PA515 wrote:

http://nyc787.blogspot.com has updated the 787 delivery schedule to L/N 769

The two Air NZ 789s for 2018 delivery and the first for Air Tahiti Nui are:
L/N 749 (ZB012 c/n 38182) Everett -- due 10 Sep 2018 -- ZK-NZN? -- owned
L/N 750 (ZB908 c/n 39297) Charleston -- due 18 Sep 2018 -- F-O??? -- leased from ALC
L/N 751 (ZB997 c/n 39296) Everett -- due 13 Sep 2018 -- ZK-NZQ? -- leased from ALC

Both Air NZ 789s one behind the other on the Everett assembly line and delivered three days apart. Air NZ has previously had at least a month between deliveries.

PA515

Any deliveries for NZ, VA or TN scheduled for October? I'm looking into visiting Seattle in October

Why would NZ not use NZO or NZP and jump from NZN to NZQ?

BTW I see that MH have updated their AKL schedule as follows:

MH133 KUL0805 – 2315AKL 333 7
MH133 KUL0830 – 2340AKL 333 x7

MH132 AKL0030 – 0630KUL 333 1
MH132 AKL0055 – 0655KUL 333 x1

NZ321 wrote:

Why would NZ not use NZO or NZP and jump from NZN to NZQ?

PA515 wrote:

LamboAston wrote:
NZQ because NZO is taken, and NZP was a crashed aircraft? I thought NZN was a Charleston aircraft

Applying the same logic as NZA (taken) and NZB (written off). Just the 2017 789s ZK-NZL and NZM are Charleston aircraft.

PA515

PA515

777ER wrote:

Any deliveries for NZ, VA or TN scheduled for October? I'm looking into visiting Seattle in October

From memory the last 738 on order for VA was due to be delivered this month. The first TN 789 is Sep 2018, and Air NZ 789s ZK-NZL and ZK-NZM due for delivery in Oct and Nov 2017 are being assembled in Charleston. You could see a QF 789 at Everett.

PA515

UA has just announced IAH-SYD. Not sure how much traffic NZ is carrying between SYD and IAH at the moment but I thought if this was a trend with all the direct flights between Australia and North America, NZ would have some work to do. They have already lost VA Velocity members who won't be able to earn points on NZ long haul services from November. Perhaps they should step up their efforts in the loyalty front but the Airpoints Dollars format would be difficult and a hard sell in a foreign country.

QF has announced plans to fly direct from SYD to LHR and Aussie will soon get used to fly ultra long haul non-stop. Will they still have the need to go via AKL in the near future? Would this force NZ to go back on routes ex Australia? Are they also the only carrier that has traffic rights ex Australia and are not using them?

Ouch - so much for alliances. Maybe this will prompt NZ to launch ORD sooner and reduce frequency or eliminate IAH.

BTW It's interesting to note the international wide body schedule into AKL this summer. Compared to 10 years ago the proportion of Airbus operated jets is significantly up. GS (332), HU (332), 3U (332), HX (332), CI (333), CX (359) MH (C33), D7 (333), PR (343), TN (343), EK (388), QF (332/333), HA (332), FJ (332) SQ(388). By my reckoning that leaves KE (748), CA (789), AA (789), LA (789), UA (77W), TG (789), QR (77L). Plus FX (M11) and QF (763F).

Does anybody have a complete schedule - airlines equipment and frequency into AKL? Now that Google flights has changed format it's hard to obtain without going to individual airline sights. Must be shaping up to be the busiest summer on record. Be interesting to see what the tightest spots are in terms of gate access.

PA515 wrote:

http://nyc787.blogspot.com has updated the 787 delivery schedule to L/N 769

The two Air NZ 789s for 2018 delivery and the first for Air Tahiti Nui are:
L/N 749 (ZB012 c/n 38182) Everett -- due 10 Sep 2018 -- ZK-NZN? -- owned
L/N 750 (ZB908 c/n 39297) Charleston -- due 18 Sep 2018 -- F-O??? -- leased from ALC
L/N 751 (ZB997 c/n 39296) Everett -- due 13 Sep 2018 -- ZK-NZQ? -- leased from ALC

Both Air NZ 789s one behind the other on the Everett assembly line and delivered three days apart. Air NZ has previously had at least a month between deliveries.

PA515

Clang clang. It has take me almost a week to realise John is refering to diliveries for FY2018!

sunrisevalley wrote:

Clang clang. It has take me almost a week to realise John is refering to diliveries for FY2018!

You probably meant to say FY2019.

PA515

eta unknown wrote:

Just so you know, some people depart on one passport and arrive on another, for example, I know many Brits leave NZ to the UK on their UK passport but will return on their NZ password. When you arrive back customs really have no idea you left. Remember in that case your UK passport isn't linked to your NZ one.
Oh believe me- they know. Google "five eyes"

Interesting, I never knew this and have heard stories of people getting questioned about when they departed etc. Sadly I don't have a U.K passport so my knowledge is all hearsay.

NZ321 wrote:

BTW It's interesting to note the international wide body schedule into AKL this summer. Compared to 10 years ago the proportion of Airbus operated jets is significantly up. GS (332), HU (332), 3U (332), HX (332), CI (333), CX (359) MH (C33), D7 (333), PR (343), TN (343), EK (388), QF (332/333), HA (332), FJ (332) SQ(388). By my reckoning that leaves KE (748), CA (789), AA (789), LA (789), UA (77W), TG (789), QR (77L). Plus FX (M11) and QF (763F).

Does anybody have a complete schedule - airlines equipment and frequency into AKL? Now that Google flights has changed format it's hard to obtain without going to individual airline sights. Must be shaping up to be the busiest summer on record. Be interesting to see what the tightest spots are in terms of gate access.

CX 77W,

NZ321 wrote:

Ouch - so much for alliances. Maybe this will prompt NZ to launch ORD sooner and reduce frequency or eliminate IAH.

I kind of want to lol, we are being dramatic surely, NZ/UA have a JV, someone said it doesn't include OZ-US only NZ flights, but they will be working together.

xiaotung wrote:

QF has announced plans to fly direct from SYD to LHR and Aussie will soon get used to fly ultra long haul non-stop. Will they still have the need to go via AKL in the near future? Would this force NZ to go back on routes ex Australia? Are they also the only carrier that has traffic rights ex Australia and are not using them?

Some people are going to connect for various reasons, shorter flights, price etc. No NZ won't imo go back to long haul ex Australia. Why would they?

PA515 wrote:

sunrisevalley wrote:

Clang clang. It has take me almost a week to realise John is refering to diliveries for FY2018!

You probably meant to say FY2019.

PA515

Thanks for your gentle correction!

My understanding this summer is that CX is operating both 77W and 359. Expedia shows this at the moment. That means 2x CX flights and 2x HX flights and 1x NZ flight from HKG. Am I wrong?

Meanwhile, I agree that it seems unlikely that NZ would go back to long haul out of Australia particularly to North America. But there are one or two possibilities that could eventuate along lines discussed in other forums. So while unlikely, I'd never say never.

NZ321 wrote:

My understanding this summer is that CX is operating both 77W and 359. Expedia shows this at the moment. That means 2x CX flights and 2x HX flights and 1x NZ flight from HKG. Am I wrong?

.

You are correct.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ321 wrote:

BTW It's interesting to note the international wide body schedule into AKL this summer. Compared to 10 years ago the proportion of Airbus operated jets is significantly up. GS (332), HU (332), 3U (332), HX (332), CI (333), CX (359) MH (C33), D7 (333), PR (343), TN (343), EK (388), QF (332/333), HA (332), FJ (332) SQ(388). By my reckoning that leaves KE (748), CA (789), AA (789), LA (789), UA (77W), TG (789), QR (77L). Plus FX (M11) and QF (763F).

Does anybody have a complete schedule - airlines equipment and frequency into AKL? Now that Google flights has changed format it's hard to obtain without going to individual airline sights. Must be shaping up to be the busiest summer on record. Be interesting to see what the tightest spots are in terms of gate access.

CX 77W, MU 332, 77W JAN FEB, CZ 332, 77W

Pity MH will be all night flights now no more daylight sightings for now. HA is just about the only carrier that we don't see in daylight at some point.

mariner wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

It sounds like longer term they may even get rid of them. Pretty sure that will make a few people here happy. :p

They don't bother me. I've no idea if the cards - arrival or departure - help keep us safe
mariner

They don't. For ten years of my life I was blissfully unaware there was an arrest warrant out on me, during which time I traveled in and out of the country with gay abandon filling in departure cards with complete accuracy every time. No light on any check-in desk ever even glowed orange.

It was all over an unpaid speed camera fine that I had no knowledge of in the first place - so not the crime of the century - but even so.

Just giving thought to 789 deliveries from CHS.-AKL..At 7200nm it looks like about a 16.hr flight.. Not too excessive , looks like a non stop flight if they can get away early in the day. I note the route tracks pretty much over PPT..

sunrisevalley wrote:

Just giving thought to 789 deliveries from CHS.-AKL..At 7200nm it looks like about a 16.hr flight.. Not too excessive , looks like a non stop flight if they can get away early in the day. I note the route tracks pretty much over PPT..

I am sure that this won't even be a stretch for the 789, especially empty.

NZ6 wrote:

eta unknown wrote:

Just so you know, some people depart on one passport and arrive on another, for example, I know many Brits leave NZ to the UK on their UK passport but will return on their NZ password. When you arrive back customs really have no idea you left. Remember in that case your UK passport isn't linked to your NZ one.
Oh believe me- they know. Google "five eyes"

Interesting, I never knew this and have heard stories of people getting questioned about when they departed etc. Sadly I don't have a U.K passport so my knowledge is all hearsay.

Generally if you're a citizen of a particular country and have a passport for the country legally you have to use that passport to enter. Even if you're a dual national you should use the correct passport for the country enter. My kids use there NZ passports to enter NZ and there Norwegian passports when we come home.

Kiwirob wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

eta unknown wrote:

Just so you know, some people depart on one passport and arrive on another, for example, I know many Brits leave NZ to the UK on their UK passport but will return on their NZ password. When you arrive back customs really have no idea you left. Remember in that case your UK passport isn't linked to your NZ one.
Oh believe me- they know. Google "five eyes"

Interesting, I never knew this and have heard stories of people getting questioned about when they departed etc. Sadly I don't have a U.K passport so my knowledge is all hearsay.

Generally if you're a citizen of a particular country and have a passport for the country legally you have to use that passport to enter. Even if you're a dual national you should use the correct passport for the country enter. My kids use there NZ passports to enter NZ and there Norwegian passports when we come home.

My family and I do the same - leave/enter the UK (and all intermediary stops) on our UK passports (because trips are usually booked using these), but enter and leave NZ on our NZ passports.

Wellington Airport want the golf course land for expansion:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indust ... owth-plans

Better/cheaper than taking people's houses I suppose

When did Tianjin Airlines (GS) suspend the CKG-AKL flights? Was announced as three weekly year round and still operating when I checked about a month ago.

Yesterday a young neighbour arrived Chongking (CKG) on a connecting flight from Nanjing (NKG) only to be told CKG-AKL was cancelled and she was offered a flight on 21 Sep. She is now arriving tomorrow on CX, but only after someone in AKL paid for an expensive new ticket. Tianjin Airlines is part of the Hainan Group and should be capable of better than this.

PA515

PA515 wrote:

When did Tianjin Airlines (GS) suspend the CKG-AKL flights? Was announced as three weekly year round and still operating when I checked about a month ago.

Yesterday a young neighbour arrived Chongking (CKG) on a connecting flight from Nanjing (NKG) only to be told CKG-AKL was cancelled and she was offered a flight on 21 Sep. She is now arriving tomorrow on CX, but only after someone in AKL paid for an expensive new ticket. Tianjin Airlines is part of the Hainan Group and should be capable of better than this.

PA515

Have they suspended it then? No idea, but it was reduced to 2 weekly a few months ago.

ZK-NBT wrote:

PA515 wrote:

When did Tianjin Airlines (GS) suspend the CKG-AKL flights? Was announced as three weekly year round and still operating when I checked about a month ago.

Yesterday a young neighbour arrived Chongking (CKG) on a connecting flight from Nanjing (NKG) only to be told CKG-AKL was cancelled and she was offered a flight on 21 Sep. She is now arriving tomorrow on CX, but only after someone in AKL paid for an expensive new ticket. Tianjin Airlines is part of the Hainan Group and should be capable of better than this.

PA515

Have they suspended it then? No idea, but it was reduced to 2 weekly a few months ago

ZK-NBT wrote:

Have they suspended it then? No idea, but it was reduced to 2 weekly a few months ago

Tianjin Airlines has three A330-200s and according to FR24 none of them have been to AKL in the last seven days.

PA515

Air NZ ATR 72-600 ZK-MVQ doing DPS-DRW-BNE today. Presently about two hours from BNE.

http://www.flightradar24.com/SXI1737/ed0ee9c

PA515

PA515 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Have they suspended it then? No idea, but it was reduced to 2 weekly a few months ago

Tianjin Airlines has three A330-200s and according to FR24 none of them have been to AKL in the last seven days.

PA515

According to flightaware.com the last CKG-AKL (GS7957 / GCR7957) was on 31 August.

PA515

Surprised nobody has mentioned that Luxon has said NZ will be looking to fly to NYC and/or ORD in the next few years when they get either the A350 or the 77X.
The way it sounded is that they would rather do it sooner than later so that would be the A359LR or 779 (since the 778 is due further down the track unless Boeing brings it forward). 779 would be a large aircraft for NZ to fill on NYC and ORD routes though.
No word on which NYC airport except it would be out of JFK and EWR. EWR of course being a big UA hub so my money would be on that (and JFK has notorious delays).

So you'd have SFO/YVR/IAH as 789, LAX as 789+A350/77X, ORD and EWR as A359LR/77X.
During peak times there might be a change or extra frequency.

Zkpilot wrote:

Surprised nobody has mentioned that Luxon has said NZ will be looking to fly to NYC and/or ORD in the next few years when they get either the A350 or the 77X.
The way it sounded is that they would rather do it sooner than later so that would be the A359LR or 779 (since the 778 is due further down the track unless Boeing brings it forward). 779 would be a large aircraft for NZ to fill on NYC and ORD routes though.

From 2020 the A350-900 will be available as a 280t MTOW and a 15,000 km range with 325 seats, that's the same MTOW as the A350-900ULR, so Air NZ won't need the A350-900ULR.

This year PR is getting a 278t A350-900HGW "enabling Manila - New York without payload limitations in both directions, a 7,404 nmi (13,712 km) flight."

AKL-EWR 14,178 kms
AKL-ORD 13,171 kms
AKL-GIG 12,281 kms
PER-LHR 14,500 kms
PER-MUC 13,582 kms

I agree, sooner than later with the A359. Air NZ could eventually have an all A350 long haul fleet.

PA515

77west wrote:

Wellington Airport want the golf course land for expansion:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indust ... owth-plans

Better/cheaper than taking people's houses I suppose

I think it's about time the govt grew some balls and set up a commission to work out why our airports suck!

Auckland is poorly managed, its lack of development to meet demand is outstanding, its always too little to late.

Wellington airport should be moved, continued development on that site is like flushing money down the bog! It's been obvious that this has been an issue for at least 20 years.

The New Zealand govt needs to bring the airports back under govt control, its needs to set up a company like Avinor in Norway why it primary purpose it to develope airports fit for purpose, not carparks and retail.

Kiwirob wrote:

Wellington airport should be moved, continued development on that site is like flushing money down the bog! It's been obvious that this has been an issue for at least 20 years.

But to where and at what cost?
Assuming a roughly North-South alignment you'd need to be near Otaki to find space (which would also have decent space for a cross-runway). By that point you'd also start considering it as replacing PMR, to which is would be similarly (un)accessible.

So then we'd talk about means of improving accessibility. Otaki/Te Horo are close to the main trunk railway, but using the current train network plus an extension that's over an hour train trip from Wellington Station. So do we also have to build a faster railway - probably largely brand-new to avoid mixing speeds (and maybe even changing the gauge to allow > 160kph)? That might be good for connectivity in the lower North Island, but at what price? Because between the airport and a railway I imagine we're talking many billions of dollars. It would start to make extending WLG seem like a bargain.

PA515 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Have they suspended it then? No idea, but it was reduced to 2 weekly a few months ago

Tianjin Airlines has three A330-200s and according to FR24 none of them have been to AKL in the last seven days.

PA515

Have been watching this route sporadically over the winter months and it appears that it occasionally doesn't operate for a week or so and then comes back the next. Maybe supply is exceeding demand at this point until the spring/summer months start to kick in again. The first winter for many new LH routes is always a challenge, GS also have a small 330 fleet and it could be a case of other routes can achieve better returns at the moment.

axio wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Wellington airport should be moved, continued development on that site is like flushing money down the bog! It's been obvious that this has been an issue for at least 20 years.

But to where and at what cost?
Assuming a roughly North-South alignment you'd need to be near Otaki to find space (which would also have decent space for a cross-runway). By that point you'd also start considering it as replacing PMR, to which is would be similarly (un)accessible.

So then we'd talk about means of improving accessibility. Otaki/Te Horo are close to the main trunk railway, but using the current train network plus an extension that's over an hour train trip from Wellington Station. So do we also have to build a faster railway - probably largely brand-new to avoid mixing speeds (and maybe even changing the gauge to allow > 160kph)? That might be good for connectivity in the lower North Island, but at what price? Because between the airport and a railway I imagine we're talking many billions of dollars. It would start to make extending WLG seem like a bargain.

How much money has been thrown at the current airport and how much more do they need to keep on fixing problems which can't really be fixed. In Oslo the airport moved from Fornebu which was in a similar location to Wellington to Gardermoen which is 50km away from the CBD. They built a future proof airport and a high speed rail line to connect it with the city.

The problem is NZ doesn't think long term we only ever look a few years ahead and generally get it wrong.

Kiwirob wrote:

axio wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Wellington airport should be moved, continued development on that site is like flushing money down the bog! It's been obvious that this has been an issue for at least 20 years.

But to where and at what cost?
Assuming a roughly North-South alignment you'd need to be near Otaki to find space (which would also have decent space for a cross-runway). By that point you'd also start considering it as replacing PMR, to which is would be similarly (un)accessible.

So then we'd talk about means of improving accessibility. Otaki/Te Horo are close to the main trunk railway, but using the current train network plus an extension that's over an hour train trip from Wellington Station. So do we also have to build a faster railway - probably largely brand-new to avoid mixing speeds (and maybe even changing the gauge to allow > 160kph)? That might be good for connectivity in the lower North Island, but at what price? Because between the airport and a railway I imagine we're talking many billions of dollars. It would start to make extending WLG seem like a bargain.

How much money has been thrown at the current airport and how much more do they need to keep on fixing problems which can't really be fixed. In Oslo the airport moved from Fornebu which was in a similar location to Wellington to Gardermoen which is 50km away from the CBD. They built a future proof airport and a high speed rail line to connect it with the city.

The problem is NZ doesn't think long term we only ever look a few years ahead and generally get it wrong.

Oslo is a city with ~950,000 people in the urban area, and 1.7 million in the greater Oslo area. Within a 1000nm radius of Oslo, the population is numbered in the hundreds of millions. In 2016 OSL handled ~26 million passengers (about 10 million more than AKL). Norway is a country with a significant sovereign wealth fund as a result of oil wealth. Oslo is not a good comparison to Wellington.

V/F

VirginFlyer wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

axio wrote:

Oslo is a city with ~950,000 people in the urban area, and 1.7 million in the greater Oslo area. Within a 1000nm radius of Oslo, the population is numbered in the hundreds of millions. In 2016 OSL handled ~26 million passengers (about 10 million more than AKL). Norway is a country with a significant sovereign wealth fund as a result of oil wealth. Oslo is not a good comparison to Wellington.

V/F

Oh, but doesn't prevent a certain someone to bring up the best airport in the world (OSL) every time airports in NZ are discussed on here

zkeoj wrote:

VirginFlyer wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Oh, but doesn't prevent a certain someone to bring up the best airport in the world (OSL) every time airports in NZ are discussed on here

That's because we have consistently screwed up airport development for decades. There's no reason why I can't compare Auckland to Oslo, Aucklands a larger city with a vastly inferior airport owned by a for profit corporation who put their needs and dividends for their shareholders ahead of developing a fit for purpose airport for the people of Auckland. AKL needs to be privatised.

Wellington is simply in the wrong location, like Fornebu was in Oslo, the difference is the Norwegian govt made the decision to move it instead of leaving it in a constrained and unsuitable location.

VirginFlyer wrote:

Oslo is a city with ~950,000 people in the urban area, and 1.7 million in the greater Oslo area. Within a 1000nm radius of Oslo, the population is numbered in the hundreds of millions. In 2016 OSL handled ~26 million passengers (about 10 million more than AKL). Norway is a country with a significant sovereign wealth fund as a result of oil wealth. Oslo is not a good comparison to Wellington.

V/F

I was comparing the poor location of Fornebu to the equally poor location of Rongotai, not the populations of the respective cities. The difference is the Norwegian govt moved the airport to a better location. New Zealand isn't a poor country by any means, I wish people would stop saying we we. We could afford to move the airport, just like we can afford to move Ports of Auckland North.

btw Oslo municipal area is about 650,000 people, Greater Oslo is 1.2m, if you include Drummen and Moss it blows out to 1.5m. NZ could also set up a sovereign wealth fund if oil exploration around NZ pays off, which I hope it will.

Kiwirob wrote:

VirginFlyer wrote:

Oslo is a city with ~950,000 people in the urban area, and 1.7 million in the greater Oslo area. Within a 1000nm radius of Oslo, the population is numbered in the hundreds of millions. In 2016 OSL handled ~26 million passengers (about 10 million more than AKL). Norway is a country with a significant sovereign wealth fund as a result of oil wealth. Oslo is not a good comparison to Wellington.

V/F

I was comparing the poor location of Fornebu to the equally poor location of Rongotai, not the populations of the respective cities. The difference is the Norwegian govt moved the airport to a better location. New Zealand isn't a poor country by any means, I wish people would stop saying we we. We could afford to move the airport, just like we can afford to move Ports of Auckland North.

btw Oslo municipal area is about 650,000 people, Greater Oslo is 1.2m, if you include Drummen and Moss it blows out to 1.5m. NZ could also set up a sovereign wealth fund if oil exploration around NZ pays off, which I hope it will.

The thing is, its the population and how these population fits in a wider context that goes a long way toward determining how much it is worth investing in an airport. The municipal population of Wellington City (not that municipal population is a great metric because it is only based on arbitrary local government boundaries) is approximately 210,000 people. The urban area is about 410,000 people, and the Wellington Region as a whole is about 510,000 people. By any measure, it is no Oslo. Can you cite any city the size of Wellington and with a similar spread of nearby urban centres which has been able to justify moving its airport some 60km away?

The existing airport is well suited to travel throughout New Zealand and to the East Coast of Australia, and is reasonably nearby to the central business district of Wellington. For flights further afield, it makes much more sense to connect through Auckland, which is a larger hub that can (and does) support more frequent flights to more destinations. Shifting Wellington's airport to Otaki isn't going to change that dynamic. All it's going to do is cost a lot of money that could be better spent elsewhere, in order to move the airport to a less convenient location for the majority of traffic.

V/F

VirginFlyer wrote:

The existing airport is well suited to travel throughout New Zealand and to the East Coast of Australia, and is reasonably nearby to the central business district of Wellington. For flights further afield, it makes much more sense to through Auckland, which is a larger hub that can (and does) support more frequent flights to more destinations. Shifting Wellington's airport to Otaki isn't going to change that dynamic. All it's going to do is cost a lot of money that could be better spent elsewhere, in order to move the airport to a less convenient location for the majority of traffic.

V/F

I think you'll find people who live in Wellington would prefer to connect through some hubs that offer much more options like SIN, HKG etc.

And population is only part of the story - WLG and CHC each have around 6M pax but local populations in the 0.5M. Compare that to ADL which has 8M pax for a local population of 1.3M (almost 3 times has many residents). PER has a local population of 2M residents and pax around 13M (2x the pax, 4x the population). Remember that New Zealanders have one of the highest per capita trip rates in the world!

Best place for a new Wellington Airport would be just 10km to the East!
Quite a bit of basic earthworks, and a tunnel under the harbour entrance,
but no real worries about confiscating valuable farms/villages. Once in
operation, still incredibly close to the city, but no silly noise troubles.

NPL8800 wrote:

PA515 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Have they suspended it then? No idea, but it was reduced to 2 weekly a few months ago

Tianjin Airlines has three A330-200s and according to FR24 none of them have been to AKL in the last seven days.

PA515

Have been watching this route sporadically over the winter months and it appears that it occasionally doesn't operate for a week or so and then comes back the next. Maybe supply is exceeding demand at this point until the spring/summer months start to kick in again. The first winter for many new LH routes is always a challenge, GS also have a small 330 fleet and it could be a case of other routes can achieve better returns at the moment.

Agree, many even established carriers significantly reduce capacity over the Winter months, CX, SQ, KE etc. Now AA and UA have returned but gone seasonal while UA will use their new largest plane 77W in the months they do fly here.

VirginFlyer wrote:

The thing is, its the population and how these population fits in a wider context that goes a long way toward determining how much it is worth investing in an airport. The municipal population of Wellington City (not that municipal population is a great metric because it is only based on arbitrary local government boundaries) is approximately 210,000 people. The urban area is about 410,000 people, and the Wellington Region as a whole is about 510,000 people. By any measure, it is no Oslo. Can you cite any city the size of Wellington and with a similar spread of nearby urban centres which has been able to justify moving its airport some 60km away?

The existing airport is well suited to travel throughout New Zealand and to the East Coast of Australia, and is reasonably nearby to the central business district of Wellington. For flights further afield, it makes much more sense to connect through Auckland, which is a larger hub that can (and does) support more frequent flights to more destinations. Shifting Wellington's airport to Otaki isn't going to change that dynamic. All it's going to do is cost a lot of money that could be better spent elsewhere, in order to move the airport to a less convenient location for the majority of traffic.

V/F

You have stop thinking in terms of size of population and start thinking in terms of what is a good location and what isn't. Fornebu was not a good location for an airport, especially one that wanted to expand, just as Rongotai is not a good location for a airport, especially one that wants to expand, which makes the comparison between what Oslo did and what Wellington should do valid.

We are very good at putting bandages on our infrastructure in NZ, instead of jumping in and fixing the problem once and for all. Besides the land the airport sits on is valuable, the sale of it would net hundreds of millions of dollars which would go some way towards a new airport, along with the 300 million plus to build the runway extension.

Deepinsider wrote:

Best place for a new Wellington Airport would be just 10km to the East!
Quite a bit of basic earthworks, and a tunnel under the harbour entrance,
but no real worries about confiscating valuable farms/villages. Once in
operation, still incredibly close to the city, but no silly noise troubles.

Is that the Hunters Hill proposal that NBR ran a story on a few years back?

According to an earlier Radio NZ article Norfolk Island Airlines has ended AKL services due to raised airport fees on the island (+100%), an increased OZ departure tax (+10%) and additional unforseen financial pressures.

Always disappointing to lose a route/airline, certainly seems like a route that a C-Series sized aircraft would be more suitable on.

Kiwirob wrote:

VirginFlyer wrote:

The thing is, its the population and how these population fits in a wider context that goes a long way toward determining how much it is worth investing in an airport. The municipal population of Wellington City (not that municipal population is a great metric because it is only based on arbitrary local government boundaries) is approximately 210,000 people. The urban area is about 410,000 people, and the Wellington Region as a whole is about 510,000 people. By any measure, it is no Oslo. Can you cite any city the size of Wellington and with a similar spread of nearby urban centres which has been able to justify moving its airport some 60km away?

The existing airport is well suited to travel throughout New Zealand and to the East Coast of Australia, and is reasonably nearby to the central business district of Wellington. For flights further afield, it makes much more sense to connect through Auckland, which is a larger hub that can (and does) support more frequent flights to more destinations. Shifting Wellington's airport to Otaki isn't going to change that dynamic. All it's going to do is cost a lot of money that could be better spent elsewhere, in order to move the airport to a less convenient location for the majority of traffic.

V/F

You have stop thinking in terms of size of population and start thinking in terms of what is a good location and what isn't. Fornebu was not a good location for an airport, especially one that wanted to expand, just as Rongotai is not a good location for a airport, especially one that wants to expand, which makes the comparison between what Oslo did and what Wellington should do valid.

We are very good at putting bandages on our infrastructure in NZ, instead of jumping in and fixing the problem once and for all. Besides the land the airport sits on is valuable, the sale of it would net hundreds of millions of dollars which would go some way towards a new airport, along with the 300 million plus to build the runway extension.

Deepinsider wrote:

Best place for a new Wellington Airport would be just 10km to the East!
Quite a bit of basic earthworks, and a tunnel under the harbour entrance,
but no real worries about confiscating valuable farms/villages. Once in
operation, still incredibly close to the city, but no silly noise troubles.

Is that the Hunters Hill proposal that NBR ran a story on a few years back?

Don't pretend NZ has some special ability to band aid stuff. It's normal human nature everywhere.

If you're going to move WLG there is nowhere close by that can be done that will not involve billions of dollars in infrastructure work. And with our current government that would mean huge motorways instead of proper rail public transport.

At a minimum you're looking out by Otaki or in the Wairarapa. At which point you may as well look at replacing all the airports in the lower/mid North Island. Then to make it viable you'll need proper high speed connections to each place that had an airport replaced. So you end up with a half dozen major public transport projects to simply replace one airport.

From my point of view as a Wellingtonian the only ting WLG really needs is a longer runway for larger aircraft. Once we get to the point of needing widebodies to do the AKL-WLG run all day then we can start looking at really moving the airport away. Until then any relocation is just needless pork.

Air NZ's Q300 ZK-NEM is AKL-NLK-BNE-TSV today as SXI1730 for a repaint. I expected NEC to be next as NEA and NEB were the last two.

PA515

Zkpilot wrote:

Surprised nobody has mentioned that Luxon has said NZ will be looking to fly to NYC and/or ORD in the next few years when they get either the A350 or the 77X.

Not many websites picked up the news.

Air New Zealand eyes New York direct with new widebodies

Photo of next NZ 789 in the hangar at CHS



https://imagr.eu/up/RVNMU_DJna2ZEVYAEgmr0.jpg

qf789 wrote:

Photo of next NZ 789 in the hangar at CHS



https://imagr.eu/up/RVNMU_DJna2ZEVYAEgmr0.jpg

Due somewhere about 15th Oct I believe.