Airliners.net

mariner wrote:

With the airline dropping its trans-Tasman services, the Emirates situation has become a fair ol' brain teaser:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11931831

"Emirates cans A380 superjumbo flights from Auckland to Australia

Emirates is also evaluating potential new direct services between New Zealand and Dubai."

What new direct services? They already fly DXB-AKL, so any increase in that is simply an increase in frequency. Maybe that's what they mean.

I don't think that even with the runway extension a fully laden A380 could make WLG-DXB as a non-stop, so that leaves CHC-DXB (non-stop) as the only other possibility.

I suppose they could consider another stop - not Australia - on the way, but that would make it a two-stop to London/Europe and I'm not sure they'd want that.

There might be interesting possibilities, though, if they stopped at HKT or even CMB. AKL-HKT-DXB? It doesn't do it for me, but ALK-CMB might.

I'll be interested to see where this goes - or if it goes anywhere.

mariner

I imagine an increase in frequency for AKL-DXB and a DXB-CHC non-stop are fairly likely. As for Wellington, perhaps a one stopper via Australia on a 777, similar to Singapore Airlines? Not sure how likely that would be though.

V/F

VirginFlyer wrote:

mariner wrote:

With the airline dropping its trans-Tasman services, the Emirates situation has become a fair ol' brain teaser:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11931831

"Emirates cans A380 superjumbo flights from Auckland to Australia

Emirates is also evaluating potential new direct services between New Zealand and Dubai."

What new direct services? They already fly DXB-AKL, so any increase in that is simply an increase in frequency. Maybe that's what they mean.

I don't think that even with the runway extension a fully laden A380 could make WLG-DXB as a non-stop, so that leaves CHC-DXB (non-stop) as the only other possibility.

I suppose they could consider another stop - not Australia - on the way, but that would make it a two-stop to London/Europe and I'm not sure they'd want that.

There might be interesting possibilities, though, if they stopped at HKT or even CMB. AKL-HKT-DXB? It doesn't do it for me, but ALK-CMB might.

I'll be interested to see where this goes - or if it goes anywhere.

mariner

I imagine an increase in frequency for AKL-DXB and a DXB-CHC non-stop are fairly likely. As for Wellington, perhaps a one stopper via Australia on a 777, similar to Singapore Airlines? Not sure how likely that would be though.

V/F

WLG-BNE was mentioned a year ago maybe on here by someone who I'm guessing knew EK were adding an additional DXB-BNE service, that starts soon or has started with a 77L currently spends only 3-4 hours in BNE, maybe with these latest changes they might change that so it can extend to WLG?

Or else more direct NZ services, so take the 77L from BNE and use it for a non stop DXB-CHC or second AKL and send a 77W or A380 to BNE.

I could see an additional EK AKL service via SIN which connects to QF's SIN-LHR although I think QF will fill that anyway with its own connections from Australia.

EK pulling out of AKL-Australia is very bad news indeed. Apart from the fact that it was great to have the odd A380 flight across the Tasman, if there's one thing we know about NZ and QF it's that when there's just the two of them on a route they don't exactly bring the knives out in terms of pricing.

Gasman wrote:

EK pulling out of AKL-Australia is very bad news indeed. Apart from the fact that it was great to have the odd A380 flight across the Tasman, if there's one thing we know about NZ and QF it's that when there's just the two of them on a route they don't exactly bring the knives out in terms of pricing.

Yet since EK dropped AKL-SYD, NZ has increased this route to 4x daily 777/789s, think we might see more of this.

The dropping of EK A380s is totally understandable and was predictable the moment they started EK448/449. The A380 is not designed for short flights, so the overheads are astronomical and trans-tasman revenue is inadequate in offsetting those costs, with fuel 3x as high as operating a 787-9 on the same route. When the flights regularly have between 120-200 on an A380 and NZ or QF are matching their loads on A320, 738 aircraft it is time to rationalise and make the most of the agreement they signed with QF. The logical progression from this is that EK448 should turn as a lunchtime departure, and another arrival in the afternoon/evening should depart in the EK449 slot, this would keep it inline with the way they run their flights to most airports. I would be surprised if AKL maintains an A380 on direct service if it goes multiple daily.

mariner wrote:

All I can say is that you blokes have astonishingly high standards

And all I can say, is that you have astonishingly low standards.

mariner wrote:

I don't regard them as literal representations of where the airlines fly. Or the airline flies.

Then what else is it - a fairytale map? They have made up 'Pulau' as a city - why not add in 'Neverland' and 'Timbuktu' too?

mariner wrote:

I didn't dispute that. I accept that some things were/are inaccurate, but then any proof reader can make a mistake

mariner wrote:

It may have been checked badly but see above, about proof readers

This is not just "a mistake" - we are talking about multiple (20+) mistakes, republished month after month, with one in particular potentially having serious legal consequences.

Imagine if a proof reader made 20+ mistakes in an NZ employment contract, or the terms and conditions for an NZ passenger ticket!

Liability is liability, and reputation is reputation.

mariner wrote:

I disputed your statement that it had not been checked because I don't know how you know this

You can infer it.

The "Kia Ora" magazine and its destinations section were totally re-designed this year, in which the various inaccurate maps, as well as the two inaccurate disclaimers had to have been edited, formatted and placed onto various drafts and proofs by Bauer Media, prior to initial publication. Had the maps been checked, at least some of the 20+ errors would have been picked up (1 or 2 errors can be overlooked, but not 20+), and either those errors would have been addressed, or the disclaimer that all routes were correct as at publishing would have been amended to say something akin to the map being indicative only. Likewise, had the disclaimer been checked, the maps would have been checked too, so as to avoid liability from misrepresentation under the disclaimer.

A330NZ wrote:

Emirates suspending the BNE-AKL and MEL-AKL tag-ons from March 2018

It is not surprising that these tags are being dropped, but it is surprising that replacement capacity was not announced at the same time.

AAB at QR must be delighted by this.

I see the following as potential options for EK:

- Another daily DXB - AKL flight (non-stop), terminating in AKL
- Another daily DXB - AKL flight (non-stop), connecting to a Pacific Island destination like NAN (a - to beat QR to it, and b - to get Fijian Indian connections)
- Another daily DXB - AKL flight (non-stop), connecting to LAX, DFW, ORD or JFK, with a QF-EK JV as an alternative if the QF-AA JV keeps being denied
- Another daily DXB - AKL flight (via PER), to connect to QF's PER - LHR flight, to address QF not being year-round on PER - AKL, and to counter WA's weak economy
- Another daily DXB - AKL flight (via an existing port in Asia serving EK's Australian flights - BKK, KUL or SIN), likely via SIN, to connect to QF's SIN - LHR flight
- Another daily DXB - AKL flight (via a port in Asia or Australia with no service to New Zealand, like CGK or CBR)
- A daily DXB - CHC flight (non-stop), terminating in CHC (likely on the 777-200LR)
- A daily DXB - WLG flight (via an Australian port with existing EK 777 services, like ADL (777-300ER) or BNE (777-200LR))

Cheers,

C.

Gasman wrote:

EK pulling out of AKL-Australia is very bad news indeed. Apart from the fact that it was great to have the odd A380 flight across the Tasman, if there's one thing we know about NZ and QF it's that when there's just the two of them on a route they don't exactly bring the knives out in terms of pricing.

I disagree. I keep a pretty close watch on (economy) fares across the Tasman and I'd say that they're at historically low levels a significant portion of the time. I can remember about 10 years ago I scored some tickets to SYD on AR at what was for those days an amazingly low fare of $156 each way. Ten years on, and it's not uncommon to find NZ tickets at that price or not too much more. I just right now randomly selected Thu 16 Nov and found I could get a tickets on JQ at $118, VA at $162, NZ at $185, LATAM $190, QF at $233 and EK at $241. What this suggests to me is that for the price-conscious traveller, the loss of EK is of little consequence. It also suggests that NZ is much more conscious of meeting the market than QF.

zkncj wrote:

Gasman wrote:

EK pulling out of AKL-Australia is very bad news indeed. Apart from the fact that it was great to have the odd A380 flight across the Tasman, if there's one thing we know about NZ and QF it's that when there's just the two of them on a route they don't exactly bring the knives out in terms of pricing.

Yet since EK dropped AKL-SYD, NZ has increased this route to 4x daily 777/789s, think we might see more of this.

NZ have atleast 3 777/787 in winter AKL-SYD but have had 4 the last few summers, its online with what they said before that they would increase widebodies on the Tasman, as aerorobnz says 777/787 are much cheaper than an A380 on this type of flight and NZ can adjust capacity accordingly where as it's harder for EK to do.

We will see more QF A330's as well which are efficient aircraft.

planemanofnz wrote:

Why is this important? Liability. New Zealand's Fair Trading Act makes it an offence for companies to make misleading claims about their goods and services. For example, NZ faced a hefty fine in 2006, for misleading customers about the price of its airfares - it used a headline price which was not the total price of the available airfare and the existence and type of additional charges was not prominently disclosed.

I remember the case well. My closest Kiwi friend was a Language Expert for the Crown. But that case was quite different, the route map doesn't put a price on anything, it isn't actually selling you anything.

A route map does what the poster Gasman said it does for him, it allows him to conjure up journeys. Why else have them, except to encourage people's dreams? No one at the airline needs them, except perhaps to jog their memories.

There's a wonderful line by a French writer in "The Book of Abraham": "A dream of a cake is a dream, not a cake. But a dream of a journey is, itself, a kind of a journey."

I've made a lot of journeys in my head, based on route maps, so for me, the route map is a work of fiction based on fact. For an actual journey, the market realities of price and scheduling come into play.

planemanofnz wrote:

There is a route from SIN to "Pulau," which is dotted as just off Peninsular Malaysia - no such destination exists (nor is represented on the NZ website).

I can't find anywhere "just off Peninsular Malaysia" called Pulau on the Air NZ map. I can find Palau, which is where it should, in Micronesia. I've been there, it's quite popular with Japanese and Koreans, but neither Singapore nor Silk fly there so I guess it's just for reference.

Unless there is another Pulau somewhere?

mariner

Copied this link from another forum. What a fantastic sight , 4 A380's
down at the bottom (geographically) of the world air routes.
https://cdn.ek.aero/media-centre/40/7b7 ... dA380s.jpg
It's about bums on seats of course, and how many seats are in this picture? But were they filled?
Seems not, but watch the Tasman routes, for all the A330,QF and 787/777, NZ to suddenly appear,
to grab all the premium bums that are still there.

VirginFlyer wrote:

As for Wellington, perhaps a one stopper via Australia on a 777, similar to Singapore Airlines? Not sure how likely that would be though.

V/F

How about DXB-CNS-WLG-CNS-DXB. That would allow them to open two new destinations, and I'm sure that a 77L wouldn't have any runway issues going to CNS.

Gasman wrote:

EK pulling out of AKL-Australia is very bad news indeed. Apart from the fact that it was great to have the odd A380 flight across the Tasman, if there's one thing we know about NZ and QF it's that when there's just the two of them on a route they don't exactly bring the knives out in terms of pricing.

A shame that I won't be able to do the A380 transtasman sectors which I quite like. I've managed to fly on quite a portion of EK's ULH configured fleet. Nevertheless, it presents some opportunities for QF and other airlines to fill the capacity gap. That they've announced A330s on MEL-AKL is great news.

I can definitely see a scenario a few years ahead whereby Qantas transfer a few A330-200s over to Jetconnect. In a few years when QF's first 787 order has been filled and when the next (presumed) one has begun deliveries, the airline should be able to spare a few A330s. I'd love to see some on the ZK register. Transferring some 330-200s to Jetconnect would allow them to operate these existing routes:
AKL - SYD
AKL - MEL
AKL - BNE
AKL - PER (could maybe be brought up to daily - the present services are just utilising A330s that would otherwise be sitting around during the weekend)

The big problem with this is that you're going to build up a lot of cycles on that A330 subfleet and the present arrangements (with the aircraft rotating through SYD before/after various QF mid and long haul services) works very well in that regard. OTOH a few years from now, QF's first A330-200s will be getting close to 20 years old, so this might not be of great concern, especially if the aircraft in question would otherwise be leaving the fleet.

In an ideal world:
AKL-LAX could return (assuming that the market continues to grow but AA still isn't interested in operating year round).
AKL-SIN could be introduced to connect to the SIN-LHR-SIN services.

Maybe a few AKL-HNL frequencies too?

I know I'm just dreaming with most of this...but I guess you never know.

planemanofnz wrote:

Another daily DXB - AKL flight (via PER)

I always thought that one would be of interest to Etihad. 787-9 is the perfect aircraft for that route.

Deepinsider wrote:

It's about bums on seats of course, and how many seats are in this picture? But were they filled?

A very relevant question. Anecdotally speaking, up until ~2014 or so I always noticed that there were a lot of empty Y seats on most of the EK380 flights I took (especially in the rearmost Y cabin). From 2014/2015 though, each one I've been on has been absolutely packed.

mariner wrote:

But that case was quite different, the route map doesn't put a price on anything, it isn't actually selling you anything

The purpose of the New Zealand Fair Trading Act is to protect consumers from misleading and deceptive conduct - pricing is only one aspect of that.

Just as Coca Cola cannot claim that its drinks cure cancer, Air New Zealand cannot claim that it serves (via codeshare) a non-existent destination.

mariner wrote:

I can't find anywhere "just off Peninsular Malaysia" called Pulau on the Air NZ map. I can find Palau, which is where it should, in Micronesia. I've been there, it's quite popular with Japanese and Koreans, but neither Singapore nor Silk fly there so I guess it's just for reference.

Unless there is another Pulau somewhere?

No - it is not Palau, it is Pulau.

This non-existent island destination has been dotted in the sea (above Singapore) - quite appalling on the part of NZ, if you ask me:



Cheers,

C.

Chaos at AKL, not fuel, but electric power!
Proves the value of airports like SIN having
security at the gate lounge.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-t ... al-flights

mariner wrote:

I can't find anywhere "just off Peninsular Malaysia" called Pulau on the Air NZ map. I can find Palau, which is where it should, in Micronesia. I've been there, it's quite popular with Japanese and Koreans, but neither Singapore nor Silk fly there so I guess it's just for reference.

Unless there is another Pulau somewhere?

mariner

I haven't checked, but I assume that it means "Pulau Pinang" - Penang to most of us.

[edit] No, I see it's on the wrong side of the peninsula! But Pulau in Malay means "island". It looks to be in the right location for Pulau Redang, but that doesn't appear to have an airport . . .

DavidByrne wrote:

I haven't checked, but I assume that it means "Pulau Pinang" - Penang to most of us.

No. Penang is already represented accurately in the map, on the other side of Peninsular Malaysia.

"Pulau" in Malay, means "Island." Pulau Tioman and Pulau Redang are in that area. The former has no commercially serviced airport, while the latter appears to only receive the odd turboprop flight (in any event, definitely not an SQ or MI service).

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tioman_Airport and https://redangisland.guide/redang-airpo ... ng-island/.

Cheers,

C.

zkojq wrote:

VirginFlyer wrote:

As for Wellington, perhaps a one stopper via Australia on a 777, similar to Singapore Airlines? Not sure how likely that would be though.

V/F

How about DXB-CNS-WLG-CNS-DXB. That would allow them to open two new destinations, and I'm sure that a 77L wouldn't have any runway issues going to CNS.

Gasman wrote:

EK pulling out of AKL-Australia is very bad news indeed. Apart from the fact that it was great to have the odd A380 flight across the Tasman, if there's one thing we know about NZ and QF it's that when there's just the two of them on a route they don't exactly bring the knives out in terms of pricing.

A shame that I won't be able to do the A380 transtasman sectors which I quite like. I've managed to fly on quite a portion of EK's ULH configured fleet. Nevertheless, it presents some opportunities for QF and other airlines to fill the capacity gap. That they've announced A330s on MEL-AKL is great news.

I can definitely see a scenario a few years ahead whereby Qantas transfer a few A330-200s over to Jetconnect. In a few years when QF's first 787 order has been filled and when the next (presumed) one has begun deliveries, the airline should be able to spare a few A330s. I'd love to see some on the ZK register. Transferring some 330-200s to Jetconnect would allow them to operate these existing routes:
AKL - SYD
AKL - MEL
AKL - BNE
AKL - PER (could maybe be brought up to daily - the present services are just utilising A330s that would otherwise be sitting around during the weekend)

The big problem with this is that you're going to build up a lot of cycles on that A330 subfleet and the present arrangements (with the aircraft rotating through SYD before/after various QF mid and long haul services) works very well in that regard. OTOH a few years from now, QF's first A330-200s will be getting close to 20 years old, so this might not be of great concern, especially if the aircraft in question would otherwise be leaving the fleet.

In an ideal world:
AKL-LAX could return (assuming that the market continues to grow but AA still isn't interested in operating year round).
AKL-SIN could be introduced to connect to the SIN-LHR-SIN services.

Maybe a few AKL-HNL frequencies too?

I know I'm just dreaming with most of this...but I guess you never know.

planemanofnz wrote:

Another daily DXB - AKL flight (via PER)

I always thought that one would be of interest to Etihad. 787-9 is the perfect aircraft for that route.

Deepinsider wrote:

It's about bums on seats of course, and how many seats are in this picture? But were they filled?

A very relevant question. Anecdotally speaking, up until ~2014 or so I always noticed that there were a lot of empty Y seats on most of the EK380 flights I took (especially in the rearmost Y cabin). From 2014/2015 though, each one I've been on has been absolutely packed.

zkojq wrote:

VirginFlyer wrote:

As for Wellington, perhaps a one stopper via Australia on a 777, similar to Singapore Airlines? Not sure how likely that would be though.

V/F

How about DXB-CNS-WLG-CNS-DXB. That would allow them to open two new destinations, and I'm sure that a 77L wouldn't have any runway issues going to CNS.

Gasman wrote:

EK pulling out of AKL-Australia is very bad news indeed. Apart from the fact that it was great to have the odd A380 flight across the Tasman, if there's one thing we know about NZ and QF it's that when there's just the two of them on a route they don't exactly bring the knives out in terms of pricing.

A shame that I won't be able to do the A380 transtasman sectors which I quite like. I've managed to fly on quite a portion of EK's ULH configured fleet. Nevertheless, it presents some opportunities for QF and other airlines to fill the capacity gap. That they've announced A330s on MEL-AKL is great news.

I can definitely see a scenario a few years ahead whereby Qantas transfer a few A330-200s over to Jetconnect. In a few years when QF's first 787 order has been filled and when the next (presumed) one has begun deliveries, the airline should be able to spare a few A330s. I'd love to see some on the ZK register. Transferring some 330-200s to Jetconnect would allow them to operate these existing routes:
AKL - SYD
AKL - MEL
AKL - BNE
AKL - PER (could maybe be brought up to daily - the present services are just utilising A330s that would otherwise be sitting around during the weekend)

The big problem with this is that you're going to build up a lot of cycles on that A330 subfleet and the present arrangements (with the aircraft rotating through SYD before/after various QF mid and long haul services) works very well in that regard. OTOH a few years from now, QF's first A330-200s will be getting close to 20 years old, so this might not be of great concern, especially if the aircraft in question would otherwise be leaving the fleet.

In an ideal world:
AKL-LAX could return (assuming that the market continues to grow but AA still isn't interested in operating year round).
AKL-SIN could be introduced to connect to the SIN-LHR-SIN services.

Maybe a few AKL-HNL frequencies too?

I know I'm just dreaming with most of this...but I guess you never know.

planemanofnz wrote:

Another daily DXB - AKL flight (via PER)

I always thought that one would be of interest to Etihad. 787-9 is the perfect aircraft for that route.

Deepinsider wrote:

It's about bums on seats of course, and how many seats are in this picture? But were they filled?

A very relevant question. Anecdotally speaking, up until ~2014 or so I always noticed that there were a lot of empty Y seats on most of the EK380 flights I took (especially in the rearmost Y cabin). From 2014/2015 though, each one I've been on has been absolutely packed.

Good to hear the seats were full. Pax happy of course, but we'll probably never hear from EK or QF how happy they were with the yield. Todays news is probably the answer though

Not surprised about the EK announcement. Have been waiting for this since they dropped AKL-SYD. Needless to say Air NZ will be very positive about EK's withdrawal from the Tasman. Qantas is clearly not adding anything like the premium capacity that EK are withdrawing even considering passengers routed on through Australia to DXB so that probably means a little more premium revenue / fuller premium cabins for NZ across the ditch. Will surely help their bottom line a little. And right on cue, just as AKL are finishing the 2 new A380 capable gates! Interesting times.

NZ321 wrote:

And right on cue, just as AKL are finishing the 2 new A380 capable gates! Interesting times.

There will no doubt be potential for more A380 flights to AKL in the future - potential scenarios in the coming years:

- EK add a second and third A380 flight
- QR upgrade their 77L flight with an A380
- SQ extend their seasonal A380 flight to year-round
- EY extend one of their SYD or MEL A380 flights to AKL
- KE upgrade their 748 seasonal flight with an A380
- CZ upgrade their 77W seasonal flight with an A380 (like they do with SYD)
- QF open LAX or DFW, or upgrade some of their SYD A330 flights, with an A380 - unlikely, I know

Cheers,

C.

Reading the Reuters report (see https://www.reuters.com/article/us-emir ... SKBN1CG06K) on the QF/EK carve-up on the Tasman, two points immediately came to mind:

First, the side-effect is that EK drops from four (until recently) to three (now) to one (in the very near future) EK A380 departure from AKL bound for Dubai and Europe. That's a serious capitulation in the Europe market, notwithstanding that the CHC service remains (though could move to 77L nonstop reading between the lines) and that another AKL frequency might be added "in the future". This surely has to benefit NZ's long-haul connections to Europe via SIN, PVG, HKG and NRT/HND, and benefit its partner airlines. It also benefits QF but to a lesser extent, because for the NZ-Europe market they're pretty much stuck with two-stop services in the meantime at least.

Second, Tim Clark suggested that the effect was to reduce the "total number of seats by all airlines" on the Tasman by 3.7%. I don't have the figures for NZ's share of the market, but it's surely not threatened when its main competitor alliance unilaterally makes cuts in capacity that must be at least a couple of times 3.7%. What should NZ's response be to this? I'd say it's now time for a bold countermeasure, involving new ports (at least CBR and HBA) and continuing the upgrade of equipment connecting with the evening long-haul bank to wide-body status or increased frequency - focusing on PER, ADL and OOL - all of which could eventually have more regular and competitive WB connections to the Americas. In the SYD, MEL and BNE markets, NZ already more than matches the WB offer from QF. This is an opportunity like none other to step in and provide some of the "lost" 3.7% of capacity, but on your own terms, serving your own strategic interests.

Net result: NZ's Tasman market share automatically increases as a result of the EK withdrawal and the lower capacity on offer by QF. It could increase further by upping its game in some of the secondary markets, both for end-to-end passengers, and also, significantly, with Americas-bound passengers. What's not to like?

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ321 wrote:

And right on cue, just as AKL are finishing the 2 new A380 capable gates! Interesting times.

There will no doubt be potential for more A380 flights to AKL in the future - potential scenarios in the coming years:

- EK add a second and third A380 flight
- QR upgrade their 77L flight with an A380
- SQ extend their seasonal A380 flight to year-round
- EY extend one of their SYD or MEL A380 flights to AKL
- KE upgrade their 748 seasonal flight with an A380
- CZ upgrade their 77W seasonal flight with an A380 (like they do with SYD)
- QF open LAX or DFW, or upgrade some of their SYD A330 flights, with an A380 - unlikely, I know

Cheers,

C.

EK may well add a second A380 flight nonstop or an A380 / 777 via SIN. It's possible. Would be good in terms of alternative connection times at DXB. Would be very interesting if they route an A380 DXB-SIN-AKL. Ouch.
SQ could go to A380 year round but I think the opportunity here could be to add an additional flight given their close working relationship with NZ. Otherwise EK may well jump on the bandwagon. For example, a morning departure from AKL around 8.30 or 9am and a return flight leaving SIN around 6.30pm. Enhanced connections from LHR and FRA to AKL and earlier connections for local Asian connecting passengers for example.
QR could definitely upgrade AKL to A380. I see this as quite possible now that EK have reduced capacity. and given that the 77L must have the clock ticking in terms of time left at QR. Ironic that EK and QF are in the same alliance and QF works with EK. And as far as I know they don't have the A359 ULR on order. This would be my first bet.
CZ unlikely IMHO as the double daily flights suit flexibility around connections and my hunch is that they need this flexibility to make it work. Would love to know about their yields into AKL and CHC.
Korea seems like a lame duck at the moment. I can't understand why there aren't more flights between AKL-ICN. Drops to 4 or 5 weekly off season yet ICN is a major STAR hub. Don't see KE sending A380 to AKL though, even seasonally. But never say never.
Not holding my breath either over QF but since you mention it they have far fewer wide bodies over the ditch than NZ even with the announced changes along with EK withdrawal.
EY would be interesting indeed. However they already have a working arrangement with NZ via Australia so not sure about this one.

So - yes I suppose we could get 1-2 additional A380 flights out of this - even if it is seasonal capacity

NZ321 wrote:

EK may well add a second A380 flight nonstop or an A380 / 777 via SIN. It's possible. Would be good in terms of alternative connection times at DXB. Would be very interesting if they route an A380 DXB-SIN-AKL. Ouch.

I would have thought that an extension of DXB - PER to AKL would have made more sense, given:

- EK will lose some PER traffic, once QF's PER - LHR flight commences next year (an AKL tag would put more bums on seats)
- The WA economy is not doing particularly well at the moment (an AKL tag would put more bums on seats)
- QF do not fly PER - AKL year-round, which is a gap in their New Zealand network (the longer nature of this flight is more suited to EK's product than QF's)

However, with all of this talk about reducing capacity by 3.7% across the Tasman, it seems as though no new EK flights will come via Australia.

If this is so, a SIN stop would be the front-runner - bigger market than KUL and BKK, and EK even fly CMB - SIN, which could be extended to AKL.

NZ321 wrote:

SQ could go to A380 year round but I think the opportunity here could be to add an additional flight given their close working relationship with NZ.

Would SQ be the one to add any additional AKL - SIN flights, or would it be NZ?

SQ do not seem interested in AKL at all.

NZ321 wrote:

QR could definitely upgrade AKL to A380. I see this as quite possible now that EK have reduced capacity. and given that the 77L must have the clock ticking in terms of time left at QR.

The only problem is that QR have a limited number of A380s, and AFAIK, they are already utilised to the likes of LHR, CDG, MEL and SYD.

In addition, the A380 is quite a premium-focused plane for QR (being its only plane with F class).

It would be particularly bold if AAB were to extend one of the DOH - Australia A380 flights to AKL, just to give a jeer to QF and EK.

Cheers,

C.

So, looks like AKL-LIM will happen next month. Just as a one-off and won't be bookable

SonOfABeech wrote:

So, looks like AKL-LIM will happen next month. Just as a one-off and won't be bookable

Really? Wow. Any details?

NZ321 wrote:

SonOfABeech wrote:

So, looks like AKL-LIM will happen next month. Just as a one-off and won't be bookable

Really? Wow. Any details?

World Cup qualy playoffs, NZ vs Peru. I assume the All Whites will find a way to fly direct, no?

planemanofnz wrote:

This non-existent island destination has been dotted in the sea (above Singapore) - quite appalling on the part of NZ, if you ask me:.

I don't know what map you've found. I've just - again - been to the main NZ route map, available on the website and this mysterious Pulau isn't there.

https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/route-maps

The places in or near Malaysia are the places that should be - although KL is teensy bit further north than I had expected. My map seems to be a different colour from yours, too.

But a linguist friend tells me that pulau means "island" and there are several of those.

mariner

How much time is there usually between delivery of an aircraft and first revenue flight?
I noticed -NZL has been delivered on the 7th but hasn't flown after.

planemanofnz wrote:

[- A daily DXB - WLG flight (via an Australian port with existing EK 777 services, like ADL (777-300ER) or BNE (777-200LR))

Another interesting WLG option for EK would be a non-stop B77L DXB-WLG with a refuel outbound somewhere like Indonesia. The B77L has a great range from WLG's existing runway.

Interestingly for these ultra long haul flights such as DXB-New Zealand non-stop you can actually save quite a lot of fuel by stopping mid-way for a refuel even taking into account the additional takeoff due to not having to use fuel to carry the fuel. Has implications for crewing I would imagine (although it would only be 45-50mins on the ground and I think they use 2 crews for the ULH anyway), and probably adds some additional airport-related costs but as long as they refueled in a port they had a presence at (CGK, DPS?) should be pretty easy.

The question would be whether WLG could support that sort of service.... but in the absence of any 1-stop Europe options would be pretty attractive.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ321 wrote:

EK may well add a second A380 flight nonstop or an A380 / 777 via SIN. It's possible. Would be good in terms of alternative connection times at DXB. Would be very interesting if they route an A380 DXB-SIN-AKL. Ouch.

I would have thought that an extension of DXB - PER to AKL would have made more sense, given:

- EK will lose some PER traffic, once QF's PER - LHR flight commences next year (an AKL tag would put more bums on seats)
- The WA economy is not doing particularly well at the moment (an AKL tag would put more bums on seats)
- QF do not fly PER - AKL year-round, which is a gap in their New Zealand network (the longer nature of this flight is more suited to EK's product than QF's)

However, with all of this talk about reducing capacity by 3.7% across the Tasman, it seems as though no new EK flights will come via Australia.

If this is so, a SIN stop would be the front-runner - bigger market than KUL and BKK, and EK even fly CMB - SIN, which could be extended to AKL.

NZ321 wrote:

SQ could go to A380 year round but I think the opportunity here could be to add an additional flight given their close working relationship with NZ.

Would SQ be the one to add any additional AKL - SIN flights, or would it be NZ?

SQ do not seem interested in AKL at all.

NZ321 wrote:

QR could definitely upgrade AKL to A380. I see this as quite possible now that EK have reduced capacity. and given that the 77L must have the clock ticking in terms of time left at QR.

The only problem is that QR have a limited number of A380s, and AFAIK, they are already utilised to the likes of LHR, CDG, MEL and SYD.

In addition, the A380 is quite a premium-focused plane for QR (being its only plane with F class).

It would be particularly bold if AAB were to extend one of the DOH - Australia A380 flights to AKL, just to give a jeer to QF and EK.

Cheers,

C.

I agree that EK via SIN or PER for a one stop seems plausible, QF A330's are a good product as well and with QF flying PER/SIN-LHR having connections to both seems to makes sense.

As for SQ doesn't seem interested in AKL, what do you mean? They upgauge to an A380 seasonally and revenue share with NZ as well who operate daily.i do wonder what the next move will be though for NZ/SQ, either could operate an additional flight, NZ to connect to EZE both ways, which to me says they will need an additional frequency, maybe have SQ take over the current NZ service and SQ keep their current flight but using smaller frames 77W 359, they might reduce frequency in the NS by a few flights. NZ could do

AKL 1000 SIN 1530
SIN 0100 AKL 1545

I agree QR don't have many A380's so AKL seems a stretch, seasonal maybe where LHR/CDG get downguaged.

ZK-NBT wrote:

[
I agree QR don't have many A380's so AKL seems a stretch, seasonal maybe where LHR/CDG get downguaged.

Given AKL-DOH looks to be almost 1 hour beyond AKL-DXB, that additional hours fuel will be a killer to carry for 17 hours, and I was reading that EK already block out 100 seats on their A380's and take no cargo, I would imagine the payload restriction for QR would be too much to bear commercially.

ZK-NBT wrote:

As for SQ doesn't seem interested in AKL, what do you mean? They upgauge to an A380 seasonally and revenue share with NZ as well who operate daily.i do wonder what the next move will be though for NZ/SQ, either could operate an additional flight, NZ to connect to EZE both ways, which to me says they will need an additional frequency, maybe have SQ take over the current NZ service and SQ keep their current flight but using smaller frames 77W 359, they might reduce frequency in the NS by a few flights. NZ could do

AKL 1000 SIN 1530
SIN 0100 AKL 1545

I agree QR don't have many A380's so AKL seems a stretch, seasonal maybe where LHR/CDG get downguaged.

Precisely, we are certainly better off as far as frequency and aircraft go on the SIN route since the alliance, 12 weekly to 14 weekly and A380s in the summer. I'd quite like to see an early AM flight, say 0530 arrival and a 0730 departure from AKL, but we shall see, I feel that SIN could start to support a third flight, doesn't have to be daily from the get go, say 3x week initially and build from there, whoever operates it doesn't really bother me.

I also wonder if EK Skycargo might consider adding an AKL run now that freight capacity will be significantly reduced

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ could do
AKL 1000 SIN 1530
SIN 0100 AKL 1545

I'd support this as their "base operation", providing year-round connections to South America in both directions. Then they could add a frequency as needed (day by day if appropriate) on the following schedule:

SIN 1715 AKL 0800
AKL 1745 SIN 2315

This would allow that on the days when there were two flights operating each SIN service would turn straight around, maximising utilisation. In the offpeak when only one service operated there would be a longer layover as in your proposed schedule.

a7ala wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

[
I agree QR don't have many A380's so AKL seems a stretch, seasonal maybe where LHR/CDG get downguaged.

Given AKL-DOH looks to be almost 1 hour beyond AKL-DXB, that additional hours fuel will be a killer to carry for 17 hours, and I was reading that EK already block out 100 seats on their A380's and take no cargo, I would imagine the payload restriction for QR would be too much to bear commercially.

Nope, no seats blocked even when old EDA operates it. There is also some cargo.

LamboAston wrote:

a7ala wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

[
I agree QR don't have many A380's so AKL seems a stretch, seasonal maybe where LHR/CDG get downguaged.

Given AKL-DOH looks to be almost 1 hour beyond AKL-DXB, that additional hours fuel will be a killer to carry for 17 hours, and I was reading that EK already block out 100 seats on their A380's and take no cargo, I would imagine the payload restriction for QR would be too much to bear commercially.

Nope, no seats blocked even when old EDA operates it. There is also some cargo.

Referring to another thread which said:

emiratesdriver wrote:

[
With regards to the direct AKL service, eastbound there isn't a significant payload penalty, westbound there is, depending on conditions between 60 and 100 Y class seats are blocked and virtually no cargo can be uplifted which is also part of the decision to do this.

Gasman wrote:

EK pulling out of AKL-Australia is very bad news indeed. Apart from the fact that it was great to have the odd A380 flight across the Tasman, if there's one thing we know about NZ and QF it's that when there's just the two of them on a route they don't exactly bring the knives out in terms of pricing.

It's certainly sad news for me. I used to love taking the A380 across the Tasman - every other aircraft feels so claustrophobic.

It may be bad news for Air NZ. Some of the Australians on another thread are dreaming of Qantas building a hub at AKL, which might be good news for you.

I'm surprised that Qantas would have number of aircraft for such a hub, but you cantle stop people dreaming. If it were to happen, it would be an interesting test of Mr. Luxon. I admire him enormously but he has had a fairly lucky run and I don't know to what extent he has the killer instinct. I know that Alan Joyce, CEO of Qantas, has the killer instinct up the wazoo.

Or - Qantas and Air NZ may, as you suggest, get into a fare war,. which would be good news for the travelling public.

mariner

Has this be mentioned before?

HA to go 5 weekly to AKL from late March

http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/air ... arch-2018/

mariner wrote:

Gasman wrote:

EK pulling out of AKL-Australia is very bad news indeed. Apart from the fact that it was great to have the odd A380 flight across the Tasman, if there's one thing we know about NZ and QF it's that when there's just the two of them on a route they don't exactly bring the knives out in terms of pricing.

It's certainly sad news for me. I used to love taking the A380 across the Tasman - every other aircraft feels so claustrophobic.

It may be bad news for Air NZ. Some of the Australians on another thread are dreaming of Qantas building a hub at AKL, which might be good news for you.

I'm surprised that Qantas would have number of aircraft for such a hub, but you cantle stop people dreaming. If it were to happen, it would be an interesting test of Mr. Luxon. I admire him enormously but he has had a fairly lucky run and I don't know to what extent he has the killer instinct. I know that Alan Joyce, CEO of Qantas, has the killer instinct up the wazoo.

Or - Qantas and Air NZ may, as you suggest, get into a fare war,. which would be good news for the travelling public.

mariner

Agree re A380. It may not be a fantastic commercial success but from a pax point of view it's wonderful.

With the departure of EK, I see two possible scenarios re QF/NZ on the Tasman - the first I think being by far the most likely; neither of them great:

- a cosy duopoly resulting in a small, but not insignificant fare rise over and above current levels or;
- QF expanding services resulting in a fare war.

Is a fare war really good news for the travelling public?? Sure, it results in short term crazy low fares but ultimately someone loses (resulting in fare increases again) and the short term financial benefits are often overshadowed by the resulting race to the bottom in terms of product quality. It did seem, with three big players on the Tasman that they all kept each other in check on every level; now it feels like it's wide open again.

The EK flights have always been an anomaly. They have had every type EK has operated (except the A340-300) 332,345,772,77L,77W,A380. The A380 was the straw that broke the camel's back, the route was ok/manageable with smaller aircraft and even with A380 was better load-wise before they starting swapping the turn times 418 and 413 and retiming the others. Having said that, operationally it has been always been complex with a turnaround, crews changed to overnighting crews in AKL and sub-optimal schedule.

EK moving away from the market will open up opportunities for new airlines to try their luck and new destinations to fill the gate slots and the market will adjust. positively.

mariner wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

This non-existent island destination has been dotted in the sea (above Singapore) - quite appalling on the part of NZ, if you ask me:.

I don't know what map you've found. I've just - again - been to the main NZ route map, available on the website and this mysterious Pulau isn't there.

https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/route-maps

The places in or near Malaysia are the places that should be - although KL is teensy bit further north than I had expected. My map seems to be a different colour from yours, too.

But a linguist friend tells me that pulau means "island" and there are several of those.

mariner

because it's the printed magazine on board that planemanofnz referred to

mariner wrote:

I don't know what map you've found. I've just - again - been to the main NZ route map, available on the website and this mysterious Pulau isn't there.

https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/route-maps

My map seems to be a different colour from yours, too

I am talking about the maps in the "Kia Ora" inflight magazine of NZ.

About 350,000 copies of this magazine are published each month, for distribution on NZ flights.

See: http://www.bauermedia.co.nz/brands/kia-ora/.



The inconsistency between the magazine's maps and those on the NZ website are just another example of sloppiness on the part of NZ.

mariner wrote:

But a linguist friend tells me that pulau means "island" and there are several of those.

Yes - we already established that in posts #164 and #165.

In any event, it is a non-existent destination.

The magazine does not refer to Pulau Tioman or Pulau Redang (neither of which are even served by SQ or MI) - just "Pulau."

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

mariner wrote:

I don't know what map you've found. I've just - again - been to the main NZ route map, available on the website and this mysterious Pulau isn't there.

https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/route-maps

My map seems to be a different colour from yours, too

I am talking about the maps in the "Kia Ora" inflight magazine of NZ.

About 350,000 copies of this magazine are published each month, for distribution on NZ flights.

See: http://www.bauermedia.co.nz/brands/kia-ora/.



The inconsistency between the magazine's maps and those on the NZ website are just another example of sloppiness on the part of NZ.

mariner wrote:

But a linguist friend tells me that pulau means "island" and there are several of those.

Yes - we already established that in posts #164 and #165.

In any event, it is a non-existent destination.

The magazine does not refer to Pulau Tioman or Pulau Redang (neither of which are even served by SQ or MI) - just "Pulau."

Cheers,

C.

Perhaps now that you have established the map is in error, you could send an email to the address given in the magazine (airnz@bauermedia.co.nz) and let them know so that they can fix it?

Personally I'm more disappointed by the change to the more cartoon style domestic and international Air New Zealand route maps that occurred some time between July and September (I missed out on the August one - my only flights that month were international, and the sadly don't seem to keep the magazine well stocked on international flights, so I'm not sure if the change happened for the August or September issue). Here are the July and September editions for comparison:




Another couple of errors that jump out on the new style international map:

• Queenstown isn't shown as a dot on the international map (nor is Dunedin, although that is only served on Virgin metal)
• Vanuatu is shown, despite NZ having suspended their flights there (it wasn't on the older style map).

V/F

VirginFlyer wrote:

Another couple of errors that jump out on the new style international map:

• Queenstown isn't shown as a dot on the international map (nor is Dunedin, although that is only served on Virgin metal)
• Vanuatu is shown, despite NZ having suspended their flights there (it wasn't on the older style map).

Actually, both of those were picked up and fixed for the latest October 2017 edition.

In addition, they rightly removed PEK as a destination from the NZ destinations page.

The fact that some errors were picked up between the editions, but not others, only further irks me.



Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

VirginFlyer wrote:

Another couple of errors that jump out on the new style international map:

• Queenstown isn't shown as a dot on the international map (nor is Dunedin, although that is only served on Virgin metal)
• Vanuatu is shown, despite NZ having suspended their flights there (it wasn't on the older style map).

Actually, both of those were picked up and fixed for the latest October 2017 edition.

In addition, they rightly removed PEK as a destination from the NZ destinations page.

The fact that some errors were picked up between the editions, but not others, only further irks me.



Cheers,

C.

Ah there we go then. Perhaps someone contacted them to point it out. Will you be contacting them to point out the Pulau mistake?

V/F

aerorobnz wrote:

The EK flights have always been an anomaly. They have had every type EK has operated (except the A340-300) 332,345,772,77L,77W,A380. The A380 was the straw that broke the camel's back, the route was ok/manageable with smaller aircraft and even with A380 was better load-wise before they starting swapping the turn times 418 and 413 and retiming the others. Having said that, operationally it has been always been complex with a turnaround, crews changed to overnighting crews in AKL and sub-optimal schedule.

EK moving away from the market will open up opportunities for new airlines to try their luck and new destinations to fill the gate slots and the market will adjust. positively.

I suspect we're all agreed that the EK trans Tasman flights (and especially the A380 flights) were an aberration; and the writing was on the wall as soon as the non stop AKL-DXB flight started. But I can't accept that for the traveler, that this is anything but bad news. Apart from losing an awesome aircraft and airline to cross the Tasman on; when you reduce competition in a market, prices rise. It's Econ 101. Moreover, the New Zealand market is too small to be able to rely on market forces to find a fair equilibrium - instead, because of our size monopolies (or duopolies) tend to form. Think Spark/Vodafone, Contact/Mercury etc.

VirginFlyer wrote:

Ah there we go then. Perhaps someone contacted them to point it out. Will you be contacting them to point out the Pulau mistake?

I will, once I get time - I should not really have to though, as there are people who get paid for a living to check this stuff.

Perhaps I am being too harsh - QR are no different - last month's edition of their magazine had AKL and SYD dotted as being in the ocean!



Cheers,

C.

aerorobnz wrote:

The EK flights have always been an anomaly. They have had every type EK has operated (except the A340-300) 332,345,772,77L,77W,A380. The A380 was the straw that broke the camel's back, the route was ok/manageable with smaller aircraft and even with A380 was better load-wise before they starting swapping the turn times 418 and 413 and retiming the others. Having said that, operationally it has been always been complex with a turnaround, crews changed to overnighting crews in AKL and sub-optimal schedule.

EK moving away from the market will open up opportunities for new airlines to try their luck and new destinations to fill the gate slots and the market will adjust. positively.

I agree, they somehow needed to be able to have the crew do a return Tasman trip in one day, having the aircraft depart DXB just slightly later within the same bank say 45mins later to still arrive in SYD/MEL/BNE nice and early then doing the Tasman leg 45mins 1hr later as well and leaving an hour earlier ex AKL and ultimately arriving DXB about an hour earlier so say

DXB 1100 SYD 0650
SYD 0840 AKL 1345
AKL 1645 SYD 1815
SYD 2000 DXB 0400

Not sure it would have worked or not but that cut the AKL turn in winter from 1300-1800 so 2 hrs, they could have almost had a flight like EY/QR arrives SYD 1800 departs 2200 as well maybe. We may never know now.

But the 1515 departure ex AKL was just to early and slightly later flights ex OZ to NZ might have made them slightly more appealing. Once SYD was retimed ex AKL then dropped it became quite clear they would probably drop MEL/BNE as well which really probably started when they added DXB-AKL then QR entering. I think when they changed the SYD schedule they actually ran SYD-AKl-BNE with one crew and vv as the aircraft was only on the ground 2 or so hours.

I wonder if EY might use some of the UAE Tasman rights to get a foot in the door?

planemanofnz wrote:

I am talking about the maps in the "Kia Ora" inflight magazine of NZ.

About 350,000 copies of this magazine are published each month, for distribution on NZ flights.

It's remains only a magazine, free to the public, although I assume at least partially financed by advertising, maybe even fully funded. Proof reading (spelling, syntax and grammar) has sadly fallen on e evil times in NZ these days, even, or especially, at the Herald.

The one interesting thing to me involves Pulau. Who put it there in the first place, and why? I assume that Singapore supplied Air NZ with a list of code share destinations, or at least agreed to a list, so perhaps it came from them. But again - why?

Mostly, since you are so very irked by it, I'm puzzled as to what you are hoping to achieve. I wonder if - as others have suggested - you have been proactive and written to Air NZ. Perhaps you have and prefer not to tell us? Or - the inference to which you referred earlier - if you do work for Air NZ have you spoken to the department in question?

Either approach might achieve more than simply listing your complaints to us, who can do nothing about it.

mariner

ZK-NBT wrote:

I wonder if EY might use some of the UAE Tasman rights to get a foot in the door?

Perhaps, but one has to remember:

- Any one-stop EY flight will be significantly disadvantaged to the non-stop EK and QR flights
- EY are the only ME3 carrier to have extensive codesharing arrangements with NZ and VA
- AZ and AB recently went bankrupt, which will hurt EY's ability to continue expanding
- EY have been cutting back on various ULH flights of late, such as AUH - SFO

See: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... lan-stalls.

mariner wrote:

It's remains only a magazine, free to the public

Whether it is "only" a magazine, and whether it is free or not, are irrelevant - it can still generate liability.

mariner wrote:

Perhaps you have and prefer not to tell us? Or - the inference to which you referred earlier - if you do work for Air NZ have you spoken to the department in question?

I do not work for NZ, and I never said anything to suggest that I do - I would be grateful if you stopped suggesting otherwise.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

I wonder if EY might use some of the UAE Tasman rights to get a foot in the door?

Perhaps, but one has to remember:

- Any one-stop EY flight will be significantly disadvantaged to the non-stop EK and QR flights
- EY are the only ME3 carrier to have extensive codesharing arrangements with NZ and VA
- AZ and AB recently went bankrupt, which will hurt EY's ability to continue expanding
- EY have been cutting back on various ULH flights of late, such as AUH - SFO

See: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... lan-stalls.

mariner wrote:

It's remains only a magazine, free to the public

Whether it is "only" a magazine, and whether it is free or not, are irrelevant - it can still generate liability.

mariner wrote:

Perhaps you have and prefer not to tell us? Or - the inference to which you referred earlier - if you do work for Air NZ have you spoken to the department in question?

I do not work for NZ, and I never said anything to suggest that I do - I would be grateful if you stopped suggesting otherwise.

Cheers,

C.

Re EY, true I forgot they codeshare with NZ, I'm more thinking to get a foot in the door? They have 5 ex AI 77L's which would be the only aircraft capable of a Non stop AUH-AKL unless they considered a flight through Asia? They may be happy with the NZ codeshare instead and not considering AKL at all.

planemanofnz wrote:

I do not work for NZ, and I never said anything to suggest that I do - I would be grateful if you stopped suggesting otherwise.

There was an earlier exchange between us at the end of your post #156:

mariner wrote:
"I disputed your statement that it had not been checked because I don't know how you know this"

planemanofnz wrote: [i]"You can infer it."[/]

My inference would be that you know because either you work for Air NZ or have strong connections there. I understand you might want to be coy, but I can't think of any other inference I could draw which would be a satisfactory response to the situation.

mariner

planemanofnz wrote:

VirginFlyer wrote:

Ah there we go then. Perhaps someone contacted them to point it out. Will you be contacting them to point out the Pulau mistake?

I will, once I get time - I should not really have to though, as there are people who get paid for a living to check this stuff.

Perhaps I am being too harsh - QR are no different - last month's edition of their magazine had AKL and SYD dotted as being in the ocean!



Cheers,

C.

Almost all the dots are shunted right there - Melbourne is shown between Moe and Traralgon, and Adelaide somewhere between Copeville and Galga. Oddly, Canberra is in the right place...

V/F