Luisvalero wrote:

aerorobnz wrote:

There's no point,
1) BA would be competing for the bottom of the barrel low yield stuff,
2) their inflight product beaten comprehensively across the classes by just about every single airline serving AKL.
3) They have long since dropped out of the travel consciousness of New Zealand travellers - a few people use BA ex SYD to SIN on QF codeshare tickets but it isn't more than a handful.
4) Most importantly they have QF/MH/AA/CX/LA serving the market with BA codeshares. BA flies to SYD/KUL/LAX/HKG and SCL already.

If AKL doesn't work for BA due to competition (QR, EK, Thai, Malaysia, SQ, KE, & chinese carriers), how can BA sustain it's Daily LHR-SIN-SYD

20 competitors! This is insane! And we have also QF LHR-DXB-SYD, + DL, AA, UA, AC, LATAM

SYD has a population of the entire country of New Zealand (and Australia 5x the population overall). AKL doesn't need that because it can't generate enough travelers to hope to fill the flights either inbound or outbound- AKL already struggles now with the number of airlines, and there is a very limited demand window for NZ. . I can't really comment on why they still bother with SYD except that it is a major oneworld partner hub and they always have stayed in the market (as opposed to having not been here for over 20 years), but it probably survives in part due to having QF feed from AKL/WLG./CHC/ZQN. Add in an AKL flight and you take demand off the SYD too which won't help load factors. There is no real need for historical flagship kind of flights now, they tend to be unprofitable which is ultimately what drives flag carriers now.

sunrisevalley wrote:

tealnz wrote:

Here's a link http://s298.photobucket.com/user/ferpe_bucket/media/789343787-10and350-900realPilotsPRchart_zps75d2e53d.jpg.htmlto a payload/range chart from Ferpe

Thanks for this. It is a Ferpe chart I have not seen before . Do you know when it dates from? Do I correctly understand it to say for the 789 that the DOW components for crew,cabin and IFE is 3.5t and for catering is 3.6t for a total of 7.1t ? Does the payload column include these or are they additional weight over and above?

It seems to be one of the more recent slides in his photobucket collection but I can't see how to get the metadata off a photobucket file. I don't have detail on the components of DOW beyond what is set out on the slide. I took the chart as an effort to generate weights (and payload/range numbers) that were more representative of real-world numbers than the marketing numbers typically offered by the manufacturers.

Luisvalero wrote:

aerorobnz wrote:

There's no point,
1) BA would be competing for the bottom of the barrel low yield stuff,
2) their inflight product beaten comprehensively across the classes by just about every single airline serving AKL.
3) They have long since dropped out of the travel consciousness of New Zealand travellers - a few people use BA ex SYD to SIN on QF codeshare tickets but it isn't more than a handful.
4) Most importantly they have QF/MH/AA/CX/LA serving the market with BA codeshares. BA flies to SYD/KUL/LAX/HKG and SCL already.

If AKL doesn't work for BA due to competition (QR, EK, Thai, Malaysia, SQ, KE, & chinese carriers), how can BA sustain it's Daily LHR-SIN-SYD which is absolutely mad in competition being SYD served by most of the carriers in Asia?
There's a Huge list of Airlines competing against BA on the kangaroo route, one of the reasons why Virgin Atlantic leaved. Kangaroo route Airlines (to SYD) are:

1. Emirates.
2. Etihad Airways
3. Qatar Airways
4. Air India
5. Thai Airways International
6. Vietnam Airlines
7. Malaysia Airlines
8. Singapore Arlines
9. Garuda Indonesia
10. Philippine Airlines
11. EVA Air
12. China Airlines (future LGW-TPE-SYD)
13. Cathay Pacific
14. China Eastern
15. China Southern
16. Air China
17. Korean Air
18. Asiana Airlines
19. All Nippon Airways
20. Japan Airlines

20 competitors! This is insane! And we have also QF LHR-DXB-SYD, + DL, AA, UA, AC, LATAM

it sustains SYD as a legacy destination and partly for the prestige of it. SYD is large enough to support it (especially when codeshare flights to the likes of MEL and BNE can easily be added or even AKL).

ZKOJH wrote:

"Air New Zealand among top airlines in TripAdvisor survey"

Air New Zealand has been recognised in TripAdvisor's inaugural Travellers' Choice Awards for airlines, coming in fifth overall and named runner up in the Asia-Pacific region behind commercial partner Singapore Airlines.

Air New Zealand has also been awarded best premium economy class.

Top overall airline is Emirates, which flies to this country with five daily services. The awards are determined by the quantity and quality of TripAdvisor traveller reviews and ratings submitted over a 12-month period.

Air New Zealand's general manager of customer experience Anita Hawthorne said the accolades reflected the airline's commitment to delivering an outstanding experience on the 15 million customer journeys on the airline every year.

World Top 10
1. Emirates, UAE
2. Singapore Airlines
3. Azul, Brazil
4. JetBlue, US
5. Air New Zealand
6. Korean Air, South Korea
7. Japan Airlines, Japan
8. Thai Smile, Thailand
9. Alaska Airlines, US
10. Garuda Indonesia, Indonesia

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11836284

I really don't know why the media even bother reporting these bogus surveys anymore. You get the impression that even the most gullible member of the travelling public is catching on to the fact that they're an utter waste of bandwidth. It's a non validated survery, composed of arbitrary criteria with a non randomised study sample. It could almost not be less scientific; which translates to - almost completely meaningless.

Gasman wrote:

I really don't know why the media even bother reporting these bogus surveys anymore. You get the impression that even the most gullible member of the travelling public is catching on to the fact that they're an utter waste of bandwidth. It's a non validated survery, composed of arbitrary criteria with a non randomised study sample. It could almost not be less scientific; which translates to - almost completely meaningless.

Maybe because there are no alternatives? We all know Skytrax is pay 2 play, so that leaves no one else basically...

I see Air Lease Corp's G650 (N1AL) was in AKL today. Hopefully a lease (order) announcement soon from NZ.

haggis73 wrote:

I see Air Lease Corp's G650 (N1AL) was in AKL today. Hopefully a lease (order) announcement soon from NZ.

More 787's and some top up 777-300ER. Or... maybe the 779?

A350 out of left field perhaps?

Or just more boring A320's...

77west wrote:

haggis73 wrote:

I see Air Lease Corp's G650 (N1AL) was in AKL today. Hopefully a lease (order) announcement soon from NZ.

More 787's and some top up 777-300ER. Or... maybe the 779?

A350 out of left field perhaps?

Or just more boring A320's...

Maybe some more A320s for domestic, so they don't get situations like what happened on the recent ZQN flight.

haggis73 wrote:

I see Air Lease Corp's G650 (N1AL) was in AKL today. Hopefully a lease (order) announcement soon from NZ.

Surely the 772 replacement order will hit the books soon, they are approaching 12 years old. In 2020 ZK-OKA will turn 15 years old, surely they won't keep the 772 like they did with the 763?

More 789s seem likely, with growth within the Tasman/Pacific we could see more 789 useage.

zkncj wrote:

haggis73 wrote:

I see Air Lease Corp's G650 (N1AL) was in AKL today. Hopefully a lease (order) announcement soon from NZ.

Surely the 772 replacement order will hit the books soon, they are approaching 12 years old. In 2020 ZK-OKA will turn 15 years old, surely they won't keep the 772 like they did with the 763?

More 789s seem likely, with growth within the Tasman/Pacific we could see more 789 useage.

There was a page recently that stated NZ would still have 8 772's in 2022, that being the case they will hold off IMO ordering until things like the 78X are in service.

They aren't going to order 789's for Tasman PI use but they will certainly get more for long haul and they will be used short haul between the long haul. More A321's or even a few A321's for domestic?

As much as I love Boeing, I have to say the aircraft best suited to 772ER replacement is the A350-900. The B789 also fits the bill, but the A359 seems to outlift it just enough to make it the superior frame. Of course it depends on the config; but I don't see a premium-heavy 789 having the same seating as a 772ER. The 78X \ 787-10 would be more on par in seating, but much less on range, especially considering the stage lengths the 772's are doing. The 777-8 would be a much better lifter than the A359, with slightly more passengers than either the 359 or the 772, with some really good range, but the economics probably won't work.

Now a 787-10ER - NZ would be the launch customer!

But with the 789 in the fleet already, a mixed high/low density 789 fleet seems more likely.

I firmly believe we will see domestic A321, it is a no-brainer on the trunk routes, perhaps even in to ZQN. I think at least 4-6 domestic A321 could work in the medium term, with up to 10 a possibility going forwards. Especially with the NEO economics.

I also believe the A321 could eventually become the staple aircraft on mid-haul, PI, and some Aus flights. It seems perfect for that role. Untill the Boeing MoM comes along, of course!

Does anybody else find it a little striking that Air Lease Corporation, a reasonably vanilla financial services firm, needs to put its team on a G650 for a run-of-the-mill trip down to New Zealand to talk to a customer?

zkncj wrote:

haggis73 wrote:

I see Air Lease Corp's G650 (N1AL) was in AKL today. Hopefully a lease (order) announcement soon from NZ.

Surely the 772 replacement order will hit the books soon, they are approaching 12 years old. In 2020 ZK-OKA will turn 15 years old, surely they won't keep the 772 like they did with the 763?

More 789s seem likely, with growth within the Tasman/Pacific we could see more 789 useage.

Difference is that the 77E is still modern enough to foot it sufficiently against other aircraft. NZ is probably looking after them better whereas the 763ER ended up spending several years more in the fleet than was intended.

tealnz wrote:

Here's a link [url]http://s298.photobucket.com/user/ferpe_bucket/media/.

There are additional charts in this URL worth looking at.One shows the 789 OEW at 126t and the A359 at 136t .The payload/rage curve shows the 359 has a payload advantage of just over 2 t. To me this means the A359 converts a 10t OEW disadvantage to a 2t advantage either by a more efficient air frame or better fuel burn or both. I have trouble believing this to be so.

It's a size larger than the 789 so other things being equal you'd expect it to carry a bigger payload (though the 789 seems to have an edge on payload at shorter ranges). Converting an OEW disadvantage to a payload advantage sounds ... a bit like the way we expect the 778 to achieve better payload than a 359 notwithstanding a much heavier airframe. Big wings weigh more but at longer ranges they pay off in terms of drag and fuel burn, which boosts payload.

77west wrote:

The 777-8 would be a much better lifter than the A359, with slightly more passengers than either the 359 or the 772, with some really good range, but the economics probably won't work.

I think NZ could pass on a 77E replacement and go directly to a 777-8. They will have the 789 in two configs. and the 778 if setup at ~350 seats would be efficient down to ~ 290 seats. It has the advantage of being able to serve as far east as JFK with ~40t payload westbound. An order for 15 spread over 8-10 years might be the incentive for Boeing to commit to it. A QF order for 10 or 12 would not hurt either!

sunrisevalley wrote:

77west wrote:

The 777-8 would be a much better lifter than the A359, with slightly more passengers than either the 359 or the 772, with some really good range, but the economics probably won't work.

I think NZ could pass on a 77E replacement and go directly to a 777-8. They will have the 789 in two configs. and the 778 if setup at ~350 seats would be efficient down to ~ 290 seats. It has the advantage of being able to serve as far east as JFK with ~40t payload westbound. An order for 15 spread over 8-10 years might be the incentive for Boeing to commit to it. A QF order for 10 or 12 would not hurt either!

The question is how efficient would a 778 be on a standard long haul AKL-LAX and then shorthaul? I thought that at one point maybe the 778 when the 772's retire, not sure I see it now though. NZ considered the 77L a flying fuel tank, what will they say to the 778? New management now though.

ZK-NBT wrote:

The question is how efficient would a 778 be on a standard long haul AKL-LAX and then shorthaul? I thought that at one point maybe the 778 when the 772's retire, not sure I see it now though. NZ considered the 77L a flying fuel tank, what will they say to the 778? New management now though.

It is not much heavier than the 77W yet for the same MTOW has a better payload/range. I think it would be as good or better than the 77W on the TT.

tealnz wrote:

It's a size larger than the 789 so other things being equal you'd expect it to carry a bigger payload (though the 789 seems to have an edge on payload at shorter ranges). Converting an OEW disadvantage to a payload advantage sounds ... a bit like the way we expect the 778 to achieve better payload than a 359 notwithstanding a much heavier airframe. Big wings weigh more but at longer ranges they pay off in terms of drag and fuel burn, which boosts payload.

I am starting to understand this when I look at the basics of the 778. It is expected to be ~2t+ heavier at OEW than the 77W; it has the same MTOW and is able with ~ the same fuel, 7t more at 6000nm and 19t more from 7500nm to 8600nm and increasingly more beyond that.

haggis73 wrote:

I see Air Lease Corp's G650 (N1AL) was in AKL today. Hopefully a lease (order) announcement soon from NZ.

QF46 wrote:

Does anybody else find it a little striking that Air Lease Corporation, a reasonably vanilla financial services firm, needs to put its team on a G650 for a run-of-the-mill trip down to New Zealand to talk to a customer?

Gulfstream 650 N1AL arrived SYD about 1514 AEST on Tue 18 Apr and departed about 0851 AEST Wed 19 Apr. http://images.16right.com/view/26AEKVFN/ref=rego,N1AL
It would have arrived AKL about 1320 NZST on Wed 19 Apr. Maybe QF is interested in some ALC 789s.

Also on Wed 19 Apr a G650, possibly N1AL, departed AKL about 2230 NZST and arrived PPT about 0500 TAHT. TN has two 789s on order from ALC. If this was N1AL, then it looks like the ALC people are visiting a few customers or potential customers, not just NZ.

PA515

77west wrote:

The 78X \ 787-10 would be more on par in seating, but much less on range, especially considering the stage lengths the 772's are doing.

The 78X needs to be good for ~13hrs with at least 37t payload. We will know soon how close it is.

PA515 wrote:

Gulfstream 650 N1AL arrived SYD about 1514 AEST on Tue 18 Apr and departed about 0851 AEST Wed 19 Apr. http://images.16right.com/view/26AEKVFN/ref=rego,N1AL
It would have arrived AKL about 1320 NZST on Wed 19 Apr. Maybe QF is interested in some ALC 789s.

Also on Wed 19 Apr a G650, possibly N1AL, departed AKL about 2230 NZST and arrived PPT about 0500 TAHT. TN has two 789s on order from ALC. If this was N1AL, then it looks like the ALC people are visiting a few customers or potential customers, not just NZ.

PA515

N1AL arrived at AKL direct from VNY a little before 0500 on the 18th. Scheduled to Dep to SYD @ 1430 that same day, I'd already left work by then so unsure of actual departure time, but arrival in SYD (as above) would lead to think it got away roughly on time. It then flew onto Jakarta the next morning.

The G650 that departed for PPT was N899YF.

haggis73 wrote:

N1AL arrived at AKL direct from VNY a little before 0500 on the 18th. Scheduled to Dep to SYD @ 1430 that same day, I'd already left work by then so unsure of actual departure time, but arrival in SYD (as above) would lead to think it got away roughly on time. It then flew onto Jakarta the next morning.

Thanks. The SYD stopover is interesting. Pretty sure ALC don't lease any aircraft to VA or QF/JQ.

PA515

PA515 wrote:

Thanks. The SYD stopover is interesting. Pretty sure ALC don't lease any aircraft to VA or QF/JQ.

They could have presented and pitched their proposal to QF on the A359 /778X/779X .

Based on NZ's 77W cabin layout what are the thoughts for a A35J/778X/779X layouts?

sunrisevalley wrote:

Based on NZ's 77W cabin layout what are the thoughts for a A35J/778X/779X layouts?

Interesting question. I sometimes wonder if Air New Zealand's current Business Premier seat is out-of-date. It may be brand new in many aircraft (the 789s and refurbished 772s), but does it compete with the reverse herringbone and staggered arrangements provided by other airlines?

QF46 wrote:

Interesting question. I sometimes wonder if Air New Zealand's current Business Premier seat is out-of-date. It may be brand new in many aircraft (the 789s and refurbished 772s), but does it compete with the reverse herringbone and staggered arrangements provided by other airlines?

Was wondering the same the other day when looking at a reverse herringbone layout. Came to the conclusion that neither is perfect.

The herringbone layout on NZ means you have to turn your head to look out the window, but the reverse herringbone seat has your head right on the edge of the aisle, so you won't see much from there anyway and I would not feel comfortable with my head in that aisle position.

Wondered about a herringbone layout with the window seats able to swivel to a more forward facing position. It would probably increase the seat weight and legroom would be limited. The angle of the herringbone layout varies between different aircraft types and airlines.

PA515

sunrisevalley wrote:

Based on NZ's 77W cabin layout what are the thoughts for a A35J/778X/779X layouts?

I'd imagine those aircraft would have very similar cabin layouts to the 77W.
But I think a possible 787-10 or A359 could be something like 34/35/240-250ish....

PA515 wrote:

TN has two 789s on order from ALC.

How many A340's do they need at this time for their schedule? Three?

PA515 wrote:

QF46 wrote:

Interesting question. I sometimes wonder if Air New Zealand's current Business Premier seat is out-of-date.

The new QF Thompson Advantage business seat appears to have attracted considerable positive comment....link
http://www.thompsonaero.com/vantage

QF46 wrote:

sunrisevalley wrote:

Based on NZ's 77W cabin layout what are the thoughts for a A35J/778X/779X layouts?

Interesting question. I sometimes wonder if Air New Zealand's current Business Premier seat is out-of-date. It may be brand new in many aircraft (the 789s and refurbished 772s), but does it compete with the reverse herringbone and staggered arrangements provided by other airlines?

While always a pleasure to fly in the NZ J seats, I would prefer the reverse orientation or more conventional seats which offers better privacy IMO, better for travelling with a partner also

sunrisevalley wrote:

PA515 wrote:

QF46 wrote:

Interesting question. I sometimes wonder if Air New Zealand's current Business Premier seat is out-of-date.

The new QF Thompson Advantage business seat appears to have attracted considerable positive comment....link
http://www.thompsonaero.com/vantage

Probably because they are not 12 inchs wide... unlike NZ J seats...

nz2 wrote:

QF46 wrote:

sunrisevalley wrote:

Based on NZ's 77W cabin layout what are the thoughts for a A35J/778X/779X layouts?

Interesting question. I sometimes wonder if Air New Zealand's current Business Premier seat is out-of-date. It may be brand new in many aircraft (the 789s and refurbished 772s), but does it compete with the reverse herringbone and staggered arrangements provided by other airlines?

While always a pleasure to fly in the NZ J seats, I would prefer the reverse orientation or more conventional seats which offers better privacy IMO, better for travelling with a partner also

The BE Aerospace Apex seat is the best of both worlds- very good privacy and aisle access from every seat, but also good for couples wanting to talk to each other. This is used by JAL and Oman Air, as well as others.

sunrisevalley wrote:

PA515 wrote:

TN has two 789s on order from ALC.

How many A340's do they need at this time for their schedule? Three?

What do they do currently?

PPT-LAX-CDG 6 weekly?
PPT-LAX 5 weekly?
PPT-NRT 2 weekly
PPT-AKL 3 weekly

Not sure on frequencies exactly. I think they need 3.5-4 aircraft.

QF46 wrote:

sunrisevalley wrote:

Based on NZ's 77W cabin layout what are the thoughts for a A35J/778X/779X layouts?

Interesting question. I sometimes wonder if Air New Zealand's current Business Premier seat is out-of-date. It may be brand new in many aircraft (the 789s and refurbished 772s), but does it compete with the reverse herringbone and staggered arrangements provided by other airlines?

You "sometimes wonder"? It's a dog. It was innovative - ground breaking even when new; but has always suffered from being too cramped laterally, lacking in privacy facing the aisle (if someone starts a conversation around you, forget about zoning out) and it's woefully inadequate in terms of storage space. And each subsequent iteration since the 744 has become more and more cramped both widthwise and lengthwise. I've never liked it. I even prefer a (now dated) forward facing 2+2+2 in J. It was worth a look for a year or two after it was released; but other airlines (SQ, EK, and more recently BA AA UA QR KL and others) have well and truly moved the game on.

Gasman wrote:

QF46 wrote:

sunrisevalley wrote:

Based on NZ's 77W cabin layout what are the thoughts for a A35J/778X/779X layouts?

Interesting question. I sometimes wonder if Air New Zealand's current Business Premier seat is out-of-date. It may be brand new in many aircraft (the 789s and refurbished 772s), but does it compete with the reverse herringbone and staggered arrangements provided by other airlines?

You "sometimes wonder"? It's a dog. It was innovative - ground breaking even when new; but has always suffered from being too cramped laterally, lacking in privacy facing the aisle (if someone starts a conversation around you, forget about zoning out) and it's woefully inadequate in terms of storage space. And each subsequent iteration since the 744 has become more and more cramped both widthwise and lengthwise. I've never liked it. I even prefer a (now dated) forward facing 2+2+2 in J. It was worth a look for a year or two after it was released; but other airlines (SQ, EK, and more recently BA AA UA QR KL and others) have well and truly moved the game on.

Totally agree, I did not mind the 767 J seats for flights to Hawaii, especially on a day flight and more recently have traveled to Asia in PE a few times and those seats are not too bad, especially on the "movie marathon" day flight back from SG..!

Gasman wrote:

QF46 wrote:

sunrisevalley wrote:

Based on NZ's 77W cabin layout what are the thoughts for a A35J/778X/779X layouts?

You "sometimes wonder"? It's a dog.

Well ... Opinion on here isn't unanimous, and presumably NZ considered the available options at the time they settled on a cabin for the 789s and 772 refresh. Personally, I prefer the CX, EK, SQ and new QF business seats, but I don't think I could be so unequivocal as to say "It's a dog".

Just got this ad saying that you can get QF points for the new AA flight (guessing AKL). In the fine print at the bottom it said "Subject to regulatory approval"
https://flic.kr/p/SP5fAh

QF46 wrote:

Gasman wrote:

QF46 wrote:

You "sometimes wonder"? It's a dog.

Well ... Opinion on here isn't unanimous, and presumably NZ considered the available options at the time they settled on a cabin for the 789s and 772 refresh. Personally, I prefer the CX, EK, SQ and new QF business seats, but I don't think I could be so unequivocal as to say "It's a dog".

Well, we could debate that for ever but:

- partitions are too low
- forward facing into the aisle lacks privacy
- seat recline is inadequate in "seat" mode
- can't see out the window
- width is pathetic (why they used All Black players in their marketing is beyond me)
- length is also inadequate, particularly on the 789
- storage for personal items is absolutely woeful

Yeah I'm happy with the canine analogy. It's typical of NZ's ethos of the last 10 years; if you provide enough spin then customers won't notice the lack of space.

That said, I flew this product two weeks ago on the 773 which was the first time since 2015. Hard product below par as above, but I noticed a definite improvement in food quality and attitude of the crew. Gone was the matey bonhomie, in its place was respectful yet friendly professionalism. Food was fresh and well presented. Even the safety video wasn't akin to an icepick in the head. Great to see.

Pity there isn't an aurora flight tonight.

The friendly professionalism is not a constant but agree has improved. Wine has definitely improved. Next month I have a trans Pacific between Asia and the US return on ANA in business - 77W and 789. Will be interesting to compare.

Are the two last 763s still sitting in AKL?

LamboAston wrote:

Are the two last 763s still sitting in AKL?

They're still advertised by 30West on myairlease as available 1706 (June 2017).
http://myairlease.com/available/available_for_lease_767

PA515

One of my non-aviation friends is going to try and look on his 4:50 flight out today. I really don't expect him to give me an accurate answer though.

Both were in AKL as of yesterday

ZKSUJ wrote:

Both were in AKL as of yesterday

Are they still in full livery, or has the logos been removed?

QR could consider dropping DOH-AKL if electronic ban comes into effect in New Zealand

http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-tr ... ops-banned

qf789 wrote:

QR could consider dropping DOH-AKL if electronic ban comes into effect in New Zealand

http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-tr ... ops-banned

Just an excuse that would spare Al Baker's ego because their loads have been so light since they started. They have regularly had 80-120 inbound and usually a few more outbound. EK by comparison has decent LF.

DHL 757-236F VH-TCA returned CHC-AKL on Sun 23 Apr, 19 days after AKL-CHC on Tue 04 Apr at about 10,000ft. I didn't notice any more Air NZ freight charters to SYD after about a week, so they must have leased something else to keep the business going.

VH-TCA arrived AKL from SYD about 0300 on Tue 04 Apr and didn't use a low altitude, so I assume it was damaged on the ground during unloading.

PA515

Hi Everyone. Quick question wanting some information. I've booked an NZ domestic flight this weekend, but I need to take a childs car seat but won't be travelling with the child. Can I check it in without buying the 23kg checked baggage option as oversize luggage, or do I need to get the checked baggage option?