77west wrote:

Anyone know what sort of aviation restrictions are applied during their launch windows? Surely Gisborne / Napier airports would at least have it NOTAMED.

http://www.ifis.airways.co.nz/script/ne ... ws.asp#144
Temporary restricted and danger areas activated by NOTAM.

ZK-NBT wrote:

USAOZ wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Remember before AA entered NZ could charge what they wanted to North America, they have continued to add capacity even with AA, revenue might be down year on year but it was up quite a bit over several years. See the big picture, NZ has an efficient fleet and is profitable.

Re China there will always be a lot of competition there, NZ will concentrate on PVG which is the biggest market, ideas of Chendu the other year seemed to me a little hard to believe.

If nz is profitable akl/lax why isn't qf back on the route or better still jq? Get the impression that Australians & kiwis will only fly a u.s. Airline as a last resort. Would have thought akl/lax or akl/ont would be the perfect jq route without upsetting aa.

Maybe QF /JQ have bigger fish to fry rather than trying to tackle a dominant carrier on a fifth freedom route. AA are best suited with their fleet and leave QF to use theirs on OZ-US.

but some LCC is going to do OZ/USA either nonstop or direct, so shouldn't JQ get in on the act 1st ? Plenty of LCC's could fly via one of many Pacific nations, eg. RAR, APW, PPT, NOU etc. even if just as a tech stop. QF/JQ have the traffic rights so could fly OZ/AKL/USA mainland or OZ/CHC/USA mainland right now & could pick up pax in NZL.

Prior to 2001 AOM french Airlines used to fly Orly/LAX/PPT/NOU/SYD using Dc10's if I recall correctly. French Blue are starting ORLY/SFO/PPT soon with new equipment (high density A350/A333) & could easily extending this to NOU & or any OZ port on east coast apart from BNE, SYD, MEL.

USAOZ wrote:

but some LCC is going to do OZ/USA either nonstop or direct, so shouldn't JQ get in on the act 1st ? Plenty of LCC's could fly via one of many Pacific nations, eg. RAR, APW, PPT, NOU etc. even if just as a tech stop. QF/JQ have the traffic rights so could fly OZ/AKL/USA mainland or OZ/CHC/USA mainland right now & could pick up pax in NZL.

Prior to 2001 AOM french Airlines used to fly Orly/LAX/PPT/NOU/SYD using Dc10's if I recall correctly. French Blue are starting ORLY/SFO/PPT soon with new equipment (high density A350/A333) & could easily extending this to NOU & or any OZ port on east coast apart from BNE, SYD, MEL.

As long as "some LCC" hasn't announced a route Oz-USA, JQ is not going anywhere. Think about it: why would QF bring on JQ in one of their most profitable markets, without any real thread, just to hurt their own bottom line.

If, and this is a big if, someone like Norwegian would try this, then I agree QF has an interest in protecting their turf and could bring on JQ to run head-to-head, match them on price and basically drive them out of that market again. But QF group isn't the one to start this.

NTL's much-hyped new service is to ... ADL.

However, check out this comment:

FlyPelican says more new services could be introduced once the Adelaide service is up and running.

"If you look at Newcastle Airport's social media there's a lot of demand for Perth, Sunshine Coast and Auckland..let's wait and see!" the airline's CEO Paul Graham said.

See: https://www.hit.com.au/news/newcastle/c ... irect=true

Could Alliance's Fokker reach AKL?

Cheers,

C.

Akl ? Talk is cheap. When a group looked at using a 752 akl/ntl no one supported it. Fokkers would have to stop at norfolk island

A350OZ wrote:

USAOZ wrote:

but some LCC is going to do OZ/USA either nonstop or direct, so shouldn't JQ get in on the act 1st ? Plenty of LCC's could fly via one of many Pacific nations, eg. RAR, APW, PPT, NOU etc. even if just as a tech stop. QF/JQ have the traffic rights so could fly OZ/AKL/USA mainland or OZ/CHC/USA mainland right now & could pick up pax in NZL.

Prior to 2001 AOM french Airlines used to fly Orly/LAX/PPT/NOU/SYD using Dc10's if I recall correctly. French Blue are starting ORLY/SFO/PPT soon with new equipment (high density A350/A333) & could easily extending this to NOU & or any OZ port on east coast apart from BNE, SYD, MEL.

As long as "some LCC" hasn't announced a route Oz-USA, JQ is not going anywhere. Think about it: why would QF bring on JQ in one of their most profitable markets, without any real thread, just to hurt their own bottom line.

If, and this is a big if, someone like Norwegian would try this, then I agree QF has an interest in protecting their turf and could bring on JQ to run head-to-head, match them on price and basically drive them out of that market again. But QF group isn't the one to start this.

If jq flew eg. Akl/lax they would NOT be competing with qf but rather nz & all the asian airlines that fly oz to usa the long way cheaper than anyone else

USAOZ wrote:

A350OZ wrote:

USAOZ wrote:

but some LCC is going to do OZ/USA either nonstop or direct, so shouldn't JQ get in on the act 1st ? Plenty of LCC's could fly via one of many Pacific nations, eg. RAR, APW, PPT, NOU etc. even if just as a tech stop. QF/JQ have the traffic rights so could fly OZ/AKL/USA mainland or OZ/CHC/USA mainland right now & could pick up pax in NZL.

Prior to 2001 AOM french Airlines used to fly Orly/LAX/PPT/NOU/SYD using Dc10's if I recall correctly. French Blue are starting ORLY/SFO/PPT soon with new equipment (high density A350/A333) & could easily extending this to NOU & or any OZ port on east coast apart from BNE, SYD, MEL.

As long as "some LCC" hasn't announced a route Oz-USA, JQ is not going anywhere. Think about it: why would QF bring on JQ in one of their most profitable markets, without any real thread, just to hurt their own bottom line.

If, and this is a big if, someone like Norwegian would try this, then I agree QF has an interest in protecting their turf and could bring on JQ to run head-to-head, match them on price and basically drive them out of that market again. But QF group isn't the one to start this.

If jq flew eg. Akl/lax they would NOT be competing with qf but rather nz & all the asian airlines that fly oz to usa the long way cheaper than anyone else

What is JQ’s vision? I would say to bring tourists to Australia, they have a limited 787 fleet, I do t see them doing anywhere to the US however.

Those of us with long memories will remember the ramblings of a poster and there fervent belief that Invercargill was going to be the next big thing. Sense of deja vu here (albeit with some different geography).

USAOZ wrote:

A350OZ wrote:

USAOZ wrote:

but some LCC is going to do OZ/USA either nonstop or direct, so shouldn't JQ get in on the act 1st ? Plenty of LCC's could fly via one of many Pacific nations, eg. RAR, APW, PPT, NOU etc. even if just as a tech stop. QF/JQ have the traffic rights so could fly OZ/AKL/USA mainland or OZ/CHC/USA mainland right now & could pick up pax in NZL.

Prior to 2001 AOM french Airlines used to fly Orly/LAX/PPT/NOU/SYD using Dc10's if I recall correctly. French Blue are starting ORLY/SFO/PPT soon with new equipment (high density A350/A333) & could easily extending this to NOU & or any OZ port on east coast apart from BNE, SYD, MEL.

As long as "some LCC" hasn't announced a route Oz-USA, JQ is not going anywhere. Think about it: why would QF bring on JQ in one of their most profitable markets, without any real thread, just to hurt their own bottom line.

If, and this is a big if, someone like Norwegian would try this, then I agree QF has an interest in protecting their turf and could bring on JQ to run head-to-head, match them on price and basically drive them out of that market again. But QF group isn't the one to start this.

If jq flew eg. Akl/lax they would NOT be competing with qf but rather nz & all the asian airlines that fly oz to usa the long way cheaper than anyone else

They definitely would. Just look up pricing for AKL-LAX on Google or ITA Matrix and guess what comes up constantly as one of the cheapest options: with QF via SYD, BNE or MEL. Price-sensitive customers (i.e. those that JQ would target) often do not mind the dogleg if they can save $100 or more, and in a way they are already serving this market, just not direct.

ZK-NBT wrote:

What is JQ’s vision? I would say to bring tourists to Australia, they have a limited 787 fleet, I do t see them doing anywhere to the US however.

Agree. They have a very limited number of resources (i.e. 788 planes), so why would they deploy them on something like AKL-LAX or AKL-PPT-LAX, over AU-Asia or AU-HNL? It just doesn't make sense from a QF Group perspective.

ZK-NBT wrote:

USAOZ wrote:

A350OZ wrote:

As long as "some LCC" hasn't announced a route Oz-USA, JQ is not going anywhere. Think about it: why would QF bring on JQ in one of their most profitable markets, without any real thread, just to hurt their own bottom line.

If, and this is a big if, someone like Norwegian would try this, then I agree QF has an interest in protecting their turf and could bring on JQ to run head-to-head, match them on price and basically drive them out of that market again. But QF group isn't the one to start this.

If jq flew eg. Akl/lax they would NOT be competing with qf but rather nz & all the asian airlines that fly oz to usa the long way cheaper than anyone else

What is JQ’s vision? I would say to bring tourists to Australia, they have a limited 787 fleet, I do t see them doing anywhere to the US however.

jq already fly to usa ..... hnl

A350OZ wrote:

It just doesn't make sense from a QF Group perspective.

I totally disagree - if it hurts NZ (arguably the biggest international competitor for the QF Group), then that makes a lot of sense.

The more that NZ is hurt by the QF Group, the less able NZ will be to 'one-up' the QF Group, expanding to ORD and elsewhere.

A350OZ wrote:

Think about it: why would QF bring on JQ in one of their most profitable markets, without any real thread, just to hurt their own bottom line.

For the same reason that JQ and QF overlap at various existing cities, in a similar fashion to SQ and TR too, at SYD and MEL.

As CAPA notes, "A multi-brand strategy enables airline groups to have a wide range of solutions to different segments of the market and best respond to a global marketplace that is becoming increasingly competitive and crowded. In today’s environment airlines must adapt quickly and not be afraid to implement new business models."

For example, JQ carries 35% of all Japanese visitors to Australia, while QF carries 23% - together, the QF Group controls 58% of the market, compared to the 19% controlled by JL and NH. The multi-brand strategy (using both JQ and QF) has enabled the QF Group to offer a wider range of products, to different segments of the market

Cheers,

C.

USAOZ wrote:

Akl ? Talk is cheap. When a group looked at using a 752 akl/ntl no one supported it. Fokkers would have to stop at norfolk island

[url]
http://www.allianceairlines.com.au/docs ... f?sfvrsn=2[/url]

Alliance claim that Fokker 70LR has an max operating range of 3,150km, NTL-AKL is around 2,140km on an ETPOS 120 route. Should in theory be achievable on good day without any weather issues.

An standard 737-300 had an range of 4,000km, in which the 733 for many years operated longer Tasman/Pacific routes for example AKL-MEL.

planemanofnz wrote:

A350OZ wrote:

It just doesn't make sense from a QF Group perspective.

I totally disagree - if it hurts NZ (arguably the biggest international competitor for the QF Group), then that makes a lot of sense.

The more that NZ is hurt by the QF Group, the less able NZ will be to 'one-up' the QF Group, expanding to ORD and elsewhere.

A350OZ wrote:

Think about it: why would QF bring on JQ in one of their most profitable markets, without any real thread, just to hurt their own bottom line.

For the same reason that JQ and QF overlap at various existing cities, in a similar fashion to SQ and TR too, at SYD and MEL.

As CAPA notes, "A multi-brand strategy enables airline groups to have a wide range of solutions to different segments of the market and best respond to a global marketplace that is becoming increasingly competitive and crowded. In today’s environment airlines must adapt quickly and not be afraid to implement new business models."

For example, JQ carries 35% of all Japanese visitors to Australia, while QF carries 23% - together, the QF Group controls 58% of the market, compared to the 19% controlled by JL and NH. The multi-brand strategy (using both JQ and QF) has enabled the QF Group to offer a wider range of products, to different segments of the market

Cheers,

C.

QF tried to hurt VA with their 65% domestic share to, we all no how well they went. QF need to do what they do best and take the high yielding markets, HNL and a few Asian markets are where the 2 brands can co exist. Hurting NZ and losing money yourself I’m sorry is a really odd approach, I’m not sure why you think it might stop NZ going to ORD so QF can get in themselves first. The market is growing and NZ will keep doing what they do best as well, continue to feed the AKL hub and fragment the US market with more destinations.

Scoot can do some lower yielding European markets that SQ might struggle with because Europe is so big and vastly populated. NZ-US is a pretty seasonal market and NZ rely on Australian feed to sustain as many flights and destinations as they have now.

zkncj wrote:

USAOZ wrote:

Akl ? Talk is cheap. When a group looked at using a 752 akl/ntl no one supported it. Fokkers would have to stop at norfolk island

[url]
http://www.allianceairlines.com.au/docs ... f?sfvrsn=2[/url]

Alliance claim that Fokker 70LR has an max operating range of 3,150km, NTL-AKL is around 2,140km on an ETPOS 120 route. Should in theory be achievable on good day without any weather issues.

An standard 737-300 had an range of 4,000km, in which the 733 for many years operated longer Tasman/Pacific routes for example AKL-MEL.

None of the Fokker 28 derivatives have ever been certified for ETOPS/EDTO. Refer to the type certificate. https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files ... 082013.pdf

planemanofnz wrote:

A350OZ wrote:

It just doesn't make sense from a QF Group perspective.

I totally disagree - if it hurts NZ (arguably the biggest international competitor for the QF Group), then that makes a lot of sense.

The more that NZ is hurt by the QF Group, the less able NZ will be to 'one-up' the QF Group, expanding to ORD and elsewhere.

A350OZ wrote:

Think about it: why would QF bring on JQ in one of their most profitable markets, without any real thread, just to hurt their own bottom line.

For the same reason that JQ and QF overlap at various existing cities, in a similar fashion to SQ and TR too, at SYD and MEL.

As CAPA notes, "A multi-brand strategy enables airline groups to have a wide range of solutions to different segments of the market and best respond to a global marketplace that is becoming increasingly competitive and crowded. In today’s environment airlines must adapt quickly and not be afraid to implement new business models."

For example, JQ carries 35% of all Japanese visitors to Australia, while QF carries 23% - together, the QF Group controls 58% of the market, compared to the 19% controlled by JL and NH. The multi-brand strategy (using both JQ and QF) has enabled the QF Group to offer a wider range of products, to different segments of the market

Cheers,

C.

Thanks for bringing up the QF/JQ Japan and the SQ/Scoot examples, as they perfectly explain my point:

SQ and Scoot:
SQ is deploying Scoot in markets where there is plenty of low-cost competition and where they were losing market share due to Air Asia, JQ, Chinese carriers etc. That thread does not exist for QF on the transpacific (yet). It is a defensive move. And before anyone brings up Scoot's flights to ATH or TXL: they are markets that did not work for SQ due to a changing economic environment, so on Scoot they think they can make it work due to a lower cost base and a different demographic. SQ will not let Scoot anywhere near FRA, CDG or LHR without another low-cost carrier entering first. And even then it needs to make a dent in their business first.

QF/JQ Japan flights:
You have to consider that a few years ago QF did reduce Japan flights significantly, with only SYD-NRT being left (anyone correct me if I am wrong here), and all other flying went to JQ due to changing economic environment. The market shrunk, especially the premium market, so JQ could still service the tourist market at lower cost. Only over the last 3 years has QF significantly increased Japan capacity again, and successfully. Again, without this threat in the transpacific market, why would they bring on JQ?

And to suggest to run AKL-LAX only to weaken your competitor (who could then run their own high-density 789 on SYD-LAX at rock-bottom prices btw) would be a stupid business strategy. Other than worst case opening up a fare war, there is nothing in it for QF. Just look at what happened to their domestic 65% market share"line in the sand"...

zkncj wrote:

USAOZ wrote:

Akl ? Talk is cheap. When a group looked at using a 752 akl/ntl no one supported it. Fokkers would have to stop at norfolk island

[url]
http://www.allianceairlines.com.au/docs ... f?sfvrsn=2[/url]

Alliance claim that Fokker 70LR has an max operating range of 3,150km, NTL-AKL is around 2,140km on an ETPOS 120 route. Should in theory be achievable on good day without any weather issues.

An standard 737-300 had an range of 4,000km, in which the 733 for many years operated longer Tasman/Pacific routes for example AKL-MEL.

think alliance was asked if they could do oz/nzl nonstop a while back & they said no. Lift raft issues also come into play

ZK-NBT wrote:

QF need to do what they do best and take the high yielding markets

I don't know what your point is, because:

- SIN and TYO are two very high-yielding markets, yet sustain both JQ and QF, to varying degrees
- Likewise, MEL and SYD are also high-yielding markets for SQ, yet sustain the presence of TR too

IMO, the contrast with JQ at these cities only strengthens the premium brand positioning of QF there.

A350OZ wrote:

SQ is deploying Scoot in markets where there is plenty of low-cost competition ... does not exist for QF on the transpacific (yet). It is a defensive move.

There clearly are threats in the US space:

- Many non-stop new entrants have arrived in Australasia, such as AA, DL and new UA / VA routes
- New indirect route options have also expanded dramatically, like AC, FJ, NZ and Chinese options

Just because these threats are not LCCs in name, does not mean that yield pressures do not exist.

A350OZ wrote:

And to suggest to ... weaken your competitor ... would be a stupid business strategy.

Stupid or not, it is what the QF Group is already doing with JQ's expansion into regional New Zealand.

Cheers

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

QF need to do what they do best and take the high yielding markets

I don't know what your point is, because:

- SIN and TYO are two very high-yielding markets, yet sustain both JQ and QF, to varying degrees
- Likewise, MEL and SYD are also high-yielding markets for SQ, yet sustain the presence of TR too

IMO, the contrast with JQ at these cities only strengthens the premium brand positioning of QF there.

A350OZ wrote:

SQ is deploying Scoot in markets where there is plenty of low-cost competition ... does not exist for QF on the transpacific (yet). It is a defensive move.

There clearly are threats in the US space:

- Many non-stop new entrants have arrived in Australasia, such as AA, DL and new UA / VA routes
- New indirect route options have also expanded dramatically, like AC, FJ, NZ and Chinese options

Just because these threats are not LCCs in name, does not mean that yield pressures do not exist.

A350OZ wrote:

And to suggest to ... weaken your competitor ... would be a stupid business strategy.

Stupid or not, it is what the QF Group is already doing with JQ's expansion into regional New Zealand.

Cheers

C.

Tell me how JQ strengthens the QF premium brand just because they serve the same market?

SIN is a huge market from Australia. JQ don’t do SYD-SIN, MEL has dropped from daily to 2 weekly soon as QF increase to 2 daily including an A380, They don’t do BNE, they do do PER, QF are increasing PER again and looking at increasing BNE, JQ fly out of CNS/DRW.

TR have their own network to feed by serving SYD/MEL/OOL/PER.

Japan, QF have added a lot of their own capacity back there recently BNE/MEL-NRT and SYD-KIX, outside SYD/MEL/BNE-TYO though it’s been all JQ who fly the leisure routes ex CNS/OOL, quite different to SYD.

Of course there is yield pressure probably in the US with VA/DL and more UA plus the one stops but it doesn’t mean QF should react and throw JQ on the route, they will run more ptp and use more efficient 789’s.

As for JQ in NZ , they make a bit of money or break even but the market is growing all the time, NZ will notice but won’t worry to much, they expect competition and adjust.

Former Air NZ Beech 1900D ZK-EAE (s/n UE-428), and now VH-OYV, had a test flight to the west of SYD yesterday. It is one of the six unsold 1900Ds stored at Bankstown for about a year.

The Bankstown six are:
UE-425 VH-OYU (ex ZK-EAB)
UE-428 VH-OYV (ex ZK-EAE)
UE-430 VH-OYW (ex ZK-EAG)
UE-431 VH-OYX (ex ZK-EAH)
UE-437 VH-OYY (ex ZK-EAN)
UE-439 VH-OYZ (ex ZK-EAP)

The 2017 Air NZ Annual Report said they had written down the value of the six remaining 1900Ds by NZD8M, but didn't say what they were valued at. (Notes to the Financial Statements, 3. Other Significant Items)

PA515

SQ drops CBR - WLG for MEL - WLG - the service will continue to be operated by a 772.

This will improve the viability of WLG for SQ, given the greater fifth freedom traffic with MEL.

See: https://www.ausbt.com.au/singapore-airl ... ly-flights.

Also see comments from SQ on the performance of the WLG flight to date, via Stuff.co.nz:

"After 16 months of operation it's quite clear that Wellington has performed very well for us...The question was how do we grow the operations from here," Turcotte said, prompting the move through Melbourne.

I am glad that SQ remains committed to the WLG market, despite initial launch issues.

See: https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/100839 ... -melbourne.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

SQ drops CBR - WLG for MEL - WLG - the service will continue to be operated by a 772.

This will improve the viability of WLG for SQ, given the greater fifth freedom traffic with MEL.

See: https://www.ausbt.com.au/singapore-airl ... ly-flights.

Also see comments from SQ on the performance of the WLG flight to date, via Stuff.co.nz:

"After 16 months of operation it's quite clear that Wellington has performed very well for us...The question was how do we grow the operations from here," Turcotte said, prompting the move through Melbourne.

I am glad that SQ remains committed to the WLG market, despite initial launch issues.

See: https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/100839 ... -melbourne.

Cheers,

C.

Beat me to it!
I wonder if this improves the chance of NZ starting up AKL-CBR?

NTL has again talked up the prospect of services to AKL, saying “Internationally, Auckland is a really good strong prospect."

See: http://www.theherald.com.au/story/51823 ... the-limit/.

Zkpilot wrote:

I wonder if this improves the chance of NZ starting up AKL-CBR?

I hope so - I can't imagine CBR will be too pleased with having lost both of its non-stop in-bound flights (from SIN and WLG).

Perhaps there is a deal to be done with CBR for a subsidy?

Cheers,

C.

Wonder how annoyed NZ is with SQ switching routes!

Any bets on NZ blocking airpoints/status points earning from WLG - MEL - WLG?

Tempting to fly one way with SQ and return with NZ, but then again Ive got an SQ flight in September booked

777ER wrote:

Wonder how annoyed NZ is with SQ switching routes!

Any bets on NZ blocking airpoints/status points earning from WLG - MEL - WLG?

That would be very petty.

IMO, NZ will want to maintain a public image of good partnership with SQ, as per AKL's JV amendments.

Who knows - perhaps NZ actually asked SQ to exit CBR - WLG, so as to allow NZ to launch CBR - AKL?



Cheers,

C.

Well so much for that "stroke of genius". But worth giving it a go, I suppose.

I'm guessing SQ needs to operate the service for a certain amount of time as per their agreement with Wellington Council. And to mitigate the losses (maybe even generate a profit) in the meantime, provide a service on a route that actually has demand - MEL>WLG. All supposition from me. If anything, I'd have thought that this would suggest a brighter future for SQ out of WLG.

aerokiwi wrote:

Well so much for that "stroke of genius". But worth giving it a go, I suppose.

I'm guessing SQ needs to operate the service for a certain amount of time as per their agreement with Wellington Council. And to mitigate the losses (maybe even generate a profit) in the meantime, provide a service on a route that actually has demand - MEL>WLG. All supposition from me. If anything, I'd have thought that this would suggest a brighter future for SQ out of WLG.

The council contribution is surely a red herring - given the cost of operating a route and the opportunity cost of using the aircraft somewhere else its hard to see the reported contribution (a few hundred thousand/year in marketing support for a route opex in the many 10's of $M) being a reason to keep WLG on the network if it wasnt useful for them? I think people that are bringing in the council contribution really need to get a sense of perspective - particularly given that the service via MEL will surely not be getting any assistance from MEL airport....

Well so much for that "stroke of genius". But worth giving it a go, I suppose.

I'm guessing SQ needs to operate the service for a certain amount of time as per their agreement with Wellington Council. And to mitigate the losses (maybe even generate a profit) in the meantime, provide a service on a route that actually has demand - MEL>WLG. All supposition from me. If anything, I'd have thought that this would suggest a brighter future for SQ out of WLG.

Other takeaways:

1. So what's the point of this service now? You now have a 4 times a week frequency via an already-served Australian port on a pretty sub-par aircraft vs twice daily via AKL or daily via CHC on much nicer aircraft. Is the parochialism so strong that A J class pax would rather a crappier product at a lower frequency just to avoid AKL or CHC?

2. Judging from the substantial timing shift for arrival into Singapore, Wellington-originating pax weren't flying to Asia but on to Europe. So demand for WLG-Asia outbound at least seems pretty suspect.

aerokiwi wrote:

If anything, I'd have thought that this would suggest a brighter future for SQ out of WLG.

Looking at SQ's future in WLG, I do have a few questions:

- Why did SQ pick MEL over SYD or BNE? In particular, BNE is by far the least competitive of the three (with no NZ or QF services).
- Can the 333, 359 or 772 do SIN - WLG - SIN non-stop? If so, could a 3x weekly non-stop flight replace a 4x weekly one-stop one?
- Will the end of the NZ - VA JV have any positive implications for greater NZ - SQ co-operation, particularly on WLG - MEL - WLG?

Cheers,

C.

"The Canberra service undergoes arguably a greater change, with the flights becoming a triangular service, from Sydney, to Canberra to Singapore, then back to Sydney."

This is an interesting part. Do they have cabotage rights in Australia? If so, it would be fun flying SQ SYD-CBR - a short hop in a widebody again...

planemanofnz wrote:

- Why did SQ pick MEL over SYD or BNE? In particular, BNE is by far the least competitive of the three (with no NZ or QF services).

WLG-MEL is heavily constrained and has some of the highest fares on the Tasman. Plus the service fits with what their wider strategy in MEL. BNE is operated by VA who I suspect they have closer ties with than NZ? Also you may say its least competitive but its much better to go up against 2 airlines each with a daily service (in the case of WLG-MEL) than 1 airline with 2xdaily.... (WLG-BNE)

planemanofnz wrote:

- Can the 333, 359 or 772 do SIN - WLG - SIN non-stop? If so, could a 3x weekly non-stop flight replace a 4x weekly one-stop one?

Nope - not without a runway extension which is why they are having to muck around with tags.

planemanofnz wrote:

- Will the end of the NZ - VA JV have any positive implications for greater NZ - SQ co-operation, particularly on WLG - MEL - WLG?

Who knows.... my prediction is they will look to increase the service to maybe daily over NW18 period (which they couldnt do on WLG-CBR market size) and then look to drop it down again to maybe 5/week in NS19.

aerokiwi wrote:

You now have a 4 times a week frequency

If frequency is an issue, I wonder why they didn't copy the SYD - CBR strategy, with an AKL - WLG link, in light of AKL's new service anyway?

aerokiwi wrote:

Wellington-originating pax weren't flying to Asia but on to Europe

Which may set the scene for an ME3 carrier to come in and steal SQ's thunder, with a far superior European offering? EY via ADL is rumoured.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

- Why did SQ pick MEL over SYD or BNE? In particular, BNE is by far the least competitive of the three (with no NZ or QF services).

Well with the new flight times they would clash with the SYD curfew, and landling later in SYD (from SIN) would add an hour to all subsequent departure and arrival times, meaning arrival back in SIN would be too late for European connections.

And then MEL over BNE, I guess it was easier for them to attach it to an already existing SIN-MEL service, just re-time it and it worked. SQ does know the numbers of existing MEL and BNE services best to make this call. I doubt it has much to do with the local WLG-MEL or WLG-BNE demand, and if it has, then they probably see more upside in MEL due to a more business-oriented market.

zkeoj wrote:

This is an interesting part. Do they have cabotage rights in Australia? If so, it would be fun flying SQ SYD-CBR - a short hop in a widebody again...

Not sure if they have, but even if if they had them I am not sure if they would bother.

A350OZ wrote:

... they probably see more upside in MEL due to a more business-oriented market.

True - MEL-headquartered banks like ANZ and NAB have a significant presence in WLG.

Cheers,

C.

777ER wrote:

Wonder how annoyed NZ is with SQ switching routes!

Any bets on NZ blocking airpoints/status points earning from WLG - MEL - WLG?

Tempting to fly one way with SQ and return with NZ, but then again Ive got an SQ flight in September booked

Didn't NZ end up code sharing with SQ on WLG-CBR? We could see the same with WLG, allowing NZ to drop 4x weekly from WLG-MEL and start an new route?

zkncj wrote:

777ER wrote:

Wonder how annoyed NZ is with SQ switching routes!

Any bets on NZ blocking airpoints/status points earning from WLG - MEL - WLG?

Tempting to fly one way with SQ and return with NZ, but then again Ive got an SQ flight in September booked

Didn't NZ end up code sharing with SQ on WLG-CBR? We could see the same with WLG, allowing NZ to drop 4x weekly from WLG-MEL and start an new route?

No they code share on wlg-sin via cbr but not wlg-cbr. If nz was to cut 4/week they would only operate 1-2/week over the low season. There is enough demand for all 3.

a7ala wrote:

aerokiwi wrote:

Well so much for that "stroke of genius". But worth giving it a go, I suppose.

I'm guessing SQ needs to operate the service for a certain amount of time as per their agreement with Wellington Council. And to mitigate the losses (maybe even generate a profit) in the meantime, provide a service on a route that actually has demand - MEL>WLG. All supposition from me. If anything, I'd have thought that this would suggest a brighter future for SQ out of WLG.

The council contribution is surely a red herring - given the cost of operating a route and the opportunity cost of using the aircraft somewhere else its hard to see the reported contribution (a few hundred thousand/year in marketing support for a route opex in the many 10's of $M) being a reason to keep WLG on the network if it wasnt useful for them? I think people that are bringing in the council contribution really need to get a sense of perspective - particularly given that the service via MEL will surely not be getting any assistance from MEL airport....

There may be a payback or penalty clause. Dunno. Another reason councils should stick to rubbish collection and footpaths.

Which raises the question... why are Wellington ratepayers now subsidising a carrier on a long established rpute with two other existing carriers? I'd suggest... ego.

The SQ rep has also had a pronounced turnaround from recently reported performance on WLG as "challenging", suggesting it's all just spin here out. I guess ee can hold our breath for unsourced rumours of EY via ADL... but I wouldn't recommend it.

zkncj wrote:

Didn't NZ end up code sharing with SQ on WLG-CBR?

Yes, and so does VA.
NZ3291 CBR-WLG and NZ3292 WLG-CBR.
VA5429 CBR-WLG and VA5426 WLG-CBR.

PA515

PA515 wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Didn't NZ end up code sharing with SQ on WLG-CBR?

Yes, and so does VA.
NZ3291 CBR-WLG and NZ3292 WLG-CBR.
VA5429 CBR-WLG and VA5426 WLG-CBR.

PA515

Try booking them on the nz or va websites.....

aerokiwi wrote:

There may be a payback or penalty clause. Dunno. Another reason councils should stick to rubbish collection and footpaths.

Ok so they have been operating for just over a year. If they had to pay ALL that money back how much do you think it would be relative to the future cost of the route? And no one would sign up to a penalty clause such was more than the support they received. And so if Local councils aren't going to support new business ventures into their cities them so will? are you against tourism new Zealand spending tens of millions a year on joint marketing campaigns with foreign airlines using taxpayers money? Are you against ateed fully council owned chc airport spending millions a year with airlines? Are you against the nz govt spending millions on Cz to fly to chc? About the only mistake I see the Wellington council as making was they didn't give extra funding to wreda that could be used on marketing initiatives with sq as would normally be done around the country.... But continue to call it a subsidy and imply its unusual if it helps you sleep...

aerokiwi wrote:

Which raises the question... why are Wellington ratepayers now subsidising a carrier on a long established rpute with two other existing carriers? I'd suggest... ego.

I'll ignore the subsidy comment on this one... At the end of the day the significance of the route for Wellington has very little to do with where its flying via. It's more to do with competition in the market to the qf/nz duo poly, having one of the largest airlines in the world marketing your city to their millions of customers (which they don't do unless they fly their metal to your city), and having a wide body products in the market which has got to be good for cargo and business travel. The fact it will now be flying via Mel doesn't change any of that in fact it strengths the benefits as I expect they will now be able to ramp up capacity more and have a freight capability to a Significant Mel cargo hub (amazon is based there?).

aerokiwi wrote:

The SQ rep has also had a pronounced turnaround from recently reported performance on WLG as "challenging", suggesting it's all just spin here out. I guess ee can hold our breath for unsourced rumours of EY via ADL... but I wouldn't recommend it.

I think what you will find is that he's talking about the wlg-cbr market being challenging for a 4/week widebodies (which isn't really surprising) but that the long haul traffic they are picking up out of wlg they were very happy with - to the point where there is more they can get with additional frequency but wlg-cbr can't support it whereas wlg-mel can.

a7ala wrote:

aerokiwi wrote:

There may be a payback or penalty clause. Dunno. Another reason councils should stick to rubbish collection and footpaths.

Ok so they have been operating for just over a year. If they had to pay ALL that money back how much do you think it would be relative to the future cost of the route? And no one would sign up to a penalty clause such was more than the support they received. And so if Local councils aren't going to support new business ventures into their cities them so will? are you against tourism new Zealand spending tens of millions a year on joint marketing campaigns with foreign airlines using taxpayers money? Are you against ateed fully council owned chc airport spending millions a year with airlines? Are you against the nz govt spending millions on Cz to fly to chc? About the only mistake I see the Wellington council as making was they didn't give extra funding to wreda that could be used on marketing initiatives with sq as would normally be done around the country.... But continue to call it a subsidy and imply its unusual if it helps you sleep...

aerokiwi wrote:

Which raises the question... why are Wellington ratepayers now subsidising a carrier on a long established rpute with two other existing carriers? I'd suggest... ego.

I'll ignore the subsidy comment on this one... At the end of the day the significance of the route for Wellington has very little to do with where its flying via. It's more to do with competition in the market to the qf/nz duo poly, having one of the largest airlines in the world marketing your city to their millions of customers (which they don't do unless they fly their metal to your city), and having a wide body products in the market which has got to be good for cargo and business travel. The fact it will now be flying via Mel doesn't change any of that in fact it strengths the benefits as I expect they will now be able to ramp up capacity more and have a freight capability to a Significant Mel cargo hub (amazon is based there?).

aerokiwi wrote:

The SQ rep has also had a pronounced turnaround from recently reported performance on WLG as "challenging", suggesting it's all just spin here out. I guess ee can hold our breath for unsourced rumours of EY via ADL... but I wouldn't recommend it.

I think what you will find is that he's talking about the wlg-cbr market being challenging for a 4/week widebodies (which isn't really surprising) but that the long haul traffic they are picking up out of wlg they were very happy with - to the point where there is more they can get with additional frequency but wlg-cbr can't support it whereas wlg-mel can.

1. No idea the terms of the contract but not unusual to have a penalty clause for a predetermined amount of time. I'd guess 3 years worth of subsidy if you pull out beforehand. Total guess but then should we even be talking about council subsidies to foreign airlines? Because...

2. Correct - I don't believe councils, economic development agencies or central government should subsidise long haul international routes. Regional centres - different story... under exceptional circumstances (e.g. Soundsair to Kaikoura). I was involved in one such deal in an Australian jurisdiction and it was an absolute rort but, it turns out, commonplace.

3. You can't ignore the subsidy comment. That's exactly what it is. And the justification for subsidising one particular foreign carrier over another airline for a service that is no longer offered but instead moved to an established route is morphing and wafer thin. Wasn't it about public sector demand or mega wealthy Welly types who vacay but can't possibly bare the torture of transiting via AKL/CHC/SYD/MEL/BNE.... but can CBR?

Essentially now those four flights a week on WLG-MEL are worth $800k per year. Ya reckon? Pretty sweet deal for SQ and, actually, I believe makes them more likely to stick around. But what's the benefit to pax beyond MEL in an infrequent, below standard 772 with less than ideal connections in SIN?

4. I dunno what SQ reps are talking about. It's all pretty vague and spinny. Are they even obligated to disclose performance under the terms of their subsidy? I'm guessing not. If it's so tremendous then pull the subsidy. Call their bluff.

5. So much for all those public servants beating the door down to Canberra

aerokiwi wrote:

But what's the benefit to pax beyond MEL in an infrequent, below standard 772 with less than ideal connections in SIN?

I have to ask myself that too, though:

- SQ's FFP base is much more likely to want SQ (and not NZ / Star Alliance) accrual rates, the whole way through to WLG
- Arguably, the use of the same plane, with the same flight number, results in less potential for missing your transfer flight
- Product consistency ensures no hidden surprises (like, ex-WLG, potentially no meal on NZ, or reduced seat pitch on QF)

Cheers,

C.

ZK-NBT wrote:

USAOZ wrote:

A350OZ wrote:

As long as "some LCC" hasn't announced a route Oz-USA, JQ is not going anywhere. Think about it: why would QF bring on JQ in one of their most profitable markets, without any real thread, just to hurt their own bottom line.

If, and this is a big if, someone like Norwegian would try this, then I agree QF has an interest in protecting their turf and could bring on JQ to run head-to-head, match them on price and basically drive them out of that market again. But QF group isn't the one to start this.

If jq flew eg. Akl/lax they would NOT be competing with qf but rather nz & all the asian airlines that fly oz to usa the long way cheaper than anyone else

What is JQ’s vision? I would say to bring tourists to Australia, they have a limited 787 fleet, I do t see them doing anywhere to the US however.

I don’t think JQ’s flights from AU to Bali, Phuket, Vietnam and Hawaii are in any way aimed and bringing tourists to Australia, quite the opposite, it’s for cheap headline fares for them to get out of Australia.

Even the flights to Japan are transporting Australians out more these days, seeing Australia to US travel growth has slumped (note growth, not traffic) in the last year.

aerokiwi wrote:

Well so much for that "stroke of genius". But worth giving it a go, I suppose.

I'm guessing SQ needs to operate the service for a certain amount of time as per their agreement with Wellington Council. And to mitigate the losses (maybe even generate a profit) in the meantime, provide a service on a route that actually has demand - MEL>WLG. All supposition from me. If anything, I'd have thought that this would suggest a brighter future for SQ out of WLG.

Other takeaways:

1. So what's the point of this service now? You now have a 4 times a week frequency via an already-served Australian port on a pretty sub-par aircraft vs twice daily via AKL or daily via CHC on much nicer aircraft. Is the parochialism so strong that A J class pax would rather a crappier product at a lower frequency just to avoid AKL or CHC?

2. Judging from the substantial timing shift for arrival into Singapore, Wellington-originating pax weren't flying to Asia but on to Europe. So demand for WLG-Asia outbound at least seems pretty suspect.

Folks SQ has said the route has performed well. We also don't know what config the 772 ER will be in. Given it is via Melbourne it might be the config with the 4-abreast business class. Wait and see. Are the flights available yet? Do we know the config?

I don't see what the subsidy has to do with this. Sure it's no longer via CBR but it's still a WLG-SIN route on the same plane with a layover.

Either way I'm glad to see SQ has made changes to support the route long term. They could have easily just dropped WLG when moving CBR to daily. Subsidy or not. Which due to stupid legislation we cannot find the conditions of.

And WLG-MEL will probably be more popular with Wellington punters. But it seems the core part is more the WLG-SIN passengers. With the timing adjusted to suit Europe connections which has already been noted. I'm pretty sure people were predicting the WLG-CBR load would be pretty meh as there just isn't that much governmental stuff done that requires face to face meetings.

Oh dear oh dear. This doomed from the start crazy service has failed just as no doubt
Qantas, Jetstar, AirNZ, and pretty well all of us knew it would. Somewhere, unknown
to us, politics (subsidy) were at the bottom of it. Oh how good a service our three carriers
might have produced with the same (secret?) help. Although SQ is a fantastically good
airline, unless you are going only to MEL, one still has to transit at SIN as well, on the way to
where you're going, so surely we'd avoid OZ and transit at the much more agreeable AKL or CHC!
I think Qantas, Jetstar and AirNZ did well to sit quietly and watch this fiasco unfold, being they
did not get ratepayers money to help their efforts.And I think they'll have a wry smile now. Only the
CFO of Wellington City Council knows the truth cost of all this.

No, whoever says that SQ has stated that the route has performed well have not been paying attention. The route performed "so well" that it got put up for review (publicly discussed non the less) by SQ in early 2017 (seem to recall it was March).

I came here 2 months ago and shared info stating that route would be cancelled or altered based upon a source in Singapore who should know these things. The reason was and is that Wellington with a stopover in Australia is to expensive and the market does not generate enough valuable traffic.

Now its been moved to MEL. Kept at 4 days a week while CBR goes daily. Connection times are fine for those connecting to Europe (those economy class transfers to Europe are unfortunately not known to be the bread and butter of Asean airlines).
In short, lets see how long MEL lasts. I know that upon my next visit to SG Ill find out what their projection is (for some reason - the SQ version seem to differ completely with what I hear from our Wellington based posters)...

Reading through the ABT article, it seems to me that the main change is for the Canberra service, which has been upgauged to a daily 777-300ER with first, 1-2-1 business etc.

I suspect said 77W wouldn't be able to operate in/out of WLG (don't recall 77W into WLG other than Air NZ running them empty for that initial demo - can't remember whether 77Ws went to WLG for fuel in the AKL fuel crisis) - and so the WLG tag is being shifted to a MEL service. Looking at the article it seems to me like just a convenient way to keep up the WLG tag - in other words, it sounds like the decision is about upgauging SIN-CBR (while retaining the WLG service) rather than a decision focused on WLG (I wonder if WLG traffic even entered into that decision - beyond retaining the service).

Article also answers some of the questions that came up here - the MEL service is having a type change from A330 to B772 when the WLG tag commences, but the business class is still going to be a 2-2-2 "regional business class". SQ "is not permitted to sell the Sydney-Canberra leg as a domestic leg of its own" but will allow stopovers in SYD for SIN-CBR pax and in CBR for SYD-SIN pax.

EDIT: Just read the Stuff article, sounds very spinny - though there may be some truth to it, namely the demand ex CBR (which would've driven the decision to upgrade the SIN-CBR service - supporting my argument that it was a CBR-focused decision rather than WLG). I'm not sure if I buy the "releases more seats for Wellingtonians" justification but if CBR-SIN gets sold out now and then perhaps that's factual.

MillwallSean wrote:

No, whoever says that SQ has stated that the route has performed well have not been paying attention. The route performed "so well" that it got put up for review (publicly discussed non the less) by SQ in early 2017 (seem to recall it was March).

I came here 2 months ago and shared info stating that route would be cancelled or altered based upon a source in Singapore who should know these things. The reason was and is that Wellington with a stopover in Australia is to expensive and the market does not generate enough valuable traffic.

Now its been moved to MEL. Kept at 4 days a week while CBR goes daily. Connection times are fine for those connecting to Europe (those economy class transfers to Europe are unfortunately not known to be the bread and butter of Asean airlines).
In short, lets see how long MEL lasts. I know that upon my next visit to SG Ill find out what their projection is (for some reason - the SQ version seem to differ completely with what I hear from our Wellington based posters)...

And it was an interesting post, but from memory, the last time you posted it was Canberra that was the problem. IMHO these changes look like a defensive move to prevent Canberra becoming a blood bath once Qatar enters the market with their daily 77W service via SYD.

It's hard to get a gauge on their future plans for Wellington from this, although I don't think it's a positive sign. While it's obvious that WLG-CBR wasn't successful, the BITRE figures suggest approximately 80-90 travellers each way between CBR and WLG during OCT which combined with a similar number between SIN and WLG probably gives you an idea of the loads factor during the busier months, winter would in all probability have been very light at times.

FJ has started code-sharing on JQ domestic services between AKL, WLG and CHC.

I wonder why they are not code-sharing on the Q300 routes , like to NSN and NPE?

See: https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... -jan-2018/.

Cheers,

C.

Deepinsider wrote:

Oh dear oh dear. This doomed from the start crazy service has failed just as no doubt
Qantas, Jetstar, AirNZ, and pretty well all of us knew it would. Somewhere, unknown
to us, politics (subsidy) were at the bottom of it. Oh how good a service our three carriers
might have produced with the same (secret?) help. Although SQ is a fantastically good
airline, unless you are going only to MEL, one still has to transit at SIN as well, on the way to
where you're going, so surely we'd avoid OZ and transit at the much more agreeable AKL or CHC!
I think Qantas, Jetstar and AirNZ did well to sit quietly and watch this fiasco unfold, being they
did not get ratepayers money to help their efforts.And I think they'll have a wry smile now. Only the
CFO of Wellington City Council knows the truth cost of all this.

What's more agreeable abot transitting in AKL or CHC than a same gate layover in MEL ?