tealnz wrote:

sunrisevalley wrote:

NZ have tweaked it by adding a 275 seat version which would be good for ~ 17 hrs. at max passenger load. Probably a little short for EWR/JFK-AKL. unless NZ was satisfied with something like a 90% passenger load factor and no cargo. Payload for ORD/GRU-AKL would be ~ 36t which is max passenger plus 5t cargo or at a typical 85% passenger load factor close to 10t of cargo. Seems to me ORD/JFK could only be added based on market growth or a reduction in the number of seats offered out of SFO/LAX/IAH. If my figuring is right 4-275 seat frames would allow 2 daily rotations AKL/ North/ Sth. America/ Canada.

Hard to square the JFK/789 speculation with real-world numbers. SFO-SIN is 300nm shorter still-air than JFK-AKL. Yet United can only ticket 220 pax westbound during winter - they're blocking 30 seats. QF had to configure their 789s for 230 seats to do PER-LHR which is only 150nm further than JFK-AKL. NZ would need a third configuration if they really want to do ULH with a 789. Since they've gone for 275 seats instead for their "premium" configuration we have to assume that they're going to stick with their current business model - which just won't sustain 230 seat 789s. I don't think the 789 is going to be the 77E replacement somehow.

So is QF dreaming when they talk about SYD-JFK, SYD-ORD, and MEL-DFW because each of those flights are very very long.

There is no advantage to fly to JFK or EWR from AKL. The costs are prohibitive especially with a raising oil price and lowering yield, unlike QF with PER-LHR it doesn't offer a competitive advantage IMO. As Teal said, it would involve a further config. I'm sure new USA markets will eventuate but look to South America for the growth now, not USA. The other thing I believe will occur is an increase in frequency. A second daily to the asian markets

LamboAston wrote:

So is this one going to be ZK-NZN or NZO?

ALC says the leased 789 will be delivered between 01 Jul and 30 Sep 2018, so ZK-NZN would be my guess and the last Air NZ 789 on order will be ZK-NZQ.

ZK-NZO is a Cessna 208B Caravan operated by Skydive Queenstown, and ZK-NZP is unlikely to be used as that is the rego of the W/Off DC10.

sunrisevalley wrote:

I wonder if this comes out of ALC's on orders or NZ's options. I would think the latter.

ALC says it is from their "order book with Boeing".

http://www.airleasecorp.com/press/2017/ ... -zealand-1

PA515

[quote="tealnz"]Hard to square the JFK/789 speculation with real-world numbers. SFO-SIN is 300nm shorter still-air than JFK-AKL. Yet United can only ticket 220 pax westbound during winter - they're blocking 30 seats. quote]

UA SFO- SIN can be as long as 17hr 45m but typically is in the 17 to 17hr30m range. With 30-seats blocked this allows an 18hr plus range according to my Piano-X model for the 789.

PA515 wrote:

ALC says it is from their "order book with Boeing".PA515

I saw that, I assume it mean's that NZ still has 4 options ?

ZK-NBT wrote:

So what do you think will be the 77E replacement tealnz?

If they want a step up from the payload/range the 789 can offer I guess they'll need to look at the A359 and 77X.

ZK-NBT wrote:

The 789 premium config really is very similar to the 77E just a slightly smaller aircraft but more premium than than the current 789's. NZ's current business model points to smaller aircraft with more destinations, sure 230 on a 789 seems a bit low but say 250, with 35J 35W 180Y or there abouts. I would see the 275 seat 789's going to YVR, IAH which are the longest 77E flights. However IAH may need a 77W at some point so the 789 would go to LAX/SFO instead.

I don't think there's been any hint that they see a future in which they don't have a 77W-sized aircraft in the fleet. As for their business model, NZ have done well from targeting markets/routes where they face limited competition (think: the Americas) and they have to be thinking hard about how they'll compete if QF extends their non-stop network further into the US (and other threads quote Alan Joyce as talking about future 359 or 77X procurement).

ZK-NBT wrote:

That's the first I have read that UA block seats SFO-SIN.

There was a thread on here which had the details. No problems eastbound, and few issues westbound over the summer. But even with the 250-seat configuration UA have to block seats westbound as winter winds kick in.

Zkpilot wrote:

So is QF dreaming when they talk about SYD-JFK, SYD-ORD, and MEL-DFW because each of those flights are very very long.

I think they're completely serious. For QF (and NZ) North America ticks the boxes: minimal competition, high demand, plus lots of wealthy customers at both ends (less so for NZ). So QF have every reason to make the most of the longer economic range of new-generation aircraft. Trouble is that the 789 has hard limits on both MTOW and fuel capacity: the only way you can get more range is to slash payload/passenger numbers. QF are going to make it work on PER-LHR and MEL-DFW with up to 230 pax. But SYD-ORD and SYD-JFK need a lot more range. The 789 isn't the answer. Alan Joyce seems to have wised up: he's been talking publicly about A359 and 77X.

I agree it will be interesting to see what NZ do to replace the 77E then later the 77W. The 77X seems to big and expensive to me the 779 to big and do they need the performance the 778 offers? The 78J is what I keep saying to watch if it can atleast do LAX/SFO, it can't yet but will Boeing ER it? The main reason for a larger type is premium capacity, the Y cabin is pretty similar on all 777/787.

The A350 seems a good plane I personally don't think NZ will go that route though, the plan is to have 777/787 single type rating. Sure they would only add 1 type with a mix 359/35J/789 long haul fleet once they replace the 777 fleet.

I agree with Aerorobnz second daily to Asian cities PVG/HKG etc to connect with EZE slots permitting.

Thanks re UA SFO-SIN.

ZK-NBT wrote:

I The 78J is what I keep saying to watch if it can atleast do LAX/SFO,.

Not to quibble but the IATA designation is 78X. As I see it the 78X will have limited cargo capability to YVR/SFO/LAX with max passenger load. They will need the 77W or equiv. belly space to maintain the present volume. Some 789 rotations would also help. The 275 seat version would be good for ~18t on YVR/SFO/LAX - AKL sectors.

Had no idea it was 78X, or am I mixing it with the 35J?

I'm not to worried if the 78X can't do YVR-AKL a 275 seat 789 seems a better fit with the possibility of daily for longer periods during the year rather than just DEC-JAN with the current 77E, cost savings will be rather large on that route using a 789, I do wonder if that's where the 2 275 seaters will go that are delivered this year?

The 77W is a beast in terms of what it can carry for NZ to LAX/SFO. And many other carriers.

My hope is that they will think in terms of passenger comfort and order the A350 to replace the combined 777 fleet.

aerorobnz wrote:

My hope is that they will think in terms of passenger comfort and order the A350 to replace the combined 777 fleet.

In your view how much of the comfort level in an airplane is due to the plane and how much is due to how the operator fits it out?

sunrisevalley wrote:

aerorobnz wrote:

My hope is that they will think in terms of passenger comfort and order the A350 to replace the combined 777 fleet.

In your view how much of the comfort level in an airplane is due to the plane and how much is due to how the operator fits it out?

It's probably maximum 30/70 manufacturer/airline for most types. The A350 has been widely delivered at a factory default 3-3-3 which balances airline and passenger comfort and remains viable regardless of the market, and the same could be said of the 763,A320/30/40 and 747. In terms of the 787 I think it is 40/60. It has had 2 airlines,both from a high yielding market, that have taken the factory default of 2-4-2, and one of those is retrofitting. 3-3-3. This tells me that in fact the 787 doesn't return the savings promised in 2-4-2 for anyone but the highest yield markets. Even QF who are going to be using it for PER-LHR are still 9 abreast, if they didn't go 2-4-2 that tells you a lot IMO - they are a premium airline that needs range and available payload, they are also not from a low-end market yield.The fact the 787 wasn't wide enough for default 9 abreast with 17" width indicates that Boeing didn't want to compromise the 777 at the time. Instead Boeing came up with an aircraft that in 2-4-2 was not quite the aircraft it should have been ( a bit like Porsche did with their Cayman sports car vs their 911), By comparison the A350 replaces the A340/A340/B777/747 with one model type, and was able to find the best config match for the interior width.

I see the A35J as a contender especially if the seat count gets to 386. Its 15 to 16 hr. range will get it to ORD if need be. I think the 275 seat 789 is probably better suited for > 16 hr. sectors. The A35J payload of ~54t over ~ 13hrs should be more than adequate to/from SFO/LAX.

sunrisevalley wrote:

As I see it the 78X will have limited cargo capability to YVR/SFO/LAX with max passenger load.

The -10 might be great for Asian routes. But YVR, with max pax plus some cargo? Doesn't add up. NZ have dismissed it as an option for US routes. They aren't even prepared to use 300 seat 789s to LAX. The -10 will have, what, another 10t OEW? Somewhere north of 300 seats. But the same MTOW as the 789 - because it's right at the limits of the frame. Even the new Trents won't turn the -10 into a trans-Pacific aircraft.

tealnz wrote:

sunrisevalley wrote:

As I see it the 78X will have limited cargo capability to YVR/SFO/LAX with max passenger load.

The -10 might be great for Asian routes. But YVR, with max pax plus some cargo? Doesn't add up. NZ have dismissed it as an option for US routes. They aren't even prepared to use 300 seat 789s to LAX. The -10 will have, what, another 10t OEW? Somewhere north of 300 seats. But the same MTOW as the 789 - because it's right at the limits of the frame. Even the new Trents won't turn the -10 into a trans-Pacific aircraft.

They don't use the 789 to LAX because they need high premium there. NZ19 will be 789 once the 763s leave

LamboAston wrote:

tealnz wrote:

sunrisevalley wrote:

As I see it the 78X will have limited cargo capability to YVR/SFO/LAX with max passenger load.

NZ19 will be 789 once the 763s leave

The 772 replaced the 763 on NZ18/19 and has been operating on the route since late last year.

I've been a bit bemused by the scheduling of the new AKL-HND flight. The timing of the HND-AKL leg is perfect for connecting to South American flights, to fit with the NZ idea of being the go-to carrier between Asia and South America. BUT the days that are served inbound from HND are TuThSa, while the current schedule for EZE is MoWeFrSu.

On the surface, an epic fail. But was this scheduling deliberate in anticipation of services to GRU or another South American port? Recent reports suggest that NZ is still actively considering a second South American port, while I'd always assumed that this would not happen until EZE was brought up to daily. Could we see a HND-AKL-GRU service later this year when the next 789s arrive? If it was given a 5pm departure from AKL-GRU on TuThSa , then the total journey time would beat the best alternative connection, via DXB, by about an hour and a half, and the QR connection via DOH by more than two hours. There would also be great connections from East Coast Australia to Brazil.

Aside from the two Gulf carriers, the other options for travel from GRU to Tokyo are mainly via the USA (with the exception of Aeromexico's connections). Given the even more negative than usual attention on the US immigration authorities and the way they treat people of all ethnicities and religions who may have visited the "wrong" countries in the past, this may be a chance for NZ to take a big bite out of a very decent market (Japan-Brazil), with the competitive advantage of the fastest flight times bar none.

I've been a bit frustrated by the slowness of the South American Grand Plan to be given effect. Will we see it this year . . . ?

On another note, interesting to see that the NZ promotion of services from Australia-USA via Auckland has been more successful than anticipated. That's great news for the carrier, and suggests that even in a relatively crowded market NZ may make the running with additional destinations like ORD or LAS (my picks as the front-runners).

DavidByrne wrote:

On the surface, an epic fail. But was this scheduling deliberate in anticipation of services to GRU or another South American port? Recent reports suggest that NZ is still actively considering a second South American port, while I'd always assumed that this would not happen until EZE was brought up to daily..

With regard to GRU (or GIG) I keep going back to what was said about Brazil last time:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11541576

"Brazil was considered but turned out to be operationally challenging. While prevailing tailwinds would make it easy enough to fly there, coming back could be tricky. About 20 per cent of the time, the airline would be quite severely constrained by the load it could carry."

Has that changed?

mariner

mariner wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

On the surface, an epic fail. But was this scheduling deliberate in anticipation of services to GRU or another South American port? Recent reports suggest that NZ is still actively considering a second South American port, while I'd always assumed that this would not happen until EZE was brought up to daily..

With regard to GRU (or GIG) I keep going back to what was said about Brazil last time:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11541576

"Brazil was considered but turned out to be operationally challenging. While prevailing tailwinds would make it easy enough to fly there, coming back could be tricky. About 20 per cent of the time, the airline would be quite severely constrained by the load it could carry."

Has that changed?

mariner

Maybe with the 275-seat 789 the equation is different - I'm not an expert on this. But even if GRU is out, could we see other destinations such as your preferred LIM, or even MEX (though MEX via AKL would not be the most efficient routing for Asian pax, especially when there are non-stops available).

As an aside, maybe someone "in the know" or with access to the NZ booking system can tell us whether the HND flights are with the lower-capacity 789? That might be a piece of the jigsaw that's relevant.

DavidByrne wrote:

Maybe with the 275-seat 789 the equation is different - I'm not an expert on this. But even if GRU is out, could we see other destinations such as your preferred LIM, or even MEX (though MEX via AKL would not be the most efficient routing for Asian pax, especially when there are non-stops available).

Essentially, I think there are only four South American cities - five if you include SCL - that would be of interest to the airline.

I've discounted GRU and GIG for the reasons given above, which leaves LIM and MEX. Having lived there, I have an extraordinary affection for MEX - the city and Mexico the country - but I'm told there are hot and high issues out of MEX. Which would leave LIM - and no bad thing, because it may be a better entry port for the rest of the continent than EZE.

Then again, I'm not sure of the status of the aviation agreement with Peru. I believe there is one - initialled in 1999 - but I also believe we wanted to renegotiate it and I don't know if that's happened.

I've discounted SCL because of competition, but I suppose ti might be possible.

mariner

I can't imagine David that they would use the 275 seat 789 to HND, just so it can connect to a South American flight. There would be a change of aircraft. Interesting re the days of operation, I wonder if NZ are able to offer daily ex HND which could see them increase there while reducing NRT. Japanese numbers to NZ are down a bit currently so I wonder how KIX is doing and weather it will return? Maybe daily to both NRT and HND next summer with no KIX?

I think the 275 seat 789 will go to YVR first, where else makes sense? IAH?

There is another thread going on about Boeings new pricing and people saying a 78XER won't happen with the 778. Strange imo the 78XER could take some lower end 77W replacements with the 779 the higher end, and the 78XER could be a 14/15hr aircraft with the 778 being 15/19 hours. The 779 looks like it will be capable of 16+ hrs to.

mariner wrote:

[With regard to GRU (or GIG) I keep going back to what was said about Brazil last time:

"Brazil was considered but turned out to be operationally challenging. While prevailing tailwinds would make it easy enough to fly there, coming back could be tricky. About 20 per cent of the time, the airline would be quite severely constrained by the load it could carry."[/i]

Has that changed?

mariner

In my view it was never correct to start with. If you look at the EZE-AKL and GRU-AKL GC tracks they virtually overlay each other. So it is reasonable to interpolate the EZE-AKL time for the increase in time from GRU. This increases the 13hr 30m EZE-AKL time to 15hr 40m GRU-AKL. For 15hr 40m the 789 can carry ~36.5t which is about 85% LF of a 302 seat 789 plus 8t of cargo. More than enough to be profitable if the yields are O.K. . Interesting , this month sector time EZE-AKL has been generally 1 hr. better than schedule.

aerorobnz wrote:

sunrisevalley wrote:

aerorobnz wrote:

My hope is that they will think in terms of passenger comfort and order the A350 to replace the combined 777 fleet.

In your view how much of the comfort level in an airplane is due to the plane and how much is due to how the operator fits it out?

It's probably maximum 30/70 manufacturer/airline for most types. The A350 has been widely delivered at a factory default 3-3-3 which balances airline and passenger comfort and remains viable regardless of the most market, and the same could be said of the 763,A320/30/40 and 747. In terms of the 787 I think it is 40/60. It has had 2 airlines,both from a high yielding market, that have taken the factory default of 2-4-2, and one of those is retrofitting. 3-3-3. This tells me that in fact the 787 doesn't return the savings promised in 2-4-2 for anyone but the highest yield markets. Even QF who are going to be using it for PER-LHR are still 9 abreast, if they didn't go 2-4-2 that tells you a lot IMO - they are a premium airline that needs range and available payload, they are also not from a low-end market yield.The fact the 787 wasn't wide enough for default 9 abreast with 17" width indicates that Boeing didn't want to compromise the 777 at the time. Instead Boeing came up with an aircraft that in 2-4-2 was not quite the aircraft it should have been ( a bit like Porsche did with their Cayman sports car vs their 911), By comparison the A350 replaces the A340/A340/B777/747 with one model type, and was able to find the best config match for the interior width.

Yes Boeing did make a stuff up with the 787. Either it should have been around 6" narrower or 6" wider so that it could either comfortably hold 9 across or not be wide enough for 9 across.

ZK-NBT wrote:

I think the 275 seat 789 will go to YVR first, where else makes sense? IAH?.

I think there is a new route to be announced. Read Luxon's response to one of the analysts questions earlier this week. I read him as saying that he is occupied with it.

ZK-NBT wrote:

There is another thread going on about Boeings new pricing and people saying a 78XER won't happen with the 778. Strange imo the 78XER could take some lower end 77W replacements with the 779 the higher end, and the 78XER could be a 14/15hr aircraft with the 778 being 15/19 hours. The 779 looks like it will be capable of 16+ hrs to.

if Boeing can keep the 78X within 9t of the 789 they will have a 13hr 330 seat airplane . With the first rolled out they should know where they stand on weight.

Zkpilot wrote:

[ Yes Boeing did make a stuff up with the 787. Either it should have been around 6" narrower or 6" wider so that it could either comfortably hold 9 across or not be wide enough for 9 across.

Nobody has give a reason why a carrier has not installed the Thompson "Cozy Suite" It is the answer to all this. Gasman, a pretty discerning traveler ,has pronounced the 788/789 seat width is not an issue for him when used with the 36" AA/UA seat pitch.

Have you got a link to Luxon's comments? I haven't read what he said.

ZK-NBT wrote:

I can't imagine David that they would use the 275 seat 789 to HND, just so it can connect to a South American flight.

If the plan is to connect Japan to Brazil, then my understanding is that this would be a high-premium market, and may well warrant the 275-seat 789. What's the driver, by the way, for using the 789 to YVR in place of the current 77E?

sunrisevalley wrote:

In my view it was never correct to start with.

I'm a technical dum-dum, so I tend to take the airline at face value on tech matters, because if that isn't the reason for not starting GRU - or GIG - there must have been some other.

I note that CAPA had decided before the route was announced that, on balance, EZE was the best choice, although CAPA did allude to the technical problems of the GRU return.

Maybe they were concerned - rightly - that the Brazil economy was going south, because Brazil slid into recession from which it has still not really recovered.

http://www.dw.com/en/brazils-economy-so ... v-37647345

"Brazil's economy sours Carnival

Rio is getting it's dancing shoes ready for this year's Carnival. But after years of economic crisis, revelers are pinching their pennies and putting the squeeze on local businesses."

Then again, the Argentine economy isn't exactly gangbusters. I'd also worry a wee bit about a maximum 85% load factor for the GRU return. Yes, the flight could be profitable if they filled every flight to at least 80% say, but it doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room. Emirates is making a lot of changes because their system load factor has fallen to 76%.

So really, my question remains the same: whatever their real reason was for not starting GRU - technical or something else - has that reason changed?

mariner

DavidByrne wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

I can't imagine David that they would use the 275 seat 789 to HND, just so it can connect to a South American flight.

If the plan is to connect Japan to Brazil, then my understanding is that this would be a high-premium market, and may well warrant the 275-seat 789. What's the driver, by the way, for using the 789 to YVR in place of the current 77E?

A high premium market? Maybe I guess but not to say NZ would get all the traffic. If they need more premium seats to TYO then the 77E makes more sense to me, it's a 77E to NRT now I believe mainly to give overall fleet flexibility rather than demand, they had a spare 77E after they swapped EZE to a 789, NRT goes back to a 789 for NS.

As to Brazil I agree with Mariner, I wouldn't have thought Brazil was doing that well at the moment making a long haul flight risky In the current climate.

As for YVR it has been mentioned by a few here that the flight does well in the peak periods but can struggle at times aswell, no idea how true this is. The 789 burns something like 20% less fuel than the 77E and the slightly smaller capacity could allow an increase in frequency.

Zkpilot wrote:
With the 3rd (and eventual 4th main) there won't be any capacity issues on this section for many decades. The 3rd is a foregone conclusion and while there is a bit of work needed to build it (which has already been costed at around $50m and is being built regardless of an airport line)

The 3rd main will only be from Westfield to Wiri for freight, and while this will improve flexibility for freight and some improvement for "subbies", it is not the nirvana people think it is....

tealnz wrote:

LamboAston wrote:

Disappointing that it is only one more, and not more than that. Maybe there will be another one at the end of the FY.

The 789 works well for leisure routes in Asia and it will no doubt be fine for EZE. It remains to be seen where the new 275 seater will fit into the network but it will not be the answer for US east coast, Chicago, Toronto etc. And NZ doesn't have the premium traffic to sustain yields with the sort of configuration you need for true ULH on a 789 (230 or so seats, like the new Qantas layout). When they finally bite the bullet on a 77E/77W replacement programme they will have to look at something with more versatility on ULH – which surely points to 359/35J or 77X.

But why would you fly Toronto non-stop?

Surely AKL-HNL-YYZ daily would deliver better yields than AKL-HNL 4 times weekly and AKL-YYZ 3 times weekly?

You avoid the cabotage problems that Qantas encounters on LAX-JFK and that both Qantas and Air NZ used to encounter on HNL-LAX. But you also significantly improve the business class and premium economy loads and yields on the AKL-HNL sector.

It would probably work quite well in the existing Asia configuration for the 789.

The "two sector" prohibition was a pre-Luxon edict and it has never made the slightest bit of economic sense. If it did, Singapore Airlines and Cathay Pacific would be basket cases.

But even with fuel at its current levels, I just can't see any economic benefit to operating one ULH sector over two normal ones, especially when through traffic would convert the HNL flight from a predominantly low-yield leisure sector.

It strikes me that the other potential route may be to Trump-proof NZ1/2 by extending AKL-YVR to London, possibly using the 2 leased out LHR slots from the HKG route. I don't share the widespread paranoia about POTUS, but I acknowledge that Air NZ has a huge amount of its international capacity routed to and through the USA (LAX/SFO/IAH/HNL) and the duplication of NZ1/2 by offering a Vancouver alternative might be expedient in the event of any sudden executive orders on security. We should probably be braced for the day when all AKL-LHR transit passengers at LAX have to reclaim their luggage and check back in.

Good to hear from you Koruman.

I can't see YYZ either way. Easy connection via YVR and same argument could be made for ORD but that is where NZ need to offer a point of difference to QF by having more destinations in North America to give Australians more 1 stop options. I'm not sure YYZ offers that and AC offer HNL-YYZ so that seems pretty unlikely. If NZ can get YVR to daily yearround then maybe AC could add a seasonal YVR-AKL as additional capacity codeshared with NZ.

I'm not aware of anything having changed re no more 1 stop services, I don't think we will see anymore anytime soon.

CX don't have many long haul if any tag ons bar JFK-YVR do they? They have a few in Asia.

SQ have several to reach the US due to SIN geography. And 1-2 in Europe and maybe a few in Asia, I would Hardly say they would be basket cases without them, it's just the reality of having good coverage of the US for them and trying to get some high yield traffic while doing it.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Good to hear from you Koruman.

I can't see YYZ either way. Easy connection via YVR and same argument could be made for ORD but that is where NZ need to offer a point of difference to QF by having more destinations in North America to give Australians more 1 stop options. I'm not sure YYZ offers that and AC offer HNL-YYZ so that seems pretty unlikely. If NZ can get YVR to daily yearround then maybe AC could add a seasonal YVR-AKL as additional capacity codeshared with NZ.

I'm not aware of anything having changed re no more 1 stop services, I don't think we will see anymore anytime soon.

CX don't have many long haul if any tag ons bar JFK-YVR do they? They have a few in Asia.

SQ have several to reach the US due to SIN geography. And 1-2 in Europe and maybe a few in Asia, I would Hardly say they would be basket cases without them, it's just the reality of having good coverage of the US for them and trying to get some high yield traffic while doing it.

With respect, you miss my point about 2 sector sales.

The argument against 2-sector sales is the need for 2 crews, 2 sets of fees, etc. But a huge proportion of SQ and CX's sales consist of people flying routes like London-Singapore-Sydney, which is effectively exactly the same model that Rob Fyfe demonised.

Economically, it's really not much different to a hub and spoke model - and we have all seen that the 787 and A350 failed to dent, let alone kill off, the hub-and-spoke model.

I will be very surprised if the forthcoming Qantas PER-LHR flight has superior economics to Singapore Airlines carrying passengers PER-SIN-LHR. By the same token, I see the 789 as a vehicle to allow Air New Zealand to reduce reliance on the 777-300ER across the Pacific by allowing more destinations to be served not just non-stop but 1-stop too. Qantas, Virgin Australia and Air New Zealand all leave their aircraft into LAX (and SFO in the case of NZ) gathering dust on the tarmac for hours. Could they not be profitably utilised?

I no what you are trying to say and I'm no expert but I'm not sure I agree with you.

Curious NZ carry quite a few PAX OZ-AKL-US sure there is a lot of non stop options OZ-US but what is the difference in that to SQ carrying 6th freedom traffic LHR-SIN-SYD? Other than the fact that SYD-LHR non stop is yet to be achieved and a stop is mandatory.

Surely for the likes of NZ and QF it's a yield issue as you have said in the past AKL-LHR is $2500 return AKL-LAX is $1800 return and similar for QF purely as an example SYD-LHR is $2500 and SYD-DXB is $2000 return. So twice the distance for NZ costs only an extra $700 so as you correctly say NZ sell AKL-LAX-LHR as 2 seperate sectors where they can and quite successfully. However SQ/CX/EK etc have a hub where they can funnel pax to many cities and don't have the crew costs to deal with as they have homes to live in.

QF PER-LHR will be interesting to watch and the point is partly cost cutting by cutting out the stop but also to offer a point of difference to the competition.

How many more aircraft would NZ need to extend LAX/SFO to other places, they tried it with HKG-LHR and failed, wasn't the greatest timing and yes Asia might not be as high yielding as the US but NZ do well LAX-LHR partly because they have done it for so long.

The 772/789 has allowd NZ to serve a lot of routes profitably that weren't possible with 744's.

What would HNL-YYZ offer that you can't get connecting via YVR? Surely the yield wouldn't be great and AC is a partner who fly it.

Simplistic I no.

ZK-NBT wrote:

I no what you are trying to say and I'm no expert but I'm not sure I agree with you.

Curious NZ carry quite a few PAX OZ-AKL-US sure there is a lot of non stop options OZ-US but what is the difference in that to SQ carrying 6th freedom traffic LHR-SIN-SYD? Other than the fact that SYD-LHR non stop is yet to be achieved and a stop is mandatory.

Surely for the likes of NZ and QF it's a yield issue as you have said in the past AKL-LHR is $2500 return AKL-LAX is $1800 return and similar for QF purely as an example SYD-LHR is $2500 and SYD-DXB is $2000 return. So twice the distance for NZ costs only an extra $700 so as you correctly say NZ sell AKL-LAX-LHR as 2 seperate sectors where they can and quite successfully. However SQ/CX/EK etc have a hub where they can funnel pax to many cities and don't have the crew costs to deal with as they have homes to live in.

QF PER-LHR will be interesting to watch and the point is partly cost cutting by cutting out the stop but also to offer a point of difference to the competition.

How many more aircraft would NZ need to extend LAX/SFO to other places, they tried it with HKG-LHR and failed, wasn't the greatest timing and yes Asia might not be as high yielding as the US but NZ do well LAX-LHR partly because they have done it for so long.

The 772/789 has allowd NZ to serve a lot of routes profitably that weren't possible with 744's.

What would HNL-YYZ offer that you can't get connecting via YVR? Surely the yield wouldn't be great and AC is a partner who fly it.

Simplistic I no.

Those are all good points, I freely acknowledge.

But Air NZ's antipathy to 1-stop flying is basically just a continuation of old Rob Fyfe grandstanding. Australian TV is currently full of wall-to-wall Air NZ ads for North America services - the "Better Way to Fly" campaign is their highest budget advertising in Australia since the days of Gary Toomey.

You will recall that it was a fairly close decision between HKG-LHR or SFO-LHR, and the airline simply picked the wrong route. It was a big ask to take on a dominant carrier like Cathay Pacific, and unfortunately the arrival and departure times in Hong Kong were never going to work. The problem now is that there is additional competition on both SFO-LHR and YVR-LHR which may make entry impossible now.

Nouflyer wrote:

Qantas, Virgin Australia and Air New Zealand all leave their aircraft into LAX (and SFO in the case of NZ) gathering dust on the tarmac for hours. Could they not be profitably utilised?

Note that in QFs case it's not dead time, it is scheduled maintance time, as they have a maintenance base in LAX, as a result they don't have to do it on return to Australia and so increase utilisation ex Australia. The LAX schedule. although it appears wasteful, must be the best schedule from making profit point of view as all airlines do it and QF/UA[PA] have done it for decades. If a more profitable schedule was possible you would think somebody would have done it by now.

Gemuser

sunrisevalley wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

[ Yes Boeing did make a stuff up with the 787. Either it should have been around 6" narrower or 6" wider so that it could either comfortably hold 9 across or not be wide enough for 9 across.

Nobody has give a reason why a carrier has not installed the Thompson "Cozy Suite" It is the answer to all this. Gasman, a pretty discerning traveler ,has pronounced the 788/789 seat width is not an issue for him when used with the 36" AA/UA seat pitch.

It will be down to combination of cost,certification, cleaning time would probably be longer on a turnaround and sparre parts would not be universal, Otherwise it looks a win win concept. I agree the seat would make a huge impact.as I do notice width and lack of personal spece on a 787 , although in NZ's case for not using it would be due to having invested recently in the skycouch idea which would not be compatible. Current 3-3-3 is uncomfortable, especially on a full flight and I am neither tall nor fat., I seek out non 787s in Y class if I can, even though I have flown plenty of 787s on a number of different airlines.

In the next 6 weeks I will have flown 9 different airlines on A332/A333/772/77W/A359 up to Asia and another trip to Europe, avoiding the 789 completely, I also see myself as a discerning passenger. It feels like a compromise when you fly the cramped 787 9 abreast vs opulent NH 8 abreast, which feels like an extravagance with the shoulder space with space that is the closest rival to an A380..

Gemuser wrote:

Nouflyer wrote:

Qantas, Virgin Australia and Air New Zealand all leave their aircraft into LAX (and SFO in the case of NZ) gathering dust on the tarmac for hours. Could they not be profitably utilised?

Note that in QFs case it's not dead time, it is scheduled maintance time, as they have a maintenance base in LAX, as a result they don't have to do it on return to Australia and so increase utilisation ex Australia. The LAX schedule. although it appears wasteful, must be the best schedule from making profit point of view as all airlines do it and QF/UA[PA] have done it for decades. If a more profitable schedule was possible you would think somebody would have done it by now.

Gemuser

I do agree, but that is because none of the airlines involved have particularly attempted to use the Trans-Pacific aircraft beyond LAX, which would be a huge operation.

The problem, of course, is that the East Coast is effectively a 14 hour round-trip away and the UK or western Europe are effectively a 25 hour round-trip away.

This means that it could only really be done by having staggered arrivals into LAX of several aircraft from several cities across Australia and New Zealand. Which is a huge undertaking.

Nouflyer wrote:

[You will recall that it was a fairly close decision between HKG-LHR or SFO-LHR, and the airline simply picked the wrong route. It was a big ask to take on a dominant carrier like Cathay Pacific, and unfortunately the arrival and departure times in Hong Kong were never going to work. The problem now is that there is additional competition on both SFO-LHR and YVR-LHR which may make entry impossible now.

They should have hung in with the 77E and taken three 788's as soon as they could for this route. Their capacity would have been perfect and the fuel burn savings of pushing a 118t versus a 142t plane through the air could have made the difference.

Sending 1 stop flights as NZ2 is very complex to plan a load for and restricts very much what you can and can't load where on top of the DG requirements for Load Masters to comply with. - it isn't like sending a nonstopr as described SQ do LHR-SIN-AKL which are not one flight number. More restriction reduces the cargo revenue possibilities somewhat.

I don't think SFO-LHR offering anything more to NZ that can't be achieved with a Joint venture/air share with UA. The perceived gain outweighs the actual gain. It might happen in the future, but there are certainly other priorities first. EZE daily, LIM,, daily HND, second daily SIN,HKG, HNL requency increase, year round CHC,PER without wasting 3 aircraft per rotation AKL-LHR-AKL.

Nouflyer wrote:

The "two sector" prohibition was a pre-Luxon edict and it has never made the slightest bit of economic sense.

Except that the airline has been making darned good money since it was introduced. You can argue that it could have made more money with two-sector flights, but that's a hypothetical - unprovable - in the face of the known facts.

Luxon seemed to confirm the "no two-sector flights" last week, using the Pacific Rim concept - (however loosely that's defined - LOL):

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11806065

"The Middle Eastern carriers, Emirates and in the current financial period, Qatar affect Air New Zealand at the margins for long haul operations: "Our strategy is around the Pacific Rim - you don't go to the desert to fly to the Pacific Rim region."

mariner

I also suspect that Air New Zealand's reluctant to over-extend itself, in terms of capital/aircraft. As in, it needs to plan its aircraft investment for both upswings and downswings. The three aircraft required for an additional LHR 1-stop flight may bring in good revenue during a boom, but could be a burden during downtimes. I understand that VA's somewhat overcapitalised at present.

This obviously means foregoing juicy opportunities now, in the hope of better weathering future downturns.

In a similar vein, I remember Luxton or another NZ exec commenting that there were unserved routes in China that may be profitable at present (i.e. in this stage of the business cycle), but whose ongoing profitability and yields couldn't be guaranteed to the extent required to justify the hundreds of millions of dollars of aircraft investment needed to serve the route.

mariner wrote:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11806065

"The Middle Eastern carriers, Emirates and in the current financial period, Qatar affect Air New Zealand at the margins for long haul operations: "Our strategy is around the Pacific Rim - you don't go to the desert to fly to the Pacific Rim region."

mariner

What the above quote indicated to me was basically an admission from NZ that they cannot compete on routes (apart from Trans-Tasman) where they don't enjoy actual or near exclusivity.

Gasman wrote:

What the above quote indicated to me was basically an admission from NZ that they cannot compete on routes (apart from Trans-Tasman) where they don't enjoy actual or near exclusivity.

I guess we all see things from our own agenda - LOl.

As above, I take things at face value and to me it is simply a reaffirmation of a known and established strategy.

mariner

I have asked before,but could the 789 make AKL-JNB or AKL-BOM or AKL-DEL financially viable?
As for south america in my humble opinion NZ should look at LIM. Connect with their AV hub there.
Just out of curiosity could a 778 fly AKL-FRA non stop without a significant payload hit? Like wise how far could the 789 fly west, Turkey without a payload hit?

Gasman wrote:

mariner wrote:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11806065

"The Middle Eastern carriers, Emirates and in the current financial period, Qatar affect Air New Zealand at the margins for long haul operations: "Our strategy is around the Pacific Rim - you don't go to the desert to fly to the Pacific Rim region."

mariner

What the above quote indicated to me was basically an admission from NZ that they cannot compete on routes (apart from Trans-Tasman) where they don't enjoy actual or near exclusivity.

Sorry, but all I can read into this comment is that EK and QR affect NZ "at the margins" - and that can only mean in terms of European routes and that concentration on the Pacific avoids the ME carriers. It doesn't say anything at all about other routes where they operate. At all.

And the way you say it almost sounds like it's shameful that NZ has trouble competing with some other carriers. Cost structures are a factor of where you are, how much fuel costs, how much labour costs etc etc. Some carriers have a natural advantage, others struggle on cost and have to compete on other criteria. C'est la vie - I don't know why anyone would be surprised by this at all.

aerorobnz wrote:

without wasting 3 aircraft per rotation AKL-LHR-AKL.

]

They do not have excessive turn around time at LAX and LHR. NZ5/6 could be tightened up with turn around in LAX at about noon ( to pick up some of the eastern feed) and make it back in AKL by about 2300hrs in time to do the 01.15 SIN flight.

georgiabill wrote:

I have asked before,but could the 789 make AKL-JNB or AKL-BOM or AKL-DEL financially viable?
As for south america in my humble opinion NZ should look at LIM. Connect with their AV hub there.
Just out of curiosity could a 778 fly AKL-FRA non stop without a significant payload hit? Like wise how far could the 789 fly west, Turkey without a payload hit?

AKL-FRA is something like 23hrs so that is a non starter for any current or proposed plane. AKL-JNB/DEL are both close to 16hrs with the 789 302 seat version. Right at its limit. The 275 seat version would allow some wiggle room.

DavidByrne wrote:

Sorry, but all I can read into this comment is that EK and QR affect NZ "at the margins" - and that can only mean in terms of European routes and that concentration on the Pacific avoids the ME carriers. It doesn't say anything at all about other routes where they operate. At all.

The sheer volume of Europe-bound New Zealand based pax that NZ has lost to the likes of EK, not to mention SQ, MH, QF, TG, AA, UA and now QR represents far more than a few pennies at the profit margin fringes. And that's what Luxon is conveniently glossing over with his "Pacific Rim via the desert" swagger/comment. The inconvenient truth here is that to a decent portion of pax, NZ are now struggling to compete on product, not just price. The "Pacific Rim strategy" is only that because NZ have largely been forced into it through competition they find themselves increasingly unable to match.