NZ321 wrote:

Given the reported loadings on AKL-DXB and QF pushing for an EK exit on TT flying I would suggest this supports EK opening a DXB-Asia-AKL one-stop to complement its existing non-stop service over a second non-stop ...

I agree with your thinking, because:

- This would be consistent with BNE, SYD and MEL all having a mixture of non-stop and one-stop (via Asia) routes
- AFAIK, EK's 77Ls will no longer be used on ULH routes, and the 388s are heavily payload restricted on AKL - DXB

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ321 wrote:

Given the reported loadings on AKL-DXB and QF pushing for an EK exit on TT flying I would suggest this supports EK opening a DXB-Asia-AKL one-stop to complement its existing non-stop service over a second non-stop ...

I agree with your thinking, because:

- This would be consistent with BNE, SYD and MEL all having a mixture of non-stop and one-stop (via Asia) routes
- AFAIK, EK's 77Ls will no longer be used on ULH routes, and the 388s are heavily payload restricted on AKL - DXB

Cheers,

C.

I would agree I think, pick up some of the freight. Not sure about the use of 77L’s ULH, they are going 2 class, maybe good for a non stop DXB-CHC I’d they still have ULH capabilities. As I understand it EK block about 100-120 seats AKL-DXB on the A380 less than QF on DFW-SYD although EK’s birds are more capable.

What's going wrong with the incredibly capable 77L ?. This plane seems to be falling out of favor,
even though it's successor, the 778 is getting high profile talk with QF/Boeing for example, about
possible OZ to LHR and NYC routes?

Deepinsider wrote:

What's going wrong with the incredibly capable 77L ?. This plane seems to be falling out of favor,
even though it's successor, the 778 is getting high profile talk with QF/Boeing for example, about
possible OZ to LHR and NYC routes?

Boeing only sold 59? I think it was 77L’s. Mainly to the ME3 or 2, DL, AI and a couple of others. Several airlines would have taken the larger 77W and pushed them to the limit including EK who did buy the 77L and CX. It just wasn’t popular save a handful of carriers who either needed a very long range frame or could use a bit of extra lift over a 77E.

The 778 will be interesting, it hasn’t sold to many yet just EK 35 and QR a few? Is there any others? It’s more 77W sized with very long range again but in a market where the A359 and 789 seem to be hitting the sweet spot I wonder how many the 778 will sell, it does seem a good plane for what QF want but the 359 can fly long way as well.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Deepinsider wrote:

What's going wrong with the incredibly capable 77L ?. This plane seems to be falling out of favor,
even though it's successor, the 778 is getting high profile talk with QF/Boeing for example, about
possible OZ to LHR and NYC routes?

Boeing only sold 59? I think it was 77L’s. Mainly to the ME3 or 2, DL, AI and a couple of others. Several airlines would have taken the larger 77W and pushed them to the limit including EK who did buy the 77L and CX. It just wasn’t popular save a handful of carriers who either needed a very long range frame or could use a bit of extra lift over a 77E.

The 778 will be interesting, it hasn’t sold to many yet just EK 35 and QR a few? Is there any others? It’s more 77W sized with very long range again but in a market where the A359 and 789 seem to be hitting the sweet spot I wonder how many the 778 will sell, it does seem a good plane for what QF want but the 359 can fly long way as well.

The 778 has 53 orders, 35 for EK, 10 for QR and 8 for EY though I would say the ones for EY are in doubt. I personally favour the 778 for QF and I would expect it would be a good fit for NZ as well. While the 778 probably wont sell much more than the 77L it will also be the base for a freighter in the future so I would imagine that were most of the sales will come on for the 778

Sounds logical, does it follow on then, that instead of 778's carriers will get the larger 779 and push them to the limit
Not many numbers out there about just what 778 vs. 359 capabilities are.

One of the two additional Saab 340s for Air Chathams is due into AKL about 1730 today from HIR. Yesterday it was GUM-HIR. N135GU (s/n 340A-135) was originally delivered to Finnaviation as OH-FAD. ZK-KRA (s/n 340A-065) was also delivered to Finnaviation as OH-FAA and both were with SprintAir until 2015.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N135GU

PA515

qf789 wrote:

The 778 has 53 orders, 35 for EK, 10 for QR and 8 for EY though I would say the ones for EY are in doubt. I personally favour the 778 for QF and I would expect it would be a good fit for NZ as well.

The 778 will more than meet NZ's capability requirements. But at 351t (vs 280t for the Airbus) it's a bit hard to see how it can see off the 359 on the economics. And in contrast to Qantas it's not as if there's an extreme technical requirement to meet – the 359 can plainly do Auckland-New York (and Chicago) with a decent payload so payload/range shouldn't trump trip cost and seat/mile cost.

JQ's New Zealand operations are profitable, with a pre-tax profit of NZ$3.062 million in the recent FY.

Is there potential for JQ to expand its regional operations, if the DH3 fleet is wound down in Australia?

In particular, I am thinking of HLZ, ROT (QF even used to fly jets on the ROT - CHC route) and TRG.

Such a move would hurt NZ, (maybe) limiting NZ's Americas expansion (NZ thus threatening QF less).

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

Is there potential for JQ to expand its regional operations, if the DH3 fleet is wound down in Australia?

. . .

Such a move would hurt NZ, (maybe) limiting NZ's Americas expansion (NZ thus threatening QF less)..

There's always the potential for JQ to do that, but whether it will is pure speculation, and there's been nothing to suggest that it's going to happen, to my knoweldge. I'm afraid you've lost me on the logic of a JQ provincial expansion threatening NZ's Americas expansion plans, though. Unless you're suggesting that QF or JQ might take over AA's LAX services as was suggested on another thread. Given the pressure on QF's fleet with existing new route commitments and expansion plans, I'd say that's not going to happen. Besides, from AA's point of view, there's an image issue at stake - wouldn't this be the third time they'd have tried AKL and given up?

DavidByrne wrote:

I'm afraid you've lost me on the logic of a JQ provincial expansion threatening NZ's Americas expansion plans, though.

Here's the logic:

1. NZ needs cash to keep expanding (be it to the Americas or wherever)
2. A hugely important cash pot for NZ is its domestic/regional operations
3. JQ can drive fares lower, impacting NZ's domestic/regional cash pot
4. With less cash, NZ would be more reluctant to expand (to wherever)
5. Less NZ expansion in the Americas serves to benefit the QF Group

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

JQ's New Zealand operations are profitable, with a pre-tax profit of NZ$3.062 million in the recent FY.

Is there potential for JQ to expand its regional operations, if the DH3 fleet is wound down in Australia?

In particular, I am thinking of HLZ, ROT (QF even used to fly jets on the ROT - CHC route) and TRG.

Such a move would hurt NZ, (maybe) limiting NZ's Americas expansion (NZ thus threatening QF less).

Cheers,

C.

$3 million is terrible when you break it down. If the Jetstar group made $415 million (EBIT) and circa 10% of the fleet is allocated to New Zealand, you don't need to be an accounting whiz to see you've got a problem. Consider the value of the assets allocated to New Zealand. You'd be earning more off a term deposit!

planemanofnz wrote:

JQ's New Zealand operations are profitable, with a pre-tax profit of NZ$3.062 million in the recent FY.

Is there potential for JQ to expand its regional operations, if the DH3 fleet is wound down in Australia?

In particular, I am thinking of HLZ, ROT (QF even used to fly jets on the ROT - CHC route) and TRG.

Such a move would hurt NZ, (maybe) limiting NZ's Americas expansion (NZ thus threatening QF less).

Cheers,

C.

JQ has scaled back there regional operating in the 6 months, reducing frequency on some routes. Would hardly call Jetstar New Zealand an very profitable airline, often just days before travel you are able to get fares for $19-35 on certain routes, on 50 seat aircraft thats not a very good sign of profitability.

The hard thing with the Qantas Group's operations in New Zealand, yes they report an small profit. What is not known publicly is how much of the operation is paid for by the local company.

For example is Jetstar New Zealand fully paying Jetstar Australia for use of there A320 or if they are fully paying for the cost of the Q300s from QLink?

Mr AirNZ wrote:

$3 million is terrible when you break it down. If the Jetstar group made $415 million (EBIT) and circa 10% of the fleet is allocated to New Zealand, you don't need to be an accounting whiz to see you've got a problem. Consider the value of the assets allocated to New Zealand. You'd be earning more off a term deposit!

You're looking at New Zealand in isolation though - what about its contribution to the overall QF Group?

For example:
- Has JQ's expansion hurt NZ? If so, that is good - a hurt NZ is less likely to expand, and threaten QF.
- Has JQ's expansion helped to provide more feed for the QF Group's various international operations?

Cheers,

C.

A new addition to the "Airport of the Future" section on the AKL website, an interactive map encompassing the current and next lot of major projects. Things like the new ring road avoiding the need to have unnecessary vehicles on the inner airport roads could go quite a way in helping ease some of the congestion, as will the addition of bus/transit lanes until the mass transit system is up and running.

Also the first render I have seen of what they plan for the arrivals hall upgrade looks quite decent, space for up to 10 baggage claim units initially and clearer lines of sight and more space for the border agencies. Whilst it is still a conceptual image, the previous conceptual images they have released for past projects (i.e. the current departures expansion) have been almost exactly what the reality has turned out like so I'd imagine that the arrivals image will end up being a pretty accurate representation.

https://future.aucklandairport.co.nz/?_ ... 1514931010

planemanofnz wrote:

Mr AirNZ wrote:

$3 million is terrible when you break it down. If the Jetstar group made $415 million (EBIT) and circa 10% of the fleet is allocated to New Zealand, you don't need to be an accounting whiz to see you've got a problem. Consider the value of the assets allocated to New Zealand. You'd be earning more off a term deposit!

You're looking at New Zealand in isolation though - what about its contribution to the overall QF Group?

For example:
- Has JQ's expansion hurt NZ? If so, that is good - a hurt NZ is less likely to expand, and threaten QF.
- Has JQ's expansion helped to provide more feed for the QF Group's various international operations?

Cheers,

C.

To the first question, I'd have to say no. It wasn't NZ that significantly scaled back their regional flying schedule last year. Domestically, Air NZ has seen a 3 cent drop in yield per RPK over the past three years but at the same time has seen capacity increased by nearly 18% so that isn't entirely surprising.

To question two, you'd probably have to say that yes, there is some additional feed from the regions for the wider group. Based on the seasonal schedule adjustments they made last year, they can't have captured much though. If they scaled back the operation during the peak Northern summer travel months, I don't see connecting traffic to international services as being a concern.

tealnz wrote:

qf789 wrote:

The 778 has 53 orders, 35 for EK, 10 for QR and 8 for EY though I would say the ones for EY are in doubt. I personally favour the 778 for QF and I would expect it would be a good fit for NZ as well.

The 778 will more than meet NZ's capability requirements. But at 351t (vs 280t for the Airbus) it's a bit hard to see how it can see off the 359 on the economics. And in contrast to Qantas it's not as if there's an extreme technical requirement to meet – the 359 can plainly do Auckland-New York (and Chicago) with a decent payload so payload/range shouldn't trump trip cost and seat/mile cost.

Agree... it's not like NZ are pushing Airbus or Boeing for AKL-LHR capability, unlike QF with SYD-LHR.
I have wondered though, although AKL-LHR is further than SYD-LHR, it is able to fly east bound in both directions... does this mean that a SYD-LHR westbound capable aircraft could also be a AKL-LHR eastbound capable aircraft?

planemanofnz wrote:

For example:
- Has JQ's expansion hurt NZ? If so, that is good - a hurt NZ is less likely to expand, and threaten QF.
- Has JQ's expansion helped to provide more feed for the QF Group's various international operations?
.

NZ's typical threaded action - is so increase capacity rapidly and well beyond what is require adding additional seats into the market to be sold at lower price to hurt the competitor. It you look at JQ's recently WLG-ZQN announcement - todays later NZ comes out saying they are increasing capacity on WLG-ZQN by 50% this Winter. Then when JQ Regional launched NZ was very fast to make sure just about every flight on these routes ex-AKL was upgraded to an ATR adding 18 seats per flight, and flooding the market with additional capacity. NZ hasn't had to scale this routes back, yet JQ has dropping down down to twice daily or having to sell very low yielding fares for example AKL-NSN for $19 often on JQ.

It's like back in the 90's when people like Kiwi tried to launch regional locations to Australia, NZ responded with Freedom Air. Now look it at the Tasman market, pretty much the only route left from that is AKL/CHC-OOL.

3 million pretax is basically a loss as they barely covered enough to pay tax. on their earnings. JQ is not going to expand regionally because they are the expensive loss-making routes. Because of their cuts to regional in the last year, they made a meager profit. I think it really shows how dismal the VA results for their whole airline are, when JQ can match on NZ routes only. It seems to me that JQ want to maintain a presence but no more than they have to.

Looking at NZ vs JQ at an weeks notice:

AKL-NSN - NZ $49 // JQ $35
AKL-NPE - NZ $69 // JQ $45
AKL-NPL - NZ $89 // JQ $39
AKL-PMR - NZ $99 // JQ $35

Its only slightly concerning that an week-out from departure you can get an $35 oneway fare on AKL-NSN on Jetstar - it also makes you wonder how little the reset of the passengers on that flight has paid. As airlines use an layer pricing method, by not the fares should be way more.

Say if they sold all 50 seats at around $35 average on that flight its only $1750 revenue minus 15% for GST.

Yep, JQ jets are likely doing ok, but the regionals are burning all the profits. But to pull out completely would involve a massive loss of face in the N.Z provincial markets, where many still believe that by sheer virtue of them living in a small rural town that somehow entitles them to air service at below operating cost. NZ has the experience and feed to make it work for them, but it isn't as easy as they have made it look. I feel a bit sorry for JQ at times, they are in a no-win situation. They can generate profit, but nobody would fly them because they would be as expensive as NZ, or they can fly full and make the market happy with what they think is competition but lose money on each and every flight. These markets in many parts of the world wouldn't have the air services or competition they have. The danger is that these markets aren't big enough to sustain 2 profitable airlines, so if they did raise fares to make a profit there wouldn't me enough demand for both NZ/JQ so they would both cut frequency back totally until there was sufficient demand.

Have often wonder if the A320 is to 'large' for what JQ is trying to achieve within the New Zealand market, If you look at there operations for the past 8 years within New Zealand they haven't really grown and Frequency hasn't really grown, if anything its reduced on some routes. If you look at AKL-WLG 8 years on they still only have 6 flights on an weekday, when you look at NZ with 20-22 flights a day and went from the 733 to A320 in this time. Of even WLG-CHC when JQ is twice daily, with NZ being 16x daily although most of these are now ATR's.

It appears that an large key to the New Zealand domestic market is frequency, something that JQ has struggled to be able to provide which in term when something goes wrong it becomes an headline.

With the mining downturn in Australia - I wonder if JQNZ could make use of some of Qantas F100s they are likely to have less work now. Would they be better providing an hourly to two hourly service between the main centres with an 100 seater, rather than just a couple of times a day with an 177 seater A320?

Could the F100 then also allow them to open up some smaller routes, and maybe compete on some routes that currently don't have jet services? e.g An daily HLZ-CHC, AKL-IVC, AKL-NSN, HLZ-ZQN, HLZ-WLG, ROT-CHC, ROT-WLG, ROT-ZQN.

aerorobnz wrote:

Yep, JQ jets are likely doing ok, but the regionals are burning all the profits. But to pull out completely would involve a massive loss of face in the N.Z provincial markets, where many still believe that by sheer virtue of them living in a small rural town that somehow entitles them to air service at below operating cost. NZ has the experience and feed to make it work for them, but it isn't as easy as they have made it look. I feel a bit sorry for JQ at times, they are in a no-win situation. They can generate profit, but nobody would fly them because they would be as expensive as NZ, or they can fly full and make the market happy with what they think is competition but lose money on each and every flight. These markets in many parts of the world wouldn't have the air services or competition they have. The danger is that these markets aren't big enough to sustain 2 profitable airlines, so if they did raise fares to make a profit there wouldn't me enough demand for both NZ/JQ so they would both cut frequency back totally until there was sufficient demand.

Oh please. NZ will gouge exactly as much as they can get away with - they always have (see: North America routes until very recently - gee, I wonder why?). And that's their job. That's why they adopt their predatory approach to drive out competition. It's why they've added so much extra capacity - to force out - and keep out - competition. It's why fares on WLG-ZQN sank as soon as Jetstar announced. It sometimes comes across as regional folk expecting too much but let's not make NZ out to be some benevolent martyr here.

zkncj wrote:

Have often wonder if the A320 is to 'large' for what JQ is trying to achieve within the New Zealand market, If you look at there operations for the past 8 years within New Zealand they haven't really grown and Frequency hasn't really grown, if anything its reduced on some routes. If you look at AKL-WLG 8 years on they still only have 6 flights on an weekday, when you look at NZ with 20-22 flights a day and went from the 733 to A320 in this time. Of even WLG-CHC when JQ is twice daily, with NZ being 16x daily although most of these are now ATR's.

It appears that an large key to the New Zealand domestic market is frequency, something that JQ has struggled to be able to provide which in term when something goes wrong it becomes an headline.

With the mining downturn in Australia - I wonder if JQNZ could make use of some of Qantas F100s they are likely to have less work now. Would they be better providing an hourly to two hourly service between the main centres with an 100 seater, rather than just a couple of times a day with an 177 seater A320?

Could the F100 then also allow them to open up some smaller routes, and maybe compete on some routes that currently don't have jet services? e.g An daily HLZ-CHC, AKL-IVC, AKL-NSN, HLZ-ZQN, HLZ-WLG, ROT-CHC, ROT-WLG, ROT-ZQN.

I've actually wondered the opposite - instead of bringing in Dash 8s to compete on frequency, why not just throw on 320s for a twice daily service on regional routes?

I don't think the regional routes really need all that much frequency - all you need to do is provide a potential same day return service so someone can get in, work, get out. Alternatively, not worry about it and let them use the competition for the return leg in either direction). Especially with so much of the domestic service now centred on Auckland.

Gives you operational flexibility, assuming these ports are actually geared up to take jets, and keeps things simple. Virgin operates Melbourne-Mildura once a day in Victoria with a 738, whereas Qantas flies 3 times daily with a Q4 - if they can squeeze on an extra 737 service - at least on weekdays - I think that could really corner the market. Likewise in New Zealand, it could be a real game changer - the status quo looks like it isn't working for JQ, so why not shake it up a little?

Could do AKL-NSN/PMR/NAP, or WLG-HLZ/TRG?

Worth a try, I reckon.

aerokiwi wrote:

aerorobnz wrote:

Yep, JQ jets are likely doing ok, but the regionals are burning all the profits. But to pull out completely would involve a massive loss of face in the N.Z provincial markets, where many still believe that by sheer virtue of them living in a small rural town that somehow entitles them to air service at below operating cost. NZ has the experience and feed to make it work for them, but it isn't as easy as they have made it look. I feel a bit sorry for JQ at times, they are in a no-win situation. They can generate profit, but nobody would fly them because they would be as expensive as NZ, or they can fly full and make the market happy with what they think is competition but lose money on each and every flight. These markets in many parts of the world wouldn't have the air services or competition they have. The danger is that these markets aren't big enough to sustain 2 profitable airlines, so if they did raise fares to make a profit there wouldn't me enough demand for both NZ/JQ so they would both cut frequency back totally until there was sufficient demand.

Oh please. NZ will gouge exactly as much as they can get away with - they always have (see: North America routes until very recently - gee, I wonder why?). And that's their job. That's why they adopt their predatory approach to drive out competition. It's why they've added so much extra capacity - to force out - and keep out - competition. It's why fares on WLG-ZQN sank as soon as Jetstar announced. It sometimes comes across as regional folk expecting too much but let's not make NZ out to be some benevolent martyr here.

Where did I say that NZ was benevolent?? Of course, they aren't, benevolence and business don't go together. What I wrote really had nothing to do with NZ whatsoever except that I said they were making the market work for them (which by no means implies benevolence on their part), I'm interested you interpreted it that way. The same applies to any airline. Regional operations are never cheap, the cost per seat on regional aircraft types doesn't allow for it - you think NZ is expensive, then I suggest you check Canada, The Caribbean or Africa and other markets with substantial regional prop fleets on similar sector durations..

NZ would operate A320s once a day if they could, it's better for the airline really, Fewer flights = fewer costs overall.. However, the markets and regional councils have all stated that they want frequency over volume because they want to encourage feed options and business traffic.

aerokiwi wrote:

Could do AKL-NSN/PMR/NAP, or WLG-HLZ/TRG?

Worth a try, I reckon.

PMR,HLZ both used to have jet services in the past to Australia, NPE/TRG gets the odd 738/320 on charter services.

All would need to have AVSEC added if they we're too get services again, although guess this is covered by the fee we pay on our fares?

zkncj wrote:

aerokiwi wrote:

Could do AKL-NSN/PMR/NAP, or WLG-HLZ/TRG?

Worth a try, I reckon.

PMR,HLZ both used to have jet services in the past to Australia, NPE/TRG gets the odd 738/320 on charter services.

All would need to have AVSEC added if they we're too get services again, although guess this is covered by the fee we pay on our fares?

Nope, that just covers the fencing and Avsec that is there now, if that is to happen then expect higher fees and probably higher rates from the councils too. You might save 15-20 dollars on the far to the airline, but the fees would make it back to the original cost pretty quickly.

Has anyone heard anything about an Air NZ aircraft being damaged on the ground by unqualified ground crew in NAN Fiji brought in to cover those illegally locked out of jobs by government management at the airport?

Has anyone heard what NZ is planning to do beyond the end of January with HiFly?

All 3 of the 789s parked at AKL, look to have been parked up ready for long-term storage.

I'm trying to find out how delayed a flight was getting into AKL from NAN on Sunday. Anyone know how I can check? Is there a website etc pls?

Motorhussy wrote:

I'm trying to find out how delayed a flight was getting into AKL from NAN on Sunday. Anyone know how I can check? Is there a website etc pls?

If you Google the flight number you will usually get pointed to flight-radar who publish 7 days information for free, are you talking about NZ755 on Sunday? - https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/nz755

07 Jan - Nadi (NAN)//Auckland (AKL) - A320 (ZK-OJD) 2:49 7:50 PM 8:45 PM 10:55 PM Landed 11:35 PM KML

Does anyone have any details on the forced landing in Hunua yesterday? Aircraft type, rego & origin etc?

Motorhussy wrote:

Has anyone heard anything about an Air NZ aircraft being damaged on the ground by unqualified ground crew in NAN Fiji brought in to cover those illegally locked out of jobs by government management at the airport?

There's an article on RNZ about it now: http://www.radionz.co.nz/international/ ... d-handlers

V/F

Gasman wrote:

Does anyone have any details on the forced landing in Hunua yesterday? Aircraft type, rego & origin etc?

According to the entry on Aviation Safety Network, it is a Cessna 172 from Ardmore Flying School: https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=204054

V/F

Does anybody know why JQ202 (AKL-SYD) returned to AKL this morning? I assume either technical problem or medical?

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... s-in-nw18/

Could be a temp thing or are CX doing poorly on the CHC flight? At a guess I’d say they are updating the schedules and the route will return unless as I said it’s doing badly.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Could be a temp thing or are CX doing poorly on the CHC flight? At a guess I’d say they are updating the schedules and the route will return unless as I said it’s doing badly.

I highly doubt that CX will drop CHC, for a few reasons:

1. HKG - CHC shows the NZ CC that the JV is still delivering benefits for consumers, despite HX's AKL launch (AFAIK the JV is up for renewal)
2. There is enough South Island traffic on the 3x daily AKL flights to be transferred by capacity re-allocation (dropping AKL flights for CHC ones)
3. The CHC peak season is opposite to the European peak season, which is good for aircraft utilisation, with the likes of BCN and CPH launched
4. CX is becoming increasingly competitive for VFR traffic against SQ, by opening the likes of DUB (there is a big Irish population in Christchurch)
5. CHC is still free from Chinese carriers, except for CZ (unlike other secondary cities like CNS, with HU) - this gives CX a competitive advantage

Ultimately, the service is very low-risk, only being flown for 3 months, and being flown by highly fuel-efficient A350s (with a competitive product).

I do hope that more Asian carriers consider seasonal services to CHC - in particular, KE, who now flies 748s to AKL and who used to fly to CHC.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Could be a temp thing or are CX doing poorly on the CHC flight? At a guess I’d say they are updating the schedules and the route will return unless as I said it’s doing badly.

I highly doubt that CX will drop CHC, for a few reasons:

1. HKG - CHC shows the NZ CC that the JV is still delivering benefits for consumers, despite HX's AKL launch (AFAIK the JV is up for renewal)
2. There is enough South Island traffic on the 3x daily AKL flights to be transferred by capacity re-allocation (dropping AKL flights for CHC ones)
3. The CHC peak season is opposite to the European peak season, which is good for aircraft utilisation, with the likes of BCN and CPH launched
4. CX is becoming increasingly competitive for VFR traffic against SQ, by opening the likes of DUB (there is a big Irish population in Christchurch)
5. CHC is still free from Chinese carriers, except for CZ (unlike other secondary cities like CNS, with HU) - this gives CX a competitive advantage

Ultimately, the service is very low-risk, only being flown for 3 months, and being flown by highly fuel-efficient A350s (with a competitive product).

I do hope that more Asian carriers consider seasonal services to CHC - in particular, KE, who now flies 748s to AKL and who used to fly to CHC.

Cheers,

C.

1. Yes it will be interesting to see if the JV is re approved given HX’s ‘unexpected’ entry into the market.

2. CX have themselves said they could add extra AKL flights on top of what’s already there, some said they wouldn’t send the 77W this year but they did still with CHC opening. NZ would add their own extra flights to connect EZE if they could get slots.

3. Agreed

4. Surely CX has always been popular however CHC gives them additional connections albeit for 3 months.

5. CHC has a lot less competition it’s population is 30% of AKL.

KE flew 744’s to AKL before so not a big increase to the 748, I agree I am surprised KE hasn’t returned to CHC seasonally atleast.

ZK-NBT wrote:

CHC has a lot less competition it’s population is 30% of AKL.

CHC's population is not really relevant - its traffic is primarily in-bound and tourism-related - the potential market for that segment is the same as for AKL.

Cheers,

C.

Maybe it's got something to do with earlier rumours/reports that CX plans to start CBR service...HKG-CBR-CHC possible?

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

CHC has a lot less competition it’s population is 30% of AKL.

CHC's population is not really relevant - its traffic is primarily in-bound and tourism-related - the potential market for that segment is the same as for AKL.

Cheers,

C.

So why do you think the route is suspended? Airlines often suspend routes temporarily and many of them never reappear. Maybe it is also that CX is expanding rapidly in many markets at present and the demand for that aircraft is better justified on other routes that operate year-round or have higher yields. Let's hope it really is a temporary thing and reservations reopen soon.

grjplanes wrote:

Maybe it's got something to do with earlier rumours/reports that CX plans to start CBR service...HKG-CBR-CHC possible?

No - CX has said this week that it is not going to fly to CBR, at this stage. A one-stop service would be un-competitive against CZ / SQ.

NZ321 wrote:

Maybe it is also that CX is expanding rapidly in many markets at present and the demand for that aircraft is better justified on other routes that operate year-round or have higher yields.

No - many of those routes are seasonal only, like BCN and CPH, and so CHC's peak season ties in well with them for aircraft utilisation.

I also think that:

- If CX were to drop CHC, HX would move in, and re-allocate some AKL summer capacity to CHC (it is 14x weekly to AKL, now).
- Aside from CHC, the only other Southern Hemisphere route I can think of that CX would fly to seasonally would be HKG - CPT.
- There is a slim possibility that NZ may take over this route, bi-annually, in a move similar to the NZ - SQ JV seasonal expansion.

Cheers,

C.

NZ321 wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

CHC has a lot less competition it’s population is 30% of AKL.

CHC's population is not really relevant - its traffic is primarily in-bound and tourism-related - the potential market for that segment is the same as for AKL.

Cheers,

C.

So why do you think the route is suspended? Airlines often suspend routes temporarily and many of them never reappear. Maybe it is also that CX is expanding rapidly in many markets at present and the demand for that aircraft is better justified on other routes that operate year-round or have higher yields. Let's hope it really is a temporary thing and reservations reopen soon.

We don’t no for sure if it’s being suspended, like I said up thread it could well be just updating the schedules certainly nothing has been said yet at least.

AKL would have a lot more business oreintated traffic as well as premium/leisure, sure CHC population is relevant, overall it’s a smaller market.

planemanofnz wrote:

grjplanes wrote:

Maybe it's got something to do with earlier rumours/reports that CX plans to start CBR service...HKG-CBR-CHC possible?

No - CX has said this week that it is not going to fly to CBR, at this stage. A one-stop service would be un-competitive against CZ / SQ.

NZ321 wrote:

Maybe it is also that CX is expanding rapidly in many markets at present and the demand for that aircraft is better justified on other routes that operate year-round or have higher yields.

No - many of those routes are seasonal only, like BCN and CPH, and so CHC's peak season ties in well with them for aircraft utilisation.

I also think that:

- If CX were to drop CHC, HX would move in, and re-allocate some AKL summer capacity to CHC (it is 14x weekly to AKL, now).
- Aside from CHC, the only other Southern Hemisphere route I can think of that CX would fly to seasonally would be HKG - CPT.
- There is a slim possibility that NZ may take over this route, bi-annually, in a move similar to the NZ - SQ JV seasonal expansion.

Cheers,

C.

Agree CBR-CHC won’t happen, CBR-HKG maybe but that’s for another discussion and don’t mention CX on CBR-WLG, SQ have that covered.

I agree HX would probably go to CHC if CX dropped it and they likely would reduce AKL to add CHC.

NZ may take over which route? CHC-HKG? That won’t happen.

I could see CX/NZ adding a third AKL NS and a forth
NW daily, NZ may be the one to operate 2 flights in NS with botch doing double daily on the peak NW. Though NZ have said the yields are under pressure in Asia, I think more specifically HKG/PVG where there is competition. CX would continue CHC atleast seasonally.

ZK-NBT wrote:

CHC population is relevant, overall it’s a smaller market.

Asian carriers, like CI, CX and CZ do not fly to CHC because of CHC's population - they do so, to cater for in-bound tourism.

If they pick up South Island-originating traffic, then great, but that traffic does not form the basis of CHC's route development.

ZK-NBT wrote:

I agree HX would probably go to CHC if CX dropped it and they likely would reduce AKL to add CHC.

On this, I would add that I could see:

- HX offering an OOL stop to CHC, to improve its OOL flight, which is performing poorly (fifth freedom traffic, unlike at CNS).
- Another HNA Group airline launching CHC - probably HU to SZX or PVG - given their continued expansion in Australasia.

HX could afford to offer a one-stop routing to CHC (unlike CX), given that it is a lower-yielding airline, with much lower fares.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ may take over which route? CHC-HKG? That won’t happen.

NZ has a history of taking over services within a JV development, like in the NZ - SQ scenario (the second daily AKL flight).

Given that CX picks up the bulk of the AKL flying in the JV, it seems reasonable that NZ could pick up the over-flow at CHC.

NZ could potentially do a CHC - PER - CHC - HKG - CHC routing, given that both CHC - PER / HKG would be seasonal.

ZK-NBT wrote:

I could see CX/NZ adding a third AKL NS and a forth NW daily

I doubt it, given that HX is flying 2x daily to AKL already, meaning that there are presently 5x daily flights on AKL - HKG (!).

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

CHC population is relevant, overall it’s a smaller market.

Asian carriers, like CI, CX and CZ do not fly to CHC because of CHC's population - they do so, to cater for in-bound tourism.

If they pick up South Island-originating traffic, then great, but that traffic does not form the basis of CHC's route development.

ZK-NBT wrote:

I agree HX would probably go to CHC if CX dropped it and they likely would reduce AKL to add CHC.

On this, I would add that I could see:

- HX offering an OOL stop to CHC, to improve its OOL flight, which is performing poorly (fifth freedom traffic, unlike at CNS).
- Another HNA Group airline launching CHC - probably HU to SZX or PVG - given their continued expansion in Australasia.

HX could afford to offer a one-stop routing to CHC (unlike CX), given that it is a lower-yielding airline, with much lower fares.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ may take over which route? CHC-HKG? That won’t happen.

NZ has a history of taking over services within a JV development, like in the NZ - SQ scenario (the second daily AKL flight).

Given that CX picks up the bulk of the AKL flying in the JV, it seems reasonable that NZ could pick up the over-flow at CHC.

NZ could potentially do a CHC - PER - CHC - HKG - CHC routing, given that both CHC - PER / HKG would be seasonal.

ZK-NBT wrote:

I could see CX/NZ adding a third AKL NS and a forth NW daily

I doubt it, given that HX is flying 2x daily to AKL already, meaning that there are presently 5x daily flights on AKL - HKG (!).

Cheers,

C.

Sorry on a phone most of the time seems I need to quote the whole post.

Sure the carriers serving CHC CZ/CI/CX are more about the inbound tourism market, however CHC has less carriers because demand is lower and the city is smaller than AKL in this case, coupled with NZ being a small country airlines focus on a single city AKL more often than not.

If HX served CHC they might get away with an OOL stop if CX dropped the route given less competition, they wouldn’t get away with it for AKL.

NZ took over one route as part of a then new J/V with SQ and that’s ex AKL. NZ don’t base any long haul planes at CHC, sure they can do a W pattern AKL-HKG-CHC vv but depends on schedules as they aren’t likely to use a wide body short haul ex CHC in between long hauls whereas ex AKL they can easily. As you say it’s about inbound tourism and CX can fly the route the whole way even though a JV means NZ could fly the first sector.

SQ/NZ will add an additional flight shared as you no seasonally.

In the NS both NZ/CX run one daily AKL-HKG, CX add a second flight with a larger plane for 3 months in NW. I did hear NZ looked at CHC-LAX again 3-4 years ago with a LAX-CHC-PER routing with a 772 but decided against it.

NZ/CX could push HX really hard if they added an additional flight, weather they would or not, slots are the issue for NZ as are yields and slots could prevent NZ doing CHC-HKG, they would surely rather use them for additional AKL.

Re HX, I don’t think they have a great product on the A330 fleet. I wonder if they will try an A350 to be a bit more competitive product wise?

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ don’t base any long haul planes at CHC

They fly PER - CHC on a 789 (with an AKL aircraft), seasonally - that flight could be tied in with a HKG - CHC service, for the same season.

ZK-NBT wrote:

SQ/NZ will add an additional flight shared

The two very big differences here, being, of course:

- AKL - SIN has only 2x daily flights, whereas AKL - HKG has 5x daily flights, with competition - there is more scope for growth in the former
- AKL - HKG partly relies on Chinese tourism, which has totally flat-lined, whereas SIN is a hub for Europe and India, which are still growing

I just do not see further expansion on AKL - HKG.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ don’t base any long haul planes at CHC

They fly PER - CHC on a 789 (with an AKL aircraft), seasonally - that flight could be tied in with a HKG - CHC service, for the same season.

ZK-NBT wrote:

SQ/NZ will add an additional flight shared

The two very big differences here, being, of course:

- AKL - SIN has only 2x daily flights, whereas AKL - HKG has 5x daily flights, with competition - there is more scope for growth in the former
- AKL - HKG partly relies on Chinese tourism, which has totally flat-lined, whereas SIN is a hub for Europe and India, which are still growing

I just do not see further expansion on AKL - HKG.

Cheers,

C.

As I said further down in my last post slots at HKG are an issue, If NZ got more they would likely want to increase AKL connecting to EZE slots permitting time wise. NZ have better things imo to do with their limited long haul fleet than CHC-HKG, CX have a big fleet and you said it yourself a bit of slack in the NW with other seasonal routes that operate NS only. PER works because it likely has more local demand and has been done for a few years.

NZ/SQ have had SIN to themselves and are obviously happy with the yields to the point where more flights can be added. I wonder if it’s to preempt EK entering SIN-AKL? HX don’t have a great product on the A330and don’t seem to make much money anyway and less connections than CX can give. CX have said they could increase AKL, remIns to be seen if they do.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ ... would likely want to increase AKL connecting to EZE

Increase? No. Re-time existing flights? Maybe.

I query the potential of HKG - EZE connections.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ have better things imo to do with their limited long haul fleet than CHC-HKG

Actually, IMO, the CX - NZ JV is hugely important for NZ, as is its continued renewal by the NZ CC.

In light of HX's entry into AKL, continuing CHC - HKG sends a very powerful message to the NZ CC.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ ... would likely want to increase AKL connecting to EZE

Increase? No. Re-time existing flights? Maybe.

I query the potential of HKG - EZE connections.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ have better things imo to do with their limited long haul fleet than CHC-HKG

Actually, IMO, the CX - NZ JV is hugely important for NZ, as is its continued renewal by the NZ CC.

In light of HX's entry into AKL, continuing CHC - HKG sends a very powerful message to the NZ CC.

Cheers,

C.

Increase, NZ have talked about 2 daily Asian PVG/HKG flights using 3 frames as opposed to 2 for a single daily. Again slots re retiming the current flights, they have been able to retime currently the outbound ex AKL with the 789 issues currently.

It’s not just HKG-EZE but all of Asia PVG/TYO/SIN, in this case we are talking about HKG.

I’m not saying the CX/NZ JV isn’t important, but CHC-HKG will be operated by CX.

Like I said earlier they are likely updating the schedules and it will be reloaded soon.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ have talked about 2 daily Asian PVG/HKG flights using 3 frames as opposed to 2 for a single daily.

I am aware that NZ decided to increase PVG, instead of expand to the likes of CTU, which it was considering doing.

However, I was not aware of a desire to increase HKG - do you have any sources for this? I assume it was pre-HX.

Post-HX, IMO, it does not make sense - the JV already has 3x daily flights, in a corridor that is facing yield pressure.

Cheers,

C.