The airline has talked about increasing Asian frequencies themselves, I’m not sure where I read it sorry.

PA515 wrote:

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

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.

ZKNCI wrote:

PA515 wrote:

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

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

I see that KE has added an 8th weekly frequency to AKL, on a 77W. It seems to operate until 2 February. I am unsure when it launched.

This is on top of the (seasonal) daily 748 flights to AKL - KE129/130. This then drops down to a 4x weekly service over the winter period.

It is intriguing that AKL is so strong for KE, while the likes of MEL and PER cannot sustain any KE services. Even BNE is not as strong.

IMO, this raises several points - I would like to hear your opinions on these potential growth options in the Korea - New Zealand corridor:

- Perhaps KE should run a 7x weekly 388 service to AKL over some months - KE said it might park 388s, so the fleet availability is there
- KE could re-allocate those additional 77W flights to AKL over the summer, to CHC, and gain a competitive advantage from a new route
- The market is extremely strong in the summer period - strong enough to support at least a seasonal flight on NZ, in partnership with OZ

From NZ's perspective:

- A summer service to ICN might be a good use of a 789 frame that would be sent to DPS, SIN, SGN or elsewhere, in the winter period
- An OZ JV will create a great same-terminal transit offering to secondary China and Japan (transit visa restrictions, notwithstanding)
- ICN would be a source (albeit small) of feeder traffic for NZ, for the AKL - EZE route - Buenos Aires does notably have a "Koreatown"

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

I see that KE has added an 8th weekly frequency to AKL, on a 77W. It seems to operate until 2 February. I am unsure when it launched.

This is on top of the (seasonal) daily 748 flights to AKL - KE129/130. This then drops down to a 4x weekly service over the winter period.

It is intriguing that AKL is so strong for KE, while the likes of MEL and PER cannot sustain any KE services. Even BNE is not as strong.

IMO, this raises several points - I would like to hear your opinions on these potential growth options in the Korea - New Zealand corridor:

- Perhaps KE should run a 7x weekly 388 service to AKL over some months - KE said it might park 388s, so the fleet availability is there
- KE could re-allocate those additional 77W flights to AKL over the summer, to CHC, and gain a competitive advantage from a new route
- The market is extremely strong in the summer period - strong enough to support at least a seasonal flight on NZ, in partnership with OZ

From NZ's perspective:

- A summer service to ICN might be a good use of a 789 frame that would be sent to DPS, SIN, SGN or elsewhere, in the winter period
- An OZ JV will create a great same-terminal transit offering to secondary China and Japan (transit visa restrictions, notwithstanding)
- ICN would be a source (albeit small) of feeder traffic for NZ, for the AKL - EZE route - Buenos Aires does notably have a "Koreatown"

Cheers,

C.

Started DEC 24th I think it was, it ran atleast the last 2 years, I don’t believe it’s bookable I think it runs for some tour operator or something bringing big groups over for a week. I’m pretty sure OZ got a contract or planned a weekly CHC last year 1 weekly 772 for 6-7 weeks but it got canned before launch.

MEL had KE for a while, As did CHC although 2006 was the last time for CHC as a seasonal run. BNE is daily for KE most of the year I think, it may be 6 weekly at times A333. SYD goes from a daily A333 to A388 seasonally they sent the 748 in SEPT OCT 2017.

I am surprised they haven’t returned to CHC personally.

I don’t believe KE said they would park any A388’s there was a rogue article that had zero credibility a while back, there was I believe an aircraft in regular maintenance at the time. The A388’s have 94J seats total 407 with 301Y the 748’s just 48J but 314Y and 368 total, the A388 is to premium heavy. The 77W’s have 56J or 42J total 291 or 277 seats.

NZ’s capacity that goes to DPS/SGN in NS goes to additional PER/EZE/KIX in NW.

With the KE stronghold in the market and given NZ’s approach I can’t see NZ going to ICN, more likely OZ to AKL, they did it 2003/05 4 weekly 772.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ’s capacity that goes to DPS/SGN in NS goes to additional PER/EZE/KIX in NW

For now, yes, but NZ is continually taking delivery of new 789s, to be deployed on new seasonal winter routes (like AKL - SIN).

There will, therefore, be greater opportunities for NZ to launch ICN soon. Plus, OZ is getting new 359s, which could also work.

ZK-NBT wrote:

With the KE stronghold in the market and given NZ’s approach I can’t see NZ going to ICN

NZ's approach in Asia lately has been to go after higher yield, which is why it launched HND and KIX over, say, CGK and BKK.

IMO, ICN is a destination that would fit this profile, more than BKK, CGK, KUL, MNL or TPE. KE's fares to ICN are astronomical.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ’s capacity that goes to DPS/SGN in NS goes to additional PER/EZE/KIX in NW

For now, yes, but NZ is continually taking delivery of new 789s, to be deployed on new seasonal winter routes (like AKL - SIN).

There will, therefore, be greater opportunities for NZ to launch ICN soon. Plus, OZ is getting new 359s, which could also work.

ZK-NBT wrote:

With the KE stronghold in the market and given NZ’s approach I can’t see NZ going to ICN

NZ's approach in Asia lately has been to go after higher yield, which is why it launched HND and KIX over, say, CGK and BKK.

IMO, ICN is a destination that would fit this profile, more than BKK, CGK, KUL, MNL or TPE. KE's fares to ICN are astronomical.

Cheers,

C.

It surprised me when they said SIN would be a code 2 789, I thought they would go 772 to bump premium capacity up, mainly because SIN is a bit shorter than HND/NRT etc where the 772’s go sometimes. is it just the winter seasonal service with SQ or was it both daily SIN flights for the 789?

I think we might see some juggling of the fleet a bit more going forward. They aren’t taking delivery of more 789’s just for seasonal winter routes, plenty of other places will be under study for year round or seasonal service.

HND/KIX, hmm NZ does rate Japan highly HND gives a lot more onward connections. I’m not convinced by any of the cities you mentioned really. HKT seasonal, they do codeshare with TG to BKK though.

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ’s capacity that goes to DPS/SGN in NS goes to additional PER/EZE/KIX in NW

For now, yes, but NZ is continually taking delivery of new 789s, to be deployed on new seasonal winter routes (like AKL - SIN).

Don't they only have 2 more remaining 789s to be delivered? taking the total fleet to 13 which will be consumed partly with additional SIN flights.

Does make the rumour that NZ is currently trying to lease some used 777s possiable for short-term growth once the 789 issues are fixed.

zkncj wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ’s capacity that goes to DPS/SGN in NS goes to additional PER/EZE/KIX in NW

For now, yes, but NZ is continually taking delivery of new 789s, to be deployed on new seasonal winter routes (like AKL - SIN).

Don't they only have 2 more remaining 789s to be delivered? taking the total fleet to 13 which will be consumed partly with additional SIN flights.

Does make the rumour that NZ is currently trying to lease some used 777s possiable for short-term growth once the 789 issues are fixed.

Yep 2 more to come late 2018, will they do the existing SIN flight though? Or will they do something else over summer and SIN from winter 2019?

Surely the 777 rumour is just to cover the 789’s once the Hifly lease is up? They may find some good enough to lease longer in which case they could reconfigure them if they decided on a 3 year lease maybe. I think a few more 789’s ordered for 2019/20 delivery to atleast 1 a year.

Shapes as an interesting year, there was talk of a study of Norwegian’s model to, I wonder what the plan there is?

And possibly/likely a 772 replacement announces plus 1-2 new routes.

A320/321NEO’s entering from August/September.

ZK-NBT wrote:

They aren’t taking delivery of more 789’s just for seasonal winter routes

zkncj wrote:

Don't they only have 2 more remaining 789s to be delivered? taking the total fleet to 13 which will be consumed partly with additional SIN flights.

True, but this new AKL - SIN winter service raises the question of where that 789 will go in the summer - IMO, ICN fits the bill.

ZK-NBT wrote:

I’m not convinced by any of the cities you mentioned really

I wasn't suggesting NZ flies to them - I was just saying that ICN would be better than any of them. It would have higher yields.

Cheers,

C.

And ICN has good STAR connections onwards into China and on to Europe on Asiana.

Do we actually know how many NZ 789s will need their turbine blades replaced? I know that 3 or 4 aircraft are grounded. But how many currently in service are also affected albeit lower cycle?

NZ321 wrote:

And ICN has good STAR connections onwards into China and on to Europe on Asiana.

Indeed - in particular, ICN would be convenient for secondary China (instead of through PEK on CA) and secondary Japan (instead of through NRT on NH), because no domestic flights would be involved, meaning that ICN would involve a same-terminal transit.

Some other factors are:

- OZ being a Star Alliance member allows NZ to competitively tap into OZ's big FFP base in South Korea
- Being a 5 star airline, OZ would help align NZ to a more premium brand positioning (than by using CA)

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

True, but this new AKL - SIN winter service raises the question of where that 789 will go in the summer - IMO, ICN fits the bill.

Air NZ AKL-SIN will be one flight daily all year with the 789 Code 2 aircraft. Air NZ will change to a late morning departure with SQ doing the 2355 or 0115 flights. In the Northern Winter schedule SQ will be twice daily and reduce to about 12 weekly for the Northern Summer.

Air NZ will have four 789 Code 2 aircraft by September 2018. Two will be used on the daily AKL-IAH, one on the daily AKL-SIN, and one yet to be announced. The fourth Code 2 789 could be AKL-HND three weekly. Or they could start AKL-ORD three weekly, but that would need to be announced fairly soon. If they decided to do AKL-ICN three weekly, that would most likely begin with a Code 1. Won't be AKL-YVR as that would require two aircraft.

PA515

PA515 wrote:

In the Northern Winter schedule SQ will be twice daily and reduce to about 12 weekly for the Northern Summer.

Actually, SQ reduces from 14x weekly to 7x weekly, not 12x weekly - the JV will be this:

- New Zealand winter: NZ - 12x weekly, SQ - 7x weekly (overall 19x weekly)
- New Zealand summer: NZ - 7x weekly, SQ - 14x weekly (overall 21x weekly)

See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11954881.

Thus, in the New Zealand winter, NZ will be flying a new 5x weekly service to SIN.

Therefore, in the New Zealand summer, this frame could open up a new destination.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

PA515 wrote:

In the Northern Winter schedule SQ will be twice daily and reduce to about 12 weekly for the Northern Summer.

Actually, SQ reduces from 14x weekly to 7x weekly, not 12x weekly - the JV will be this:

- New Zealand winter: NZ - 12x weekly, SQ - 7x weekly (overall 19x weekly)
- New Zealand summer: NZ - 7x weekly, SQ - 14x weekly (overall 21x weekly)

See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11954881.

Thus, in the New Zealand winter, NZ will be flying a new 5x weekly service to SIN.

Therefore, in the New Zealand summer, this frame could open up a new destination.

Cheers,

C.

That's what I thought! So let the speculation begin. ICN would be good.

PA515 wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

True, but this new AKL - SIN winter service raises the question of where that 789 will go in the summer - IMO, ICN fits the bill.

Air NZ AKL-SIN will be one flight daily all year with the 789 Code 2 aircraft. Air NZ will change to a late morning departure with SQ doing the 2355 or 0115 flights. In the Northern Winter schedule SQ will be twice daily and reduce to about 12 weekly for the Northern Summer.

Air NZ will have four 789 Code 2 aircraft by September 2018. Two will be used on the daily AKL-IAH, one on the daily AKL-SIN, and one yet to be announced. The fourth Code 2 789 could be AKL-HND three weekly. Or they could start AKL-ORD three weekly, but that would need to be announced fairly soon. If they decided to do AKL-ICN three weekly, that would most likely begin with a Code 1. Won't be AKL-YVR as that would require two aircraft.

PA515

I’m surprised PA515 you are a bit off the pace. NZ/SQ will split the third frequency with SQ operating daily with a 77W in NW where as NZ will operate it in the NW 5x weekly.

What I’m/we are not sure of is if it’s both daily NZ operated flights with code 2 or just the seasonal evening flight. SQ will have a fairly premium 77W on it when people thought they might drop F and go A359, I personally was only of the opinion they might add a second flight with a 359 rather than 77W.

So I think the daily NZ flight in the morning ex AKL will be a code 1 aircraft and the code 2 frame might go to HND in NW. Not to surprised NZ are changing the SIN schedule as it’s an oddball arrival time particularly NW when there isn’t a lot to cover if the aircraft goes U/S given they use the same frame for several days. Now a 0930 arrival means they can rotate the aircraft through the network much easier.

Like I said upthread I often thought AKL-SIN could use more premium capacity and thought they might use the 772,I was surprised when they changed to a 789. SIN is a little shorter than NRT/HND.

The hearld seem to think ORD will happen with the current fleet, given what we said above ORD might get a 77W?

ZK-NBT wrote:

The hearld seem to think ORD will happen with the current fleet, given what we said above ORD might get a 77W?

ORD is a possibility, though IMO:

- NZ will want to wait and see what the US DOT decides re the AA - QF JV, and what implications that has for AA's New Zealand presence
- If QF launches BNE - ORD with one of its new 789s in the next while, as has been predicted, then ORD might not be as attractive to NZ
- A year-round AKL - ORD service would be utilisation-intensive for the fleet, and take up far more resources than many other routes would
- Oil has passed USD 70 pb, and is climbing higher - with AKL - ORD being a borderline ULH route, it will be increasingly expensive to run

IMO, a 3x weekly seasonal summer AKL - ICN service on a 789 would be lower-risk for NZ, particularly with an OZ partnership in place.

Cheers,

C.

True re fuel rising.

The thing is IAH has exceeded expectations so ORD can be used to build in this, yield to North America is higher than Asia generally speaking. I do agree it’s long but the 789 is very efficient, look at UA/QF’s use of it. I do think NZ/QF could both serve ORD, it’s mainly a connecting point.

The problem with ICN is when have NZ started a route recently with competition? KE are the dominant carry albeit the only one. Personally can’t see ICN.

ZK-NBT wrote:

I’m surprised PA515 you are a bit off the pace. NZ/SQ will split the third frequency with SQ operating daily with a 77W in NW where as NZ will operate it in the NW 5x weekly.

Yes, didn't read that 07 Dec 2017 Press Release correctly. And while it only mentions the 789 Code 2, they won't have enough Code 2 to do AKL-IAH daily, AKL-SIN 12 weekly and whatever the other Northern Winter destination for the fourth aircraft is.

No more 789s have been ordered, but they do have options to lease a 789 in 2019 and another in 2020.

The 77E replacement order this year is what I am waiting for. Air NZ could get a few A350-900s for 2020 delivery as some airlines may defer deliveries.

PA515

PA515 wrote:

The 77E replacement order this year is what I am waiting for. Air NZ could get a few A350-900s for 2020 delivery as some airlines may defer deliveries.

Must be tempting to launch New York in the lead-up to the America's Cup.

Well if we're going to see another North American (or other) destination this year then the announcement has to be imminent. Certainly by end of March. I imagine that the current issues with the 789 may be a factor - until things are resolved we may have to wait and see. Promises of engine parts are one thing. Once the fleet is up and running another.

PA515 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

I’m surprised PA515 you are a bit off the pace. NZ/SQ will split the third frequency with SQ operating daily with a 77W in NW where as NZ will operate it in the NW 5x weekly.

Yes, didn't read that 07 Dec 2017 Press Release correctly. And while it only mentions the 789 Code 2, they won't have enough Code 2 to do AKL-IAH daily, AKL-SIN 12 weekly and whatever the other Northern Winter destination for the fourth aircraft is.

No more 789s have been ordered, but they do have options to lease a 789 in 2019 and another in 2020.

The 77E replacement order this year is what I am waiting for. Air NZ could get a few A350-900s for 2020 delivery as some airlines may defer deliveries.

PA515

No they won’t but IAH or possibly a potential ORD flight could use a 77W, ORD is a?

It’s not clear if both SIN flights are code 2 or not I’ll go back and reread when I get a chance.

ZK-NBT wrote:

The problem with ICN is when have NZ started a route recently with competition? KE are the dominant carry albeit the only one. Personally can’t see ICN.

True, but that apprehension on NZ's part should way some part now, with NZ's continued success in the face of new competition, like at HKG (HX), HNL (HA), LAX (AA) and PVG (MU).

I may be wrong, but IMO, ORD does not really offer anything that IAH does not - both are primarily used as a base to capture feed from the US East Coast. NYC is different (O&D traffic).

ICN opens up a whole new market for NZ, which is presently served un-competitively through TYO with OZ (while markets served through ORD are largely already served through IAH).

Cheers,

C.

In regard to comments around using 772 versus code 2 789 to achieve more premium seats, remember code 2 789s have more premium sears than the 772.

aotearoa wrote:

In regard to comments around using 772 versus code 2 789 to achieve more premium seats, remember code 2 789s have more premium sears than the 772.

Half right, if you include Premium Economy as "premium" - the 789 V2 has 1 more Business Premier seat (27) than the 772, but 7 less Premium Economy seats (33).

In the overall fleet, the 77W has the most Business Premier (44) and Premium Economy (54) seats - the 77W even has less Economy Class seats than the 772 does.

Cheers,

C.

aotearoa wrote:

In regard to comments around using 772 versus code 2 789 to achieve more premium seats, remember code 2 789s have more premium sears than the 772.

As Planemanofnz said J is a difference of 1 seat. I’m partly more referring to using the 772 to SIN which would increase premium seats over the code 1 789 and also SIN is a bit shorter than other long hauls so less fuel burn. The 772’s are good to the US where they are bigger than the 789 to LAX/SFO although neither get them often SFO weekly more with 77W maintenance. And yields are higher to the US.

VirginFlyer wrote:

ZKNCI wrote:

PA515 wrote:

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

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

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

The problem with ICN is when have NZ started a route recently with competition? KE are the dominant carry albeit the only one. Personally can’t see ICN.

True, but that apprehension on NZ's part should way some part now, with NZ's continued success in the face of new competition, like at HKG (HX), HNL (HA), LAX (AA) and PVG (MU).

I may be wrong, but IMO, ORD does not really offer anything that IAH does not - both are primarily used as a base to capture feed from the US East Coast. NYC is different (O&D traffic).

ICN opens up a whole new market for NZ, which is presently served un-competitively through TYO with OZ (while markets served through ORD are largely already served through IAH).

Cheers,

C.

Agree fully. Whats does ORD add that IAH doesn't? ICN on the other hand....

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ321 wrote:

And ICN has good STAR connections onwards into China and on to Europe on Asiana.

Indeed - in particular, ICN would be convenient for secondary China (instead of through PEK on CA) and secondary Japan (instead of through NRT on NH), because no domestic flights would be involved, meaning that ICN would involve a same-terminal transit.

Some other factors are:

- OZ being a Star Alliance member allows NZ to competitively tap into OZ's big FFP base in South Korea
- Being a 5 star airline, OZ would help align NZ to a more premium brand positioning (than by using CA)

Cheers,

C.

Some of These sound like your personal preference, like a single terminal connection to China, I don’t quite agree they would use ICN because of China connections. HND just started for Japan to give better domestic connections.

South Korea is surely reached easily via the SQ/CX deals, and I agree if growth is good They might look to add a new route but in this case it’s served by another airline. I get you say NW for the inbound market but I feel the aircraft can be better used to North America or other existing Asia routes like PVG/HKG/HND/KIX.

NZ321 wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

The problem with ICN is when have NZ started a route recently with competition? KE are the dominant carry albeit the only one. Personally can’t see ICN.

True, but that apprehension on NZ's part should way some part now, with NZ's continued success in the face of new competition, like at HKG (HX), HNL (HA), LAX (AA) and PVG (MU).

I may be wrong, but IMO, ORD does not really offer anything that IAH does not - both are primarily used as a base to capture feed from the US East Coast. NYC is different (O&D traffic).

ICN opens up a whole new market for NZ, which is presently served un-competitively through TYO with OZ (while markets served through ORD are largely already served through IAH).

Cheers,

C.

Agree fully. Whats does ORD add that IAH doesn't? ICN on the other hand....

IAH has done well and ORD offers another entry point and growth, ptp is growing with QF adding new routes as well, it gives NZ a competitive advantage by offering more routes via AKL.

NZ321 wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

The problem with ICN is when have NZ started a route recently with competition? KE are the dominant carry albeit the only one. Personally can’t see ICN.

True, but that apprehension on NZ's part should way some part now, with NZ's continued success in the face of new competition, like at HKG (HX), HNL (HA), LAX (AA) and PVG (MU).

I may be wrong, but IMO, ORD does not really offer anything that IAH does not - both are primarily used as a base to capture feed from the US East Coast. NYC is different (O&D traffic).

ICN opens up a whole new market for NZ, which is presently served un-competitively through TYO with OZ (while markets served through ORD are largely already served through IAH).

Cheers,

C.

Agree fully. Whats does ORD add that IAH doesn't? ICN on the other hand....

You mean besides a shorter connecting flight to that large east coast population, larger O&D and local population, Uniteds largest hub, and a larger business market than Houston? I can't see anything ORD offers over IAH....

I know of many people who use ICN for connecting on KE to various destinations such as Russia, Northern Europe and even Israel. Asiana do not fly to Israel or Russia, and lack other places that are connected onto from New Zealand, hence I doubt NZ will not want to fly to ICN. As others have said other destinations could be explored further.
I’m also betting on ORD, as it’s also a psychological factor that people will believe Chicago is basically the east coast whereas many see Houston as being in the south, too far from the East.

ZKOXA

ILS28ORD wrote:

You mean besides a shorter connecting flight to that large east coast population, larger O&D and local population, Uniteds largest hub, and a larger business market than Houston? I can't see anything ORD offers over IAH....

Your rather weak sarcasm aside, none of the factors you state are compelling reasons why NZ should offer a ORD service over and above the existing IAH service. It would add nothing whatsoever to the network apart for some point to point convenience for those travelling to Chicago as their final destination.

Never say never; but ORD definitely isn't happening anytime soon. Neither is NYC, for slightly different reasons. I expect the commencement of no major new routes this year. There are no "no brainers" out there; fuel prices are creeping up and the 789 engine issue has stung NZ far more than anyone seems to be mentioning at the moment. If NZ grows this year, expect it to be in the form of consolidation of existing routes rather than major new ones.

Gasman wrote:

ILS28ORD wrote:

You mean besides a shorter connecting flight to that large east coast population, larger O&D and local population, Uniteds largest hub, and a larger business market than Houston? I can't see anything ORD offers over IAH....

Your rather weak sarcasm aside, none of the factors you state are compelling reasons why NZ should offer a ORD service over and above the existing IAH service. It would add nothing whatsoever to the network apart for some point to point convenience for those travelling to Chicago as their final destination.

Never say never; but ORD definitely isn't happening anytime soon. Neither is NYC, for slightly different reasons. I expect the commencement of no major new routes this year. There are no "no brainers" out there; fuel prices are creeping up and the 789 engine issue has stung NZ far more than anyone seems to be mentioning at the moment. If NZ grows this year, expect it to be in the form of consolidation of existing routes rather than major new ones.

I'm not saying ORD replaces IAH but you asked what can ORD offer IAH doesn't. Does not mean they cannot co-exist.

ILS28ORD wrote:

You mean besides a shorter connecting flight to that large east coast population, larger O&D and local population, Uniteds largest hub, and a larger business market than Houston? I can't see anything ORD offers over IAH....

I'm with you.

Whether NZ starts it this year or not - or next year or the year after - is a whole other matter and may well depend on the fleet. Mr. Luxon has said ORD and JFK are routes he envisions when he thinks they have the right aircraft:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/20 ... de79537202

"Luxon said he envisions flying to New York (about 8,800 miles) and Chicago once the airline secures new airplanes."

This doesn't mean - to me - that they won't start any other new routes, perhaps sooner, perhaps later.

mariner

ILS28ORD wrote:

Gasman wrote:

ILS28ORD wrote:

You mean besides a shorter connecting flight to that large east coast population, larger O&D and local population, Uniteds largest hub, and a larger business market than Houston? I can't see anything ORD offers over IAH....

Your rather weak sarcasm aside, none of the factors you state are compelling reasons why NZ should offer a ORD service over and above the existing IAH service. It would add nothing whatsoever to the network apart for some point to point convenience for those travelling to Chicago as their final destination.

Never say never; but ORD definitely isn't happening anytime soon. Neither is NYC, for slightly different reasons. I expect the commencement of no major new routes this year. There are no "no brainers" out there; fuel prices are creeping up and the 789 engine issue has stung NZ far more than anyone seems to be mentioning at the moment. If NZ grows this year, expect it to be in the form of consolidation of existing routes rather than major new ones.

I'm not saying ORD replaces IAH but you asked what can ORD offer IAH doesn't. Does not mean they cannot co-exist.

I didn't; ZK-NBT did.

You put forward arguments as to why ORD might be a "better" destination than IAH. Those arguments are only valid if you're deciding between the two as new routes; they don't stack up in terms of adding ORD to a network that already includes IAH because for NZ the two destinations offer many things in common.

I really don't know why, for the last several years otherwise astute people here having been talking as if ORD is imminent, in spite of all evidence to the contrary and are also mesmerised by what is blatantly spin on Luxon's part.

ZK-NBT wrote:

South Korea is surely reached easily via the SQ/CX deals

No - NZ does not codeshare on SQ or CX to South Korea - the former is primarily used for Europe, while the latter is exclusively for Hong Kong only.

As per the timetable on NZ's own website, NZ's presence is South Korea is limited to a codeshare through TYO on OZ - this is comparatively weak.

ZKOXA wrote:

I know of many people who use ICN for connecting on KE to various destinations such as Russia, Northern Europe and even Israel. Asiana do not fly to Israel or Russia, and lack other places that are connected onto from New Zealand, hence I doubt NZ will not want to fly to ICN.

No - SQ takes care of Europe for NZ, so the viability of ICN will not hinge on European connections. ICN offers nothing that SIN does not, for Europe.

NZ will be evaluating ICN primarily as a means of tapping into seasonal O&D demand from Koreans, who are increasingly holidaying in New Zealand.

Cheers,

C.

ZKOXA wrote:

I’m also betting on ORD, as it’s also a psychological factor that people will believe Chicago is basically the east coast whereas many see Houston as being in the south, too far from the East.

On the contrary - IMO, people will view ORD - AKL as simply too long to endure in one seat, whereas IAH - AKL is shorter and a bit more bearable.

mariner wrote:

Mr. Luxon has said ORD and JFK are routes he envisions when he thinks they have the right aircraft

Oil has now hit USD 70 pb, and is rising - those comments were made before this trend, and may have changed the economics of the ULH routes?

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

Oil has now hit USD 70 pb, and is rising - those comments were made before this trend, and may have changed the economics of the ULH routes?

Sure, oil prices have changed, and thus the economics of the route, but they are the last words spoken by Mr. Luxon on the subject - that I can find - and oil was $60 bbl at the time. Presumably, fuel consumption was in Mr. Luxon's thinking for the aircraft for the job.

Brent Crude hit its historical high of US$145 bbl in 2008 so we still have some way to go.

mariner

Gasman wrote:

I really don't know why, for the last several years otherwise astute people here having been talking as if ORD is imminent, in spite of all evidence to the contrary and are also mesmerised by what is blatantly spin on Luxon's part.

The way I read the various comments made by Luxon and Co, ORD definitely IS on the cards, but ONLY when they have received new aircraft - and by that I read a new aircraft type with longer range, given that New York is often mentioned in the same breath. That would push any commencement of service out into the early part of the next decade. Any suggestion that such a new route might be imminent has come from this thread, as far as I can see, not NZ. I don't see this as "spin", though - I see it as an expression of medium-term strategy.

Gasman wrote:

ILS28ORD wrote:

Gasman wrote:

Your rather weak sarcasm aside, none of the factors you state are compelling reasons why NZ should offer a ORD service over and above the existing IAH service. It would add nothing whatsoever to the network apart for some point to point convenience for those travelling to Chicago as their final destination.

Never say never; but ORD definitely isn't happening anytime soon. Neither is NYC, for slightly different reasons. I expect the commencement of no major new routes this year. There are no "no brainers" out there; fuel prices are creeping up and the 789 engine issue has stung NZ far more than anyone seems to be mentioning at the moment. If NZ grows this year, expect it to be in the form of consolidation of existing routes rather than major new ones.

I'm not saying ORD replaces IAH but you asked what can ORD offer IAH doesn't. Does not mean they cannot co-exist.

I didn't; ZK-NBT did.

You put forward arguments as to why ORD might be a "better" destination than IAH. Those arguments are only valid if you're deciding between the two as new routes; they don't stack up in terms of adding ORD to a network that already includes IAH because for NZ the two destinations offer many things in common.

I really don't know why, for the last several years otherwise astute people here having been talking as if ORD is imminent, in spite of all evidence to the contrary and are also mesmerised by what is blatantly spin on Luxon's part.

Are you saying I said ORD to replace IAH? I certainly can’t see where and I defiantly mean it like that.

Look QF will add ORD and more DFW non stop JFK eventually when the right aircraft comes along, NZ in this day of ULH flying need to remain competitive by offering more destinations via their AKL hub. I’m honestly not sure why you don’t see it like that, yes they can also build on existing routes as well, but for connecting traffic it’s giving different options and growing the market.

NZ first mooted ORD I believe when the 772 came along, obviously it is to far for that frame to do it viably so it hasn’t happened yet. The 772 allowed YVR/EZE/IAH which couldn’t be done viable with the 744. The 77W replaced the 744 and the 789 replaces the remaining 763’s, now we are seeing growth again or have done with SIN and more EZE/YVR/IAH and new routes to HND/SGN/KIX. The 789 hopefully will make ORD a reality then 778/359 for NYC etc.

DavidByrne wrote:

Gasman wrote:

I really don't know why, for the last several years otherwise astute people here having been talking as if ORD is imminent, in spite of all evidence to the contrary and are also mesmerised by what is blatantly spin on Luxon's part.

The way I read the various comments made by Luxon and Co, ORD definitely IS on the cards, but ONLY when they have received new aircraft - and by that I read a new aircraft type with longer range, given that New York is often mentioned in the same breath. That would push any commencement of service out into the early part of the next decade. Any suggestion that such a new route might be imminent has come from this thread, as far as I can see, not NZ. I don't see this as "spin", though - I see it as an expression of medium-term strategy.

Fair enough. I agree we are at best talking about long term "strategy" and this is based on aircraft that haven't even been ordered yet. We can each individually interpret those facts how we will.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ will be evaluating ICN primarily as a means of tapping into seasonal O&D demand from Koreans, who are increasingly holidaying in New Zealand.

Cheers,

C.

Is the key word here not "Koreans" - in that the traffic between New Zealand and Korea is disproportionately weighted towards Korean nationals? So the action that KE seem to be enjoying currently at AKL might not necessarily be extrapolated to NZ. Sure, economic ties between New Zealand and Korea are ever increasing but even Japan, at the height of its economic might, was not exactly a cash cow for NZ. Is ICN a possible route? Yes. Is it likely? No, otherwise they'd already be doing it with a 789 (tech issues notwithstanding).

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ first mooted ORD I believe when the 772 came along, obviously it is to far for that frame to do it viably so it hasn’t happened yet. The 772 allowed YVR/EZE/IAH which couldn’t be done viable with the 744. The 77W replaced the 744 and the 789 replaces the remaining 763’s, now we are seeing growth again or have done with SIN and more EZE/YVR/IAH and new routes to HND/SGN/KIX. The 789 hopefully will make ORD a reality then 778/359 for NYC etc.

Didn't YVR start off with the 744 and it was only like twice weekly? we're the 77E allowed the route to grow.

Gasman wrote:

Is the key word here not "Koreans" - in that the traffic between New Zealand and Korea is disproportionately weighted towards Korean nationals? So the action that KE seem to be enjoying currently at AKL might not necessarily be extrapolated to NZ.

The nationality argument is just not strong enough - I doubt that that would get in the way of Koreans using an NZ flight:

- NZ successfully attracts a majority non-New Zealander customer base out of TYO and PVG, irregardless of competition
- South Koreans are sustaining an ever-increasing presence of non-Korean carriers at ICN, like BA, the ME3 and others
- NZ would likely have the benefit of an OZ codeshare, as well as being able to tap into OZ's big South Korean FFP base
- If anything, like the Japanese, the Koreans would prefer same-ticket domestic connectivity, which NZ can best offer them

Obviously, KE would have a greater brand recognition than NZ, but NZ would not be replicating KE's capacity / frequency.

With KE now operating 7x weekly 748s and 1x weekly 77W, the summer market is clearly large enough for another airline.

Cheers,

C.

zkncj wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ first mooted ORD I believe when the 772 came along, obviously it is to far for that frame to do it viably so it hasn’t happened yet. The 772 allowed YVR/EZE/IAH which couldn’t be done viable with the 744. The 77W replaced the 744 and the 789 replaces the remaining 763’s, now we are seeing growth again or have done with SIN and more EZE/YVR/IAH and new routes to HND/SGN/KIX. The 789 hopefully will make ORD a reality then 778/359 for NYC etc.

Didn't YVR start off with the 744 and it was only like twice weekly? we're the 77E allowed the route to grow.

It 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.