Ok so Tealnz and PA515 if I'm reading correctly are saying that NZ effectively saying NZ won't order more 789's? How would they PA515 get A350's on operating lease in 2019? If that is what you are saying, if they need more aircraft in 2019/20 the only option is some 789's be it leased or whatever or 78X? A 772 replacement order seem to be in 2018/19 as tealnz said so it would seem to me to take atleast 2 years in this market to get an A350 when they don't have any yet plus induction costs setup etc so not likely until mid/ late 2020.

Further up we had NZ6 expecting 6 789 options to be exercised this calendar year, personally I don't see all 6 at once in case of a downturn even though they could end some 772 leases early and use the 789's to replace them, seems unlikely if fuel stays low. I think excercising 1-2 at a time as required unless they expire soon.

78X may still be one to watch but with more frequencies to Asia to connect South America I don't see the 78X going to Asia but more 789's down the track.

The more I think about NZ's next generation fleet I ask myself why I'm basing it on what we have or have had today so much.

NZ's has the 772 as it was the best A/C to replace the 763 at the time (Apart from the A330 perhaps). The 77W replaced the 747 and at the time, operations were centered around LAX and starting to introduce SFO. LON was still a priority. So long, hub to hub heavy flying was in.

If you look now, LON is holding on solely on LAX-LHR and In my opinion won't last forever.

AKL-LAX is intentionally being diluted in favor or IAH and 1 or 2 extra ports. SFO is daily up to 10 per week in peak. YVR is being pushed to go daily.

So instead of having
14 x AKLLAX
3 x AKLSFO

We'll looking at a potential network like this

10 x AKLLAX
7 x AKLSFO
7 x AKLYVR
7 x AKLIAH
4 x AKLORD
4 x AKLNYC
This is purely made up for the purpose of what could potentially happen

With PAX and freight being split over more services and more direct services is there a need for a 77X. What is stopping NZ running with a single 787 fleet. OR maybe a 787 & A350 feet if the A350 gives them the range they need?

I know since the 80's NZ's flown the big birds to North America and still do, but inline with beings philosophy more services and more direct services is this an option?

That NZ6 was what I was saying some time back that maybe they would go with an all 787 long haul fleet, watch the 78X if it can do LAX/SFO it will and use 789's for everything else, some said in dreaming which maybe I am.

If they want NYC then it seems an ULH 778 or A359 is required, I did say earlier could a fleet of 778's cover those ULH flights and also trunk routes like LAX? Just depends how efficient it is on standard 12/13hr flights.

The A350 is an entirely new type which is why I would be very surprised if they went that way when they could get the 77X, though tbh the 779 to me seems to be maybe getting a bit big, but a 778 would probably seat a similar number to the 77W and haul a lot of freight.

The A330 wouldn't have been great for NZ back in 2005, it couldn't do YVR and wouldn't haul much freight to LAX/SFO, the A332 could have worked for Asia while the A333 would have only been good to PER/HNL. The only other option was the A340 which they will be happy they didn't get.

SFO started in 2004 with the 744, YVR in 2007 with 772's then 744's. SFO doesn't increase anymore now that UA are flying the route albeit seasonally, they will do 10 weekly this year for 2 months on top of daily NZ, YVR is daily in DEC-JAN and upto 5 weekly several months only dropping below for 3-4 months to 3/4 weekly.

The 779 is too big an aircraft for NZ and AKL IMO. That is the biggest reason I think they may go for an A350 fleet. The A350 is far more of the direct replacement to the 77E (A359) and 77W (A351) in terms of ability, apron footprint,payload. There could also be some advantage in terms of overall narrow body negotiations too.

CZ changes for NW17/18

CZ335/336 CAN-AKL to be operated by A332 instead of 788

CAN-CHC still remains at 5 weekly (up from 3 weekly in NW16) however operational days will switch from X26 to X16, remains 788

http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/air ... f-18jul17/

ZK-NBT wrote:

AKL 1000 SIN 1530
SIN 0100 AKL 1600

This is the kind of timetable that NZ should be aiming for for multiple Asian destinations to make good on their aim of being the airline of choice for Asia-South America flights. Ideally, two daily flights would be run per destination so that there's a morning departure from AKL (and a mid-am arrival back in AKL from the Asian end) and an early afternoon departure from AKL with a return arriving back from Asia in the mid-afternoon. But they really need more South American destinations first . . .

DavidByrne wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

AKL 1000 SIN 1530
SIN 0100 AKL 1600

This is the kind of timetable that NZ should be aiming for for multiple Asian destinations to make good on their aim of being the airline of choice for Asia-South America flights. Ideally, two daily flights would be run per destination so that there's a morning departure from AKL (and a mid-am arrival back in AKL from the Asian end) and an early afternoon departure from AKL with a return arriving back from Asia in the mid-afternoon. But they really need more South American destinations first . . .

Or a midnight like PVG/HKG now, leave those as is returning in the early mid morning, and add a mid morning departure returning mid afternoon.

You can't avoid long ground times sometimes but 2 daily needs 3 frames while 1 daily needs 2 so more efficient fleet wise.

Effective from NW17 SQ has adjusted schedule for SIN-CBR-WLG flight to open up more connections

http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/0 ... -schedule/

qf789 wrote:

Effective from NW17 SQ has adjusted schedule for SIN-CBR-WLG flight to open up more connections

http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/0 ... -schedule/

With the added bonus they can use same crew CBR-WLG-CBR??

Auckland Airport's latest version of their 'master plan'. This must be cut 32.

I'm in favour of this but question if they'll get consent.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11893151

PA515 wrote:

ZKOAB wrote:

Is MCA retiring this month followed by MCW?

The myairlease.com for sale info had MCA available in Sep 2017 and MCW is still available in Oct 2017, but that may have changed as MCW has been in NSN since 12 Jun and MCA is still in service.

PA515

MCA exits the fleet next week.

NZ6 wrote:

Auckland Airport's latest version of their 'master plan'. This must be cut 32.

I'm in favour of this but question if they'll get consent.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11893151

Good to see they are allowing space for rail under the runway along with the road.

Zkpilot wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Auckland Airport's latest version of their 'master plan'. This must be cut 32.

I'm in favour of this but question if they'll get consent.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11893151

Good to see they are allowing space for rail under the runway along with the road.

They really have no choice (fortunately) given the way the political debate has been moving. Had they not done so there'd have been serious questions about their corporate "sincerity" given that they've finally in the last few years publicly come around to the idea of rapid transit to the Airport.

bonzolab wrote:

PA515 wrote:

ZKOAB wrote:

Is MCA retiring this month followed by MCW?

The myairlease.com for sale info had MCA available in Sep 2017 and MCW is still available in Oct 2017, but that may have changed as MCW has been in NSN since 12 Jun and MCA is still in service.

PA515

MCA exits the fleet next week.

Thanks bonzolab. And MCW is close to returning to service after nearly six weeks. It was showing as doing AKL-NPE this evening and NPE-AKL tomorrow but that has been cancelled.

PA515

Air New Zealand have also released their new safety video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oA33IAf ... NewZealand
NZE has a white nose cone as of yesterday. The newer 789s (I was on NZK) have a far better window darkening system which actually completely darkens it (which of course I didn't want to do, as I had a view). I was impressed with the food quality flying both ways to and from RAR, and was pleased when the flight path out of Rarotonga on the way back had the left wing dipped down enough to get great views of Raro for several minutes. I might do a trip report if I have time, which I probably won't.

ZK-MCA is scheduled to operate its last flights for NZ this afternoon as NZ5115 AKL-PMR followed by NZ5187 PMR-CHC. It'll be off to it's new operator at the end of the month.
By that time the MVP should be already on its way to New Zealand after delivery.

SXI899 wrote:

ZK-MCA is scheduled to operate its last flights for NZ this afternoon as NZ5115 AKL-PMR followed by NZ5187 PMR-CHC. It'll be off to it's new operator at the end of the month.

I had just the two flights on MCA NPE-AKL. This is a reminder for me to try and get on MCP before it retires in order to "complete the set"... The ATR72-600 must surely start to make a bigger impact in AKL operations as some of the AKL based -500s depart..

NZ6 wrote:

Auckland Airport's latest version of their 'master plan'. This must be cut 32.

I'm in favour of this but question if they'll get consent.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11893151

Interestingly this video seems to highlight a 2022 timeline for the completion of the new domestic pier. I thought that was supposed to be completed by 2018 or have the original plans been pushed back?

Which are the bases for the NZ turboprop fleet.What type an how many at each base.?

qantas747 wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Auckland Airport's latest version of their 'master plan'. This must be cut 32.

I'm in favour of this but question if they'll get consent.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11893151

Interestingly this video seems to highlight a 2022 timeline for the completion of the new domestic pier. I thought that was supposed to be completed by 2018 or have the original plans been pushed back?

It was never 2018 for the new domestic pier. Hopefully thaye actually keep to the current plan.

sunrisevalley wrote:

Which are the bases for the NZ turboprop fleet.What type an how many at each base.?

Technically all the turboprops are now NSN based, although they are overnighted all around the country.

BALI EXTENDED - CAPACITY NEARLY DOUBLED:

http://business.scoop.co.nz/2017/07/24/ ... y-to-bali/

"Air New Zealand has announced it will nearly double capacity on its seasonal Auckland to Denpasar service in 2018 and will also extend the season it flies there by almost two months.

The airline currently operates two services per week from Auckland to Denpasar International Airport between the end of May and mid-October, increasing to three services per week during peak times.

Next year the airline’s Auckland to Bali season will start at the beginning of April with up to five services operating per week using the airline’s Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner, subject to regulatory approval."

There's more in the article, of course.

mariner

mariner wrote:

BALI EXTENDED - CAPACITY NEARLY DOUBLED:

There can be no doubt that this has been a success, and you rightly called it very early on. There is more to a route than raw yield, and besides demand has been good enough that it is regularly more expensive than NRT/SIN etc. I also think this success bodes well for other routes, such as MNL and SGN. It seems self evident now the 763s have gone that the route demand has jumped and the costs have remained very similar.

LamboAston wrote:

NZE has a white nose cone as of yesterday.

It's had that for months.

aerorobnz wrote:

I had just the two flights on MCA NPE-AKL. This is a reminder for me to try and get on MCP before it retires in order to "complete the set"... The ATR72-600 must surely start to make a bigger impact in AKL operations as some of the AKL based -500s depart..

Has the airline opened a -600 crew base at Auckland yet?

aerorobnz wrote:

mariner wrote:

BALI EXTENDED - CAPACITY NEARLY DOUBLED:

There can be no doubt that this has been a success, and you rightly called it very early on. There is more to a route than raw yield, and besides demand has been good enough that it is regularly more expensive than NRT/SIN etc. I also think this success bodes well for other routes, such as MNL and SGN. It seems self evident now the 763s have gone that the route demand has jumped and the costs have remained very similar.

I never understood what happened with MNL (did anyone?) why it was postponed, deferred - cancelled? - and I hope the presence of PAL on the route doesn't kill it for Air NZ, although I worry that it might.

I'd like to see a bit more nearer Asia, and not just the obvious routes, but places a wee bit off the beaten track - Penang, perhaps, or Kota Kinabalu - seasonally, a couple of times a week, but I'm not sure the airline has the right aircraft for them, or even if the right aircraft exists. in terms of capacity/range.

mariner

Didn't see it posted here, HND started last week 3 weekly 789. Switches to 772 with a schedule change in November.

mariner wrote:

aerorobnz wrote:

mariner wrote:

BALI EXTENDED - CAPACITY NEARLY DOUBLED:

There can be no doubt that this has been a success, and you rightly called it very early on. There is more to a route than raw yield, and besides demand has been good enough that it is regularly more expensive than NRT/SIN etc. I also think this success bodes well for other routes, such as MNL and SGN. It seems self evident now the 763s have gone that the route demand has jumped and the costs have remained very similar.

I never understood what happened with MNL (did anyone?) why it was postponed, deferred - cancelled? - and I hope the presence of PAL on the route doesn't kill it for Air NZ, although I worry that it might.

I'd like to see a bit more nearer Asia, and not just the obvious routes, but places a wee bit off the beaten track - Penang, perhaps, or Kota Kinabalu - seasonally, a couple of times a week, but I'm not sure the airline has the right aircraft for them, or even if the right aircraft exists. in terms of capacity/range.

mariner

It is at the MNL end. NZ is definitely keen to do it from what I have heard they have just been mucked around by red tape in MNL (not sure if it is the airport or government there). One positive about having John Key joining the board is that his political connections should help to sort this out and then NZ will be in there like a shot.

CGK would be a likely target airport.

Little Sounds Air is looking at bigger aircraft.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... r-aircraft

"Quake Damage Drives Sounds Air’s Search for Larger Aircraft

The long-term closure of the main road between the cities of Blenheim and Christchurch caused by the magnitude 7.8 earthquake that devastated areas of New Zealand’s South Island in November 2016 has produced enough extra passenger traffic on the route for regional carrier Sounds Air to add aircraft larger than the nine-seat Pilatus PC-12s it operates now.

However, speaking with AIN at the recent Caribbean Aviation Meetup conference in Sint Maarten and in subsequent e-mails, Sounds Air managing director and majority shareholder Andrew Crawford said the carrier now operates up to 22 PC-12 round trips a week on the Blenheim-Christchurch route as a result of the road closure. Crawford added that the closure generates more traffic demand for Sounds Air beyond even today’s increased schedule and noted that the main road between the two cities will remain closed for more than a year to come.

According to Crawford, Sounds Air is looking for larger aircraft to meet the extra Blenheim-Christchurch demand and also to benefit from what he said is a forthcoming move by Air New Zealand regional subsidiary Air Nelson to end services with 50-seat turboprops at some New Zealand destinations.

However, Sounds Air does not intend to add 50-seat aircraft. For it to do so “would be a huge investment” and “a lot could go wrong,” said Crawford. “We are looking at Beech 1900Ds and potentially Saab 340Bs as the two options that are potentially viable,” he explained."

I'm intrigued about the apparent "forthcoming move" for Air Nelson, too.

mariner

mariner wrote:

According to Crawford, Sounds Air is looking for larger aircraft to meet the extra Blenheim-Christchurch demand and also to benefit from what he said is a forthcoming move by Air New Zealand regional subsidiary Air Nelson to end services with 50-seat turboprops at some New Zealand destinations.

. . .

I'm intrigued about the apparent "forthcoming move" for Air Nelson, too.

mariner

Realistically, the only destinations left that could potentially be cut without completely savaging the network would be KKE, WRE, TUO, PPQ, HKK or TIU. GIS would be the smallest centre left on the network (aside from ZQN), but it's hard to imagine an isolated city with such dependence on the airline being abandoned. To drop KKE would be a slap in the face for the tourism industry and could turn out to be an "own goal", so I doubt that one, really. Hmmm.

DavidByrne wrote:

Realistically, the only destinations left that could potentially be cut without completely savaging the network would be KKE, WRE, TUO, PPQ, HKK or TIU. GIS would be the smallest centre left on the network (aside from ZQN), but it's hard to imagine an isolated city with such dependence on the airline being abandoned.

I can see the end of PPQ once the Dash-8s go. Quite likely transmission gully will be complete by then, plus who knows what else in terms of effective transport from Wellington station to the airport. Plus PPQ is sitting on some land whose value I imagine is increasing pretty quickly with the new expressway and Wellington's need to grow. Combine that with a lack of space to expand, PMR not too far in the other direction, and questionable demand resulting in recent reductions (2015 CHC dropped, 2016 AKL 16-13pw), it's hard to see PPQ being there long term.

TIU would be another probable candidate with service only to WLG, and CHC a fairly easy two hour drive. TIU/WLG is a route I could see Sounds picking up, where presumably the reduction in connecting traffic would be balanced by them using smaller aircraft.

In some respects I wonder if NZ would consider some kind of partnership with Sounds that would also allow them to drop HKK and fully drop TUO without the 'regional blow-back'. Probably not a full ticketing or interline arrangement since that introduces them to the operational challenges of Sounds' thinner network, but perhaps marketing support or equity, and specific code-shares where their networks overlap (WLG/NSN). Hard to know how the Commerce Commission might feel about that proposal.

DavidByrne wrote:

I'm wondering if a ORD route would be served by 77W if the suggestion that SFO will switch to 789 turns out to be correct.

Too much plane. The premium configured 789 is better sized. Also, can be timed to connect to DUB, SNN, EDI, future MAN flight, and the eastern US/Canada.

DavidByrne wrote:

Realistically, the only destinations left that could potentially be cut without completely savaging the network would be KKE, WRE, TUO, PPQ, HKK or TIU. GIS would be the smallest centre left on the network (aside from ZQN), but it's hard to imagine an isolated city with such dependence on the airline being abandoned. To drop KKE would be a slap in the face for the tourism industry and could turn out to be an "own goal", so I doubt that one, really. Hmmm.

When Sounds set up shop at Westport, there was a push to get them into Greymouth as well, which make sense to me:

http://3rdlevelnz.blogspot.co.nz/2015/0 ... mouth.html

"Sounds Air for Greymouth???"

CEO Crawford seemed drawn to the idea, but I guess was waiting on the ruesuls of Westport. He said:

"To get to Wellington from Greymouth you’ve got to go to Hokitika, fly to Christchurch, then fly from Christchurch. That is very expensive.” Mr Crawford told the Greymouth Star their current focus was on getting Westport set up, but he would not rule out a Greymouth option. “In fact, Greymouth will have a big part to play in this airline,” Mr Crawford said. They would have to evaluate the idea first. “You can’t just put it in and hope for the best, you have to see what the potential is and what the costs will be. There is a very real potential.”

I'm not sure what that would do to Hokitika if Air NZ did drop it and I can't see them dropping KKE or, especially, WRE. I suppose it all depends on how much the big airline is willing to do business with the small fry.

mariner

I don't see a reasonable-priced solution to the WRE airport situation in the wind - while many options have apparently been thought about, doesn't seem there's a serious proposal in the wind? If 50-seaters are phased out, that's going to be a serious problem for WRE. Is it worth spending $140m (or whatever) to build an airport for NZ, where another operator with smaller aircraft could operate from the existing location? I don't have the answer to that, but it's an important question to be asked. Appreciate though that as a local, Mariner may have an update on current thinking.

DavidByrne wrote:

I don't see a reasonable-priced solution to the WRE airport situation in the wind - while many options have apparently been thought about, doesn't seem there's a serious proposal in the wind? If 50-seaters are phased out, that's going to be a serious problem for WRE. Is it worth spending $140m (or whatever) to build an airport for NZ, where another operator with smaller aircraft could operate from the existing location? I don't have the answer to that, but it's an important question to be asked. Appreciate though that as a local, Mariner may have an update on current thinking.

The serious proposal in the wind is a new airport - plans (or concepts) for which are being developed.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11801330

"Whangarei's 28 potential airport sites under wraps for now. Twenty-eight potential sites for a new airport have been identified in Whangarei.

Whangarei's Onerahi Airport has 10 to 15 years of life left in it, but its runway cannot be extended in length or expanded.

Under Stage 2 of an Airport Locations Options Study, Beca consultants have earmarked 28 potential sites, to be whittled down to two or three."

I worry about it, because everyone jumped up and down wanted the new airport built even closer to town that the present airport, which seems to me to be silly. There's all that - fairly flat - land around Marsden Point, already industrialised and on the main highway. To have a major seaport, an airport and, assuming it happens, a (freight) rail-head gathered in one place makes sense to me.

If there is an end date for WRE, I imagine that Wellington is at least aware of the plans because the WDC is unlikely to be contemplating funding any great portion of the budget itself.

Then again, no one has ever explained to me why Onerahi - WRE - cannot be extended or expanded, but I'm not technically minded.

mariner

mariner wrote:

". . . Twenty-eight potential sites for a new airport have been identified in Whangarei.

Whangarei's Onerahi Airport has 10 to 15 years of life left in it, but its runway cannot be extended in length or expanded."

I worry about it, because everyone jumped up and down wanted the new airport built even closer to town that the present airport, which seems to me to be silly. There's all that - fairly flat - land around Marsden Point, already industrialised and on the main highway. To have a major seaport, an airport and, assuming it happens, a (freight) rail-head gathered in one place makes sense to me.

If there is an end date for WRE, I imagine that Wellington is at least aware of the plans because the WDC is unlikely to be contemplating funding any great portion of the budget itself.

Then again, no one has ever explained to me why Onerahi - WRE - cannot be extended or expanded, but I'm not technically minded.

mariner

I also couldn't understand why Marsden Point wasn't a dead cert for a new airport. But I'm more concerned that if NZ does decided to phase out the Q300s, then that new airport needs to be in place right then and there, or WRE runs the risk of losing NZ service altogether - unless of course they're prepared to operate the ATR72s with serious restrictions. Surely there's also a benefit/cost argument here as well. I don't know how much a Marsden Point airfield would cost, but one of the other options being considered, IIRC the one close to the old Port Whangarei, was costed at $140m. That's a lot of money to pay to support perhaps 3-4 ATR flights a day. Perhaps an alternative would be for NZ to relinquish the route to another operator which is prepared to operate aircraft that can use the existing airfield?

I don't feel strongly about this one way or the other, but living in Auckland, where transport infrastructure decisions come under a BCR microscope (unless they happen to be Roads of National Significance . . . ) we have become accustomed to having to justify every last dollar spent.

DavidByrne wrote:

I don't know how much a Marsden Point airfield would cost, but one of the other options being considered, IIRC the one close to the old Port Whangarei, was costed at $140m. That's a lot of money to pay to support perhaps 3-4 ATR flights a day. Perhaps an alternative would be for NZ to relinquish the route to another operator which is prepared to operate aircraft that can use the existing airfield?

I suspect we'll become trapped in the ol' Kiwi argument - (i) build it for the future versus (ii) only build the minimum we presently need. It's my old hobby horse - I think it's silly that there is no all-weather, 373/A320 airport capable north of the harbour bridge.

mariner

mariner wrote:

Then again, no one has ever explained to me why Onerahi - WRE - cannot be extended or expanded, but I'm not technically minded.

Onerahi is on a circular plateau which drops away at either end of the runway and is surrounded by residential streets.

Had a look at this a few times and thought the best site would be just south of Whangarei at Otaika. North of the Portland cement works and between SH1 and the railway track there's about 2,200 metres for an 07 / 25 runway. Onerahi has a 1,097 metre 06 / 24 runway.

A new airport with a runway of about 2,200 metres could also be used by the RNZAF and as an AKL alternate. If Onerahi was sold for residential use that would probably fund the new airport and the replacement of general aviation facilities like privately owned hangars etc.

PA515

mariner wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

I don't know how much a Marsden Point airfield would cost, but one of the other options being considered, IIRC the one close to the old Port Whangarei, was costed at $140m. That's a lot of money to pay to support perhaps 3-4 ATR flights a day. Perhaps an alternative would be for NZ to relinquish the route to another operator which is prepared to operate aircraft that can use the existing airfield?

I suspect we'll become trapped in the ol' Kiwi argument - (i) build it for the future versus (ii) only build the minimum we presently need. It's my old hobby horse - I think it's silly that there is no all-weather, 373/A320 airport capable north of the harbour bridge.

mariner

A proper airport needs to be built there if for no other reason than as a strategic asset.
As I have previously mentioned I think it would be entirely possible for the RNZAF to move up there (or at least operate from there as a forward base of sorts). It would free up valuable land in Auckland while being cheaper for the RNZAF and be half an hour closer to the North where they patrol (that means an extra hour of patrol time/loiter time).
For tourism purposes it would be good to have the capability to take jets although I don't see it as being more than a turbo-prop for civil ops for the medium term. As Auckland grows there is however more and more people living North of the bridge and with Whangarei (Marsden) being potentially within a shorter driving time than Auckland Airport. Whangarei is booming so in 20 years it's quite possible that you could have some jet ops there (probably to WLG not so much for the short hop to AKL unless it was economic to do so).

Zkpilot wrote:

A proper airport needs to be built there if for no other reason than as a strategic asset.

Sorry to be somewhat negative about this, but as I suggested in my earlier post, where transport infrastructure is concerned, there has to be a real and immediate and demonstrated need or a proposal doesn't stand a chance of central government funding (except, as I said, for RoNS, which are ruled by a totally political agenda). I'd suggest that central government is in at least the medium term happy with Whenuapai as a strategic asset, and certainly isn't rushing to replace it with a new facility. As for the idea of 320s one day operating WRE-WLG: perhaps, just perhaps that's a possibility, but it's only recently that NZ pulled a B1900 off that route because the market would not support even a Q300.

I don't see central government involvement in a new WRE airport at all - from their point of view, what's the problem with the existing facility? If NZ doesn't want to serve it, they'd argue, let another operator (Air Chathams, Barrier Air, even Sounds Air) have a go. And it's not as if central government routinely pumps money into other domestic airports (or international ones, for that matter). For the most part they are local authority-owned (sometimes with private equity partners) and local government makes whatever investment is needed - and takes the profits or suffers the losses as appropriate.

What this means is that whoever would own a new airport (Whangarei DC with perhaps involvement by the Northland RC and private equity partners) would have to borrow (say) $140m (IIRC the cost of the proposal that was considered unsuitable near Port Whangarei). Given that WDC's current debt level is $162m, I'd be very surprised if there was the capacity to fund even a fraction of the required amount without exceeding their debt ceiling.

Don't get me wrong - I hate to see NZ's domestic network shrinking. But if the airline is seriously planning to standardise on the ATR72, then Whangarei DC needs to be very clear about the merits of spending $140m just to stay on the NZ network, given other operators could fill the gap using the existing airport without capital expenditure.

DavidByrne wrote:

As for the idea of 320s one day operating WRE-WLG: perhaps, just perhaps that's a possibility, but it's only recently that NZ pulled a B1900 off that route because the market would not support even a Q300.

I don't see A320's flying WRE-WLG and maybe we should put paid to the $140 million number.

Yes, I'd like to see A320's being able to fly trans-Tasman and so relieve some of the pressure on the Auckland Harbour Bridge and that would require an A320 capable airport north of the Bridge. I guess you have to live up here to understand. It's also a puzzle to me that one of the two great regional tourist centres has not much more than a mud strip for an airfield.

I don't expect to see it in my lifetime, but given that the estimates for a new airport in the right place are $40 million, I'm pleased that the various parties involved, from WDC to Air NZ, are at least discussing it.

The $140 million figure you've quoted was to extend Onerahi and the Port Whangarei (Port Nikau) site was going to cost $148 million because of the surrounding terrain.

http://www.wdc.govt.nz/NewsRoom/Latest- ... years.aspx

"Study confirms airport has up to 15 years

Stage One of the study was initiated by Council in February, after discussions with Far North Holdings and Northland Inc, Air New Zealand and the Civil Aviation Authority about the future of air transport in Northland.

“A major change is not imminent, but the current airport’s future is limited. To make the best decisions for the long term we need to start a rigorous programme of investigation and planning now,” said Group Manager Infrastructure Services Simon Weston.

“It is difficult to provide a cost for the project given that we do not have a location in mind, but a new airport is likely to be in the region of $40m.

Stage Two of the project will provide costs and commercial information for Council to consider in detail.”

mariner

A random idea about the future of possibility of NZ deciding to standardise on the ATR72 for provincial services, and if they do decide that the limitations of ATR use at WRE are to great to continue operating there, then the path is open to JQ to take on WRE-AKL. And/or, for that matter, AKL-TUO, WLG-TIU, CHC-HKK, AKL-PPQ. That would result in a medium-sized tectonic shift in the domestic airline industry, with NZ serving the trunk routes with A320s and major provincial centres pretty thoroughly with ATR72s, and JQ serving the trunk routes with 320s, and a few of the main provincial routes and a handful of minor provincial routes with Q300s.

For JQ that would mean real economies of scale. probably requiring a doubling of the Q300 fleet and a more significant toehold in the provincial market. There would be a little onward feed also onto existing services (from WRE to points south of AKL, HKK to points served from CHC, TIU to points served from WLG) but that won't be a really significant factor. There's also international transfer traffic possible at AKL, WLG, and CHC. Of course there's still the problem for JQ of what they replace the Q300 with eventually, and it's possible they, too, will move to (perhaps) the Q400.

For NZ, the outcome is a very solid network connecting all the main provincial centres directly to AKL, WLG and CHC with only a few exceptions and mostly with multiple daily frequencies, and a trunk network that connects all of AKL, WLG, CHC, DUD and ZQN nonstop to each other multiple times a day(except for DUD-ZQN). Practically speaking, it's almost as complete a network for those towns and cities as would possible (discounting nonstop connections between provincial centres).

Whatever the outcome, whether Air Chathams, Barrier Air, Sounds Air or JetStar pick up the slack, a move to ditch the Q300 may have significant impacts on the domestic airline scene if NZ decides it doesn't want to use the ATR on some of the thinner routes. I note Sounds Air is considering a B1900 or Saab to operate BHE-CHC on a longer term basis, and with Air Chathams already using the Metro and the Saab, they are particularly well-placed also to build an enhanced network.

mariner wrote:

I don't expect to see it in my lifetime, but given that the estimates for a new airport in the right place are $40 million, I'm pleased that the various parties involved, from WDC to Air NZ, are at least discussing it.

The $140 million figure you've quoted was to extend Onerahi and the Port Whangarei (Port Nikau) site was going to cost $148 million because of the surrounding terrain.
mariner

Fair enough, I haven't gone into the numbers in detail but I was a bit shocked at the (un)affordability of the Port Nikau proposal.

But I'm not clear on whether the use of the ATR out of Whangarei in the interim would require unaffordable (to NZ) limitations on operation. I know that there are definitely some restrictions (as there have been with other aircraft using the field) but does anyone have a handle on how significant these would be for regular ATR operation?

I agree with David re WRE. I just don't see it.

Speaking of things that are pipe dreams, how about the following,
An Airport positioned as equi-distant between TRG/ROT and HLZ as is feasible, with rail/motorway linking the airport with the cities. Think of it as an airport that serves multiple cities such as Seattle-Tacoma, Dallas-Forth Worth, Cologne-Bonn Then close HLZ/TRG/ROT as they currently stand and operate larger aircraft to match demand for the combined 3 cities in 1 (including international flights) instead of Q300 size. Bare in mind that the collection point includes WHK as well, so it would allow the market to be better served than currently. Potentially if done correctly you could even link AKL as a second airport a la NRT,KUL or other further afield airports. The low flats of the Hauraki Plains could offer plenty of space for expansion.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/95123769 ... and-nelson

After a couple of years on the NSN-PMR route, it appears that Originair is expanding

They've announced a 4 weekly service between Nelson and New Plymouth starting September 29

A browse of the booking function on the Originair website shows the schedule as follows

OG3301 11:20 NSN - NPL 12:20 13
OG3313 12:20 NSN - NPL 13:20 57

OG3302 12:50 NPL - NSN 13:50 13
OG3314 13:50 NPL - NSN 14:50 57


I wish them the best with their service. I in no way claim to be an expert in the area, however I would have assumed a NSN-HLZ service would have been on their horizon. This is purely based on Hamilton being the largest population centre without a direct service from Nelson, a history of service on the route with Inglis' prior organisations, and any stimulation of demand from Kiwi Regional's run on the route prior to their demise. Anyone have any thoughts on that?

I think its short sighted to drop commercial flights from PPQ. Population is growing fast on the coast and projected to grow further with more and more small business moving north. Maybe it would be better if NZ can't seem to make it work for Sounds Air to move in. Particularly if they are looking at a larger aircraft. I would say one of the reasons service didn't take off is that there wasn't enough frequency to offer a viable alternative to WLG and as someone who has transited WLG many times en route Kapiti I can say it adds 2 hours to the journey by the time you get your bag, get ia taxi into town and get on a train. And if it's Friday afternoon and the traffic is heavy then you may miss your train and it's even longer.

DavidByrne wrote:

Fair enough, I haven't gone into the numbers in detail but I was a bit shocked at the (un)affordability of the Port Nikau proposal.

Everybody was shocked at the cost of the Port Nikau proposal, especially its proponents, who seemed to think they could have a fully functioning airport at the end of Cameron Street.

aerorobnz wrote:

I agree with David re WRE. I just don't see it.

Without an airport at WRE - or close by - you cut off the north, which may be fine if that's what you want but it isn't the NZ I'd like to see - a big step back. Or the tyranny of Auckland! - LOL.

mariner

ZK-MVP (F-WWEQ) has had two TLS-TLS flights in the last two days. 1hr 18m on 25th and 1hr 05m on 26th. Must be close to departing TLS.

The only photo I could find was taken on 17th July and is featured in today's airliners.net selection. ZK-MVP is just up from the VN A350.



Also ZK-MCW is back into service at 1720 today as NZ5082 NSN-AKL after 45 days at NSN.

PA515

Obviously, I'm all in favour of this

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/950646 ... ing-crisis

"Regional airports seek $32 million to avert funding crisis

The NZ Airports Association claims up to 12 smaller airports face a funding crisis and it is challenging the Government to step up with $32m to ensure their survival.

In launching the FlyLocal NZ campaign association chief executive Kevin Ward said the country's airports were split into "haves and have-nots."

Air links from regional airports were as important as state highways in promoting economic growth and employment, and for disaster response work, he said.

They also played a growing role in delivering health care with between 6000 and 10,000 patients and medical staff flown between smaller towns and city base hospitals each year.

A report entitled "Linking the Long White Cloud" puts the case for redirecting income from Government shares in larger airports such as Christchurch, which last year paid the Crown $8.2m in dividends. "

I've never been a big believer in centralisation.

mariner

PA515 wrote:

Must be close to departing TLS.

Due to start its delivery flight tomorrow.

Air Tahiti is operating a Bora Bora - Aitutaki on 27 Jul 2017 (today) and an Aitutaki - Bora Bora on 07 Aug 2017.
Expect it will be an ATR72-600 with ADS-B.

27 Jul 2017 VT144 PPT-BOB 0845/0935, BOB-AIT 1005/1210, AIT-RAR 1255/1340, RAR-PPT 1440/1730

07 Aug 2017 VT144 PPT-AIT 0830/1100, AIT-BOB 1200/1400, BOB-PPT 1530/1620

http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/air ... e-in-3q17/

PA515