It is great to see that FJ is happy at CHC, saying it is a "growth market" - FJ will now sponsor the BNZ Crusaders too.

We will work with the BNZ Crusaders to engage even more with Kiwis, and in particular people from Christchurch, over the next three years.

See: https://centreforaviation.com/members/d ... ers-401027.

Is there scope for CHC to attract more Pacific Island carriers, such as OL, NF or SB, all of whom already fly to AKL?

Cheers,

C.

Zkpilot wrote:

aotearoa wrote:

Gasman - Your direct quote, “But at the very lest it suffered an uncontained engine failure”. How can you be in a position to say this, and if there is any doubt, why would you? I appreciate that this is an open forum, however surely you have some kind of responsibility to at least check with your sources prior to pushing submit?
Here is a definition of a ‘Contained engine failure’ - A contained engine failure is one in which components might separate inside the engine but either remain within the engine's cases or exit the engine through the tail pipe.
There is a huge difference between the two failures. One is arguably by design, the other not.
I believe you will find thst NZE’s failure was contained. Just saying.....

Not from what I've heard... not as bad as Nancy Bird had in Singapore but still damage to the fuselage and the tail is what I heard.

If the above actually is true, then the fact it's been kept under wraps thus far is news in itself.

NZ6 wrote:

Thanks my point, you can't be sure questions haven't been asked.

There is nothing stopping Grant Bradley from putting in his articles something akin to "Air New Zealand were approached, but declined to comment." It's pretty telling that he doesn't do so.

The mere lack of investigative topics from his writing speaks for itself really - he seems to wait for the airlines and stories to come to him, rather than going after the airlines and the stories.

Gasman wrote:

Bradley is keeping quiet and only writing something when he absolutely has to, in order to protect his relationship with NZ including J Class upgrades. Highly likely.

I totally agree, and your reference to the 3-4-3 Y re-configurations of NZ's 777 fleet is the perfect example of this. He never rocks the boat with NZ.

What disappoints me more, is that he is regularly portrayed as a leading aviation journalist with the Australasian Aviation Press Club - for example:

- Being awarded 2017 aviation multi-media story of the year for his reporting on the world's longest flight from AKL to DOH on QR
- Being awarded 2016 aviation multi-media story of the year for his reporting on the rollout of a new CX plane (I assume the A359)

And, get this - Marie Hosking (Head of Communications at NZ) actually presented him with his 2016 award - why, I have no idea, but it's interesting:



See:
- http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11952466.
- http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11755433.

mariner wrote:

What more news is there to print that is of interest to the general public?

Eh, quite a few - off the top of my head:

- Massive construction pitfalls at AKL, such as the partial flooding of the recently opened gate 17 only a few months ago, as well as general delays
- Lack of progress by successive governments on certain bilateral air rights re-negotiations, like with India (where NZ is being limited to BOM only)
- In-action by the government on truly developing AKL as a hub for Asia - Latin America traffic, like by abolishing certain transit visa requirements
- Successive governments failing to meet calls by the private sector for specific investment (like upgrading CHT for 737 flights , as per CV's request)
- General reports as to how airlines are going with their New Zealand services, and what new international airlines and destinations are contenders

The list goes on, though Grant Bradley is probably more content with airlines giving him the story (think QF flying him to SEA or QR flying him to CBR), rather than going out and getting it.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

- Massive construction pitfalls at AKL, such as the partial flooding of the recently opened gate 17 only a few months ago, as well as general delays
- Lack of progress by successive governments on certain bilateral air rights re-negotiations, like with India (where NZ is being limited to BOM only)
- In-action by the government on truly developing AKL as a hub for Asia - Latin America traffic, like by abolishing certain transit visa requirements
- Successive governments failing to meet calls by the private sector for specific investment (like upgrading CHT for 737 flights , as per CV's request)
- General reports as to how airlines are going with their New Zealand services, and what new international airlines and destinations are contenders

I didn't think that any of those things had much - or anything - to do with NZ losing use of its 787s which is what I thought we were discussing, Foolish moi, perhaps, but I didn't think this was to be a hatchet job on Grant Bradley either.

Oh, well - include me out.

mariner

mariner wrote:

I didn't think that any of those things had much - or anything - to do with NZ losing use of its 787s which is what I thought we were discussing, Foolish moi ...

Oh, on the recent NZ 787 fiasco, my main gripe was that it took him several months after the Hi-Fly arrangement started, to actually review the product offering - IMO, that is something that the general public would be very keen to be aware of. I assume that the specifics of the fiasco are subject to some sort of confidentiality agreement between NZ and RR.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

Oh, on the recent NZ 787 fiasco, my main gripe was that it took him several months after the Hi-Fly arrangement started, to actually review the product offering - IMO, that is something that the general public would be very keen to be aware of. I assume that the specifics of the fiasco are subject to some sort of confidentiality agreement between NZ and RR.

I don't remember it as "several months" - the HiFly aircraft didn't arrive in NZ until the middle of December and went almost immediately to work. There was some time taken (by Bradley and others), to report the mechanical issues that arose.

So - I think - they did the decent thing and waited until the aircraft had settled in before commenting on them. Others may thing differently.

mariner

planemanofnz wrote:

- Lack of progress by successive governments on certain bilateral air rights re-negotiations, like with India (where NZ is being limited to BOM only)
- Successive governments failing to meet calls by the private sector for specific investment (like upgrading CHT for 737 flights , as per CV's request)

I’ve no great admiration for Grant Bradley’s writing either, but I think you’re rather harsh on him in at least a couple of your examples:

(1) Air services to India are not a priority for NZ, and so to write a story castigating the government for failing to advance air rights is a bit of a non-story. Especially when the majority of VFR traffic would be to the Maharashtra region anyway from my understanding. Besides, do we know that the lack of progress is due to the NZ government - it takes two countries to reach agreement.

(2) Just because CV asked for an upgrade to the field at CHT does not mean it’s a good idea or that it should be a national priority. I strongly suspect that any BCR would be very low if not negative. Every other transport initiative has to meet rigorous financial criteria. Unless, of course, it’s a “Road of National Significance”, in which case it’s enough that it’s been suggested by the government of the day.

I think that a lot of what appears in A-net assumes that aviation is or should be front and centre of policy-making. I’m afraid it’s not - and nor should it be. In fact I’d suggest it rightly ranks way down the priority list when compared with areas like health, education, climate change . . . and even public transport in our cities.

DavidByrne wrote:

(1) Air services to India are not a priority for NZ, and so to write a story castigating the government for failing to advance air rights is a bit of a non-story. Especially when the majority of VFR traffic would be to the Maharashtra region anyway from my understanding. Besides, do we know that the lack of progress is due to the NZ government - it takes two countries to reach agreement.

I find even that one strange because the latest expansion of the bilateral was signed just recently - in May 2016 - during the official visit of India's President Mukherjee to New Zealand:

https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/india-nz- ... -ng-188429

India-NZ air link agreement could spur non-stop flights."

mariner

DavidByrne wrote:

Air services to India are not a priority for NZ ...

Okay, so interview NZ and ask them why that is so, and then interview other potential carriers, such as AI or 9W. You could also ask the government what more could be done, like air rights re-negotiations or visa changes. India is one of our biggest markets, and one of the only without a direct air link.

DavidByrne wrote:

Just because CV asked for an upgrade to the field at CHT does not mean it’s a good idea or that it should be a national priority.

Okay, then talk to CV, talk to the government, and let both of them put their ideas forward, through the Herald. At least that'd be a New Zealand article / topic. A trip to CHT to talk to CV about this would be far more appropriate for a New Zealand publication, than a trip to SEA by QF or to CBR by QR etc.

DavidByrne wrote:

I’ve no great admiration for Grant Bradley’s writing either, but I think you’re rather harsh on him ...

And I think you're going rather easy on him - even if you disagree with my proposed article ideas, you can't deny that some of his writing is simply irrelevant for New Zealand readers, such as VA's launch of a SYD cruise terminal check-in, or the delivery of QF's 789s, or QF's use of bio-fuels on LAX flights.

Cheers,

C.

DavidByrne wrote:

I think that a lot of what appears in A-net assumes that aviation is or should be front and centre of policy-making. I’m afraid it’s not - and nor should it be. In fact I’d suggest it rightly ranks way down the priority list when compared with areas like health, education, climate change . . . and even public transport in our cities.

It does, but it's not the job of a writer (or an enthusiast) to weight their own portfolio into a global perspective. You don't see sports journalists saying " Guys! It's just someone kicking a ball around, FFS. I don't even know why I write this stuff......."

planemanofnz wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

Air services to India are not a priority for NZ ...

Okay, so interview NZ and ask them why that is so, and then interview other potential carriers, such as AI or 9W. You could also ask the government what more could be done, like air rights re-negotiations or visa changes. India is one of our biggest markets, and one of the only without a direct air link.

DavidByrne wrote:

Just because CV asked for an upgrade to the field at CHT does not mean it’s a good idea or that it should be a national priority.

Okay, then talk to CV, talk to the government, and let both of them put their ideas forward, through the Herald. At least that'd be a New Zealand article / topic. A trip to CHT to talk to CV about this would be far more appropriate for a New Zealand publication, than a trip to SEA by QF or to CBR by QR etc.

DavidByrne wrote:

I’ve no great admiration for Grant Bradley’s writing either, but I think you’re rather harsh on him ...

And I think you're going rather easy on him - even if you disagree with my proposed article ideas, you can't deny that some of his writing is simply irrelevant for New Zealand readers, such as VA's launch of a SYD cruise terminal check-in, or the delivery of QF's 789s, or QF's use of bio-fuels on LAX flights.

Cheers,

C.

India is a 15ish hr flight from AKL, considered low yield and a heap of 1 stop options not to mention SQ being the biggest player who NZ have a JV with. No idea about the other carriers, AI occasionally comes up that they may be interested in AKL, who knows if there’s any truth to that? Can’t see any others interested.

Isn’t Grant Bradley an aviation journalist? Why does everything he writes have to be about NZ aviation? Seems that’s what you are saying.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Isn’t Grant Bradley an aviation journalist? Why does everything he writes have to be about NZ aviation? Seems that’s what you are saying.

It's not what he's saying. It's just that in the context of there being real issues with depth out there directly relevant to New Zealanders (the 787 issue/CHT runway etc.) that aren't receiving bandwidth, it doesn't do anything positive for Bradley's credibility when he flies to SEA for the QF 787 purchase, for example. But it's his lack of impartiality towards NZ that rankles with me the most. Second to that would be the generally lightweight nature of his articles.

Okay, so route announcement time tomorrow....

A destination no one yet has picked up on..

NZ6 wrote:

Okay, so route announcement time tomorrow....

A destination no one yet has picked up on..

You're killing me!

So - not CBR, CGK, CTS, DEN, HKT, ICN, LIM, MEX, MNL, NTL, NYC, ORD or PTY.

Perhaps CEB, NGO, SEA or at a push, TPE? Maybe BKK, in a JV with TG? Or WTB?

Cheers,

C.

NZ6 wrote:

Okay, so route announcement time tomorrow....

A destination no one yet has picked up on..

Air Chathams/Barrier Air jointly operated service WHK-KAT-NLK-LDH-PQQ using ERJ-145s?



V/F

CHC-NZFX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Airfield :p

Well, I can always hope.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Okay, so route announcement time tomorrow....

A destination no one yet has picked up on..

You're killing me!

So - not CBR, CGK, CTS, DEN, HKT, ICN, LIM, MEX, MNL, NTL, NYC, ORD or PTY.

Perhaps CEB, NGO, SEA or at a push, TPE? Maybe BKK, in a JV with TG? Or WTB?

Cheers,

C.

LAS?

ZK-NBT wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Okay, so route announcement time tomorrow....

A destination no one yet has picked up on..

You're killing me!

So - not CBR, CGK, CTS, DEN, HKT, ICN, LIM, MEX, MNL, NTL, NYC, ORD or PTY.

Perhaps CEB, NGO, SEA or at a push, TPE? Maybe BKK, in a JV with TG? Or WTB?

Cheers,

C.

LAS?

It can't be LAS - he said it was somewhere nobody had picked up on, whereas LAS was picked up in this month's thread numerous times (see posts 212, 215, 217, 219, 224, 234 etc), and has been picked up in many of the threads of previous months too.

Cheers,

C.

Okay so if not LAS, ORD or DEN and not EWR (or equivalent) or ICN, CTU, CTS, HKT, CGK, BOM, DEL,CMB,CPT,JNB or MNL all of which have been discussed - some to considerable lengths recently - then that leaves NGO and BKK as prime candidates for long haul. NZ is keen on Japan at present thanks to its warm relationship with NH. But I doubt BKK given TG have just gone daily. SEA possible since it hasn't surfaced for a couple of threads. Insiders have ruled out further South America so I am discounting LIM, PTY, BOG, MEX, GRU and GIG all of which have been discussed. Outsiders: NKG, PEN, KOA. MIA and YYZ not possible with current equipment. SAN or PHX seem unlikely. Maybe regional? CBR, NCL have been discussed. VLI or TSV? Clutching at straws.

NZ321 wrote:

Maybe regional?

Aside from CBR and NTL (which have already been discussed in-depth, and thus have been ruled out by NZ6's comments), we haven't really discussed much short-haul potential at NZ. A VLI re-launch is a real possibility, given that VLI's runway issues are currently being addressed, and QF is now back code-sharing with NF ex-VLI. Aside from VLI:

- NLK as a re-launch ex-AKL is possible, but is not a new destination, as it's already served by NZ
- POM would be unlikely, given the atrocious reported performance of ex-Australian routes to POM
- PPG would be unlikely, given the lack of tourism infrastructure there (highlighted here last year)
- SUV couldn't happen, AFAIK, as the NZ A320's are too big to land there (correct me if I'm wrong)

In (mainland) Australia, perhaps AVV is a go, given that D7's AVV launch will see international facilities finally reach AVV this year. However, is the desire really there to break-up Victorian traffic, particularly with EK soon to be out of the picture? I can't see TSV happening - it's lost one of two international flights (JQ to DPS). Not enough demand.

NZ321 wrote:

NGO

Given NZ6's comments about us needing to "wait and see" re Japan, and NZ's willingness to re-launch previously terminated Japanese destinations like KIX, my money is on NGO. That being said, Japanese tourism growth is slow (a lot slower than Korea), and NZ has a monopoly to Japan, with no real need to dilute its new KIX or HND services?

I would much rather see a JL or NH AKL service, than an NZ NGO one.

Cheers,

C.

It’s Taipei! Wasn’t expecting that.

Air NZ posts $232m half-year profit, on track for second highest result in company history.

They also announced Taipei as the new destination.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11999469

Good to see a new route and it will certainly help to feed the AKL hub to South America idea. Have created a new thread to discus.

DavidByrne wrote:

It’s Taipei! Wasn’t expecting that.

Good one.

mariner

Interesting always good to see more destinations. 789 I’m guessing 3-4 weekly? Year round?

I wonder how it will be timed? Overnight ex AKL? Afternoon ex TPE or morning ex AKL evening ex TPE? Thinking of EZE connections.

More TPE info:
Up to 5/weekly from Nov
789 aircraft
NZ77 1035AKL 1650TPE
NZ78 1830TPE 1020+1AKL

NZ’s TPE article/info on stuff…

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/101639350/air-nz-launches-taipaiauckland-direct-flights

NPL8800 wrote:

789 aircraft

Is Taipei within A343 range then?

DavidByrne wrote:

It’s Taipei!

We discussed TPE as a potential destination back in the September and October threads - it's great to see it come to fruition.

I must admit that I'm quite shocked that TPE is being re-launched ahead of a destination in the likes of Japan or South Korea:

- According to Stats NZ, Taiwan was the only top 15 tourism market to record a decline in New Zealand travellers in 2017 (-3.6%).
- This is the first long-haul route in at least 15-20 years that NZ has launched, in which it will have direct competition (through CI).
- NZ cannot truly take advantage of BR's TPE hub, as Chinese passengers are still unable to transit through TPE to New Zealand.

Despite these, our FTA with Taiwan was brought in in 2013, boosting trade by double digits - hopefully that will support this flight.

CI's response will be interesting to see - late last year, they said that a non-stop flight to New Zealand was not of interest to them:

Asked about the prospects of bringing in more feed for the London flight by offering a nonstop flight to Auckland, compared with the one-stop options via Australia being offered now, Chung said New Zealand was challenging from an aircraft utilisation perspective. “It’s not easy to handle even a daily fight to Auckland,” Chung said.

See: http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/1 ... roo-route/.

NZ6 wrote:

NZ won't start up ICN without OZ being onboard in a revenue share alliance. Although Korea fits into the Pacific Rim strategy it's not building on Japan and China which has been the North Asia focus.

So, NZ is not interested in ICN without an OZ JV, but AFAIK (given the press release), a BR JV is not happening for AKL - TPE?

And so, ICN will not be building on NZ's 'Japan and China' strategy, but TPE will, despite TPE's transit issues for PRC citizens?

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

It’s Taipei!

NZ6 wrote:

NZ won't start up ICN without OZ being onboard in a revenue share alliance. Although Korea fits into the Pacific Rim strategy it's not building on Japan and China which has been the North Asia focus.

So, NZ is not interested in ICN without an OZ JV, but AFAIK (given the press release), a BR JV is not happening for AKL - TPE?

And so, ICN will not be building on NZ's 'Japan and China' strategy, but TPE will, despite TPE's transit issues for PRC citizens?

Cheers,

C.

I wasn't going to make any mention of this given how close the announcement was and for a few other reasons. There is anther one coming too.

Hopefully this assures those who doubted or questioned my knowledge and contributions.

Air NZ has changed the thirteen NEOs on order to seven A321 NEOs and six A320NEOs, and will lease another 787-9 for delivery in the 2020 financial year.

4. Capital Commitments
Commitments as at reporting date include one 787-9 aircraft (delivery in 2019 financial year) seven Airbus A321 NEOs and six Airbus A320 NEOs (delivery from 2019 to 2022 financial years), and twelve ATR72-600s (delivery from 2018 to 2020 financial years). In February 2018 the Group agreed to convert three Airbus A320 NEOs to A321 NEOs which is reflected in the above table.

This is separate from the five NEOs being leased from ALC. When announced on 14 Jul 2014 this was one A321 NEO, one A320 NEO and three not specified.

5. Operating Lease Commitments
*Includes lease commitments for five Airbus A320/321 NEO aircraft due to be delivered in the 2019 and 2020 financial years and one Boeing 787-9 aircraft due to be delivered in the 2019 financial year.

The 787-9 due for delivery in the 2020 financial year was not included above as the contract is still being negotiated.

So that's eight A321 NEOs, seven A320 NEOs and three unspecified NEOs in financial years 2019 to 2022. The five leased NEOs and eight of the ordered NEOs will be delivered in financial years 2019 to 2020.

PA515

NZ6 wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

It’s Taipei!

NZ6 wrote:

NZ won't start up ICN without OZ being onboard in a revenue share alliance. Although Korea fits into the Pacific Rim strategy it's not building on Japan and China which has been the North Asia focus.

So, NZ is not interested in ICN without an OZ JV, but AFAIK (given the press release), a BR JV is not happening for AKL - TPE?

And so, ICN will not be building on NZ's 'Japan and China' strategy, but TPE will, despite TPE's transit issues for PRC citizens?

Cheers,

C.

I wasn't going to make any mention of this given how close the announcement was and for a few other reasons. There is anther one coming too.

Hopefully this assures those who doubted or questioned my knowledge and contributions.

Can you say when the next announcement will be?

An interesting interview (or I think so) with Mr. Luxon about recent events, including the damaged engines of the 787's and the wet-leased aircraft.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11999442

"Air NZ's Luxon on soaring revenue, Dreamliner issues and patient travellers"

The interview was conducted by Grant Bradley.

mariner

NZ6 wrote:

There is anther one coming too. Hopefully this assures those who doubted or questioned my knowledge and contributions.

I'm actually interested in this route announcement, and how the arguments used by you to put ICN down (i.e. needing a JV, not being part of China or Japan, and not being part of a developing market etc.) can also easily be used to put down TPE, too. Sure, NZ can announce CTU tomorrow, or a JV with NH in the next few weeks, but that doesn't change how those original arguments put forward in this thread now seem to be redundant (at least in part) in an analysis of NZ flying to ICN. I accept that there may be other arguments favouring TPE over ICN, like competition quality.

Luxon's comments (as per Bradley's writing) don't really seem to provide an answer as to why TPE - all he says is ''It's part of deepening that Pacific Rim strategy and those deep connections into Asia - Taipei is a really fantastic place, it's a wealthy city.'' Wealthy? Okay, but ICN is wealthier (and bigger). Then he says that 36,000 visitors a year from Taiwan visit New Zealand and that "we're confident a direct link will grow numbers further.'' Okay, but Korea's numbers are triple those of Taiwan's, and its economy is growing faster than Taiwan's, as are its visitors to New Zealand.

Some other observations on this route announcement:

- Fares are priced at NZD 1530 ex-AKL - extremely expensive, and by far the most expensive NZ destination in Asia.
- Five flights a week are mentioned - less than the seven flights a week offered by CI, but still quite an over-kill by NZ?

See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11999744.

It'll be very interesting to see if CI responds - either by dropping AKL, or by going gung-ho with a new non-stop flight.

Lastly, does anyone know whether this service will be year-round or seasonal? I assume the former, but it's un-clear.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

- Five flights a week are mentioned - less than the seven flights a week offered by CI, but still quite an over-kill by NZ?

Don't think it's over-kill. "up to five weekly" probably means five weekly around Chinese New Year.

AKL-TPE 1035/1650, TPE-AKL 1830/1020 is similar timing to the seasonal We Fr Su AKL-KIX 1030/1725, KIX-AKL 2100/1135.
So, AKL-TPE could be Mo Th Sa.

PA515

PA515 wrote:

AKL-TPE could be Mo Th Sa.

A 3x weekly launch would be more consistent with other NZ Asian launches in recent times, like DPS, HND, KIX, PVG and SGN (excluding SIN, as that was launched in a JV).

Cheers,

C.

NZ finalising additional leased 787 for 2020 delivery.....

Wonder where this ones going to be put?

AMSAKL wrote:

NZ finalising additional leased 787 for 2020 delivery.....

For delivery in financial year 2020. I would expect delivery to be Sep / Oct 2019.

PA515

Does anyone know if the TPE flights will be crewed using PVG-based crew (for cost, and language reasons)?

I don't know how easy it would be to get the PVG-based crew (who would be PRC citizens) to lay-over in TPE.

Cheers,

C.

PA515 wrote:

AMSAKL wrote:

NZ finalising additional leased 787 for 2020 delivery.....

For delivery in financial year 2020. I would expect delivery to be Sep / Oct 2019.

PA515

Ah indeed!

Also mentioned additional frequency to South America, (not sure if this was previously announced) obviously accounted for with current fleet.

Now begs the question, with NZ returning to Taipei along with their feeding South America service with Asian and Australian traffic, could we be lined up for another route announcement for SA coming late next calendar year?

AMSAKL wrote:

Also mentioned additional frequency to South America, (not sure if this was previously announced) obviously accounted for with current fleet.

Where did you see that?

PA515

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

There is anther one coming too. Hopefully this assures those who doubted or questioned my knowledge and contributions.

I'm actually interested in this route announcement, and how the arguments used by you to put ICN down (i.e. needing a JV, not being part of China or Japan, and not being part of a developing market etc.) can also easily be used to put down TPE, too. Sure, NZ can announce CTU tomorrow, or a JV with NH in the next few weeks, but that doesn't change how those original arguments put forward in this thread now seem to be redundant (at least in part) in an analysis of NZ flying to ICN. I accept that there may be other arguments favouring TPE over ICN, like competition quality.

Luxon's comments (as per Bradley's writing) don't really seem to provide an answer as to why TPE - all he says is ''It's part of deepening that Pacific Rim strategy and those deep connections into Asia - Taipei is a really fantastic place, it's a wealthy city.'' Wealthy? Okay, but ICN is wealthier (and bigger). Then he says that 36,000 visitors a year from Taiwan visit New Zealand and that "we're confident a direct link will grow numbers further.'' Okay, but Korea's numbers are triple those of Taiwan's, and its economy is growing faster than Taiwan's, as are its visitors to New Zealand.

C.

I can understand why you're confused, Unfortunately you look at information (data, stats, comments, articles etc) and apply that literally to all scenarios.

For example:
- Korea has a well established direct local operating carrier in KE whereas CI isn't direct nor well established, NZ only pulled out 10-15 years ago.
- Korea is nicely served via Japan currently
- China is a focus, Korea is not in line with that.
- Korea needing an alliance partner doesn't mean other routes do.

I don't dispute ICN could be viable, it's about having the right equipment or equipment available then looking at your network strategy, business risks including your exposure to bleed money if it fails. Future growth and a number of other factors and then deciding where you want to put play your cards.

For example, looking at tourist numbers, licking your lips and deciding to light up a bird and fly in hope of making money isn't how to run an airline.

It's a little bit like fine tuning your pwn custom FIFA18 player Increase their speed and be prepared to loose some stamina etc... it's all about finding that perfect balance looking at a large number of variables.

Maybe... Korea is one of those "markets being monitored" which is being developed slowly behind the scenes with OZ.

PA515 wrote:

AMSAKL wrote:

Also mentioned additional frequency to South America, (not sure if this was previously announced) obviously accounted for with current fleet.

Where did you see that?

PA515

Page 19 of interim results

"Additional frequencies over peak and
shoulder months "

planemanofnz wrote:

Does anyone know if the TPE flights will be crewed using PVG-based crew (for cost, and language reasons)?

I don't know how easy it would be to get the PVG-based crew (who would be PRC citizens) to lay-over in TPE.

Cheers,

C.

No, PVG base crew are not directly employed by NZ but FASCO due to Chinese regulations. They cannot work on any routes other than Mainland China.

NZ6 wrote:

I can understand why you're confused

Thank you, but unfortunately your response has only really added to my confusion - you say:

- "Korea is nicely served via Japan" - Taiwan can be too and/or via HKG?
- "China is a focus, Korea is not in line with that" - nor is Taiwan, not being part of the PRC?
- "Korea has a well established direct local operating carrier" - so does Taiwan, through CI's 8 year-old same-plane, same-flight number service?
- "Looking at tourist numbers .. isn't how to run an airline" - fine, but tourist numbers were the only numbers that Luxon responded to in his Herald article?
- "Maybe... Korea is one of those "markets being monitored"" - but you said earlier in this thread something akin to ICN not being on the drawing board for NZ?

What's different about TPE? If Bradley had done his research, he'd have challenged Luxon upon citing those tourism numbers, saying they're in decline.

NZ6 wrote:

Korea needing an alliance partner doesn't mean other routes do

Okay, so what factors contribute to ICN needing a JV, but TPE not? It's all well and good to be general and say that airlines need to look at a range of factors, as you have done, but while true, that doesn't add anything to the quality of debate or discussion on this thread.

Both are developed Asian markets, in-bound tourism focused, seasonal in nature, and face direct competition (KE having a non-stop flight, but CI serving two ports). The risk profile (and thus JV necessity) on face value is similar. From "inside NZ", what's the difference?

Cheers,

C.

For those curious about the days, all you need to know is here, also the 5/weekly period is from 25 Dec thru 28 Feb.

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

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

I can understand why you're confused

Thank you, but unfortunately your response has only really added to my confusion - you say:

- "Korea is nicely served via Japan" - Taiwan can be too and/or via HKG?
- "China is a focus, Korea is not in line with that" - nor is Taiwan, not being part of the PRC?
- "Korea has a well established direct local operating carrier" - so does Taiwan, through CI's 8 year-old same-plane, same-flight number service?
- "Looking at tourist numbers .. isn't how to run an airline" - fine, but tourist numbers were the only numbers that Luxon responded to in his Herald article?
- "Maybe... Korea is one of those "markets being monitored"" - but you said earlier in this thread something akin to ICN not being on the drawing board for NZ?

What's different about TPE? If Bradley had done his research, he'd have challenged Luxon upon citing those tourism numbers, saying they're in decline.

NZ6 wrote:

Korea needing an alliance partner doesn't mean other routes do

Okay, so what factors contribute to ICN needing a JV, but TPE not? It's all well and good to be general and say that airlines need to look at a range of factors, as you have done, but while true, that doesn't add anything to the quality of debate or discussion on this thread.

Both are developed Asian markets, in-bound tourism focused, seasonal in nature, and face direct competition (KE having a non-stop flight, but CI serving two ports). The risk profile (and thus JV necessity) on face value is similar. From "inside NZ", what's the difference?

Cheers,

C.

You've done it again.

- "Korea is nicely served via Japan" - Taiwan can be too and/or via HKG?
But Korea is not a focus so can be served via Japan now, while NZ continues to develop Japan and using Korea as support route

- "China is a focus, Korea is not in line with that" - nor is Taiwan, not being part of the PRC?
But it's a part of ROC, who said it must be part of the PRC?

- "Korea has a well established direct local operating carrier" - so does Taiwan, through CI's 8 year-old same-plane, same-flight number service?
8 years via BNE vs KE's 30 or so years, plus NZ's previous exposure in the market and the growth NZ is attempting to capture.

- "Looking at tourist numbers .. isn't how to run an airline" - fine, but tourist numbers were the only numbers that Luxon responded to in his Herald article?
So that must mean it's all Mr Luxon and the team used?

- "Maybe... Korea is one of those "markets being monitored"" - but you said earlier in this thread something akin to ICN not being on the drawing board for NZ?
Perfect example of how you absorb information with potentially a closed outlook on what it could mean, what other factors exist etc. For example with ICN not being in the immediate future or "drawing board", do you believe no one in the alliances, strategy, market development, Japan or various other teams don't continue to watch and monitor and talk with partners about market/route development.

SGN for example, developed from concept to operation extremely quickly. ICN could do the same thing if required.

Keeping this very very basic, as an airline executive, you've found capacity for a new route, you look at the markets where you want to develop and grow long term, considering your entire network, ASK, load factor, RASM etc etc

Comparing TPE and ICN, You look at incremental growth into JPN as you're aim is to 'rebuild' this market, realizing ICN would potentially cannibalize this to some extent and you're risk factor is high due to a well established direct competitor, no immediate alliance agreement is possible with OZ.

This via, TPE is a market with a competitor (few markets which don't have one) however NZ has previously been in the market themselves, the competition is indirect (yes risk is there they will go direct). Passengers numbers are predicted to be strong and a direct routing may aid indirect routes such as HKG/SIN due to this market being strong.

There is much more to consider however as I said above it's a very basic overview.

Page 19, outlines NZ's long haul focus; https://p-airnz.com/cms/assets/PDFs/201 ... tation.pdf

Seems fairly obvious why NZ picked TPE over ICN...

KE is an entrenched operator on ICN while there is no non-stop competition on TPE. Both CI and BR are not interested in entering the market so it is ideal for NZ. CI doesn’t have enough A359 yet and BR is still waiting for its 789... there is a window of opportunity for NZ to establish itself as the preferred carrier on this route.

As to why NZ needs code share partner on ICN, that probably has to do with KE again. NZ will be fighting an up hill battle on Korea point of sale tickets without OZ’s help. Whereas in TPE, NZ has the nonstop advantage over CI for Taiwan point of sale. It may not need BR code share to meet local ticket sales target. And I think AKL-TPE has more VFR traffic than AKL-ICN which again means NZ might be willing to roll the dice a bit on the TPE end knowing they can fill part of the plane with New Zealand point of sales tickets - put it another way... TPE-AKL has 2-way traffic potential: TPE inbound tourism and outbound AKL VFR. ICN-AKL is largely Korea inbound tourism.

I also wouldn’t make too much of a 1 year dip in tourist arrivals... it may in fact reflect CI reducing flights across the Tasman and thus to NZ. With direct flight, access to NZ improves and tourist arrival may go up.

NZ6 wrote:

... tourist numbers ... that must mean it's all Mr Luxon and the team used?

Absent Luxon or yourself pointing to any other specific numbers, it's really all we've got to work with - it'd be great if you could point to specifics though, as to how NZ views TPE as different to other destinations in the region. So far, all you point to are factors like a desire not to cannibalise Japan, and the lack of a non-stop competitor - each of which I'll discuss, in turn.

NZ6 wrote:

... ICN would potentially cannibalize [Japan]

No - less than 5% of all Korean visitor arrivals to New Zealand transited through TYO (~4,500 in 2017). That is a mere 12 passengers a day.

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

NZ6 wrote:

8 years via BNE vs KE's 30 or so years, plus NZ's previous exposure in the market and the growth NZ is attempting to capture.

It seems that competition is your main argument for distinguishing ICN and TPE in NZ's Asia focus, but let's put things into perspective here:

- While CI does not fly here non-stop, it does fly to two New Zealand destinations (both AKL and CHC), which KE has not done for about 15 years.
- CI maintains a daily AKL service (albeit indirect) over the New Zealand winter, whereas KE goes down to a lower frequency (4x flights per week).
- Through its Tasman flying (sometimes twice a day to AKL, in the past), CI has been able to build up brand recognition in AKL, IMO, to KE's levels.
- CI's competitiveness at AKL is only set to increase, with the introduction of the 359 here. Meanwhile, KE's product competitiveness has plateaued.
- 8 years of CI service is long enough to be called an established service - maybe not as established as KE's service, but established nonetheless.

Ultimately, given that the Taiwanese market is 1/3 the size of the Korean market, CI's AKL presence is definitely more aggressive than KE's.

NZ6 wrote:

... it's a part of ROC, who said it must be part of the PRC?

FYI - NZ itself refers to the "Taiwan" market in its press release, and not the "China" market. In aviation and economic terms, they are different.

See: https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/press-r ... -to-taipei.

The simple fact of the matter is that you said NZ's Asia focus is "China and Japan" - I still don't see a credible explanation of TPE's role in that.

Cheers,

C.

bzcat wrote:

I think AKL-TPE has more VFR traffic than AKL-ICN

No - there are:

- Two to three times the amount of New Zealanders visiting South Korea than there are visiting Taiwan (~33,000 versus ~14,500)
- Two to three times the amount of South Koreans visiting New Zealand than Taiwanese visiting here (~91,000 versus ~36,000)

The numbers speak for themselves.

See:
- https://kto.visitkorea.or.kr/eng/touris ... /inout.kto.
- http://admin.taiwan.net.tw/statistics/y ... aspx?no=15.
- https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-r ... ember-2017.

Cheers,

C.

zkncj wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

[
The simple fact of the matter is that you said NZ's Asia focus is "China and Japan" - I still don't see a credible explanation of TPE's role in that.
.

My bets would be on that NZ has secured an block booking yet TPE with an local travel provide e.g. tour groups that will guarantee x amount of traffic for the contracted period, then anything else on top of that is profit.

That's an interesting proposition - though, would they really need up to 5x weekly flights to meet that agreement with the local travel provider?

Cheers,

C.