Stuff confirming light rail to AKL
http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/9082 ... -confirmed

LamboAston wrote:

Stuff confirming light rail to AKL
http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/9082 ... -confirmed

Great news, but in the small print, the timing is still subject to funding. This being election year, Labour have already put their cards on the table and said that they would "fast-track" it, but that's a bit meaningless unless you know what "fast track" actually means. National's Stephen Joyce (Minister of "Infrastructure", whatever that means) has pretty much nixed it altogether, and Simon Bridges, the actual Minister of Transport seems to operate pretty much in Joyce's shadow on these major issues. And the PM has warned that Auckland shouldn't expect to get this sort of infrastructure any time soon. However, that a local National List MP (albeit low-ranking) is supporting it means that the Nats are not completely united on this - I'm sure other local National MPs would support it if it could be seen as electorally advantageous. If they're allowed to, that is. Election year will be interesting for this one.

As an aside, and responding to the criticism that the route would be too "stop-start", I counted 19 stops from downtown to the airport on the map given to Auckland Councillors this week - that's fewer than one every kilometre averaged out. That's by no means excessive.

Yay looking forward to theight rail being completed before 2050

sunrisevalley wrote:

globalcabotage wrote:

ORD & DEN make sense. But ORD's O&D plus massive connections East & to Europe look solid.

DEN is TOW restricted to AKL. The 275 seat 789 would be limited to max passenger load or ~ 31t of payload, no more. ORD would be good for about 35t.

That seems a bit odd since DEN has one of the longest if not the longest runway in the US at 4.88KM. I think that should help the TOW for the 789/772 tremendously even at that altitude.

dhaliwal wrote:

That seems a bit odd since DEN has one of the longest if not the longest runway in the US at 4.88KM. I think that should help the TOW for the 789/772 tremendously even at that altitude.

Take off length for the 789 is limited by "brake energy limit" at about 4200m. The 77E payload hardly makes 20t.

axio wrote:

Experienced a missed approach into PMR today on NZ5223 - first time for me. Sadly, after some circling we then had to return to AKL. I've never found the ATR seats particularly comfortable, compared to the jet seats, but close on two and a half hours was an extraordinarily bottom-numbing experience.
Full credit to AirNZ though - when I took my phone out of flight mode I had a text indicating the flight I was rebooked onto.

What is the criteria for a missed approach for visibility? Captain mentioned the cloud level a few times, and I had the phone's GPS out on the rebooked flight's approach to PMR (NZ5215) and we cleared cloud somewhere around 1100ft.

Yes the seats are terrible. The padding around where the tailbone area is has become very worn and anything longer than an hour becomes an exercise in constant weight shifting.

I believe the vis required for the PMR approaches is around 2400m

sunrisevalley wrote:

dhaliwal wrote:

That seems a bit odd since DEN has one of the longest if not the longest runway in the US at 4.88KM. I think that should help the TOW for the 789/772 tremendously even at that altitude.

Take off length for the 789 is limited by "brake energy limit" at about 4200m. The 77E payload hardly makes 20t.

Tire speed limits also tend to be an issue as well at airports like DEN and JNB

So I was reading today that the light rail is still 30 years away... short sighted muppetry at it's best

LamboAston wrote:

Stuff confirming light rail to AKL
http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/9082 ... -confirmed

Yes so they have chosen a 2nd rate solution that will cost more than the 1st rate solution (heavy rail spur from Puhinui) and it gets even better... it won't be done for 30 years!!! Thank you very much Simon Bridges MP and Auckland Council. Completely idiotic proposal.

As has been posted elsewhere, a heavy rail spur with subsurface station at the airport will cost around $1B. Light Rail up Queen St and along Dominion Rd will also cost about $1B. Light Rail from Dominion Rd to the airport will cost about $1.4B.
So for less cost and a better solution you could have Heavy Rail into the airport and Light Rail along Dominion Rd+Queen St for around $2B. Instead they want to build a longer, slower, lower capacity, less spacious $2.4B option in 30 years!!!

Does anyone know how QR and PR are doing in AKL? Is it meeting expectations?

Kiwinlondon

Kiwinlondon wrote:

Does anyone know how QR and PR are doing in AKL? Is it meeting expectations?

Kiwinlondon

PR has been sending A321s durring the busy periods, so things must be doing ok for them todo that.

Zkpilot wrote:

LamboAston wrote:

Stuff confirming light rail to AKL
http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/9082 ... -confirmed

Yes so they have chosen a 2nd rate solution that will cost more than the 1st rate solution (heavy rail spur from Puhinui) and it gets even better... it won't be done for 30 years!!! Thank you very much Simon Bridges MP and Auckland Council. Completely idiotic proposal.

As has been posted elsewhere, a heavy rail spur with subsurface station at the airport will cost around $1B. Light Rail up Queen St and along Dominion Rd will also cost about $1B. Light Rail from Dominion Rd to the airport will cost about $1.4B.
So for less cost and a better solution you could have Heavy Rail into the airport and Light Rail along Dominion Rd+Queen St for around $2B. Instead they want to build a longer, slower, lower capacity, less spacious $2.4B option in 30 years!!!

Ho-hum. Once again, people are thinking of "Airport rail" as if it stood in complete isolation from the rest of the public transport network. It doesn't, and it never will, which is one of the main reasons why the suggested Puhinui heavy rail branch does not fly. While it MIGHT work for airport traffic, it offers nothing whatsoever to the other PT users in the city. All these options have been studied extensively by much better-informed people than A-Net armchair analysts, and there are good reasons why the "obvious" solution has not been adopted.

And when we are talking about "they" wanting to delay it 30 years, that's central government, not local government. The timing announced is a face-saving measure to get central government signed up, but (like the city rail link) the political and congestion realities will mean that it will come about a lot sooner than that in reality, of that I am sure.

DavidByrne wrote:

Ho-hum. Once again, people are thinking of "Airport rail" as if it stood in complete isolation from the rest of the public transport network. It doesn't, and it never will, which is one of the main reasons why the suggested Puhinui heavy rail branch does not fly. While it MIGHT work for airport traffic, it offers nothing whatsoever to the other PT users in the city.

Just an addendum to the above: I saw a view on another site which suggested "[the LR proposal] is the Piccadilly Line, not the Heathrow Express". Exactly my point.

ZK-OKM is due back from SIN about 0215 NZDT tomorrow as ANZ6020 after 49 days away. Assume this included scheduled maintenance and not just the refit.

PA515

A6-EDA is operating EK449 tonight which is the 2nd longest flight in the world. Wouldn't you think that one of the oldest A380s, and Emirates' oldest would struggle to have the legs to operate this flight, as it is old and would be heavier than the newer A380s? Since the A380 was introduced on this flight it has been operated by the newer A380s, nothing older than A6-EEL. I know the flight must be operated by A6-EDA because of the major delays in Dubai, as this flight arrived as EK418 from Sydney at 7:48, almost 4 hours late, and because EK448/9 has a very long layover the arriving EK448 could operate EK419. So back to my question, would A6-EDA have to have weight restrictions in order to operate this flight?

ZKOXA

DavidByrne wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

LamboAston wrote:

Stuff confirming light rail to AKL
http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/9082 ... -confirmed

Yes so they have chosen a 2nd rate solution that will cost more than the 1st rate solution (heavy rail spur from Puhinui) and it gets even better... it won't be done for 30 years!!! Thank you very much Simon Bridges MP and Auckland Council. Completely idiotic proposal.

As has been posted elsewhere, a heavy rail spur with subsurface station at the airport will cost around $1B. Light Rail up Queen St and along Dominion Rd will also cost about $1B. Light Rail from Dominion Rd to the airport will cost about $1.4B.
So for less cost and a better solution you could have Heavy Rail into the airport and Light Rail along Dominion Rd+Queen St for around $2B. Instead they want to build a longer, slower, lower capacity, less spacious $2.4B option in 30 years!!!

Ho-hum. Once again, people are thinking of "Airport rail" as if it stood in complete isolation from the rest of the public transport network. It doesn't, and it never will, which is one of the main reasons why the suggested Puhinui heavy rail branch does not fly. While it MIGHT work for airport traffic, it offers nothing whatsoever to the other PT users in the city. All these options have been studied extensively by much better-informed people than A-Net armchair analysts, and there are good reasons why the "obvious" solution has not been adopted.

And when we are talking about "they" wanting to delay it 30 years, that's central government, not local government. The timing announced is a face-saving measure to get central government signed up, but (like the city rail link) the political and congestion realities will mean that it will come about a lot sooner than that in reality, of that I am sure.

Interesting that you are on an aviation forum yet you aren't interested in what is best for passengers or people that work at the airport.
A HR link from Puhinui by itself doesn't offer much to the rest of the city (except when they want to go to the airport which on average is probably 1-2x per year - incidentally that might be the only time they use Public Transport). The great thing about HR from Puhinui however is that it is greatly cheaper than LR is from the city (or even from the end of Dominion Rd). So the costing for LR is $2.4B. For that money you can have the HR to the airport AND the Queen St+Dominion Rd LR. So in other words almost all of the benefit of the LR option (plus a few others) for much less money and with the only downside being that Mangere (which is only 5 mins away from the airport) misses out on LR. $400m goes a long way towards paying for things.
End of the day HR option can be built with next to no disruption (unlike LR), for less cost, and is the option that could be built the quickest and easiest since it is a short distance over greenfields. It happens to service the majority of airport workers (most live East or South of the airport) something that the LR option does absolutely ZERO for while being the fastest trip time option from anywhere in Auckland (with the exception of Mangere and Dominion Rd and for them they can change to HR easily at Mt Eden).

Zkpilot wrote:

Interesting that you are on an aviation forum yet you aren't interested in what is best for passengers or people that work at the airport.

I'm interested in what's best for public transport overall in Auckland, as the Airport would be just one element of a complex network. And there are many reasons (apart from spending $1 billion to add a single station to the network but which doesn't even serve the entire airport precinct) for not using Puhinui as a branching point - one of the most significant is explained here: http://humantransit.org/2011/02/basics-branching-or-how-transit-is-like-a-river.html. This shows how branch lines have a significant negative impact on the operation of the rest of a network. Note that light rail proposes three stops in the airport precinct - Ascot, Airport Business District and the Airport terminal. I'd say that was well looking after airport pax AND workers, especially when you consider the connection possibilities from along Dominion Road and from the Onehunga Line. Note also that a rapid bus connection with Puhinui and Manukau City Centre is proposed as part of the package.

I rather liked the comment made by another poster that light rail was the Piccadilly Line to heavy rail's Heathrow Express. During the many years I lived in London (and before and since then on many, many occasions) I was a regular user of the Piccadilly Line to Heathrow, and its only serious disadvantage was the lack of luggage space (which is of course remediable).

But mostly I'm rather bemused by the ability of so many posters to on the back of an envelope outsmart the technical consultants and experts who have been working on the initiative for three or four years. You guys should offer up your services!

ZKOXA wrote:

A6-EDA is operating EK449 tonight which is the 2nd longest flight in the world. Wouldn't you think that one of the oldest A380s, and Emirates' oldest would struggle to have the legs to operate this flight, as it is old and would be heavier than the newer A380s?

According to FlightAware this flight tonight, is 16hrs 15min. This is right on the max. range for a 489 seat max. passenger load for an early 569t A380. Unless it went out with all seats occupied it should be fine.

It went out at 569T so bang on MTOW. ZFW was 336T vs max of 366T so that would indicate it's not full payload-wise.

Nick

champair79 wrote:

It went out at 569T so bang on MTOW. ZFW was 336T vs max of 366T so that would indicate it's not full payload-wise.Nick

So the payload was ~ 36t or an equivalent of about 325 passengers. I wonder how much cargo was aboard?

DavidByrne wrote:

I rather liked the comment made by another poster that light rail was the Piccadilly Line to heavy rail's Heathrow Express. During the many years I lived in London (and before and since then on many, many occasions) I was a regular user of the Piccadilly Line to Heathrow, and its only serious disadvantage was the lack of luggage space (which is of course remediable).

But mostly I'm rather bemused by the ability of so many posters to on the back of an envelope outsmart the technical consultants and experts who have been working on the initiative for three or four years. You guys should offer up your services!

I'm rather liking all the comments on other sites pointing out what a looming joke it is. Nothing like a bit of confirmation bias eh?

Generally, when you get scope creep for infrastructure ("Just make it longer - two birds, one stone!"), you tend to wind up with a solution that underdelivers for both. Auckland styles!

And it's pretty easy to challenge this one given the HR business case is fully spec'd while the LR option is only partial. Another old school political trick.

I'd advocate a stand alone, dedicated monorail esque loop from Puhinui for the airport, Orly and JFK style, over LR. To get all conspiratorial, I wonder if Auckland Airport didn't force the issue to force the govt into a shemozzle of a solution that'll never be realised while coming across as the innocent party. Parking revenue secured. Not a bad strategy. Tinfoil hat...off

sunrisevalley wrote:

So the payload was ~ 36t or an equivalent of about 325 passengers. I wonder how much cargo was aboard?

My experience of these things is none if they've already had to block seats to make it work. Whether they managed to sell the reduced allocation or not I don't know.

I think EK route a lot of the cargo through the flights that stop in Australia due to the extra payload available. EK419 via SYD seems to be heavily used for this purpose plus EK have a freighter from SYD.

Nick

DavidByrne wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Interesting that you are on an aviation forum yet you aren't interested in what is best for passengers or people that work at the airport.

I rather liked the comment made by another poster that light rail was the Piccadilly Line to heavy rail's Heathrow Express. During the many years I lived in London (and before and since then on many, many occasions) I was a regular user of the Piccadilly Line to Heathrow, and its only serious disadvantage was the lack of luggage space (which is of course remediable).

But mostly I'm rather bemused by the ability of so many posters to on the back of an envelope outsmart the technical consultants and experts who have been working on the initiative for three or four years. You guys should offer up your services!

Having travelled on the Piccadilly Line to Heathrow personally more times than most I can say that it most definitely is not like LR. It is a HR train that covers a significant distance with a lot of it underground. Sure it has plenty of stops but it travels on it's own dedicated ROW. Heathrow Express on the other hand is a high speed train line non-stop while Heathrow Connect (soon to be replaced with a new HR Elizabeth Line tube) has a few stops along the way.

People call a spade a spade when they see what a joke the so-called "experts" have come up with - 30 years good one!
The HR line from Puhinui was dismissed early on and wasn't properly evaluated as a standalone spur (was part of a loop back to Onehunga).
Auckland Council/Transport and the government have a history of ineptitude when it comes to Public Transport decisions in Auckland so it of no surprise that the vast majority of people are openly mocking this pathetic "solution".

NZ-China bilateral agreement increased to 59 flights per week, will certainly help with the goal of reaching 1 million Chinese visitors within the next 5 or so years

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/9089022 ... ing-409000

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/grant-bradley ... d=11826438

It didn't take long. New Zealand-China traffic rights have increased from 49 weekly flights to 59 and will also allow Chinese airlines to operate an onward domestic sector (assuming no traffic rights). Has a foreign carrier (except Australian) ever operated a domestic sector before? Can't imagine anything other than AKL-CHC though.

It would also mean Air New Zealand now have the option to fly onward from PVG to other parts of China, I guess.

Anyone heard if there is anything planned for the 767 retirement?

xiaotung wrote:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/grant-bradley/news/article.cfm?a_id=351&objectid=11826438

It didn't take long. New Zealand-China traffic rights have increased from 49 weekly flights to 59 and will also allow Chinese airlines to operate an onward domestic sector (assuming no traffic rights). Has a foreign carrier (except Australian) ever operated a domestic sector before? Can't imagine anything other than AKL-CHC though.

It would also mean Air New Zealand now have the option to fly onward from PVG to other parts of China, I guess.

Could enable WLG to see an service via an Chinese airline via AKL or CHC.

It doesn't mean Chinese carriers will do domestic faces and certainly no traffic rights.

SQ used to do CHC-AKL vv. Not sure if anyone else has done domestic tags outside of QF.

zkncj wrote:

xiaotung wrote:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/grant-bradley/news/article.cfm?a_id=351&objectid=11826438

It didn't take long. New Zealand-China traffic rights have increased from 49 weekly flights to 59 and will also allow Chinese airlines to operate an onward domestic sector (assuming no traffic rights). Has a foreign carrier (except Australian) ever operated a domestic sector before? Can't imagine anything other than AKL-CHC though.

It would also mean Air New Zealand now have the option to fly onward from PVG to other parts of China, I guess.

Could enable WLG to see an service via an Chinese airline via AKL or CHC.

CZ has said in the past that it has been interested in WLG, what about a CAN-WLG-AKL-CAN routing, allowing them to land directly into WLG, and still be able to pick up passengers in AKL? I would imagine that this flight could replace the seasonal 2nd flight and go year round but only 2/3 weekly in the down season.

ZKOXA

CZ could do that, AKL was double daily the last couple of winters but back to 10 weekly this year, so much China capacity, it could allow AKL to be double daily year round still but with say 5 weekly WLG in summer and 3 in winter with AKL still operating on the other days. And a larger aircraft in summer on the other AKL flight to make up the capacity.

I wonder if CZ will do South America via AKL? That has been mentioned.

ZK-NBT wrote:

SQ used to do CHC-AKL vv. Not sure if anyone else has done domestic tags outside of QF.

BA also used to run CHC-AKL for the short time that they served CHC. Also TG if my memory serves me well, though that was also short-lived. Can't think of anyone who served a domestic sector through WLG.

QF DHC-8-300Q VH-SBW positioned TSV-BNE after it's repaint about 12 hours ago. Apparently it's painted all white, so that means it will only replace the five JQ aircraft while they return to TMW for maintenance and not be added to the JQ New Zealand fleet. Perhaps some 'Jetstar' decals will be applied?

PA515

KE did CHC - AKL for a while too.

Kiwinlondon

Kiwinlondon wrote:

KE did CHC - AKL for a while too.

KE used an MD11. Remember seeing one arriving from CHC bouncing and floating above the runway for some distance before finally touching down. KE used to scare me.

PA515

Speaking of KE, i thought they were sticking with the B748 on KE129/KE130 over the winter but it appears they are sending 777s again?

Yea I noticed that too its gone to a 773. It's a shame, we'll have to wait another 6 months to see the Big Jumbo again

PA515 wrote:

KE used to scare me.

Yes it was not that long ago when both Korean and China Airlines were both quite different airlines with significantly different safety records than today.

nirvarma wrote:

Speaking of KE, i thought they were sticking with the B748 on KE129/KE130 over the winter but it appears they are sending 777s again?

Was always a 777 from late March through May then 748's from June, looking at their schedules though it looks like 77W's for the whole winter

.

DavidByrne wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

SQ used to do CHC-AKL vv. Not sure if anyone else has done domestic tags outside of QF.

BA also used to run CHC-AKL for the short time that they served CHC. Also TG if my memory serves me well, though that was also short-lived. Can't think of anyone who served a domestic sector through WLG.

BA yes good point. TG never served CHC AFAIK, rumoured several times though.

PA515 wrote:

Kiwinlondon wrote:

KE did CHC - AKL for a while too.

KE used an MD11. Remember seeing one arriving from CHC bouncing and floating above the runway for some distance before finally touching down. KE used to scare me.

PA515

I remember seeing a couple of bad KE landings, oops approach to high points the nose down and and makes a hard landing almost halfway down 05R at AKL, long time ago now that was an MD11.

ZK-NBT wrote:

BA yes good point. TG never served CHC AFAIK, rumoured several times though.

I'm pretty sure they did operate 1x weekly BKK-CHC-AKL for a short period with a DC10, but it didn't last long at all. It was I think some time in the late '80s. Having said that, I'm open to correction, even though it's quite a clear memory.

DavidByrne wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

BA yes good point. TG never served CHC AFAIK, rumoured several times though.

I'm pretty sure they did operate 1x weekly BKK-CHC-AKL for a short period with a DC10, but it didn't last long at all. It was I think some time in the late '80s. Having said that, I'm open to correction, even though it's quite a clear memory.

DavidByrne, you are spot on. Started in 1989 - a weekly DC10 on that routing. It ended sometime in 1990 or 1991 at the latest.

gardermoen wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

BA yes good point. TG never served CHC AFAIK, rumoured several times though.

I'm pretty sure they did operate 1x weekly BKK-CHC-AKL for a short period with a DC10, but it didn't last long at all. It was I think some time in the late '80s. Having said that, I'm open to correction, even though it's quite a clear memory.

DavidByrne, you are spot on. Started in 1989 - a weekly DC10 on that routing. It ended sometime in 1990 or 1991 at the latest.

I never new that! Interesting.

xiaotung wrote:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/grant-bradley/news/article.cfm?a_id=351&objectid=11826438

It didn't take long. New Zealand-China traffic rights have increased from 49 weekly flights to 59 and will also allow Chinese airlines to operate an onward domestic sector (assuming no traffic rights). Has a foreign carrier (except Australian) ever operated a domestic sector before? Can't imagine anything other than AKL-CHC though.

It would also mean Air New Zealand now have the option to fly onward from PVG to other parts of China, I guess.

How about this crazy idea, ZQN widens its runway, taxiways and apron and then CZ operates CAN-ZQN-CHC-CAN with a 788. Costs aside, would this be technically possible with the appropriate upgrades? Obviously the runway cannot be extended but would its current length be sufficient for a virtually fuel empty 788 to land and then takeoff again to Christchurch? Surely a direct Chinese link into ZQN would be of some marketing advantage?

ZQN has enough to contend with, having numerous A320/737 on the ground at once, let alone a 787 added to the mix. I don't know if a 787 would be able to make the tight turns required on some of the approaches and departures (Yes, before anyone posts the Boeing test pilot aerobatic videos, I mean on a normal pax flight) The wingspan would be a big issue on the ground as well.

ZKSUJ wrote:

So I was reading today that the light rail is still 30 years away... short sighted muppetry at it's best

Typical Auckland BS. Every piece of vital infrastructure gets built 20-30 years too late.

- Western Ring Route. 30 years too late.
- City Rail Loop. 30 years too late.
- Northern Busway. 20 years too late.
- Motorway to Orewa. 20 years too late.
- Rail to North Shore. 40 years + too late and that's if they start construction tomorrow.

Heck, are there any bits of vital transportation infrastructure in Auckland that weren't built decades after they were vitally needed?

It's bloody depressing.

[quote="zkojq" [Heck, are there any bits of vital transportation infrastructure in Auckland that weren't built decades after they were vitally needed? It's bloody depressing.[/quote]

This whole issue is in the hands of the citizens of Auckland . They can make it clear to the two levels of government that they are willing for the private sector to put the infrastructure in place and to pay up for any operating revenue shortfalls. The City would have no need to borrow. Instead of serving debt it could contribute towards any operating shortfall. Each year it receives something close to $85million in dividends from the Ports and the Airport. which gives it room to make these contributions in my view.

Wellington Airport is closed at all flights have either diverted or not left. Cancellations on basically all departing flights. All due to fog.

ZKOXA

NZ447 diverted to Dunedin from Wellington

Looks like ZK-NCG may have retired already, can anyone confirm? FR24 shows it hasn't flown since Saturday's NZ126 and I'm pretty sure I saw its fin going into the hangar when out there on Sunday.
Not long left for ZK-NCI either. Going to miss the big winglets, blue fins and 2-3-2 seating. And the 767s usually photographed quite nicely.

ZKNCI wrote:

Looks like ZK-NCG may have retired already, can anyone confirm? FR24 shows it hasn't flown since Saturday's NZ126 and I'm pretty sure I saw its fin going into the hangar when out there on Sunday.
Not long left for ZK-NCI either. Going to miss the big winglets, blue fins and 2-3-2 seating. And the 767s usually photographed quite nicely.

Confirmation: http://mrcaviation.blogspot.co.nz/2017/ ... k-ncg.html
NCI's retirement flight will be NZ108 on Friday.

LamboAston wrote:

NZ447 diverted to Dunedin from Wellington

Pardon my ignorance but why not Christchurch, it is closer to WLG than DUD.

Gemuser

zkojq wrote:

ZKSUJ wrote:

So I was reading today that the light rail is still 30 years away... short sighted muppetry at it's best

Typical Auckland BS. Every piece of vital infrastructure gets built 20-30 years too late.

Heck, are there any bits of vital transportation infrastructure in Auckland that weren't built decades after they were vitally needed?

It's bloody depressing.

Pakuranga Highway. That's about it tbh