Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
zkeoj
Posts: 1231
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Thu May 19, 2016 7:37 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 147):
Similarly, AKL-WHK is still bookable on Air Chathams website so I guess that's going okay, but I can't find much about it,

Hi Mariner,

just anecdotally, of course, but I did the return AKL-WHK-AKL on the 18th March, and both flights on the Metro had pretty good loads. AKL-WHK about full (1 seat left), and WHK-AKL about 85-90%.
In contrast, I did AKL-HLZ-AKL on GB on the 11th March, and on the AKL-HLZ there was only one other passenger (she connected to Kiwi, which I found interesting, i.e. their partnership seems to work), and on the way back I was the only passenger (it was a Chieftain, ZK-FOP).

I really hope the smaller regionals will continue to do well, and in some markets there seems to be a flood of them. At NSN I saw a sign proudly announcing that NSN is now served by 7 regular airlines: NZ, JQ prop, Kiwi, Origin, Sounds Air, Air-2-there, and I forgot number 7? That is quite amazing, and would be great for other towns and smaller cities in the country see similar support.

Cheers
micha
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10117
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Thu May 19, 2016 8:48 am

Quoting zkeoj (Reply 150):
I really hope the smaller regionals will continue to do well, and in some markets there seems to be a flood of them. At NSN I saw a sign proudly announcing that NSN is now served by 7 regular airlines: NZ, JQ prop, Kiwi, Origin, Sounds Air, Air-2-there, and I forgot number 7?

Was at NSN today and NSN doesn't have 7 airlines serving it. Think your getting mixed up with "6 airlines serving 7 destinations" advertising board inside the terminal.
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
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1231
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Thu May 19, 2016 10:34 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 151):
Was at NSN today and NSN doesn't have 7 airlines serving it. Think your getting mixed up with "6 airlines serving 7 destinations" advertising board inside the terminal.

Bad memory - I am getting old   Either way, 6 airlines serving a small place like NSN is quite something, so the point remains  
 
User avatar
NZ107
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:51 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Thu May 19, 2016 10:48 am

Quoting zkeye (Reply 139):
but there is a reason Air New Zealand cancelled the service. Hotel operators have been trying for some time to get other airlines to serve Wanaka but none have been able to make a viable case for it. They may hit critical mass but it will not be for a while yet I am afraid.
Quoting PA515 (Reply 145):
The CHC-WKA 1900D was impacted by pax choosing to travel through ZQN for lower fares on A320 and ATR flights.

Pretty much. Economics don't work when you have one daily B1900D vs multiple jets or large props. Get the price right and people will flock there over ZQN. I feel as though ZQN is becoming a victim of its own success - it's grown so much over the last 14 years and it's overwhelmed with tourists. Wanaka is still a little more laid back and I feel a more enjoyable place to visit now. I think it'd work over the winter - WKA is closer to Cardrona and Treble Cone.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 144):
how many seats in a Sounds Air PC-12? Nine? I assume its CASK is similar to the Caravan which would allow for smaller loads at a similar cost per km. How do the cruise speeds compare?

If you've seen the prices Sounds Air have been charging for flights on the PC-12, you wouldn't believe the CASK is similar to the Caravan....
It's all about the destination AND the journey.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Thu May 19, 2016 8:49 pm

Quoting zkeoj (Reply 150):
Hi Mariner,

just anecdotally, of course, but I did the return AKL-WHK-AKL on the 18th March, and both flights on the Metro had pretty good loads. AKL-WHK about full (1 seat left), and WHK-AKL about 85-90%.

Thanks, mate, good to hear.

Obviously, the reason for all the recent expansion by the small fry is the departure of Air NZ from certain routes, such as WHK. I very much doubt that Air NZ will pull the same trick again, so the question is where can the small fry expand without running into the bigger airline? Is there any market WHK-WLG?

The three I follow are all operating from a niche base position - Air Chathams to the Chathams, Barrier to Great Barrier and Sounds is the Cook Strait airline - I'm slightly surprised that WLG-PCN gets the amount of service that it does.

But I don't know how far they can push expansion, both in terms of where they can fly and also their capital base. It's possible to imagine new routes for Sounds, but new routes aren't cheap, they probably need more aircraft to do much more and aircraft are expensive.

And how far can they fly - and I don't mean just aircraft range. Pax will obviously put up with no cabin service - and especially no loo - for a shorter flight, so while CHC-WKA (300 k) may be a viable route, is WLG-WKA viable at 600 k?

Long ago, when I was boy I was once caught short, needing to pee, in a Dragon Rapide with no loo and the result wasn't pretty, so I'm quite interested to see what the next small fry moves are.  

mariner

[Edited 2016-05-19 13:53:09]
aeternum nauta
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10117
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Thu May 19, 2016 11:36 pm

Quoting zkeoj (Reply 152):

For a market the size of NSN, it certainly is interesting that six airlines serve the region. For NSN the helping hand IMHO is the regional location. Origin Air and Kiwi are more interested in regional flying so NSN was going to be a natural choice for them both especially as a transit point for Kiwi.

Speaking of Origin, I noticed only one J31 was at NSN yesterday. Is Origin still allowed to operate charters?
Speaking of Kiwi, their arrival from HLZ yesterday had 10 passengers with the departure to DUD having 17 passengers with half of the HLZ passengers connecting for DUD.
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
 
ZKSUJ
Posts: 6884
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 5:15 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Fri May 20, 2016 12:12 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 155):

Yea I also think NSN's remote location (relative) is a big driver. I mean the closest big town/city really is CHC and thats a mission by Road in terms of time. Everything else of significant size is on the other island, flying wins by defalt
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Fri May 20, 2016 1:26 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 155):
Speaking of Kiwi,

Would WKA be a town that might work for them? Say XXX-WKA-ZQN -XXX. ?
 
keen2fly
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 2:10 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Fri May 20, 2016 2:44 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 157):

The Saab has a take-off runway length requirement of around more than 1200m, and that's near sea level at MTOW. Even if they're nowhere near MTOW due to fuel it looks to be a bit of a test of the Saab's capability, maybe not doable without a payload penalty that's too big.

[Edited 2016-05-19 19:52:52]
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Fri May 20, 2016 1:33 pm

Quoting keen2fly (Reply 158):
maybe not doable without a payload penalty that's too big.

I envisaged WKA as the first stop where passengers would be dropped off/picked up. The next leg would be WKA-ZQN a very short hop where the TOW would contain the least fuel. With a full passenger load (37 seats) I estimate the TOW out of WKA for ZQN at about 22600 kg The best information I can find is that at 27300Kg TOW for a 30-min. flight it needs 1158 ft of runway. Thus I believe on most days it should have no problem doing the add on. If weather closes ZQN to the SAAB is it likely that WKA is open?
 
ZKOJH
Posts: 1502
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:51 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Fri May 20, 2016 1:44 pm

"Wellington Airport profit rises 29pc on passenger growth"

Wellington International Airport, which is 66 per cent owned by investment group Infratil, posted a 29 per cent gain in full-year profit as growth in international passenger volumes drove revenue.

Profit rose to $12.5 million in the 12 months ended March 31, from about $9.7 million a year earlier, the company said in a statement. Sales gained 4.8 per cent to $113.5 million.

International passenger volumes rose 16 per cent to 897,316 last year while domestic gained 4.6 per cent to about 4.9 million. The airport company agreed five new international services from Jetstar, Fiji Airways and Qantas Airways, adding 160,000 seats and it anticipates a further 110,000 seats when Singapore Airlines begins a Boeing 777 service linking Wellington with Canberra and Singapore in September. Domestic volumes were lifted by new Jetstar routes, expanded capacity from Air New Zealand and a contribution from Sounds Air, it said.


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ticle.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11642065
Air New Zealand ~ dreams of flying
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10117
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Fri May 20, 2016 8:54 pm

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 160):

Is the QF WLG-BNE service a seasonal one or was last summers one a one off test?
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
 
zkncj
Posts: 3914
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Fri May 20, 2016 10:55 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 159):
I envisaged WKA as the first stop where passengers would be dropped off/picked up. The next leg would be WKA-ZQN a very short hop where the TOW would contain the least fuel.

Have you ever been between WKA-ZQN? its not going to be an simple take off and turn flight in an prob.

Between WKA/ZQN have multiple mountain ranges, that you have to climb above before you can head south to ZQN.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Sat May 21, 2016 1:45 am

Fossicking around the small airports to see if there might be any gold, I came across this from TEU - Te Aanu. KRA is having a look at them, which isn't a real surprise given that KRA seems to bellowing everywhere.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/7300...-talks-with-Kiwi-Regional-Airlines

"Te Anau Airport in talks with Kiwi Regional Airlines

Passenger numbers are increasing and Te Anau Airport Manapouri management say the regional airport has attracted the attention of Kiwi Regional Airlines.

Airport manager Evan Pearce said the growth of the airport had attracted significantly larger flights to Te Anau this year - part of an ongoing growth pattern in passenger numbers during the past four peak tourist seasons.

"The interesting thing is the airline is actually interested in coming to us as a destination and that's quite positive. They've said that we're on their radar and they are keen to talk once they've got their structure sorted," Pearce said."


I don't want to sound cynical I'm not holding my breath that KRA will get their structure sorted, but hey, they're still flying.

It seems the airport attracts a lot of tours, though, charters I assume, but there is one tiny piece of gold that knocked me just a little bit sideways - charters from Te Anau to the Chathams, organised locally - open the link and scroll down:

http://www.teanauairport.co.nz

"Te Anau Manapouri Airport / Chatham Islands Direct

We have the facilities. We have the aircraft. We have the opportunity. Let’s do it, all over again!

Due to ever increasing popularity and in conjunction with Air Chathams and Hotel Chatham, Merv has again chartered a 50 passenger Convair 580 aircraft for more special direct flights from Te Anau Airport Manapouri to the Chatham Islands for January 2017. With four fully guided days to explore our most eastern island before returning home direct. Flight time: under 2 ¾ hours.

Tours starting beginning of January 2017 onwards. Four tours scheduled."


I suppose if you live in Fiordland the Chathams may be a bit exotic (?) but I'm surprised there are enough takers and what intrigues me is that they say "more" and "again" - suggesting it's happened before and successfully or they wouldn't be doing it this time. They they have four such charters planned.

I don't who the organiser - "Merv" - is, but I wish him very good luck.  

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

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Sat May 21, 2016 2:28 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 163):
I don't want to sound cynical I'm not holding my breath that KRA will get their structure sorted, but hey, they're still flying.

Agree, TEU might be too much of an jump for KRA in there current state. Wouldn't TEU be very weather dependent, and would have knock on effects to KRA OTP.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1676
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Sun May 22, 2016 1:28 pm

Interesting to consider just how many more flights will be on offer between NZ and North America in the coming summer, compared with the previous one.

Looking only at "own-metal" flights (and excluding AKL-RAR-LAX), in 2015-16, NZ had 7x to YVR, 10x to SFO, 17x to LAX and 5x to IAH if I recall accurately, a total of 20x 77Ws and 19x 77E flights, or 39x weekly in total.

In 2016-17, NZ will have 7x to YVR, 7x to SFO, 14x to LAX and 7x to IAH, a total of 20x 77Ws and 15x 77E flights, or just 35x weekly in total.

At the same time, UA and AA will between them offer an additional 14x weekly, making a total of 49x weekly services in 2016-17, effectively an increase of around 25% in capacity on the same time last year (acknowledging the smaller capacity of the UA and AA aircraft). This in a market that's growing at around 10% pa (the USA, at least).

So the increase in capacity should account for around two years' growth at the current rate. Thereafter, just to keep pace with the market (assuming that it does continue to grow), you could expect to see the various airlines expand capacity by 5x weekly services to keep pace, every year.

In this context, airlines may choose to bolster existing routes with additional capacity or consider routes like AKL-DFW, AKL-ORD and AKL-LAS (for example).

Interesting to note, as well, that NZ has reduced the number of "own-metal" flights in the coming summer, compared with last.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8353
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Sun May 22, 2016 2:24 pm

Quoting davidbyrne (Reply 165):
Interesting to note, as well, that NZ has reduced the number of "own-metal" flights in the coming summer, compared with last.

Not surprising though, UA services really took care of the SFO NZ14 flights because NZ will have an airshare agreement with UA, If they have 3 flights worth of seats sold as NZ ticketed fares on UA metal( or some 42%) they are still maintaining that share of the market without the full cost of operation.

I'm heading to the states twice in June/July. Up on CA back on SQ, up on NZ back on someone else - probably QF when I book it. I haven't really been concerned with cost but as far as I see it we are in a formulative recalibrationperiod for the USA market where it actually doesn't quite follow the known peaks and troughs of traditional high/low season demand or fare price so there are great deals/capacity year round, but I get the feeling it won't last once the novelty goes away.

The capacity will chop and change as the market adjusts to change, we see already that NZ is reallocating capacity to IAH in lieu of NZ3/4 flights and we have seen drops in premium class U/C tickets. There is no guarantee that AA/UA will stick at it or that another player might join - it is too early to determine yet. AKL has not had this kind of USA service since UA/CO/AA/HA/NZ/BA/QF all contributed with direct services and left again. My gut feeling is that the market is growing faster than demand and fares will not stay cheap once they 'rightsize' their frequencies to the demands of the market and the airport facilities. Remember it has happened before and dropped back. The exchange rate for NZD/USD is low, the cheap fares are from the other direction inbound, but the fares ex AKL have not dropped much.

Once the inbound traffic have been will they return in number or not? Will inbound demand from China, Japan, USA, UK, Europe and South America outstrip NZL tourism's hotel capacity as the demand and availability drives prices up to an unsustainable point and push us out of the sweet spot of the market?

There is more here to this discussion than just a few extra seats/airlines serving AKL
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.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3914
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Sun May 22, 2016 7:06 pm

Quoting davidbyrne (Reply 165):
In 2016-17, NZ will have 7x to YVR, 7x to SFO, 14x to LAX and 7x to IAH, a total of 20x 77Ws and 15x 77E flights, or just 35x weekly in total.

Or does the reduction by 4x weekly 772 service and result of an new route yet to be launched for NW16?
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4531
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Sun May 22, 2016 7:36 pm

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 166):
the cheap fares are from the other direction inbound, but the fares ex AKL have not dropped much.

Oh but many of them have! I've seen UA return fares to Canada (YYC) for around NZ$1200 vs NZ at the same time being $2500. Likewise if you have a connecting flight then UA/AA are offering some pretty sharp deals.
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Sun May 22, 2016 9:19 pm

Quoting davidbyrne (Reply 165):

LAX was 16x and SFO 9x. Different market but EZE 3x as well.

Impressive!
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1676
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Sun May 22, 2016 10:00 pm

Quoting ZK-NBT (Reply 169):
LAX was 16x and SFO 9x. Different market but EZE 3x as well.
OK, so that reduces the 2015-16 total to 37 flights a week, and the "cut" by NZ to just 2 flights a week. Thanks for this - I wasn't 100% confident as to whether the "additional seasonal" services were 2x or 3x weekly.

[Edited 2016-05-22 15:01:41]
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8353
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Mon May 23, 2016 3:32 am

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 168):
Oh but many of them have! I've seen UA return fares to Canada (YYC) for around NZ$1200 vs NZ at the same time being $2500. Likewise if you have a connecting flight then UA/AA are offering some pretty sharp deals.

.

Bear in mind that I have seen PE fares from LAX that are the same as Y fares out of AKL on most carriers, so that's more what I was referring to, that fares haven't dropped as much as people thought. Fares have been 1200-1800 for USA for some time with VA/DL/QF/UA via Australia and 1600-2000 for direct, the cheapest UA fares always include one way on NZ. Possibly we are only talking a couple of hundred dollars which depends on the day - I have priced UA for my trips in June/July and been steady at about 1600-2000. .
More interesting to me is that AC is now competing for USA traffic (with useless mileage accrual 25%) now they have 2 YVR flights to fill from SYD/BNE. Traditionally
I used to price them and they were expensive and didn't offer US connections
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.
 
Nouflyer
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 9:38 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Mon May 23, 2016 4:31 am

Quoting davidbyrne (Reply 165):
This in a market that's growing at around 10% pa (the USA, at least).

Interestingly, it's a market which is still being subjected to a hub-and-spoke model even though the 787 was supposed to be a hub-buster.

We all know how time-poor American tourists are. We also know that their primary leisure destinations down here are Sydney and the Great Barrier Reef.

I think that there are action that Air New Zealand could have taken to dominate the market to Australia and New Zealand from the US west coast.

1. I think that in spite of its inferior economics, the 788 would have allowed profitable services to Auckland and onwards to Australia from Seattle and Portland and possibly Denver. We are talking about a plane with the economy capacity of an A320, plus 14 Premium Economy and 12 Business Class seats.

2. The old V Australia would have been a good strategic partner for Air New Zealand. Fly those tourists into Auckland, but send em' straight back to LAX out of Sydney on a VA 77W or even out of Cairns on a VA 788.

Clearly no American carrier would countenance flights to New Zealand or Australia from Portland or Seattle. But whereas there is scope for United or American to cannibalise NZ's LAX and SFO markets, Air NZ could have made the smaller west coast gateways into citadels.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1676
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Mon May 23, 2016 4:54 am

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 172):
Clearly no American carrier would countenance flights to New Zealand or Australia from Portland or Seattle. But whereas there is scope for United or American to cannibalise NZ's LAX and SFO markets, Air NZ could have made the smaller west coast gateways into citadels.

Let's not get hung up over whether the 788 or the 789 would have been the preferred option as the operating economics are allegedly not dissimilar, with a seat-mile cost advantage to the 789, but an aircraft-mile cost advantage to the 788. We could argue the point on this to no great benefit.

However, the point is that a 789 does have the ability to launch routes like ORD, LAS, DEN and SEA, probably in a more premium-heavy configuration. My suspicions are that ORD and DEN are possibly favoured given the UA hubs in those locations. I wouldn't rule out LAS, though with the current configuration, (the airline itself has said it has looked at LAS) or SEA (a longer shot in my view).

Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't at all mean that it ain't going to happen. Given the carrier has launched two new long haul routes in 2015 (IAH and EZE) and has three scheduled for 2016 (SGN, MNL and a relaunch of KIX) it's clearly in a growth mood, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if (say) we saw 3x weekly LAS some time in 2017 with the current 789 config.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
Nouflyer
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 9:38 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Mon May 23, 2016 5:12 am

Quoting davidbyrne (Reply 173):
Let's not get hung up over whether the 788 or the 789 would have been the preferred option as the operating economics are allegedly not dissimilar, with a seat-mile cost advantage to the 789, but an aircraft-mile cost advantage to the 788. We could argue the point on this to no great benefit.

Your points are very well made.

The 789 is basically the same size as the 77E, albeit with fewer Business Class seats. It's not suitable for opening new markets with small populations.

But the 788 is basically the economy capacity of an A320 topped up with small premium cabins.

I would think that a 789 is too big to open Auckland-Portland and Auckland-Seattle.

But a 788 would be a fantastic size and would allow those routes to open with greater frequency.

If Air NZ ended up operating a daily 788 on each of Portland and Seattle, I could imagine a scenario in which an all-787 long-haul fleet made sense. And that in turn would allow capacity to be fine-tuned even on LAX and SFO and IAH in lower-demand periods.

The Air NZ 789 is configured 18J / 21Y / 263Y.

I would think that the 788 could be configured something more like 15J / 21U / 200Y.
 
User avatar
eta unknown
Posts: 2876
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 5:03 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Mon May 23, 2016 5:13 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 171):
More interesting to me is that AC is now competing for USA traffic (with useless mileage accrual 25%) now they have 2 YVR flights to fill from SYD/BNE. Traditionally
I used to price them and they were expensive and didn't offer US connections

Yes there are some interesting comments flying around re AC BNE.
On the one hand a 789 is better suited to the route than a 788. On the other hand outside of peak seasons AC may have bitten off more than they can chew with daily BNE. Time will tell...
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4531
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Mon May 23, 2016 5:54 am

Quoting coolian2 (Reply 89):
Is it big enough here? We get so self-focused on Ruapehu and Queenstown, do we actually care there's a summer season somewhere?

I would think at a reasonably educated guestimate that there would be at least 15,000 Kiwis every year that go on a skiing holiday to either Japan/USA/Canada if not more and that numbers are growing as air fares come down and the wealth effect of the NZ housing bubble makes those who have cashed up/got multiple properties able to do these trips. Not to mention dairy farmers when the price of milk goes up. There are a lot of people out there that would rather go on a 2 week skiing holiday every 2nd year than go for 2 weeks every year in NZ and get 7 days skiing out of it due to weather etc. That's not counting battling the crowds or the poor conditions. QF used to have a CTS service during the Northern Winter for all the skiers going to Hokkaido. All the skiers are the reason why NZ ramps up YVR capacity over the Northern Winter when non-skiers are trying to get away from Canada for the most part.
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 972
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Mon May 23, 2016 6:44 am

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 174):
If Air NZ ended up operating a daily 788 on each of Portland and Seattle, I could imagine a scenario in which an all-787 long-haul fleet made sense. And that in turn would allow capacity to be fine-tuned even on LAX and SFO and IAH in lower-demand periods.

The Air NZ 789 is configured 18J / 21Y / 263Y.

I would think that the 788 could be configured something more like 15J / 21U / 200Y.

TBH I would think getting some 787-10 to displace some 787-9 and use the -9 to open these routes would be better overall for the network than getting -8s, The -10 won't really work to USA but would be great for Asian routes and tasman / island routes. They could even reconfigure the -9s with more premium seating and or other cabin requirements for longer runs to USA and Canada.

I would not be surprised to see the fleet going forwards being a mix of 787-9, -10 and some 777-9 to replace / augment the 77W fleet.
77West - AW109S - BE90 - JS31 - B1900 - Q300 - ATR72 - DC9-30 - MD80 - B733 - A320 - B738 - A300-B4 - B773 - B77W
 
aerojoe
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 11:45 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Mon May 23, 2016 11:19 pm

Quoting 77west (Reply 177):
I would not be surprised to see the fleet going forwards being a mix of 787-9, -10 and some 777-9 to replace / augment the 77W fleet

What would an Air NZ 787-10 for Asia market look like in terms of seating? What advantage would there be over simply running 787-9 in two variants - a high capacity Asia fleet (current seating) and a premium focused sub-fleet (for an improving Japan premium market and Nth America).
 
IndianicWorld
Posts: 3402
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:32 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Mon May 23, 2016 11:32 pm

Quoting eta unknown (Reply 175):
On the one hand a 789 is better suited to the route than a 788. On the other hand outside of peak seasons AC may have bitten off more than they can chew with daily BNE. Time will tell...

I thought the aircraft change from 788 to 789 on that route is seasonal?

I agree that it may be more of a struggle in off-peak periods but that's up to them to manage their business I guess.

NZ still offers the most convenient transit experience for pax from outside SYD and BNE to YVR, along with SFO, IAH and EZE. This is a huge plus for MEL pax in particular, which is a significant market in itself.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Tue May 24, 2016 3:07 am

I m not sure about having both the 788 and 789 in a small 15 to 20 plane fleet. At 6000nm , 242 passengers the 788 fuel burn is about 5% less than the 789 same range, same load . Is it worth it I don't know.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4531
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Tue May 24, 2016 4:09 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 180):
I m not sure about having both the 788 and 789 in a small 15 to 20 plane fleet. At 6000nm , 242 passengers the 788 fuel burn is about 5% less than the 789 same range, same load . Is it worth it I don't know.

Well for the extra 5% you get an extra 15 seats no penalty and then another 44 with minimal penalty but lots of upside.
The 788 is going to be a dead duck going forward.... a bit like the 762 compared to the 763 or the 772 compared to the 77W.
The 7810 however with its larger capacity and still decent range should be a worthwhile option for many airlines and yes NZ could use it for some of its more medium distance routes (SIN, DPS, HKG, MNL, SGN, PER). The aircraft are similar enough that it wouldn't be a burden of an extra type (same pilots, cabin crew, equipment etc) especially if it is replacing the 77E. 10x 7810 and 12x 789 and 6x 779 gives a good balanced fleet.
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 972
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Tue May 24, 2016 5:03 am

Quoting aerojoe (Reply 178):
What would an Air NZ 787-10 for Asia market look like in terms of seating? What advantage would there be over simply running 787-9 in two variants - a high capacity Asia fleet (current seating) and a premium focused sub-fleet (for an improving Japan premium market and Nth America).

You may have a point there. I would expect an extra few rows of both J and Y+, with the bulk taken up by more Y. So maybe around 330-340 seats.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 181):
The 788 is going to be a dead duck going forward.... a bit like the 762 compared to the 763 or the 772 compared to the 77W.
The 7810 however with its larger capacity and still decent range should be a worthwhile option for many airlines and yes NZ could use it for some of its more medium distance routes (SIN, DPS, HKG, MNL, SGN, PER). The aircraft are similar enough that it wouldn't be a burden of an extra type (same pilots, cabin crew, equipment etc) especially if it is replacing the 77E. 10x 7810 and 12x 789 and 6x 779 gives a good balanced fleet.

Agreed 788 isn't going anywhere. The -9 and -10 are actually closer in terms of configuration than the -8. The -9/-10 share the same gear, wing, tail etc. The -8 is a bit different.

Talking of the 777-9, I wonder if the 777-8 may have a place for routes such as Dallas and YVR where the 789 in a premium config may not have quite enough space?
77West - AW109S - BE90 - JS31 - B1900 - Q300 - ATR72 - DC9-30 - MD80 - B733 - A320 - B738 - A300-B4 - B773 - B77W
 
747m8te
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:14 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Tue May 24, 2016 6:59 am

Quoting eta unknown (Reply 175):
On the one hand a 789 is better suited to the route than a 788. On the other hand outside of peak seasons AC may have bitten off more than they can chew with daily BNE. Time will tell...
Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 179):
I thought the aircraft change from 788 to 789 on that route is seasonal?

No the 789 is permanent fixture on the route from the end of October due to demand, apparently the forward bookings are very strong (another reason why the increased it to daily), which is great to see!
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
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Tue May 24, 2016 8:00 am

Quoting 77west (Reply 182):

Premium 789 with not enough space for what? They would add more frequencies if they need more capacity. The 778 if ever brought by NZ it would be used on longer flights than YVR I'd think but if they had some on say NYC and others then you could see it on YVR. NZ won't fly to DFW surely!

It will be interesting to see how good the 78J is, as is now a 10 hour plane I doubt NZ are interested in it but will keep an eye on improvements.
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 972
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Tue May 24, 2016 10:53 am

Quoting ZK-NBT (Reply 184):

It will be interesting to see how good the 78J is, as is now a 10 hour plane I doubt NZ are interested in it but will keep an eye on improvements.

It will be one to watch - as it stands it could do LAX or SFO with a decent payload, but only just. Once it has actually flown and flight tested, plus any improvements from the engines, who knows, it may become a pretty good 77E replacement.

Slightly bigger, with decent range - a true winner.

That said, imagine a triple-bogie 787-10ER with around a 300t MTOW. Now that would surely turn some heads!

As it stands, only the 778 and A359 are true 77E replacements in terms of capacity and range. The 789 comes close, but not quite.
77West - AW109S - BE90 - JS31 - B1900 - Q300 - ATR72 - DC9-30 - MD80 - B733 - A320 - B738 - A300-B4 - B773 - B77W
 
ZKOJH
Posts: 1502
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:51 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Tue May 24, 2016 1:29 pm

"Air New Zealand's first night flight into Queenstown touches down"

Air New Zealand has tonight operated its first commercial evening service into Queenstown, kicking off the winter season.

After an extensive approval process involving multiple stakeholders, including Air New Zealand, Queenstown Airport Corporation, Airways New Zealand and the New Zealand Civil Aviation Authority, NZ613 from Auckland arrived in the popular resort town at around 7.20pm

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/air-new-ze...ticle.cfm?o_id=5&objectid=11643579
Air New Zealand ~ dreams of flying
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Tue May 24, 2016 5:23 pm

Quoting ZK-NBT (Reply 184):
It will be interesting to see how good the 78J is, as is now a 10 hour plane

If the 78J can be weigh in at no more than 8t more than the 789 it will be quite a bit better than 10 hours.

Quoting 77west (Reply 185):
That said, imagine a triple-bogie 787-10ER with around a 300t MTOW. Now that would surely turn some heads!

I have been modelling HGW versions based on my 789 data which is accurate. I have added 13t for extra weight and at about 270t MTOW I am getting a 13hr plus airplane. But this is getting out to the edges of the thresh hold.
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 972
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Tue May 24, 2016 11:32 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 187):
I have been modelling HGW versions based on my 789 data which is accurate. I have added 13t for extra weight and at about 270t MTOW I am getting a 13hr plus airplane. But this is getting out to the edges of the thresh hold.

I don't think the current gear is good for 270t. So they would have to go to a more spread out config like the A350 (280t) or triple-bogie.
77West - AW109S - BE90 - JS31 - B1900 - Q300 - ATR72 - DC9-30 - MD80 - B733 - A320 - B738 - A300-B4 - B773 - B77W
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4386
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Wed May 25, 2016 1:10 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 137):
I'd like to see AKL-WLG-WKA-CHC with Q300.

That would be a fantastic route.

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 186):
"Air New Zealand's first night flight into Queenstown touches down"

Air New Zealand has tonight operated its first commercial evening service into Queenstown, kicking off the winter season.

ZK-OXI had the honour of operating the first night flight. ZK-OXJ was the first one to land after dark when it did a training mission earlier in the month.
http://www.thenzsource.com/air-new-z...-a320-zk-oxj-positioning-flight-3/

I'm booked for a night departure in a few weeks time. Quite exciting (if not mildly terrifying)!
First to fly the 787-9
 
Gasman
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Wed May 25, 2016 5:11 am

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 189):
Quite exciting (if not mildly terrifying)!

You'll be fine. The snow on the Remarkables is pretty soft.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Wed May 25, 2016 3:50 pm

Quoting 77west (Reply 188):
I don't think the current gear is good for 270t

I have included an additional 4 to 5t for MLG weight increase.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Wed May 25, 2016 10:01 pm

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11644765

Two issues here:

- a poor repair job, and
- a decision made to proceed with the flight when the door was obviously not closing properly.

Interesting also the pilot's attempt to fob the passenger off with his "releasing pressure" remark.

It looks like Barrier Air, and the PIC will be in receipt of some scrutiny from the CAA.

[Edited 2016-05-25 15:47:23]
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1231
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Thu May 26, 2016 6:51 am

Quoting Gasman (Reply 192):
Two issues here:

- a poor repair job, and
- a decision made to proceed with the flight when the door was obviously not closing properly.

Interesting also the pilot's attempt to fob the passenger off with his "releasing pressure" remark.

It looks like Barrier Air, and the PIC will be in receipt of some scrutiny from the CAA.

Interesting, but I don't quite understand the story:

"When we jumped on the ground, crew in Kaitaia had trouble closing the door. I could see a slightly concerned look on his face, but [he] shut it anyway and had no problems even though it was a bit bumpy to Whangarei."

But the door opened on the way back to AKL? Did the passenger go up and back on that plane? Who - if not an a.nutter - would do that? Ground time is pretty short.

Was it ZK-FOP?

Cheers
micha
 
Gasman
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Thu May 26, 2016 8:41 am

Quoting zkeoj (Reply 193):
Interesting, but I don't quite understand the story:

"When we jumped on the ground, crew in Kaitaia had trouble closing the door.

I agree, the wording doesn't make sense. I think it's meant to say "when we jumped in (ie. boarded) the aircraft on the ground" or something to that effect.
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1231
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Thu May 26, 2016 9:33 am

Quoting Gasman (Reply 194):
I agree, the wording doesn't make sense. I think it's meant to say "when we jumped in (ie. boarded) the aircraft on the ground" or something to that effect.

Also, does the flight go from Kaitaia via Whangarei?

"Once the plane landed in Whangarei the pilot told those on board that he would need to close the door from Mr Snowden's seat."

Now there are three airports in the game, and in different directions...?
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Thu May 26, 2016 10:41 am

Quoting zkeoj (Reply 195):
Also, does the flight go from Kaitaia via Whangarei?

Barrier used to do - or still does - charter flights WRE-KTA-WRE for the Northern District Health Board.

Presumably they've incorporated it into the KTA-AKL flight, but I don't know if the WRE stop happens on every flight. Maybe. KTA-AKL was in some trouble and maybe this is their way of trying to fix it?

http://www.maoritelevision.com/news/...aw-flights-kaitaia-due-low-numbers

"Barrier Air could withdraw flights to Kaitaia due to low numbers

Chief Executive, Michael Foster says he is prepared to hold on for another four months to see if the situation changes.

"We’re hoping there will be a boost to traffic with people travelling to visit friends and family and with a greater number of tourists flying into the region,” he says.

Barrier Air will also continue to operate medical flights between Whangarei and Kaitaia as part of a commercial arrangement it has with the Northland District Health Board."


mariner

[Edited 2016-05-26 03:41:31]
aeternum nauta
 
User avatar
NZ107
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:51 pm

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Thu May 26, 2016 11:04 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 196):
KTA-AKL was in some trouble and maybe this is their way of trying to fix it?

Well if it existed, it might actually be popular with kiwi miners.. But maybe not in a Caravan  
It's all about the destination AND the journey.
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1231
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Thu May 26, 2016 12:51 pm

http://www.geekwire.com/2016/futuristic-bus-video/

Finally we have *the* solution for access from the city to Auckland airport...  
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4386
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

RE: New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 177

Thu May 26, 2016 3:21 pm

Is Air New Zealand hinting at another special livery?
http://www.facebook.com/AirNewZealan.../10153621336555777/?type=3&theater
http://www.instagram.com/p/BF222ACujmZ/?taken-by=airnz&hl=en

Quote:
For all you nosey #AvGeeks. ✈️
First to fly the 787-9

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