777ER wrote:

Andrensn wrote:

After the decision to replace the 772s is made, NZs next fleet decision will likely be to replace the Q300s. Probably the most likely option would be to acquire 20-23 more ATR-72-600s. However, would aquring 10-12 A220-100s be an alternative?

These A220s could operate:
CHC to ZQN, DUD, IVC, PMR, WLG
WLG to ZQN, DUD, IVC
AKL to DUD, IVC, PMR, NPE
And perhaps allow NZ to open AKL to CBR, HBA, NCL, TSV to connect to North American widebodies.

The ATR-72-600s that would be freed up could then operate existing Q300 routes.

The A220 would fill the massive gap between the 68 seater ATRs and the 171 seater A320s, allowing NZ to grow smaller trunk and larger provincial routes easily.

Thoughts?

Wouldn't be surprised to see NZ order the ATR42 as a Q300 replacement. Some markets simply wouldn't be able to handle a 68 seater.

An A220 order would be good for some routes like WLG-ZQN, AKL-IVC and capacity increases at ports like TRG, NPE, HLZ and ZQN but generally I'll be surprised to see an A220 order as the ATRs are perfect for many routes currently

DavidByrne wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

torin wrote:

The original Australian used to fly 737's CHC-HBA at one point as well

The predecessor "TAA" also flew CHC-HBA as well, along with AN. Due to the Australian Government regulation era at the time allowing only "QF" to fly RPT International flights, TN and AN flights to CHC had to be scheduled as "Charter" services (not sure if it carried either a QF code or TN/AN's code - someone else may know).

The original airlines on CHC-HBA were Ansett (AN) and Trans-Australian (TN) in the mid-1970s. Reg Ansett had long held ambitions for Ansett to become an international carrier, but at that stage QF had a monopoly on international flights and the government was not backing down. Ansett saw CHC-HBA as a back-door way of establishing a precedent. However, with the two-(domestic)-airline policy that existed in the day (and which used to result in both airlines' flights literally shadowing each other pretty much over the entire network, to the obvious disbenefit of passengers), government allowed or required (not sure which) TAA to also operate on CHC-HBA. The two carriers competed for this meagre traffic with a weekly Boeing 727-200 flight each, one on a Wednesday and one on a Saturday. The CHC-HBA flight number, bizarrely, was QF393 for both carriers - this way it maintained the fiction that Qantas was the only international carrier.

Predictably, the route was not a success, and it was dropped. NZ later resurrected it with a weekly 737-200 Saturday flight (which I took on a number of occasions). Some summers the carrier ran two weekly flights - either on Saturday and Sunday or, bizarrely one year, two return flights on a Saturday (the same aircraft turned around at CHC and did another return flight).

The only other carrier to operate between Hobart and New Zealand was Qantas, which opened with a weekly 762 nonstop on HBA-AKL in around 1986-87. That flight didn't last long at all - I had taken the flight HBA-AKL in March 1987, but on my return flight to HBA a fortnight later found that it had been substituted by an AKL-MEL-HBA service. To save face, QF invested that (inaugural) indirect flight with a lot of hoop-la (free gifts etc) but it didn't really disguise the fact that it was a defeat, not a victory.

I'm off to HBA again from AKL in a few days - I would SO much like NZ to start a nonstop flight which would feed its Americas routes as well as provide for local traffic. Friends in HBA are involved in the tourism sector and have participated in local delegations to visit NZ at its HQ in Auckland. They've been telling me for years that it will "only" be another 12 months or so before NZ is on the route but . . . nothing ever changes. Meanwhile, the life lesson that I carry with me is: NEVER take VA to AKL-MEL-HBA because their bag drop at MEL is such a time consuming and unpleasant experience that it is the most stressful part of the whole trip.

aerokiwi wrote:

Quite remarkable that NZ doesn't see a market for Hobart - tourism to Tasmania has boomed in recent years to Tas, for both longer, nature based travel and weekend, city breaks.

NZ6 wrote:

PA515 wrote:

The aircraft was ZK-MVA and most of the journey the speed fluctuates quite a bit. They even changed altitude, no doubt looking for smoother air. The return IVC-CHC NZ5716 was cancelled, but the aircraft positioned back to CHC as NZ5972 45 mins later. Passenger comfort would appear to be the reason for the cancellation, although the aircraft may have been a bit smelly and needing a good clean.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zk-mva

PA515

I think there are few points here which need highlighting, almost in a summary

1. Structurally the aircraft can withstand those winds
2. That in itself doesn't define the flight as safe
3. As none of us has the finer details it's hard to define if it was 'unsafe' from an airframe integrity point of view
4. There is also a passenger safety issue, medical passengers, elderly, infants
5. Flights can operate in adverse weather, however, the 'risks' of an incident are significantly increased So is this flight beyond a safe operating environment for the airline.
6. Why was this weather so unexpected

Gasman wrote:

aerokiwi wrote:

Quite remarkable that NZ doesn't see a market for Hobart - tourism to Tasmania has boomed in recent years to Tas, for both longer, nature based travel and weekend, city breaks.

I can't see the market in it at all, myself. Small population, already well served by QF and VA that provide frequency and all the onward connections via SYD or MEL.

In terms of O&D for New Zealand travelers, forget it. Tasmania is a destination like Adelaide and Canberra, only even duller and with a climate similar to that of Greymouth. You'll find people will wax lyrical about the virtues of those places; but deep down everyone knows they're rubbish. If there was an A320 load of New Zealanders wanting to travel to Tasmania daily, you can bet NZ would know about it.

Gasman wrote:

aerokiwi wrote:

Quite remarkable that NZ doesn't see a market for Hobart - tourism to Tasmania has boomed in recent years to Tas, for both longer, nature based travel and weekend, city breaks.

I can't see the market in it at all, myself. Small population, already well served by QF and VA that provide frequency and all the onward connections via SYD or MEL.

In terms of O&D for New Zealand travelers, forget it. Tasmania is a destination like Adelaide and Canberra, only even duller and with a climate similar to that of Greymouth. You'll find people will wax lyrical about the virtues of those places; but deep down everyone knows they're rubbish. If there was an A320 load of New Zealanders wanting to travel to Tasmania daily, you can bet NZ would know about it.

aerokiwi wrote:

Gasman wrote:

aerokiwi wrote:

Quite remarkable that NZ doesn't see a market for Hobart - tourism to Tasmania has boomed in recent years to Tas, for both longer, nature based travel and weekend, city breaks.

I can't see the market in it at all, myself. Small population, already well served by QF and VA that provide frequency and all the onward connections via SYD or MEL.

In terms of O&D for New Zealand travelers, forget it. Tasmania is a destination like Adelaide and Canberra, only even duller and with a climate similar to that of Greymouth. You'll find people will wax lyrical about the virtues of those places; but deep down everyone knows they're rubbish. If there was an A320 load of New Zealanders wanting to travel to Tasmania daily, you can bet NZ would know about it.

Clearly you haven't hit up the Museum of Old and New Art. That Wall of Vaginas is really something.

No doubt it's a niche market. But it's got history, events (Dark Mofo is huge with Melbourne hipsters), nature, treks etc. I was sceptical too but I count myself a convert.

As NZ6 notes, 3 times a week would do to kick things off. VA recently started direct flights to Perth so something's going on with demand to and from Tas.

Gasman wrote:

aerokiwi wrote:

Gasman wrote:

I can't see the market in it at all, myself. Small population, already well served by QF and VA that provide frequency and all the onward connections via SYD or MEL.

In terms of O&D for New Zealand travelers, forget it. Tasmania is a destination like Adelaide and Canberra, only even duller and with a climate similar to that of Greymouth. You'll find people will wax lyrical about the virtues of those places; but deep down everyone knows they're rubbish. If there was an A320 load of New Zealanders wanting to travel to Tasmania daily, you can bet NZ would know about it.

Clearly you haven't hit up the Museum of Old and New Art. That Wall of Vaginas is really something.

No doubt it's a niche market. But it's got history, events (Dark Mofo is huge with Melbourne hipsters), nature, treks etc. I was sceptical too but I count myself a convert.

As NZ6 notes, 3 times a week would do to kick things off. VA recently started direct flights to Perth so something's going on with demand to and from Tas.

Sure, but if you can make an argument for HBA it's not a strong one. Not really in the "quite remarkable NZ doesn't see a market for it" category. The population of the whole island is half a million, and it's not LAS.

Speaking of which, I think it's quite remarkable NZ doesn't see a market for LAS. But I trust them that they know better than I do.

Gasman wrote:

Sure, but if you can make an argument for HBA it's not a strong one. Not really in the "quite remarkable NZ doesn't see a market for it" category. The population of the whole island is half a million, and it's not LAS.

Speaking of which, I think it's quite remarkable NZ doesn't see a market for LAS. But I trust them that they know better than I do.

NZ6 wrote:

Gasman wrote:

Sure, but if you can make an argument for HBA it's not a strong one. Not really in the "quite remarkable NZ doesn't see a market for it" category. The population of the whole island is half a million, and it's not LAS.

Speaking of which, I think it's quite remarkable NZ doesn't see a market for LAS. But I trust them that they know better than I do.

How are we comparing LAS and HBA?

HBA is a natural escape allowing Kiwis to explore the whole of Tasmania, a very scenic tranquil destination rich of history and places to see. It would also connect NZ direct to Tasman for Tasmanian's with the added bonus of connecting the Pacific, North America and South American with one international transit.

The logistics are a short half day round trip using an A320 so low risk, risk management would be using QF over MEL if needed.

LAS is largely an outbound NZ leisure market with a very limited inbound appeal from the USA. The whole USA market works on inbound demand pooled by flying into geographical hubs of California, Texas and now the midwest.

LAS is less than an hours flight from LAX and there's a flight more than every 30 minutes (almost).

There has been talk of a few one-off 'GrabaSeat' deals to LAS but with the 787 issue, we won't see those for a while if they ever happen

Gasman wrote:

Hobart is a destination you have to talk yourself into.

zkeoj wrote:

Re HBA, I do see the potential for a seasonal 3 per week service. I know of quite a few people who go there, and surely would use a nonstop if there was one. I am one of them (in 3 weeks), and it annoys me that I have to go via MEL or SYD - a 7+ hours trip! And that as an aviation enthusiast who loves flying....

I also don't buy the argument it is similar to what you get here in NZ, so kiwis won't go. There is much more there, and there are lots of differences. It is very attractive, also for kiwis.

However, I agree that the outbound market would be minimal. There would be odd Tasmanian who visits New Zealand, and the other odd one who would take advantage of a convenient one-stop connection to North America, but that really would be minuscule.

PA515 wrote:

Air NZ cuts it's 2019 pre-tax earnings forcast by about NZD115 million.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12198445

PA515

Gasman wrote:

PA515 wrote:

Air NZ cuts it's 2019 pre-tax earnings forcast by about NZD115 million.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12198445

PA515

So not *good* news - but arguably not bad news either. Taking this item in isolation, we really can't say.

While there's plenty about NZ's international product I don't like, I see no evidence of gross mismanagement. There's also been no indicators of a global (or regional) aviation downturn. So my guess is that this is nothing more than a blip.

Zkpilot wrote:

Gasman wrote:

PA515 wrote:

Air NZ cuts it's 2019 pre-tax earnings forcast by about NZD115 million.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12198445

PA515

So not *good* news - but arguably not bad news either. Taking this item in isolation, we really can't say.

While there's plenty about NZ's international product I don't like, I see no evidence of gross mismanagement. There's also been no indicators of a global (or regional) aviation downturn. So my guess is that this is nothing more than a blip.

You could say “growing pains” too. NZ is slowing its capacity growth from around 6%pa to 4%

ZK-NBT wrote:

I can’t see the leased frames in there, maybe they will be used as back ups? And get a bit of use July August? How long are the leases at this stage? 12 months?

PA515 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

I can’t see the leased frames in there, maybe they will be used as back ups? And get a bit of use July August? How long are the leases at this stage? 12 months?

There are two 77Es and three 77Ws that were meant to get Wifi last year and missed out due to the Trent 1000 problems. They are ZK-OKA, ZK-OKE, ZK-OKM, ZK-OKN and ZK-OKR. They could start going to SIN from about the end of Feb. I thought 77W ZK-OKT was a six month lease, so Aug 2018 to Feb 2019. ZK-OKI was 12 months renewable. Don't know about ZK-OKJ, but expect it's the same as they are both leased from Boeing.

PA515

PA515 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

I can’t see the leased frames in there, maybe they will be used as back ups? And get a bit of use July August? How long are the leases at this stage? 12 months?

There are two 77Es and three 77Ws that were meant to get Wifi last year and missed out due to the Trent 1000 problems. They are ZK-OKA, ZK-OKE, ZK-OKM, ZK-OKN and ZK-OKR. They could start going to SIN from about the end of Feb. I thought 77W ZK-OKT was a six month lease, so Aug 2018 to Feb 2019. ZK-OKI was 12 months renewable. Don't know about ZK-OKJ, but expect it's the same as they are both leased from Boeing.

PA515

ZK-NBT wrote:

Then there is regular maintenance, did OKM have its 8 year check late last year? Followed by OKN and OKO. OKT is scheduled until end of March I thought at this stage?

gasman wrote:

So my guess is that this is nothing more than a blip.

aerorobnz wrote:

gasman wrote:

So my guess is that this is nothing more than a blip.

Or a negotiating tactic to usher in more sweeping rationalisations that they have wanted to make but up until now haven't had unions onside or enough justification for??

It is probably nothing more than a softening on demand for New Zealand as a destination, which ebbs and flows like the tide. New Zealand was en vogue for a while, but markets move on (especially if there is a lack of reasonably priced accommodation and activities). For most people, it is a once in a lifetime kind of destination rather than a repeat destination. When a country drops down the value for money country rankings then it loses the mass tourism, the high-end tourism is still here, but the market is smaller.

axio wrote:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=12199374
It seems the rap 'safety' video is gone. Personally I'm thrilled I won't be subjected to that on a forthcoming flight.

axio wrote:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=12199374
It seems the rap 'safety' video is gone. Personally I'm thrilled I won't be subjected to that on a forthcoming flight.

Unclekoru wrote:

axio wrote:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=12199374
It seems the rap 'safety' video is gone. Personally I'm thrilled I won't be subjected to that on a forthcoming flight.

Well thank chr*#t for that.

axio wrote:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=12199374
It seems the rap 'safety' video is gone. Personally I'm thrilled I won't be subjected to that on a forthcoming flight.

aerorobnz wrote:

axio wrote:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=12199374
It seems the rap 'safety' video is gone. Personally I'm thrilled I won't be subjected to that on a forthcoming flight.

Every flight I had with it I couldn't watch it without sliding down in my seat in embarrassment. cur eye rolls and cursive mutterings under the breath of both mine and my surrounding neighbours. Every bit the marketing faux pas as the Gillette advertisement.