as it does not include traffic which is transiting over SYD/MEL/BNE to other countries of which a significant proportion of WLG's market does given the lack of direct long hauls.

WLG carried 893k intl pax for YEFeb16 from their website (see below link), compared with 806k for YEJan16 in BITRE (maybe 10k will be WLG's Fiji services which also wont be included in BITRE)

https://www.wellingtonairport.co.nz/yk-files/15f449c866906a4b934541836a588184/February%202016.pdf
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8353
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Sun Apr 17, 2016 9:33 pm

Any investment for WLG runway would be better spent on developing AKL to full development ( you all know my opinion on AKL) so that WLG can have more flights feeding AKL and open up more gates will entice more airlines which are interested but lacking slots/gates and get existing major players like NZ and QF/JQ to grow frequencies.(which they will if the space is there)

Besides I love WLG as it is. A special place to take off from every time. Well over 100 sectors on my log for WLG and it's always a thrill in or out (even without the wind)
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 972
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Sun Apr 17, 2016 9:52 pm

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 167):
Any investment for WLG runway would be better spent on developing AKL to full development ( you all know my opinion on AKL) so that WLG can have more flights feeding AKL and open up more gates will entice more airlines which are interested but lacking slots/gates and get existing major players like NZ and QF/JQ to grow frequencies.(which they will if the space is there)

Don't tell AIAL, they will be contemplating another hundred bus gates in no time...
77West - AW109S - BE90 - JS31 - B1900 - Q300 - ATR72 - DC9-30 - MD80 - B733 - A320 - B738 - A300-B4 - B773 - B77W
 
zkncj
Posts: 3914
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Sun Apr 17, 2016 10:08 pm

What would be funny with WLG, out of this whole runway issue thing an increased cost to airlines. If they lost all of there NZ Intentional services.
 
Unclekoru
Posts: 317
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:00 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Sun Apr 17, 2016 11:03 pm

Quoting PA515 (Reply 163):
Quoting 777ER (Reply 160):
Which is fully understandable but I doubt their claims that they won't fully use the longer runway for their Tasman flights. Why would they want to fly with a lower load when they don't have to?

Because Air NZ probably won't need to fly with a lower payload. The A320NEO will have a better performance from the present WLG runway. Air NZ's first A320NEO will be delivered in Aug 2017, before the runway extension is likely to be built.

I expect the same scenario for QF and JQ. The Qantas group has a large A320NEO order originally intended for various Jetstar franchises. Some are now likely to end up in QF colours.

PA515

While still possible that QF may end up operating the A320/21, recent speculation suggests that Jetstar will end up taking all the A320 NEOs that they have on order, rolling over their older airframes as well as allowing for some growth. Time will tell. On face value, the NEO series certainly seem like they could be a useful addition to the QF fleet. I'm sure NZ will derive a lot of benefit from their's as well.

Quoting a7ala (Reply 166):
uoting sunrisevalley (Reply 158):
My take on QF is that they are getting quite a feed from WLG. BITRE shows the total passenger count to and from WLG -SYD y/e June 30th 2015 at 321454. I would hazard a guess that QF's share of this is significant, probably 60% and of that share, feed traffic is probably in excess of 100,000 maybe more.

BITRE is significantly wrong (low) for New Zealand airports, and in particular WLG as it does not include traffic which is transiting over SYD/MEL/BNE to other countries of which a significant proportion of WLG's market does given the lack of direct long hauls.

WLG carried 893k intl pax for YEFeb16 from their website (see below link), compared with 806k for YEJan16 in BITRE (maybe 10k will be WLG's Fiji services which also wont be included in BITRE)

https://www.wellingtonairport.co.nz/yk-files/15f449c866906a4b934541836a588184/February%202016.pdf

Given the capacity QF currently deploy on the route (673 seats a day), they would be unlikely to be carrying much more than 200,000 pax a year (~60% of the market)
It sounds like english, but I can't understand a word you're saying
 
a7ala
Posts: 359
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Mon Apr 18, 2016 12:30 am

Quoting Unclekoru (Reply 170):
Given the capacity QF currently deploy on the route (673 seats a day), they would be unlikely to be carrying much more than 200,000 pax a year (~60% of the market)

I think QF/JQ would probably operate around 50% of WLG's Tasman capacity which would equate to circa 450,000 pax per year.
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10117
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Mon Apr 18, 2016 12:51 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 162):

Are you talking about the fees for the aircraft to land there or the passenger handling fee which every airport charges?

Quoting PA515 (Reply 163):
The Qantas group has a large A320NEO order originally intended for various Jetstar franchises. Some are now likely to end up in QF colours.

That would be interesting to see especially with QF wanting separate fleets in the past to prevent pay issues, but then again Jetconnect is a separate contract so transferring the required amount to replace the entire Jetconnect fleet wouldn't be much of a hassle except for training and the question if the B738 crew would get the same pay for flying the A320

Quoting Planesmart (Reply 165):
Quoting 777ER (Reply 160):
$100 is basically what you would pay to fly to AKL or CHC for a connecting domestic > long haul flight anyway

That's assuming airlines will be offering Dubai, Singapore, HK, LA from Wellington, which I very much doubt.

Only one way to see. LA and Dubai direct will never happen and if it did IMHO everyone would have a heart attack.

Quoting zkncj (Reply 169):

Two issues with that 1) The NZ/VA partnership prevents that and I highly doubt NZ would want to cancel it just to exit the WLG Tasman market and 2) other carriers would fill the void left as the demand is certainly there
Head Forum Moderator
[email protected]
Flown: 1900D,S340,Q300,AT72-5/6,DC3,CR2/7,E145,E70/75/90,A319/20/21,A332/3,A359,A380,F100,B717,B733/4/8/9,B742/4,B752/3,B763,B772/3, B789
With: NZ,SJ,QF,JQ,EK,VA,AA,UA,DL,FL,AC,FJ,SQ,TG,PR
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:22 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 172):
Are you talking about the fees for the aircraft to land there or the passenger handling fee which every airport charges?

I am talking about the passenger handling fee as a separate item. Additionally from the WIAL fee schedule it appears that SIN would pay about $200 for landing charges for a 200-A for each visit. If they can turn the plane around in less than 2-hrs they will save a $76.77 parking charge.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3914
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:23 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 172):
Two issues with that 1) The NZ/VA partnership prevents that and I highly doubt NZ would want to cancel it just to exit the WLG Tasman market and 2) other carriers would fill the void left as the demand is certainly there

The current NZ/VA agreement expires in 2018, and each time requires new approval from both Governmental authorities. Also with the current ownership, now up in the air with where its going in the future it could be subject to VA's new owner wanting to counties Intetrtional Services.

In the 2014 agreement (New Zealand)- http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/...-Report-Air-NZ-Virgin-Alliance.pdf

"We do not recommend seeking any capacity conditions as part of reauthorisation in
New Zealand."
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:39 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 172):
LA and Dubai direct will never happen and if it did IMHO everyone would have a heart attack.

That's funny - true, but funny.  

The airport extension will happen or not, no matter what I think, and the only issue I have if it does happen is - where?

SIN is an obvious one, and I suppose HKG or another Chinese destination, but it's tough for me to think that WLG could fill a plane to KUL to BKK more than a couple of times a week and is it enough?

In my fantasy world, IF it does happen then a route that isn't a duplicate of AKL would be the go - interior China, CTU say, or HAN rather than SGN - but that's probably just my fantasy.

In any event, I don't think it's a long list, so I'd be interested to know who they're talking to.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
a7ala
Posts: 359
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:59 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 175):
That's funny - true, but funny.

The airport extension will happen or not, no matter what I think, and the only issue I have if it does happen is - where?

SIN is an obvious one, and I suppose HKG or another Chinese destination, but it's tough for me to think that WLG could fill a plane to KUL to BKK more than a couple of times a week and is it enough?

In my fantasy world, IF it does happen then a route that isn't a duplicate of AKL would be the go - interior China, CTU say, or HAN rather than SGN - but that's probably just my fantasy.

In any event, I don't think it's a long list, so I'd be interested to know who they're talking to.

mariner

A lot of the WLG discussion seems to be based on the market as it is now.

Air travel is doubling every 15 years or so. What will WLG look like in 2020 which is the earliest it will open, or 2030 when traffic is doubled, or 2060 when traffic is 4xlarger? Interestingly the new airlines at AKL is only going to increase the case for WLG because:

1. WLG market will increase due to stimulation of new airlines and lower fares
2. Airlines will find it hard to make money at AKL and look to other ports with less competition

CZ is clearly going to be one thats interested. Over the next 5 years they should develop CHC into a daily+ service and will then look to WLG when the runway is long enough?
 
zkncj
Posts: 3914
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Mon Apr 18, 2016 2:40 am

Looks like AKL-SYD has gone to an new low, for $50ow ex-AKL on LAN

https://www.mixandmatch.co.nz/deal/sydney-lan-50/?&returnTrip=yes&origin=AKL&destination=SYD&startYear=2016&startMonth=6&startDate=1&endYear=2016&endMonth=6&endDate=30
 
ZKOJH
Posts: 1502
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:51 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Mon Apr 18, 2016 3:22 am

"Air NZ failed to oust Virgin chief - reports"

Australian media has reported Air New Zealand's move to sell all or part of its stake in Virgin was brought on by a failed bid to oust Virgin chief executive John Borghetti.

Air New Zealand announced last month chief executive Christopher Luxon had resigned from Virgin's board and the company was considering a sale of all or part of its 25.9 per cent stake in the Australian carrier.
The Sydney Morning Herald today reports Luxon resigned from the board after failing to receive support to replace Borghetti from other directors, including chairman Elizabeth Bryan and representatives of Singapore Airlines, Etihad Airways and Sir Richard Branson's Virgin Group.

Singapore Airlines is seen as a possible buyer of Air New Zealand's 25.9 per cent stake in Virgin Australia if it opts to sell out.


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/air-new-ze...ticle.cfm?o_id=5&objectid=11624377
Air New Zealand ~ dreams of flying
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Mon Apr 18, 2016 3:32 am

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 178):
Australian media has reported Air New Zealand's move to sell all or part of its stake in Virgin was brought on by a failed bid to oust Virgin chief executive John Borghetti.

I'm not sure why they;are printing that as news. Several commentators said it at the time of the resignation - this was printed on 2 April:

http://www.afr.com/business/transpor...s-aviation-shakeup-20160331-gnvds9

"Several weeks ago Air New Zealand's chief executive, Christopher Luxon, stood up in a private meeting and called for Virgin boss John Borghetti to resign. He has no such plans."

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3673
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:31 am

Quoting zkncj (Reply 174):
Intetrtional
Quoting zkncj (Reply 169):
Intentional


'International' maybe?  



Quoting mariner (Reply 179):
Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 178):


So Luxon and NZ's vision for VA? Perhaps a paired down and fleet footed domestic focussed carrier that works closely with international partners for feed to/from Australia? A cabin service and pricing structure akin to NZ's?

VA is not making money and doesn't look likely to so why are the other partners supporting Borghetti rather than Luxon?
come visit the south pacific
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8353
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Mon Apr 18, 2016 8:28 am

Quoting zkncj (Reply 177):
Looks like AKL-SYD has gone to an new low, for $50ow ex-AKL on LAN

I nabbed one. May as well enjoy the QF lounge while I still have it..
Fare breakdown from my oneway ticket as follows.
Flight $-15.57
Airline Taxes $65.95
Booking fee $14.95
Total $64.95
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
Unclekoru
Posts: 317
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:00 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Mon Apr 18, 2016 9:12 am

Quoting a7ala (Reply 171):
Quoting Unclekoru (Reply 170):
Given the capacity QF currently deploy on the route (673 seats a day), they would be unlikely to be carrying much more than 200,000 pax a year (~60% of the market)

I think QF/JQ would probably operate around 50% of WLG's Tasman capacity which would equate to circa 450,000 pax per year.

Yes, ~ 50% of the capacity ex WLG would be QF/JQ. Was referring to WLG-SYD only sorry.

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 180):
So Luxon and NZ's vision for VA? Perhaps a paired down and fleet footed domestic focussed carrier that works closely with international partners for feed to/from Australia? A cabin service and pricing structure akin to NZ's?

Good question, what was NZ expecting from VA?
It sounds like english, but I can't understand a word you're saying
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3673
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Mon Apr 18, 2016 10:30 am

Quoting Unclekoru (Reply 182):
what was NZ expecting

Clearly not aspirations to become a facsimile of QF, fighting for market share in an ever more competitive international market with declining margins.
come visit the south pacific
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10117
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Mon Apr 18, 2016 12:14 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 173):

NZ wouldn't be paying the fee out of their own pocket as the fee is included in the ticket price. Wonder how much SQ will be paying to park as IIRC the aircraft is on the ground for 4-5 hours?

Quoting zkncj (Reply 174):

Just because one authority didn't recommend capacity conditions doesn't mean the other agreed on it also. Remember that both the ACCC and New Zealand have to give their own authority. I highly doubt NZ would be stupid enough to cancel all their services considering they would loose a lot of customers and QF/JQ would easily swoop in and claim those customers and FF's. The last time QF offered a FF match with Airpoints the take up was good (according to QF). NZ certainly has the worst product on the Tasman and QF have seen an increase in loads thanks to their full service entry fare where on NZ you only get a seat and carry on for the same basic fare. Yes NZ have gained more passengers also thanks to the LCC model that NZ have introduced but the big winner is QF with their full service. Why pay for 'The Works' on NZ when you can get the same service on QF for the same fare as NZ's 'Seat' fare?

Quoting a7ala (Reply 176):
1. WLG market will increase due to stimulation of new airlines and lower fares
2. Airlines will find it hard to make money at AKL and look to other ports with less competition

WLG has seen increase after increase in passenger counts through the terminal and with lower fares and more services like from SQ, that is only going to rise. WLG today will not be the WLG in 10 years time. AKL is already at capacity during peak periods and the Tasman maket is over served. Airlines will resort to serving either CHC or WLG as a result
Head Forum Moderator
[email protected]
Flown: 1900D,S340,Q300,AT72-5/6,DC3,CR2/7,E145,E70/75/90,A319/20/21,A332/3,A359,A380,F100,B717,B733/4/8/9,B742/4,B752/3,B763,B772/3, B789
With: NZ,SJ,QF,JQ,EK,VA,AA,UA,DL,FL,AC,FJ,SQ,TG,PR
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Mon Apr 18, 2016 12:35 pm

Quoting 777ER (Reply 184):
Wonder how much SQ will be paying to park as IIRC the aircraft is on the ground for 4-5 hours?

The rate card says they get 120-min free and pay $76.77 thereafter.

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 180):
So Luxon and NZ's vision for VA?

For starters , stop having to have the major shareholders sign for VA at the Bank. The most recent need to do so appears to be the final straw that broke the camels ( Luxon's) back.
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4386
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:38 pm

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 118):
Hardly - it's Infratil trying to rort the rate/taxpayer.
Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 118):
More like corporate welfare.

Glad I'm not the only one who sees through this.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 121):
I can't see why a private company should 100% pay for the upfront costs when the country benefits.

Who's asking them to pay 100%? The amount infratil should cough up for the $300,000,000 runway extension is their percentage of their ownership of WIAL. The real scandal here though is how much the extension is costing! I've no doubt had a rant about this before on here, but the cost is outrageous. Did they even bother to get more than one company to bid for the work?

Quoting 777ER (Reply 160):
QF certainly have the better product out of WLG

Undoubtedly.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 160):
For me that now ends my loyal NZ useage and QF FF programme is now my main FF base.
Quoting 777ER (Reply 160):
I'll only use NZ when I can't fly somewhere with JQ or QF like WLG-TRG or WLG-ROT. One of the main decisions for me was the fact that with NZ Tasman you have to pay more to take luggage.

A good choice.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 160):
On the plus I'm really looking forward to my first A380 flight.

I'm sure you'll enjoy it (let's be honest: as far as the plane goes, it's hard not to).

Quoting 777ER (Reply 184):
NZ certainly has the worst product on the Tasman and QF have seen an increase in loads thanks to their full service entry fare where on NZ you only get a seat and carry on for the same basic fare.
Quoting 777ER (Reply 184):
Why pay for 'The Works' on NZ when you can get the same service on QF for the same fare as NZ's 'Seat' fare?

Exactly. Unless you specifically want to fly on a 777 (why would you want to do that...much less comfortable than the JetConnect 737s) or 787, it's hard to justify the premium of flying with Air New Zealand. Free seat select too on non sale fares, which is also a nice. Or you could fly with Virgin, pay even more for the fare and not have AVOD!

[Edited 2016-04-18 06:44:49]
First to fly the 787-9
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Mon Apr 18, 2016 10:01 pm

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 186):
The amount infratil should cough up for the $300,000,000 runway extension is their percentage of their ownership of WIAL. The real scandal here though is how much the extension is costing! I've no doubt had a rant about this before on here, but the cost is outrageous. Did they even bother to get more than one company to bid for the work?

Thus far it is an estimate. Wait till the prices come in . Trucking the fill through Wellington from a quarry off the Hutt Road sounds crazy to me. Is there no fill left immediately to the east of the job site? A conveyor across the bay from Moa Point would do the trick. I lived in Hataitai when Evans Bay was filled in . The conveyor system worked real slick . If they must use the Hutt Road source why not barge it across the harbor?

[Edited 2016-04-18 15:04:43]
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10117
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Tue Apr 19, 2016 12:16 am

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 186):
but the cost is outrageous. Did they even bother to get more than one company to bid for the work?

Work isn't anywhere near due to start so no tenders have been issued

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 186):
Quoting 777ER (Reply 160):
On the plus I'm really looking forward to my first A380 flight.

I'm sure you'll enjoy it (let's be honest: as far as the plane goes, it's hard not to).

Not looking forward to the flight times which I believe is the 3rd and 4th current longest flight

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 186):
Free seat select too on non sale fares, which is also a nice.

Don't have free seat selection for Bronze FF
Head Forum Moderator
[email protected]
Flown: 1900D,S340,Q300,AT72-5/6,DC3,CR2/7,E145,E70/75/90,A319/20/21,A332/3,A359,A380,F100,B717,B733/4/8/9,B742/4,B752/3,B763,B772/3, B789
With: NZ,SJ,QF,JQ,EK,VA,AA,UA,DL,FL,AC,FJ,SQ,TG,PR
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8353
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Tue Apr 19, 2016 1:05 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 188):
Don't have free seat selection for Bronze FF

My biggest issue with a number of airlines is that I have no ability to select which class I want to book without using a travel agent or reservations. It's annoying to say the least when we're all treated like uninformed idiots that don't know or care about what they want. By choosing exactly what I want I'm saving their busy callcentres from being bothered with simple things I could have done myself.

Specifically with NZ shorthaul my problem is still limited to the following

-Seat,Seat,Plus Bag,Works,Wks Deluxe on the website are all the same fare class, which means that you can have works deluxe with no mileage accrual,

- I want to watch the movies and food but I don't want a bag. I may even want works deluxe without the bag- de-bundle the baggage already.

- the food offering isn't substantial enough for someone who has paid extra for that 'privilege'

Longhaul my issues again stem from

- lack of mileage for most star alliance partners on all bar the most expensive fares. $2000 to LAX is a lot to spend if you get nothing to show for it. I may as well just pay for premium economy (if the space seats were gone I might)

- lack of forward window seats for Star Gold free selection due to sky-couch rows.

- small food portions. This is common on QR/SQ and others too. The tray size has been cut and the dishes made shallower.. On the plus side the drink cart is pretty good. I enjoy a bourbon and ginger or two or a or a Sauvignon.with dinner.
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
keen2fly
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 2:10 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Tue Apr 19, 2016 1:36 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 189):
-Seat,Seat,Plus Bag,Works,Wks Deluxe on the website are all the same fare class, which means that you can have works deluxe with no mileage accrual,

- I want to watch the movies and food but I don't want a bag. I may even want works deluxe without the bag- de-bundle the baggage already.

- the food offering isn't substantial enough for someone who has paid extra for that 'privilege'

Honestly I can earn similar airpoints/status points on NZ when I book a last minute PMR-AKL flight for $200 to crossing the Tasman for $400, now JQ flies here I'm basically covered by the QF FF program, very very tempting.

I find that in some ways the whole seats to suit thing is really inflexible at times; I'd prefer a drag-and-drop menu that allows me to take out the over-priced meal from works while keeping the movies, that's in all likelihood how the profits are made. You either pay for the meal in your ticket, and whenever I'm seated next to someone in seat or seat + bag they buy some overpriced food anyway from the screen. Seems like a win-win to me, for the airline that is :P
 
wstakl
Posts: 239
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 7:51 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Tue Apr 19, 2016 2:33 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 188):
Don't have free seat selection for Bronze FF

What is the deal with this? I have used OF on several occasions on flights up to NRT over the last few years and have NEVER had to pay for seat selection. I have no status with them what so ever, and only joined their FF program when they had some no joining fee promotion.

This includes fares were I have used EK to get across the Tasman connecting to the QF flight and also the QF flight across the tasman connecting to a JL flight. Also, these fares were usually all sale fares. My most recent fare was on sale at $832rtn and still didn't pay anything for seat selection using the QF website.
 
Unclekoru
Posts: 317
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:00 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Tue Apr 19, 2016 5:27 am

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 183):
Quoting Unclekoru (Reply 182):
what was NZ expecting

Clearly not aspirations to become a facsimile of QF, fighting for market share in an ever more competitive international market with declining margins.

Yes, the long haul market business is not doing well, the 77W's are an expensive sub fleet and a drain on the business.

There was plenty of negativity in regard to the strategic direction of Virgin Blue under BG's reign, one of the reasons Toll sold out I guess. Stuck somewhere between JQ at one end and QF at the other, with a cost base closer to QF's. And that was before A330's, VARA, business class... I've always thought JB was heading in the right direction, although you could certainly argue that the execution has been average.   

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 189):
-Seat,Seat,Plus Bag,Works,Wks Deluxe on the website are all the same fare class, which means that you can have works deluxe with no mileage accrual,

- I want to watch the movies and food but I don't want a bag. I may even want works deluxe without the bag- de-bundle the baggage already.

- the food offering isn't substantial enough for someone who has paid extra for that 'privilege'

The meal's are underwhelming in economy and as you say, not particularly substantial. Disappointing when you've made a conscious decision to spend additional money purchasing said meal. Unless there's a particular reason, I don't look at NZ offerings across the Tasman anymore. The QF and EK offerings usually represent better value. It's a shame that you don't earn extra air points dollars/status points when you purchase bag/works/works deluxe either.



Quoting wstakl (Reply 191):
Quoting 777ER (Reply 188):
Don't have free seat selection for Bronze FF

What is the deal with this? I have used OF on several occasions on flights up to NRT over the last few years and have NEVER had to pay for seat selection. I have no status with them what so ever, and only joined their FF program when they had some no joining fee promotion.

My understanding is that a payment of $15-25 is required for seat select on QF international services unless you're silver(?) or higher, travelling on a flex fare or are in a premium cabin.
It sounds like english, but I can't understand a word you're saying
 
747m8te
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:14 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Tue Apr 19, 2016 5:41 am

Quoting Unclekoru (Reply 192):
Quoting wstakl (Reply 191):
Quoting 777ER (Reply 188):
Don't have free seat selection for Bronze FF

What is the deal with this? I have used OF on several occasions on flights up to NRT over the last few years and have NEVER had to pay for seat selection. I have no status with them what so ever, and only joined their FF program when they had some no joining fee promotion.

My understanding is that a payment of $15-25 is required for seat select on QF international services unless you're silver(?) or higher, travelling on a flex fare or are in a premium cabin.

For all international flights excluding trans Trasman seat selection is free for all in any class (even for non frequent flyers), this came into effect a year or so ago.

However, I believe trans Tasman still has the fee for sale fares only, all other fares offer free seat selection. Not sure why they have done this exactly, maybe due to the competition charging for seat selection and it is a way of getting some extra revenue of those paying the cheaper sale fare prices.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 189):
My biggest issue with a number of airlines is that I have no ability to select which class I want to book without using a travel agent or reservations. It's annoying to say the least when we're all treated like uninformed idiots that don't know or care about what they want. By choosing exactly what I want I'm saving their busy callcentres from being bothered with simple things I could have done myself.

Totally agree! Have this issue when I want to buy upgradable fares on certain airlines (and not want to pay for the flexi fare tickets), you have no choice unless you do it through an agent.

Curious are there any airlines out there that actually do let you choose? Most just offer either the 'sale', 'standard' or 'flexible full fare' options.
Flown on:
DHC8Q200,DHC8Q300,DHC8Q400, EMB145,E170,E175,E190, A319,A320,A321,A332,A333,A343,A380, MD80, B712,B733,B734,B737,B738,B743,B744,B744ER,B762,B763,B77W
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Tue Apr 19, 2016 6:17 am

Quoting Unclekoru (Reply 192):
I've always thought JB was heading in the right direction, although you could certainly argue that the execution has been average.

I never liked what Borghetti was doing.

Around the world the move has been to lower fares and LCC and it's never been shown that Australia can support two premium, full-service airlines unless the government is involved, as with the Two Airline policy.

The essentially profitable Virgin Blue with a Business Class might have been the go, and at a saving of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Personally, I also believe that Borghetti was miffed that he didn't get the top job at Qantas and was determined to prove the Qantas Board had made a big mistake when they chose Alan Joyce. Branson came right out and said exactly that:

http://www.travelweekly.com.au/artic.../Qantas-in-deep-shit-says-Branson/

"QANTAS IN "DEEP SHIT", SAYS BRANSON"

But I guess what Borghetti was doing was music to the ears of Singapore and Etihad, because of its concentration on premium pax, and there was always going to be an inherent tension with Air NZ, which is a bit more - down to earth.

I think.  

mariner

[Edited 2016-04-18 23:20:48]
aeternum nauta
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10117
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Tue Apr 19, 2016 6:47 am

Quoting 747m8te (Reply 193):
Quoting Unclekoru (Reply 192):Quoting wstakl (Reply 191):Quoting 777ER (Reply 188):Don't have free seat selection for Bronze FF What is the deal with this? I have used OF on several occasions on flights up to NRT over the last few years and have NEVER had to pay for seat selection. I have no status with them what so ever, and only joined their FF program when they had some no joining fee promotion.My understanding is that a payment of $15-25 is required for seat select on QF international services unless you're silver(?) or higher, travelling on a flex fare or are in a premium cabin. For all international flights excluding trans Trasman seat selection is free for all in any class (even for non frequent flyers), this came into effect a year or so ago.However, I believe trans Tasman still has the fee for sale fares only, all other fares offer free seat selection. Not sure why they have done this exactly, maybe due to the competition charging for seat selection and it is a way of getting some extra revenue of those paying the cheaper sale fare prices.

I had to pay NZ$33 to select a seat on QF7. Didn't want to risk the chance of getting a seat towards the back when flying to DFW as I can't stand waiting in those long lines at Customs when your seated at the back
Head Forum Moderator
[email protected]
Flown: 1900D,S340,Q300,AT72-5/6,DC3,CR2/7,E145,E70/75/90,A319/20/21,A332/3,A359,A380,F100,B717,B733/4/8/9,B742/4,B752/3,B763,B772/3, B789
With: NZ,SJ,QF,JQ,EK,VA,AA,UA,DL,FL,AC,FJ,SQ,TG,PR
 
Unclekoru
Posts: 317
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:00 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Tue Apr 19, 2016 6:59 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 194):
I never liked what Borghetti was doing.

Around the world the move has been to lower fares and LCC and it's never been shown that Australia can support two premium, full-service airlines unless the government is involved, as with the Two Airline policy.

The essentially profitable Virgin Blue with a Business Class might have been the go, and at a saving of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Possibly. Ansett and Qantas managed to compete for ten odd years in a deregulated market. Yes, one of them eventually failed but was that mismanagement or market size? Not sure.

Australia is a very affluent market. Until there's a significant and prolonged recession, I'm not convinced the LCC uptake will be as evident as what we have seen in other countries. Look at Tiger and JQ's stagnation and in some cases partial retreat in the domestic market. I think it will come, but it might take a bit longer in the lucky country.

Regardless, having gone after the full service market, Virgin needed to do a much better job of it.

Quoting 747m8te (Reply 193):
Quoting Unclekoru (Reply 192):
Quoting wstakl (Reply 191):
Quoting 777ER (Reply 188):
Don't have free seat selection for Bronze FF

What is the deal with this? I have used OF on several occasions on flights up to NRT over the last few years and have NEVER had to pay for seat selection. I have no status with them what so ever, and only joined their FF program when they had some no joining fee promotion.

My understanding is that a payment of $15-25 is required for seat select on QF international services unless you're silver(?) or higher, travelling on a flex fare or are in a premium cabin.

For all international flights excluding trans Trasman seat selection is free for all in any class (even for non frequent flyers), this came into effect a year or so ago.

However, I believe trans Tasman still has the fee for sale fares only, all other fares offer free seat selection. Not sure why they have done this exactly, maybe due to the competition charging for seat selection and it is a way of getting some extra revenue of those paying the cheaper sale fare prices.

Thanks although I had a quick look at the QF website to verify your comment. Appears that seat select fees still apply to sale fares on all international routes. Is that correct?
It sounds like english, but I can't understand a word you're saying
 
747m8te
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:14 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Tue Apr 19, 2016 7:32 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 195):
I had to pay NZ$33 to select a seat on QF7. Didn't want to risk the chance of getting a seat towards the back when flying to DFW as I can't stand waiting in those long lines at Customs when your seated at the back
Quoting Unclekoru (Reply 196):
Quoting 747m8te (Reply 193):
Quoting Unclekoru (Reply 192):
Quoting wstakl (Reply 191):
Quoting 777ER (Reply 188):
Don't have free seat selection for Bronze FF

What is the deal with this? I have used OF on several occasions on flights up to NRT over the last few years and have NEVER had to pay for seat selection. I have no status with them what so ever, and only joined their FF program when they had some no joining fee promotion.

My understanding is that a payment of $15-25 is required for seat select on QF international services unless you're silver(?) or higher, travelling on a flex fare or are in a premium cabin.

For all international flights excluding trans Trasman seat selection is free for all in any class (even for non frequent flyers), this came into effect a year or so ago.

However, I believe trans Tasman still has the fee for sale fares only, all other fares offer free seat selection. Not sure why they have done this exactly, maybe due to the competition charging for seat selection and it is a way of getting some extra revenue of those paying the cheaper sale fare prices.

Thanks although I had a quick look at the QF website to verify your comment. Appears that seat select fees still apply to sale fares on all international routes. Is that correct?

Oops my bad, I just re-read the seat policy announced in September last year...they axed the charge on 'saver' fares, but 'sale' fares still carry the charge on all international flights. But 'saver' fares (which most pax would be on) and above get it for free. The good news is trans Tasman seat selection dropped to only $15.
Flown on:
DHC8Q200,DHC8Q300,DHC8Q400, EMB145,E170,E175,E190, A319,A320,A321,A332,A333,A343,A380, MD80, B712,B733,B734,B737,B738,B743,B744,B744ER,B762,B763,B77W
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 13085
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Tue Apr 19, 2016 7:33 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 189):
- lack of mileage for most star alliance partners on all bar the most expensive fares. $2000 to LAX is a lot to spend if you get nothing to show for it. I may as well just pay for premium economy (if the space seats were gone I might)

It's not different from SK, you get piss all EBG points flying on other carriers unless you go business. As for getting nothing for it, the point in flying somewhere is generally the destination not the FF points or food you recieve on the flight there and back.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8353
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 175

Tue Apr 19, 2016 9:00 am

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 198):
As for getting nothing for it, the point in flying somewhere is generally the destination

It's about the journey for me. I fly for my own entertainment all the time to fly to a new airport on a new airline or fly a new aircraft type and the destination often is kind of irrelevant.
.Sometimes I will meet friends at an airport we can all fly into, we catch up for coffee or a beer for the day and then fly out again. That is exactly what I am doing for the cheap LAN fare I got to SYD for a $65 day trip and back using the airmiles I have built up on Star/Oneworld frequent flyer accounts. Periodically I like to top up my mileage to make sure I re qualify for elite status and it is then I really want the right booking class to ensure the right calculations are made.
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos