Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
VirginFlyer wrote:Another couple of interest points, one again from Air Chathams, the other from Qantas:
Convair CV580 ZK-CIF operated on the Auckland-Whanganui route for part of today in place of the Saab 340.
Qantas's speacial paint 737-800 VH-XZJ "Mendooworrji" was in Auckland on a rotation from Sydney as QF141/144.
V/F
ZK-NBT wrote:VirginFlyer wrote:Another couple of interest points, one again from Air Chathams, the other from Qantas:
Convair CV580 ZK-CIF operated on the Auckland-Whanganui route for part of today in place of the Saab 340.
Qantas's speacial paint 737-800 VH-XZJ "Mendooworrji" was in Auckland on a rotation from Sydney as QF141/144.
V/F
VH-XZJ is a fairly regular visitor, atleast it was before QF put A330’s on the Tasman, I’m haven’t paid as much attention of late.
planemanofnz wrote:CI is not looking at a non-stop TPE - AKL service:
"Chung confirmed China Airlines would boost its Taipei-Brisbane-Auckland service from five times a week currently to daily by the start of December with the A350-900, replacing A330-300 equipment on the route.
Asked about the prospects of bringing in more feed for the London flight by offering a nonstop flight to Auckland, compared with the one-stop options via Australia being offered now, Chung said New Zealand was challenging from an aircraft utilisation perspective.
“It’s not easy to handle even a daily fight to Auckland,” Chung said."
See: http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/1 ... roo-route/.
Cheers,
C.
ZK-NBT wrote:planemanofnz wrote:feel EK pulling out of OZ/AKL will save the CI flights BNE/AKL from financial disaster.CI is not looking at a non-stop TPE - AKL service:
"Chung confirmed China Airlines would boost its Taipei-Brisbane-Auckland service from five times a week currently to daily by the start of December with the A350-900, replacing A330-300 equipment on the route.
Asked about the prospects of bringing in more feed for the London flight by offering a nonstop flight to Auckland, compared with the one-stop options via Australia being offered now, Chung said New Zealand was challenging from an aircraft utilisation perspective.
“It’s not easy to handle even a daily fight to Auckland,” Chung said."
See: http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/1 ... roo-route/.
Cheers,
C.
He’s talking from an aircraft utilisation perspective. With BNE-AKL it means they can offer overnight flights ex BNE in both directions while utilising he aircraft to AKL during the day.
Agreed some respectable figures on the Tasman routes bar PR.
aerorobnz wrote:I wouldn't worry about PR too much, that load factor reflects trans-Tasman, not those flying AKL-MNL.
NPL8800 wrote:I see no issue with PR going to an A340 nonstop, in fact it's going to greatly enhance the appeal and competitiveness of the service. Non stops are known to greatly increase traffic to new destinations once launched and marketed appropriately.
USAOZ wrote:I feel EK pulling out of OZ/AKL will save the CI flights BNE/AKL from financial disaster.
ZK-NBT wrote:CI regularly dumps seats BNE/AKL/BNE for AUD$300/adult or less. Govt taxes/charges alone are around AUD$180. so on these fares they nett somewhere in the order of AUD$80-$100 for a return seat BNE/AKL/BNE with meals/drinks.Re CI they flew 10 weekly to AKL last year, 5 each through SYD/BNE. This will be the first time that BNE has been daily.
Today marks the start of the NW schedules, there will be a few upgauges CZ77W SQ 388 for the whole season as usual with plenty more to come around DEC with frequency increases most of which happen every year.
UA return on 31/10 with 77W equipment.
USAOZ wrote:[CI regularly dumps seats BNE/AKL/BNE for AUD$300/adult or less. Govt taxes/charges alone are around AUD$180. so on these fares they nett somewhere in the order of AUD$80-$100 for a return seat BNE/AKL/BNE with meals/drinks.
USAOZ wrote:CI regularly dumps seats BNE/AKL/BNE for AUD$300/adult or less. Govt taxes/charges alone are around AUD$180. so on these fares they nett somewhere in the order of AUD$80-$100 for a return seat BNE/AKL/BNE with meals/drinks.
zkncj wrote:USAOZ wrote:CI regularly dumps seats BNE/AKL/BNE for AUD$300/adult or less. Govt taxes/charges alone are around AUD$180. so on these fares they nett somewhere in the order of AUD$80-$100 for a return seat BNE/AKL/BNE with meals/drinks.
Regularly sell AKL-MEL,SYD,OOL,BNE for $300-350return although ex Food and Bags. So its not un-normal to see pricing this low on the Tasman constantly.
USAOZ wrote:which is why you wonder why more airlines don't stop flying Tasman, but as mentioned EK pulling approx 550,000 seats each way a year will probably mean some of cheapest fares will disappear (QF is replacing some of lost EK seats, but think it's only in the order of 20% or so, as QF being such a high cost airline can't sell seats at CI or Air Asia prices)
planemanofnz wrote:Hi all,
Apologies if this has already been discussed.
AIR NEW ZEALAND ANNOUNCES WELLINGTON INTERNATIONAL KORU LOUNGE REFURBISHMENT
"Air New Zealand has announced their Wellington International Koru lounge will be closed for a refurbishment from 30th October 2017. The lounge is due to open again on the 29th November 2017.
Customers flying on Air New Zealand and Singapore Airlines services during the refurbishment will be able to use the existing Air New Zealand domestic lounges prior to their international flights. As these lounges are prior to security and immigration customers will need to ensure they leave adequate time to walk to the gate and clear immigration and security."
See: https://traveltalk.nz/news-opinion/air- ... rbishment/.
Cheers,
C.
NZ321 wrote:I suppose there is little hope for a closer working relationship between NZ and BR or OZ including cooperation on a direct service to TPE or ICN. I suppose that NZ's arrangement with CX is one of the main reasons. Thoughts?
NZ321 wrote:I suppose there is little hope for a closer working relationship between NZ and BR or OZ including cooperation on a direct service to TPE or ICN. I suppose that NZ's arrangement with CX is one of the main reasons. Thoughts?
planemanofnz wrote:EVA Air
BR only serves BNE in Australasia, and so AKL would have to compete with MEL and SYD in attracting any new BR service to the region. In 2013, BR noted that its Australian strategy was to "focus on having Brisbane daily before adding Sydney or Melbourne." That was almost 5 years ago, and AFAIK, BR's BNE service is still not daily. In 2015, CAPA (who do not quote a source) noted that "EVA also plans to look at using the A350 or 787 to expand in Australia. EVA currently only operates two weekly flights to Australia, an A330-200 service to Brisbane, but sees potential opportunities to expand in Australia if mainland China lifts current restrictions which prevent Chinese travellers from making a transit stop in Taipei." Then, last year, Australia and Taiwan concluded an "open skies" agreement, and it was noted that BR "expressed hope of providing more flights to Australia."
I cannot find any comments from BR as to the viability of New Zealand expansion.
Qantas16 wrote:EK pulled out of AKL/BNE cos couldn't make any money so why would BR do it ? AKL/TPE more likely once they have aircraft. That would give BR more feed to Europe.planemanofnz wrote:EVA Air
BR only serves BNE in Australasia, and so AKL would have to compete with MEL and SYD in attracting any new BR service to the region. In 2013, BR noted that its Australian strategy was to "focus on having Brisbane daily before adding Sydney or Melbourne." That was almost 5 years ago, and AFAIK, BR's BNE service is still not daily. In 2015, CAPA (who do not quote a source) noted that "EVA also plans to look at using the A350 or 787 to expand in Australia. EVA currently only operates two weekly flights to Australia, an A330-200 service to Brisbane, but sees potential opportunities to expand in Australia if mainland China lifts current restrictions which prevent Chinese travellers from making a transit stop in Taipei." Then, last year, Australia and Taiwan concluded an "open skies" agreement, and it was noted that BR "expressed hope of providing more flights to Australia."
I cannot find any comments from BR as to the viability of New Zealand expansion.
BR has one of the more unusual histories in Australia. For quite a while they have only served BNE 2x weekly until last year when they bumped it up to 5x weekly... it's now 4x weekly. They also don't have any aircraft for expansion arriving for a little while (787-10s) so maybe once that happens we will see BNE increased to daily and then the prospect of a AKL service. Could also see them mimic CI and operate a BNE-AKL tag.
USAOZ wrote:zkncj wrote:USAOZ wrote:CI regularly dumps seats BNE/AKL/BNE for AUD$300/adult or less. Govt taxes/charges alone are around AUD$180. so on these fares they nett somewhere in the order of AUD$80-$100 for a return seat BNE/AKL/BNE with meals/drinks.
which is why you wonder why more airlines don't stop flying Tasman, but as mentioned EK pulling approx 550,000 seats each way a year will probably mean some of cheapest fares will disappear (QF is replacing some of lost EK seats, but think it's only in the order of 20% or so, as QF being such a high cost airline can't sell seats at CI or Air Asia prices)
planemanofnz wrote:Hi all,
Apologies if this was posted earlier - here are the load factors in the Australia - New Zealand corridor (for the 2016 calendar year):
- Air New Zealand (81.1% inbound, 79.0% outbound)
.
ZK-NBT wrote:BR ran BNE-AKL for a few years in the 1990’s with 763’s. Then on and off non stops some years seasonal and coding with NZ who ran the NS flights while BR ran NW. Last served 4 weekly A332’s In 2008.
USAOZ wrote:EK pulled out of AKL/BNE cos couldn't make any money so why would BR do it ? AKL/TPE more likely once they have aircraft. That would give BR more feed to Europe.
Nouflyer wrote:planemanofnz wrote:Hi all,
Apologies if this was posted earlier - here are the load factors in the Australia - New Zealand corridor (for the 2016 calendar year):
- Air New Zealand (81.1% inbound, 79.0% outbound)
.
And so we have the ultimate repudiation of the all-economy A320 model.
You will recall that the original, absurd argument was that "often only 1 or 2 Business seats are sold" on the A320 fleet, although the airline was quick to add that this did not apply on SYD, MEL and BNE services.
So they went from a configuration of 8J 144Y to one of 168Y.
Now, we know that Tasman Business fare levels are 4x lead-in Economy fares, so selling 1 Business fare equated to an extra 4 Economy sales, and selling 2 of them equated to 8 Economy sales.
So for the switch to all-economy to improve revenue, the airline would have to sell at least 149 Economy seats under the new configuration where previously they would have sold 1 Business ticket, or 153 Economy seats where previously they would have sold 2 Business seats. It's even worse on the Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne routes where previously they averaged 6 Business sales, because they would need to sell 169 Economy seats to generate the previous revenue.....on a 168 seater plane.
But 81.1% loads (which include Airpoints redemptions) on inbound flights actually equates to 136 seats filled.
And 79.0% loads on outbound flights equates to 133 seats filled.
In other words, between 8 and 11 Economy seats would have been vacant under the old 8J 144Y configuration. And all the airline has done is flushed down the toilet several business class sales, and instead started to install and fly around an extra 24 unsold Economy class seats on every flight.
Even Virgin weren't daft enough to keep their 737s all economy.
Yet Air NZ took out a small Business cabin, gave away a significant amount of revenue, and now just carries an extra 4 rows of unsold seats on every flight.
Nouflyer wrote:
VirginFlyer wrote:I think NZ should look again at a business class offering on the A320/321
Nouflyer wrote:planemanofnz wrote:Hi all,
Apologies if this was posted earlier - here are the load factors in the Australia - New Zealand corridor (for the 2016 calendar year):
- Air New Zealand (81.1% inbound, 79.0% outbound)
.
And so we have the ultimate repudiation of the all-economy A320 model.
You will recall that the original, absurd argument was that "often only 1 or 2 Business seats are sold" on the A320 fleet, although the airline was quick to add that this did not apply on SYD, MEL and BNE services.
So they went from a configuration of 8J 144Y to one of 168Y.
Now, we know that Tasman Business fare levels are 4x lead-in Economy fares, so selling 1 Business fare equated to an extra 4 Economy sales, and selling 2 of them equated to 8 Economy sales.
So for the switch to all-economy to improve revenue, the airline would have to sell at least 149 Economy seats under the new configuration where previously they would have sold 1 Business ticket, or 153 Economy seats where previously they would have sold 2 Business seats. It's even worse on the Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne routes where previously they averaged 6 Business sales, because they would need to sell 169 Economy seats to generate the previous revenue.....on a 168 seater plane.
But 81.1% loads (which include Airpoints redemptions) on inbound flights actually equates to 136 seats filled.
And 79.0% loads on outbound flights equates to 133 seats filled.
In other words, between 8 and 11 Economy seats would have been vacant under the old 8J 144Y configuration. And all the airline has done is flushed down the toilet several business class sales, and instead started to install and fly around an extra 24 unsold Economy class seats on every flight.
Even Virgin weren't daft enough to keep their 737s all economy.
Yet Air NZ took out a small Business cabin, gave away a significant amount of revenue, and now just carries an extra 4 rows of unsold seats on every flight.
USAOZ wrote:financially CI or BR should operate a BNE/USA mainland direct via somewhere like APW with a splash & dash in peak season only, when fares are very high.
They could do TPE/BNE/APW/SFO/TPE using either an A330 or B777.
Only thing is it might upset their alliance partners.
Qantas16 wrote:APW is like a tech stop, as they couldn't fly OZ/USA nonstop as wouldn't get the traffic rights unless I guess it was a charter or scheduled charter. Samoa or some other place would surely let them use their traffic rights.USAOZ wrote:financially CI or BR should operate a BNE/USA mainland direct via somewhere like APW with a splash & dash in peak season only, when fares are very high.
They could do TPE/BNE/APW/SFO/TPE using either an A330 or B777.
Only thing is it might upset their alliance partners.
Are you serious?!?! That sounds like the easiest way to lose a good couple of million dollars I've ever heard. They have ~0% brand image in APW and would really be scraping the bottom in fares ex-BNE for a BNE-APW-SFO service. Not withstanding crewing issues for such a flight (i.e. you'd likely have crews laying over in BNE, APW and SFO)... even if they were to launch BNE-USA direct, I fail to see why they should. They have zero connections on either end and I doubt QF/VA or any US carrier will provide them much feed. Also, neither CI nor BR have surplus aircraft that they are struggling to find uses for... they aren't EK. There are enough potential routes ex-TPE they can explore before needing to look at ludicrous routes like BNE-APW-SFO.
Also I'm unsure why there is this idea that APW and other Pacific Islands are an untapped gold mine. Samoa has a population of ~200,000 people and a GDP of approximately US$1billion Not only is a lot of the travel demand ex-APW directed to NZ and Australia, they are already well served (whether they believe it or not) with multiple daily services to AKL on wide bodies.
USAOZ wrote:APW is like a tech stop, as they couldn't fly OZ/USA nonstop as wouldn't get the traffic rights unless I guess it was a charter or scheduled charter. Samoa or some other place would surely let them use their traffic rights.
Crews layover now in BNE & SFO & LAX. Seasonally - December & January have highest yields of the year. Apparently CI has just parked some aircraft.
Idea is not mine, but heard from an operator with offices in Australia & USA who wants seats
Qantas16 wrote:if APW was purely for refueling &/or traffic rights reasons & on the ground for minimal time, then BNE/APW/SFO would surely take around same time as a MEL/LAX flight. A B777 might not even need to take on fuel. An A330 would I think.USAOZ wrote:APW is like a tech stop, as they couldn't fly OZ/USA nonstop as wouldn't get the traffic rights unless I guess it was a charter or scheduled charter. Samoa or some other place would surely let them use their traffic rights.
Crews layover now in BNE & SFO & LAX. Seasonally - December & January have highest yields of the year. Apparently CI has just parked some aircraft.
Idea is not mine, but heard from an operator with offices in Australia & USA who wants seats
If they desperately wanted to fly the route, then they should ask for it but any stops along the way would kill the route before it began. Not that I think BR or CI would be successful in operating BNE-LAX/SFO direct anyway...
Yes crews layover there because the flights are long between those ports but. TPE-BNE-APW-SFO-TPE would be at least 5 days for one crew and would depend on the route being daily, otherwise you'll have crew in APW for days waiting for the next flight.
There are so many airlines that are more likely to start Aus-USA flights than BR/CI - in no particular order; NZ, EK, TG, SQ, CX, GA, EY, QR, JQ, AC. None of those are likely but are more likely than CI/BR IMHO.
USAOZ wrote:Qantas16 wrote:if APW was purely for refueling &/or traffic rights reasons & on the ground for minimal time, then BNE/APW/SFO would surely take around same time as a MEL/LAX flight. A B777 might not even need to take on fuel. An A330 would I think.USAOZ wrote:APW is like a tech stop, as they couldn't fly OZ/USA nonstop as wouldn't get the traffic rights unless I guess it was a charter or scheduled charter. Samoa or some other place would surely let them use their traffic rights.
Crews layover now in BNE & SFO & LAX. Seasonally - December & January have highest yields of the year. Apparently CI has just parked some aircraft.
Idea is not mine, but heard from an operator with offices in Australia & USA who wants seats
If they desperately wanted to fly the route, then they should ask for it but any stops along the way would kill the route before it began. Not that I think BR or CI would be successful in operating BNE-LAX/SFO direct anyway...
Yes crews layover there because the flights are long between those ports but. TPE-BNE-APW-SFO-TPE would be at least 5 days for one crew and would depend on the route being daily, otherwise you'll have crew in APW for days waiting for the next flight.
There are so many airlines that are more likely to start Aus-USA flights than BR/CI - in no particular order; NZ, EK, TG, SQ, CX, GA, EY, QR, JQ, AC. None of those are likely but are more likely than CI/BR IMHO.
Qantas16 wrote:USAOZ wrote:Qantas16 wrote:if APW was purely for refueling &/or traffic rights reasons & on the ground for minimal time, then BNE/APW/SFO would surely take around same time as a MEL/LAX flight. A B777 might not even need to take on fuel. An A330 would I think.
If they desperately wanted to fly the route, then they should ask for it but any stops along the way would kill the route before it began. Not that I think BR or CI would be successful in operating BNE-LAX/SFO direct anyway...
Yes crews layover there because the flights are long between those ports but. TPE-BNE-APW-SFO-TPE would be at least 5 days for one crew and would depend on the route being daily, otherwise you'll have crew in APW for days waiting for the next flight.
There are so many airlines that are more likely to start Aus-USA flights than BR/CI - in no particular order; NZ, EK, TG, SQ, CX, GA, EY, QR, JQ, AC. None of those are likely but are more likely than CI/BR IMHO.
Sure but I'm still confused as to why you think the route would be a success, even without the stop. If this route was such a goldmine, QF/VA would be significantly increasing frequency or UA/AA/DL would be flying it. Whilst I think there is room for growth BNE-USA, it won't come from a Taiwanese carrier