Airliners.net

NTLDaz wrote:

I'm just speculating that this may make a flight on NZ less compelling. If it potentially loses MEL feed that MAY impact on a decision whether or not to start a Brazil service from AKL.

If an AKL - GRU/GIG can stand on it's own with a possible reduced feed from MEL then it's a moot point.

As I understand it, the oft-quoted 40% was from all Australia, not just from Melbourne - certainly when EZE was announced the feed was "all Australia". I do think it will be a while before "all Australia" has that kind of service to South America.

https://www.ausbt.com.au/air-new-zealan ... -argentina

"Air New Zealand tempts Aussie travellers with Buenos Aires flights"

Sure if it loses all feed from MEL then Brazil may not happen and EZE might be in trouble but I don't know how realistic that is.

mariner

mariner wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

I'm just speculating that this may make a flight on NZ less compelling. If it potentially loses MEL feed that MAY impact on a decision whether or not to start a Brazil service from AKL.

If an AKL - GRU/GIG can stand on it's own with a possible reduced feed from MEL then it's a moot point.

As I understand it, the oft-quoted 40% was from all Australia, not just from Melbourne - certainly when EZE was announced the feed was "all Australia". I do think it will be a while before "all Australia" has that kind of service to South America.

https://www.ausbt.com.au/air-new-zealan ... -argentina

"Air New Zealand tempts Aussie travellers with Buenos Aires flights"

Sure if it loses all feed from MEL then Brazil may not happen and EZE might be in trouble but I don't know how realistic that is.

mariner

Of course you're right about feed from all NZ ports in Australia. It would be interesting to see where the feed is from.

My gut tells me more from MEL than SYD as SYD has had many more options to the Americas than MEL over the years. This is on QF and other airlines as well.

NZ6 wrote:

All this recent talk of new routes (well all my talk) has been focused on the traditional long haul airline.

Air New Zealand, has recently opened up a new type of product - mid to long haul leisure. Designed purely around the outbound tourist market with seasonal operations without some of the extra such as through checking etc.

Examples obviously are DPS, SGN and you can add MNL in there too to an extent and there is another one coming shortly, they initially became viable thanks to the 763.

Does this influence the long haul fleet replacement program? Is the 789 too big for some of these routes given NZ is continuing with them, do they live with it or introduce something similar in size to the 763? Ideally you'd want a 200-230 seater, the 789 is over the 300 mark obviously but you also don't want to end up with a large diverse fleet as that increases operating costs.

Looking at the options.
- The A321LR doesn't have the legs for AKL-SGN or AKL-DPS but is the perfect size for these markets and would have accompanied the A320/A321NEO's coming in nicely. Cancel this option.
- If NZ decide to go all Airbus, the only other option is a A330-200 but I can't see NZ purchasing this as it's a new type, the A350-800 could work if it was actually built and would be perfect if the rest of the long haul fleet was the A350-900/1000
- If NZ go Boeing and the 778/787, do they try get a few 788's like they originally intended or explore the 797, all be it 15+ years away so they world will be a different place then.
- NZ does nothing, operating the long haul fleet whatever it is to these markets.

Rainy day thoughts.

I enjoy this stuff so long as our speculations don’t get taken out of context and are realistic and respect others opinions. You have some inside knowledge which is great.

What’s with MNL? Gone now PR have come? HKT as another option for a new route? Even though TG do daily BKK.

I can’t see the 788 for these routes given the 789 has similar operating costs. There was some talk of a study of DY business model to potentially launch a competitive response whatever that means. 78J while bigger looks to have pretty impressive numbers and these routes don’t need frequency so much, they could cover some Japan flying to NRT/KIX even ex CHC with HND left to the more premium end.

The Philippine thread some were trying to say for AKL an A321LR, seems ridiculous to me, AKL-MNL is like 10.5 hrs, that aircraft might be good for 7.5-8 hrs imo.

I agree the A321LR doesn’t seem to have to much benefit for NZ over the standard NEO version.

If they go Airbus and get the A350, I can see the 359 and 351, don’t think the 358 will be built. But the 789’s aren’t going anywhere so they would probably continue in a similar roll to current flying more leisure or slightly less dense routes than the A350.

If they go 778/787 I would again see the 789’s continue what they do now. However a fleet of 78J’s for either a LCC or operated by mainline on some other Asian routes. With the 78J I could see the current code 1 789’s being reconfigured to the more premium layout as routes like HNL/EZE/PVG matures to take more premium traffic.

Be interesting to see what the 797 looks like and if Airbus have a response? That’s some way off yet though so for now I’d say the 787’s will continue as is, with the 772’s then 77W’s replaced by either A350’s or 77X’s with a few more 787’s in the mix Aswell.

Certainly a wet day!

NZ6 wrote:

No, it's completely correct and what Cam is saying is exactly what I'm saying.

Cam said: "At the moment our focus is frequency into Argentina"
NZ6 said: "Any growth in this region, will be in making EZE daily"

You talked about the "Central American market," the "South American market," and then "this region" - in the context of the discussion being about the possibility of AKL - MEX, I thought that when you said "this region", you were talking about Latin America as a whole, and not just the "South American market."

Cam Wallace explicitly limited the scope of his comments to South America only - that means that, although there will be no route development to places like BOG, GIG, GRU, LIM or SCL, as you say, there could be route development to MEX, which is not in South America - hence my half-correct comment.

MEX is the largest metropolitan area in the Western Hemisphere (beating GRU, under many definitions), with Mexico's population being richer than Brazil's, and its economy growing faster than Brazil's. AKL is also ideally placed to develop a MEX service, given hot and high conditions restricting QF flights.



Cheers,

C.

ZK-NBT wrote:

HKT as another option for a new route?

Given how small our population is, should NZ try to innovative in 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, a seasonal winter service to CTS, to allow for skiing, or to LAS, for gaming and shows, could 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 and HA, respectively).

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

No, it's completely correct and what Cam is saying is exactly what I'm saying.

Cam said: "At the moment our focus is frequency into Argentina"
NZ6 said: "Any growth in this region, will be in making EZE daily"

You talked about the "Central American market," the "South American market," and then "this region" - in the context of the discussion being about the possibility of AKL - MEX, I thought that when you said "this region", you were talking about Latin America as a whole, and not just the "South American market."

Cam Wallace explicitly limited the scope of his comments to South America only - that means that, although there will be no route development to places like BOG, GIG, GRU, LIM or SCL, as you say, there could be route development to MEX, which is not in South America - hence my half-correct comment.

MEX is the largest metropolitan area in the Western Hemisphere (beating GRU, under many definitions), with Mexico's population being richer than Brazil's, and its economy growing faster than Brazil's. AKL is also ideally placed to develop a MEX service, given hot and high conditions restricting QF flights.



Cheers,

C.

This is just another example of using basic and very general data on face value and turning it into viability for a new route.

"MEX is the largest metropolitan area in the Western Hemisphere (beating GRU, under many definitions), with Mexico's population being richer than Brazil's, and its economy growing faster than Brazil's." Does any of the that mean Kiwis are flying to Mexico or Mexicans are coming to New Zealand?

Population of Mumbai is about 19M, there are 155,000 Indians living in New Zealand, the population of Mexico city is 9M with under 800 living in NZ. BOM doesn't work, why would MEX: Face value.

Is Central America an area which is going to grow and be profitable over the next 10-20 years or longer?

China = Yes
South America = Yes, connections to China, Australia etc
North America = Yes

Latin America is essentially everything from the USA down, that's would be a big "Region", it's basically one and half continents.

NZ6 wrote:

This is just another example of using basic and very general data on face value

I cited various data for the ICN proposition, which were largely just ignored or put down with statements like "from directly inside NZ ICN is not a focus".

So, yes, I didn't bother to look for the statistics on MEX (I now have - see below), but was specific with arguments like hot / high conditions inhibiting QF.

NZ6 wrote:

Is Central America an area which is going to grow and be profitable over the next 10-20 years or longer?

Isn't that time-frame a bit arbitrary, given that NZ has stopped and re-started numerous destinations in that period, like DPS, SIN and YVR?

IMHO, it is quite telling that, according to the main Mexican tourism body, "Australia is the main market for Mexico without direct flights":

- ~77,000 Australians visited Mexico in 2016 (compared to ~55,000 Chinese going to Mexico, and just ~50,000 Australians going to Brazil).
- ~11,000 Mexicans visited Australia in 2017, double that of the 2013 number (to compare, Brazil had ~55,000 and Argentina had ~23,000).

See:
- http://www.viaxico.com/tourism-arrivals-mexico/.
- http://www.dadosefatos.turismo.gov.br/2 ... 53-05.html.
- http://www.tourism.australia.com/en/mar ... ivals.html.

The market is skewed towards Australians visiting MEX, and not the other way around, which plays into NZ's brand recognition in Australia.

NZ6 wrote:

Latin America ... that's would be a big "Region", it's basically one and half continents

I'm not really sure what your point is with this statement - there's nothing "would" about it - Latin America is a region, which both EZE and MEX are in.

Cam Wallace's statement is explicitly specific to South America - not to Latin America, which means that MEX cannot be ruled out, like GRU or SCL.

NZ6 wrote:

BOM doesn't work, why would MEX

- There being a huge number of in-direct carriers flying between New Zealand and India, but not between New Zealand and Mexico.
- There being an ability to feed Mexico with Australian connections, but not to India, given back-tracking linked with AKL's geography.
- The advantage of AKL being one of the furthermost away cities able to be reached from MEX - absent from any BOM proposition.

The list goes on, and on, and on ...

Cheers,

C.

The urban population of Mexico City is over 20 million and I bet most of them are wealthier than the 19 million living in Bombay.

NZ6 wrote:

All this recent talk of new routes (well all my talk) has been focused on the traditional long haul airline.

Air New Zealand, has recently opened up a new type of product - mid to long haul leisure. Designed purely around the outbound tourist market with seasonal operations without some of the extra such as through checking etc.

Examples obviously are DPS, SGN and you can add MNL in there too to an extent and there is another one coming shortly, they initially became viable thanks to the 763.

Does this influence the long haul fleet replacement program? Is the 789 too big for some of these routes given NZ is continuing with them, do they live with it or introduce something similar in size to the 763? Ideally you'd want a 200-230 seater, the 789 is over the 300 mark obviously but you also don't want to end up with a large diverse fleet as that increases operating costs.

Looking at the options.
- The A321LR doesn't have the legs for AKL-SGN or AKL-DPS but is the perfect size for these markets and would have accompanied the A320/A321NEO's coming in nicely. Cancel this option.
- If NZ decide to go all Airbus, the only other option is a A330-200 but I can't see NZ purchasing this as it's a new type, the A350-800 could work if it was actually built and would be perfect if the rest of the long haul fleet was the A350-900/1000
- If NZ go Boeing and the 778/787, do they try get a few 788's like they originally intended or explore the 797, all be it 15+ years away so they world will be a different place then.
- NZ does nothing, operating the long haul fleet whatever it is to these markets.

Rainy day thoughts.

You can forget the 788. It literally does nothing that the 789 can do. Even with a handful of seats empty the 789 is more cost effective than having some 788 in the fleet. The 788 is history and likely no more will be built in the future. Same as how airlines stopped buying the 762 and the 772.

Emergency airworthiness directive on PW GTF A320 out today, I wonder how this will impact NZ's timeline if at all on the A320 Neo.

Why are we having a discussion about MEX and AKL? It sometimes feels like a dartboard is used to predict or suggest new routes, its akin to having people who played football manager believe they have better answers than Mourinho.
MEX will not happen in my lifetime since there is virtually no O/D traffic. Add on that NZ has committed to LAX as its primary gateway to North America and well, MEX is to be polite a longshot. Sadly, when there is little to no O/D traffic there is no real business case. Businesscases are noring data that needs to be done before any route starts. A business case with no O/D that also needs connections at two ends (into AKL and out from MEX) and its a tough sell...

If NZ choose to add a service eastwards, its logical that they look at main destinations such as New York or the chosen ORD. While NZ favours a route to ORD, Id say that the route would be duplicating the IAH route. Id go as far as saying that with an assumed addition of ORD, the benefits/viability of IAH becomes questionable. Is there really enough travelers between Oceania and North America to serve both these destinations for NZ?
I assume that NZ has looked at its numbers and says so. But frequency will be telling here. Perhaps NZ choose to split the operation between the two destinations and hoping to grow booth to daily over say a 5 year period. I still remain quite skeptical about two MidAmerica destinations, but well, I dont have the numbers so who knows.

I applaud NZ for going into South America. Its a gutsy move. I am however certain that the route is loss-making at present, NZ may say otherwise but I trust those I know (and they dont work for NZ, but other carriers, so take it for what its worth). However, I believe that eventually the market between South America to Australia/NZ will be a decent enough market to warrant the service and while GRU is the ideal destination, EZE is within the envelope of the present fleet so that's as good as it presently gets...
Sadly, I dont believe talks about AKL becoming a hub between Pacific Asia and South America.
Pacific Asia is really two different markets, North Asia and Se Asia. North Asia already has plenty of one stop options (Chinese/Korean airlines, all with high brand recognition and good sales-network) through North America to South America. And for Hongkong/SE Asia and South America, as anyone that have lived in SE Asia knows, certain middle Eastern carriers price South America services aggressively and since they fly nonstop from their hubs to the main destination, Brazil, there is little incentive for most travelers in these markets to choose NZ. Add on that unless the final destination is Argentina, choosing NZ adds an extra connection. Brand recognition for EK, QR, TK etc is also, naturally, miles ahead of the brand recognition for NZ.

Hmm having been a fair bit in both MEX and BOM I struggle to see any of the cities as way ahead of the other. While BOM is top 10 in the number of millionaires (48000 a decade ago) in the world it also sees a lot of extreme poverty. the same can be said for MEX. But, both cities have a more than large enough middle class to ensure that there is enough wealth to provide air-services across the world. Both cities sees a lot of both in and outbound demand. The one difference I see is that the market between India and Aus/NZ is gigantic compared to the market between MEX and Aus/NZ. And since the majority of the Indians that have arrived over the last ten years to New Zealand have been Gujarati/Punjabi BOM isn't to far off. problem is the same two groups have arrived with very very little money and usually enrolled at cheap PTEs for 8 months in order to get their graduate job search visa and then on to so called store-manager roles for a dairy or bottleshop. These are not customers that will command a premium or be profitable flying back and forth and thus presently NZ is best advised to avoid BOM.

MillwallSean wrote:

Why are we having a discussion about MEX and AKL? It sometimes feels like a dartboard is used to predict or suggest new routes.

Because it is an open forum, where everyone is entitled to express ideas and thoughts - we sometimes get it wrong, but we sometimes get it right (like EZE, and the additional SIN service).

MillwallSean wrote:

MEX will not happen in my lifetime since there is virtually no O/D traffic.

And how much O&D traffic is there between AKL and EZE, IAH or ORD? All of these routes are/would be stimulated with connections - NZ is fine with that, as per the sustaining of EZE.

MillwallSean wrote:

... having been a fair bit in both MEX and BOM I struggle to see any of the cities as way ahead of the other.

For NZ specifically, MEX is the clear winner - it show-cases AKL's geographic advantage, being one of the furthermost cities capable of being flown to ex-MEX (given hot / high conditions).

MEX also has significantly less in-direct competition ex-Australasia, compared to BOM / India - India even has LCC carrier connections ex-Australia, like the AirAsia Group (terrible yields).

MillwallSean wrote:

Add on that NZ has committed to LAX as its primary gateway to North America and well, MEX is to be polite a longshot.

What? NZ has not committed to LAX at all - if that was the case, it would not have launched IAH (or SFO or YVR for that matter), and instead, would have added those frequencies to LAX.

MillwallSean wrote:

If NZ choose to add a service eastwards, its logical that they look at main destinations such as New York.

NYC cannot be reached yet, from AKL, on NZ's current fleet (in contrast, AKL is one of the furthermost cities able to be flown from MEX) - and re ORD, it largely duplicates IAH, as you say.

Cheers,

C.

Kiwirob wrote:

The urban population of Mexico City is over 20 million and I bet most of them are wealthier than the 19 million living in Bombay.

hahahahaha
keep thinking that....

you ever been to both Bombay and Mexico City?

Mexico City is not even a financial hub let alone a manufacturing

Bombay is the financial hub to the 6th biggest economy, they have more business class flyers than the entire population of NZ...

Yes there is huge income disparity but the numbers are on a whole different scale.

Also most Bombay population stats do not include Thane or Navi Mumbai or the fact that Gujarat and Maharashtra use it to fly out of India

also BOM handles more passengers than MEX


if Air NZ can make MEX viable ( how many Mexicans in NZ compared to Indians?)
Air NZ should then be able to fly to a bare minimum another 25 new long haul cities in Asia, Europe and the United states well before Mexico

Kashmon wrote:

... if Air NZ can make MEX viable ( how many Mexicans in NZ compared to Indians?)

It's not about migrant populations - New Zealand has more Indians than Argentinians, but picked EZE ahead of BOM.

It's about a whole host of factors, like (but not limited to) competition, aircraft operating dynamics and tourism potential.

Cheers,

C.

Well Airbus has now stopped accepting GTFs from Pratt which throws a spanner in the works for NZ I would imagine. This could get interesting.....

It has been a pretty bad weekend for weather disruptions, with multiple cancellations to destinations around the country. Wellington was closed by fog from Saturday afternoon, and I saw plenty of regional flights around the North Island being affected by delays and cancellations. By last night the announcements at the domestic terminal were advising people who were on disrupted flights to return home and contact the call centre.

V/F

planemanofnz wrote:

Because it is an open forum, where everyone is entitled to express ideas and thoughts

And others are entitled to critique said ideas and express opposing ideas

NZ321 wrote:

Well Airbus has now stopped accepting GTFs from Pratt which throws a spanner in the works for NZ I would imagine. This could get interesting.....

Just found the source article, this could get very interesting indeed - appears to be the latest builds affected? (Article says "can potentially appear on engines starting with serial number P770450") Reportedly causing high occurrence of inflight shutdowns and rejected takeoffs.

EASA reportedly requiring that aircraft with both engines affected can only operate 3 cycles before having at least one engine replaced with an unaffected engine; and that ETOPS must only be performed with two unaffected engines.

This must throw a spanner in the works for the airlines that are operating the neo atm - I would imagine for NZ it's just another delay to the A320I replacement programme, after the initial one-year delay.

planemanofnz wrote:

Kashmon wrote:

... if Air NZ can make MEX viable ( how many Mexicans in NZ compared to Indians?)

It's not about migrant populations - New Zealand has more Indians than Argentinians, but picked EZE ahead of BOM.

It's about a whole host of factors, like (but not limited to) competition, aircraft operating dynamics and tourism potential.

Cheers,

C.

As i said, it was a comment on face value for generic data. EZE is a strategic move to develop a region of South America long term and develop AKL into a HUB for South America <> Australia/Asia traffic.

MillwallSean wrote:

Why are we having a discussion about MEX and AKL? It sometimes feels like a dartboard is used to predict or suggest new routes, its akin to having people who played football manager believe they have better answers than Mourinho.
MEX will not happen in my lifetime since there is virtually no O/D traffic. Add on that NZ has committed to LAX as its primary gateway to North America and well, MEX is to be polite a longshot. Sadly, when there is little to no O/D traffic there is no real business case. Businesscases are noring data that needs to be done before any route starts. A business case with no O/D that also needs connections at two ends (into AKL and out from MEX) and its a tough sell...

Couldn't agree more.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

This is just another example of using basic and very general data on face value

I cited various data for the ICN proposition, which were largely just ignored or put down with statements like "from directly inside NZ ICN is not a focus".

So, yes, I didn't bother to look for the statistics on MEX (I now have - see below), but was specific with arguments like hot / high conditions inhibiting QF.

NZ6 wrote:

Is Central America an area which is going to grow and be profitable over the next 10-20 years or longer?

Isn't that time-frame a bit arbitrary, given that NZ has stopped and re-started numerous destinations in that period, like DPS, SIN and YVR?

IMHO, it is quite telling that, according to the main Mexican tourism body, "Australia is the main market for Mexico without direct flights":

- ~77,000 Australians visited Mexico in 2016 (compared to ~55,000 Chinese going to Mexico, and just ~50,000 Australians going to Brazil).
- ~11,000 Mexicans visited Australia in 2017, double that of the 2013 number (to compare, Brazil had ~55,000 and Argentina had ~23,000).

See:
- http://www.viaxico.com/tourism-arrivals-mexico/.
- http://www.dadosefatos.turismo.gov.br/2 ... 53-05.html.
- http://www.tourism.australia.com/en/mar ... ivals.html.

The market is skewed towards Australians visiting MEX, and not the other way around, which plays into NZ's brand recognition in Australia.

NZ6 wrote:

Latin America ... that's would be a big "Region", it's basically one and half continents

I'm not really sure what your point is with this statement - there's nothing "would" about it - Latin America is a region, which both EZE and MEX are in.

Cam Wallace's statement is explicitly specific to South America - not to Latin America, which means that MEX cannot be ruled out, like GRU or SCL.

NZ6 wrote:

BOM doesn't work, why would MEX

- There being a huge number of in-direct carriers flying between New Zealand and India, but not between New Zealand and Mexico.
- There being an ability to feed Mexico with Australian connections, but not to India, given back-tracking linked with AKL's geography.
- The advantage of AKL being one of the furthermost away cities able to be reached from MEX - absent from any BOM proposition.

The list goes on, and on, and on ...

Cheers,

C.

All of this can be summed up as this
- Population, Stats, Wealth ratings, volume of competition, isolation of other routes all do not warrant a new route. In fact these things almost come last.
- Great that Australians are going to Mexico. How many visited via Cruise Ship, How many visited border towns and how many of them tapped this onto an USA Holiday, How much business is being done and what type demographic are they, what fares types did they pay?
- So you want NZ to commence, AKL-MEX on the basis NZ will carry a payload of passengers ex AU each day to fill it? That being a destination in close proximity to it's other 3 major North American Hubs?
- NZ has never spoke of a desire to travel to Central America. It's spoken openly about South American, North America and the need to develop both markets.

Re BOM. It was simply and example of using data to formulate a theory.

As MillwallSean has said, it's as if we often do this; "dartboard is used to predict or suggest new routes". This is so much more to consider than what we do here.

Zkpilot wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

All this recent talk of new routes (well all my talk) has been focused on the traditional long haul airline.

Air New Zealand, has recently opened up a new type of product - mid to long haul leisure. Designed purely around the outbound tourist market with seasonal operations without some of the extra such as through checking etc.

Examples obviously are DPS, SGN and you can add MNL in there too to an extent and there is another one coming shortly, they initially became viable thanks to the 763.

Does this influence the long haul fleet replacement program? Is the 789 too big for some of these routes given NZ is continuing with them, do they live with it or introduce something similar in size to the 763? Ideally you'd want a 200-230 seater, the 789 is over the 300 mark obviously but you also don't want to end up with a large diverse fleet as that increases operating costs.

Looking at the options.
- The A321LR doesn't have the legs for AKL-SGN or AKL-DPS but is the perfect size for these markets and would have accompanied the A320/A321NEO's coming in nicely. Cancel this option.
- If NZ decide to go all Airbus, the only other option is a A330-200 but I can't see NZ purchasing this as it's a new type, the A350-800 could work if it was actually built and would be perfect if the rest of the long haul fleet was the A350-900/1000
- If NZ go Boeing and the 778/787, do they try get a few 788's like they originally intended or explore the 797, all be it 15+ years away so they world will be a different place then.
- NZ does nothing, operating the long haul fleet whatever it is to these markets.

Rainy day thoughts.

You can forget the 788. It literally does nothing that the 789 can do. Even with a handful of seats empty the 789 is more cost effective than having some 788 in the fleet. The 788 is history and likely no more will be built in the future. Same as how airlines stopped buying the 762 and the 772.

Agree, I just can't help but think NZ would want something slightly smaller on some routes. Provided the cost per trip reflected the lower seat count. I guess what you're saying is it's not in the case of the 788 v 789

MillwallSean wrote:

Why are we having a discussion about MEX and AKL? It sometimes feels like a dartboard is used to predict or suggest new routes, its akin to having people who played football manager believe they have better answers than Mourinho.
MEX will not happen in my lifetime since there is virtually no O/D traffic. Add on that NZ has committed to LAX as its primary gateway to North America and well, MEX is to be polite a longshot. Sadly, when there is little to no O/D traffic there is no real business case. Businesscases are noring data that needs to be done before any route starts. A business case with no O/D that also needs connections at two ends (into AKL and out from MEX) and its a tough sell...

Why not? It's Pacific Rim.

I haven't studied the numbers but my immediate assumption would be that there is very little demand because there is no service. My travel agent (Whangarei) says she gets steady requests for Mexico but she has to put them all through the US gateways so they tend to tack on more US as well.

NZ6 wrote:

Great that Australians are going to Mexico. How many visited via Cruise Ship, How many visited border towns and how many of them tapped this onto an USA Holiday, How much business is being done and what type demographic are they, what fares types did they pay?

And some book for themselves, of course, but really one can ask of your list - how else do they get there?

mariner

NZ6 wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

All this recent talk of new routes (well all my talk) has been focused on the traditional long haul airline.

Air New Zealand, has recently opened up a new type of product - mid to long haul leisure. Designed purely around the outbound tourist market with seasonal operations without some of the extra such as through checking etc.

Examples obviously are DPS, SGN and you can add MNL in there too to an extent and there is another one coming shortly, they initially became viable thanks to the 763.

Does this influence the long haul fleet replacement program? Is the 789 too big for some of these routes given NZ is continuing with them, do they live with it or introduce something similar in size to the 763? Ideally you'd want a 200-230 seater, the 789 is over the 300 mark obviously but you also don't want to end up with a large diverse fleet as that increases operating costs.

Looking at the options.
- The A321LR doesn't have the legs for AKL-SGN or AKL-DPS but is the perfect size for these markets and would have accompanied the A320/A321NEO's coming in nicely. Cancel this option.
- If NZ decide to go all Airbus, the only other option is a A330-200 but I can't see NZ purchasing this as it's a new type, the A350-800 could work if it was actually built and would be perfect if the rest of the long haul fleet was the A350-900/1000
- If NZ go Boeing and the 778/787, do they try get a few 788's like they originally intended or explore the 797, all be it 15+ years away so they world will be a different place then.
- NZ does nothing, operating the long haul fleet whatever it is to these markets.

Rainy day thoughts.

You can forget the 788. It literally does nothing that the 789 can do. Even with a handful of seats empty the 789 is more cost effective than having some 788 in the fleet. The 788 is history and likely no more will be built in the future. Same as how airlines stopped buying the 762 and the 772.

Agree, I just can't help but think NZ would want something slightly smaller on some routes. Provided the cost per trip reflected the lower seat count. I guess what you're saying is it's not in the case of the 788 v 789

The 788 has a lot of issues which were resolved by the 789. They are basically the same plane but the 789 has a lot more payload capacity and has a bit more seating capacity. So it does have a slightly higher trip cost overall but that is cancelled out by the extra payload (freight) and passengers (even if not full the costs aren't much different and certainly would be more than cancelled out by the savings of not having a different aircraft type in the fleet - the 788 is actually quite a bit different to the 789 so is quite expensive to have both). Better to "slightly" abuse a 789 than to have the 788 in the fleet. On the upside with the 789 when you do sell those seats it can generate extra revenue too.

The 797 will be an interesting proposition and yes it is possible that NZ could get them if they offer sufficient range, CASM and payload for it's requirements. Could possibly be good for routes like DPS, TPE, BKK, SGN, MNL, DRW, CHC-PER, etc
NZ will of course be careful not to complicate their fleet type... A320 family, 797, 789, A350/77X probably isn't too bad for a jet fleet since the 797 will likely share a common cockpit with the 787 (a bit like the 757 and 767). Of course they could look to replace the 789 in a decade with more A350 if they went down the A350 route meaning the jet fleet would be A320 family, 797, A350 (assuming they want to keep Boeing in the game). If they did go this way then I would expect a larger amount of 797 than if they kept the 789 (since the 789 is closer in size to the 797 than the A350 is).

NZ6 wrote:

All of this can be summed up as ...

Selective summing up, then - what about:

- MEX's geography (being hot and high) benefitting AKL over SYD, more than pretty much any other major city in the region?
- Travel being skewed to out-bound Australian traffic, benefitting NZ with its brand recognition in Australia (more than Brazil)?
- The competitive landscape in South America having changed since NZ's EZE launch, with the likes of LA launching MEL?
- MEX having far less in-direct and LCC competition than other markets of a similar distance from Australasia, such as India?

It is going to take more than a cruise ship argument and/or putting down the quality of cited data to put AKL - MEX to bed.

NZ6 wrote:

How many visited via Cruise Ship? How many visited border towns? How many of them tapped this onto an USA Holiday?

These are all valid questions, but I would encourage you to actually open the link that I posted above, which shows that:

- Around 70,000 Australians actually fly into an international airport in Mexico - these are not cruise or border town visits.
- Approximately 85% of these tourists fly into CUN or MEX (the majority to CUN) - in line with various other countries.

See: http://www.viaxico.com/tourism-arrivals-mexico/.

NZ6 wrote:

EZE is a strategic move to develop a region of South America long term

EZE develops South America, and MEX can develop Central America, and more (heck, BOG is closer to MEX, than EZE).

NZ6 wrote:

NZ has never spoke of a desire to travel to Central America.

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?

Likewise, NZ has not said that it is not considering Central America - indeed, Cam Wallace's statements leave that wide open.

I do not take NZ's words as set in stone - as mariner said, there is the Pacific Rim strategy, but is NYC in the Pacific Rim?

NZ6 wrote:

This is so much more to consider than what we do here.

This statement could equally be applied to all of your ideas in this thread, like MNL - it does not stop us from speculating.

Cheers,

C.

77000 Australians per year works out to be 211 pax a day, with the majority being from SYD, BNE and MEL who can get to MEX daily with one stop. Sorry, I don't see this happening.

planemanofnz wrote:

I do not take NZ's words as set in stone - as mariner said, there is the Pacific Rim strategy, but is NYC in the Pacific Rim?

As has been suggested many many times before, the "Pacific Rim" strategy was never meant to be interpreted literally. It's not an argument for or against anything at all. If and when NZ flies to BOM or JNB/CPT, I fully expect the naysayers to come out swinging with the argument that the airline has criminally misled its shareholders. Like all strategies, the Pacific Rim strategy will apply only as long as it's the best strategy, and then it will be changed.

getluv wrote:

77000 Australians per year works out to be 211 pax a day, with the majority being from SYD, BNE and MEL who can get to MEX daily with one stop. Sorry, I don't see this happening.

I'm not so sure - for comparison, there were only ~53,000 Australian tourists who went to Argentina in 2015-2016, when NZ launched EZE.

See: http://dfat.gov.au/geo/argentina/pages/ ... brief.aspx.

Aside from this, there is other traffic (like to / from New Zealand, or Mexicans to Australia), and non-stop flights often grow these numbers:

- Argentinians visiting New Zealand grew from 5,400 to 18,600 between 2015 and 2017, after NZ launched EZE.
- Texans visiting New Zealand grew from 14,700 to 22,000 between 2015 and 2017, after NZ launched IAH.

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



Cheers,

C.

I’ll believe ORD when it happens.

DavidByrne wrote:

As has been suggested many many times before, the "Pacific Rim" strategy was never meant to be interpreted literally. It's not an argument for or against anything at all. If and when NZ flies to BOM or JNB/CPT, I fully expect the naysayers to come out swinging with the argument that the airline has criminally misled its shareholders. Like all strategies, the Pacific Rim strategy will apply only as long as it's the best strategy, and then it will be changed.

Sure. It hasn't changed yet, but it may, if they can find the right aircraft and if market conditions align but even then I'll probably still think of it as Pacific Rim Plus.

I'm not as thrilled about the ULH routes as the rest of the world appears to be. Sure, fine, but I'll never fly 'em, because if I wanted to go that far, to any of those cities, I'd make sure I had some interesting stop-overs along the way.

If ULH is what people want, then of course, they must have it. But if they told me they they're launching AKL-LIM or AKL-MEX (or better yet both!) then I'd sit up and take notice.

mariner

globalcabotage wrote:

I’ll believe ORD when it happens.

I'm not sure I'll even believe it when it happens. Unless they simultaneously phase out IAH.

planemanofnz wrote:

EZE develops South America, and MEX can develop Central America, and more (heck, BOG is closer to MEX, than EZE).

Not that they want to but hey, you'd probably know more.

Look at this map - Look how geographically close MEX is to they extensive USA network which is going to grow hence I've added two of the most spectated new destinations on there, given how low the numbers are do you really this this is sensible?

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. Depends, who you talk too and what networks you have. Have a deep dig around for comments on DPS and the 763 utilization before it's retirement.

planemanofnz wrote:

I do not take NZ's words as set in stone - as mariner said, there is the Pacific Rim strategy, but is NYC in the Pacific Rim?

You're thinking of this too literally. It doesn’t mean it needs to be a pacific coastal city, it’s about linking NZ to nations and ports around the Pacific Rim via DIRECT services, Is EZE Pacific Rim, is IAH? Is PER? They started CHC-PER!

In the case of NYC - it's American country which borders the Pacific and they are looking to go deeper into the US direct i.e no LAX add-ons etc.

planemanofnz wrote:

- Around 70,000 Australians actually fly into an international airport in Mexico - these are not cruise or border town visits.
- Approximately 85% of these tourists fly into CUN or MEX (the majority to CUN) - in line with various other countries.

getluv wrote:

77000 Australians per year works out to be 211 pax a day, with the majority being from SYD, BNE and MEL who can get to MEX daily with one stop. Sorry, I don't see this happening.

Exactly, many Australian will still fly VA, QF, AA, DL, UA - NZ will only get a portion of that. Based on AU-US market, NZ typically struggles to get higher yield due to those carriers.

I challenge you to put together a detailed business case of how MEX would/can work. Show daily PAX numbers and support this with more than population and tourist numbers. Give me an indication on RASM, what market segmentation you are targeting? Marketing strategy including inbound and outbound, what the operating costs p/a are and what you expect to make in the first 12 months, 36 months and 5 years?,

mariner wrote:

I'm not as thrilled about the ULH routes as the rest of the world appears to be. Sure, fine, but I'll never fly 'em, because if I wanted to go that far, to any of those cities, I'd make sure I had some interesting stop-overs along the way.

If ULH is what people want, then of course, they must have it. But if they told me they they're launching AKL-LIM or AKL-MEX (or better yet both!) then I'd sit up and take notice.

Absolutely. For me too travel is not just about the ultimate destination, but also about the places en route that you can visit to broaden your experience of the world. If you want to be a "world citizen" then you have to put your money where your mouth is!

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.

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

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?

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.

Airbus A350-1041 expect to arrive Auckland at 2020 local

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... in-nw1819/

CX has reopened bookings for their seasonal HKG-CHC services. Also looks like no alteration has been made to the schedule... makes me question why bookings were suspended in the first place

darn I was hoping it would go year round 3 weekly, daily over summer.

Kashmon wrote:

darn I was hoping it would go year round 3 weekly, daily over summer.

I had high hopes too, but to be honest after a month with no updates I was beginning to speculate that they might be suspending the service so at this point I'm pretty glad that its still going to be running at all!

VirginFlyer wrote:

It has been a pretty bad weekend for weather disruptions, with multiple cancellations to destinations around the country. Wellington was closed by fog from Saturday afternoon, and I saw plenty of regional flights around the North Island being affected by delays and cancellations. By last night the announcements at the domestic terminal were advising people who were on disrupted flights to return home and contact the call centre.

V/F

I was caught by the closure of WLG on Saturday afternoon on what was supposed to be a day trip to Auckland. I was rebooked to the last flight which was eventually cancelled since it didn’t reopen until the next morning.

The options to rebook on Sunday was 5.40am or 5.30pm. FR24 will tell you 3x AKL-WLG flights left early morning (5am and 2x 5.40am) to help clear the backlog. The 5am flight was the diverted SYD-WLG from the previous afternoon that positioned to do the WLG-SYD service on Sunday morning.

As for Sunday’s disruptions, the airport and lounge were predictably packed with weather disruptions affecting AKL services to KKE, WRE, ROT, TRG, PPQ, BHE and NSN.

I’ve never been so relieved to see Lyall Bay on finals.

Have seen that Etihad is selling it’s 5x 77L. NZ has spoken of extra 777 capacity. These could be a great buy/lease. Would be perfect to operate ORD, IAH and YVR and then in a few years or so get the A350 or 77X. Shouldn’t be an issue since NZ operates both 77E and 77W. I’d imagine they could be picked up for a bargain and are probably in good condition.

Aren't the Etihad 77L ex Air India?

A330NZ wrote:

CX has reopened bookings for their seasonal HKG-CHC services. Also looks like no alteration has been made to the schedule... makes me question why bookings were suspended in the first place

I wonder what the mix of passengers on this flight is like - predominantly Hong Kong, China or Europe-based?

- The number of HKG-based passengers flying to AKL increased by 27.8% in 2017, but only by 1% to CHC.
- However, if comparing December 2016 to December 2017 - HKG-based passengers to CHC grew by 95%.
- Further, China-based travellers flying to CHC increased by 13.4% in 2017, compared to just 1.3% for AKL.
- The number of China-based travellers flying to New Zealand through HKG grew by more than 40% in 2017.

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

It will be interesting to see if this becomes a year-round flight before the NZCC is due to renew the CX-NZ JV.

Cheers,

C.

NZ321 wrote:

Aren't the Etihad 77L ex Air India?

Correct - there was drama within India, back when AI sold them to EY - it was believed the price was too low (USD 70 million per unit).

See: http://www.thehindu.com/business/Indust ... 526942.ece.

According to CAPA, these 777-200LRs are now valued at USD 50 million, or more, per unit - surely this would be a good deal for NZ?

See: https://centreforaviation.com/insights/ ... ake-398254.

Cheers,

C.

Zkpilot wrote:

Have seen that Etihad is selling it’s 5x 77L. NZ has spoken of extra 777 capacity. These could be a great buy/lease. Would be perfect to operate ORD, IAH and YVR and then in a few years or so get the A350 or 77X. Shouldn’t be an issue since NZ operates both 77E and 77W. I’d imagine they could be picked up for a bargain and are probably in good condition.

You mean the aircraft that NZ management has derided as the "flying fuel tank"? Somehow, I doubt it unless there's been a complete shift of attitude!

planemanofnz wrote:

It will be interesting to see if this becomes a year-round flight before the NZCC is due to renew the CX-NZ JV.

Do I recall correctly that the HKG-CHC flight was only reluctantly taken on as the "price" of the NZCC allowing the JV between CX and NZ? Or are they now operating it voluntarily?

DavidByrne wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

It will be interesting to see if this becomes a year-round flight before the NZCC is due to renew the CX-NZ JV.

Do I recall correctly that the HKG-CHC flight was only reluctantly taken on as the "price" of the NZCC allowing the JV between CX and NZ? Or are they now operating it voluntarily?

AFAIK, it's unclear - CAPA saw it as a move to counter HX's arrival, showing the JV was still delivering benefits for consumers:

"... now that Hong Kong Airlines has entered Auckland, and then expanded, the Cathay-Air NZ JV faces disbanding. By finally committing to a Christchurch route Cathay appears to be bidding to keep the JV in play."

See: https://centreforaviation.com/insights/ ... ity-329018.

That being said, CX to CHC and the renewal of the JV through 2022 were announced around the same time (February 2017).

See: https://www.cathaypacific.com/cx/nl_NL/ ... nd-nz.html.

Cheers,

C.

I am all for the joint venture with HX on the route. Keeps possibilities alive. If HX were to withdraw then it might be a different matter. I think it is a good thing that carriers are forming joint ventures across alliances.

DavidByrne wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Have seen that Etihad is selling it’s 5x 77L. NZ has spoken of extra 777 capacity. These could be a great buy/lease. Would be perfect to operate ORD, IAH and YVR and then in a few years or so get the A350 or 77X. Shouldn’t be an issue since NZ operates both 77E and 77W. I’d imagine they could be picked up for a bargain and are probably in good condition.

You mean the aircraft that NZ management has derided as the "flying fuel tank"? Somehow, I doubt it unless there's been a complete shift of attitude!

That would be because their initial purchase price was almost that of a 77W! Picking them up for a bargain on the other hand is a different story as NZ is one of the few airlines that could actually use these aircraft properly (those that do typically have A380 also eg EK). The 77L is more cost effective than a 77E IIRC flights over 10 hours. NZ got the 77E for a bargain and also operate them on flights less than 10 hours. YVR, IAH and ORD however severely limit payload on a 77E to the point where ORD isn’t viable and where YVR loses money most of the year (but creams it Dec-Mar during Ski season).
$50m a pop (or even less) would mean 5 of these could be had for the price of 1 new 77W.
It would allow ORD and possibly even EWR as well as freeing up 77E/789 to either improve capacity on existing routes or look at other new routes.

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.

NZ321 wrote:

I am all for the joint venture with HX on the route. Keeps possibilities alive. If HX were to withdraw then it might be a different matter. I think it is a good thing that carriers are forming joint ventures across alliances.

if the rumors going around Hong Kong are true there might not be an HX next year.

You can only try and gain market share by selling your flights at a loss for a while...

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.

It's going to be at least 5 - 7 years or more, before all the new planes will be delivered - given that time-frame, and how cheap these birds are, NZ might well view a purchase as fine. The rates will be good - aside from NZ, I can't really see any carrier being interested in these birds - perhaps TK for launching the long-rumoured IST - SYD route?

As an alternative, given that NZ is playing Airbus and Boeing off of each other in the current long-haul fleet renewal process, perhaps NZ could suggest that Boeing buy the 77L's from EY, lease them to NZ at an attractive rate, and then at the end of the lease, make use of the parts? This would see NZ through, until the 777X's can be delivered.

Cheers,

C.

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.

Does anyone know more about the "special visa processing arrangements" between Immigration NZ and selected airlines?

See: https://www.immigration.govt.nz/new-zea ... rangements.

I got an email from KrisFlyer saying that SQ now facilitates this - I also see that CA, NZ, MU, CZ, PR, SQ and TG have it.

It is very interesting that these carriers, but not the likes of CX, GS, HU, KE, MH, 3U and others do not also avail of this.

Cheers,

C.