Air Chathams intend to operate the CV580 for the next 4-5 years, so no ex Air NZ ATR 72-500s which will be gone in three years.

We purchased ZK-KFL last year to fill the gap while ZK-CIB was out of action

We were able to purchase the remaining three CV580's (ZK-FTA, KFH and KFJ) from Freightways at a fair price, and they will be flown to AKL in time to be primarily parted out. This will see us through the next 4-5 years CV580 operations until we have a replacement machine identified and resourced

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

PA515

Since it doesn't seem to have been mentioned, Pullman AKL Airport announced for late 2019 opening to meet growing demand (the 2 other on site airport hotels operating at close to 90% occupancy), will be situated next door to current Novotel with the 2 to be separated by a plaza

NPL8800 wrote:

Since it doesn't seem to have been mentioned, Pullman AKL Airport announced for late 2019 opening to meet growing demand (the 2 other on site airport hotels operating at close to 90% occupancy), will be situated next door to current Novotel with the 2 to be separated by a plaza

Well that is one piece of airport infrastructure that is sorely needed.
The 3 other priorities (or they should be) would be to build another 2-4 gates (rather than just the 2 they have started), construction of the new domestic terminal and the construction of the 2nd runway.

My understanding is that the current plan is that the 2nd runway will actually become the main runway for international flights while the existing runway will be used for domestic flights (since most domestic flights are to the South while most international flights are to the the North). The new domestic terminal will now be located between the current international and the existing domestic terminal rather than to the North of the existing international terminal as was originally planned. That all makes sense - they just need to get on with building it!

Zkpilot wrote:

My understanding is that the current plan is that the 2nd runway will actually become the main runway for international flights while the existing runway will be used for domestic flights (since most domestic flights are to the South while most international flights are to the the North). The new domestic terminal will now be located between the current international and the existing domestic terminal rather than to the North of the existing international terminal as was originally planned. That all makes sense - they just need to get on with building it!

This will mean that the second runway will be longer than need be if it's primary function was for landings . But as you describe it , takeoff traffic flows will not cross each other.

Zkpilot wrote:

NPL8800 wrote:

Since it doesn't seem to have been mentioned, Pullman AKL Airport announced for late 2019 opening to meet growing demand (the 2 other on site airport hotels operating at close to 90% occupancy), will be situated next door to current Novotel with the 2 to be separated by a plaza

Well that is one piece of airport infrastructure that is sorely needed.
The 3 other priorities (or they should be) would be to build another 2-4 gates (rather than just the 2 they have started), construction of the new domestic terminal and the construction of the 2nd runway.

My understanding is that the current plan is that the 2nd runway will actually become the main runway for international flights while the existing runway will be used for domestic flights (since most domestic flights are to the South while most international flights are to the the North). The new domestic terminal will now be located between the current international and the existing domestic terminal rather than to the North of the existing international terminal as was originally planned. That all makes sense - they just need to get on with building it!

Lead roles for the integrated terminals and runway project have started being advertised on Seek so I'd imagine an announcement will be likely before the end of this year if not sooner

I just saw this thread and found a few of my old flights (before I recorded registrations, i.e. pre-2001):

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1357117

Is there a website that has archives of flights in this region (NZ, AN, QF, SJ...)? That would be great. I'd love to track the registrations my old flights (mostly NZ and AN).

NPL8800 wrote:

Since it doesn't seem to have been mentioned, Pullman AKL Airport announced for late 2019 opening to meet growing demand (the 2 other on site airport hotels operating at close to 90% occupancy), will be situated next door to current Novotel with the 2 to be separated by a plaza

Funny thing being that being Ibis Budget, Novotel and Pullman are all owned by Accor Hotels. It would of been nice if they had got taken an hotel from another group to mix it up an bit.

sunrisevalley wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

My understanding is that the current plan is that the 2nd runway will actually become the main runway for international flights while the existing runway will be used for domestic flights (since most domestic flights are to the South while most international flights are to the the North). The new domestic terminal will now be located between the current international and the existing domestic terminal rather than to the North of the existing international terminal as was originally planned. That all makes sense - they just need to get on with building it!

This will mean that the second runway will be longer than need be if it's primary function was for landings . But as you describe it , takeoff traffic flows will not cross each other.

That is true however it also means that either runway can be used if needed by any plane particularly if their is an incident on one of the runways. Operating mixed mode on both runways also helps to spread the noise corridor so that it isn't concentrated on one corridor.

I didn't add in airport rail as that is more an Auckland Transport issue although AIAL should be lobbying for it.

Is the second runway even a done deal? I thought it was (permanently) on the back-burner.

Gasman wrote:

Is the second runway even a done deal? I thought it was (permanently) on the back-burner.

Yes it is a done deal (which is why AIAL were pushing Auckland Transport about the rail link to the airport as they wanted a decision before they started building the runway). When it happens is another question but with the amount of growth that AKL has had in the past 4 years and the aircraft delays they are now having it shouldn't be far away at all.
They will still probably only build it to 737/A320 standard for now which should give them some capacity breathing space for a while (Tasman and Pac Islands flights would use that which probably counts for around 1/4 of all movements).
I guestimate that they will start runway construction in 2 years with it taking about 2 years to build so looking at completion around late 2020 or early 2021. The extension would probably be done about a decade later.

Zkpilot wrote:

Gasman wrote:

Is the second runway even a done deal? I thought it was (permanently) on the back-burner.

Yes it is a done deal (which is why AIAL were pushing Auckland Transport about the rail link to the airport as they wanted a decision before they started building the runway). When it happens is another question but with the amount of growth that AKL has had in the past 4 years and the aircraft delays they are now having it shouldn't be far away at all.
They will still probably only build it to 737/A320 standard for now which should give them some capacity breathing space for a while (Tasman and Pac Islands flights would use that which probably counts for around 1/4 of all movements).
I guestimate that they will start runway construction in 2 years with it taking about 2 years to build so looking at completion around late 2020 or early 2021. The extension would probably be done about a decade later.

You're a glass half full type; I'll give you that. How about:

- 2 years for the actual build; yes

plus
-2 years for resource consent application to be filed
- 2 more years for resource consent to approved
- 5 more years as a political pawn at central government level
- 3 more years and a billion dollars to satisfy South Island iwi
- $786.65 to buy up 1000 acres of land around Mangere
- repeat all the above for the extension that will be required before the runway actually opens because of poor planning

-

NZ8678 was struck by lightning over Northland
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/ ... -northland

Gasman wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Gasman wrote:

Is the second runway even a done deal? I thought it was (permanently) on the back-burner.

Yes it is a done deal (which is why AIAL were pushing Auckland Transport about the rail link to the airport as they wanted a decision before they started building the runway). When it happens is another question but with the amount of growth that AKL has had in the past 4 years and the aircraft delays they are now having it shouldn't be far away at all.
They will still probably only build it to 737/A320 standard for now which should give them some capacity breathing space for a while (Tasman and Pac Islands flights would use that which probably counts for around 1/4 of all movements).
I guestimate that they will start runway construction in 2 years with it taking about 2 years to build so looking at completion around late 2020 or early 2021. The extension would probably be done about a decade later.

You're a glass half full type; I'll give you that. How about:

- 2 years for the actual build; yes

plus
-2 years for resource consent application to be filed
- 2 more years for resource consent to approved
- 5 more years as a political pawn at central government level
- 3 more years and a billion dollars to satisfy South Island iwi
- $786.65 to buy up 1000 acres of land around Mangere
- repeat all the above for the extension that will be required before the runway actually opens because of poor planning

-

Sounds about right. Remember this is AIAL that we are talking about, not some well managed airport overseas. I wouldn't be surprised if all the times you wrote for the initial build were doubled.

PA515 wrote:

Air Chathams intend to operate the CV580 for the next 4-5 years, so no ex Air NZ ATR 72-500s which will be gone in three years.

We purchased ZK-KFL last year to fill the gap while ZK-CIB was out of action

We were able to purchase the remaining three CV580's (ZK-FTA, KFH and KFJ) from Freightways at a fair price, and they will be flown to AKL in time to be primarily parted out. This will see us through the next 4-5 years CV580 operations until we have a replacement machine identified and resourced

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

PA515

Unless they spend a while operating two large prop types. With the other minorities in their fleet it wouldn't surprise me.

r.e second runway at AKL,

I found a short video (4:14) on YouTube about the "construction of the second runway" Thursday the 4th of October 2007. The sod turning ceremony at Auckland International Airport. Special guest Annette King Minister of Transport

"stage 1 of the runway (1200 m) will be operational by Feb 2011!" who wrote that script lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NfXegqYFLA

FROM FEBRUARY THREAD

[i]My predictions for Air NZ over coming year
1 - AKL-IAH will again increase to daily over Christmas with occasional upgrade to 777-300 and service remaining daily for 2018
2 - AKL-EZE will increase from 4 to 5 services around October/November and remain
3 - Increased flying of 787 to Pacific Islands along with A321 NEO.
4 - Possible increase in AKL-SIN service to 10 per week
5 - Closely watch Japanese market to see how AKL-HND does vs AKL-NRT. Could see HND go daily while NRT reduces to 3 or 4. AKL-KIX will be subject to any more natural disasters in NZ.
6 - Any new North American market will likely be further east with focus on ORD/YYZ or New York area given possible efficiency gains of aircraft and fule.
7 - South America, GRU/GIG option with GIG probably the preferred option due GRU is at altitude and will severely restrict uplift ex GRU and given NZ's preference to avoid tag flights GIG is better option.
8 - Continue to see strong presence on 777-200/300 and 789 on the Trans Tasman market with the A320/A321 NEO operating between peak time frames. ie AKL-SYD/BNE/MEL first flights out will all be widebody off inbound LAX/SFO/YVR/IAH aircraft. Midday flights could be the A321 NEO allowing them to possibly operate AKL-WLG, AKL-CHC on peak morning flights before being positioned for trans-tasman service.
9 - Given major influx of new Chinese carriers, NZ will maintain focus on PVG while codesharing with CA to PEK. Trying to compete against the current 5 mainland, soon to be 6 along with CX/HX out of HKG and CI from TPE would not be smart.
10 - Domestically, 2 ATR72-500's departing and 5 ATR72-600's being delivered gives opportunity for continued minimal growth in the strong markets.

It will be interesting times and how many of these new carriers will stick it out.
At what point does PR either increase AKL-CNS-MNL service or add A330 AKL-MNL.
D7 continues to pop up about increasing service, will the be AKL-KUL or direct or possibly a secondary city AKL-CNS-KUL
Will HX come back at Christmas with 10 per week or will they go double daily.
TG already going to 773, KE remaining with 748.
WIll SQ be tempted to put 787-10 on AKL route or the 359 with a second service
MU sampled the waters with the 773 over Chinese New Year, could the do this more often or look at additional secondary Chinese cities as they do for SYD service.
Likewise, CZ only focusing on CAN for now but their appetite for expansion could see them look at the Chinese secondary market as well.

What ever happens 2016 was a great year for spotters and heres hoping 2017 continues and who knows what lies around the corner[/i]

#2 above has been confirmed (airlineroute.com) AKL-EZE will increase to 4 flights in October the to 5 flights in December.
Ref PR - see A321 popping up a little more. Whether this is due to MX or just demand. Not Sure

Gasman wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Gasman wrote:

Is the second runway even a done deal? I thought it was (permanently) on the back-burner.

Yes it is a done deal (which is why AIAL were pushing Auckland Transport about the rail link to the airport as they wanted a decision before they started building the runway). When it happens is another question but with the amount of growth that AKL has had in the past 4 years and the aircraft delays they are now having it shouldn't be far away at all.
They will still probably only build it to 737/A320 standard for now which should give them some capacity breathing space for a while (Tasman and Pac Islands flights would use that which probably counts for around 1/4 of all movements).
I guestimate that they will start runway construction in 2 years with it taking about 2 years to build so looking at completion around late 2020 or early 2021. The extension would probably be done about a decade later.

You're a glass half full type; I'll give you that. How about:

- 2 years for the actual build; yes

plus
-2 years for resource consent application to be filed
- 2 more years for resource consent to approved
- 5 more years as a political pawn at central government level
- 3 more years and a billion dollars to satisfy South Island iwi
- $786.65 to buy up 1000 acres of land around Mangere
- repeat all the above for the extension that will be required before the runway actually opens because of poor planning

-

They already own the land and have all the necessary resource consents etc in place IIRC (and previously started work on the runway but postponed it during the GFC).
The only part they don't have consent for is the extension.
Would have thought iwi issues would have been sorted previously when they made initial start on it. However the gravy train is ongoing as we all know so wouldn't surprise me if a top-up is needed.

nascarnut wrote:

FROM FEBRUARY THREAD

#2 above has been confirmed (airlineroute.com) AKL-EZE will increase to 4 flights in October the to 5 flights in December.

Interesting, and welcome. Coincidentally, a colleague just told me that she and her husband will go to Buenos Aires just for a 5 day city break. They were advised by someone that it is at least as good as SFO or LAX, and went for it. I think in NZ people are not really aware of that yet, i.e. most think of that route for holidays in Argentina or South America, but not for "just" a city break of a few days. Maybe NZ could do some great advertising on ta one, since BA is indeed a great city to visit.

Zkpilot wrote:

Gasman wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Yes it is a done deal (which is why AIAL were pushing Auckland Transport about the rail link to the airport as they wanted a decision before they started building the runway). When it happens is another question but with the amount of growth that AKL has had in the past 4 years and the aircraft delays they are now having it shouldn't be far away at all.
They will still probably only build it to 737/A320 standard for now which should give them some capacity breathing space for a while (Tasman and Pac Islands flights would use that which probably counts for around 1/4 of all movements).
I guestimate that they will start runway construction in 2 years with it taking about 2 years to build so looking at completion around late 2020 or early 2021. The extension would probably be done about a decade later.

You're a glass half full type; I'll give you that. How about:

- 2 years for the actual build; yes

plus
-2 years for resource consent application to be filed
- 2 more years for resource consent to approved
- 5 more years as a political pawn at central government level
- 3 more years and a billion dollars to satisfy South Island iwi
- $786.65 to buy up 1000 acres of land around Mangere
- repeat all the above for the extension that will be required before the runway actually opens because of poor planning

-

They already own the land and have all the necessary resource consents etc in place IIRC (and previously started work on the runway but postponed it during the GFC).
The only part they don't have consent for is the extension.
Would have thought iwi issues would have been sorted previously when they made initial start on it. However the gravy train is ongoing as we all know so wouldn't surprise me if a top-up is needed.

If they own the land, and have all the consents, why should iwi issues even be relevant?

Of course I know the answer to that. Its one of the few qualities of a certain orange politician I admire, just damn well build it already!!!

"Australian and New Zealand airlines to form new aviation industry group"

Australia and New Zealand’s major airlines today announced the establishment of a new industry group to advocate and pursue reform on public policy issues that impact the aviation sector and broader economy in the region.

Airlines for Australia and New Zealand (A4ANZ) will enable Air New Zealand, the Qantas Group, Regional Express Holdings and the Virgin Australia Group to contribute to the policy debate on issues that affect all Australian and New Zealand travellers, including those relating to airports, taxation and fees, access to efficient infrastructure and broader regulatory reform.

Professor Graeme Samuel AC, the former Chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission whose professional career has spanned senior roles in law, investment banking and public service, will be appointed the independent chair of A4ANZ.

A4ANZ will be governed by a Board made up of a representative from each member airline, in addition to the independent Chair, to oversee the management of the industry group. The CEO will be appointed in coming months.

The group will be funded by its members: Air New Zealand, the Qantas Group, Regional Express Holdings and the Virgin Australia Group. Member airlines are Air New Zealand, Jetstar, Qantas, Regional Express (Rex), Tigerair Australia and Virgin Australia.

https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/press-r ... stry-group

[quote="nascarnut"]FROM FEBRUARY THREAD

My predictions for Air NZ over coming year
1 - AKL-IAH will again increase to daily over Christmas with occasional upgrade to 777-300 and service remaining daily for 2018. [quote]

Since this is an EDTO 240 route it could go 789. This could work with a daily frequency.
5 - Closely watch Japanese market to see how AKL-HND does vs AKL-NRT. Could see HND go daily while NRT reduces to 3 or 4. AKL-KIX will be subject to any more natural disasters in NZ. [quote]

Is it possible to get additional slots at HND?
6 - Any new North American market will likely be further east with focus on ORD/YYZ or New York area given possible efficiency gains of aircraft and fule. [quote]

I would pick ORD but it would compete with IAH for many of the same feeds. Not sure about YYZ, its best feeds are likely one stop to Australia where it would compete against AC YYZ/YVR-BNE/SYD.
7 - South America, GRU/GIG option with GIG probably the preferred option due GRU is at altitude and will severely restrict uplift ex GRU and given NZ's preference to avoid tag flights GIG is better option. [quote]

The 789 takeoff length tables do not suggest any MTOW reductions from GRU. Admittedly it is at the limit. If on a bad day it is necessary 2 or 3t can be knocked off . This still gives a respectable 34t payload.
WIll SQ be tempted to put 787-10 on AKL route or the 359 with a second service [quote]
Isn't the 78X intended for SQ's subsidiary Scoot?

I think I heard that some 78X were for scoot and some for SQ

SQ have 49 78X's on order which some will go to Scoot? Pretty sure for SQ they are for regional use.

If I may throw a wildcard out there ...

It's interesting to observe that BA now has flights to three Bay-area airports in California: SFO, SJC and OAK. That got me thinking, what demand might there be for flights from the Bay area, outside of SFO, to Australasia? Would there be a case for NZ adding flights to SJC (closer to Silicon Valley's commercial/industrial centre), in addition to existing SFO flights, and as an alternative to more SFO flights?

Presumably the cost of establishing new bases, and the connecting opportunities foregone by not adding flights to SFO, would outweigh any additional demand stimulated by a new Bay area destination. Nonetheless, it's a possibility I've sometimes pondered. A similar question could be posed regarding SAN.

Another more flippant comment ... Does anybody else lament that NZ has no decent air to air photography (still or moving) of its fleet? One would've thought that New Zealand scenery would make a great backdrop for some promotional air-to-air photography.

QF46 wrote:

Another more flippant comment ... Does anybody else lament that NZ has no decent air to air photography (still or moving) of its fleet? One would've thought that New Zealand scenery would make a great backdrop for some promotional air-to-air photography.

They rather spend the money making more stupid safety videos, no aircraft required for that

QF46 BA have most of Europe to connect to and a much bigger O&D market than NZ, I honestly can't see NZ adding SJC or OAK I no that's an example, it's a long flight that doesn't offer many of any connections onward and a very small O&D market.

NZ have done pretty well in adding SFO, YVR and IAH over the last few 13 years but these are big cities with partner airlines based there and need Austrlian feed to maintain frequency aswell. ORD would seem like the next market for NZ, big UA market and the more destinations they can serve from AKL gives them more 1 stop options from Australia.

They probably won't add more SFO flights again with UA now to AKL seasonally.

QF46 wrote:

Another more flippant comment ... Does anybody else lament that NZ has no decent air to air photography (still or moving) of its fleet? One would've thought that New Zealand scenery would make a great backdrop for some promotional air-to-air photography.

The last A2A photography of NZ aircraft that I can think of is for the old B733 postcards, which I have a few of and can post a photo of, if people want to see.

Why is the LATAM 787 departing with the callsign LAN800Z

LamboAston wrote:

Why is the LATAM 787 departing with the callsign LAN800Z

Fridays LA800 was delayed overnight till Saturday morning meaning there were then 2 LA800's on the same day, it's pretty common for this to be the case, NZ and several others would use a D or an A, LA use a Z.

The LAN aircraft was I believe struck by lighting and delayed ex SYD on Friday so Saturdays inbound LA801 ex SCL turned around as LA800 back to SCL while Fridays SYD-AKL was cancelled and the delayed aircraft operated Saturdays SYD-AKL-SCL, Saturdays AKL-SYD was cancelled.

LamboAston wrote:

QF46 wrote:

Another more flippant comment ... Does anybody else lament that NZ has no decent air to air photography (still or moving) of its fleet? One would've thought that New Zealand scenery would make a great backdrop for some promotional air-to-air photography.

The last A2A photography of NZ aircraft that I can think of is for the old B733 postcards, which I have a few of and can post a photo of, if people want to see.

There's this, off the travel agent minisite:

nascarnut wrote:

AKL-EZE will increase to 4 flights in October the to 5 flights in December.

I wonder whether winter loadings justify retaining a fourth flight through the winter?

Today's JQ199 is op by a 788

LamboAston wrote:

Today's JQ199 is op by a 788

Has been thing in the past durring the busier months, hopefully it might happen more often again helps bring down the price on the Tasman.

NZ seasonal upgauge 3 days a week to a 789 ex-ADL. Should do well to the US & CA over the holidays.

https://www.ausbt.com.au/air-new-zealand-s-boeing-787-9-to-fly-adelaide-auckland
Thanks to smi0006 in the Australia thread

Apparently VH-SBW QF Q300 is heading to TSV on March 15th for painting into JQ colours and heading over here. Another new route or two being announced or just as a spare?

777ER wrote:

Apparently VH-SBW QF Q300 is heading to TSV on March 15th for painting into JQ colours and heading over here. Another new route or two being announced or just as a spare?

On the Aussie thread, it looked like it was going to be a spare, but who knows.

777ER wrote:

Apparently VH-SBW QF Q300 is heading to TSV on March 15th for painting into JQ colours and heading over here. Another new route or two being announced or just as a spare?

I believe the aircraft is to enable the release of the existing fleet, one at a time, to return to Australia for routine maintenance.

Two articles provide some interesting reading and allude to another round of bilateral talks with China being imminent in order to allow further growth. I believe the current cap is either 42 or 49 weekly flights for each side and over the peak of last summer total weekly flights reached 41 (CZ 21, MU 7, CA 7, GS 3, HU 3) so the cap is fast approaching, even more so with 3U launching in June. NBR article suggests that Xiamen/MF will be the next carrier from China to launch with flights from mid decemeber.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11818578

https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/carry-xia ... -ng-199909

Mr AirNZ wrote:

777ER wrote:

Apparently VH-SBW QF Q300 is heading to TSV on March 15th for painting into JQ colours and heading over here. Another new route or two being announced or just as a spare?

I believe the aircraft is to enable the release of the existing fleet, one at a time, to return to Australia for routine maintenance.

Any idea if the aircraft will remain here as a spare or return to Aussie once finished with?

LamboAston wrote:

NZ seasonal upgauge 3 days a week to a 789 ex-ADL. Should do well to the US & CA over the holidays.

https://www.ausbt.com.au/air-new-zealand-s-boeing-787-9-to-fly-adelaide-auckland
Thanks to smi0006 in the Australia thread

I'm not sure this is seasonal, somewhere it said they would run 3 weekly 789's in winter aswell but just 3 weekly total. I didn't expect ADL to get a 789, Aerorobnz had said the A321 could go to ADL which surprised me aswell, I thought they would go for frequency but it seems they aren't so fussed on that to ADL.

ZK-NBT wrote:

I'm not sure this is seasonal, somewhere it said they would run 3 weekly 789's in winter aswell but just 3 weekly total. I didn't expect ADL to get a 789, Aerorobnz had said the A321 could go to ADL which surprised me aswell, I thought they would go for frequency but it seems they aren't so fussed on that to ADL.

Perhaps it tells us most of the value is in connections North American network, so the flight time needs to stay.

ADL has always had the same timing. So has always had North America connections, NZ said they hoped to increase the use of widebodies on the Tasman with a push to get more OZ-US traffic but I didn't expect ADL to go widebody when it's less than daily most of the year.

With ADL now getting an 3x weekly 789 service, could we see OOL get one too?

Noted that the days chosen for the ADL upgauge are the "core" days NZ serves EZE and (I think) YVR. I guess they are the days with most demand.

zkncj wrote:

With ADL now getting an 3x weekly 789 service, could we see OOL get one too?

Interesting that they never consider CHC-SYD/MEL/BNE for wide bodies. Nothing annoys me more than earning an upgrade through Airpoints silver or gold and not being able to ever use it as most of my trans-tasman flights are from DUD (VA) or CHC (320 - no J).

Ah, the good old days when all NZ flights across the Tasman (except CHC-HBA) were widebodies . . . Even WLG flights.

DavidByrne wrote:

Noted that the days chosen for the ADL upgauge are the "core" days NZ serves EZE and (I think) YVR. I guess they are the days with most demand.

Definitely the days with the most potential as they cover YVR, SFO, LAX, IAH and EZE year round.

Will AKL-PER get the same treatment with the seasonal We Fr Su PER-AKL 0700/1810 going to year round? And there's space in the schedule for a Su AKL-PER 1855/2120, Mo PER-AKL 0700/1810 to connect with the seasonal Mo AKL-EZE and North America.

This news in part explains the decision not to put Business Class seats in the A321/A320 NEOs.

zkncj wrote:

With ADL now getting an 3x weekly 789 service, could we see OOL get one too?

Don't know, it's a competitive route and a daily presence is probably more necessary. Maybe once or twice a week, like AKL-TBU.

Will be interesting to see if they have better slots for HND and the seasonal PVG in the 2017/2018 schedule. There's a conflict in the schedule so far based on the 2016/2017 seasonal PVG and the new HND flights.

PA515

PA515 wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

Noted that the days chosen for the ADL upgauge are the "core" days NZ serves EZE and (I think) YVR. I guess they are the days with most demand.

Definitely the days with the most potential as they cover YVR, SFO, LAX, IAH and EZE year round.

Will AKL-PER get the same treatment with the seasonal We Fr Su PER-AKL 0700/1810 going to year round? And there's space in the schedule for a Su AKL-PER 1855/2120, Mo PER-AKL 0700/1810 to connect with the seasonal Mo AKL-EZE and North America.

This news in part explains the decision not to put Business Class seats in the A321/A320 NEOs.

zkncj wrote:

With ADL now getting an 3x weekly 789 service, could we see OOL get one too?

Don't know, it's a competitive route and a daily presence is probably more necessary. Maybe once or twice a week, like AKL-TBU.

Will be interesting to see if they have better slots for HND and the seasonal PVG in the 2017/2018 schedule. There's a conflict in the schedule so far based on the 2016/2017 seasonal PVG and the new HND flights.

PA515

Has NZ announced the decision for no Business class in the new A321/320NEO's?
If so, I am very disappointed...

777ER wrote:

Mr AirNZ wrote:
777ER wrote:
Apparently VH-SBW QF Q300 is heading to TSV on March 15th for painting into JQ colours and heading over here. Another new route or two being announced or just as a spare?

I believe the aircraft is to enable the release of the existing fleet, one at a time, to return to Australia for routine maintenance.

Any idea if the aircraft will remain here as a spare or return to Aussie once finished with?

I'm unaware of their intentions sorry. I do know though they are having a hard enough time crewing the existing machines they have. Tweleve months into the Turboprop operation and they still have many Eastern crews coming from Australia (on big bucks!!!) to keep the operation flying.

aerohottie wrote:

Has NZ announced the decision for no Business class in the new A321/320NEO's?
If so, I am very disappointed...

This publically from the company last year.
https://www.ausbt.com.au/air-new-zealan ... y-unlikely

Mr AirNZ wrote:

[I'm unaware of their intentions sorry. I do know though they are having a hard enough time crewing the existing machines they have. Tweleve months into the Turboprop operation and they still have many Eastern crews coming from Australia (on big bucks!!!) to keep the operation flying.

Do you know why? I would have thought there would be quite a pool of pilots willing and able to take F/O spots. But that does not solve a shortage of PIC's unless they do not have promotable F/O's.