Airliners.net

Welcome to New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2018, please continue to add your comments below

Link to the January edition

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1382363

Timaru Airport's re-development is on track, to be completed in April.

Car parking charges look set to be introduced, at a rate of NZD 5 p/d.



See: https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/n ... out-to-end.

Cheers,

C.

Our predictions of what equipment might be likely for NZ,
seem to not include the 779. A massively capable plane,
pax plus cargo, and pretty well perfect for NZ's network,
except of course for the so far a bit mysterious ULR ops
to the Eastern US. 778 would no doubt be suitable for this,
(with expected tweaks as Boeing sizes up the ULR market)
and together with 787-10 would comfortably replace the
772 fleet. So far, NZ have not opted for crew commonality
with their big jets, but that advantage would work well above.
(So would A350 common crew too of course)

Deepinsider wrote:

Our predictions of what equipment might be likely for NZ,
seem to not include the 779. A massively capable plane,
pax plus cargo, and pretty well perfect for NZ's network,
except of course for the so far a bit mysterious ULR ops
to the Eastern US. 778 would no doubt be suitable for this,
(with expected tweaks as Boeing sizes up the ULR market)
and together with 787-10 would comfortably replace the
772 fleet. So far, NZ have not opted for crew commonality
with their big jets, but that advantage would work well above.
(So would A350 common crew too of course)

My understanding of the B779 is that for NZ it's just too large. Sure you could probably fill it on AKL-LAX-LHR but that's probably the only route.

Yes strategy of late seems to be to open new routes and frequencies. 779 flies in a different direction IMHO. Not that it wouldn't look good in NZ livery! Some have said 778 is as much plane as NZ need. Will be interesting to see if they stick with the known air frame (albeit upgraded) or take the plunge and opt for the 350. My sense given their fleet utilization pattern and appetite for new routes is that 350 has the edge. Happy to eat humble pie if I am wrong.

779 would only work for AKL-LAX-LHR as the rest of the North America market is being fragmented (don't need so much capacity on a single flight if you have other flights taking some of those connecting passengers directly to their destination instead). That said if NZ did go for the 778 then there isn't really any reason why they couldn't also get the 779 for LHR as the crew etc would be common-rated. Would be like the currently situation (5x 77W and 8x 77E).

planemanofnz wrote:

Timaru Airport's re-development is on track, to be completed in April.

On the times I've thought it, which aren't many, I've always been mildly surprised that there is no service (that I can find) between TIU and CHC - Wiki says there used to be but no more. I assume it's because of the drive, but AKL-WRE is only 4 km or so more and that service seems to thrive.

There's no service TIU-DUD, either, which is a longer drive. I'm not suggesting anything big - a 1900D might be too much aircraft - but I am surprised there's nothing.

mariner

Zkpilot wrote:

779 would only work for AKL-LAX-LHR as the rest of the North America market is being fragmented (don't need so much capacity on a single flight if you have other flights taking some of those connecting passengers directly to their destination instead). That said if NZ did go for the 778 then there isn't really any reason why they couldn't also get the 779 for LHR as the crew etc would be common-rated. Would be like the currently situation (5x 77W and 8x 77E).

Agreed but that is also why I wonder how the 778 would perform on a standard 12 hr AKL-LAX. As you say it then wouldn’t be hard to add a few 779’s, though I agree they are to big for NZ.

Currently 7 77W’s in the fleet.

NZ321 wrote:

... 350 has the edge

+1

I also wonder if, given Airbus' Bombardier tie-up, the deal could be sweetened by adding in a few well-priced CSeries planes - after all, NZ has a huge gap between the ATR72s (68 seats) and the A320s (171 seats).

Cheers,

C.

Both the A350-900 and the A350-1000 should have the range for AKL-EWR (14,178 km) in both directions with a decent payload.

The Airbus website http://www.airbus.com has the following:
A350-900 --- 280 t MTOW --- 325 pax --- 15,000 km
A350-1000 --- 308 t MTOW --- 366 pax --- 14,750 km

I assume these are 'still air' ranges which may or may not include reserves.

As a result of certification testing the A350-1000 is expected to get a revised MTOW of 316 t. According to Leeham News this will permit enough extra fuel for 450 nm / 833 km. They also estimate the benefit of the new sharklets on the A350-1000 to be 140 nm / 260 km. So, the range of the A350-1000 will increase to about 15,843 km with the 'typical' 366 pax.

There's also been talk of tweaking the wing twist on the A350-900 to give a bit more range.

PA515

mariner wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

Timaru Airport's re-development is on track, to be completed in April.

On the times I've thought it, which aren't many, I've always been mildly surprised that there is no service (that I can find) between TIU and CHC - Wiki says there used to be but no more. I assume it's because of the drive, but AKL-WRE is only 4 km or so more and that service seems to thrive.

There's no service TIU-DUD, either, which is a longer drive. I'm not suggesting anything big - a 1900D might be too much aircraft - but I am surprised there's nothing.

mariner

The difference between TIU-CHC and AKL-WRE may only be 4km; but the road traffic situations between the two routes could not be more different. Try traveling between Auckland and Whangarei by road on the Friday of a long weekend and see how far you get. The same couldn't be said of the road trip between Christchurch and Timaru (or Timaru and Dunedin).

Leeham today reports https://leehamnews.com/2018/01/31/iberia-get-upgraded-a350-900/#comments that the wing twist plus the new winglets plus further reductions in empty weight will cut fuel consumption by 1%. Iberia takes the first of the 359s in the new spec in June. Range for a 280t 359 in Iberia configuration (325 pax) will be 8200nm.

The 778 will no doubt be a fine aircraft. It wouldn't surprise me to see QF go with it for ULH. But Boeing have to persuade NZ to buy a 351t aircraft to replace the 77Es when there's a 280t alternative from Airbus that carries more payload ULH than a 77W and can comfortably do EWR, ORD and GIG non-stop. At lower capital cost and trip cost. And with the 350-1000 available when it comes time to replace the 77Ws.

I haven't seen anything about this online, but the 1 February 2018 update of the AIP New Zealand (Aeronautical Information Publication) has Wellington's air traffic control tower moved to the new location.

V/F

PA515 wrote:

Both the A350-900 and the A350-1000 should have the range for AKL-EWR (14,178 km) in both directions with a decent payload.

The Airbus website http://www.airbus.com has the following:
A350-900 --- 280 t MTOW --- 325 pax --- 15,000 km
A350-1000 --- 308 t MTOW --- 366 pax --- 14,750 km

I assume these are 'still air' ranges which may or may not include reserves.

As a result of certification testing the A350-1000 is expected to get a revised MTOW of 316 t. According to Leeham News this will permit enough extra fuel for 450 nm / 833 km. They also estimate the benefit of the new sharklets on the A350-1000 to be 140 nm / 260 km. So, the range of the A350-1000 will increase to about 15,843 km with the 'typical' 366 pax.

There's also been talk of tweaking the wing twist on the A350-900 to give a bit more range.

PA515

If you want 350 pax over 15,000Km then the 777-8 is the better option, to compare

778: 16,110Km with 350-375 pax
A350-100: 14,750 with 366 pax

This is based solely on the website facts and I appreciate there is much more to consider. Cargo volume on either would be sufficient I suspect so it appears the 778 just has a bit more in her at face value.

I think both are too large for what NZ wants on a majority of their long haul routes with frequency, this is where the A350-900 comes in, it's slightly smaller but gets closer to the 778 range at 15,000km.

I have been thinking, as NZ to breaking up the LAX HUB and moving to a more point to point operation in the states, perhaps we could see a single fleet of A350-900 even if that means running 2-3x daily to LAX.

NZ4 1600Dep
NZ6 2000Dep
NZ2 2300Dep

All operated by A350-900 in conjunction with daily SFO, YVR, IAH and eventually ORD and or EWR.

Also on the C series jets, I can not see NZ ever filling the gap between A320 and ATR. I also don't think there is demand.

The ATR-600 is a good aircraft performance wise, it's quick in the air, cost efficient to run and can operating into all the airfields required with no trouble. Introducing the C series opens up AvSec issues and other infrastructure requirements at some airfields.

ATR offers frequency to regional NZ
Jetss offer capacity

Looking at the likes of IVC, NPE, NSN and TRG. They benefit from frequency to the local hub for connections. Of course they all scream for jets but that's a desire to have the glamour and fame of a 'Jet' not a practical desire.

For anyone who's interested, here's trip down Memory Lane from a flight attendant - "air hostess" then - perspective:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/trave ... anged.html

"Fascinating photographs reveal how Air New Zealand’s cabin crew uniforms have changed over the decades - from the 1940s military look to the modern day 'Pacific Wave"

How it all began:



I'm not that keen on the present one.

mariner

NF looks set to expand its AKL - VLI service - will this put off NZ from returning to VLI?

AFAIK, QF has resumed its NF code-sharing (effective mid-2017), whereas NZ has not.

See: https://blueswandaily.com/air-vanuatu-t ... w-zealand/.

Cheers,

C.

I do have to agree that any talk of C-series as a sweetener for an A350 deal seems a little hopeful, NZ have been reducing types and are happy to run a high frequency operation with ATR’s on most regional routes plus CHC-WLG. A route that needs more than an ATR and less than an A320 is a good choice for 2 ATR’s or Q300’s mixed.

More likely Air NZ would say give us a few A320/321’s as part of any deal.

NZ6 wrote:

PA515 wrote:

Both the A350-900 and the A350-1000 should have the range for AKL-EWR (14,178 km) in both directions with a decent payload.

The Airbus website http://www.airbus.com has the following:
A350-900 --- 280 t MTOW --- 325 pax --- 15,000 km
A350-1000 --- 308 t MTOW --- 366 pax --- 14,750 km

I assume these are 'still air' ranges which may or may not include reserves.

As a result of certification testing the A350-1000 is expected to get a revised MTOW of 316 t. According to Leeham News this will permit enough extra fuel for 450 nm / 833 km. They also estimate the benefit of the new sharklets on the A350-1000 to be 140 nm / 260 km. So, the range of the A350-1000 will increase to about 15,843 km with the 'typical' 366 pax.

There's also been talk of tweaking the wing twist on the A350-900 to give a bit more range.

PA515

If you want 350 pax over 15,000Km then the 777-8 is the better option, to compare

778: 16,110Km with 350-375 pax
A350-100: 14,750 with 366 pax

This is based solely on the website facts and I appreciate there is much more to consider. Cargo volume on either would be sufficient I suspect so it appears the 778 just has a bit more in her at face value.

I think both are too large for what NZ wants on a majority of their long haul routes with frequency, this is where the A350-900 comes in, it's slightly smaller but gets closer to the 778 range at 15,000km.

I have been thinking, as NZ to breaking up the LAX HUB and moving to a more point to point operation in the states, perhaps we could see a single fleet of A350-900 even if that means running 2-3x daily to LAX.

NZ4 1600Dep
NZ6 2000Dep
NZ2 2300Dep

All operated by A350-900 in conjunction with daily SFO, YVR, IAH and eventually ORD and or EWR.

You can add 3x weekly DEN and possibly SEA to that list too. Meaning LAX could do just fine with 2x daily.
That would give the following weekly within a decade:
LAX 14x
SFO 7x
IAH 7x
YVR 7x
ORD 7x
EWR 7x
DEN 3x
SEA 3x
HNL 10x
Total 65x up from 40x now but with on average smaller and more efficient aircraft if the A359 was chosen.

Zkpilot wrote:

HNL 10x

Can AKL - HNL really support that level of service, on top of HA's 5x weekly service?

For the past few years, New Zealand visitor arrivals to Hawaii have grown very slowly.

See: http://www.hawaiitourismauthority.org/d ... Report.pdf.

IMO, it is more likely HA will boost AKL to 7x weekly, with the benefit of connections.

Cheers,

C.

VirginFlyer wrote:

I haven't seen anything about this online, but the 1 February 2018 update of the AIP New Zealand (Aeronautical Information Publication) has Wellington's air traffic control tower moved to the new location.

V/F

I had just been wondering at what state that project was in.

ZK-NBT wrote:

I do have to agree that any talk of C-series as a sweetener for an A350 deal seems a little hopeful, NZ have been reducing types and are happy to run a high frequency operation with ATR’s on most regional routes plus CHC-WLG. A route that needs more than an ATR and less than an A320 is a good choice for 2 ATR’s or Q300’s mixed.

More likely Air NZ would say give us a few A320/321’s as part of any deal.

I think it's worth pointing out the pattern around the world for passengers preferring frequency over size. I would expect Air NZ to get more ATRs and run more frequent services than upgauge for those domestic flights. Unless gate capacity starts to impact operations.

NZ is/was the pillar of innovation in the aviation industry, with ideas like the "Skycouch."

However, many airlines are upping their game on innovation of late - take, for example:

- CX offering in-flight yoga sessions (see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/trave ... ramme.html.)
- JQ offering in-flight vegan menus (see: https://www.escape.com.au/news/this-new ... acc0d567df.)

Are we likely to see any new and exciting innovative products from NZ this year?

Cheers,

C.

NZ has just reported its latest traffic figures, showing, broadly speaking, good growth:

Passengers: 1.7 million, +6.1% year-on-year;
Domestic: 1.1 million, +7.5%;
Tasman/Pacific: 378,000, +5.7%;
North America/UK: 123,000, +1.0%;
Asia/Japan/Singapore: 88,000, -2.0%.

See: https://blueswandaily.com/air-new-zeala ... -dec-2017/.

It is interesting that domestic has been doing so well for NZ, despite the JQ competition.

I suspect that this is not telling the whole story, and that yield may have taken a big hit.

Separately, what can NZ do to turn Asia around? More alliances? Schedule changes?

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ has just reported its latest traffic figures, showing, broadly speaking, good growth:

Passengers: 1.7 million, +6.1% year-on-year;
Domestic: 1.1 million, +7.5%;
Tasman/Pacific: 378,000, +5.7%;
North America/UK: 123,000, +1.0%;
Asia/Japan/Singapore: 88,000, -2.0%.

See: https://blueswandaily.com/air-new-zeala ... -dec-2017/.

It is interesting that domestic has been doing so well for NZ, despite the JQ competition.

I suspect that this is not telling the whole story, and that yield may have taken a big hit.

Separately, what can NZ do to turn Asia around? More alliances? Schedule changes?

Cheers,

C.

JQ competition
less than 20% of the market is not competition- its just cute

IDK why NZ does not extend its killer model into Australia

Kashmon wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ has just reported its latest traffic figures, showing, broadly speaking, good growth:

Passengers: 1.7 million, +6.1% year-on-year;
Domestic: 1.1 million, +7.5%;
Tasman/Pacific: 378,000, +5.7%;
North America/UK: 123,000, +1.0%;
Asia/Japan/Singapore: 88,000, -2.0%.

See: https://blueswandaily.com/air-new-zeala ... -dec-2017/.

It is interesting that domestic has been doing so well for NZ, despite the JQ competition.

I suspect that this is not telling the whole story, and that yield may have taken a big hit.

Separately, what can NZ do to turn Asia around? More alliances? Schedule changes?

Cheers,

C.

JQ competition
less than 20% of the market is not competition- its just cute

IDK why NZ does not extend its killer model into Australia

NZ probably doesn't extend their killer model into Australia because the QF group has their own killer model, holding around 2/3s of the market.

yes and the QF groups killer model crumbles against NZ.... when is 1 v 1
if their any route that QF group and NZ both operate where NZ is not the leader?!

don't tell me Kiwi's are loyal to NZ owned companies- Countdown is running circles around Foodstuffs in the Auckland city market

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ has just reported its latest traffic figures, showing, broadly speaking, good growth:

Passengers: 1.7 million, +6.1% year-on-year;
Domestic: 1.1 million, +7.5%;
Tasman/Pacific: 378,000, +5.7%;
North America/UK: 123,000, +1.0%;
Asia/Japan/Singapore: 88,000, -2.0%.

See: https://blueswandaily.com/air-new-zeala ... -dec-2017/.

It is interesting that domestic has been doing so well for NZ, despite the JQ competition.

I suspect that this is not telling the whole story, and that yield may have taken a big hit.

Separately, what can NZ do to turn Asia around? More alliances? Schedule changes?

Cheers,

C.

These are month on month figures yes? Well with Golden Week and Chinese New Year holidays coming up, we can expect an upswing in Nth Asia passenger numbers.

Motorhussy wrote:

These are month on month figures yes?

It is December 2017 versus December 2016, so year-on-year, but not year-to-date.

See: http://nzx-prod-s7fsd7f98s.s3-website-a ... 273643.pdf.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

HNL 10x

Can AKL - HNL really support that level of service, on top of HA's 5x weekly service?

For the past few years, New Zealand visitor arrivals to Hawaii have grown very slowly.

See: http://www.hawaiitourismauthority.org/d ... Report.pdf.

IMO, it is more likely HA will boost AKL to 7x weekly, with the benefit of connections.

Cheers,

C.

NZ has already announced it months ago.
Might even be more in high season (I think it was up to 12x weekly). As HNL fares have tumbled from around $1600 return to around $850 return now (and sometimes down to $700 return) the amount of people heading to Hawaii is surging - Isn't too far to travel, is nice tropical holiday, has plenty of US shopping. Something for everyone really.

Kashmon wrote:

yes and the QF groups killer model crumbles against NZ.... when is 1 v 1
if their any route that QF group and NZ both operate where NZ is not the leader?!

don't tell me Kiwi's are loyal to NZ owned companies- Countdown is running circles around Foodstuffs in the Auckland city market

Is it? Everytime I've been near a Pak N Save it's been packed with customers and New World's have been busy with less price sensitive customers. By contrast Countdown's I've seen have been steady but not busy...

It is great to see New Zealand aviation firms having a presence at the Singapore Airshow, for the first time since 2010.

New Zealand is well regarded for training, repairs and overhauls, as well as maintenance and precision components.

See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11986082.

Cheers,

C.

Zkpilot wrote:

Kashmon wrote:

yes and the QF groups killer model crumbles against NZ.... when is 1 v 1
if their any route that QF group and NZ both operate where NZ is not the leader?!

don't tell me Kiwi's are loyal to NZ owned companies- Countdown is running circles around Foodstuffs in the Auckland city market

Is it? Everytime I've been near a Pak N Save it's been packed with customers and New World's have been busy with less price sensitive customers. By contrast Countdown's I've seen have been steady but not busy...

yeah
all internal data shows that
outside auckland is a completely different story.

but it proves if there was a competitive offering Kiwi's are not loyal

Zkpilot wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

PA515 wrote:

Both the A350-900 and the A350-1000 should have the range for AKL-EWR (14,178 km) in both directions with a decent payload.

The Airbus website http://www.airbus.com has the following:
A350-900 --- 280 t MTOW --- 325 pax --- 15,000 km
A350-1000 --- 308 t MTOW --- 366 pax --- 14,750 km

I assume these are 'still air' ranges which may or may not include reserves.

As a result of certification testing the A350-1000 is expected to get a revised MTOW of 316 t. According to Leeham News this will permit enough extra fuel for 450 nm / 833 km. They also estimate the benefit of the new sharklets on the A350-1000 to be 140 nm / 260 km. So, the range of the A350-1000 will increase to about 15,843 km with the 'typical' 366 pax.

There's also been talk of tweaking the wing twist on the A350-900 to give a bit more range.

PA515

If you want 350 pax over 15,000Km then the 777-8 is the better option, to compare

778: 16,110Km with 350-375 pax
A350-100: 14,750 with 366 pax

This is based solely on the website facts and I appreciate there is much more to consider. Cargo volume on either would be sufficient I suspect so it appears the 778 just has a bit more in her at face value.

I think both are too large for what NZ wants on a majority of their long haul routes with frequency, this is where the A350-900 comes in, it's slightly smaller but gets closer to the 778 range at 15,000km.

I have been thinking, as NZ to breaking up the LAX HUB and moving to a more point to point operation in the states, perhaps we could see a single fleet of A350-900 even if that means running 2-3x daily to LAX.

NZ4 1600Dep
NZ6 2000Dep
NZ2 2300Dep

All operated by A350-900 in conjunction with daily SFO, YVR, IAH and eventually ORD and or EWR.

You can add 3x weekly DEN and possibly SEA to that list too. Meaning LAX could do just fine with 2x daily.
That would give the following weekly within a decade:
LAX 14x
SFO 7x
IAH 7x
YVR 7x
ORD 7x
EWR 7x
DEN 3x
SEA 3x
HNL 10x
Total 65x up from 40x now but with on average smaller and more efficient aircraft if the A359 was chosen.

planemanofnz wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

HNL 10x

Can AKL - HNL really support that level of service, on top of HA's 5x weekly service?

For the past few years, New Zealand visitor arrivals to Hawaii have grown very slowly.

See: http://www.hawaiitourismauthority.org/d ... Report.pdf.

IMO, it is more likely HA will boost AKL to 7x weekly, with the benefit of connections.

Cheers,

C.

HNL is it's own beast, I question sustainability of anything more than daily there but would gladly be proved wrong. I don't think this impacts mainland ops.

If NZ opens other routes you'll see LAX capacity drop, I think you'll find LAX going once daily along with 3-4 per week on ORD, DEN or EWR, there's just not the number of American's coming here to support more. Personally I think you're more like to see something like this with increased Asian ops also. Europe traffic will continue to be encouraged to go over Asia

LAX 7-10x
SFO 7x
IAH 7x
YVR 7x
ORD 4x
EWR 4x

Pacific options
HNL 7x

Zkpilot wrote:

NZ has already announced it months ago.

I think you might have it wrong - all I can find is an upgrade to 7x weekly flights (April - October), and 9x weekly for a mere week or two in the July school holidays?

See: https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/press-r ... lulu-route.

I can't see anything about 10x weekly, let alone 12x weekly, as you suggest, with the service dropping back to 5x weekly later this year - am I missing something?

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

NF looks set to expand its AKL - VLI service - will this put off NZ from returning to VLI?

AFAIK, QF has resumed its NF code-sharing (effective mid-2017), whereas NZ has not.

See: https://blueswandaily.com/air-vanuatu-t ... w-zealand/.

Cheers,

C.

NZ refuses to codeshare/operate into VLI until the airport is brought up to an standard that meets its own safety standards, until that has happened they have blocked VLI from being ticketed by NZ.

planemanofnz wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

NZ has already announced it months ago.

I think you might have it wrong - all I can find is an upgrade to 7x weekly flights (April - October), and 9x weekly for a mere week or two in the July school holidays?

See: https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/press-r ... lulu-route.

I can't see anything about 10x weekly, let alone 12x weekly, as you suggest, with the service dropping back to 5x weekly later this year - am I missing something?

Cheers,

C.

I can't find it but they did talk about bumping it up to what you have said and then continuing to grow it further in the year ahead.

Also this just came out today from Hawaii Tourism Board: Visitor numbers from New Zealand
were up 5.7% year-on-year to 68,481
show new figures out this week.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ has just reported its latest traffic figures, showing, broadly speaking, good growth:

Passengers: 1.7 million, +6.1% year-on-year;
Domestic: 1.1 million, +7.5%;
Tasman/Pacific: 378,000, +5.7%;
North America/UK: 123,000, +1.0%;
Asia/Japan/Singapore: 88,000, -2.0%.

See: https://blueswandaily.com/air-new-zeala ... -dec-2017/.

It is interesting that domestic has been doing so well for NZ, despite the JQ competition.

I suspect that this is not telling the whole story, and that yield may have taken a big hit.

Separately, what can NZ do to turn Asia around? More alliances? Schedule changes?

Cheers,

C.

Asia is typically an very up/down, just look at the past 20 years routes/frequncey changes are pretty common. Markets like Japan and China are very tend driven, some years New Zealand is on trend then for the next 5 years it is not.

I would suspect that Domestic yield is pretty good, while NZ does do some deep discounting to compete with JQ often fares are pretty high still near departure due to fill flights. On the other hand JQ is still trying to see $19-29 seats a couple of days before.

Looks like NZ put on a WLG-HKK-WLG this evening (outward: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/NZM ... /NZWN/NZHK), presumably to get help in and people out following the storm on the West Coast. I imagine it's not very often HKK sees an ATR.
Flightaware also lists NSN-HKK-CHC and CHC-HKK-CHC trips earlier in the day that aren't on the regular schedule - both Q300s. The NSN flight number indicates the aircraft positioned from GIS (https://flightaware.com/live/flight/RLK951).

What are the chances of Air New Zealand ordering some A350s at the Singapore Airshow?

zkojq wrote:

What are the chances of Air New Zealand ordering some A350s at the Singapore Airshow?

Why A350’s? NZ doesn’t usually order at air shows. Not to say it won’t ever. Why not 787’s/777’s?

ZK-NBT wrote:

zkojq wrote:

What are the chances of Air New Zealand ordering some A350s at the Singapore Airshow?

Why A350’s? NZ doesn’t usually order at air shows. Not to say it won’t ever. Why not 787’s/777’s?

Airbus is exhibiting the A350 at the Singapore Airshow. If they were going to order it soon I think the Auckland visit would be better timing.

JBusworth wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

zkojq wrote:

What are the chances of Air New Zealand ordering some A350s at the Singapore Airshow?

Why A350’s? NZ doesn’t usually order at air shows. Not to say it won’t ever. Why not 787’s/777’s?

Airbus is exhibiting the A350 at the Singapore Airshow. If they were going to order it soon I think the Auckland visit would be better timing.

It’s part of a world tour. While not impossible for an order, I see it as unlikely. There are other aircraft in the mix for the order. A decision seems likely in the next few months from what has been said.

zkojq wrote:

What are the chances of Air New Zealand ordering some A350s at the Singapore Airshow?

February 2018 is too early. The Paris Air Show 17-23 June 2018 is more likely.

I think Air NZ will order A350-900s with deliveries commencing between Jul and Dec 2020. The Air NZ balance sheet is clear of 'Capital Commitments' after FY2020 with the last A320NEO and ATR72-600 on order due for delivery in early 2020.

The 77E upgrade was Mar 2014 to Dec 2015, so going by past upgrades that would probably only last until about 2020-2021. Also, the leases on two 77Es expire in 2020. I don't know which two or if the other two have recently been extended.

The initial ILFC leases were for twelve years, so the two that expire in 2020 appear to have been extended by three years from 2017 to 2020. The leased 77Es are ZK-OKA, ZK-OKD, ZK-OKE and ZK-OKG. Of these only ZK-OKA and ZK-OKE have been repainted.

And getting A350-900s in 2020 enables the EDTO process to get underway much earlier, instead of waiting until 2023 for the 777-8.

PA515

ZK-NBT wrote:

zkojq wrote:

What are the chances of Air New Zealand ordering some A350s at the Singapore Airshow?

Why A350’s? NZ doesn’t usually order at air shows. Not to say it won’t ever. Why not 787’s/777’s?

Anything is possible, for example it was expected the International 733s would have been replaced with 738s, yet they went A320.

zkncj wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

zkojq wrote:

What are the chances of Air New Zealand ordering some A350s at the Singapore Airshow?

Why A350’s? NZ doesn’t usually order at air shows. Not to say it won’t ever. Why not 787’s/777’s?

Anything is possible, for example it was expected the International 733s would have been replaced with 738s, yet they went A320.

Sure, that was largely on price the A320 decision originally, which may well be what happens with this widebody order, Airbus are believed to be cheaper. Do NZ have options on Boeing widebodies from that original 777 order, they had 40 something options back then.

I am praying for an A350 order, so that NZ can re-gain some of its lost momentum in passenger comfort, particularly with seating.

I do not hold much hope for the finer details being improved, like no check-in desks, no in-flight magazines or charging for movies.

Are these really that outrageous to fix? It is not like we are asking for amenity kits, hot towels, in-flight duty free or mood lighting!

mariner wrote:

Air New Zealand’s cabin crew uniforms ... I'm not that keen on the present one

I totally agree - I was at AKL the other day, where they looked totally out of place and un-commercial, compared to other uniforms.

I think they tried to distance themselves from the depressing previous Zambesi uniform, and went too far with colour and pattern.

IMHO, the single worst item in the current uniform range is the male vest - there is honestly way too much happening on it!



Cheers,

C.

PA515 wrote:

zkojq wrote:

What are the chances of Air New Zealand ordering some A350s at the Singapore Airshow?

February 2018 is too early. The Paris Air Show 17-23 June 2018 is more likely.

PA515

There is no Paris Air Show this year. The dates quoted are for 2019. Farnborough Air Show is this year 16-22 July

The longer they leave it the more chance other airlines will snap up the 2020 slots... surely?

The NZ Herald is reporting a rumour that NZ will announce ORD in March, coinciding with a visit by Barack Obama to New Zealand, which is being organized by NZ and Sir John Key (who is on NZ's Board now). If true, I assume that it will be a 77W (and not 789) service?

The Herald on Sunday understands Obama will visit on about March 21 arranged by Air New Zealand. The reason for the visit is unknown but there has been speculation Air NZ is about to launch a new route to the United States, likely Chicago which is Obama's home town.

See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=11987689.

Cheers,

C.

Yeah, my money will be on them announcing Chicago. Air NZ inviting Obama makes no other reasonable sense.