• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 3778
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Fri Oct 06, 2017 2:23 pm

NZ321 wrote:
Any word on NZL delivery?


About to leave CHS, will arrive in AKL sometime between 1830 and 1900 on Saturday

Here's the flight plan

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/ANZ6 ... /KCHS/NZAA
Forum Moderator
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 3778
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Fri Oct 06, 2017 3:03 pm

ZK-NZL has just departed CHS, expected arrival into AKL is now 1930

https://www.flightradar24.com/f1e9cc6

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/ANZ6 ... /KCHS/NZAA
Forum Moderator
 
axio
Posts: 210
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:44 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Fri Oct 06, 2017 7:11 pm

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zk-nzl has it diverted into IAH three hours ago.
Time for a new viewing deck at AKL!
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 5691
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:01 pm

AA is back today with the 789, until March 22nd.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 3778
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:38 pm

axio wrote:
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zk-nzl has it diverted into IAH three hours ago.


Flight plan for IAH-AKL has been filed

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ANZ ... /KIAH/NZAA
Forum Moderator
 
Gasman
Posts: 1638
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 07, 2017 1:20 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
AA is back today with the 789, until March 22nd.

Just until Mar 22? They really are truncating their season.... flown on them four times this year, loadings were 90-100%
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 2010
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 07, 2017 1:51 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
AA is back today with the 789, until March 22nd.

Gasman wrote:
Just until Mar 22? They really are truncating their season.... flown on them four times this year, loadings were 90-100%

There should be enough demand for a year-round competitor service to North America (excl HNL) from New Zealand, particularly when:

- all of our country's services are consolidated through AKL, creating a similar sized market to that of Queensland
- regional New Zealand connections for competitors are being supported through the continued expansion of JQ
- Australia supports year-round flights from six carriers, across all alliances - QF, VA, DL, UA, AA and AC (with particular growth at BNE and MEL)
- New Zealand has less one-stop connections to North America (e.g. Asian carriers do not market their North American services here, unlike in Australia)
- NZ is constantly expanding its routes and frequencies to North America, with talk of further expansion to ORD and NYC

Based on this, I would like to ask:

- why do AA not go down to 3x weekly during the New Zealand winter season, instead of exiting the market completely?
- would QF, with one of its new 787s, do better than AA, given QF's stronger brand recognition and FFP base in New Zealand?
- would JQ, also using one of its 787s, do better than AA and QF, given the lower-yielding nature of the New Zealand market?
- would AA to DFW or DL to ATL (the latter, on one of its new A350s) be a more competitive offering than any service to the East Coast?
- would BA extending one of its LAX flights to AKL work, in a JV with QF or AA, with support for the flights from LHR-related traffic?

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Separately, I wonder if GA would be interested in CGK - AKL - LAX, if courted by NZTE or another entity from the New Zealand end?

Earlier this year, GA had filed with the DOT requesting to operate 3x weekly flights between CGK and LAX via NRT, as of November 2017. They add some leeway in the filing, suggesting that they want to fly via NRT or via another airport, due to the range limitations of the plane.

See: http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/ ... aruda-lax/.

CGK - NRT - LAX = 9,071 mi
CGK - AKL - LAX = 11,268 mi

Despite the NRT routing being 20% shorter, the NRT market is highly competitive, whereas AKL is not.

Further:

- there are no year-round Indonesia - New Zealand flights
- AKL - LAX would be supported by healthy traffic in its own right
- GA has a lower cost base than QF, AA and other players in the market
- DL, being a SkyTeam partner, could code-share with GA, further increasing traffic
- traffic rights through New Zealand would likely be less complicated than with other countries

It is unlikely to happen, I know, but I just thought that I would put it out there for discussion.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Cheers,

C.
 
User avatar
eta unknown
Posts: 1893
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 5:03 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 07, 2017 2:32 am

You can forget about anything GA. AKL is off the table and so is LAX. GA is bleeding cash again so no more new international routes for awhile + trying to negotiate aircraft delivery delays + now cutting back on service offerings across all classes.

All these comments about AV retiming flights if NZ launches AKL-LIM. If NZ chooses to fly to LIM then AV has no obligation to retime anything- and why should they? The onus is on NZ to make it work within existing parameters.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 2010
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:11 am

eta unknown wrote:
You can forget about anything GA. AKL is off the table and so is LAX. GA is bleeding cash again so no more new international routes for awhile + trying to negotiate aircraft delivery delays + now cutting back on service offerings across all classes.

Thank you - I was not aware of GA's financial situation.

Instead of GA, how about AK or TZ, from KUL or SIN to LAX (via AKL), respectively? An LCC would align well with the low-yielding nature of the New Zealand market.

Both airlines have a very large number long-haul aircraft on order, and are starting flights to HNL via KIX (showing that they are open to one-stop flights to North America).

eta unknown wrote:
All these comments about AV retiming flights if NZ launches AKL-LIM. If NZ chooses to fly to LIM then AV has no obligation to retime anything- and why should they? The onus is on NZ to make it work within existing parameters.

We all talk about NZ opening AKL - LIM, but what about AV opening LIM - AKL, with one of its 787-8s or 787-9s?

However, I do not know if AV's 787s are based in LIM - indeed, I do not believe that AV fly any long-haul routes out of LIM?

Would NZ be willing to create a JV with AV?

Zkpilot wrote:
I think if NZ can get LIM, EZE, GRU/GIG, going then they could then also muscle in on SCL and effectively own Asia/Australasia - South America. This would also allow more Asia (destinations/frequencies) too. Between South America, Asia, North America, NZ could in theory double long haul capacity within 6 years compared to 2013 (ie a decade). Exciting times.

To what extent will NZ's Australian-originating connections to South America be diminished by LA's new SCL - MEL route launching this week?

Further, how realistic is it to suggest that NZ can actually become a major player within the Asia - South America corridor?

A routing via AKL is often the longest routing from Asia to Brazil, which is the most important South American market:

NRT - AKL - GRU = 12,957 mi
NRT - DOH - GRU = 12,534 mi
NRT - CDG - GRU = 11,878 mi
NRT - JFK - GRU = 11,490 mi

HKG - AKL - GRU = 13,173 mi
HKG - ORD - GRU = 13,016 mi
HKG - LHR - GRU = 11,858 mi
HKG - JNB - GRU = 11,262 mi

SIN - AKL - GRU = 12,710 mi
SIN - FRA - GRU = 12,464 mi
SIN - DXB - GRU = 11,225 mi
SIN - ADD - GRU = 10,687 mi

AKL is only a slightly better transit point to other destinations in South America, but is still not amazing:

Lima:

HKG - MAD - LIM = 12,455 mi
HKG - AKL - LIM = 12,110 mi
HKG - DFW - LIM = 11,481 mi
HKG - LAX - LIM = 11,427 mi

Buenos Aires:

HKG - DFW - EZE = 13,409 mi
HKG - LHR - EZE = 12,899 mi
HKG - MAD - EZE = 12,792 mi
HKG - AKL - EZE = 12,110 mi

Santiago:

NRT - MAD - SCL = 13,356 mi
NRT - SYD - SCL = 11,906 mi
NRT - AKL - SCL = 11,483 mi
NRT - LAX - SCL = 11,021 mi

Bogota:

SIN - AKL - BOG = 12,803 mi
SIN - LAX - BOG = 12,249 mi
SIN - IST - BOG = 12,067 mi
SIN - CDG - BOG = 12,039 mi

Even so, by the time NZ open some of these additional destinations in South America, I wonder how viable it will be for non-stop flights like SYD - GRU and NRT - LIM (both within about 500 mi of PER - LHR), to be launched.

To speed up the expansion, I wonder if NZ could convince CA to replace its PEK - MAD - GRU service with a PEK - AKL - GRU service - could one of CA's upcoming A350s be able to make AKL - GRU, without any penalty or restrictions? At 7,485 mi, AKL - GRU is significantly shorter than new ULR flights like SIN - LAX.

I would love to see some figures as to how many connecting passengers from Asia (SIN, HKG, PVG and NRT) NZ gets for its AKL - EZE flight.

Cheers,

C.
Last edited by planemanofnz on Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:36 am, edited 3 times in total.
 
ZKOXA
Posts: 81
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2016 9:47 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:25 am

Saw ZK-OKS today and it has a wifi/satcom bump. When will this be used first?

ZKOXA
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind. - Dr. Seuss
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 2010
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:33 am

What do people think about NZ or JQ opening up AKL - AYQ or AKL - ASP flights, even if seasonally?

NZ has shown an openness to exploring outbound-focused tourist destinations, on a seasonal basis, which are both short-haul (MCY) and long-haul (DPS and SGN).

AKL - AYQ is 2,697 mi, which is comparable to other A320 routes, like PER - SIN (2,421 mi) and CNS - MNL (2,741 mi).

Central Australia received 197,000 international visitors in the year to June 2017, representing growth of 4.2%.

In terms of the Northern Territory's international visitor arrivals for the same period, as a whole, an NZ flight could be advertised to the following groups:

- 52,000 visitors from the United States (growth of 10%)
- 17,000 visitors from New Zealand (growth of 16%)
- 11,000 visitors from Canada (growth of 28%)

See: http://www.tourismnt.com.au/corporate/r ... sitor-data.

AYQ is a very unique destination in its own right (unlike CBR, HBA and NTL, which have all been discussed as other potential new Australian destinations for NZ). Most New Zealanders have done the traditional Australian holiday destinations, like OOL, and some might now be looking for something new. Further, this flight would only make NZ's connections offering in the North American market even more attractive. It could include UA, AC and VA code-shares.

Separately, I wonder if the Northern Territory government would offer any sort of subsidy to NZ for this route?

Image

Image

Cheers,

C.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 7941
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 07, 2017 6:19 am

AV on AKL-LIM would be great, but they only have the 332 based in LIM, not the 788 due to no long-haul ops. Therefore it would be a total change of tack for AV to start long-haul ex LIM, and also if they did start long-haul ops it is almost guaranteed that first route would be LIM-MAD. The option they might look at is BOG-LIM-AKL with onward Star feed. I trust that having an NZ codeshare wouldn't contradict any agreement that was signed with the Argentine govt and AR.

AV has a good hard product on their 788s (better J class than pretty much anything to AKL except SQ/CX and shortly UA 77W Polaris). whereas their 332s are a far more previous generation generic recliner
Flown to 128 Airports in 48 Countries on 81 Operators. Visited 56 Countries and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 5691
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:50 am

Gasman wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
AA is back today with the 789, until March 22nd.

Just until Mar 22? They really are truncating their season.... flown on them four times this year, loadings were 90-100%


Yep making money when they can over the NZ summer and using the aircraft elsewhere In the NS. As to Planemanofnz, good posts btw, they won't do 3 weekly, hardly worth it when they can use the aircraft elsewhere. QF won't do it, and I can't see JQ either. It will however he interesting to see if QF/AA get their JV approved weather AA go year round, they are downgauging SYD to a 789 while upping AKL to a 789. If AA can get AKL-LAX to year round I wonder down the track if there is the possibility of DFW? DL to ATL would never happen before LAX surely which I'm kind of surprised they haven't tried AKL-LAX given they and DL cover SYD/MEL/BNE.

I'm sure I actually read GA considered AKL-LAX in the 1990's with MD11's, I may be wrong. Won't happen now I wouldn't think. I'm not a particular fan of carriers like them going out of their way to fly a route like AKL-LAX same with EK, Tasman Pacific islands is fine, or SQ who I believe considered AKL-GRU in the 90's is fine, not to far out of the way.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 2010
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:28 am

aerorobnz wrote:
The option they might look at is BOG-LIM-AKL with onward Star feed. I trust that having an NZ codeshare wouldn't contradict any agreement that was signed with the Argentine govt and AR.

That would be a powerful route - two cities, each with about 10 - 11 million people in their metro areas, linked directly to AKL.

Yes, please.

What is this "agreement" with the Argentine government, that you refer to?

ZK-NBT wrote:
As to Planemanofnz, good posts btw, they won't do 3 weekly, hardly worth it when they can use the aircraft elsewhere. QF won't do it, and I can't see JQ either.

Would 3x weekly not allow them to push their prices up, to the same levels of the destinations where they were going to put the aircraft instead?

What do you think would stop QF and JQ from entering the market?

Times have changed since QF last flew AKL - LAX - New Zealand's economy is much stronger now, and the 787 is far more economical than the A330.

Zkpilot wrote:
NZ could in theory double long haul capacity within 6 years compared to 2013 (ie a decade).

On this rainy Saturday evening here in AKL, let us sit back and ponder this:

Image

:stirthepot: :stirthepot: :stirthepot:

Cheers,

C.
 
NZ321
Posts: 414
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:09 am

Hah - that's got me laughing while I sit in the sun in Asia.

I wonder if DL might consider SEA to Australia / NZ some time in the future if NZ doesn't beat them to it.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 5691
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:31 am

planemanofnz wrote:
aerorobnz wrote:
The option they might look at is BOG-LIM-AKL with onward Star feed. I trust that having an NZ codeshare wouldn't contradict any agreement that was signed with the Argentine govt and AR.

That would be a powerful route - two cities, each with about 10 - 11 million people in their metro areas, linked directly to AKL.

Yes, please.

What is this "agreement" with the Argentine government, that you refer to?

ZK-NBT wrote:
As to Planemanofnz, good posts btw, they won't do 3 weekly, hardly worth it when they can use the aircraft elsewhere. QF won't do it, and I can't see JQ either.

Would 3x weekly not allow them to push their prices up, to the same levels of the destinations where they were going to put the aircraft instead?

What do you think would stop QF and JQ from entering the market?

Times have changed since QF last flew AKL - LAX - New Zealand's economy is much stronger now, and the 787 is far more economical than the A330.

Zkpilot wrote:
NZ could in theory double long haul capacity within 6 years compared to 2013 (ie a decade).

On this rainy Saturday evening here in AKL, let us sit back and ponder this:

Image

:stirthepot: :stirthepot: :stirthepot:

Cheers,

C.


AA 3 x weekly vs NZ 2x daily to LAX, I can't see how AA would pick up much high yield traffic while they could use the aircraft on another European route and run it daily with a single frame over the NS period.

QF I just can't see returning to long haul ex AKL, they have bigger fish to fry with ULH routes from Australia including ORD/JFK in a few years, I don't see AKL-LAX doing much, if they get a JV with AA then hopefully AA can go year round again. JQ don't have enough aircraft, not to say they won't get more but again I would think they will focus them on Australian routes mainly to Asia but maybe CNS-LAX?
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 3778
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:16 pm

Latest update on ZK-NZL

Has just departed IAH, will arrive in AKL around 1830

https://www.flightradar24.com/ANZ6094/f218501
Forum Moderator
 
georgiabill
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 11:53 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:28 pm

With NZ fleet of 789's growing would NZ consider AKL- BOM or DEL 3 or 4 times weekly or AKL JNB-CPT 3 or 4 times weekly in the future?
 
Gasman
Posts: 1638
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:02 pm

ZK-NBT wrote:
Gasman wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
AA is back today with the 789, until March 22nd.

Just until Mar 22? They really are truncating their season.... flown on them four times this year, loadings were 90-100%


Yep making money when they can over the NZ summer and using the aircraft elsewhere In the NS.


I just don't get it.

So you have NZ operating without competition between AKL-LAX operating two, sometimes three daily packed 777s on the route basically printing money. AA enter the market offering a hard product which is at least as good if not better than NZ's, soft product ditto, seamless connections to US and Europe destinations, extremely competitive pricing and............ there's only enough market juice for a seasonal service?? It makes no sense to me. Yes, I understand the Northern summer, perhaps better bang per aircraft buck elsewhere, but....... really?

A seasonal service will hardly do anything to establish brand loyalty either. If AA had been clever they could've cornered the entire market between New Zealand and the USA and a good chunk of the New Zealand to Europe market besides. Whereas it's difficult to know at this current point whether the trajectory is towards consolidation, or yet another "so long" to a US carrier. And back to the bad old days of $2000+ fares in Y to LAX.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 5691
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 07, 2017 8:21 pm

georgiabill wrote:
With NZ fleet of 789's growing would NZ consider AKL- BOM or DEL 3 or 4 times weekly or AKL JNB-CPT 3 or 4 times weekly in the future?


Some time back when a similar question was asked it seemed NZ weren't interested in India, they have a good deal with SQ which feeds into several cities. Where as which single city would NZ serve from AKL that offers the best feed to the rest of the country?

NZ have I believe looked at JNB in the past, weather a 789 could do it non stop I don't no but they aren't interested in via Australia or 1 stops with their current strategy.


Gasman wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
Gasman wrote:
Just until Mar 22? They really are truncating their season.... flown on them four times this year, loadings were 90-100%


Yep making money when they can over the NZ summer and using the aircraft elsewhere In the NS.


I just don't get it.

So you have NZ operating without competition between AKL-LAX operating two, sometimes three daily packed 777s on the route basically printing money. AA enter the market offering a hard product which is at least as good if not better than NZ's, soft product ditto, seamless connections to US and Europe destinations, extremely competitive pricing and............ there's only enough market juice for a seasonal service?? It makes no sense to me. Yes, I understand the Northern summer, perhaps better bang per aircraft buck elsewhere, but....... really?

A seasonal service will hardly do anything to establish brand loyalty either. If AA had been clever they could've cornered the entire market between New Zealand and the USA and a good chunk of the New Zealand to Europe market besides. Whereas it's difficult to know at this current point whether the trajectory is towards consolidation, or yet another "so long" to a US carrier. And back to the bad old days of $2000+ fares in Y to LAX.


That's what seems to be happening.
 
NPL8800
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 5:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:37 pm

What I really don't get is the disdain that there can be in this forum and others towards seasonality, particularly if its done by a foreign carrier. There rarely seems to be an issue with NZ only operating PER-CHC, NAN-CHC, WLG-NAN, AKL-DPS, AKL-KIX, AKL-MCY, AKL-CNS and AKL-SGN seasonally and is often hailed as good fleet management and the signs of a nimble, successful carrier taking advantage of a market at its best, yet when foreign carriers do the exact same thing to the NZ market suddenly they are abandoning the market, not competitive and should go home.

AA and UA have both invested a considerable amount in this market already and both have made it quite clear that they are committed to remaining and as a result we are getting UA's flagship aircraft and an even more premium heavy aircraft from AA, two aircraft i would doubt that we would be getting if we were such a "low yielding" destination as some have suggested. I have no doubt that should the AA/QF JV be approved then AA will come back year round on LAX probably alternating between the 788 and the 789, UA on the other hand I think will be different and will take a lot longer, but even though UA metal isn't flying here all year round we are still benefiting from them, this year possibly being the first that NZ has operated daily to SFO for the entire year and not dropping back to 5-6 in some of the shoulder periods. UA management even stated that over the peak summer months they were achieving 98% LF on their services which is excellent. however over our winter months this no doubt dropped down and even if they were achieving mid 80s (which is still very good) why should they allocate their costly resource here when they could achieve 98-100% for 6 months in Europe for example, its simply good fleet management and taking advantage of a market in its prime, no different from what NZ does.

Also when QF served here with their daily LAX flight the USA market was very different and LAX centric, whereas 5 years later it is far more fragmented. HNL had no competition and hovered at a low 2-3 weekly, YVR wasn't much better and still wildly fluctuated, SFO wasn't daily yet and there was no IAH or EZE. LAX provided the year round consistency. Today its importance is not as great as it once was, it will still draw at least 2 daily flights worth and with the right help 3 no doubt, but all the other destinations have grown into their own now and get people closer to where they want to go, often faster than the LAX-centric days and this will only continue if the likes of ORD and NYC come to fruition.
 
Gasman
Posts: 1638
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:09 pm

NPL8800 wrote:
What I really don't get is the disdain that there can be in this forum and others towards seasonality, particularly if its done by a foreign carrier.

That's easy. Because the practice on every level is profit focused rather than customer focused.

The more infrequent, or (worse) intermittent a service is, the less likely it is to be convenient to the customers' travel needs. It also becomes harder to establish a relationship with the carrier and get to the top tiers of frequent flier status. Such a service is also less likely to have a robust infrastructure at the destination in question. But mostly, I just find the attitude of "we'll pop in and out when it suits us, if and only if we can't make better use of our aircraft elsewhere" just *slightly* too mercinary.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 5691
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:36 pm

Gasman wrote:
NPL8800 wrote:
What I really don't get is the disdain that there can be in this forum and others towards seasonality, particularly if its done by a foreign carrier.

That's easy. Because the practice on every level is profit focused rather than customer focused.

The more infrequent, or (worse) intermittent a service is, the less likely it is to be convenient to the customers' travel needs. It also becomes harder to establish a relationship with the carrier and get to the top tiers of frequent flier status. Such a service is also less likely to have a robust infrastructure at the destination in question. But mostly, I just find the attitude of "we'll pop in and out when it suits us, if and only if we can't make better use of our aircraft elsewhere" just *slightly* too mercinary.


Sure it is about profit than customer to a degree you are right. Aircraft are expensive assets.

Hopefully in the case of AA they get a JV with QF and then might be able to go year round.

NZ on the other hand to me atleast beef up their trunk routes in the NW period but then can use them on seasonal routes over the NS more aimed at the outbound market DPS/SGN/MCY etc.
 
a7ala
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:42 pm

Gasman wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
Gasman wrote:
Just until Mar 22? They really are truncating their season.... flown on them four times this year, loadings were 90-100%


Yep making money when they can over the NZ summer and using the aircraft elsewhere In the NS.


I just don't get it.

So you have NZ operating without competition between AKL-LAX operating two, sometimes three daily packed 777s on the route basically printing money. AA enter the market offering a hard product which is at least as good if not better than NZ's, soft product ditto, seamless connections to US and Europe destinations, extremely competitive pricing and............ there's only enough market juice for a seasonal service?? It makes no sense to me. Yes, I understand the Northern summer, perhaps better bang per aircraft buck elsewhere, but....... really?

A seasonal service will hardly do anything to establish brand loyalty either. If AA had been clever they could've cornered the entire market between New Zealand and the USA and a good chunk of the New Zealand to Europe market besides. Whereas it's difficult to know at this current point whether the trajectory is towards consolidation, or yet another "so long" to a US carrier. And back to the bad old days of $2000+ fares in Y to LAX.


Maybe because (and I always shake my head when I keep reading akl-centric views on this forum) there a significant proportion of the akl-lax market which is not akl traffic. I would estimate close to half and probably 15-20% is wlg alone.

So what happens when aa tries to fly to akl without decent feed to the rest of the country? They rely on jq or expensive nz domestic fares which makes it hard to compete. They can only make it work when there is a significant amount of us visitors down to new Zealand where the domestic feed at the new Zealand end is less important and they have the power at the us end.

Northern summer is new Zealand outbound where the only way they can compete is to offer a better product against nz which means flying chc or wlg ( runway permitting) to beat nz on connectivity.

Remember a significant majority of akl traffic is actually not akl.
 
zkncj
Posts: 2490
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 08, 2017 12:16 am

georgiabill wrote:
With NZ fleet of 789's growing would NZ consider AKL- BOM or DEL 3 or 4 times weekly or AKL JNB-CPT 3 or 4 times weekly in the future?


Highly unlikely all future 789 deliveries as are planned to be in an high J/PE low Y configuration, used for routes with an high premium demands.

Would say its likely after the two for IAH arrive, the following to will be used to make YVR daily year round.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19121
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 08, 2017 12:34 am

Gasman wrote:
That's easy. Because the practice on every level is profit focused rather than customer focused.


I don't see a lot of point in an airline flying to places when few people want to go there.

Gasman wrote:
The more infrequent, or (worse) intermittent a service is, the less likely it is to be convenient to the customers' travel needs. It also becomes harder to establish a relationship with the carrier and get to the top tiers of frequent flier status. Such a service is also less likely to have a robust infrastructure at the destination in question. But mostly, I just find the attitude of "we'll pop in and out when it suits us, if and only if we can't make better use of our aircraft elsewhere" just *slightly* too mercinary.


I flew with NZ to highly seasonal Vietnam last year, and the service was exemplary, on every level.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19121
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 08, 2017 1:12 am

Some interesting facts in this article about people, not so much about things with wings - the way Air NZ is run:

http://www.hrmonline.co.nz/news/what-bu ... 42055.aspx

"What business success means at Air NZ

The business world is littered with companies that are just cutting costs without fulfilling their purpose, Air New Zealand chief executive Christopher Luxon told nearly 400 participants to a sustainability event in Auckland.

“That's pretty sad."

Luxon said business success should be defined more broadly than solely in commercial terms, the NZ Herald reported.

For example, Air NZ’s board demands they achieve three interdependent goals – commercial returns, enhanced customer experience, and a strong people culture in the business.

"I could get a much higher share price for Air New Zealand in an instant by cutting jobs, cutting investment, cutting customer service and culture," he said."


It also seems that the airline is reducing the gender gap in pay rates:

Meanwhile, an airline report said male Air NZ employees were paid 0.44% more than females on individual employment contracts.

The national average favours men by 9.4%.

The airline had also become more diverse in the past four years, Luxon said. In 2013, when he started in the top job, women made up 40 per cent of the company but only 16 per cent were in senior leadership roles.

In 2017, women in top roles have reached 39 per cent. The target is 40 per cent.


mariner
aeternum nauta
 
Gasman
Posts: 1638
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 08, 2017 2:08 am

mariner wrote:
Gasman wrote:
That's easy. Because the practice on every level is profit focused rather than customer focused.


I don't see a lot of point in an airline flying to places when few people want to go there.


A somewhat facile statement - you're better than that. I doubt anyone here is arguing a blanket policy of airlines flying non profitable schedules or routes. It's all about the balance between seasonal profitability vs. route and customer commitment and the value of establishing a long term market presence. Someone asked the question as to why there is some aversity to seasonal routes; I was hazarding an answer.

mariner wrote:

I flew with NZ to highly seasonal Vietnam last year, and the service was exemplary, on every level.

mariner

Did you have to contact the local NZ office in Vietnam? Would you have been able to change your return flight to the following day? Might it annoy you (or anyone) if this was a regular trip for you and you had to fly SQ or QF half the time (not accruing points on NZ)?
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 914
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 08, 2017 3:07 am

Gasman wrote:
Might it annoy you (or anyone) if this was a regular trip for you and you had to fly SQ or QF half the time (not accruing points on NZ)?

Ho Chi Minh is surely classed as a leisure route first and foremost - in my experience leisure travellers are much less exercised than business travellers when it comes to Air Points Dollars. And that really isn't a reason for NZ to operate the route through the summer when it (apparently) would not be profitable.

Really, there are only three options for NZ: (1) operate the route full time (which might not be profitable); (2) operate it seasonally (which they do); or (3) not operate it at all. I'm starting to think that you'd prefer the latter to operating it seasonally!
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 914
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 08, 2017 3:13 am

Another thought: I didn't hear too many people complain that YVR should not be started on a seasonal basis. In practice it proved a good platform for testing the market and going year-round. Maybe SGN will do the same, perhaps KIX too. The carrier has already suggested that it would like to operate MCY year-round eventually.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19121
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 08, 2017 4:23 am

Gasman wrote:
A somewhat facile statement - you're better than that. I doubt anyone here is arguing a blanket policy of airlines flying non profitable schedules or routes.


It was intended to be facile - LOL - but if you want me to be serious (why?) I'll say that I don't think Air NZ should be flying non-profitable schedules or routes - unless there is some quid pro quo.

But I haven't noticed too many posters here complaining about seasonality - they may have done so but I haven't been aware of it - and I thought what you posted was fairly obvious.

mariner wrote:
Did you have to contact the local NZ office in Vietnam? Would you have been able to change your return flight to the following day? Might it annoy you (or anyone) if this was a regular trip for you and you had to fly SQ or QF half the time (not accruing points on NZ)?


I was on vacation in Hanoi (wonderful!) and if there had been a problem, as there was on the return from Paris, I would simply have called my travel agent. The problem - on the return - was that the Channel Tunnel had broken down, delaying me (everyone) by five hours, meanIng I was late into Paris, Gare du Nord - 11 pm - for a flight leaving CDG at 11.30 pm. I went out to CDG but obviously I missed the flight and it become a bit of a pantomime. There was some convention or conference happening at CDG and every hotel was full. Money was irrelevant and I mean every one, because a kind concierge checked the internal availability lists for me. I went back into town, to the Gare du Nord. because it's wall-to-wall hotels but they were all full. I thought I could sleep in the station (it wouldn't be the first time), but they've stopped that. At 2 am, security came along and cleared everybody out so I thought I'd have to sleep on the streets (that wouldn't;t be the first time, either).

One of the guards took pity on me and told me to go to a bar across the street which stayed open all night and as long as I kept drinking, they'd let me stay. But all's well that ends well. Crossing the road to the bar, I saw an small hotel down a side street, with a sign saying they had a vacancy. They had one room left and I got it. It was a tacky hotel but wonderful, kind people and I very much enjoyed t all because, for me, the best vacation is when things go wrong - I mean seriously wrong - and I have to see if I can still cope.

It was sorted out the next day, except that that Air France had no seats available to EZE for the next three days, so I came home through PVG.

The only downside was that I didn't get to see Buenos Aires. Another time, ( guess. :-)

mariner
Last edited by mariner on Sun Oct 08, 2017 4:32 am, edited 4 times in total.
aeternum nauta
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2374
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 08, 2017 4:25 am

Was interesting flying long haul NZ for the first time in a few years recently. EZE-AKL-MEL.

Economy catering out of EZE is pretty awful and the "local" crew on board certainly had a different approach to the Kiwi ones. Just little things that you could see bemused the rest of the FAs, like persistent questioning of why a passenger wants ice chips to take a pill (really, just let it go and give them the damn ice chips), barking orders and instructions all over the cabin, and general gruffness. Meanwhile the 787 Y cabin was great - people really need to get over this 9-abreast hangup. And the Y class IFE was significantly better than Etihad business class! NZ really gets the concept of binge tv.

Meanwhile the 77W was noticeably less impressive. The 10 abreast in Y was pretty grim (aisle seats lose their lustre when the aisles are that narrow). Fortunately I was upgraded to J class before takeoff (supposed to have happened prior to boarding but ultimately resolved) and I gotta say, for the flagship longhauler in the fleet, the NZ J seat seriously needs a rethink (albeit the service was excellent). That herringbone has got to go - zero privacy - and the seat itself is anything but luxurious.

Seems NZ continues to nail the soft product (no more "mate"! - good) but might be getting a little complacent with the hard product.
 
PA515
Posts: 1130
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:27 am

aerokiwi wrote:
I was upgraded to J class before takeoff (supposed to have happened prior to boarding but ultimately resolved) and I gotta say, for the flagship longhauler in the fleet, the NZ J seat seriously needs a rethink (albeit the service was excellent). That herringbone has got to go - zero privacy - and the seat itself is anything but luxurious.


Air NZ management appear to agree. The process has begun.

An Aug 30, 2017 post on another forum:
So, I just got a call from the customer services team handling Airpoints Elite members ...
... for an initial evening of discussing potential new Business class seats and product / service at their Auckland head office ...


PA515
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 2010
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:15 am

georgiabill wrote:
AKL JNB-CPT 3 or 4 times weekly

South Africa is unlikely, not only because its economy is a disaster at the moment (with a 2017 full year GDP growth forecast of just 0.5 percent, and with its credit rating downgraded to 'junk' status by Fitch in April 2017), but also because New Zealand - South Africa ties have deteriorated significantly of late (both countries have eliminated visa-free travel for each other's citizens in the last year).

See:
- https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/24/why-sou ... bleak.html.
- https://www.immigration.govt.nz/about-u ... -nationals.
- http://www.traveller24.com/TravelPlanni ... s-20161213.

In addition, such a route would track farther south than current routes like AKL - EZE and MEL - SCL, potentially creating issues in respect of ETOPS.

Image

That being said, despite the current recession in South Africa, tourism to CPT is booming (up 13% this year).

See: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-safr ... SKBN1AC2AO.

In addition, NZ could potentially exploit its Australian traffic rights, and the fact that MEL currently has no service to Africa (despite having the biggest African population of Australia's cities). A MEL - JNB or MEL - CPT routing (originating in AKL) would be less likely to encounter ETOPS issues, and could be successful with SA, VA and ET code-shares.

georgiabill wrote:
AKL- BOM or DEL 3 or 4 times weekly

I think that this is possible in the future, but not for a few years at least, given:

- AI only serve MEL 3x weekly and SYD 4x weekly, showing that demand is not yet that strong to / from this side of the world
- New Zealand still does not have an FTA with India, like it does with China, South Korea and others, inhibiting trade
- Despite there being over 100,000 Indian nationals living in New Zealand, many are low-yielding, like students
- Connecting traffic from Fiji's Indian population are likely to use FJ's new NAN - SIN and NAN - HKG routes
- AKL - DEL would be longer than NZ's current longest route (AKL - IAH), and so the less-premium 787-9s would not be able to make it
- NZ has only recently established an extensive code-sharing arrangement to India, with SQ and MI

NZ321 wrote:
I wonder if DL might consider SEA to Australia / NZ some time in the future if NZ doesn't beat them to it.

SEA currently has no service to Australasia, and is the only major city on the Pacific Coast as such - NZ would have a monopoly (we all know how much NZ loves monopolies).

SEA is a very high-yielding market, with Amazon, Boeing, Expedia and various others (for example, in health and pharma) headquartered there. SEA is also the fastest growing major city in the United States. These factors align SEA well with NZ's 'in-bound, premium leisure' focus for the North American market (as per Luxon's comments on ORD and NYC).

The two routes I see as having the most potential here, are:

- SEA - SYD on DL, code-sharing with VA on the SYD end
- SEA - AKL on NZ, code-sharing with AS on the SEA end (other Star Alliance airlines, like SQ, are recently aligning with AS)

I am obviously hoping for the latter.

ZK-NBT wrote:
QF I just can't see returning to long haul ex AKL, they have bigger fish to fry with ULH routes from Australia including ORD/JFK in a few years, I don't see AKL-LAX doing much, if they get a JV with AA then hopefully AA can go year round again

a7ala wrote:
there a significant proportion of the akl-lax market which is not akl traffic. I would estimate close to half and probably 15-20% is wlg alone. So what happens when aa tries to fly to akl without decent feed to the rest of the country? They rely on jq or expensive nz domestic fares which makes it hard to compete.

NPL8800 wrote:
I have no doubt that should the AA/QF JV be approved then AA will come back year round on LAX probably alternating between the 788 and the 789

Also when QF served here with their daily LAX flight the USA market was very different and LAX centric, whereas 5 years later it is far more fragmented.

HNL had no competition and hovered at a low 2-3 weekly, YVR wasn't much better and still wildly fluctuated, SFO wasn't daily yet and there was no IAH or EZE. LAX provided the year round consistency.

people closer to where they want to go, often faster than the LAX-centric days and this will only continue if the likes of ORD and NYC come to fruition.

There are a few points to discuss here:

- Why do AA or QF need a JV with each other, in order to make AKL - North America work year-round? Prior to NZ's JV with UA, NZ was doing just fine in North America - consistently increasing its destination and frequency count.
- The citation of a massive increase in frequencies, to multiple destinations, only further re-enforces our point that the market has grown, and is growing considerably - how can NZ take advantage of that growth, when AA cannot?
- LAX still commands significant O&D traffic to Australia and New Zealand. However, if LAX is now no longer the dominant hub that it once was, why not try DFW, ORD or another oneworld hub, all of which are easily reached from AKL?
- Is it not possible to stimulate demand to New Zealand in our winter season? For example, I thought that ZQN was a globally renowned skiing destination in its own right. In addition, the number of New Zealanders visiting the United States is almost equal to the number of Americans visiting New Zealand (each about 300,000 per year) - New Zealand holiday-makers and business-people could therefore help to support any North American flights through our winter season, if marketed to (think QF's strong FFP base in the New Zealand market).

The fact of the matter is that the economics of flights to and from New Zealand have improved substantially since QF exited AKL - LAX in 2012, and are now supported by:

- More fuel-efficient aircraft, significantly reducing costs (the 787 outperforms the A330 in all metrics within this corridor)
- JQ's domestic network in New Zealand having expanded to various regional destinations (NPE, NPL, NSN, PMR and DUD)
- New Zealand's "wealth effect" supporting out-bound travel (for example, New Zealand's home values rose 16 percent in 2016 to NZD 1.014 trillion)
- Global geo-politics supporting in-bound travel, as the rich seek out an isolated and secure destination (for example, tourism to New Zealand rose 16 percent in 2016)

On travel between the United States and New Zealand specifically, the following data speaks volumes:

Tourism
- Arrivals from the United States to New Zealand increased 20 percent in the year to August 2017, to 320,000, and are forecast to increase to 440,000 by 2023 (annual growth of 6 percent)
- Arrivals from New Zealand to the United States have increased from 131,000 in 2009 to 292,000 in 2016 (growth of 123 percent), with Australasian arrivals forecast to grow 23% through 2021 (annual growth of 4.2%)

See:
- http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/s ... -final.pdf.
- http://www.tourismnewzealand.com/news/y ... m-numbers/.
- http://www.tourismnewzealand.com/market ... ed-states/.
- http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/outreachpages/ ... ealand.pdf.
- http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/f-2000-99 ... EGIONS.pdf.

Trade
- The United States is the second largest source of inbound investment into New Zealand (USD 6.1 billion in 2016)
- The United States is the second largest destination for outbound investment from New Zealand (USD 3.2 billion in 2016)

Two-way trade is worth about NZD 16 billion annually, and with the two countries likely to sign an FTA in the coming years, these investment and trade figures look only set to rise.

See:
- https://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35852.htm.
- https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trad ... SKBN19900Q.

With the platforms and trends discussed above, I fail to understand how the New Zealand - North America corridor cannot support a year-round investment from a second airline (be it JQ, QF, DL, UA, AA, or anyone else for that matter).

Cheers,

C.
 
Gasman
Posts: 1638
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:36 am

PA515 wrote:
aerokiwi wrote:
I was upgraded to J class before takeoff (supposed to have happened prior to boarding but ultimately resolved) and I gotta say, for the flagship longhauler in the fleet, the NZ J seat seriously needs a rethink (albeit the service was excellent). That herringbone has got to go - zero privacy - and the seat itself is anything but luxurious.


Air NZ management appear to agree. The process has begun.

An Aug 30, 2017 post on another forum:
So, I just got a call from the customer services team handling Airpoints Elite members ...
... for an initial evening of discussing potential new Business class seats and product / service at their Auckland head office ...


PA515

Totally agree with thoughts on the J class seat, and this was one of the reasons I've abandoned NZ.

That J class product worked - sort of - on the 744. It was ever so slightly bigger then, and also, when it was introduced, lie-flat on J was nirvana - and it didn't really matter what other compromises were made to achieve it. But it doesn't really work on the 777, and on the 789 it's hopeless.

- Privacy - non existent. Your're facing into the aisle. If anyone starts a conversation around you, you feel awkwardly like you're sitting in a goldfish bowl. Not helped by the fact the between-seat partitions are far too low, which is something they easily could have done something about.
- Dimensions - also woeful. Way too narrow, and too short also if you're over 6".
- Storage space - non existent. This is a major frustration. It's almost better in Y.
- Comfort - in seat mode - dreadful. In bed mode - very good, one of the best in class. This is the only redeeming feature of this product (quite an important one, I must admit).

But I prefer the J class Skybed on the QF A388s and 744s - which really is saying something, as that too is a very tired product. If NZ are currently canvassing opinion about a new design - I applaud the gesture, but it's at least 5 years too late.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 5691
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 08, 2017 7:00 am

To much to answer here you have out a lot of thought and research in planemanofnz.

Re QF/AA, NZ/UA JV's notice AA returned to SYD then added AKL before the JV was applied for and denied, they expected it to go through, AKL I've read has done well hence an upgauge to 789 while SYD yields haven't been as high hence a downgauge to 789's, but the capacity is probably needed there although I don't believe they codeshare on SYD with QF?!

UA/NZ have a JV revenue sharing on NZ-US routes only and UA only returned to AKL when this was approved otherwise they may not have come back.

Yes NZ have grown destinations and frequency a fair bit with smaller more fuel efficient aircraft. They are ahead of QF in that regard. UA have added several routes with 789's as well including LAX-MEL done before with a 744 weight restricted and obviously QF have done it for years with A380's and 744ER's soon 789's, UA are now adding IAH-SYD with a 789 which they previously didn't have an aircraft to do it plus SIN-SFO/LAX.

As for NZ to JNB/CPT via MEL or anywhere else in Australia, like I said it doesn't fit their current strategy, I agree it may cut out ETOPS restrictions but if they can't do it from AKL non stop they won't IMO. India is just better served through SIN as said low yeilds and a long way, easier to disperse PAX at a hub like SIN to a multitude of destinations on SQ/MI rather than an ULH flight to BOM/DEL.
 
Gasman
Posts: 1638
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 08, 2017 8:39 am

DavidByrne wrote:
Ho Chi Minh is surely classed as a leisure route first and foremost - in my experience leisure travellers are much less exercised than business travellers when it comes to Air Points Dollars. And that really isn't a reason for NZ to operate the route through the summer when it (apparently) would not be profitable.

Really, there are only three options for NZ: (1) operate the route full time (which might not be profitable); (2) operate it seasonally (which they do); or (3) not operate it at all. I'm starting to think that you'd prefer the latter to operating it seasonally!

No..... I have no emotional investment into whether NZ operates AKL-SGN daily, weekly, or only during Lent and I doubt whether anyone in Ho Chi Minh cares too much either. But an airline with the wealth, infrastructure and flexibility of AA operating a route like AKL-LAX seasonally? - to me, there's a certain "take the money and run" element in there, and I find it slightly - only slightly - distasteful. It is what it is. Once again, I have no point to prove and only comment because someone here asked why there is sometimes disdain expressed towards seasonal routes.
 
NZ321
Posts: 414
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:29 am

Gasman wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
Ho Chi Minh is surely classed as a leisure route first and foremost - in my experience leisure travellers are much less exercised than business travellers when it comes to Air Points Dollars. And that really isn't a reason for NZ to operate the route through the summer when it (apparently) would not be profitable.

Really, there are only three options for NZ: (1) operate the route full time (which might not be profitable); (2) operate it seasonally (which they do); or (3) not operate it at all. I'm starting to think that you'd prefer the latter to operating it seasonally!

No..... I have no emotional investment into whether NZ operates AKL-SGN daily, weekly, or only during Lent and I doubt whether anyone in Ho Chi Minh cares too much either. But an airline with the wealth, infrastructure and flexibility of AA operating a route like AKL-LAX seasonally? - to me, there's a certain "take the money and run" element in there, and I find it slightly - only slightly - distasteful. It is what it is. Once again, I have no point to prove and only comment because someone here asked why there is sometimes disdain expressed towards seasonal routes.


Surely it's also that if you're going after yields then you'll find them in the premium product and premium economy frequent flyers and they aren't going to go after a seasonal carrier that doesn't operate for 6 or 7 months of the year when there is another that operates year round. So in some sense, for AA to know whether AKL can work for them they are going to have to give it a proper go rather than sticking their proverbial toe in the water. I agree with Planemanofnz's comments about this.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 5691
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:32 pm

AA seems to be going after the inbound US market, NW where more Americans come to NZ in our summer. Kiwis who like to ski can use them to get to the US and beyond.

There will be a market for J class pad business people coming in winter but maybe not big enough or the loss of Y class pax over the winter makes the route unprofitable?
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 2010
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:06 pm

ZK-NBT wrote:
AA seems to be going after the inbound US market, NW where more Americans come to NZ in our summer. Kiwis who like to ski can use them to get to the US and beyond.

There will be a market for J class pad business people coming in winter but maybe not big enough or the loss of Y class pax over the winter makes the route unprofitable?

NZ go after both the inbound and outbound markets - why is AA not doing both too?

As per one of my posts above, the number of New Zealanders visiting the United States is almost equal to the number of Americans visiting New Zealand (each about 300,000 per year) - New Zealand holiday-makers and business-people could therefore help to support any North American flights through our winter season, if marketed to. Just as Americans come to New Zealand to escape their winter chill, many (though not all) New Zealanders go to the United States to escape our own winter chill too. Arrivals from New Zealand to the United States have increased from 131,000 in 2009 to 292,000 in 2016 (growth of 123 percent), with Australasian arrivals as a whole, forecast to grow by a further 23 percent through 2021. AA have the added bonus of being able to market to QF's strong FFP base in New Zealand, and avail of its interline agreement with JQ to generate feed from regional destinations (both of which DL cannot do).

Even so, regarding the seasonality of Americans visiting New Zealand, is it not possible to stimulate demand to New Zealand in our winter season? As you say, some New Zealanders would like to ski in the United States (think Aspen), but why should, in turn, Americans not want to ski here too? I thought that Queenstown was a globally renowned skiing destination in its own right?

Further, strong trade flows have also boosted J class and premium cargo demand - trade is not seasonal here, it is a year-round activity.

Ultimately, I echo NZ321's sentiments.

Cheers,

C.
Last edited by planemanofnz on Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 7941
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:11 pm

I recently had a middle seat coming back from Tokyo in business, and I have not flown NZ longhaul business class for a little while (since 2016) and I was pleasantly surprised The food was more substantial and better tasting, the general cabin service was of a higher standard, The amenities were also no longer those paper/foil bags and although I really don't personally have an issue with the seat alignment it does feel the previous generation, even with the touch screens and USBs that the 772/744 never had. If I actually had a peeve, it would be this, I dislike the fact that I have to stand up to put the seat down in the bed. It should be able to do this while I am in the seat so that I can do so at my leisure without the need for any crew to turndown duvets etc. When putting the bed down and the underliner/duvet out (which I have done many times by myself unattended) the crew now insist they do it and they actually get a little passive aggressive about it when you stand up to do it. I watched them do it with just about everyone on the right side of the J cabin.
That's a real thing now with most airline crew in every class these days, they all like to interfere where they don't need to and don't interfere when they need to rather than focussing on delivering unobtrusive but frequent service, which is where NZ gets a big tick from me - the on-demand IFE inflight snack/drinks menu. I love that - no call button, no need to have awkward conversations about what's available and I can wake up thirsty in the middle of the night and order another whisky without bothering anyone next to me.

I flew Eva Air in transit to the above NZ flight, and while they were exemplary in many respects with regard to frequency of water and snack service, they are cutouts who work by rote. The crew would ask me at 1 or 2 am to close the window (bear in mind it departed ORD at 0030 and arrived 0345 TPE so there was no daylight) while I was watching the Northern lights which were flickering dimly in the distance. The thing is, the reason I was watching the night sky of the blank expanse of Canada was that the IFE was so limited, and the Wifi was totally unstable to the point it was unusable,
The Person a couple of rows forward had the centre cabin light on all night which was emitting and disturbing much more people in the cabin, but they didn't come and interrupt them at any time.

This last trip, I flew QR/TK/BR/NZ long haul, quality-wise based on my other NZ long haul Y class trips this year NZ beats the so-called 5 star QR/BR carriers for IFE, food quality and usability of IFE from boarding to disembarking and also what I was talking about with the drinks and snacks ordering via IFE. Their crew intuition is better than most airlines, but I feel they could do more with regard to Y class amenities (all the others have amenity kits, or BR has toothbrushes and eyeshades available in the bathroom) but they have come a long way in the past few years and I think they could go 5 stars once their J class is replaced.
Flown to 128 Airports in 48 Countries on 81 Operators. Visited 56 Countries and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
georgiabill
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 11:53 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:23 pm

Would NZ consider flights from AKL to CTS perhaps 3-4 weekly? I am sure with the fishing industry changing crews etc might be worth a look. Any chance of NZ taking a few 788'S to open new routes which the 789 fleet or 777 fleet are to big?
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2374
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:33 pm

Well good to see they've recognised it might be time for a new J seat. And absolutely agree with Aerorobnz - NZ (and even VA) outshine the supposed elites like EY and AT in a lot of ways. One thing though - I found NZ Y amenities were available, you just had to ask. Would be good if you could just request like snacks.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 5691
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:40 pm

georgiabill wrote:
Would NZ consider flights from AKL to CTS perhaps 3-4 weekly? I am sure with the fishing industry changing crews etc might be worth a look. Any chance of NZ taking a few 788'S to open new routes which the 789 fleet or 777 fleet are to big?


You never no re CTS, probably seasonal NZ summer like KIX. They won't take any 788's given the 789 has similar operating costs to the 788.

planemanofnz wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
AA seems to be going after the inbound US market, NW where more Americans come to NZ in our summer. Kiwis who like to ski can use them to get to the US and beyond.

There will be a market for J class pad business people coming in winter but maybe not big enough or the loss of Y class pax over the winter makes the route unprofitable?

NZ go after both the inbound and outbound markets - why is AA not doing both too?

As per one of my posts above, the number of New Zealanders visiting the United States is almost equal to the number of Americans visiting New Zealand (each about 300,000 per year) - New Zealand holiday-makers and business-people could therefore help to support any North American flights through our winter season, if marketed to. Just as Americans come to New Zealand to escape their winter chill, many (though not all) New Zealanders go to the United States to escape our own winter chill too. Arrivals from New Zealand to the United States have increased from 131,000 in 2009 to 292,000 in 2016 (growth of 123 percent), with Australasian arrivals as a whole, forecast to grow by a further 23 percent through 2021. AA have the added bonus of being able to market to QF's strong FFP base in New Zealand, and avail of its interline agreement with JQ to generate feed from regional destinations (both of which DL cannot do).

Even so, regarding the seasonality of Americans visiting New Zealand, is it not possible to stimulate demand to New Zealand in our winter season? As you say, some New Zealanders would like to ski in the United States (think Aspen), but why should, in turn, Americans not want to ski here too? I thought that Queenstown was a globally renowned skiing destination in its own right?

Further, strong trade flows have also boosted J class and premium cargo demand - trade is not seasonal here, it is a year-round activity.

Ultimately, I echo NZ321's sentiments.

Cheers,

C.


Curious what do you have to say about the routes like DFW-AMS/FCO, it may have actually been ORD, but I'm pretty sure AA just returned seasonally there to at least from the mentioned cities, 2 very touristy cities. Bigger than AKL by a fair bit.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 2010
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:58 pm

georgiabill wrote:
Would NZ consider flights from AKL to CTS perhaps 3-4 weekly? I am sure with the fishing industry changing crews etc might be worth a look. Any chance of NZ taking a few 788'S to open new routes which the 789 fleet or 777 fleet are to big?

No way - the fishing industry would not be sufficient for a direct flight, even seasonally. AFAIK, CTS' longest flight is to HNL - they do not even have JQ flights to Australia.

I see the following options as far more likely than AKL - CTS on NZ:
- NZ opening AKL - NGO or AKL - FUK (to focus on the in-bound market, like AKL - KIX)
- NZ opening AKL - HKT (to focus on the out-bound market, like AKL - DPS)
- JL returning to New Zealand, opening either NRT - AKL or NRT - CHC

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 2010
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:46 am

Lately, I have been thinking about the New Zealand - China corridor, which has seen impressive growth:

Image

It got me thinking - is there any scope for further growth?

When one looks at the growth in services from China to SYD and MEL, one would have to say, yes.

Not all of the Chinese cities with services to SYD and MEL (which do not already have services to AKL) could also support services to AKL, but of those shown below, at least some might:

Image

What do people think the front-runner would be?

Back in February, it was reported that MF would open AKL by mid-December (though, unclear whether from XMN or FOC).

MF already serve XMN - SYD, FOC - SYD and XMN - MEL, and are to open HGH - MEL in December.

In 2015, it was also reported that MF had been approached by WLG to open XMN - WLG (likely via Australia, I assume).

See:
- https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/carry-xia ... -ng-199909.
- http://www.xm.gov.cn/xmyw/201501/t20150122_1037688.htm (only in Chinese).

I also see the following Chinese routes, served on a seasonal basis, as having some potential for NZ (instead of a Chinese airline):

Image

AKL - SYX (New Zealand winter season) - unlikely, but fun to hypothesize
Hainan Island has seen significant growth, and is being touted by CNN as China's Dubai-come-Hawaii. Crucially for this route, New Zealanders are just one of a very small number of nationalities allowed to enter the province without a visa for up to 15 days - it is the only place in China (excluding the SARs) with such a policy. Many people were surprised when NZ selected AKL - SGN over AKL - HKT, as HKT was a more well-established destination for New Zealanders. However, SGN has done quite well for NZ. Indeed, I believe that many New Zealanders who have done DPS or HKT will now be looking for a new and less established Asian destination for their holidays - could SYX be that undiscovered gem?

"Tourists can go diving and explore the island's coral reefs. They can take helicopter flights and venture deep into the jungles of the Wuzhishan nature reserve, or book a cruiser trip to the Sansha Islands, in the South China Sea. The island is also a paradise for golf lovers, with course fees set at about one-third of the international market price despite a plethora of quality resorts and world-class hospitality." Hainan Island is also developing itself as a medical tourism hub - "businesses have already committed to spending 23 billion yuan ($3.3 billion) for 27 projects ranging from hospitals to plastic surgery clinics, with dozens more awaiting approval." SYX is also likely to be cheaper than DPS, HKT and elsewhere.

Image

CHC - PVG (New Zealand summer season)
If NZ sticks to its guns and decides not to expand to other destinations in China (like CTU), it could expand its presence at PVG, taking advantage of its crew base and brand recognition there. CI have established seasonal CHC flights, CX are about to establish seasonal CHC flights, and OZ are considering establishing seasonal CHC flights.

Perhaps NZ should beat MU to a seasonal PVG service, before its too late?

Cheers,

C.
 
Sylus
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 10:14 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:12 am

planemanofnz wrote:
CHC - PVG (New Zealand summer season)
If NZ sticks to its guns and decides not to expand to other destinations in China (like CTU), it could expand its presence at PVG, taking advantage of its crew base and brand recognition there. CI have established seasonal CHC flights, CX are about to establish seasonal CHC flights, and OZ are considering establishing seasonal CHC flights.

Perhaps NZ should beat MU to a seasonal PVG service, before its too late?

Cheers,


Maybe this flight could even be timed to connect to LHR on VS and thus pick up some of that South Island traffic as well. Often the cheapest fares on the NZ website from NZ to LHR are with NZ/VS via PVG.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 5691
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:08 am

Sylus wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
CHC - PVG (New Zealand summer season)
If NZ sticks to its guns and decides not to expand to other destinations in China (like CTU), it could expand its presence at PVG, taking advantage of its crew base and brand recognition there. CI have established seasonal CHC flights, CX are about to establish seasonal CHC flights, and OZ are considering establishing seasonal CHC flights.

Perhaps NZ should beat MU to a seasonal PVG service, before its too late?

Cheers,


Maybe this flight could even be timed to connect to LHR on VS and thus pick up some of that South Island traffic as well. Often the cheapest fares on the NZ website from NZ to LHR are with NZ/VS via PVG.


One word. Slots. NZ operate a second PVG-AKL in DEC-JAN which leaves AKL at 1710 arrives PVG 0110. The return arrives intime to connect to EZE. NZ had planned to have it leave AKL at 1015 returning at 1620. They will establish a second permanent AKL flight before CHC, yeilds aren't great to PVG and NZ funnel everything through AKL. I believe it is profitable now but it took 10 years and the 789 to get there.

I think there will be more expansion from China but mainly Chinese carriers, NZ will only increase PVG.

OZ announced seasonal CHC last year and then pulled it before starting, I am surprised KE haven't returned to CHC TBH seasonally.

CZ will be daily this summer up from 5 weekly SQ 10 weekly up from 9 CI down to 3 from 6 weekly plus CX starting 3 weekly.
 
aklrno
Posts: 1336
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:18 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:21 am

aerorobnz wrote:
I recently had a middle seat coming back from Tokyo in business, and I have not flown NZ longhaul business class for a little while (since 2016) and I was pleasantly surprised The food was more substantial and better tasting, the general cabin service was of a higher standard, The amenities were also no longer those paper/foil bags and although I really don't personally have an issue with the seat alignment it does feel the previous generation, even with the touch screens and USBs that the 772/744 never had. If I actually had a peeve, it would be this, I dislike the fact that I have to stand up to put the seat down in the bed. It should be able to do this while I am in the seat so that I can do so at my leisure without the need for any crew to turndown duvets etc. When putting the bed down and the underliner/duvet out (which I have done many times by myself unattended) the crew now insist they do it and they actually get a little passive aggressive about it when you stand up to do it. I watched them do it with just about everyone on the right side of the J cabin.
That's a real thing now with most airline crew in every class these days, they all like to interfere where they don't need to and don't interfere when they need to rather than focussing on delivering unobtrusive but frequent service, which is where NZ gets a big tick from me - the on-demand IFE inflight snack/drinks menu. I love that - no call button, no need to have awkward conversations about what's available and I can wake up thirsty in the middle of the night and order another whisky without bothering anyone next to me.

I flew Eva Air in transit to the above NZ flight, and while they were exemplary in many respects with regard to frequency of water and snack service, they are cutouts who work by rote. The crew would ask me at 1 or 2 am to close the window (bear in mind it departed ORD at 0030 and arrived 0345 TPE so there was no daylight) while I was watching the Northern lights which were flickering dimly in the distance. The thing is, the reason I was watching the night sky of the blank expanse of Canada was that the IFE was so limited, and the Wifi was totally unstable to the point it was unusable,
The Person a couple of rows forward had the centre cabin light on all night which was emitting and disturbing much more people in the cabin, but they didn't come and interrupt them at any time.

This last trip, I flew QR/TK/BR/NZ long haul, quality-wise based on my other NZ long haul Y class trips this year NZ beats the so-called 5 star QR/BR carriers for IFE, food quality and usability of IFE from boarding to disembarking and also what I was talking about with the drinks and snacks ordering via IFE. Their crew intuition is better than most airlines, but I feel they could do more with regard to Y class amenities (all the others have amenity kits, or BR has toothbrushes and eyeshades available in the bathroom) but they have come a long way in the past few years and I think they could go 5 stars once their J class is replaced.

The reason you have to get out of the seat to convert it to a bed is that the back folds forward, not back as in most other business class flatbeds. I much prefer it the NZ way. When the seat folds back (like on UA, for example you can't completely get rid of the bumps and crevices that are inherent in a seat turned into a bed. Folding forward gives you an absolutely flat surface. Add the memory foam mattress and I find it the most comfortable bed I've flown in for a while. (I don't fly in A380 first class, so don't know if that is better.) I will happily stand for a few seconds to get a more comfortable bed. If the crew sees me starting to get ready for bed and wants to do the work, fine with me. If they are busy elsewhere I'm happy to do it myself
 
NZ321
Posts: 414
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - October 2017

Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:04 am

Maybe XMN ? Xiamen airlines seem keen to expand internationally and are starting Australia. But what is happening to Tianjin airlines - didn't they recently suspend service? And I wonder how Hainan is doing into AKL. Interesting Airline. Would be nice to see them hang around but they do have a habit of dropping flights quite quickly if they aren't profitable. Will also be interesting to see how HX do into AKL with upgraded equipment. Might increase market share.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos