Probably about time we started a new thread for 2017.

Sadly on news that ?UA is switching SFO-AKL to seasonal only and JQ is cutting MEL-WLG. The year can only get better...

Previous thread can be found here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1348325&start=300

Please continue discussion below.

Actually, not being in New Zealand these days, has anyone experienced AKL since the bad publicity around traffic and congestion?

Have they lifted their game and scraped through or is it still pretty dire? Seems to happen every few years and nothing comes of it as the airport manages to just do enough to make it tolerable.

aerokiwi wrote:

Sadly on news that ?UA is switching SFO-AKL to seasonal only and JQ is cutting MEL-WLG. The year can only get better...

Just waiting on AA to cutback or drop AKL-LAX now, more likely since QF/AA got rejected on there joint venture.

Also add to that we lose AKL-NLK in May.

zkncj wrote:

Just waiting on AA to cutback or drop AKL-LAX now, more likely since QF/AA got rejected on there joint venture.

How is AA doing on the route? I imagine the UA withdrawal would help if things are a little tight. And was the rejection from the Australian authorities? In which case, would that impact on NZ-US route cooperation?

aerokiwi wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Just waiting on AA to cutback or drop AKL-LAX now, more likely since QF/AA got rejected on there joint venture.

How is AA doing on the route? I imagine the UA withdrawal would help if things are a little tight. And was the rejection from the Australian authorities? In which case, would that impact on NZ-US route cooperation?

It was on the US end that it was rejected,

http://australianaviation.com.au/2016/11/us-government-plans-to-deny-qantas-american-airlines-jv/

After more than a year of deliberation, the US Department of Transportation (DOT) has rejected American and Qantas’s application for an expanded alliance and anti-trust immunity (ATI) on trans-Pacific routes, arguing it would harm competition and reduce consumer choice.

Just curious if anyone knows how IAH-AKL is doing these days? Is UA playing nice at IAH for NZ?

A friend flew LHR-IAH-AKL and back on them and was please overall. I have to do IAH-AKL-PER in a couple of months so I am hoping no major negative changes or cancels come before then.

FlyingSicilian wrote:

Just curious if anyone knows how IAH-AKL is doing these days? Is UA playing nice at IAH for NZ?

A friend flew LHR-IAH-AKL and back on them and was please overall. I have to do IAH-AKL-PER in a couple of months so I am hoping no major negative changes or cancels come before then.

Pretty sure IAH is doing great, they have up'd the flights includeing to daily for summer.

Since it was at the end of the previous thread, just before it was closed:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1351847

With LH axing NRT and NZ adding HND flights, does anybody think we will see NZ totally moving as well? Would be great if they did before July, since I had booked NRT-AKL just before HND was announced...

aerokiwi wrote:

Actually, not being in New Zealand these days, has anyone experienced AKL since the bad publicity around traffic and congestion?

Have they lifted their game and scraped through or is it still pretty dire? Seems to happen every few years and nothing comes of it as the airport manages to just do enough to make it tolerable.

Lots of road works, which will stay for a while by the looks of it. I have been out a few days ago, and it was an easy drive both ways... Last time before that was early December, and we allowed extra time, just to arrive early, since we needed a maximum of 5 extra minutes.

I'm in Auckland right now. Beautiful city. Loved the helicopter tour yesterday and tennis at the ASB. Strolled Devonport today. Off to Hobart tomorrow though.

I flew in on NZ via IAH. Great flight. Packed to the gills in the back but 3 empties up front. Flying Qantas for the first time tomorrow, then Virgin Australia before back tracking on Air New Zealand from Melbourne to Houston.

I'll be very surprised if AA's AKL service is affected since its the only QF/AA service to/from AKL. The US DOT ruling basically states it will affect competition whch is fully true, but only on the Australian services as NZ holds the biggest market share from AKL

AA has been more reliably ontime than UA. The 777s on the route were supposed to be an interim thing, but have been a disaster for OTP and making connections..

As far as HND goes, there will be no real domestic connections possible based on the schedule. As such, it looks like it will rely on higher yielding point to point TYO market with only a few international connections possible. NRT still has better options for Korea and domestic transfer options based on the current time for HND.

I'm expecting the fuel prices to rise considerably over next 4 years, so I do think it will impact AKL's airlines. I think we will likely lose a number of airlines in that time. If AA is doing well, I would expect them to put their newly delivered 789s on the route once their subfleet is of sufficient size. AA has had individual flights that just haven't operated as per the schedule

AKL has been given the worst OTP of all international Australasian airports. No surprises there with a lack of gates and still no second runway. AIAL tried to blame their disappointment on the airlines, caterers and fuel trucks... LOL
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/a ... d=11777805

aerorobnz wrote:

AA has been more reliably ontime than UA. The 777s on the route were supposed to be an interim thing, but have been a disaster for OTP and making connections..

As far as HND goes, there will be no real domestic connections possible based on the schedule. As such, it looks like it will rely on higher yielding point to point TYO market with only a few international connections possible. NRT still has better options for Korea and domestic transfer options based on the current time for HND.

I'm expecting the fuel prices to rise considerably over next 4 years, so I do think it will impact AKL's airlines. I think we will likely lose a number of airlines in that time. If AA is doing well, I would expect them to put their newly delivered 789s on the route once their subfleet is of sufficient size. AA has had individual flights that just haven't operated as per the schedule

Yes unless NZ can get better time slots at HND then NRT is likely to stay. As it is the HND service is worse than the previous service if people are wanting connections.

As for AKL, disappointed about UA moving to seasonal. I would have thought that 3x weekly would have been a better option. Will be interesting to see how AA reacts. I feel they might just hang on in their since their customers don't really have an alternative vs UA customers who can just fly on NZ.

I don't think NZ will be cutting back as they are in a bit of a sweet spot and are still growing strongly

aerokiwi wrote:

Probably about time we started a new thread for 2017.

Sadly on news that ?UA is switching SFO-AKL to seasonal only and JQ is cutting MEL-WLG. The year can only get better...

Previous thread can be found here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1348325&start=300

Please continue discussion below.

Whats the issue with US carries and New Zealand, is NZ just too strong?

AA used to fly to NZ in the 1980's and yes they are back and hopefully they will continue to fly to New Zealand. With regards to UA they had LAX-AKL-MEL that I use to sell fairly frequently. I could be totally wrong but its seams that the US carriers just don't seam to be able to make routes to NZ work. Which is sad when it looks as if SQ and EK have no issue filling flights and I guess making money.

Is it likely that NZ are going to launch any new services to North America. There was talk of ORD but are there any other cities that are likely to get an NZ service (YYZ or even NYC or IAD?)

Alex

richcandy wrote:

aerokiwi wrote:

Probably about time we started a new thread for 2017.

Sadly on news that ?UA is switching SFO-AKL to seasonal only and JQ is cutting MEL-WLG. The year can only get better...

Previous thread can be found here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1348325&start=300

Please continue discussion below.

Whats the issue with US carries and New Zealand, is NZ just too strong?

AA used to fly to NZ in the 1980's and yes they are back and hopefully they will continue to fly to New Zealand. With regards to UA they had LAX-AKL-MEL that I use to sell fairly frequently. I could be totally wrong but its seams that the US carriers just don't seam to be able to make routes to NZ work. Which is sad when it looks as if SQ and EK have no issue filling flights and I guess making money.

Is it likely that NZ are going to launch any new services to North America. There was talk of ORD but are there any other cities that are likely to get an NZ service (YYZ or even NYC or IAD?)

Alex

NZ is strong and the US is their highest yielding market and the US is more important to NZ than AKL is to a US carrier however UA/NZ is a JV which is the main reason they were able to restart service after so many years. UA flew to AKL from 1986/2003 replaced PA originally CO served 79/93, AA early 70's and again 90/92.

Reality is it's a long flight neeeding 2 aircraft for daily service and a lot of crew pushing costs up and competing with NZ is hard. Demand also varies seasonally like a lot of routes and with the JV I'd say UA have a better route to use the aircraft in NS but I think they do have to have some of their own capacity on the route?!

SQ and EK serve completly different markets than UA bar maybe a few Europeans who use UA to AKL whereas DXB-AKL non stop would cover predominantly Europe-AKL and the small Middle East-AKL market went from 77L, 388 quickly only started March 2016 SQ cover Asia and Europe to NZ, use 77W in NS and 388 in NW, no idea on profits but a lot of capacity has come into the market from China particularly recently putting pressure on yields.

For NZ ORD would seem most likely next and maybe EWR but that will likely need an ULH aircraft can't see any others though DEN has been mentioned by NZ but is at altitude which could cause severe restrictions.

Zkpilot wrote:

AKL has been given the worst OTP of all international Australasian airports. No surprises there with a lack of gates and still no second runway. AIAL tried to blame their disappointment on the airlines, caterers and fuel trucks... LOL
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/a ... d=11777805

By any means AKL isn't solely responsible for this, but I can't even count the number of flights that have had to hold to no layovers or gates in the last 12 months, the last minute bus operations thus delaying their departures. Any holding for one flight delays the next one and so on and so forth.

They may blame cleaning or catering but the root cause of servicing delays is mostly either late arrival of inbound, or the fact that the lack of gates results in increased tows on/off gate or holding which means they can't do so when they plan it.

richcandy wrote:

Sadly on news that ?UA is switching SFO-AKL to seasonal only and JQ is cutting MEL-WLG. The year can only get better...

NZ can be a very seasonal destination. Inbound winter tourism falls by about 40% from the summer peaks. As in this Herald article, United is brining it back it October with increased service - 10 x weekly in peak:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11778240

United Airlines suspends NZ service

United Airlines is pulling back on its non-stop service between Auckland and San Francisco, instead making it a seasonal route.

The US airline confirmed today that Auckland to San Francisco flights will be unavailable between April 18 and October 30 this year, and passengers are being encouraged to fly the route on Air New Zealand.

"This change is in response to seasonal variations, which will also see United Airlines adding an additional three flights per week starting December 18, 2017 after resuming its daily Auckland to San Francisco services on October 31, 2017. This will increase services to a total of 10 United's flights per week during the high seasonal demand period," United Airlines said.

mariner

Flightradar is showing a lot of ATR traffic to/from BHE today all with 59xx flight numbers and also going to non standard destinations including HLZ, NPE and CHC. That's a lot of Scouts travelling home!

ZKOAB wrote:

Flightradar is showing a lot of ATR traffic to/from BHE today all with 59xx flight numbers and also going to non standard destinations including HLZ, NPE and CHC. That's a lot of Scouts travelling home!

That explains the random flights ex-BHE today!

With NZ starting to up the 72-500s up for sale, I wonder if Air Chats might jump on some of them?

Could the 72-500 make an replacement for the CV-580? I know you can know buy an new build Combi, assume that you could convert an 72-500 to an combi?

zkncj wrote:

With NZ starting to up the 72-500s up for sale, I wonder if Air Chats might jump on some of them?

Could the 72-500 make an replacement for the CV-580? I know you can know buy an new build Combi, assume that you could convert an 72-500 to an combi?

Maybe. Air Chats is looking for bigger aircraft. They have their eyes on 737's if - IF - they can get the runway on the Chatham Islands extended, but in the absence of that they also say there are also turboprops available, although at some (slightly surprising) cost:

http://3rdlevelnz.blogspot.co.nz/2017/0 ... ought.html

"General manager Duane Emeny said last year that a Boeing 737 service to the Chatham Islands was also on the cards, though that depended on whether a planned runway expansion went ahead. The Chatham Islands Enterprise Trust was helping drive the project, which a government study initially billed at $35 million. Mr Emeny said further investigation showed costs for the project, which would also allow increased travel within the Chathams, were likely to be higher.

He said the passenger jet option was the preferred economy of scale, but there would still be more flights if the runway expansion did not go ahead. "There are more modern turbo prop aircraft which are more fuel efficient so operating costs lower but the capital costs are high - the equivalent of buying a Boeing 737. "Our preference is a larger aircraft so we can grow the market,"

They seem to have growth in mind.

mariner

mariner wrote:

Maybe. Air Chats is looking for bigger aircraft. They have their eyes on 737's if - IF - they can get the runway on the Chatham Islands extended, but in the absence of that they also say there are also turboprops available, although at some (slightly surprising) cost:

With Alaskan airlines retiring there 734 Combi's within the next 12months, I wonder if these could make an good option for Air Chathams?

Surely you couldn't full a standard passenger 733/734 on AKL-CHT? Unless they are thinking on using them on some mainland routes or Pacific Islands.

zkncj wrote:

ZKOAB wrote:

Flightradar is showing a lot of ATR traffic to/from BHE today all with 59xx flight numbers and also going to non standard destinations including HLZ, NPE and CHC. That's a lot of Scouts travelling home!

That explains the random flights ex-BHE today!

Out of curiosity I did some numbers.
Standard flight total out of BHE tomorrow is 3 Dash services to AKL and 4 to WLG.
Potentially 350 total seats to fill.

Today was phenomenal with 30 departures (14 Dash, 16 ATR), 16 of which were scheduled/additions and 14 special 59xx and 89xx flights.
Up to 1788 seats to fill.
Self correction on the non standard destinations. CHC was not a NZ flight but the rest were DUD, HLZ (2), NPE, NPL (2) and ROT.
I bet the ground and airport cafe staff there are going to sleep well tonight.

zkncj wrote:

mariner wrote:

Maybe. Air Chats is looking for bigger aircraft. They have their eyes on 737's if - IF - they can get the runway on the Chatham Islands extended, but in the absence of that they also say there are also turboprops available, although at some (slightly surprising) cost:

With Alaskan airlines retiring there 734 Combi's within the next 12months, I wonder if these could make an good option for Air Chathams?

Surely you couldn't full a standard passenger 733/734 on AKL-CHT? Unless they are thinking on using them on some mainland routes or Pacific Islands.

That was exactly my thought! If the runway were to go ahead, the combis of AS would be perfect for them!

Does anyone know what NZ is currently doing to the AKL Domestic Bag Drop? The lines we're almost outside the door this morning.

Seems like an crazzy time of the year to start doing work on the bag drop area.

ZKOAB wrote:

zkncj wrote:

ZKOAB wrote:

Flightradar is showing a lot of ATR traffic to/from BHE today all with 59xx flight numbers and also going to non standard destinations including HLZ, NPE and CHC. That's a lot of Scouts travelling home!

That explains the random flights ex-BHE today!

Out of curiosity I did some numbers.
Standard flight total out of BHE tomorrow is 3 Dash services to AKL and 4 to WLG.
Potentially 350 total seats to fill.

Today was phenomenal with 30 departures (14 Dash, 16 ATR), 16 of which were scheduled/additions and 14 special 59xx and 89xx flights.
Up to 1788 seats to fill.
Self correction on the non standard destinations. CHC was not a NZ flight but the rest were DUD, HLZ (2), NPE, NPL (2) and ROT.
I bet the ground and airport cafe staff there are going to sleep well tonight.

BHE actually has 4-5 scheduled services to AKL each day and between 5-6 to WLG all on Dash 8 aircraft.

zkncj wrote:

Does anyone know what NZ is currently doing to the AKL Domestic Bag Drop? The lines we're almost outside the door this morning.

Seems like an crazzy time of the year to start doing work on the bag drop area.

It's happened a few times in the past month. I hear something new is on the cards so hope it's good

Anyone know the reason the AKL runway was closed the other day for about 20 mins? A few delays as it happened just after lunchtime...

But no need for a second RWY despite this kinda thing

aerokiwi wrote:

Actually, not being in New Zealand these days, has anyone experienced AKL since the bad publicity around traffic and congestion?

Have they lifted their game and scraped through or is it still pretty dire? Seems to happen every few years and nothing comes of it as the airport manages to just do enough to make it tolerable.

I flew through AKL on domestic flights on December 24 and 27. No problems, no delays. Was a bit crowded in the terminal on the 24th, but nothing intolerable. It's difficult to build an airport big enough for the very highest peak days without wasting a lot of money.

I was also in the airport area 3 times in the last 10 days to visit FedEx. No problems at all.

In my last 7 or 8 trips to/from the airport I made it through the Kirkbride road intersection without having to stop for the light!

I'll be back there during the afternoon rush hour on Tuesday. Hope the full traffic has not returned to Auckland by then.

Just adding a bit to the count from the previous thread regarding surviving ex-Air NZ/TEAL aircraft in case anyone else is interested.

It looks like DC-8 ZK-NZC (PP-TPC) was still in Manaus as of 21 Sept 2016 (from google maps imagery and doing a bit of googling for photos to check which location the frame was last seen in). Still an abandoned freighter far from its original home.

The L-188s are doing better; ZK-TEB still exists as a firefighter (C-FIJX) with Buffalo Airways and ZK-CLX in the same role as C-GHZI with Air Spray

DC-6s; ZK-BGB is sitting on its belly at Lanseria Airport as EL-WNH, minus engines and left tailplane, serving as a fire trainer. Queensland Air Museum is trying to save it ( http://www.qam.com.au/qam-content/aircraft/dc-6/default.htm ).The nose of ZK-BGC appears to be privately owned in Finland, having sat in Arizona as N90MA as a parts donor for several years.

And DC-10-30 ZK-NZS is in Havana as a training aid.

From what I can see from my quick search, all the rest of each of these types has been broken up or written off.

zkeoj wrote:

zkncj wrote:

mariner wrote:

That was exactly my thought! If the runway were to go ahead, the combis of AS would be perfect for them!

The CHT runway is just under 4500ft. This allows a 737-400 MTOW of ~ 53t . Assuming a sector ESAD of ~650nm this allows for a ZFW of ~ 46t or a payload of ~ 13t.

ZKNCI wrote:

The L-188s are doing better; ZK-TEB still exists as a firefighter (C-FIJX) with Buffalo Airways and ZK-CLX in the same role as C-GHZI with Air Spray

Anyone know why it was changed form ZK-BMQ to ZK-TEB?

ZKNCI wrote:

The L-188s are doing better; ZK-TEB still exists as a firefighter (C-FIJX) with Buffalo Airways and ZK-CLX in the same role as C-GHZI with Air Spray

Looks like the nose of the former ZK-TEA is at Ferrymead Museum.

zkncj wrote:

Anyone know why it was changed form ZK-BMQ to ZK-TEB?

The three initial L188s were to be ZK-BMP, -BMQ and -BMR. Not sure why those particular registrations, probably just an available sequence. I would assume they were switched to -TE* simply to match the TEAL name and flight numbers (becoming -TEA, -TEB and -TEC), with the switch done before delivery. (Another swap was the DC-6s being allocated -BF* series, but actually transferring from BCPA as -BG* series)

Possibly something to do with the original Co. British Commowealth Pacific Airways
becoming TEAL, Maybe at the time of order, the desire to name the fleet TEA..... etc
had not been established. ( CLX came much later ex QF ).

Question RE NZ fleet: Could we see a top-up order of 77W, maybe another 3-4 frames, in the next year, OR could we see NZ jump on the 779 bandwagon with perhaps a +-5 plane order?
I reference the below topic, and the fact that they could either use more 77W for up-gauging routes, or use the 779 on AKL-LAX-LHR, cascading some of the 77W down to IAH etc.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1352039

77west wrote:

Question RE NZ fleet: Could we see a top-up order of 77W, maybe another 3-4 frames, in the next year, OR could we see NZ jump on the 779 bandwagon with perhaps a +-5 plane order?
I reference the below topic, and the fact that they could either use more 77W for up-gauging routes, or use the 779 on AKL-LAX-LHR, cascading some of the 77W down to IAH etc.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1352039

NZ is at a cross roads. They have the option of moving to an all 787 fleet (789 + 7810) and simply increasing destinations/frequency, or they can go down the 789+7810+779 route. I think the time for a top up 77W order has probably passed now.

All 787 fleet offers significant cost savings and provides greater growth opportunities (could add ORD+EWR+SEA+ more non-US destinations), effectively that would mean that around 90% of Americans would be within 2 hours flying/driving time of a direct AKL service with a multitude of connections to various Australian cities. On the other hand 787+779 offers possibly better profit margins (particularly if NZ doesn't want to add on more UK/EU services).

Zkpilot wrote:

77west wrote:

Question RE NZ fleet: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1352039

NZ is at a cross roads. They have the option of moving to an all 787 fleet (789 + 7810) and simply increasing destinations/frequency, or they can go down the 789+7810+779 route. I think the time for a top up 77W order has probably passed now.

All 787 fleet offers significant cost savings and provides greater growth opportunities (could add ORD+EWR+SEA+ more non-US destinations), effectively that would mean that around 90% of Americans would be within 2 hours flying/driving time of a direct AKL service with a multitude of connections to various Australian cities. On the other hand 787+779 offers possibly better profit margins (particularly if NZ doesn't want to add on more UK/EU services).

I think that in less than a year the actual performance of the 78X will be known and whether it has the payload capability needed for AKL-LAX/SFO. No doubt it will work to Asia. Perhaps some of the Asian 789's can be refitted to higher premium seating for the North America services.

Zkpilot wrote:

77west wrote:

Question RE NZ fleet: Could we see a top-up order of 77W, maybe another 3-4 frames, in the next year, OR could we see NZ jump on the 779 bandwagon with perhaps a +-5 plane order?
I reference the below topic, and the fact that they could either use more 77W for up-gauging routes, or use the 779 on AKL-LAX-LHR, cascading some of the 77W down to IAH etc.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1352039

NZ is at a cross roads. They have the option of moving to an all 787 fleet (789 + 7810) and simply increasing destinations/frequency, or they can go down the 789+7810+779 route. I think the time for a top up 77W order has probably passed now.

All 787 fleet offers significant cost savings and provides greater growth opportunities (could add ORD+EWR+SEA+ more non-US destinations), effectively that would mean that around 90% of Americans would be within 2 hours flying/driving time of a direct AKL service with a multitude of connections to various Australian cities. On the other hand 787+779 offers possibly better profit margins (particularly if NZ doesn't want to add on more UK/EU services).

Agreed I can't see more 77W's now and I don't think they will go 779, I keep saying watch the 78J and sunrisevalley tells us there could be some figures within the next year I think they will wait for these figures and only order them if they can do LAX/SFO otherwise more 789's, I think in the meantime more 789's will be ordered anyway for further expansion with only 2 this year and the final one currently on order in 2018.

[quote="ZK-NBT

Agreed I can't see more 77W's now and I don't think they will go 779, I keep saying watch the 78J and sunrisevalley tells us there could be some figures within the next year I think they will wait for these figures and only order them if they can do LAX/SFO otherwise more 789's, I think in the meantime more 789's will be ordered anyway for further expansion with only 2 this year and the final one currently on order in 2018.[/quote]

I am assuming NZ will firm up the three or four 789 options for delivery starting FY 2022 although the recent flurry of ALC in town and Luxon in Seattle would suggest something earlier than FY 2022. The FY2016 analysts presentation shows the 789 fleet as 12 and the 77E as 8 through FY2021. It will be interesting to see what the half-year presentation has to say. If they can start exiting the 77E earlier than FY 2022 this would bring forward the delivery of the 789's on option. The 78X as I see it at this time can be set up the same as the 77W but its westbound cargo capability out of LAX/SFO at typical passenger load factor would ~5t. Because its fuel burn is significantly less than a 77E an operator might elect to misuse it in place of a 77E. The 78X is good for ~41t payload LAX-LHR-LAX so it could comfortably replace the 77W on this route.

Is the reason there is no 789 ZK-NZB because of that 1960s DC8 crash?

I'm actually picking the 779 to be in the mix.

It's perfect for incremental growth in both pax and freight, and is a low-risk aircraft to replace the 77Ws, while capacity is needed on some pretty key routes. I'd imagine the likes of SIN, HKG, YYV, SFO and IAH can go 789 with increased frequencies, while LAX, LHR and maybe even HND or NRT could go to 779 (possibly YYV during peak times too). If anything I'd say the 78J is the least likely.

But that's just one logic - I appreciate the others whereby the 78J brings more direct 77E capacity replacement and the costs benefits of a single-type fleet.

aerokiwi wrote:

I'm actually picking the 779 to be in the mix.

It's perfect for incremental growth in both pax and freight, and is a low-risk aircraft to replace the 77Ws, while capacity is needed on some pretty key routes. I'd imagine the likes of SIN, HKG, YYV, SFO and IAH can go 789 with increased frequencies, while LAX, LHR and maybe even HND or NRT could go to 779 (possibly YYV during peak times too). If anything I'd say the 78J is the least likely.

But that's just one logic - I appreciate the others whereby the 78J brings more direct 77E capacity replacement and the costs benefits of a single-type fleet.

I don't disagree. NZ have in the past cut some very good deals with Boeing by committing during a market down turn. Certainly there is a drought of new 779 orders at this time and a new order would provide a boost to the program.

They do like the cargo lugging ability of the 77W to Australia and NAN/RAR as well as to LAX. The 787 can only substitute with frequency, so if they go for a 787 fleet they will have to compensate that ability with a larger order.

aerorobnz wrote:

They do like the cargo lugging ability of the 77W to Australia and NAN/RAR as well as to LAX. The 787 can only substitute with frequency, so if they go for a 787 fleet they will have to compensate that ability with a larger order.

78X should have quite a decent freight capacity especially on a short Tasman hop. Sure it doesn't have the volume of the 77W but with extra frequency, extra destinations, along with A320 being upgauged to A321 likely that should cover the freight side of things.

Is NZ likely to be a customer for the Boeing MOM? Perhaps for Tasman or Asia ops?

Zkpilot wrote:

aerorobnz wrote:

They do like the cargo lugging ability of the 77W to Australia and NAN/RAR as well as to LAX. The 787 can only substitute with frequency, so if they go for a 787 fleet they will have to compensate that ability with a larger order.

78X should have quite a decent freight capacity especially on a short Tasman hop. Sure it doesn't have the volume of the 77W but with extra frequency, extra destinations, along with A320 being up-gauged to A321 likely that should cover the freight side of things.

I'm with you in theory, but shorthaul capacity only applies if it can do the job longhaul too. That will only come after the first 787-10 has entered service IMO - I'm not sure it's the right aircraft for the job yet. The more probable option to me than a mixed fleet inc -10s is just more -9s, Boost the fleet up from 12 789 8 772, 7 77W, to 30-35 789s, with two configurations and just boost frequency up to all the major markets. 3 a day to LAX, two a day to SFO/HKG/TYO (NRT/HND) and possibly SIN, 1 a day to EZE/YVR etc plus the inevitable expansion/frequency increases to places like MNL/SGN/DPS/LIM/BKK etc. Then they can just swap as the different markets ebb and flow with the alternating high seasons.

I was a big advocate of a standardized 77W order for NZ at the time, rather than -200ERs (which they passed over the 77L for) and I still think it was a good plan, but the timing window for that passed when they took delivery of OKR/S.

At the end of the day the A350-900/1000 is more the 77W replacement in terms of payload and range than anything else within the delivery window they will want. the 77X production is already likely occupied at the optimum time for NZ's needs accepting that like any new frame it will roll out later than initially planned, that and the 777-9 is too big, and the 777-8 may never make it to production like the A350-800 etc. I expect most of the orders to transfer to -9s over the next 3 years as only the EY/QR/EK have them on order. You'd hate for NZ to be in the same fleet purgatory they were for the decade they lost due to the 787 delays, only to be forced into taking an aircraft that isn't what they originally wanted because EK decide they don't need the smaller plane. There's one further big issue with the 77X which is wingspan (remember we are talking about shit for brains AIAL which doesn't forecast)
At for the 77X 71.8 m it is significantly more than A350s 64.75 m and 787s 60.12m..

From a passenger perspective as well as an airline perspective I hope they go for an A350 variant for their longhaul needs. By that stage it may well have the kind of midlife increases that brought us the 77L and 77W

"If" NZ went all 787, what is likely to happen with regards to London? I am guessing that they would just drop the capacity. I can't see them going double daily AKL-LAX-LHR. I guess its unlikely that we will see AKL-HKG-LHR make a come back? (I have a couple of friends who live in the UK but have family in HKG. They do a return LHR-HKG about every 8 weeks and fly business. They now fly CX but really miss NZ on the route. When I was a travel agent the difficult we had selling NZ on the LHR-HKG route was not the product, it was that it wasn't daily and the departure out of HKG was in the morning. CX with five flights a day, I think it was only 3 at the time, gave so many more options)

richcandy wrote:

"If" NZ went all 787, what is likely to happen with regards to London? I am guessing that they would just drop the capacity. I can't see them going double daily AKL-LAX-LHR. I guess its unlikely that we will see AKL-HKG-LHR make a come back? (I have a couple of friends who live in the UK but have family in HKG. They do a return LHR-HKG about every 8 weeks and fly business. They now fly CX but really miss NZ on the route. When I was a travel agent the difficult we had selling NZ on the LHR-HKG route was not the product, it was that it wasn't daily and the departure out of HKG was in the morning. CX with five flights a day, I think it was only 3 at the time, gave so many more options)

Likely see NZ operate an additional service to U.K./EU probably from the US with HKG being a lesser but still possible option. LAX-MAN or LAX-FRA come to mind. Alternatively SFO-LHR/MAN/FRA is also possible. Yes previous CEO Fyfe said no more 1-stops but times have changed.

Perhaps a very stupid question,could the 789 make AKL-IAH or IAH-ORD without a significant payload hit? Could the 778 do the routes with no payload hit? If so would AKL-JFK be within range with the 778 without significant payload hit? Would a AKL-JFK-LHR-JFK -AKL, assuming they could get approval for passenger rights on the JFK- LHR-JFK part of the route make sense for a 2nd LHR service for NZ?