Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 49): NZ has made mention that part of the reason why they have been able to steadily increase domestic capacity (and profit) is because of international visitors (and a particular mention of China). So while by itself PVG might have been losing money overall the network might have had a net gain from it and now that it is making money bonus!

Excellent point. That's exactly why SQ can afford to test the SIN-CBR-WLG route. They don't need to make this route profitable as a standalone one as long as it contributes positively to their entire network. It all depends on where your hub is.

Did JQ and NZ on the same fares, AKL-CHC and v.v.

If you asked me to rate value for money, Jetstar wins. Not by a little bit. But by miles. Now I know this can be day by day but by the general offering.

I say this with no bias - I've been fired by the Qantas Group and love a hometown favourite.

But honestly? Night and day.

What's the story with NZ and HND. Are they likely to get slots or are they just hoping/waiting?

Quoting flyjetstar (Reply 52): What's the story with NZ and HND. Are they likely to get slots or are they just hoping/waiting?

Is this a government to government negotiation?

Quoting coolian2 (Reply 51): If you asked me to rate value for money, Jetstar wins. Not by a little bit. But by miles.

I have always promised myself that I would flyJQ if the fare was right and available when I want to fly, In terms of value, I searched randomly for Jun and found NZ with 4/5 of the cheapest fares to WLG, to CHC JQ was cheaper but had rubbish flight times for the cheap fares, and only $6 cheaper for more reasonable times. .For me if it's +/-10 bucks I book with NZ. I get lounge access and I travel when I want, not when they want me to travel cheaply (late or early).. I haven't booked JQ yet, so it still remains outstanding off my flight logbook (which annoys me) because it has always been that way when I have priced it.

In flight, what does JQ do better than NZ? Certainly not disrupt recovery or seat pitch, It's hard to argue with the seat pitch in rows 1-9DEF on NZ.

With Hong Kong Airlines HX announcement of new HKG-AKL service I wonder how CX will react.
The timing of the HX service is almost identical to CX.
HX021 arrives in AKL @ 0730
CX117 arrives in AKL @ 0735
HX022 departs AKL @ 0930
CX118 depart AKL @ 0900
With CX197/198 operating with a 77W will CX challenge HX and offer the A350 on the early morning flight..

Auckland Intl will look colourful in the morning now instead of the usual mixture of NZ aircraft, a splattering of QF and VA 738's plus LA, KE, CX, CZ aircraft.
This summer throw AA, UA, HX into the mix and then early Feb QR will join them.

Be interesting to see what sort of increase we see from the Chinese carriers this summer as well.
Will CZ go back to 787/77W mix. MU back to 10 flights per week with 332, CA back to daily. China Airlines have already announced they will add extra BNE/TPE service earlier this year seeing them go to 8 per week again. CI had been rumoured that New Zealand would be an early destination for their A350.

This summer is looking to be another big one. A lot bigger than last year.
Guess all we can do is wish AIAL the best and hope the seams don't crack

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 54): In flight, what does JQ do better than NZ? Certainly not disrupt recovery or seat pitch, It's hard to argue with the seat pitch in rows 1-9DEF on NZ.

On the Domestic A320NZ doesn't they have 34-35" in ABCDEF 1-12?

Quoting nascarnut (Reply 55): With Hong Kong Airlines HX announcement of new HKG-AKL service I wonder how CX will react.

Well they have currently got AKL-LGW on sale for $1699return!

Anyone else tried booking on Hong Kong Airlines website? Looks like someone made an few mistakes with there Y fares AKL-HKG Return for $4,400AUD in December!

Also there flight lengths don't seem right if you compare them to NZ/CX

AKL-HKG
NZ 772 - 11h15m
CX 77W - 11h30m
CX 343 - 11h25m
HX 332 - 10h25m

HKG-AKL
NZ 772 - 11h00m
CX 77W - 11h05m
CX 343 - 11h10m
HX 332 - 12h10m


Looks like HX has got high speed 332s!

Quoting nascarnut (Reply 55): With CX197/198 operating with a 77W will CX challenge HX and offer the A350 on the early morning flight..

I don't think CX is scheduled to retire all the A343s until March, meaning CX117/8 will most likely remain 343. I think it's the only permanently scheduled A343 destination on their route map. It'll be interesting to see how much of a threat CX thinks HX would be.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 54):

I flew the cheapest flights at the best times both ways. My comparison really was an all things being eqaul comparison. Funnily too JQ have always had the times I need at the best prices except this one time.

The crew were more attentive on JQ (they saw me effectively dragging my father around and had a wheelchair on arrival). The food/drink service was better - I'd have paid for a beer on NZ had that been an option - and I'm aware of the free drinks during certain hours.

The interior on NZ was dirty, and we had not had a late inbound arrival. The video screens being used for terrible quizzes and to sell Airpoints felt a bit tacky.

I will say this - NZ were lovely. Staff were brilliant. I just found (and kinda consistently on JQ) they are always just as good, and cheaper for my needs.

If I had lounge access, or status or was flying to the regions rather than CHC, I am certain my opinons would change.

Kudos too, to JQ for having the captain thank every passenger and for letting my dad sit in the left hand seat on arrival....and for allowing me to put a great dent in my head from the overhead panel.

Still was less painful than the RNZAF 727 when I was younger. Got warned, still wore the overhead panel.

Quoting coolian2 (Reply 59): The food/drink service was better - I'd have paid for a beer on NZ had that been an option - and I'm aware of the free drinks during certain hours

Is food/drink service really needed on an flight just over 1hours? Admittedly I've got Lounge Access with NZ so just grab something to eat in the Lounge.

Quoting zkncj (Reply 61): Is food/drink service really needed on an flight just over 1hour

Perhaps not really needed, BUT it can be very convenient.

Gemuser

Quoting zkncj (Reply 61): Is food/drink service really needed on an flight just over 1hours? Admittedly I've got Lounge Access with NZ so just grab something to eat in the Lounge.

No. Not in any way.

But if you compete on service?

Quoting coolian2 (Reply 63): No. Not in any way. But if you compete on service?

Food wouldn't persuade me to pick one airline over the other, either way, on such a short flight. It is likely to be not much more than a snack at the best of times, and the modern airline definition of snack doesn't thrill me.

I'm a foodie, I'm not that keen on what the airlines generally serve and I don't like Peter Gordon's influence on Air NZ. Flying last week (MEL-AKL) I just had the appetiser (completely lacking in flavour), skipped the main course and just had the nectarine ice cream, which I can buy at the supermarket and is very nice.

mariner

Quoting mariner (Reply 64):

I often simply forget to eat. My partner hates it.

But if you pull the "we're nicer" card, you need to go with it.

That said I saw NZ were offering it more often, which is often nicer.

Sorry!

Quoting nascarnut (Reply 55): This summer is looking to be another big one. A lot bigger than last year. Guess all we can do is wish AIAL the best and hope the seams don't crack

I honestly hope they do, they've made it abundantly clear that nothing short of a train wreck will force them to put some capital into something that's not more industrial sheds or hotels in the surrounding area. I'll feel sorry for the passengers, but AIAL will deserve every second of pain they receive.

Quoting coolian2 (Reply 63): But if you compete on service?

I would think someone charging extra for service, to be of lesser level of someone including service included. Even though what NZ serves is pretty basic, its line with the flight time and current airfare.

A few years back they did try buy on board, but ditched it to late of uptake.

Amazing that HKG can support 3 airlines! How long before we see something from either JAL or ANA? From Japan. NZ is getting competition on most of its routes now.

AIAL need to get a grip it’s going to get busy, surly airlines will take their business elsewhere? WLG/CHC perhaps are they really thinking about the CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE?!

And what do people think of the new website for Auckland airport? I find it scary!

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 68): Amazing that HKG can support 3 airlines! How long before we see something from either JAL or ANA? From Japan. NZ is getting competition on most of its routes now.

Well NZ/CX are in an alliance, so in away that will help them dominate. But how do they think 4x daily AKL-HKG flights can get filled?, take it most traffic is currently going beyond HKG?

This NW16/17 (28x weekly)
AKL-HKG
NZ 772 D
CX 77W D
CX 343 D
HX 332 D

China must be now the largest Intentional market into AKL?

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 62): Quoting zkncj (Reply 61):Is food/drink service really needed on an flight just over 1hourPerhaps not really needed, BUT it can be very convenient.

Being able to have a wrap or sandwich in flight saves you having to buy something at either end and it helps if you don't have lounge access.

Speaking of comparing NZ and JQ, NZ is now advertising hourly flights on weekdays between WLG-AKL

Quoting 777ER (Reply 70): Speaking of comparing NZ and JQ, NZ is now advertising hourly flights on weekdays between WLG-AKL

NZ are currently on working an Monday to Sunday timetable, here's an example of the new AKL-WLG.
Through out the day flights leave on the hour, during peak there is also an service on the half hour.
Peak = 0630 to 0800 and 1500 to 1800.

6:30am 7:35am NZ0401
7:00am 8:05am NZ0405
7:30am 8:35am NZ0407
8:00am 9:05am NZ0411
9:00am 10:05am NZ0415
10:00am 11:05am NZ0417
11:00am 12:05pm NZ0421
12:00pm 1:05pm NZ0429
1:00pm 2:05pm NZ0419
2:00pm 3:05pm NZ0453
3:00pm 4:05pm NZ0425
3:30pm 4:35pm NZ0443
4:00pm 5:05pm NZ0445
4:30pm 5:35pm NZ0449
5:00pm 6:05pm NZ0451
5:30pm 6:35pm NZ0459
6:00pm 7:05pm NZ0463
7:00pm 8:05pm NZ0461
8:00pm 9:05pm NZ0475
9:00pm 10:05pm NZ0469

Compared to Jetstar.

05:25am 06:30am JQ251
07:00am 8:05am JQ253
10:10am 11:15am JQ257
01:35pm 2:40pm JQ259
04:45pm 05:50pm JQ263
06:45pm 07:50pm JQ267

NZ 20x Daily Flights, JQ 6x Daily Flights.

Today about 3.15pm I saw flying over Remuera on a landing pattern, 2 planes side by side which I have never seen before, one was a 787 with light blue livery (China southern or similar??) and the other a 738 from QF I think. They seemed quite close but probably about a 1 km apart. I just thought it very unusual after 40 years of watching the skies I had not seen that.

Can anyone confirm whether ZK-NCK (763ER) has been retired? last flew on May 8th. I know one 763ER (K or L) is due to retire this quarter so sounds about right timing given also the transfer of HNL to 789 which theoretically releases a 763ER. At the same time part of me thinks that the 763s are going to have an extended stay. they'll need some frames for Osaka, Saigon, etc...
Thanks
A

Quoting zkncj (Reply 57):

HX is very poor in their timetables in terms of flight length, I had same problem when I travel with them HKG-PEK. The arrival times mean nothing. One other problem I have with HX is frequent cancellations.

With HX entering the market, I wonder whether CX will revert to 343 for CX197/198?

Quoting hkcanadaexpat (Reply 73): Can anyone confirm whether ZK-NCK (763ER) has been retired? last flew on May 8th. I know one 763ER (K or L) is due to retire this quarter so sounds about right timing given also the transfer of HNL to 789 which theoretically releases a 763ER.

ZK-NCK is retiring by 30 Jun 2016 (May?) and ZK-NCL by 31 Dec 2016 (Jul?).

A post on another thread said ZK-NCK and ZK-NCL are going to Icelandair (FI) who recently aquired ex ZK-NCN (TF-ISO) and ex ZK-NCO (TF-ISN). TF-ISN has been fitted with a new interior and winglets and TF-ISO is presently getting the same treatment.

Edit: TF-ISO flew XMN-KEF on 10 May, so it's upgrade is now completed.

PA515

[Edited 2016-05-14 03:42:27]

Quoting nz2 (Reply 72):

One aircraft will have been flying the standard arrival (STAR) for the straight in approach, while the other would have been flying the SMART approach. They will have been separated vertically until the two approaches caused them to be sufficiently laterally separated. I've seen this before. It's very slick controlling and shows the benefit of the SMART approach.

Quoting PA515 (Reply 75): A post on another thread said ZK-NCK and ZK-NCL are going to Icelandair (FI) who recently aquired ex ZK-NCN (TF-ISO) and ex ZK-NCO (TF-ISN). TF-ISN has been fitted with a new interior and winglets and TF-ISO is presently getting the same treatment.

Not to be pedantic but Icelandair didn't acquire either one of those. One is leased from GECAS and the other from Aercap. But thanks for the update on K & L. Good to see they'll have a second life.
A

Quoting hkcanadaexpat (Reply 77): Not to be pedantic but Icelandair didn't acquire either one of those.

Leased aircraft are acquired. It means you have possession, not necessarily ownership. Will be interesting to see if ZK-NCK and ZK-NCL are purchased by Icelandair or by a leasing company.

PA515

NCK has crossed over into a final maintenance check before officially leaving the fleet. Her last sector was NAN-AKL 09MAY, I have a 767 flight booked on 03JUN which I'm hoping will be NCI/NCL as they are two I have not flown yet.

It looks like ZK-MVL is visible on the flightline in Toulouse (behind the LATAM A350):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aircrafts/26972191936/

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 79): NCK has crossed over into a final maintenance check before officially leaving the fleet.

Do you have a planned date of her final departure from Auckland, by any chance? She's my favorite 767-300.  

Would NZ consider serving the AKL-CTS route with 763'S 3 or 4 times per week? Another japanese city, large fishing industry which might contribute cargo sales.

Quoting georgiabill (Reply 81): Would NZ consider serving the AKL-CTS route with 763'S 3 or 4 times per week?

No doubt it is a city pair that has been looked at sometime or another. The 763 days in the NZ fleet are numbered , down to serving two or three new routes. The most recent investors review has the last two gone in late 2017 or early 2018. .

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 68): Amazing that HKG can support 3 airlines! How long before we see something from either JAL or ANA? From Japan. NZ is getting competition on most of its routes now.

It's interesting that NZ can do this in a lot of markets. This summer 13 flights per week to Japan with ANA codeshare and no direct competition.
Likewise, NZ can run daily 77W to SYD, BNE, MEL plus 763 and A320 without any issue and the best QF will do is the 738. NZ operates AKL-PER unchallenged apart from the summer peak where QF offer a Sat/Sun A330 while NZ increase to 10 789's AKL-PER and 3 789's CHC-PER.
AKL-ADL is unchallenged, JQ tried but quickly pulled out.
NZ are also smart on how the appear to operate.
AKL-SIN codeshare with SQ
AKL-HKG codeshare with CX
AKL-NOU codeshare with SB
AKL-PPT codeshare with TN
AKL-YVR codeshare with AC
AKL-EZE codeshare with AR
On virtually all NZ international flights, the codeshare with the dominant carrier out of the overseas city.
The only exception is Australia, but they still have VA as a partner and QF just don't appear interested in trying to compete.
QF would rather put their flight number on another carriers aircraft ie AKL-SYD - LA, AKL-SYD/BNE/MEL - EK.
I'm surprised the haven't approached China Airlines about codesharing on the CI flights between AKL-SYD/BNE and CHC-MEL/SYD

Quoting nascarnut (Reply 83): Likewise, NZ can run daily 77W to SYD, BNE, MEL plus 763 and A320 without any issue and the best QF will do is the 738

I've noticed that afternoon 763 flight on someday is now an 772, yet Qantas sticks to its 738s...

Quoting zkncj (Reply 84): I've noticed that afternoon 763 flight on someday is now an 772, yet Qantas sticks to its 738s...

Different strategies. If NZ is dropping 763s, they have one direction to go in as they seem to think bigger is better.

QF on the Tasman (at least to the east coast) is effectively a dedicated operation. It isn't all JetConnect, but until they decide to give JetConnect A330s, the 738 is your bird. A very pleasant one at that.

Quoting nascarnut (Reply 83): AKL-ADL is unchallenged, JQ tried but quickly pulled out.

and CNS and prerhaps RAR to follow. This should tell you that it isn't just a monopoly, or luck, but good stewardship and business acumen. Other airlines are trying their luck with favourable fuel and increased inbound demand for N.Z due low NZD but this shows that the costs vs returns on NZ routings can be difficult for airlines, and there are many airlines that have been and gone, done cost evaluations and gone "no thanks"

NZ should be given credit for expanding the market, stimulating demand to the stage it can currently sustain competition. If NZ hadn't done so, then AKL would never hope to sustain more than one airline on some routes. Airlines with code shares with NZ want the N.Z domestic market feed and they want to limit the liability across the partnership to lower their overall costs.

Quoting zkncj (Reply 84): Quoting nascarnut (Reply 83): Likewise, NZ can run daily 77W to SYD, BNE, MEL plus 763 and A320 without any issue and the best QF will do is the 738 I've noticed that afternoon 763 flight on someday is now an 772, yet Qantas sticks to its 738s...

That's all part of stimulating the home market and trying to drag longhaul feed from the bigger market across the ditch. QF doesn't need N.Z as much as NZ does Australia as it were,
QF is running well, but they also don't have the fleet to do so currently. Bear in mind that when QF had 763s they were ideal for AKL.

The issue here is that QF changed their asian longhaul to A332/333 which they utilise a lot and only have the bigger 744/A380s which are unsuitable for shorthaul due aircraft rotation/operational cost/interior config
eg: A380 - 14 First 64 Business 35 Premium Economy 371 Economy

Quoting nascarnut (Reply 83): AKL-NOU codeshare with SB AKL-PPT codeshare with TN

In the case of these two it is due more to those two airlines not wanting to go it alone on this market because they would struggle by themselves and also don't have the fleet to operate, with the benefit to NZ that they don't have to waste more aircraft/flights per week on markets that are marginal but they still get the extra flights to sell seats on and gain revenue from. Small fry in the rockpool. Incidentally when NZ is the small fish overseas they naturally do the same kind of thing as well. Big Reefshark protects smaller remora dish who get to feed/clean the bigger fish. Symbiotic relationship.

Quoting georgiabill (Reply 81): Would NZ consider serving the AKL-CTS route with 763'S 3 or 4 times per week? Another japanese city, large fishing industry which might contribute cargo sales.

Forget fishing... CTS is big in this market for one thing only: Hokkaido Powder Snow!
NZ would do well to operate a seasonal 3x weekly service there mid-Dec- mid-Mar.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 87): NZ would do well to operate a seasonal 3x weekly service there mid-Dec- mid-Mar.

Good for your business too.. 

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 87): Forget fishing... CTS is big in this market for one thing only: Hokkaido Powder Snow! NZ would do well to operate a seasonal 3x weekly service there mid-Dec- mid-Mar.

Is it big enough here? We get so self-focused on Ruapehu and Queenstown, do we actually care there's a summer season somewhere?

Excluding YVR.

Love to see it though, to do it would be awesome - and given my future profession I need the summer ski season.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 14): So the cat is finally out of the bag. Shanghai has operated at a loss for Air New Zealand for all ten years of operations, and no sooner does it stop leaking red ink than China's economy slows down and the monopoly on the route is lost. That's pretty special. Ten years of losses, the first nine of which were a monopoly.

Heh. That's a pretty wry observation. I like it.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 49): NZ has made mention that part of the reason why they have been able to steadily increase domestic capacity (and profit) is because of international visitors (and a particular mention of China). So while by itself PVG might have been losing money overall the network might have had a net gain from it and now that it is making money bonus!

Oh sure. But remember all those years NZ cried wolf on the Tasman because - as stand alone routes - they were unprofitable? I think that's how they justified the anti-competitive VA/NZ stich-up too. Bless.

I am confused by the argument for Air New Zealand to continue to serve Shanghai at all.

As many of us argued all along, it has now been admitted that the route operated at a loss for the first ten years - for nine of which the airline had a monopoly while the Chinese economy was booming.

It is unclear whether it is now breaking even or making a minuscule profit, but there is now a competitor and the Chinese economic boom is over. And it ties up two 789s which could and should be flying to somewhere commercially viable, not Shanghai.

So why is Air New Zealand still operating this failed route?

If the argument is that New Zealand benefits from the inbound tourism, then:

1) the route should be left to the Chinese competitor, or
2) the route should be formally subsidised by the New Zealand government, as is the case with the Cooks government underwriting RAR-LAX and the Samoan and Tongan governments having been given ultimatums to subsidise TBU-APW-LAX.

Until last week when some of us called the airline on the obvious unviability of the route or the opaque crewing arrangements which have no checks or balances the reply was either "it might be profitable, it's a commercial secret" or "it's a developing route which will print money one day."

It's arrant nonsense. It lost money when the sun was shining, yet we're supposed to believe that somehow it will be viable against competition after the boom has ended?

And anyway, what did they think that China would develop into? Three out of four Japanese routes failed. Are we waiting until Chinese GDP per capita overtakes Japan's? By that argument no route can ever be axed in case in a hundred years' time it becomes viable.

The rationale for this route is intellectually bankrupt.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 91): So why is Air New Zealand still operating this failed route?

If it is profitable, I'm not sure how it can be called a "failed" route.

mariner

Quoting mariner (Reply 92): f it is profitable, I'm not sure how it can be called a "failed" route.

Has anybody done the maths? Did one year "no longer loss-making" offset the losses of ten consecutive years of red ink?

Nope? So it's a failed route then. It is the single route equivalent of Trading While Insolvent.

Is anybody on the board awake? First the CEO destroys the investment in Virgin Australia, then the airline accidentally lets slip that Shanghai has been a basket case for a decade.

I have heard a lot of big claims of nimble Air NZ management in recent years. But I'm starting to think that that was self-congratulatory nonsense from an airline enabled by weak regulation to turn almost its entire long-haul network into a quasi-monopoly.

No wonder Virgin, Etihad and Singapore Airlines didn't back Luxon.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 93): Has anybody done the maths? Did one year "no longer loss-making" offset the losses of ten consecutive years of red ink? Nope? So it's a failed route then. It is the single route equivalent of Trading While Insolvent.

So right now, when the AKL-PVG route is finally profitable, and when the airline has enough confidence in it to expand the summer offering to 10x weekly, it should be axed on the basis that it previously made losses? That's a commercial logic I just don't comprehend!

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 93): Has anybody done the maths? Did one year "no longer loss-making" offset the losses of ten consecutive years of red ink?

I doubt that yet - you seem obsessed with the past. I don't know what he losses were or what the profit is. There must be a reason why they kept PVG in the cull when "international" was losing money.

The rise of the FIT's - Financially Independent (Chinese ) Travellers - together with the code shares seem to have helped PVG, as was signalled in the interim report:

"Our new revenue sharing joint venture with Air China to Beijing commenced in December, and is helping to drive new demand for our Auckland to Shanghai route and open up connections to other Chinese cities."

There's more to it tha that, though. From Day 1 of his tenure, Mr. Luxon has discussed the importance of AKL as a hub and the equal importance of contribution to network, which is the economic basis of a hub.

It is unlikely that IAH and EZE were profitable from Day 1 - or either now - but Luxon has said that from Day 1 both were making a positive contribution to network.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 93): No wonder Virgin, Etihad and Singapore Airlines didn't back Luxon.

Because he wanted Virgin to be profitable?

mariner

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 94): That's a commercial logic I just don't comprehend!

Koruman was always a passionate poster and frequent flyer but I believe when he retired that handle, we learnt that while he was a highly trained professional, it was not in the business field.

Quoting Mr AirNZ (Reply 96): Koruman was always a passionate poster and frequent flyer but I believe when he retired that handle, we learnt that while he was a highly trained professional, it was not in the business field.

What field was it?

Quoting aerohottie (Reply 97): What field was it?

Whimsical Analysis.
I note he has toned it down a tad with the Nouflyer handle...

Quoting eta unknown (Reply 98): I note he has toned it down a tad with the Nouflyer handle...

I liked the old one more. He felt less aggressive.