zkncj wrote:

Although now with an change of Government that wants to tax tourists it could be an end to growth in inbound passengers.

NZ321 wrote:

I am surprised. Would have picked DXB-SIN-AKL over a second nonstop

DobboDobbo wrote:

Having experienced a less than half full EK449 a few days ago, I think a second daily to AKL is unlikely (usual anecdotal caveats apply).

DobboDobbo wrote:

Perhaps EK would be minded to open up the South Island direct from DXB? Would CHC's runway be long enough?

DobboDobbo wrote:

Having experienced a less than half full EK449 a few days ago, I think a second daily to AKL is unlikely (usual anecdotal caveats apply).

Perhaps EK would be minded to open up the South Island direct from DXB? Would CHC's runway be long enough?

aerorobnz wrote:

If it was going to happen within the next year it would have been announced at the same time as the cancellations. And it won't be an A380, In fact, if it happens at all I think EK will not operate an A380 at all to AKL just 2x 777s

EK413 wrote:

a further 10 on order

EK413 wrote:

eventually become 3 x daily further down the track

sealand wrote:

My take is given that EK is adding a new non-stop BNE flight in Dec 17, it'll be prudent for them to shift the DXB-SIN-BNE flight to DXB-SIN-AK.

planemanofnz wrote:

EK413 wrote:

a further 10 on order

No - EK considered ordering additional 77Ls in 2015, but AFAIK, did not go through with this.

See: https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... -jets.html.

bunumuring wrote:

Hey guys,
Can I ask why some posters think Singapore would be the best stop over point between Dubai and Auckland, if there is to be one? Why not, for example, Bangkok? Or Bali? Or somewhere real left of centre like Darwin or Cairns to add another 'dot on the map ' for Emirates....

planemanofnz wrote:

bunumuring wrote:

Hey guys,
Can I ask why some posters think Singapore would be the best stop over point between Dubai and Auckland, if there is to be one? Why not, for example, Bangkok? Or Bali? Or somewhere real left of centre like Darwin or Cairns to add another 'dot on the map ' for Emirates....

A SIN stop for a second daily DXB - AKL service would make a lot of sense, particularly given:

- EK already has a well established quasi-hub at SIN, feeding flights there to BNE, CMB and MEL
- SIN allows AKL-based passengers to avail of QF's new SIN - LHR service, as well as JQ's SIN hub
- A SIN stop would make for a shorter overall routing to AKL, than a BKK, CNS or DRW stop would
- AKL - SIN O&D demand has bigger volumes and higher yield, than those of AKL - BKK / CNS / DRW

IMHO, the other stops that might make sense, are:

- CGK
There are currently no year-round Indonesia - New Zealand services, and CGK is the only big Asian commercial capital that is not served from AKL. Not only would this flight do well with cargo, but a CGK stop would make for a shorter overall routing than a PER or SIN stop would.

- PER
EK is facing a challenge at PER, with the WA economy not doing so well of late, and QF's upcoming PER - LHR flight likely to take away some of EK's PER passengers - an AKL tag could 'top up' EK's PER flights. In addition, there is strong O&D demand between AKL and PER.

Cheers,

C.

777LRF wrote:

Great points. Makes me wonder why it hasnt come to fruition quicker. In hindsight id have guessed that EK SIN-AKL would have come before the non stop. Perhaps there are traffic rights issues that prevent it?

Ladies and Gentlemen

STANDARDS ON THE LINE

You will be aware that we have experienced some poorly managed events on the line over the last few months; unfortunately we experienced another one last week. In Training we promote the fact that we are driven by evidence, well the evidence indicates that that these events can no longer be viewed as isolated events, therefore it is imperative action is taken to stop the onset of a potential trend. We need to raise the levels of airmanship, awareness, suspicion and professionalism across our pilot community. Let me state that we are of the firm belief that the vast majority of our pilots are professional, proficient, efficient and effective. Unfortunately, the evidence indicates there is still work to be done to bring a small minority of pilots to this standard. The acid test, as always is, if following any training/checking session you would not be confident with the pilot flying your loved ones into some of the demanding destinations, terrain, weather and ATC environments which we operate into, then you have to flag those concerns to Training Management by accurately grading and reporting your observations.

In reviewing the events of the last few months we have asked ourselves what are we doing wrong? What are we missing? What’s the root cause? Why is our training and checking not able to identify those pilots who underperform on the line? Whilst the PFs and PMs in each case demonstrated failures in one or more of the pilot competencies, it was the loss of Situation Awareness and ineffective Pilot monitoring which were so concerning; we therefore need to enhance our training with regards to both. We have already started this in the current round of RTGS, where we present the Flight Data Monitoring playbacks from some of the events in question and then facilitate a discussion on what went wrong and what could have been done to prevent the situation from developing. However it is obvious that we need to do more, therefore in cooperation with Fleet we have decided to introduce the following changes:

· Trainers are to re-emphasize the importance of Pilot Monitoring duties during all Training and Checking events; this is to happen with immediate effect.
· Recurrent training to include a manually flown (Auto Pilot/Auto Throttle off) short sector, focusing on SA and Monitoring. We already cover this on Day 3 on the A380 using NCE; Boeing will introduce something similar on Day 2, this will be effective from 1 Oct this year. Emphasis is to be placed on the Pilot Monitoring making timely exceedance calls and demonstrating a satisfactory level of monitoring throughout the session. Please continue to insert ‘distractors’ during your sessions to mirror the distractions encountered on the line. The PM is to prioritise his workload to ensure his own SA and the safety of the aircraft are never compromised.
· We have re-written the word pictures for the Communication and the Leadership, Teamwork and Support PAMs to include more focus on PM skills. The FCI detailing these changes will be published shortly and will be effective immediately on receipt.
· During a training/checking session should a pilot miss a number of radio or SOP calls which might jeopardise the safety of the flight, or if their attitude or professionalism is called into question then the pilot is to be graded a ‘1’ for Leadership, Teamwork and Support. I accept this is subjective and whilst I would not expect to see a trainee fail because of a ‘few’ missed calls, several missed radio and/or SOP calls could be indicative of capacity or SA issues, so additional training is entirely appropriate.
· Any commander who is graded a ‘1’ or a ‘2’ for any competency during Day 1 or 2 of their recurrent simulator session will continue with their remaining simulator sessions, unless they are removed by a Training Manager. However, on completion of their recurrent training sessions a review of their performance will be conducted by Training/Fleet management prior to the commander being released back to the line; this is effective immediately.
· We will develop learning modules to improve knowledge and understanding of Auto Flight Systems modes. In the interim it is vital that you not only train Automation awareness but also the understanding of the modes.
· 25% of line checks will be planned as ‘No Notice’, this will be effective from the next planned roster. If you are rostered for one of these No Notice line checks, it is important you do not make the rostered crew aware – we are trying to get better visibility over our crews’ standards and level of preparedness – a true No Notice line check will give us that.
· Safety will provide Training with a list of our most challenging destinations and where possible Line Checks will be planned to these destinations going forward.
· There will be an additional 1-week ground school introduced for all new conversion courses to enhance/refresh fundamental ATPL knowledge; date for implementation TBD.
· Starting 1 Feb 2018, Day 3 of the recurrent PPC will be separated from Day 1 and 2. This will give trainees more regular exposure throughout the year to manual flight in the simulator as well as the opportunity to practise their monitoring skills. This initiative will also address the negative feedback we have received relating to 3 x deep night duties in a row and the limited training value gained from the 3rd night.
· We will be working with a third party research team to trial ‘eye tracking’ functionality in the simulator. We will use the results of the trial in the following RTGS phase to demonstrate the effectiveness, or not, of some crews’ scanning techniques during various stages of the flight.

In conclusion, the recent spate of poorly managed events on the line is deeply disappointing. Inaction on our part was simply not an option; as a result I hope you understand why these actions are being taken. It is vital that as trainers we lead by example and we demonstrate the standards others wish to aspire to. We recognise that ‘change’ can lead to uncertainty, especially if that change is introduced quickly. Therefore, if you are faced with a situation during your training and checking sessions over the coming weeks and are unsure of what is expected of you, please call your training management team who will be happy to assist.

As always thank you for your continued support.


SVP Flight Training

aerorobnz wrote:

In fact, if it happens at all I think EK will not operate an A380 at all to AKL just 2x 777s

planemanofnz wrote:

- SYD: 4x daily (3x daily non-stop, 1x daily one-stop, via BKK) - all A380s
- MEL: 3x daily (2x daily non-stop, 1x daily one-stop, via SIN) - all A380s
- BNE: 3x daily (2x daily non-stop, 1x daily one-stop, via SIN) - one A380
- PER: 2x daily non-stop - one A380.

bunumuring wrote:

Can I ask why some posters think Singapore would be the best stop over point between Dubai and Auckland, if there is to be one? Why not, for example, Bangkok? Or Bali? Or somewhere real left of centre like Darwin or Cairns to add another 'dot on the map ' for Emirates....

planemanofnz wrote:

(...)
The other factors which give EK a strong platform with which to add capacity to AKL, include:

- Brand recognition, having been the only ME3 player in the market for ~15 years, and sponsoring Team New Zealand
- Continued ability to source domestic feed in New Zealand by interlining with JQ at NPE, NPL, NSN, PMR, WLG and ZQN
- Lack of interest of QF in improving Europe connections, unlike at MEL, PER and SYD, and further lack of interest of EY
- Continued strength of New Zealand's economy, with GDP and tourist arrivals both forecast to continue increasing
(...).

incitatus wrote:

Besides QF's and EY's lack of interest in improving European connections, one should add NZ's lack of interest as well.

mariner wrote:

But any of those cities is far larger by population than Auckland - even nearly triple the size in one case.

mariner wrote:

I don't, I think SIN is a most unimaginative pick. If there's enough traffic AKL-DXB to support another frequency, even if only in high season, I'd rather see the stop be at somewhere interesting and unserved, such as CMB.

mariner wrote:

I can't speak for Etihad, but what a very odd thing to say about Qantas, which has been talking a lot recently about new routes to Europe

planemanofnz wrote:

mariner wrote:

But any of those cities is far larger by population than Auckland - even nearly triple the size in one case.

With all due respect, that is an extremely narrow view in which to judge the potential value of a given destination to a given airline.

Population size is an important, but not decisive factor in route development - if it was, then EK would be serving MEX (via GVA, with rights) by now.

One important factor is AKL having less competition than the Australian ports, particularly without the presence of EY from AUH:

- SYD will have 8x daily flights from the ME3 (7x A380, 1x 77W)
- MEL will have 6x daily flights from the ME3 (4x A380, 1x 77W, 1x 789)
- BNE will have 4x daily flights from the ME3 (1x A380, 1x 77W, 1x 77L, 1x 789)
- PER will have 4x daily flights from the ME3 (1x A380, 2x 77W, 1x 789)
- AKL will have 2x daily flights from the ME3 (1x A380, 1x 77L)

Another factor (aside from the size of a served city), is the size of the served airport's catchment area - AKL is comparable to both BNE and PER:

- BNE - 4.6 million (Queensland)
- AKL - 3.6 million (North Island of New Zealand)
- PER - 2.6 million (Western Australia)

Other factors may include economic trends (with New Zealand's GDP growth stronger than Australia's), in addition to in-bound tourism potential (with New Zealand's international visitor arrivals (at 3.65 million) being almost 4x greater than Western Australia's (at 965,000), in the past year).

mariner wrote:

I don't, I think SIN is a most unimaginative pick. If there's enough traffic AKL-DXB to support another frequency, even if only in high season, I'd rather see the stop be at somewhere interesting and unserved, such as CMB.

IMHO:

- Airlines are not in the in the business of serving "interesting" routes - the routes need to have a business case, even if they are "a most unimaginative pick"
- The point for a stop on a second service would be because a non-stop service has insufficient demand, and O&D traffic involving the stop is likely needed

A CMB stop would be a disaster for this service for a number of reasons, such as:

- The poor quality of the CMB transit experience turning off AKL - DXB passengers (the Changi transit experience is far superior)
- O&D quality being very low, with CMB unable to sustain flights even to SYD, and AKL unable to sustain flights even to India

mariner wrote:

I can't speak for Etihad, but what a very odd thing to say about Qantas, which has been talking a lot recently about new routes to Europe

I should have been clearer - I meant that QF is not interested in developing European connections from New Zealand (and not overall) - otherwise, QF would have announced AKL - PER or AKL - SIN, to connect with its new PER - LHR or SIN - LHR services, respectively.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

With all due respect, that is an extremely narrow view in which to judge the potential value of a given destination to a given airline.

planemanofnz wrote:

Airlines are not in the in the business of serving "interesting" routes - the routes need to have a business case, even if they are "a most unimaginative pick"
- The point for a stop on a second service would be because a non-stop service has insufficient demand, and O&D traffic involving the stop is likely needed
- The poor quality of the CMB transit experience turning off AKL - DXB passengers (the Changi transit experience is far superior)
- O&D quality being very low, with CMB unable to sustain flights even to SYD, and AKL unable to sustain flights even to India

planemanofnz wrote:

I should have been clearer - I meant that QF is not interested in developing European connections from New Zealand (and not overall) - otherwise, QF would have announced AKL - PER or AKL - SIN, to connect with its new PER - LHR or SIN - LHR services, respectively.