New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 178

PA515 · Tue May 31, 2016 1:10 am

Quoting aerohottie (Reply 46):
HNA of China to buy 13% stake in Virgin Australia.... more to come...
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/china-hna-buy-13-virgin-230217790.html

This is a share placement with Hainan Airlines by Virgin Australia, not a sale of any of the Air New Zealand shares. This is an interesting development. It provides some of the extra funding required, but it could also be a spoiling/defensive move by other shareholders.

PA515

Gasman · Tue May 31, 2016 1:14 am

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 49):
I think NZ is perhaps not looking at the total value equation of customer loyalty. When you invite a customer to try a competitor product, they're far more likely to keep using it.

Did you write this deliberately to get me started??

They haven't been concerned about that total customer loyalty package for some time now.

This time, however, I'm going to avoid the temptation to go down a "lamenting the loss of NZ" pathway.

xiaotung · Tue May 31, 2016 1:56 am

http://www.smh.com.au/business/cbd/a...nas-hna-group-20160530-gp7pkm.html

VA selling shares to HU and Luxon at a loss? I guess this must have changed everything. I wonder if NZ will still sell their stakes at an even more considerable loss.

I have long questioned John Borghetti's international strategy (or lack thereof). A couple of years ago he said he did not need the China market directly and that it was very well covered by their SQ alliance and now he changed his story.

If I can see one thing that's consistent is his personal revenge towards his critics. Alan Joyce before and now Christopher Luxon.

Motorhussy · Tue May 31, 2016 2:25 am

Quoting xiaotung (Reply 52):

Interesting how the reporter focuses on the pain inflicted on NZ rather than the appallingly poor performance of VA under the stewardship of John Borghetti. It's an almost gleeful public salting of NZ's wounds.

Also, the article hasn't looked at the implications of the HNA investment for VA's other shareholders, most noticeably SQ which is currently positioned well for the China market (to/from Australia). It could actually provide the final impetus for a blood letting at the top and could backfire on Borghetti.

[Edited 2016-05-30 20:14:18]

Gasman · Tue May 31, 2016 2:36 am

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 53):

Tabloid quality reporting in my view. NZ was quite right to pull out of VA.

Motorhussy · Tue May 31, 2016 3:20 am

Quoting Gasman (Reply 54):
NZ was quite right to pull out of VA.

As yet, they haven't pulled out... they still hold their shares. What say the shareholders do decide it's time for VA to focus on the domestic market and leave international feed to partners DL (and VS), EY, HU, NZ and SQ?

Motorhussy · Tue May 31, 2016 3:57 am

Airbus still thinks it may have a shot with the A350 at NZ, this time with the 900-ULR for routes like AKL-NYC.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ticle.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11648025

Gasman · Tue May 31, 2016 4:49 am

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 56):
Airbus still thinks it may have a shot with the A350 at NZ, this time with the 900-ULR for routes like AKL-NYC.

Hope so. Boeing makes it way too easy for airlines to cram seats in, something NZ have taken full advantage of with the 777 and 787. If I ever return my loyalty to NZ they will need to have a pax friendly long haul Y product.

aerokiwi · Tue May 31, 2016 5:26 am

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 53):
Interesting how the reporter focuses on the pain inflicted on NZ rather than the appallingly poor performance of VA under the stewardship of John Borghetti. It's an almost gleeful public salting of NZ's wounds.

Yeah so again, Luxon's behaviour wasn't particularly well received by anyone in the local media or industry. Throw in long-standing wounds regarding NZ involvement in the local aviation scene (yo Ansett!) and a bit of big brotherly scoffing, and the reaction makes sense.

Not to mention, Luxon's behaviour is so inexplicable from a self-interest, profit motive (which is his only responsibility). To sum up: You don't get your way. You announce your resignation and pending sale of your shareholding. Trash the leadership of your shareholding. Shareprice drops dramatically. No buyer lined up. Announce that maybe you're not selling afterall. Ugh now there's another player in the mix.

Ooops.

And yes Mariner, I get that Virgin hasn't been a box of flowers. But rather than publicly throw a wobbly, a repsonsible shareholder would manage things very low key behind the scenes to maximise the value of your shareholding. Luxon's perfectly entitled to dislike Borghetti and want rid of VA - he's not entitled to minimise the value of, effectively, his own shareholders.

mariner · Tue May 31, 2016 5:55 am

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 58):
And yes Mariner, I get that Virgin hasn't been a box of flowers. But rather than publicly throw a wobbly, a repsonsible shareholder would manage things very low key behind the scenes to maximise the value of your shareholding. Luxon's perfectly entitled to dislike Borghetti and want rid of VA - he's not entitled to minimise the value of, effectively, his own shareholders.

Once again, I can only shrug.

We're never going to agree on this, so I don't really see the point of both of us just saying the same things over and over.

I will say (again) that it is tough to keep merger and acquisition activity quiet ("low key behind the scenes") - Alaska Air Group couldn't do it with Virgin America - and it's even tougher to keep divestment quiet, especially by the largest shareholder.

Someone is always going to blab or speculate, or put two and two together, or blow the whistle.

But - again - each to their own interpretation, always.

mariner

777ER · Tue May 31, 2016 6:08 am

Quoting axio (Reply 30):
Any indication where it is being redeployed?

Extra services on BHE-WLG and AKL

Sounds Air could be launching BHE-CHC http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/805667...drops-blenheimchristchurch-flights

IndianicWorld · Tue May 31, 2016 6:26 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 59):
We're never going to agree on this, so I don't really see the point of both of us just saying the same things over and over.

That's the way it goes.

I also appear to take a different line than you seem to have (as evidenced with a post in another thread), but each to their own indeed.

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 56):
Airbus still thinks it may have a shot with the A350 at NZ, this time with the 900-ULR for routes like AKL-NYC.

Good luck to them.

For a fleet the size of NZ, I really like the A350 but I juts don't think they really have a need for it.

The 789 and 77W offer NZ enough range and capacity flexibility for their needs for the medium term, even when the 77E eventually leaves the fleet.

Such ideas as AKL-NYC are all well and good but realistically they aren't really options that NZ should consider anyway. If it needed to add another plane type to do it then it just creates even more of a compelling case to put that in those ideas into the bin.

zkncj · Tue May 31, 2016 7:14 am

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 61):
The 789 and 77W offer NZ enough range and capacity flexibility for their needs for the medium term, even when the 77E eventually leaves the fleet.

Last year NZ put out to market to replace the 77W/772 fleets, and at the time ruled out replacing them with 787s. So its about time the order got made, at the end of the day is going to be who can offer the best deal, that will workout best for NZ.

The 772 probably have about 5 years left in them max, so replacement would need to be selected soon.

777ER · Tue May 31, 2016 7:17 am

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 61):
Quoting motorhussy (Reply 56):
Airbus still thinks it may have a shot with the A350 at NZ, this time with the 900-ULR for routes like AKL-NYC.

Good luck to them.

For a fleet the size of NZ, I really like the A350 but I juts don't think they really have a need for it.

IMHO the B778 has more chances then the A359, unless Airbus will happily accept the B77Ws and B789s as trade for A358/9/10s

flyjetstar · Tue May 31, 2016 7:18 am

The relationship between VA and NZ appears to be deteriorating rapidly judging from an article in AFR. It's behind the paywall so won't bother posting but to quote from it:

There is no love lost between Virgin and Air New Zealand. Luxon was concerned abut Virgin's deteriorating financial performance and the balance sheet, while Borghetti is happy to have him off the board.

It is safe to assume until Borghetti or Luxon for that matter is gone the relationship won't improve.

zkncj · Tue May 31, 2016 7:29 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 63):
IMHO the B778 has more chances then the A359, unless Airbus will happily accept the B77Ws and B789s as trade for A358/9/10s

Anything could happen, look at the 737s. Boeing twice had the ability to go after it, both times lost to the 320. If you we're to could the NEO order it would be 3x round.

Quoting flyjetstar (Reply 64):
The relationship between VA and NZ appears to be deteriorating rapidly judging from an article in AFR. It's behind the paywall so won't bother posting but to quote from it:

I wonder if the Tasman Alliance will get cut rapidly now? that would be hurt VA.

ZK-NBT · Tue May 31, 2016 7:42 am

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 56):

Of course Airbus would say that, and yes NZ would consider all options, they would be silly not to. However personally the chance of an order IMO is pretty low. I'd say NZ in the long run will continue to have a 777/787 mix of various versions. If the 789 lacks range which I think Boeing might get more out of In future then NZ IMO are likely to look at the 778 as a niche aircraft and most likely the 779 which I think has a strong chance for LAX/LHR/SFO. Having said that they are fragmenting the market with more destinations on smaller aircraft. The 78J will also be a good shot if it becomes a 12/13 hour plane from the cure to 10 hour one it is now. That and I agree NZ have a small fleet where they want efficiency of less types.

Zkpilot · Tue May 31, 2016 8:12 am

If NZ was to go down the A350 route then it would involve getting rid of the 787s too. No point since they overlap.

IndianicWorld · Tue May 31, 2016 8:14 am

Quoting zkncj (Reply 65):
I wonder if the Tasman Alliance will get cut rapidly now? that would be hurt VA.

Ultimately it would hurt them both equally.

I get a feeling though that NZ likely need the Australian market more than VA needs New Zealand. Nothing academic about it, but a feeling that comes to mind.

The first priority should be to fix its performance in its core market in Australia, with the right mix of VA and TT operating its route network.

The China/HK services that it is likely to start up soon via this deal with HU will allow it to free up A330's from its domestic network which will likely help reduce some pressure on yields on its network.

ZKSUJ · Tue May 31, 2016 8:21 am

Looks like WRE and KKE keep their morning flights after the schedule change has been re-considered. WRE keeps it's 7am departure that it currently has and KKE gets an earlier 6am departure. Guess It's more feasible than some on here believe

mariner · Tue May 31, 2016 10:30 am

Quoting ZKSUJ (Reply 69):
Looks like WRE and KKE keep their morning flights after the schedule change has been re-considered. WRE keeps it's 7am departure that it currently has and KKE gets an earlier 6am departure. Guess It's more feasible than some on here believe

Yeh, but Winston isn't happy:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA160...or-northland-a-bit-up-and-down.htm

"New Flight Times for Northland a Bit up And Down

“But the new departure time from Kerikeri to Auckland, at 6am, is way to inconvenient. The airline has failed to take into account that many passengers have to travel from afar to get to the airport.

“For people from the Bay of Islands and the Hokianga there are also ferry trips involved on the journey.

“The government is all talk about the regions, but in a critical area like transport the state airline is not getting it right.”

You can't please all of the people all of the time.

mariner

xiaotung · Tue May 31, 2016 11:15 am

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ticle.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11647295

Could Luxon leave NZ and the VA mess and head Fonterra? I imagine the mega bucks Fonterra is paying their CEO are considerably more than at NZ.

Motorhussy · Tue May 31, 2016 11:35 am

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 67):
If NZ was to go down the A350 route then it would involve getting rid of the 787s too. No point since they overlap.

What? Where is the overlap with a 77E and 77W replacement, by the A350-1000 and mooted but likely A350-1100, with the 789 fleet?

This paragraph from the latest Aviation Week.

Quote:
On the widebody side, Airbus is still looking at stretching the A350 further, but has not yet made a decision. Leahy remains unconvinced that the market has shifted from the 777-300ER category, in which the A350-1000 sits, to a larger aircraft such as the 777-9X or an even bigger A350. But Kieran Rao, Executive Vice-President Strategy and Marketing, stressed that Airbus would find it relatively easy to stretch the aircraft further should demand be sufficient.

[Edited 2016-05-31 04:50:20]

nascarnut · Tue May 31, 2016 4:30 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 47):
The question is, can they service WAG with the aircraft they have or will they need another

They have Metroliner ZK-CIC painted in Whakatane colours to operate AKL-WHK.
They have recented purchased and painted a second Metroliner that used to operate for Airwork NZ in Air Chathams colours which can operate AKL-WAG service
This still leaves 3 Convairs for the AKL/WLG/CHC - Chatham Island services and their DC3 for summer service.
They are definitely better equipped than Kiwi Regional but not as well equipped as Sounds Air

sunrisevalley · Tue May 31, 2016 8:14 pm

Quoting xiaotung (Reply 71):
Could Luxon leave NZ and the VA mess and head Fonterra? I imagine the mega bucks Fonterra is paying their CEO are considerably more than at NZ.

NZ has pricing power /joint ventures and is able to significantly contribute to its own destiny. Fonterra has absolutely no pricing power ; it will always be subject to the vagarities of the world dairy market. As a CEO I know which one I would prefer to operate.

nascarnut · Tue May 31, 2016 9:16 pm

A350 update, www.Airlineroute.net reports that Cathay will operate the A350 on the AKL-HKG service effective 30Oct.
Flights CX117/118 will operate daily. Looking forward to seeing it daily.
Does this also mean CX117/118 will start 1 month earlier that normal. The additional CX117/118 service normally starts 1 week of Decemeber. Looks like it could be starting 1st week of November this year.
Wonder if Hong Kong Airlines has influenced this??

mariner · Wed Jun 01, 2016 12:53 am

A good - and interesting - analysis off Air Chathams and WAG:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/wanganui-c...cfm?c_id=1503426&objectid=11648525

"New operator hopes to cut airfare prices

Despite being approached only a few days ago, Air Chathams chief executive Mr Emeny was able to say "yes" to filling the gap straightaway.

"We can do that - it's a family-owned company, so I don't have to go to a board," he said.

"I'd just purchased another Metroliner aircraft that had become available - though I didn't exactly know what I was going to do with it."

He goes on to talk about the relationship with Air NZ:

"The company's relationship with Air New Zealand was good, and Mr Emeny expected the national carrier to be helpful during the changeover in terms of bookings and airport equipment. He also hoped to have a bookings presence on the Air New Zealand website.

"I think they are pleased someone is going to step in, so that the community is not negatively affected."

If they can get a "bookings presence" on the Air NZ website they could be quids in, but there is the matter of connecting to international flights, which is also discussed.

mariner

coolian2 · Wed Jun 01, 2016 1:50 am

Isn't the 787 the 767 replacement (approximately)?

NZ has gone Airbus a lot lately. If not the A350 they could go for the A330. I personally thought they should have done that on the first A320 order.

The 777s will need replaced and the A350 is the best like-for-like option.

It won't happen but I remain convinced the 747-8 or the A380 would be perfect for LAX/LHR. But I can't make a business case for it.

kiwiandrew · Wed Jun 01, 2016 1:59 am

Quoting coolian2 (Reply 77):
It won't happen but I remain convinced the 747-8 or the A380 would be perfect for LAX/LHR. But I can't make a business case for it.

I am confused.... if you can't make a business case for it, how would it be perfect ?

coolian2 · Wed Jun 01, 2016 2:11 am

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 78):
I am confused.... if you can't make a business case for it, how would it be perfect ?

Valid point. It would trash yields and I'm looking at it from the consumer.

Zkpilot · Wed Jun 01, 2016 2:32 am

Quoting Motorhussy (Reply 72):

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 67):
If NZ was to go down the A350 route then it would involve getting rid of the 787s too. No point since they overlap.

What? Where is the overlap with a 77E and 77W replacement, by the A350-1000 and mooted but likely A350-1100, with the 789 fleet?

You could replace NZ's fleet with A358/9/10 and possible 11 stretch.
This would cover it's current 787/77E/77W fleet. It wouldn't cover a 779 totally but then the savings from having 1 fleet would be substantial and NZ doesn't necessarily need such a large capacity aircraft since it is moving more point to point in North America. The A350 does have a lot going for it (more comfortable cabin than either the 787 or 777).
That said the 789+778/9 does give a bit more flexibility overall.

I'm not a fanboi but from an engineering point of view I prefer Boeing. From a passenger point of view I think Airbus is slightly ahead with the A350.

aerorobnz · Wed Jun 01, 2016 2:50 am

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 67):
If NZ was to go down the A350 route then it would involve getting rid of the 787s too. No point since they overlap

QR happily use both aircraft. I know it's the 788 and I think UA are still getting A350s to complement their 788/789 fleet. The a350 is suitable for more comfortable longhaul, the 787 more suitable for higher density shorthaul.

I happen to think the A350 is a better fit for NZ than the 777X generation, and certainly from a passenger perspective wipes the floor with any non-747 configuration

Gasman · Wed Jun 01, 2016 4:43 am

Quoting Gasman (Reply 43):
Almost certainly not. Air Chathams is a registered company. Such decisions can't legally be made without holding a directors' meeting. It's possible one was held for this specific purpose under extreme urgency, but highly unlikely.

Quoting mariner (Reply 76):
Despite being approached only a few days ago, Air Chathams chief executive Mr Emeny was able to say "yes" to filling the gap straightaway.

"We can do that - it's a family-owned company, so I don't have to go to a board," he said.

So I was wrong - although it looks like my hunch about Air Chathams having been approached in advance was correct. I say good luck to them. I hope it works, and I think it will.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 81):
I happen to think the A350 is a better fit for NZ than the 777X generation, and certainly from a passenger perspective wipes the floor with any non-747 configuration

Quoting coolian2 (Reply 77):
It won't happen but I remain convinced the 747-8 or the A380 would be perfect for LAX/LHR. But I can't make a business case for it.

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 78):
I am confused.... if you can't make a business case for it, how would it be perfect ?

No-one can make a "business case" without seeing a balance sheet. That's what a business case is. What we do here is pontificate, nothing more.

That disclaimer aside, when I flew one packed 744 after another between AKL and LAX in the first decade of this century, I smugly considered that the 748i was a foregone conclusion for NZ; it almost seemed like a no-brainer. I still maintain it would have made some sense to have a fleet of 748s for AKL-LAX-LHR; with 772s or 789s looking after everything else. And now that there is competition on the route, a true VLA would really have set NZ apart from the rest.

ZK-NBT · Wed Jun 01, 2016 7:11 am

Quoting coolian2 (Reply 77):

Curious what would a 2003 built A330 have offer NZ? First A320 order was then. The A332 could have done Asia. The A333 would have had the range for PER,HNL and that's about it. Even now sure the A330 is vastly improved but still doesn't personally offer flexibility the 772, 789 offers. A current A332 would be able to do LAX,SFO but probably doesn't have the capacity. The A333 might reach NRT, SIN and maybe HKG.

Quoting nascarnut (Reply 75):

Hong Kong airlines probably influenced a little. I'm guessing CX197/198 will be a daily 77W for the whole summer then? Unless it goes A359 from Feb or so when they get more A359's?

NZ can get probably 2 more rotations a week from the 772 fleet I wonder if they might add extra HKG as well Dec-Feb? Slots depending but a connection to EZE

AKL 1100 HKG 1700
HKG 2350 AKL 1545

Motorhussy · Wed Jun 01, 2016 7:45 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 81):

VN also operate the 789 and A359. I think the NZ fleet of the future would be great as the following... 787-8, 787-9, A350-1000, A350-1200. Possibly a few A350-900ULR's as well.

Airbus for the longest routes and where the premium demand is highest - LHR, LAX, SFO, IAH, HND/NRT, HKG, SIN.

Boeing for shorter haul and where there is more leisure demand - EZE, YVR, HNL, KIX, PVG, MNL, SGN, DPS, PER.

Hopefully Boeing can do some work on the smallest 787 to give it better efficiencies, it is a great size aeroplane in terms of NZ route network but the economics need to be better when compared to its larger sibling.

NZ107 · Wed Jun 01, 2016 7:47 am

Quoting nascarnut (Reply 75):
A350 update, www.Airlineroute.net reports that Cathay will operate the A350 on the AKL-HKG service effective 30Oct.
Flights CX117/118 will operate daily. Looking forward to seeing it daily.
Does this also mean CX117/118 will start 1 month earlier that normal. The additional CX117/118 service normally starts 1 week of Decemeber. Looks like it could be starting 1st week of November this year.
Wonder if Hong Kong Airlines has influenced this??

The 350 will start on CX 197/8. It'll shift to the morning arrival when 117/8 restarts (and the 77W returns). So it basically means that the 343 is gone at the end of October, given the schedule isn't changed.

The CX system doesn't reflect a daily year round 117/8, only during the summer.

I think this has been in the planning for a long time.. I can't wait to see the end of the 343 from an economy passenger's point of view.

aerorobnz · Wed Jun 01, 2016 10:21 am

I hear that HX will be lucky to get the exact morning slot they want, there's always a chance that they may have to change yet, as D7 have had to.

I'm pleased CX have followed through with the A350 to AKL as soon as they can manage it and of course SQ is likely to drop them into AKL and CHC and maybe too for UA eventually. Hopefully their product offerings and partnerships will mean that NZ follows suit with scrapping the herringbone and moving on from the mid 00's in style..

Admittedly I have only flown DOH-SIN on a A350 vs about a dozen 787 family flights worldwide on 5-6 different airlines, but I really do think the A350 much nicer and is a far better platform for introducing a more up to date premium offering.

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 85):
The 350 will start on CX 197/8.

Yes likely because of potential HX threat, but also because the flight will probably suit initial rotations better.

NZ107 · Wed Jun 01, 2016 10:50 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 86):
Yes likely because of potential HX threat, but also because the flight will probably suit initial rotations better.

Well they wouldn't have gone back to double daily by then anyway so it would either be continue the 343 for another month or just swap it out.. I seriously can't see the HX threat making the month's difference in start date. I think if there had been no problems with the Cirrus seats, AKL would already be served by the CX 350. But yes, the 197/8 rotation does seem to fit a bit better into their European flight rotations.

sunrisevalley · Wed Jun 01, 2016 4:12 pm

On the question of a A359 QF did a review of this and the 789 before confirming the choice of the 789. I suggest this tells us something. Don't forget the A359 is up against a moving target in the 789. The weights are being reduced and the RR TEN engine will start delivering 1.5 to 2% SFC improvements next year. I can see a 260 +- seat 789 doing NYC-AKL before long. Joyce and his talk of DFW-MEL with the 789 is saying as much. I would think for NZ a 260-seater would fit the market better than the 320 +- seats of the A359.

zkncj · Wed Jun 01, 2016 6:57 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 88):

On the question of a A359 QF did a review of this and the 789 before confirming the choice of the 789. I suggest this tells us something. Don't forget the A359 is up against a moving target in the 789.

Don't forget that Qantas was the airline was smart enough that they forgot to order any 777s, and now look where that ended them up.

sunrisevalley · Wed Jun 01, 2016 7:26 pm

Quoting zkncj (Reply 89):
Don't forget that Qantas was the airline was smart enough that they forgot to order any 777s, and now look where that ended them up.

When they might have been looking at ordering 777's they were continuing to order 744's . When the attractive performance of the 77W was established they had eight or ten 744's that should probably have been 77W's.

Gasman · Wed Jun 01, 2016 8:23 pm

Quoting zkncj (Reply 89):
Don't forget that Qantas was the airline was smart enough that they forgot to order any 777s, and now look where that ended them up.

With record profits last year and a long haul product utilising 744s and A380s that is just about second to none.

mariner · Wed Jun 01, 2016 8:33 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 88):
On the question of a A359 QF did a review of this and the 789 before confirming the choice of the 789. I suggest this tells us something.

I'm not sure how much it tells us - it wasn't really a level playing field.

Qantas was deeply wedded to the 787 - partly, perhaps, because of the many millions they received from Boeing for the delays.

CEO Joyce frequently used the eventual arrival of the 787 as the carrot while he wielded the big stick of staff cuts.

He may be right. It may be, as he has frequently said, an ideal aircraft for Qantas (revolutionary, game-changing, all that) but in that hot house atmosphere I would have fallen over (almost literally) in shock if they had switched to the A350.

mariner

zkojq · Wed Jun 01, 2016 11:15 pm

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 17):
Agreed especially so far as Auckland is concerned. You would think with living costs being a lot higher, travel times being a lot higher and airport charges being a lot higher (and shortage of space at AKL) NZ would be wanting to get the regional fleet out of AKL.

Quoting zkncj (Reply 65):
I wonder if the Tasman Alliance will get cut rapidly now? that would be hurt VA.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if VA drop New Zealand ops entirely...

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 67):
If NZ was to go down the A350 route then it would involve getting rid of the 787s too.

Why? Plenty of carriers have both aircraft on order. AF, KL, BA, DL, UA, AA, MU, JL, TG, EY to name a few.

In the event of an A350 order, I would expect the A350-1000 to focus on more premium destinations (LAX, SFO, IAH, YVR, HKG, LHR) whilst the 787 fleet would focus on its current destinations.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 81):
I happen to think the A350 is a better fit for NZ than the 777X generation, and certainly from a passenger perspective

IMO the 777-9 is just too bigger plane for the airline. I suspect that it's too big to be filled profitably on the regular TasPac services. Thus the airline would have to start a new long haul bank at AKL around 0800-1000 or have the aircraft sit around on the ground all day, making for very inefficient utilisation.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 86):
SQ is likely to drop them into AKL

Replacing the 77Ws? Or adding an additional frequency?

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 88):
On the question of a A359 QF did a review of this and the 789 before confirming the choice of the 789. I suggest this tells us something.

Keep in mind that QF had preferential pricing on the 787 order. Personally, I don't think that an A350-1000 is entirely out of the question for their fleet; if they don't want more A380s and they don't want to flush their deposits down the drain, an order isn't illogical.

Quoting zkncj (Reply 89):
Don't forget that Qantas was the airline was smart enough that they forgot to order any 777s, and now look where that ended them up.

With a long haul fleet that is universally extremely comfortable to fly in, even in Y?

Quoting Gasman (Reply 91):
With record profits last year and a long haul product utilising 744s and A380s that is just about second to none.

Quoting mariner (Reply 92):
Qantas was deeply wedded to the 787 - partly, perhaps, because of the many millions they received from Boeing for the delays.

aerorobnz · Wed Jun 01, 2016 11:28 pm

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 93):
Replacing the 77Ws? Or adding an additional frequency?

AMS just got made A350. It was a 77W. CHC will be switched soon enough, and SQ has 67 on the way..

Zkpilot · Thu Jun 02, 2016 12:47 am

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 93):
Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 67):
If NZ was to go down the A350 route then it would involve getting rid of the 787s too.

Why? Plenty of carriers have both aircraft on order. AF, KL, BA, DL, UA, AA, MU, JL, TG, EY to name a few.

In the event of an A350 order, I would expect the A350-1000 to focus on more premium destinations (LAX, SFO, IAH, YVR, HKG, LHR) whilst the 787 fleet would focus on its current destinations.

Why? Well for starters all of those airlines are much bigger than NZ so can afford to have multiple fleets. NZ's size means that realistically it needs at least a dozen of each type to have enough mass (and a dozen is on the small side most airlines want at least 20 aircraft in each fleet type). The A350 range could effectively cover everything that the current NZ fleet does and the only thing it wouldn't cover is a 779 in terms of size (covers the 77W/778).

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 93):
IMO the 777-9 is just too bigger plane for the airline

I don't think it is necessarily but if they were to go down the Airbus fleet route then that is even more reason to go with Airbus if they don't need 779 size.

ZK-NBT · Thu Jun 02, 2016 12:59 am

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 93):

Interesting comment re VA. I'd imagine they would serve NZ country independently should NZ leave them, though NZ might well try and squeeze them out.

The 779 looks like it will be pretty efficient but it just depends what NZ want with more fragmentation it may take away the need for a plane that big but they may still go for it on trunk routes.

TruemanQLD · Thu Jun 02, 2016 1:41 am

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 93):
It wouldn't surprise me at all if VA drop New Zealand ops entirely...

Really? VA have a large presence in the BNE-NZ market with:

12x weekly AKL
12x weekly WLG
7x weekly CHC
2x weekly ZQN
3x weekly DUD

They would be the largest player in the BNE-NZ market. I understand they are much smaller in SYD and MEL than BNE, but would be a significant decrease and would surely play into the hands of a QF/JQ resurgence from BNE, as well as an increase in NZ flights.

Also, can someone explain to me why BNE is the only international destination served from DUD, ahead of SYD and MEL? I understand the holiday market to Gold & Sunshine Coast, but still surprising...

DavidByrne · Thu Jun 02, 2016 1:44 am

Does anybody know what VA domestic Australian routes NZ sells most tickets on?
* Are they to points not in the NZ network (ie HBA, CBR, TSV, DRW etc?)
* Are they between entry ports for people on multi-stop itineraries (eg AKL-SYD-ADL-BNE-AKL)? [Though I note that the NZ booking engine, inexplicably, does not seem to allow for multi-stop journeys like the above with an Australian domestic component, so I may have answered my own question!]
* And is there any quantification of the proportion of Transtasman pax who make a connection and transfer to an Australian domestic destination?

Any discussion of the future relationship with VA, and the even-if-slight possibility that NZ may have to go it alone in Australia, would be well-informed with some understanding of the nature and scale of NZ's Australian domestic traffic currently carried by VA.

Any understanding of the situation out there?

xiaotung · Thu Jun 02, 2016 2:06 am

VA is playing a dangerous game with their proposed PEK/HKG routes. We all know PEK is a route both QF and NZ have tried and failed. VA's new partner HU is primarily a leisure airline banking on forever increasing number of outbound Chinese tourists and you can imagine what sort of customers they will bring to VA. NZ will tell you from their experience that tour groups are not exactly the customer they can make money from and I doubt HU has the ability to bring them a good customer base that NZ spent the last 10 years to build and have achieved, not to mention Australia is a new market for HU as well. Of course John Borghetti did this deal to save himself from a takeover but I just can't see how they can make money from China with a route that's almost a stretch for a A330 and a partner that will bring them nothing but tour groups.

My prediction is VA will fail miserably in China. If that's the case, NZ will need to sell their shares sooner rather than later to prevent another AN disaster.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net