Interesting indeed. Like to know more. Is this a pay the money and your passengers access the priority lane initiative or something else?

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

I challenge you to put together a detailed business case of how MEX would/can work

And I challenge you to give a detailed case as to why MEX would not work, given all of the points raised above.
C.

I take it that you're not able to or wanting do this?

planemanofnz wrote:

In particular, how is MEX any less viable than EZE was? EZE has low O&D too, as well as in-direct competition.
C.

As said multiple times, South America is a key strategic move, making AKL a HUB for Asia/Australia and the greater South American market. It's a long term permanent development whereas MEX is easily accessible via LAX,SFO,IAH on multiple (6+) carriers by the very low number of passengers actually travelling between without wanting/needing to also stop in the US.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Look at this map - Look how geographically close MEX is to they extensive USA network ...

I'm not sure what your point is - under your thinking, why open any destination "close" to another existing one?

My point is that's just Air NZ Ops to the North America, QF operates into DFW and the American carriers operating into MEX via a single stop.

All these numbers are hot air as I'm on annual leave at the moment but it's outlying just how vulnerable and unrealistic this is.

You're talking about tourist numbers which equate to 211 Pax per day, of which NZ would be lucky to get 30% -lets's call that 40 pax per day, of which let's just say half want to go via LAX or IAH. That's 20 per day, you're now looking at 45 per flight IF you went 3x a week.

About 70% would be price sensitive, as this is a market which appeals to leisure and a big population of the 18-30yr travellers.

Australians are typically QF loyal, they'll fly QF/VA and american brands before flying NZ as the market presence still isn't where it needs to be for Australians to consider NZ. It's an ongoing struggle to get even more market share AU-US let alone AU-MX.

I'll triple my numbers and say you'll get 150 pax per day based on Kiwis/Mexicans also using the route. It's still only a load factor of 50%

All this equals empty planes, high overheads to set up a base in MEX. No marketing baseline in Mexico, very high risk of competition and likely no revenue share partners.

All while , you've got multiple routes into the USA.

You've got a rapidly growing market in China, a South America market which is tracking nicely and IAH which is years ahead of expectations supporting analysis for another route. Plus another mid haul leisure route on the cards.

If you're going to expand with the little equipment you have - you'll put into the markets which will actually work.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

I do not really see the point of this statement - did NZ drip-feed hints of Vietnam for a long period, before it launched SGN?

Yeah it did ... Have a deep dig around for comments on DPS ...

Sources, please (specific to Vietnam).

Cheers,

C.

Have a hunt around, don't relay only on commercial media outlets, if you're relying solely on this source, well.... its of no surprise you're so far off the mark new route ideas.

You obviously disagree with my inside knowledge on route developement. I do not want to continue this throughout the entire Feb thread. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

NZ6 wrote:

You obviously disagree with my inside knowledge on route developement.

Well, I do question it, given your comments about NZ dropping NRT, which I know for a fact is not possible from a regulatory stand-point.

But, given your persistence that NZ at MEX is "in the sandbox of ideas", and "based on nothing more than creative thinking", I'll let it go.

Please do continue to provide your "inside knowledge" - it's interesting. In particular, do you know where NZ is looking at, instead of isn't?

Cheers,

C.

Zkpilot wrote:

NZ has spoken of extra 777 capacity.

If the EY 777-200LR's are a no-go, then NZ might be able to pick up some 777-200ER's on very favourable lease rates.

"IBA reported 52 777-200ER aircraft are currently parked and with the failure of Transaero and VIM, it appears that placement opportunities for the aircraft are becoming scarcer."

See: https://blueswandaily.com/iba-values-an ... 777-300er/.

Obviously, the down-side with this option would be that the 777-200ER's could not fly to ORD, EWR or on other ULH's.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

You obviously disagree with my inside knowledge on route developement.

Well, I do question it, given your comments about NZ dropping NRT, which I know for a fact is not possible from a regulatory stand-point.

But, given your persistence that NZ at MEX is "in the sandbox of ideas", and "based on nothing more than creative thinking", I'll let it go.

Please do continue to provide your "inside knowledge" - it's interesting. In particular, do you know where NZ is looking at, instead of isn't?

Cheers,

C.

You'll see in due course around NRT.

Yes I do.

NZ6 wrote:

You'll see in due course around NRT.

Is NZ looking at the possibility of NH flying to AKL, in some sort of revenue-sharing alliance?

Cheers,

C.

DavidByrne wrote:

NZ321 wrote:

Agreed that in the current environment NZ could use 77L at the available price particularly with said expansion plans and interest in ULH flying. However, given it could be a short term measure until arrival of 778 or A359 perhaps it would make more sense to lease.

Given the short term nature of the need it’s essential that any 77Ls should be leased. I can’t believe they’d have any resale value after say three-four years. $50 million a copy seems a lot of capital to write off the books.

The other factor which is critically relevant is whether NZ is ready, or the market is ready, for the new services which a purchase of the 77L might make possible.

They should still have residual value of probably US$8m per aircraft after 5 years (so US$170m cost to own over 5 years or US$34m pa or US$6.8m per aircraft pa isn't bad and that's assuming they paid US$40m per aircraft - I would suggest they would pick them up for US$30m per aircraft meaning US$110m cost or US$4.4m per aircraft pa - which is pretty good considering 77W are leasing for around US$1.2m per month US$14.4m pa).

But yes leasing would make more sense and as another poster mentioned perhaps Boeing could sweeten it by buying them and leasing them as interim to NZ before the 77X. That isn't preventing Airbus from doing the same! They have done deals like that in the past too.

The main point is that NZ has already said on the record that they are looking for extra 777 capacity and this could fill that quite nicely.

Zkpilot wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

NZ321 wrote:

Agreed that in the current environment NZ could use 77L at the available price particularly with said expansion plans and interest in ULH flying. However, given it could be a short term measure until arrival of 778 or A359 perhaps it would make more sense to lease.

Given the short term nature of the need it’s essential that any 77Ls should be leased. I can’t believe they’d have any resale value after say three-four years. $50 million a copy seems a lot of capital to write off the books.

The other factor which is critically relevant is whether NZ is ready, or the market is ready, for the new services which a purchase of the 77L might make possible.

They should still have residual value of probably US$8m per aircraft after 5 years (so US$170m cost to own over 5 years or US$34m pa or US$6.8m per aircraft pa isn't bad and that's assuming they paid US$40m per aircraft - I would suggest they would pick them up for US$30m per aircraft meaning US$110m cost or US$4.4m per aircraft pa - which is pretty good considering 77W are leasing for around US$1.2m per month US$14.4m pa).

But yes leasing would make more sense and as another poster mentioned perhaps Boeing could sweeten it by buying them and leasing them as interim to NZ before the 77X. That isn't preventing Airbus from doing the same! They have done deals like that in the past too.

The main point is that NZ has already said on the record that they are looking for extra 777 capacity and this could fill that quite nicely.

There is also a few 77W’s coming on the market now. I wonder if NZ needs that much capacity? Mainly premium seats increase, where could they go? More US seems unlikely if ORD starts, HKG? YVR?

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

You'll see in due course around NRT.

Is NZ looking at the possibility of NH flying to AKL, in some sort of revenue-sharing alliance?

Cheers,

C.

Maybe, NH I heard were meant to fly to AKL and NZ ended up doing HND. Maybe CHC-NRT or a LCC operation NZ could be looking at?

I'm inclined to think we may see another destination a la DPS and SGN since these have worked well. Perhaps HKT? It has been suggested before.

NZ321 wrote:

I'm inclined to think we may see another destination a la DPS and SGN since these have worked well. Perhaps HKT? It has been suggested before.

HKT is the obvious "next choice" among SEA leisure destinations.

DavidByrne wrote:

NZ321 wrote:

I'm inclined to think we may see another destination a la DPS and SGN since these have worked well. Perhaps HKT? It has been suggested before.

HKT is the obvious "next choice" among SEA leisure destinations.

Given how small our population is, should NZ try to innovative with its leisure destination strategy, in order to avoid cannibalizing existing services?

I mean, what does HKT bring to the table that DPS or HNL do not? They are all beach-focused and tropical holiday destinations. In contrast to these:

- BKI offers rainforests / treks
- CTS offers skiing / snow sports
- LAS offers gaming / shows

These flights stimulate a market base for NZ that a) has already done the various beach destinations, or b) is not interested in a beach-focused holiday.

In respect of stimulating new markets, I also wonder if NZ would consider a CHC - DPS or CHC - HNL service (to compete with JQ / HA, respectively).

Cheers,

C.

ZK-NBT wrote:

There is also a few 77W’s coming on the market now. I wonder if NZ needs that much capacity? Mainly premium seats increase, where could they go? More US seems unlikely if ORD starts, HKG? YVR?

I guess it depends on a few factors, such as (short term) how long the 789 engine fiasco will carry on for, and (medium term) how fast Airbus / Boeing can deliver any new order.

If NZ has wind of QF launching ORD this year, and NZ is able to get its hands on the EY 77L's, then perhaps we may see AKL - EWR launched this year, instead of AKL - ORD?

Cheers,

C.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Maybe, NH I heard were meant to fly to AKL and NZ ended up doing HND. Maybe CHC-NRT or a LCC operation NZ could be looking at?

Perhaps NH could take over HND, allowing NZ to open CTS or NGO with that extra frame?

NZ may be willing to give up HND, if it means a less risky revenue sharing alliance with NH.

Though, I'm not sure if the HND slot allocation allows for any random carrier on HND - AKL.

I doubt that CHC would be on the cards - Japanese travellers there halved from 2015 - 17.

See: https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-r ... ember-2017.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

- BKI offers rainforests / treks
- CTS offers skiing / snow sports
- LAS offers gaming / shows

I’ve long thought that an AKL-LAS service, say 3x weekly, would be a good bet (no pun intended) with good connections in both directions to eight Australian ports (though some seasonally). NZ is no stranger to LAS through charters and diversions.

I like how Airbus casually tweets "Did you know? The A350-1000 can fly non-stop Auckland-New York." https://twitter.com/Airbus/status/963213401169121280

Working hard for an NZ order I see.

Any pics of last night's visit? Love to see the A35K at AKL.

As to Planeman's comments above re leisure destinations I tend to agree, that a complementary service to CTS or NGO or LAS (or similar) could be a worthwhile investment.

planemanofnz wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

NZ321 wrote:

I'm inclined to think we may see another destination a la DPS and SGN since these have worked well. Perhaps HKT? It has been suggested before.

HKT is the obvious "next choice" among SEA leisure destinations.

Given how small our population is, should NZ try to innovative with its leisure destination strategy, in order to avoid cannibalizing existing services?

I mean, what does HKT bring to the table that DPS or HNL do not? They are all beach-focused and tropical holiday destinations. In contrast to these:

- BKI offers rainforests / treks
- CTS offers skiing / snow sports
- LAS offers gaming / shows

These flights stimulate a market base for NZ that a) has already done the various beach destinations, or b) is not interested in a beach-focused holiday.

In respect of stimulating new markets, I also wonder if NZ would consider a CHC - DPS or CHC - HNL service (to compete with JQ / HA, respectively).

Cheers,

C.

Interestingly, DPS and SGN have had no impact at all. It was acknowledged that they might lighten demand over SIN but this hasn't occurred, largely due to SIN being a premium market and with DPS being 'out of the way' and SGN being a tourist market and direct services has stimulated a large amount of demand.

Both are generating new traffic, it's debatable how long interest in these services will last.

When you look at it from the perspective of what these two give you, they're both you're standard South East Asia getaway with history (the war), culture, beaches, food, cheap shopping etc etc. I don't believe there is enough to warrant HKT as well myself. Perhaps, one could argue the season's don't overlap so you could look a running HKT between Dec-Apr/May, then switching to DPS after HKT ceases but I still feel NZ would be flooding the marketing with capacity into South East Asia, summer months may prove a challenge to get Kiwis away and the extra distance to HKT may impact the economics of such a route. The margins on SGN were very very tight.

Ideally NZ would like to run tropical getaways in Winter months so you're very limited with options

You can only really look at the South Pacific, around Miconesia / Indonesia or around the Hawaiian / French Polynesian Islands. You'll notice this is already well covered at first glance, so maybe NZ will do something else creative.


There is an argument for winter getaways during summer for that market, the fleet is maxed out during this time however, Japan, Colorado, Alberta would be a starting point however.

DavidByrne wrote:

I’ve long thought that an AKL-LAS service, say 3x weekly, would be a good bet

As have I, and I had a conversation with Rob Fyfe about this very topic a few years back. His take was that LAS was one of the destinations they are watching "very closely" (translation - there is no chance whatsoever of NZ commencing scheduled services there. Ever.)

DavidJ08 wrote:

I like how Airbus casually tweets "Did you know? The A350-1000 can fly non-stop Auckland-New York." https://twitter.com/Airbus/status/963213401169121280

Working hard for an NZ order I see.

Why did A351 go to NZ anyway ? Apparently any large US city can be reached non stop from AKL nowadays whether A350 or 787.

Vladex wrote:

DavidJ08 wrote:

I like how Airbus casually tweets "Did you know? The A350-1000 can fly non-stop Auckland-New York." https://twitter.com/Airbus/status/963213401169121280

Working hard for an NZ order I see.

Why did A351 go to NZ anyway ? Apparently any large US city can be reached non stop from AKL nowadays whether A350 or 787.

It's not whether or not you "can" - as you say non stop flying is possible between almost any two points on the globe these days - it's a question of how much money you can make doing so.

planemanofnz wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

NZ321 wrote:

I mean, what does HKT bring to the table that DPS or HNL do not? They are all beach-focused and tropical holiday destinations. In contrast to these:

- BKI offers rainforests / treks
- CTS offers skiing / snow sports
- LAS offers gaming / shows

These flights stimulate a market base for NZ that a) has already done the various beach destinations, or b) is not interested in a beach-focused holiday.


Cheers,

C.

Have been thinking CTS would be a good option for NZ for a while now as a seasonal operation (Dec-Feb). 3 months 2-3x per week would be great (could possibly even get some Aussies from MEL connecting onto it if NZ needs to fill seats).

Vladex wrote:

DavidJ08 wrote:

I like how Airbus casually tweets "Did you know? The A350-1000 can fly non-stop Auckland-New York." https://twitter.com/Airbus/status/963213401169121280

Working hard for an NZ order I see.

Why did A351 go to NZ anyway ? Apparently any large US city can be reached non stop from AKL nowadays whether A350 or 787.

787 can only do it in a premium configuration with less passengers and no freight. In other words not NZ's configuration and not how NZ operates (air freight is a very important part of NZ's business model).

Gasman wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

I’ve long thought that an AKL-LAS service, say 3x weekly, would be a good bet

As have I, and I had a conversation with Rob Fyfe about this very topic a few years back. His take was that LAS was one of the destinations they are watching "very closely" (translation - there is no chance whatsoever of NZ commencing scheduled services there. Ever.)

IIRC the airline publicly acknowledged it was looking at LAS when it was also considering IAH and DEN - but then chose IAH.

Vladex wrote:

Why did A351 go to NZ anyway ? Apparently any large US city can be reached non stop from AKL nowadays whether A350 or 787.

The A350-1000 is on tour of Middle East and Asia, no doubt working hard to persuade QF and NZ on the SYD and AKL stops - both airlines are openly weighing up Airbus and Boeing options for their next aircraft purchase, with QF wanting the ability to fly SYD-LON and SYD-NYC non-stop and NZ wanting AKL-NYC (which is less demanding than QF).

Despite Airbus's promotional talk, I guess the real question is whether the A35K can do the westbound flight (NYC-AKL) without payload restriction - and of course price and delivery slots.

NZ321 wrote:

Any pics of last night's visit? Love to see the A35K at AKL.

Sadly while I was at the airport yesterday I managed to miss it.

V/F

AAB wants QR to open 10 new destinations in 2018 - I heard that ADL wasn't performing spectacularly, so perhaps QR could extend that flight to CHC or WLG?

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

AAB wants QR to open 10 new destinations in 2018 - I heard that ADL wasn't performing spectacularly, so perhaps QR could extend that flight to CHC or WLG?

I thought EY was looking at an ADL-WLG tag from Oct?

a7ala wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

AAB wants QR to open 10 new destinations in 2018 - I heard that ADL wasn't performing spectacularly, so perhaps QR could extend that flight to CHC or WLG?

I thought EY was looking at an ADL-WLG tag from Oct?

There was a rumour in the Australian forum, to that effect, but it was just that - a rumour - and I feel like QR would be better placed for such a service than EY?

In any event, I do wonder if QR would be interested in CHC, given booming South Island tourism, and the presence of many major carriers like CX, EK and SQ.

When looking at ADL specifically, it is noteworthy that in 2017:

- CHC had almost double the amount of South Australian arrivals of WLG (~7,000 versus ~3,500).
- The majority of travellers flew via SYD or MEL (~28,000) as opposed to on ADL - AKL (~13,000).

See: https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-r ... ember-2017.

Cheers,

C.

On the back of my post above about whether QR would be interested in CHC or not - CHC just had its busiest month ever (195,881 international users, up 4%).

February could be even bigger, with forecasts of up to 6,000 Chinese arrivals, which is a growth of 50% - of course, supported by CX's new CHC - HKG service.

See: http://christchurchairport.co.nz/en/abo ... h-airport/.

CHC's Facebook page posted the news, along with this awesome picture which I just had to share here ... if only CI and CZ were in the picture too!



Cheers,

C.

I clicked the A350 on departure yesterday, and a walk around the external aircraft when it landed from SYD. It is pound for a replacement for the 77W, it even occupies the same gates without having to fold the wingtips. Right now, this aeroplane can occupy any of the gates a 77W can without modification. That Should be an important factor, as I'm sure the 77X will not without airport modification. Imagine if you have a broken wing fold mechanism, where di you park it if it is still dispatchable on M.E..L, Does it have to go to the hangar (which is tight for space and wingtip clearances.

FYI Gate 18 opened at 0500, closely followed by NZ29 arrival.

And finally, on the new routes, I'm sure it will not just be about profitability, it will also be where they can fly to ward further airlines off, starting. There are routes where existing carriers in the market could easily start at a moment's notice without the NZ presence on the route. Take South America, a market with major growth currently. From both LIM and GRU LA have a major market share and capable aircraft based there. There are other Asian markets and North American markets that fit the same general idea because N.Z is predominantly one airline, one route sized market.

I think perhaps the short haul is going to move first -especially if long haul can't expand much before 2021-23, Expansion to Australia and the South Pacific/South East Asia etc
1) easier to start with any fleet type, therefore lower overheads.
2) Lower risk with familiar markets
3 Cheaper to buy/lease individual airframes. 5 A320s for the price of a 787 kinda thing
3) It boosts the hub up to a size that will allow for new long-haul to be more viable.

Say you start HBA, CBR, NTL, ROK, POM, VLI, HIR, PPG, CEB, CGK, DRW (any unserved market will do for the example) with CS100/CS300/320/321NEO and ramp up the frequency for the existing markets to connect with every possible connection. Really work on boosting feed to existing markets, the more markets you serve, the more attractive to more people your airline becomes and your hub volume builds. The more passengers you get from different markets, the more you are able to use the economy of scale to justify what is currently pie in the sky ideas like MEX or HKT. TK is a classic example of this model. They serve basically every major city in Europe with 737/A320/A440/77W aircraft which they connect with MEast, West Asia, East Asia. Motyj and South America and Africa. They make it possible to connect from any point A to any B (with a couple of exceptions) with a direct transfer (within 3-5h) on one of their 4-5 transfer hubs every day.,

The NZ version would not be so far-reaching of course, but could well one day include 1 stop transfer between every globally significant city around the Pacific Rim if they organically grow Expand Longhaul, then expand short haul, expand long haul, short haul. It doesn't take much to grow step by step and become a fortress hub

planemanofnz wrote:

a7ala wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

AAB wants QR to open 10 new destinations in 2018 - I heard that ADL wasn't performing spectacularly, so perhaps QR could extend that flight to CHC or WLG?

I thought EY was looking at an ADL-WLG tag from Oct?

There was a rumour in the Australian forum, to that effect, but it was just that - a rumour - and I feel like QR would be better placed for such a service than EY?

In any event, I do wonder if QR would be interested in CHC, given booming South Island tourism, and the presence of many major carriers like CX, EK and SQ.

When looking at ADL specifically, it is noteworthy that in 2017:

- CHC had almost double the amount of South Australian arrivals of WLG (~7,000 versus ~3,500).
- The majority of travellers flew via SYD or MEL (~28,000) as opposed to on ADL - AKL (~13,000).

Its interesting when you look at the numbers that WLG and CHC were more closer in 2013. I expect the difference will be driven by the significant capacity increase CHC has seen on connecting sectors SYD/MEL which has made it much more affordable to fly ADL-SYD/MEL/CHC than ADL-SYD/MEL-WLG. SQ's new WLG-MEL is likely to have the flow on effect of stimulating connecting markets (like ADL/PER) with capacity to fill on NZ/QF.

In terms of QR in CHC - it would be a big call up against EK A380. If as has been suggested a city the size of ADL is struggling with 2 ME3 carriers, its hard to imagine CHC could do any better in what is a highly seasonal market....

a7ala wrote:

In terms of QR in CHC - it would be a big call up against EK A380. If as has been suggested a city the size of ADL is struggling with 2 ME3 carriers, its hard to imagine CHC could do any better in what is a highly seasonal market....

The difference, of course, being CHC's huge in-bound tourism appeal (lacking in ADL), as well as lower levels of competition (e.g. no MH, less CX / SQ etc).

If QR really wanted to 'one-up' EK, they could launch a seasonal non-stop DOH - CHC service, for a similar period to CX's service - the peak summer-time.



Cheers,

C.

DavidByrne wrote:

I’ve long thought that an AKL-LAS service, say 3x weekly, would be a good bet (no pun intended)

If AKL - LAS (5,857 nm) is on the table, that opens up a whole range of contenders (if distance is the threshold):

- AKL - CMB (5,899 nm)
- AKL - LIM (5,816 nm)
- AKL - MRU (5,865 nm) - how interesting would this route be (albeit unlikely, I know)?!

That being said, I think LAS is unique in a) ability to tap Australian demand, and b) in-bound potential from LAS.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

In any event, I do wonder if QR would be interested in CHC, given booming South Island tourism, and the presence of many major carriers like CX, EK and SQ.

When looking at ADL specifically, it is noteworthy that in 2017:

- CHC had almost double the amount of South Australian arrivals of WLG (~7,000 versus ~3,500).
- The majority of travellers flew via SYD or MEL (~28,000) as opposed to on ADL - AKL (~13,000).

See: https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-r ... ember-2017.

I dunno, 7000 people a year is 19 people a day - and WLG's 3500 a year is less than 10 a day. That's not really "plane full of people", which is probably why NZ/QF/JQ/VA haven't started any ADL-CHC or ADL-WLG, because they can channel those few visitors via another hub city (AKL, SYD, MEL) instead without the cost of starting an extra flight.

As mentioned previously, NZ tourism is ridiculously peaky; so I can't see QR on a year-round non-AKL service. If they were motivated by tourism they'd be more likely to set up a peak-only service, much like CX, CI, and SQ (2nd flight 3x weekly during summer). In any case it's more Asian tourism that seems to be all the rage at the moment but of course that's serviced by Asian carriers in a shared market with local carriers (NZ QF).

Of the year-round services, SQ (and now also CZ) does one-stop CHC-Asia, CHC-India, and CHC-Europe; EK does two-stop CHC-Europe and CHC-India (plus CHC-Aus and more via QF partnership). Although QR could conceivably try to fight for a share of the CHC-Europe/India, they'll be at a disadvantage - they're two-stop as opposed to SQ/CZ one-stop, and a tag through ADL would not see the same level of supplementary trans-Tasman traffic seen on EK's CHC-SYD tag.

And then there's all the other stuff - aircraft/crew logistics, set up costs, regulatory approval, premium traffic, air freight (or lack thereof), competition, alliance partners (how QR's OneWorld partner QF would feel), how the destination fits into QR's overall strategy... Don't you hate how air routes are so much more complicated than "here are some visitor numbers, let's have an air route"?

So with the A320 engine issues, would this delay NZ's fleet replacement and expansion?

DavidJ08 wrote:

... regulatory approval, premium traffic, air freight (or lack thereof), competition, alliance partners (how QR's OneWorld partner QF would feel), how the destination fits into QR's overall strategy... Don't you hate how air routes are so much more complicated than "here are some visitor numbers, let's have an air route"?

I agree - the analysis would be tricky and border-line for any such route, though I would say:

- Regulatory approval is a non-issue here - New Zealand has a very liberal approach to air rights, and pretty much anyone can fly here.
- The South Island is seen as a premium tourism destination for many, and QR could charge a premium for a non-stop flight (over EK).
- Competition is there, but CHC does not connect well with many SQ Europe flights, and EK is less competitive with its SYD stop-over.
- New Zealand exports a lot of time-sensitive products, particularly food-related - freight demand should be there ex-CHC to Europe?
- QR won't really care what QF thinks at all - QF is in bed with EK, and Australia is somewhat screwing QR with next to no new rights.
- On fitting into QR's strategy, CHC helps QR become more of a Kangaroo Route player, particularly given it can't expand to BNE etc.

QR is about dots on maps - e.g. CBR, CWL, PEN and UTP (albeit different to CHC, I know).

If QR will launch 10 routes this year, surely Australasia will feature in 1 on of those routes?

Cheers,

C.

Just did a quick booking search on QR's website. They already sell CHC-Europe and WLG-Europe for similar prices to AKL-Europe; options of connecting via NZ to SYD and JQ to AKL. Similarly priced to EK - travelling tomorrow and coming back next week will set you back about $2600-2800 return; travelling in mid-May will be $1700ish return. I'd imagine until such time that the local connection flights are regularly saturated, there wouldn't be much incentive to use their own metal?

DavidJ08 wrote:

I'd imagine until such time that the local connection flights are regularly saturated, there wouldn't be much incentive to use their own metal?

QR definitely will not want New Zealand connections on its SYD flights - SYD was important enough as a destination in its own right for QR to add the CBR tag (which I assume loses money in its own right), just to get a second service to SYD. MEL is the same - it is already maxed out, at 1x daily A380 flight. With AKL, I also doubt that QR would want a) its passengers connecting through an LCC, or b) to support the QF Group with connections, unless totally necessary.

Cheers,

C.

DavidByrne wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

If AKL - LAS (5,857 nm) is on the table, that opens up a whole range of contenders (if distance is the threshold):

- AKL - CMB (5,899 nm)
- AKL - LIM (5,816 nm)
- AKL - MRU (5,865 nm) - [i]how interesting would this route be (albeit unlikely, I know)?!

Nothing whatsoever to do with distance. I doubt any of your proposed “dots on the map” is remotely within NZ’s thinking ATM, even LIM given that it’s been made clear time and again that there will be further development of the SAm network only after EZE is daily.

No, I know, I'm only trying to point out how much further LAS is than the traditional leisure destinations NZ has focused on, like DPS.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

If AKL - LAS (5,857 nm) is on the table, that opens up a whole range of contenders (if distance is the threshold):

- AKL - CMB (5,899 nm)
- AKL - LIM (5,816 nm)
- AKL - MRU (5,865 nm) - [i]how interesting would this route be (albeit unlikely, I know)?!

Nothing whatsoever to do with distance. I doubt any of your proposed “dots on the map” is remotely within NZ’s thinking ATM, even LIM given that it’s been made clear time and again that there will be further development of the SAm network only after EZE is daily.

planemanofnz wrote:

QR definitely will not want New Zealand connections on its SYD flights - SYD was important enough as a destination in its own right for QR to add the CBR tag (which I assume loses money in its own right), just to get a second service to SYD. MEL is the same - it is already maxed out, at 1x daily A380 flight. With AKL, I also doubt that QR would want a) its passengers connecting through an LCC, or b) to support the QF Group with connections, unless totally necessary.

Why then are they going out of their way to have promo fares on routings they "definitely will not want"?

DavidJ08 wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

QR definitely will not want New Zealand connections on its SYD flights - SYD was important enough as a destination in its own right for QR to add the CBR tag (which I assume loses money in its own right), just to get a second service to SYD. MEL is the same - it is already maxed out, at 1x daily A380 flight. With AKL, I also doubt that QR would want a) its passengers connecting through an LCC, or b) to support the QF Group with connections, unless totally necessary.

Why then are they going out of their way to have promo fares on routings they "definitely will not want"?

Are they going "out of their way" though? They market those promo fares as being via AKL (not SYD), even though, yes, they sell some fares via SYD.

"Enjoy special fares, more travel choices and a seamless journey when you fly from Wellington or Christchurch to Auckland and then onwards to more than 150 places worldwide, via Doha."

See: https://www.qatarairways.com/en-nz/offe ... rther.html.

Is it more that AKL flights are full, and that, with an upgrade to SYD just this week (with the second flight), CHC can temporarily be sent through SYD?

Cheers,

C.

Can someone point me to the report in which NZ indicates the possibility of adding 777 capacity? It’s been referred to here but I’d be interested in seeing exactly what was said. Thanks!

planemanofnz wrote:

Are they going "out of their way" though? They market those promo fares as being via AKL (not SYD), even though, yes, they sell some fares via SYD.

"Enjoy special fares, more travel choices and a seamless journey when you fly from Wellington or Christchurch to Auckland and then onwards to more than 150 places worldwide, via Doha."

See: https://www.qatarairways.com/en-nz/offe ... rther.html.

Is it more that AKL flights are full, and that, with an upgrade to SYD just this week (with the second flight), CHC can temporarily be sent through SYD?

Just browsed through CHC-LHR all of March and getting into April, all the cheapest fares are via SYD (NZ or JQ) or PER (on the NZ 787). The AKL flight is hardly ever available in the Promo booking class (generally only available in more expensive booking classes), and when it is, it's a little more expensive than the SYD routing. Assuming the prices were set that way deliberately, they certainly seem to be channeling CHC traffic through SYD and PER.

All I'm saying is that until such time QR launches a CHC or WLG tag, it's a bit premature to be saying that they "definitely will not want" anyone from NZ on the SYD flight. Like before, I'm really pushing the concept that life is complicated and nuanced, and since we're very much playing the speculation game here, it doesn't make sense to be dealing in absolutes.

New Zealand is not that big a place, and the population is not evenly distributed (very much leaning towards Auckland). With a Centre of Population near Taharoa (southwest of Hamilton - that's the average location of all New Zealanders) it's not hard to imagine why it is that for all the airlines flying to Auckland, Christchurch only gets a handful of airlines - even fewer that operate year round.

Looking at that StatsNZ release you linked to, it's clear that the biggest reasons for people to visit are for holidays, and for visiting family and friends. I would have thought these types of visitors are the more price sensitive and less routing-sensitive. Also they're more likely to actually want a stop over in Australia (you'll be surprised how many tour groups we pick up at work have actually come from Australia, or leave to go to Australia).

Even though there's a general trend for point-to-point flights, when the demand gets thin enough and the destination gets small enough it's still necessary to consolidate to the nearest hub; so despite a whole bunch of airlines selling tickets to and from CHC, most of them only fly to AKL - if that (EY happily sells CHC-LHR fares on par with QR and EK but their aircraft don't even come to NZ).

Do note, that with all these airlines cross-selling to CHC via SYD/MEL, the actual CHC-SYD/MEL connections are still only around 3 daily on A320/B738 aircraft (excluding EK and their A380); add the fact that those other airlines (QR EY CX etc) wouldn't be able to secure too many seats on said trans-Tasman flights at their discounted commercial rates (NZ/JQ/VA still have to carry their own trans-Tasman pax after all), and it couldn't be that many people that QR, EY, and CX are actually booking onto CHC.

DavidJ08 wrote:

With a Centre of Population near Taharoa ... it's not hard to imagine why it is that for all the airlines flying to Auckland, Christchurch only gets a handful of airlines.

DavidJ08 wrote:

Looking at that StatsNZ release you linked to, it's clear that the biggest reasons for people to visit are for holidays.

Given that people visit the South Island overwhelmingly for tourism, and it's an in-bound market, the population distribution of New Zealand (or indeed CHC) should not matter that much? CHC has a similar population to, say, CBR, but is able to sustain a lot more airlines, because its in-bound focused market is not limited by its population size.

DavidJ08 wrote:

Do note, that with all these airlines cross-selling to CHC via SYD/MEL, the actual CHC-SYD/MEL connections are still only around 3 daily on A320/B738 aircraft (excluding EK and their A380); add the fact that those other airlines (QR EY CX etc) wouldn't be able to secure too many seats on said trans-Tasman flights at their discounted commercial rates (NZ/JQ/VA still have to carry their own trans-Tasman pax after all), and it couldn't be that many people that QR, EY, and CX are actually booking onto CHC.

I'm not really sure I understand your point here, but what I'll say is this - the reference to there only being a few daily narrow-bodies to SYD and MEL is relevant (suggesting not that much demand for on-ward connections beyond Australia), but QR could take Europe traffic away from the long-haul operators (EK, CI, CX, CZ, SQ and others).

Cheers,

C.

I wonder if Batik Air or Malindo Air would be interested in New Zealand. Batik Air has spoken to CAPA earlier this month about wanting to launch several more Australia-Bali routes in 2019, using its future fleet of A321neoLRs. This includes "smaller regional destinations."

See: https://centreforaviation.com/insights/ ... wth-398865.

The A321neoLRs will be able to fly up to 4,000 nm - AKL - DPS is 3,642 nm and CHC - DPS is 3,637 nm. Given the regional Australia interest of the airlines, could regional New Zealand also be in play too (WLG and ZQN - which would be extremely exciting for both)?



Cheers,

C.

DPS is interesting. I arrived here today from KUL (my 25th visit to Bali due to family reasons) and the new airport terminal was chocka block full. Not a single gate available other than the one we docked at which we had to wait a couple of minutes for. EK, BR, CI, QR, TG, AK, SQ among the widebodies spotted. I ended up paying for an express customs clearance because the customs hall was full (all the lanes were full and there was a block of about 400 people amassed trying to get into the lanes) and got through relatively unscathed in 10 minutes. However, this does show just how busy Bali is year-round. This is hardly peak season. And three or four months away from NZ recommencing services. I wonder if NZ would consider year round service? Say 5 x during peak season and 2-3 x off season. If not, I suspect Planeman is right that we will see Indonesian carriers other than Garuda taking the plunge.

ZKSUJ wrote:

So with the A320 engine issues, would this delay NZ's fleet replacement and expansion?

I think this is a possibility. Simply because the units they have at present are insufficient to fuel the expansion. Will be interesting to see how this unfolds. NZ could lease in additional short term capacity for this - they did this several times with 737s. New orders for PW GTF Neos appear to have dramatically reduced since the early issues fall out (see separate thread) so it will be interesting as to when and how NZ move forward. Would a change of engine selection to CFM be on the cards given CFM efforts to ramp up production? Or does NZ wait another 6-12 months through a further deferral of deliveries or take the plunge. We just are party to the full information or discussions going on around this of course. Interesting times for sure.

NZ321 wrote:

I wonder if NZ would consider year round service? Say 5 x during peak season and 2-3 x off season.

Yes, or even launching CHC - DPS during peak season.

NZ321 wrote:

I suspect ... we will see Indonesian carriers other than Garuda taking the plunge.

Indonesia is a funny one, to be honest - all the big Australian cities see multiple carriers with year-round DPS services. Queensland, with a similar catchment area to New Zealand, has DPS flights from three carriers - JQ, OD and VA. Australia has traditionally been at an advantage in being able to be served from DPS with narrow-bodies - but with the A320neoLR's, that advantage will soon erode. AKL will offer a similar-sized market to PER or BNE, but with less competition.

Separately, IMO, AKL will sustain a CGK service in the future - it is the only major East Asian capital not to have an air link to AKL. Last year, the same number of Indonesians visited New Zealand as Filipinos (despite PR having offered AKL flights for a few years now), and Indonesian arrivals are even growing faster than Filipino arrivals (despite having no year-round air link). CGK has flights to PER (GA), SYD (GA and QF) and MEL (GA) - hopefully AKL will be not too far away.

Cheers,

C.