The bottom line is that NZ is too small a market for another (local) player on long haul. Unless we get Norwegian or the likes we are going to be playing the NZ game for the foreseeable future in terms of international. I can - however - imagine that Sounds Air - for example - could bolster its operations and get more innovative and seize a larger portion of the regional market in NZ.

DavidByrne wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Ah yes I do recall a weekly 742 via HNL I think it started around 1987, the CP/NZ deal went from 1992/97 IIRC, I don’t no that NZ served YVR all of 87-92 though. I wasn’t aware of NZ 763’s to YVR, they got the first one in 1990. CP Air ran DC8’s then 742’s and DC10’s to AKL before becoming Canadian Airlines, they ran DC10’s to AKL before the deal with NZ started, CP returned in 1997/98 for a year with a 763 before pulling out for good.

The weekly 742 to YVR via HNL was operating as early as Dec 1985. I recall also that at one point operation was via LAX, at least in one direction, though I can't remember which, and it also ran nonstop to/from(?) LAX. The CP/NZ joint service was happening at least as early as mid-1991, so if there was a gap in service it was before then.

Ok nice. Interesting routes back then. There was DFW via PPT or HNL continuing to LGW/FRA return via LAX I believe didn’t stop in DFW? operated between OCT 1987 March 89

zkojq wrote:

aerokiwi wrote:

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?).

This. It really is that simple. Air New Zealand has been milking the regions for years. It's no wonder that people who live in the regional centres aren't impressed with them.

I'm not sure. While yes; being a business without competition there will be some milking, but given the scale of the regional market I wonder how much "milk" they actually produce. I suspect not much and in fact given the choice NZ would probably be out of the regions altogether. When I was regularly flying AKL-WAG back in the 1900D days my return fares were usually around the $300 mark and often much less..... not much for 90 mins flying in a 2 pilot aircraft that seats only about 16.

zkojq wrote:

I honestly don't know why people are trying to pretend that its anything else. That attitude from some of the NZ fanboys/employees here is tiresome.

It can be, but you have to have some sympathy. NZ do a remarkable job of penetrating the New Zealander's psyche. I was a feverently loyal fan myself until I came to realise that being sodomised by the blunt end of a koru was eye-watering and not actually that much fun. I now receive it from a kangaroo, and that feels more tolerable.

zkojq wrote:

aerokiwi wrote:

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?).

This. It really is that simple. Air New Zealand has been milking the regions for years. It's no wonder that people who live in the regional centres aren't impressed with them.

aerokiwi wrote:

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.

I honestly don't know why people are trying to pretend that its anything else. That attitude from some of the NZ fanboys/employees here is tiresome. Just like on all the Lufthansa threads were all the LH fanboys try and pretend that fares haven't risen since Air Berlin ceased ops.

aerokiwi wrote:

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.

I can say the same about all the NZ (and LH) bashers here. I am not a fanboy per se, but NZ is a BUSINESS, and not a charity. Of course, they charge what they can get away with - any non-charitable business would. And I would like to see all those people criticising the high regional fares now if NZ closes the LINK operations and pulls out of all regional centers. The outcry would be beyond belief, and yet JQ choses only to operate very selected city pairs and people feel sorry for them. In addition, have a look what the "small fry" are charging. If you find NZ's fares high, look up Sounds Air fares... It was the same when NZ pulled out of Masterton and Kaiktaia. If people don't use the service enough to make it viable, why would NZ keep operating, and - if it were up to the customers - at ridiculously low fares? If there were governmental subsidies for such thin routes (like some routes in OZ and Norway, for example), it would be a different story. Again, NZ is not a martyr, but it is a business!

Regarding LH: Nobody (or maybe a few uniformed people) - including LH themselves - said that the fares didn't increase since AB's demise. But they said it is not an artifical increase based on milking a monopoly, but simply a matter of supply and demand in the yield managment system. One airline out means only one airline is left in most cases. That one airline doesn't increase frequency, so automatically the previous AB pax look at LH services, which increases demand, which increases fares. I bet that train fares between main cities in Germany (ICE services) did increase as well, since more demand means less seats and especially less seats for reasonable fares. The ICEs are packed as it is. Nobody complains to DB about that...
Any airline does that, no matter if one airline or multiple airlines on a given route. The more supply, the more fares usually drop. The ZQN and AKL-LAX/SFO examples illustrate that.

zkeoj wrote:

The more supply, the more fares usually drop. The ZQN and AKL-LAX/SFO examples illustrate that.

Perhaps so for LAX, but NZ's fares to Asia have remained astronomical, despite new competition (like MU to PVG).

It amazes me how NZ continues to add capacity to PVG, when they charge more than double the Chinese carriers.

For example, NZ's current 'sale' fare to PVG is NZD 469 one way, whereas CZ's PVG 'sale' fare was NZD 420 return.

Cheers,

C.

zkeoj wrote:

I bet that train fares between main cities in Germany (ICE services) did increase as well, since more demand means less seats and especially less seats for reasonable fares. The ICEs are packed as it is. Nobody complains to DB about that...
Any airline does that, no matter if one airline or multiple airlines on a given route. The more supply, the more fares usually drop. The ZQN and AKL-LAX/SFO examples illustrate that.

I agree absolutely. Those who whine about "gouging" forget that air fares have significantly dropped in real terms in the last 30+ years to the point that what was absolutely not affordable for many in the '80s is taken for granted now. And as has been said: NZ is a real business, with real shareholders, not a charity or public service provider. Enough said.

Re LH and DB: Last year I took a trip from Berlin to Moenchengladbach by train, and when I went to the booking counter was offered a direct ticket for no less than 250 Euros. Being just a little travel savvy I asked about a 29 Euro fare I'd seen advertised. They looked at me like I'd crawled out from under a log and haughtily composed an itinerary using local trains with five changes en route - but a fare of 29 Euros. We took it, and while it did take all day, it was much more memorable as an experience than the ICE, I think. Actually, that's a bit like how I plan my air travel: if heading for Europe I try to find some interesting routings that allow odd stopovers at a cheap price. You'd be amazed at what you can find, and where you can go, if you're prepared to do the research and then rough it a bit on the actual travel. Sadly, taking the adventurous travel option doesn't seem to find much favour amongst A-netters.

planemanofnz wrote:

zkeoj wrote:

The more supply, the more fares usually drop. The ZQN and AKL-LAX/SFO examples illustrate that.

Perhaps so for LAX, but NZ's fares to Asia have remained astronomical, despite new competition (like MU to PVG).

It amazes me how NZ continues to add capacity to PVG, when they charge more than double the Chinese carriers.

For example, NZ's current 'sale' fare to PVG is NZD 469 one way, whereas CZ's PVG 'sale' fare was NZD 420 return.

Cheers,

C.

Continues to add capacity? NZ run an extra 3 services a week at the moment from mid JAN to mid late FEB for CNY. I’m not sure about the continues to add part, they do it in the peak season like so many other routes they fly.

It’s about yield management, and NZ will have far higher cost bases than the Chinese carriers.

The plan ultimately is double daily PVG with good connections to EZE both directions, it will take a while to get to that level on a year round basis. It will also save them a frame effectively when they do get there as a double daily will use 3 aircraft while they need 2 for a single daily, good slots are also an issue so if the right slots become available they may have to use them straight away which means taking a hit, hopefully they can use 80% of them or something like that and rotate the days of operation as required to keep the slots?

planemanofnz wrote:

zkeoj wrote:

The more supply, the more fares usually drop. The ZQN and AKL-LAX/SFO examples illustrate that.

Perhaps so for LAX, but NZ's fares to Asia have remained astronomical, despite new competition (like MU to PVG).

It amazes me how NZ continues to add capacity to PVG, when they charge more than double the Chinese carriers.

For example, NZ's current 'sale' fare to PVG is NZD 469 one way, whereas CZ's PVG 'sale' fare was NZD 420 return.

Cheers,

C.

You just confirm what I said: They charge more because they can. If they had empty planes they would either have to lower fares, or reduce frequency/pull out. Why would you charge less if you can fill the planes with higher fares? Again, it is business 101...

DavidByrne wrote:

zkeoj wrote:

I bet that train fares between main cities in Germany (ICE services) did increase as well, since more demand means less seats and especially less seats for reasonable fares. The ICEs are packed as it is. Nobody complains to DB about that...
Any airline does that, no matter if one airline or multiple airlines on a given route. The more supply, the more fares usually drop. The ZQN and AKL-LAX/SFO examples illustrate that.

I agree absolutely. Those who whine about "gouging" forget that air fares have significantly dropped in real terms in the last 30+ years to the point that what was absolutely not affordable for many in the '80s is taken for granted now. And as has been said: NZ is a real business, with real shareholders, not a charity or public service provider. Enough said.

Re LH and DB: Last year I took a trip from Berlin to Moenchengladbach by train, and when I went to the booking counter was offered a direct ticket for no less than 250 Euros. Being just a little travel savvy I asked about a 29 Euro fare I'd seen advertised. They looked at me like I'd crawled out from under a log and haughtily composed an itinerary using local trains with five changes en route - but a fare of 29 Euros. We took it, and while it did take all day, it was much more memorable as an experience than the ICE, I think. Actually, that's a bit like how I plan my air travel: if heading for Europe I try to find some interesting routings that allow odd stopovers at a cheap price. You'd be amazed at what you can find, and where you can go, if you're prepared to do the research and then rough it a bit on the actual travel. Sadly, taking the adventurous travel option doesn't seem to find much favour amongst A-netters.

The 25 Euro fares do exist, but are limited and released 3 months prior to travel date. Often, they are sold out within days, if not hours. It's just like the 1 Euro fares on FR or other LCCs...
Also, next time have a look at first class fares - often they are only marginally higher than 2nd class, and if you have luggage, 1st class is much more comfortable, because the aisles are not full of standing and moving people, and you have space to actually put your suitcase... Glad you enjoyed your trip though - the railway system in Germany is pretty good and reliable, but if you ask Germans they always complain about DB, how bad the service is and how unpunctual they are! I guess those poeple never took trains elsewhere in the world, except for Japan (no train is ever delayed there, not even by 1 minute, haha)...

zkeoj wrote:

You just confirm what I said: They charge more because they can. If they had empty planes they would either have to lower fares, or reduce frequency/pull out. Why would you charge less if you can fill the planes with higher fares? Again, it is business 101...

Until, of course, you permanently alienate the very people who are paying those higher fares. NZ's general penny pinching and specifically fares between AKL and LAX (as well as the internal USA add on fares) were key amongst the reasons why I took my not stratospheric, but not insignificant custom elsewhere.

DavidByrne wrote:

routings that allow odd stopovers at a cheap price. You'd be amazed at what you can find, and where you can go, if you're prepared to do the research and then rough it a bit on the actual travel. Sadly, taking the adventurous travel option doesn't seem to find much favour amongst A-netters.

I don't know, I can think of 3-4 of us on this thread that will fly interesting routes and airlines when we can. .I'm getting home from Toronto the scenic route. YYZ-EWR-ZRH-ARN-ADD-KGL-ADD-ARN-LHR-CGK-SYD-AKL. YYZ-YVR-AKL, or YYZ-IAH-AKL being the fastest option. I spend months looking and planning. I wouldn't have spent a few days in Kigali and extended my leave if I hadn't found a number of fares to link and make a competitive option.

As far as fares go, look at the way fares are working anywhere, if you fly from EWR-ARN, it is expensive direct on SK and UA and to regional Sweden and Norway, it is cheap on LH,TK, This is a market that has Wow/Icelandair and Norwegian as well. If I fly EWR-FRA or regional Germany/Austria then LH is the most expensive, SK/AC offers a cheaper option via ARN

Likewise here it is cheaper LAX-AKL-BNE on NZ than LAX-AKL, it is more expensive to fly LAX-SYD ton QF than it is LAX-SYD-AKL, VA LAX-BNE-AKL cheaper than LAX-BNE etc etc.
Try flying DL cjheaply out of ATL/MSP...again not possible, but fly AA/UA via ORD,IAH or DFW. WHy?? because the home market is staunchly DL, demand for DL is high out of home market, AA/UA have to lower fares to compete with hometown carrier. The same applies for DL/UA in DFW, and DL/AA in IAH. This especially applies to the regionals. A market served by just DL regional (regional Minnesota for eg:) is way more expensive why? sure It's because they can a bit, but it's because DL have to keep the airport terminal running, as the only carrier they are liable for the staff, the security etc which can't be spread across multiple carriers - user pays etc, and they are poorly utilised because local demand is low. They would rather drive to a big airport and save the money, rather than save the time. That is true for NZ too.

The Chinese fares are a bad example, because 1) The Chinese airlines are not making money with AKL 2) They are competing with each other to try and fill their aeroplanes because the market is well oversaturated and overcapacity, and 3) NZ is not struggling to fill their aeroplanes, therefore they don't have to lose money to win business. The Chinese airlines have targeted AKL-XXX-PVG as a focus city, but again, if you want to fly point to point it is more expensive to fly the Chinese carriers (beyond leading specials). CA has specials to Japan and HKG but with AKL-PEK they aren't cheap. CZ AKL-CAN not cheap,

Gasman wrote:

zkeoj wrote:

You just confirm what I said: They charge more because they can. If they had empty planes they would either have to lower fares, or reduce frequency/pull out. Why would you charge less if you can fill the planes with higher fares? Again, it is business 101...

Until, of course, you permanently alienate the very people who are paying those higher fares. NZ's general penny pinching and specifically fares between AKL and LAX (as well as the internal USA add on fares) were key amongst the reasons why I took my not stratospheric, but not insignificant custom elsewhere.

We all know you did, Gasman - you are telling us time and time again. But obviously you are in a minority, since NZ is still successfully operating this route, expanding North America, and is overall a very profitable airline...

VA is seeking regulatory approval for HU to codeshare on Trans Tasman services

https://twitter.com/Jamie_Freed/status/ ... 2032033797

aerorobnz wrote:

I can think of 3-4 of us on this thread that will fly interesting routes and airlines when we can.

Good for you - I think it makes the whole travel experience that much richer. There are times when being able to fly nonstop from A to B may well be desirable, but I love the serendipity of taking a routing that's determined by what "next point" I can reach cheaply (and on interesting aircraft). Otherwise I'd never have flown on aircraft such as the Caravelle, TU-134 or IL-62, for example - or transited airports like Luxor, Biak or Trelew. Reminds me of the saying "It's not the destination, it's the journey". Amen to that.

zkeoj wrote:

But obviously you are in a minority, since NZ is still successfully operating this route, expanding North America, and is overall a very profitable airline.

Actually, NZ is suffering in North America, with its revenue from the region down by ~NZD 100 million in the past year.

More consumers are selecting other airlines, as evidenced by AA's up-gauge and HA's additional frequencies to AKL.

zkeoj wrote:

You just confirm what I said: They charge more because they can.

Can they though? In NZ's latest annual report, Asia was singled out for yield pressures - competition is impacting NZ.

One has to wonder for how much longer NZ can continue charging double MU's PVG fares, with its 3-3-3 789 product.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

zkeoj wrote:

But obviously you are in a minority, since NZ is still successfully operating this route, expanding North America, and is overall a very profitable airline.

Actually, NZ is suffering in North America, with its revenue from the region down by ~NZD 100 million in the past year.

More consumers are selecting other airlines, as evidenced by AA's up-gauge and HA's additional frequencies to AKL.

zkeoj wrote:

You just confirm what I said: They charge more because they can.

Can they though? In NZ's latest annual report, Asia was singled out for yield pressures - competition is impacting NZ.

One has to wonder for how much longer NZ can continue charging double MU's PVG fares, with its 3-3-3 789 product.

Cheers,

C.

Yet NZ is still happy and North America is still performing better in the US than Asia. How about the market has grown with AA and HA sure more people are flying but NZ have added capacity as well.

NZ are profitable, MU maybe overall? NZ are about yield what’s your point with that second point? Chinese carriers are trying to better each other, NZ aren’t to worried and will manage capacity and not chase those carriers, they will manage their own capacity.

DavidByrne wrote:

aerorobnz wrote:

I can think of 3-4 of us on this thread that will fly interesting routes and airlines when we can.

Good for you - I think it makes the whole travel experience that much richer. There are times when being able to fly nonstop from A to B may well be desirable, but I love the serendipity of taking a routing that's determined by what "next point" I can reach cheaply (and on interesting aircraft). Otherwise I'd never have flown on aircraft such as the Caravelle, TU-134 or IL-62, for example - or transited airports like Luxor, Biak or Trelew. Reminds me of the saying "It's not the destination, it's the journey". Amen to that.

I am totally with both of you. If I travel with colleagues or my partner I sort of have to go direct/non-stop, but when I am on my own, I at least try to route via different points, and at the destination do some side trips, if time allows. That way I hopped around a few islands of the Azores (and flew on the ATP and DO228), domestically in Korea (A330, A300 and B739 in J), did island hopping in Tonga when Chathams were operating there (C580, Beech 65 and Islander), flew to fun places in Fiji on the EMB110, EMB120 and Twin Otter, and took the opportunity to fly on MD80 series and B737-200s of AR in Argentina, to name just a few. I once booked TXL-AMS-YUL-AMS-HAJ, just to log the MD11, and was shocked to see a B747-400M at the gate in AMS! At least on the way back the scheduled MD11 was there, so I got both aircraft with KL in the log - not too shabby either. It is fun being an aviation nut

High on my list is the Hawaii-Guam run on UA, aerorob did not long ago. One day I will do that as well!

zkeoj wrote:

High on my list is the Hawaii-Guam run on UA, aerorob did not long ago. One day I will do that as well!

I once flew part of the island hopping route to Guam when I took CO from HNL to Majuro in the Marshall islands, with a transit at the US military base at Johnston Island. We taxied to a corner of the airfield, and spent a half hour on the ground with a truck-mounted machine gun pointed at the plane while a couple of US military personnel disembarked - through the rear stairs of a 727-100 mixed pax/cargo, the only time I've ever seen the rear stairs used. As for Majuro - one of the most polluted places I've ever been!

ZK-NBT wrote:

Yet NZ is still happy and North America is still performing better in the US than Asia. How about the market has grown with AA and HA sure more people are flying but NZ have added capacity as well.

Between 2016 and 2017, NZ's Asia revenue declined by ~6%, while its North America revenue declined by double that, or ~12%.

This, of course, has occurred despite the fact that Chinese tourism here has flat-lined, while North American tourism is booming.

To say that NZ is "happy" with North America is a gross exaggeration, based on those figures - competition has definitely hurt NZ.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Chinese carriers are trying to better each other, NZ aren’t to worried and will manage capacity and not chase those carriers, they will manage their own capacity.

IMO, it would be naive of NZ to think of itself in a bubble above any of the Chinese carriers - they both target the same markets.

Indeed, Chinese carriers are rapidly improving their offerings, and HU is now even ranked in the same league as SQ by Skytrax.

NZ - who currently channels a lot of European passengers through PVG as a top-up tool - will increasingly struggle within China.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Yet NZ is still happy and North America is still performing better in the US than Asia. How about the market has grown with AA and HA sure more people are flying but NZ have added capacity as well.

Between 2016 and 2017, NZ's Asia revenue declined by ~6%, while its North America revenue declined by double that, or ~12%.

This, of course, has occurred despite the fact that Chinese tourism here has flat-lined, while North American tourism is booming.

To say that NZ is "happy" with North America is a gross exaggeration, based on those figures - competition has definitely hurt NZ.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Chinese carriers are trying to better each other, NZ aren’t to worried and will manage capacity and not chase those carriers, they will manage their own capacity.

IMO, it would be naive of NZ to think of itself in a bubble above any of the Chinese carriers - they both target the same markets.

Indeed, Chinese carriers are rapidly improving their offerings, and HU is now even ranked in the same league as SQ by Skytrax.

NZ - who currently channels a lot of European passengers through PVG as a top-up tool - will increasingly struggle within China.

Cheers,

C.

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.

zkeoj wrote:

And I would like to see all those people criticising the high regional fares now if NZ closes the LINK operations and pulls out of all regional centers.

Why would they do that when they're making so much money off them?

zkeoj wrote:

It was the same when NZ pulled out of Masterton and Kaiktaia. If people don't use the service enough to make it viable, why would NZ keep operating, and - if it were up to the customers - at ridiculously low fares?

You need to make a distinction between places like NSN, ROT, NPE, PMR etc which get multiple daily Air New Zealand Link services from AKL and places like Taupo, Masterton and Kaitaia which were daily at best and never got flooded with excess seats.

zkeoj wrote:

Regarding LH: Nobody (or maybe a few uniformed people) - including LH themselves - said that the fares didn't increase since AB's demise. But they said it is not an artifical increase based on milking a monopoly, but simply a matter of supply and demand in the yield managment system. One airline out means only one airline is left in most cases. That one airline doesn't increase frequency, so automatically the previous AB pax look at LH services, which increases demand, which increases fares. I bet that train fares between main cities in Germany (ICE services) did increase as well, since more demand means less seats and especially less seats for reasonable fares. The ICEs are packed as it is. Nobody complains to DB about that...
Any airline does that, no matter if one airline or multiple airlines on a given route. The more supply, the more fares usually drop. The ZQN and AKL-LAX/SFO examples illustrate that.

Regarding LH, I've got nothing against them (would even go so far as to call myself a LH fanboy) and their behaviour post Air Berlin, but to pretend that the bankruptcy hasn't had an effect on fares is a bit much. As are PanHam's claims that there's enough competition without easyjet flying domestically or that LH should have gotten all of AB or whatever it is they're trying to argue.

aerorobnz wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

routings that allow odd stopovers at a cheap price. You'd be amazed at what you can find, and where you can go, if you're prepared to do the research and then rough it a bit on the actual travel. Sadly, taking the adventurous travel option doesn't seem to find much favour amongst A-netters.

I don't know, I can think of 3-4 of us on this thread that will fly interesting routes and airlines when we can.

I did BGO-SVG-OSL-MUC-CDG earlier in the year. Was supposed to be BGO-SVG-CPH-CDG, but thanks to an engine failure on a Cimber CRJ it got changed (originally to SVG-OSL-FRA-MUC-CDG) and I missed out on flying aboard an SAS A320neo. I like travelling the long way, but it only works if they people you travel with also appreciate doing so. Usually for me that means I can only to such journeys alone.

aerorobnz wrote:

As far as fares go, look at the way fares are working anywhere, if you fly from EWR-ARN, it is expensive direct on SK and UA and to regional Sweden and Norway, it is cheap on LH,TK, This is a market that has Wow/Icelandair and Norwegian as well. If I fly EWR-FRA or regional Germany/Austria then LH is the most expensive, SK/AC offers a cheaper option via ARN

A cheap way to get from LHR to ARN is via HEL with Finnair (added bonus you can get an A350 on the LHR-HEL leg).

HiFly A343 on NZ175/176 PER-AKL has been extended to 23 Feb 18

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

qf789 wrote:

HiFly A343 on NZ175/176 PER-AKL has been extended to 23 Feb 18

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

9H-SUN first day on the route replacing A332 CS-TQW.

VirginFlyer wrote:

VirginFlyer wrote:

ZKNCI wrote:

Second Saab 340 arrives in AKL tomorrow 1730. N357GU (s/n 340B-357). It's been around a few ops, first delivered in 1994 to Formosa Airlines as B-12262, was with Vincent Aviation as ZK-VAB for a while, and unlike the other two is a B-model with Ham-Std props rather than Dowtys.

'Tis the season for new arrivals; another aircraft bound for an NZ operator is on its way too:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N2057

Some may remember this as the Caravan which appeared in a Barrier Air Facebook post last year...

V/F

Air Chathams' second new Saab arrived yesterday. You can just make out the outline of the Vincent titles on it from days gone by. Meanwhile N2057 made a false start today, and is back in Santa Maria. More details of both at http://3rdlevelnz.blogspot.co.nz

V/F

N2057 continued its apparent journey to NZ today, making it to Hilo: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N2057

V/F

ZK-NBT wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

(YVR) started with a 3 weekly 772 seasonally in NOV 2007, but was announced it would be year round before it started. NS was 2 weekly bar July August where it was 3x, it went 4 weekly DEC 08 FEB 09. The 744 was on the route from March 2009 December 2011 same 2-3 weekly, 772’s did operate sometimes during that period.

Actually it started with a weekly 747 and then IIRC 2x weekly 763s back in the 1980s but that’s another story! Don’t remember when it was that they called quits on that attempt. Then they moved on to a CP/NZ joint service via HNL where there was a change of carrier but no change of flight number.

Ah yes I do recall a weekly 742 via HNL I think it started around 1987, the CP/NZ deal went from 1992/97 IIRC, I don’t no that NZ served YVR all of 87-92 though. I wasn’t aware of NZ 763’s to YVR, they got the first one in 1990. CP Air ran DC8’s then 742’s and DC10’s to AKL before becoming Canadian Airlines, they ran DC10’s to AKL before the deal with NZ started, CP returned in 1997/98 for a year with a 763 before pulling out for good.

When I flew to the UK to start my Big OE, I flew NZ to Hawaii, transferred to CP to Vancouver and then London. This was in October 1996.

qf789 wrote:

HiFly A343 on NZ175/176 PER-AKL has been extended to 23 Feb 18

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

https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/travel-alerts?eventid=n3BmxDuEv2ZSZsjKRMa0

NZ has confirmed that AKL-SYD will be operated by HiFly till March 8 2018

An airline that was basically bailed out and funded by the government because they were too incompetent to run it and made stupid decisions has no right to then not serve the entire country that essentially funded and still funds its existence and say
"we are a business- unprofitable routes will be cut"

using this we are a business logic, Air NZ should not even exist anymore ( that would have been way better for the customer long term- of course short term would be a disaster)

at the same time
Kiwi's have no right to complain about high airfares... they helped create this monopoly situation by persuading the government to save Air NZ

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Yet NZ is still happy and North America is still performing better in the US than Asia. How about the market has grown with AA and HA sure more people are flying but NZ have added capacity as well.

Between 2016 and 2017, NZ's Asia revenue declined by ~6%, while its North America revenue declined by double that, or ~12%.

This, of course, has occurred despite the fact that Chinese tourism here has flat-lined, while North American tourism is booming.

To say that NZ is "happy" with North America is a gross exaggeration, based on those figures - competition has definitely hurt NZ.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Chinese carriers are trying to better each other, NZ aren’t to worried and will manage capacity and not chase those carriers, they will manage their own capacity.

IMO, it would be naive of NZ to think of itself in a bubble above any of the Chinese carriers - they both target the same markets.

Indeed, Chinese carriers are rapidly improving their offerings, and HU is now even ranked in the same league as SQ by Skytrax.

NZ - who currently channels a lot of European passengers through PVG as a top-up tool - will increasingly struggle within China.

Cheers,

C.

that's cute
but almost no one believes HU is in the same league as SQ/CX
Skytrax can think whatever it likes.

If NZ was smart they would work with CX and offer connections to 22 mainland and multiple north east Asian cities- even go double daily to HKG
Air NZ will never survive against the Chinese airlines offering 400 dollar return fares

( like what they did with SQ- India)

Tonight's CZ306 AKL-CAN (77W B-2007) returned to AKL with a problem soon after takeoff. It went down the West Coast at 9,900 ft presumably dumping fuel and landed an hour later, stopping on a taxiway for 28 mins in the company of rescue vehicles. It has now been towed to Gate 2 at the International Terminal.

PA515

Kashmon wrote:

If NZ was smart they would work with CX and offer connections to 22 mainland and multiple north east Asian cities

( like what they did with SQ- India)

Aren’t NZ already doing just that?

Kashmon wrote:

that's cute ... but almost no one believes HU is in the same league as SQ/CX ... Skytrax can think whatever it likes

HU is well ahead of NZ - not only with little things, like amenity kits, hot towels and in-flight magazines for all (some of which even CX has pulled too), but specifically at AKL, in using a 332 with 2-4-2 (Y), compared to NZ's use of a 789 with 3-3-3 (Y).

Further, with CX moving to a 3-4-3 (Y) arrangement on its 777s (which fly to AKL seasonally), as well as (allegedly) introducing a BOB service for selected regional connecting flights, HU definitely looks set to meet and/or surpass CX in the coming years, too.

Kashmon wrote:

If NZ was smart they would work with CX and offer connections to 22 mainland and multiple north east Asian cities

Perhaps you are unaware of recent developments, but NZ already has such an interline arrangement through HKG. China restricts deeper code-sharing arrangements - you will not see a foreign airline code on any CX or KA services to Mainland China.

It is possible for a foreign carrier to code-share on a domestic Mainland Chinese flight, and NZ already does so with CA (e.g. NZ 3936 (DLC - PEK)). However, PEK is not well located for AKL transfers, due to back-tracking, and CA has limited PVG options.

Cheers,

C.

NTL airport is teasing about a new destination, due to be announced Monday. Their first "clue" suggests to me it might be AKL, from the direction that the flight appears to go. Any scuttlebutt locally about this?

https://twitter.com/NTLairport/status/9 ... 4723321856

As a Newcastle native I'd love to see international service return after many years absence. There is a catchment area of about 1 million people.

AKL would be my first guess but don't discount NAN.

Could be Hetstar who have a maintenance and crew base in NTL.

A drive into regional Australia is timely for NZ:

- NZ may want to seek retribution for the QF group maintaining JQ on regional New Zealand routes
- NTL, with CBR, HBA and others, may well help off-set any fall in feed from the VA alliance ending
- With oil rising, Australian expansion is less risky than US expansion, but still expands the AKL hub
- NZ's short-haul revenue is growing, while long-haul is not - an NZ NTL route aligns with this trend
- NZ's A320 fleet will be freed, with 787s to the likes of ADL, and new NEOs coming online this year

Ultimately, CBR, HBA and others should follow:





Cheers,

C.

Jetstar Group signs interline agreement with Hawaiian Airlines, will benefit passengers travelling from both New Zealand and Japan

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/haw ... line-deal/

qf789 wrote:

Jetstar Group signs interline agreement with Hawaiian Airlines, will benefit passengers travelling from both New Zealand and Japan

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/haw ... line-deal/

Hard to see how useful that is with Hawaiian's flight arriving at 10pm, well past any domestic connections. Sure you could connect domestically northbound, but I imagine most people will want return flights.

AKL doesn't handle remote gates well. It took nearly an hour to load QF 142 this morning (a 738). They all start to flap and organisation goes right out the window.

VirginFlyer wrote:

VirginFlyer wrote:

VirginFlyer wrote:

'Tis the season for new arrivals; another aircraft bound for an NZ operator is on its way too:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N2057

Some may remember this as the Caravan which appeared in a Barrier Air Facebook post last year...

V/F

Air Chathams' second new Saab arrived yesterday. You can just make out the outline of the Vincent titles on it from days gone by. Meanwhile N2057 made a false start today, and is back in Santa Maria. More details of both at http://3rdlevelnz.blogspot.co.nz

V/F

N2057 continued its apparent journey to NZ today, making it to Hilo: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N2057

V/F

N2057 has arrived in Auckland, and will soon become ZK-SDC with Barrier Air.

https://www.facebook.com/greatbarrierai ... 100056710/

V/F

My son got quite excited seeing a CX A350 descending over Palmerston North this morning, on its way to OHA. From https://www.flightradar24.com/CPA123/102b60d6 it looks like two missed approaches - a bit cloudy this morning in CHC perhaps?

DavidByrne wrote:

NTL airport is teasing about a new destination, due to be announced Monday. Their first "clue" suggests to me it might be AKL, from the direction that the flight appears to go. Any scuttlebutt locally about this?

https://twitter.com/NTLairport/status/9 ... 4723321856

Looks like its not AKL then? today's clue references beaches, surely no one from Australia would travel to New Zealand for an beach Hoilday? More looking like it could be NAN or DPS?

zkncj wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

NTL airport is teasing about a new destination, due to be announced Monday. Their first "clue" suggests to me it might be AKL, from the direction that the flight appears to go. Any scuttlebutt locally about this?

https://twitter.com/NTLairport/status/9 ... 4723321856

Looks like its not AKL then? today's clue references beaches, surely no one from Australia would travel to New Zealand for an beach Hoilday? More looking like it could be NAN or DPS?

bugger!

zkncj wrote:

Looks like its not AKL then? today's clue references beaches, surely no one from Australia would travel to New Zealand for an beach Hoilday?

It looks like it will be ADL



Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Looks like its not AKL then? today's clue references beaches, surely no one from Australia would travel to New Zealand for an beach Hoilday?

It looks like it will be ADL



Cheers,

C.

With an Jet? they currently only have 5x J32, wonder if it will be operated by Alliance?

I know not commercial aviation per se, but Rocket Labs have successfully launched the Electron rocket from Mahia, making us the 11th country capable of launching orbital-class rockets.

http://youtu.be/eg5234BOED8?t=877

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

77west wrote:

I know not commercial aviation per se, but Rocket Labs have successfully launched the Electron rocket from Mahia, making us the 11th country capable of launching orbital-class rockets

What a fantastic development for New Zealand - does Rocket Lab generate any significant airline traffic yet to GIS and/or NPE (even with Head Office being in AKL)?

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

77west wrote:

I know not commercial aviation per se, but Rocket Labs have successfully launched the Electron rocket from Mahia, making us the 11th country capable of launching orbital-class rockets

What a fantastic development for New Zealand - does Rocket Lab generate any significant airline traffic yet to GIS and/or NPE (even with Head Office being in AKL)?

Cheers,

C.

I would not think anything significant - I would be surprised if they even had 20 people at the actual launch complex in Mahia, during a launch. Perhaps once they start launching much more regularly things may pick up. GIS is the closer airport.

Bearing in mind this is the company that uses Logitech consumer gaming headsets for their mission control staff. They don't like extravagances it seems. Still, orbital insertion and 3 satellites launched on their second flight ever... watch out SpaceX

With SoundsAir having wrapped up their Kaikoura services in December due to SH1 being fixed, is there any chance they'll launch a Kaikoura - Wellington service? They must've built up an awful lot of goodwill in that town and have great name recognition. Would it be viable for them? If so on a Caravan or a PC-12?

Andrensn wrote:

With SoundsAir having wrapped up their Kaikoura services in December due to SH1 being fixed, is there any chance they'll launch a Kaikoura - Wellington service? They must've built up an awful lot of goodwill in that town and have great name recognition. Would it be viable for them? If so on a Caravan or a PC-12?

Kaikōura-Wellington is possible, of course, but it may depend on their aircraft situation.

They are investigating the acquisition of 3 x Beechcraft 1900Ds. If they go ahead with the deal this will give them some capacity to play with. The 1900's are primarily for BHE-CHC but I doubt they need all three aircraft for that one route, so - presumably - 1900's will take over some other routes, freeing up those aircraft. Then they could start thinking about new routes.

The CEO, Andrew Crawford, seemed fairly gung-ho about it all when he last spoke, even though it's a fairly dramatic change of model for Sounds (two pilots in one aircraft!) and I haven't heard of a Plan B - what they would do if they decide against the Beechcraft. I guess they'd just expand the Pilatus/Caravan fleet by an aircraft or two.

mariner

ZK-NBT wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Yet NZ is still happy and North America is still performing better in the US than Asia. How about the market has grown with AA and HA sure more people are flying but NZ have added capacity as well.

Between 2016 and 2017, NZ's Asia revenue declined by ~6%, while its North America revenue declined by double that, or ~12%.

This, of course, has occurred despite the fact that Chinese tourism here has flat-lined, while North American tourism is booming.

To say that NZ is "happy" with North America is a gross exaggeration, based on those figures - competition has definitely hurt NZ.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Chinese carriers are trying to better each other, NZ aren’t to worried and will manage capacity and not chase those carriers, they will manage their own capacity.

IMO, it would be naive of NZ to think of itself in a bubble above any of the Chinese carriers - they both target the same markets.

Indeed, Chinese carriers are rapidly improving their offerings, and HU is now even ranked in the same league as SQ by Skytrax.

NZ - who currently channels a lot of European passengers through PVG as a top-up tool - will increasingly struggle within China.

Cheers,

C.

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.

USAOZ wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

Between 2016 and 2017, NZ's Asia revenue declined by ~6%, while its North America revenue declined by double that, or ~12%.

This, of course, has occurred despite the fact that Chinese tourism here has flat-lined, while North American tourism is booming.

To say that NZ is "happy" with North America is a gross exaggeration, based on those figures - competition has definitely hurt NZ.


IMO, it would be naive of NZ to think of itself in a bubble above any of the Chinese carriers - they both target the same markets.

Indeed, Chinese carriers are rapidly improving their offerings, and HU is now even ranked in the same league as SQ by Skytrax.

NZ - who currently channels a lot of European passengers through PVG as a top-up tool - will increasingly struggle within China.

Cheers,

C.

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.