Welcome to the March 2017 edition of the New Zealand Aviation Threads. Link to the February edition viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1354861

Please note: Moderators have decided to let all country/regional aviation threads like this thread be a month long thread instead of the usual 200-250 post limit as per before, hence the February and March 2017 title

777ER/Jason
Head Forum Moderator.

From the previous thread -
I too would like to see NZ increase its South America operations.
LIM and either GRU/GIG would be great. 3x weekly to each.
This would give NZ a huge advantage in the South America market over QF and LA. People can open-jaw between them (and let's face it most FIT are seeing more than one country on a trip to South America).
NZ would get decent feed out of Australia (especially with the flexibility the multiple destinations offer) so it would also boost their Tasman ops (hopefully adding in HBA/CBA/NTL), not too mention connecting Asia with South America. If this all works out then they could even look at competing to SCL further down the road.
I still don't think NZ is ready to launch EWR flights (too far) but do expect either DEN/ORD or possibly LAS/SEA but far less likely. Yes DEN is a high altitude airport however it has huge runways and if the departure can be timed to not be a a hot part of the day in summer then shouldn't be an issue.

Zkpilot wrote:

From the previous thread -
I too would like to see NZ increase its South America operations.
LIM and either GRU/GIG would be great. 3x weekly to each.
This would give NZ a huge advantage in the South America market over QF and LA. People can open-jaw between them (and let's face it most FIT are seeing more than one country on a trip to South America).
NZ would get decent feed out of Australia (especially with the flexibility the multiple destinations offer) so it would also boost their Tasman ops (hopefully adding in HBA/CBA/NTL), not too mention connecting Asia with South America. If this all works out then they could even look at competing to SCL further down the road.
I still don't think NZ is ready to launch EWR flights (too far) but do expect either DEN/ORD or possibly LAS/SEA but far less likely. Yes DEN is a high altitude airport however it has huge runways and if the departure can be timed to not be a a hot part of the day in summer then shouldn't be an issue.

All of the above is practical, and surely on the airline's radar, but it's really a matter of timing . . .

From a selfish perspective, I would love to see

* the 36" Y+ as well (a few weeks ago I flew UA AKL-SFO, and it was great - in addition they still have 9 abreast on the 777, but that is changing I believe).
* DEN or LIM

We can dream!
Cheers
micha

SEA is north and not a Star hub (plus that Vancouver thing close by).

LAS, not sure what this offers except leisure traffic.

DEN, what does this provide that IAH doesn't?

ORD, seems logical for NE/Canada/Europe connections and ORD-OZ (but would cannibalize UA feed out West).

EWR, big O&D, but far and thin.

IAD, probably not in the cards.

ATL/BOS/DTW/MIA: You know NZ could fill 10 380s a day there just on F/J O&D, but not likely.

I have my first CS100 flight in a month on LX, and I believe it would actually be a good fit for NZ too
a) compliment domestic network on certain routes which warrant more than ATR, a return to old 732 markets.
b) compliment trans tasman and pacific secondary markets like AKL-HBA/NTL/TSVCBR/ADL, and AKL-IUE/NOU/TBU/PPT increased frequency, and also for non AKL domestic markets like WLG/CHC-NAN
c) even if you use the LCY restrictions for the type based on short runway etc you still have 2350nm which could take care of the all current markets in south pacific plus VLI/HIR. Without the restriction it is capable of 3100nm which at least distancewise could reach DRW/POM. Not saying those last two would be practical but it shows just what you could do
d)The 3-2 config will be popular.
e) it is bulk loaded so can be handled by stations with only belt loaders

aerorobnz wrote:

I have my first CS100 flight in a month on LX, and I believe it would actually be a good fit for NZ too
a) compliment domestic network on certain routes which warrant more than ATR, a return to old 732 markets.
b) compliment trans tasman and pacific secondary markets like AKL-HBA/NTL/TSVCBR/ADL, and AKL-IUE/NOU/TBU/PPT increased frequency, and also for non AKL domestic markets like WLG/CHC-NAN
c) even if you use the LCY restrictions for the type based on short runway etc you still have 2350nm which could take care of the all current markets in south pacific plus VLI/HIR. Without the restriction it is capable of 3100nm which at least distancewise could reach DRW/POM. Not saying those last two would be practical but it shows just what you could do
d)The 3-2 config will be popular.
e) it is bulk loaded so can be handled by stations with only belt loaders

The only question is whether NZ will have the sense to order it. It would satisfy those anti-ATR people at Stuff as well (but they will find something else to complain about).

CX officially release HKG - CHC starting in Dec, and they have also applied for their deal with NZ to be extended until 2022! so guess they won't be returning that Night slot at LHR now..

https://www.cathaypacific.com/cx/en_HK/ ... nd-nz.html

"Cathay Pacific and Air New Zealand will also extend their strategic alliance partnership on services between Hong Kong and New Zealand for a further five years until 2022, subject to continuing regulatory approvals.

“We are pleased to extend our alliance with Air New Zealand, which has allowed our two airlines to maximise synergies and better meet our customers’ needs,” Mr Loo added.
Air New Zealand Chief Strategy, Networks and Alliances Officer Stephen Jones welcomed the extension of the alliance."

NZ were never going to add another flight to LHR IMO with or without CX.

As for South America I can't see anymore until EZE is daily. Brazil hasn't been doing well lately, it would seem an odd time to go there.

More destinations in OZ make sense to me to feed existing and any new North South America.

globalcabotage wrote:

SEA is north and not a Star hub (plus that Vancouver thing close by).

LAS, not sure what this offers except leisure traffic.

DEN, what does this provide that IAH doesn't?

ORD, seems logical for NE/Canada/Europe connections and ORD-OZ (but would cannibalize UA feed out West).

EWR, big O&D, but far and thin.

IAD, probably not in the cards.

ATL/BOS/DTW/MIA: You know NZ could fill 10 380s a day there just on F/J O&D, but not likely.

DEN is in the geographical centre of the US.
It is the 6th busiest airport in the world (but due to having 6 huge runways doesn't have a capacity problem).
It is a big UA hub.
It would cater to the large (and growing) skier market in winter and the national parks/cycling and just general travel in summer.
From DEN there isn't any backtracking from anywhere North/East vs ORD which while a good option does involve a backtrack from anywhere South or Southeast.
DEN has a lot of connections to smaller cities that don't have direct flights to LAX/SFO/IAH.

globalcabotage wrote:

SEA is north and not a Star hub (plus that Vancouver thing close by).

LAS, not sure what this offers except leisure traffic.

DEN, what does this provide that IAH doesn't?

ORD, seems logical for NE/Canada/Europe connections and ORD-OZ (but would cannibalize UA feed out West).

EWR, big O&D, but far and thin.

IAD, probably not in the cards.

ATL/BOS/DTW/MIA: You know NZ could fill 10 380s a day there just on F/J O&D, but not likely.

What does it matter whether destinations are Star Alliance hubs?

Qantas 787-9 aircraft are going to be delivered with fewer Economy seats than an Air NZ A320.

The only issue is whether Seattle, Portland and San Diego can sell 200 daily 1-stop fares to all of Australia and New Zealand, including around 20 Business Class fares and 20 Premium Economy ones.

Zkpilot wrote:

DEN is in the geographical centre of the US.
It is the 6th busiest airport in the world (but due to having 6 huge runways doesn't have a capacity problem).
It is a big UA hub.
It would cater to the large (and growing) skier market in winter and the national parks/cycling and just general travel in summer.
From DEN there isn't any backtracking from anywhere North/East vs ORD which while a good option does involve a backtrack from anywhere South or Southeast.
DEN has a lot of connections to smaller cities that don't have direct flights to LAX/SFO/IAH.

I would add that it has a strong, vibrant economy:

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2017/02/28/c ... ld-report/

"Report Lists Colorado No. 1 In U.S. For Economy

Colorado’s low unemployment and job growth helps it make the grade, according to Lt. Gov. Donna Lynne.

And stress - again - that Colorado is one of the world's great winter sports/skiing destinations, with Aspen as the glitzy heart of it all.

mariner

Zkpilot wrote:

Yes DEN is a high altitude airport however it has huge runways and if the departure can be timed to not be a a hot part of the day in summer then shouldn't be an issue.

The 789 is limited to ~235t TOW out of DEN. This allows ~ 31t of payload. The 275 seat version would be marginal on a typical day.

[quote="globalcabotage"]EWR, big O&D, but far and thin.[quote]

Also is horrible for customs and immigration. 2-hrs is normal I'm told , even for a Porter Q400 from YTO.

sunrisevalley wrote:

The 789 is limited to ~235t TOW out of DEN. This allows ~ 31t of payload. The 275 seat version would be marginal on a typical day.

How much extra endurance would the Air NZ 275 seat 789 have over their 302 seat 789. Would this be sufficient for GIG-AKL?
EZE-AKL is 13hr 16m with the 302 seat version, and GIG-AKL would be about 15hr 30m.

PA515

[quote="sunrisevalley"][quote="globalcabotage"]EWR, big O&D, but far and thin.[quote]

Sorry - misunderstood original post.

mariner

PA515 wrote:

sunrisevalley wrote:

The 789 is limited to ~235t TOW out of DEN. This allows ~ 31t of payload. The 275 seat version would be marginal on a typical day.

How much extra endurance would the Air NZ 275 seat 789 have over their 302 seat 789. Would this be sufficient for GIG-AKL?
EZE-AKL is 13hr 16m with the 302 seat version, and GIG-AKL would be about 15hr 30m.
PA515

I'm not at all convinced of GIG as a destination - my understanding is that that it would be almost entirely leisure pax, and therefore extremely difficult to make money for an ULH flight. On the other hand, Sao Paulo is the business heart of Brazil, as well as being (by far) its largest city (12m compared with Rio's 6m). If you look at urban areas, Sao Paulo is even bigger - 21m compared with Rio's 12m. I really don't see NZ serving Rio in the short or medium term, if at all.

The airline has indeed stated (a couple of years ago) that they had looked closely at GRU, but that it didn't work for them. What they didn't say was what the factors were that led them to reach this decision. Was it that they didn't have a config that suited GRU? Was it that at the time of the EZE launch they were unwilling to take the 789 on such a long EROPS flight pending more in-house experience with the aircraft, and would have had to use the 77W (remember, EZE started with the 77E, not the 789)? Was it an assessment of the future prospects of the Brazilian economy? Or was it simply a calculation based on payload, range, headwinds and alternates?

The discussion on A-net over the intervening period seems to primarily focus in on the payload/range/headwinds and alternates issue, and although this is undoubtedly a factor for such an ULH flight, it may not be a compelling argument against GRU in and of itself. And the factors which led NZ to avoid GRU in the first instance may no longer be so critical now (given we don't know what those factors were).

I'd be interested in the answer to the question posed by PA515 above - but in the context of GRU, an airport at 2,500 feet asl, and with an expected block time of 15h 40m (IIRC from an earlier post), using the normal alternates and reserves (as for EZE). Could the 789 uplift a decent enough amount of pax from GRU with the 275-seat config to make the flight viable? If not, how many pax or tonnes of cargo would they have to leave behind?

Maybe someone who knows how to work these calcs can offer a response. Then at least we'll know, if the carrier still considers the flight is not viable, whether that's for reasons of payload/range/headwinds and alternates, or whether there are other factors that are in the way.

I would say NZ has learnt from China (PVG & BJS) and will look to establish EZE daily before growing into other ports.

NZ has options on 6 more 787's which I understand they will be taking up at some point so was interested to hear of this lease a few weeks ago. Will it be to grow a new port or add frequency onto others? I just said to support growth. That can be either.

Looking at the 772 I'm wondering what NZ will do, they're around for the next 3-4 years minimum after a refurbishment in 2015-2016.

First question is will NZ want to drop the cargo capacity and passenger capacity and simply grow the 787-9 fleet in either configuration for fleet simplification reasons? Considering the 772 flies on routes with strong premium demand as well as high Y class demand. I find this option hard to digest.

Will they look at the 787-10 which in my mind won't have the legs NZ needs on some routes.

Finally will they go with a mixed approach, grow the 787-9 fleet with another 3-4 frames and look to replace the 7 77W's and say 5 772's with the new 77X in around 2022?

The alternative option is to go with a single fleet or 787-9 and grow frequency on all long haul routes.

North America Example
2 X daily AKL-LAX (1 X LAX-LHR)
2 X daily AKL-SFO
2 X daily AKL-IAH
1 X daily AKL-ORD
1 X daily AKL-YVR

PA515 wrote:

[How much extra endurance would the Air NZ 275 seat 789 have over their 302 seat 789. Would this be sufficient for GIG-AKL?
EZE-AKL is 13hr 16m with the 302 seat version, and GIG-AKL would be about 15hr 30m.PA515

First, the 275 seater will have ~ 40min /335nm more range than the 302-seater at max passenger load and this sector time. The payload would be respectively 30.8 and 33.8t. Certainly this is a useful cushion. The 789 runway distance chart suggest that there would be no TOW loss for the 2550' elevation of GRU. This would assume a late night takeoff when the highest annual mid-point temperature at GRU is ~25C.

[quote="NZ6"]Will they look at the 787-10 which in my mind won't have the legs NZ needs on some routes.[quote]

It will be great into Asia . Should be good for ~42t payload over 12-hrs. I don't think YVR needs the seats and IAH is probably out of range. SFO/LAX would work but with limited cargo capability. Would need a 789 to pick up the cargo capacity shortfall into/out of LAX. Replace 77E's with 78X's , put them on the Asia sectors and convert some of the present 789's to 275 seats for North America routes.

DavidByrne wrote:

[Maybe someone who knows how to work these calcs can offer a response. Then at least we'll know, if the carrier still considers the flight is not viable, whether that's for reasons of payload/range/headwinds and alternates, or whether there are other factors that are in the way.

Things that come to mind are that the 77E with 313 seats doesn't have the legs. The 77E load range chart suggests this at the weights per passenger +bags that NZ uses which I believe are considerably more than the IATA standard of ~96kg.

EWR-HKG is about the same 15.30m but UA do it with ~270 seats but I don't know what passenger weight + bags they use . The EDTO part of AKL-GRU is the same as AKL-EZE , that is CHC-USH, so no EDTO implications .Perhaps feeds from GIG/GRU -EZE made more sense than the other way around.

NZ6 wrote:

Looking at the 772 I'm wondering what NZ will do, they're around for the next 3-4 years minimum after a refurbishment in 2015-2016.
First question is will NZ want to drop the cargo capacity and passenger capacity and simply grow the 787-9 fleet in either configuration for fleet simplification reasons? Considering the 772 flies on routes with strong premium demand as well as high Y class demand. I find this option hard to digest.
Will they look at the 787-10 which in my mind won't have the legs NZ needs on some routes.
Finally will they go with a mixed approach, grow the 787-9 fleet with another 3-4 frames and look to replace the 7 77W's and say 5 772's with the new 77X in around 2022?
The alternative option is to go with a single fleet or 787-9 and grow frequency on all long haul routes.

Good questions. The first one pretty much answers itself: NZ is still basically a leisure airline. It runs a higher density cabin than the likes of QF. The airline is in growth mode and the attractive growth opportunities are in the Americas. Plus there's a trend toward longer non-stop routes – NZ has to be looking at DEN/ORD/EWR/JFK. The 789 won't give you both the range and the payload – it's up against hard limits on MTOW and tankage – and we've seen no hint that NZ could make a 789 work with 230 seats. And if the 789 is not the answer then the -10 is even less of a contender. So we have to be looking at a new widebody type sooner or later - either 359/35K or 77X.

sunrisevalley wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Will they look at the 787-10 which in my mind won't have the legs NZ needs on some routes.

It will be great into Asia . Should be good for ~42t payload over 12-hrs. I don't think YVR needs the seats and IAH is probably out of range. SFO/LAX would work but with limited cargo capability. Would need a 789 to pick up the cargo capacity shortfall into/out of LAX. Replace 77E's with 78X's , put them on the Asia sectors and convert some of the present 789's to 275 seats for North America routes.

But the -9 has been purchased solely for Asia so why buy the -10 now?

tealnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Looking at the 772 I'm wondering what NZ will do, they're around for the next 3-4 years minimum after a refurbishment in 2015-2016.
First question is will NZ want to drop the cargo capacity and passenger capacity and simply grow the 787-9 fleet in either configuration for fleet simplification reasons? Considering the 772 flies on routes with strong premium demand as well as high Y class demand. I find this option hard to digest.
Will they look at the 787-10 which in my mind won't have the legs NZ needs on some routes.
Finally will they go with a mixed approach, grow the 787-9 fleet with another 3-4 frames and look to replace the 7 77W's and say 5 772's with the new 77X in around 2022?
The alternative option is to go with a single fleet or 787-9 and grow frequency on all long haul routes.

Good questions. The first one pretty much answers itself: NZ is still basically a leisure airline. It runs a higher density cabin than the likes of QF. The airline is in growth mode and the attractive growth opportunities are in the Americas. Plus there's a trend toward longer non-stop routes – NZ has to be looking at DEN/ORD/EWR/JFK. The 789 won't give you both the range and the payload – it's up against hard limits on MTOW and tankage – and we've seen no hint that NZ could make a 789 work with 230 seats. And if the 789 is not the answer then the -10 is even less of a contender. So we have to be looking at a new widebody type sooner or later - either 359/35K or 77X.

Or NZ will drag out the 772 for another 15 years making them the new 767

DavidByrne wrote:

PA515 wrote:

sunrisevalley wrote:

The 789 is limited to ~235t TOW out of DEN. This allows ~ 31t of payload. The 275 seat version would be marginal on a typical day.

How much extra endurance would the Air NZ 275 seat 789 have over their 302 seat 789. Would this be sufficient for GIG-AKL?
EZE-AKL is 13hr 16m with the 302 seat version, and GIG-AKL would be about 15hr 30m.
PA515

I'm not at all convinced of GIG as a destination - my understanding is that that it would be almost entirely leisure pax, and therefore extremely difficult to make money for an ULH flight. On the other hand, Sao Paulo is the business heart of Brazil, as well as being (by far) its largest city (12m compared with Rio's 6m). If you look at urban areas, Sao Paulo is even bigger - 21m compared with Rio's 12m. I really don't see NZ serving Rio in the short or medium term, if at all.

The airline has indeed stated (a couple of years ago) that they had looked closely at GRU, but that it didn't work for them. What they didn't say was what the factors were that led them to reach this decision. Was it that they didn't have a config that suited GRU? Was it that at the time of the EZE launch they were unwilling to take the 789 on such a long EROPS flight pending more in-house experience with the aircraft, and would have had to use the 77W (remember, EZE started with the 77E, not the 789)? Was it an assessment of the future prospects of the Brazilian economy? Or was it simply a calculation based on payload, range, headwinds and alternates?

The discussion on A-net over the intervening period seems to primarily focus in on the payload/range/headwinds and alternates issue, and although this is undoubtedly a factor for such an ULH flight, it may not be a compelling argument against GRU in and of itself. And the factors which led NZ to avoid GRU in the first instance may no longer be so critical now (given we don't know what those factors were).

I'd be interested in the answer to the question posed by PA515 above - but in the context of GRU, an airport at 2,500 feet asl, and with an expected block time of 15h 40m (IIRC from an earlier post), using the normal alternates and reserves (as for EZE). Could the 789 uplift a decent enough amount of pax from GRU with the 275-seat config to make the flight viable? If not, how many pax or tonnes of cargo would they have to leave behind?

Maybe someone who knows how to work these calcs can offer a response. Then at least we'll know, if the carrier still considers the flight is not viable, whether that's for reasons of payload/range/headwinds and alternates, or whether there are other factors that are in the way.

All your arguments against Rio in terms of business volumes basically weigh twice as strongly against Buenos Aires, but at least Rio would have at least five times the tourist demand that Buenos Aires ever could.

I think it's the wrong time for South America, and that Buenos Aires basically got the go ahead because a bunch of overgrown rugby-playing schoolboys had heard of it.

It's the equivalent of Air NZ opening a Cape Town route because people have watched rugby and cricket from Newlands, even though it's on the wrong side of the continent. Buenos Aires and Cape Town are even both Atlantic seaboard cities, and in both only a tiny proportion of the population follows rugby rather than football!

Nouflyer wrote:

I think it's the wrong time for South America, and that Buenos Aires basically got the go ahead because a bunch of overgrown rugby-playing schoolboys had heard of it.

How damned impudent of the airline therefore to be actually making a profit on EZE.

NZ6 wrote:

But the -9 has been purchased solely for Asia so why buy the -10 now?

The 275 seat version was not. Will NZ look to increase 789 frequency to Asia ? To do this they will need to use the 77E or cut back on 789 services into the Pacific and to PER.

NZ are now attempting to copy QF with a rainbow flag behind their koru on the youtube logo. Not sure that this is as strong a message as VH-QPJ.

LamboAston wrote:

NZ are now attempting to copy QF with a rainbow flag behind their koru on the youtube logo. Not sure that this is as strong a message as VH-QPJ.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I didn't think it was an attempt to copy Qantas, I thought it was a simple, if muted, gesture.

Australia doesn't have marriage equality yet, so the Qantas message has more impact and may be more controversial - an Australian Senator has objected to the rainbow flag being flown on a government building, for example.

That's all done and dusted in NZ and has been for some time and I think the Youtube Air NZ logo reflects that.

mariner

All the ATR72-500s seem to be based in AKL now

Something seems to be up with NZ domestic ops lately. I've done 6 trips in the past 2 weeks and all of them were late into and out of Auckland. Not just 10 minutes or so, but 30 minutes plus. 458 from Wellington today for example, which arrived late from Auckland and was 45 minutes late leaving Wellington - such that 3 flights from Wellington arrived within 20 minutes. Are there issues with the current schedule? Aircraft out of ops so they are running things tighter than normal?

NZ321 wrote:

Something seems to be up with NZ domestic ops lately. I've done 6 trips in the past 2 weeks and all of them were late into and out of Auckland. Not just 10 minutes or so, but 30 minutes plus. 458 from Wellington today for example, which arrived late from Auckland and was 45 minutes late leaving Wellington - such that 3 flights from Wellington arrived within 20 minutes. Are there issues with the current schedule? Aircraft out of ops so they are running things tighter than normal?

AKL is becoming an an major system breaking point at peak-times which as knock on effects.

I've lived in Glenfield off the approach end of the "unused" runway at Whenuapai for a few months now. Heard a jet aircraft and for decided to have a look (get a lot of AKL traffic so sometimes I look, sometimes I don't bother). Stepped outside and just about fell over as a 757 in landing config passed overhead.

I kinda got sick of the noise when I lived in Manurewa, but I sure wouldn't complain about more sights like that. I like being able to sit on the back deck drinking beer and watching C-130s doing circuits, Orions landing, and oddly regular C-17s.

coolian2 wrote:

., and oddly regular C-17s.

Whose?

sunrisevalley wrote:

coolian2 wrote:

., and oddly regular C-17s.

Whose?

Not quite close enough to see that I'm afraid.

sunrisevalley wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

But the -9 has been purchased solely for Asia so why buy the -10 now?

The 275 seat version was not. Will NZ look to increase 789 frequency to Asia ? To do this they will need to use the 77E or cut back on 789 services into the Pacific and to PER.

Yes I would say they will look to add more 789 flights to Asia which will likely as you say involve moving the fleet around.

PER being a shorter route I could see getting the 77E if they can fill the extra Premium seats, NRT already has the 77E for the summer due a lack of 789's, current 789 schedule is CHC-PER 2 weekly seasonal, then from AKL,

PER 10 weekly daily in NS
PVG 10 weekly daily in NS
SIN Daily
HNL 4 weekly increases to 5/6 in peak winter
EZE 3 weekly 4 weekly in NW peak
NRT 3 weekly daily in NW plus HND 3 weekly from August
KIX 3 weekly NW seasonal
DPS 2 weekly May-October
SGN 2 weekly May October

People say the 78X would be good to Asia which it would but NZ are looking to add flights to PVG/HKG/TYO etc with extra frequencies timed to connect with EZE and also as demand grows which is why I see them staying with the 789 to Asia. The 78X IMO will be brought if it can do LAX/SFO with a good load. I've said that 30 times now though.

NZ6 wrote:

NZ has options on 6 more 787's which I understand they will be taking up at some point so was interested to hear of this lease a few weeks ago. Will it be to grow a new port or add frequency onto others? I just said to support growth. That can be either.

As you say the ALC lease was a surprise as they still had six 789 options in Dec 2014 when the last two 789s were ordered. The options must be for after 2018 and it was not possible to bring them forward.

In the 2017 Interim Analyst Call transcript Rob McDonald made this comment about future aircraft orders:

There are a couple features in the labour cost. One is the 76s are going out, so thats a good opportunity for us in respect of a fleet type moving out. That'll occur this half, so we'll .... as we look forward into subsequent years, we really become quite efficient at gathering or growing capacity because we're just going to be adding 320s or 787s for the forseeable future.

And:

We also aquired two Airbus A320 Tasman aircraft that were previously on operating lease.

Wondered if these might be the two 'Zeal 320 Ltd' aircraft, ZK-OJI and ZK-OJM.

PA515

PA515 wrote:

As you say the ALC lease was a surprise as they still had six 789 options in Dec 2014 when the last two 789s were ordered. The options must be for after 2018 and it was not possible to bring them forward..

Does this suggest they might start firming the options for second half 2020 ( FY 2021) ?

In the 2017 Interim Analyst Call transcript Rob McDonald made this comment about future aircraft orders:

There are a couple features in the labour cost. One is the 76s are going out, so thats a good opportunity for us in respect of a fleet type moving out. That'll occur this half, so we'll .... as we look forward into subsequent years, we really become quite efficient at gathering or growing capacity because we're just going to be adding 320s or 787s for the forseeable future.

Adding doesn't mean not ordering new types . Also it suggests no additional 77W's.

sunrisevalley wrote:

Does this suggest they might start firming the options for second half 2020 ( FY 2021) ?

Possibly from the second half of 2019. The repainting of the other five 77Es would be a clue about Air NZ's intentions.

sunrisevalley wrote:

Adding doesn't mean not ordering new types .

Don't know. I guess if a new type was ordered it would not be delivered in "the forseeable future".

PA515

PA515 wrote:

Wondered if these might be the two 'Zeal 320 Ltd' aircraft, ZK-OJI and ZK-OJM.

PA515

The purchased A320s are in addition to the two regional frames you mention. I'm not sure on which tails they are though. As an aside, the subsidiary company that was Zeal was wrapped up into 'Air New Zealand Associated Companies LTD' several years ago.

PA515 wrote:

Possibly from the second half of 2019. The repainting of the other five 77Es would be a clue about Air NZ's intentions.

The decision to refit the 300s this year meant there was no spare capacity to release 200s for painting. They are meant to resume painting next year. Various documents and presentations to investors (even as recently as last week!) show all 772 in the fleet until 2022 at the earliest. A specific topic of discussion in one investor presentation was an easing up on the outlay of capital on new frames for a while. I would trust then the guidance of the company (at present) that they're all around another half decade plus.

sunrisevalley wrote:

PA515 wrote:

As you say the ALC lease was a surprise as they still had six 789 options in Dec 2014 when the last two 789s were ordered. The options must be for after 2018 and it was not possible to bring them forward..

Does this suggest they might start firming the options for second half 2020 ( FY 2021) ?

In the 2017 Interim Analyst Call transcript Rob McDonald made this comment about future aircraft orders:

There are a couple features in the labour cost. One is the 76s are going out, so thats a good opportunity for us in respect of a fleet type moving out. That'll occur this half, so we'll .... as we look forward into subsequent years, we really become quite efficient at gathering or growing capacity because we're just going to be adding 320s or 787s for the forseeable future.

Adding doesn't mean not ordering new types . Also it suggests no additional 77W's.

To me it suggests, once the 777's are gone NZ's fleet for the next 25 odd years will be

A320/A321 (Short Haul)
787 (Long Haul)

I still don't believe the 787 will be capable of replacing the 77W on NZ1/2 NZ7/8 etc but perhaps they'll go for yield over capacity. That just invites foreign carriers in to compete though. I still think we'll see

A320/A321 (15+ should Haul)
787-9 (22+ for long Haul)
787-X or 777-X (7-8 for Premier Routes)

Any updates on the reconfiguration of the 777-319ERs?

Qantas59 wrote:

Any updates on the reconfiguration of the 777-319ERs?

p

The first aircraft ZK-OKM is in SIN now should be back in a few weeks.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Qantas59 wrote:

Any updates on the reconfiguration of the 777-319ERs?

p

The first aircraft ZK-OKM is in SIN now should be back in a few weeks.

This is to get the upgraded / refreshed J seats and the 787-style W seats?

77west wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Qantas59 wrote:

Any updates on the reconfiguration of the 777-319ERs?

p

The first aircraft ZK-OKM is in SIN now should be back in a few weeks.

This is to get the upgraded / refreshed J seats and the 787-style W seats?

Correct, I think Y gets a refresh aswell, no?

PA515 wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

NZ has options on 6 more 787's which I understand they will be taking up at some point so was interested to hear of this lease a few weeks ago. Will it be to grow a new port or add frequency onto others? I just said to support growth. That can be either.

As you say the ALC lease was a surprise as they still had six 789 options in Dec 2014 when the last two 789s were ordered. The options must be for after 2018 and it was not possible to bring them forward.

And:

We also aquired two Airbus A320 Tasman aircraft that were previously on operating lease.

Wondered if these might be the two 'Zeal 320 Ltd' aircraft, ZK-OJI and ZK-OJM.

PA515[/quote]
I would say that NZ is preserving its super cheap 789 options and probably got a good deal on this one leased aircraft. It also helps to keep a bit of powder (cash) dry since leading does have some cash flow benefits (and tax benefits).

Zkpilot wrote:

I would say that NZ is preserving its super cheap 789 options and probably got a good deal on this one leased aircraft. It also helps to keep a bit of powder (cash) dry since leading does have some cash flow benefits (and tax benefits).

If I understand correctly, NZ will have 13 789's plus 6 options as at the end of CY2018. About 3 yrs go there was a thread that suggested they might have a further 6 positions. Was that ever clarified? All things being equal they appear to plan to convert the options before they expire. Do we know when that is?

Nouflyer wrote:

All your arguments against Rio in terms of business volumes basically weigh twice as strongly against Buenos Aires, but at least Rio would have at least five times the tourist demand that Buenos Aires ever could.

I think it's the wrong time for South America, and that Buenos Aires basically got the go ahead because a bunch of overgrown rugby-playing schoolboys had heard of it.

It's the equivalent of Air NZ opening a Cape Town route because people have watched rugby and cricket from Newlands, even though it's on the wrong side of the continent. Buenos Aires and Cape Town are even both Atlantic seaboard cities, and in both only a tiny proportion of the population follows rugby rather than football!

Really Koruman? You need to update your information. Have you not heard about the economic downturn and political disasters around Brazil? Besides Buenos Aires provides the best jumping off point to GIG and GRU for NZ'ers. Also, the new Argentine government is setting up a much more stable and attractive commercial environment for foreign companies to operate in.

And as for your claim about the attraction of Rio's tourism market... well BA is and has been for sometime, the most attractive and visited city on the continent...

http://gosouthamerica.about.com/od/countriesandterritories/tp/Popularcities.--j_.htm

and

https://www.bbva.com/en/news/social-affairs/people/what-is-south-americas-most-popular-tourist-destination/

What has happened to NZ1?

NZ321 wrote:

What has happened to NZ1?

The flight or the user?

The flight is showing South-east of Hawaii having left KLAX with a 35 minute delay: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/id/A ... rline-0310

The user is showing as last active one month ago: memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=14815

V/F