Where would you put heavy rail from the station to the airport in Wellington?

I lived there for years and after this UK jaunt is done plan to settle there. I cannot see anywhere that you could stick heavy rail without truly massive disruption. Including demolishing many buildings. I don't see a bored tunnel working with the geology of Wellington. Maybe cut and cover but then you're right back into the utterly massive disruption.

Your best long term options will be light rail or proper bus rapid transit with dedicated lanes. Honestly for the long term Wellington needs to explore getting rid of private motor vehicles. In my mind that's the cheapest way to create a rapid and frequent public transport system. Get everyone out of their cars. Only allowing commercial and public transport vehicles.

Of course I've said here before that in my mind the best long term plan is building an airport out in the Wairarapa and building rapid rail links with Wellington, Palmy, and Napier-Hastings. Creating a south North Island airport. But that's even more expensive and I admit largely a pipe dream.

planemanofnz wrote:

I wonder what can be done to try and grow the number of people training to become pilots here - according to Aviation New Zealand, over the last 10 years, there has been a decline in the number of Kiwis training to be pilots, and of those who do train, many end up going to Asia and Middle East for higher salaries.

When the government cut most student loan funding for flight training, the number of people training plummeted. Unsurprisingly.

planemanofnz wrote:

With immigration reforms too, perhaps more could be done to encourage overseas-trained pilots to migrate down under?

I would hope not. Wages for low hour commercial pilots are ridiculously low as it is.

DavidJ08 wrote:

Meanwhile in New Zealand, Air NZ has reduced the minimum flight time for application since I last looked at them a decade ago, now the minimum for consideration is 500hrs for the turboprop fleet (although I'd still love to hear how much people actually get in with - and would not be surprised if it takes much more to actually get in)

Anecdotally I've heard of several people who have gotten in with much less, though it is hard to tell rumour from fact.

DavidJ08 wrote:

QF JetConnect (F/O requiring 2000hrs total, 1000hrs multi-engine, pay for your own 737-800 type rating first which gets reimbursed on start of employment afterwards).

The company covers the cost of the type rating now.

DavidJ08 wrote:

there's a not-insignificant gap between flight training and the airlines' minimum requirements, and my understanding is that despite the GA activity around the country (esp tourism operators) employment prospects aren't great locally right after training. I'd question how many of those going to Asia and the Middle East would've had the choice of staying local and working an airline job - I would've thought a sizeable proportion are going out of necessity (to gain stable, paid airline employment.)

DavidJ08 wrote:

Also the government in 2011 reduced access to student loan funding for flight training - because "Pilots leave study with large student loans and tend to take a long time to repay them." Now prospective pilots have to pay a sizeable amount themselves and put the rest on the student loan (I believe there is a shortfall of some $20k?) I can't remember where I saw it but I believe the government cited poor employment prospects immediately after training as one of the reasons for the slow repayment; therefore I don't think it's entirely unfair to limiting access to flight training - no point having 500 people a year going through flight training if there are only 100 jobs for them.

Whilst I can see the motivations behind the government cutting student loan funding, it certainly goes against the notion of an egalitarian society. It has resulted in most of those in flight training now are their due to having wealthy parents.

I suspect that a better way to have moved forwards would be for the government to fund a fixed number of flight training loans each year and make the flight schools fight over them (who can place the most graduates in jobs gets the biggest allocation of those loans). Or something similar.

DavidJ08 wrote:

AviationNZ has naturally been advocating for more access to student loan funding for kids wanting to be pilots, but with Air NZ not willing to create a programme to bridge the gap (and IIRC advocating for increased immigration so they can hire experienced pilots from overseas - not a notion I agree with when young local pilots can't get jobs) I honestly don't see the point of opening the floodgates on pilot training only to have a bottleneck afterwards. It's like Australia and their opening more medical schools and training more medical students because they need more senior doctors, but without the foresight to create more training positions in the middle so all these new graduates get bottlenecked and they still need more senior doctors.

Perhaps the worldwide pilot shortage will eventually hit New Zealand and Air NZ might eventually come out with some sort of bridge programme, but until then, it doesn't seem to bother them (or anyone else - comparing QF entry requirements in Aus vs JetConnect in NZ is the most informative) and I don't think it makes sense to be stimulating the supply of pilots without the major employer (Air NZ) expressing the need and coordinating in downstream employment.

The shortage has been starting to hit in the past six months or so and is starting to be felt by the airlines. The airlines are going to be forced to adapt to it and either hire people with lower experience or cancel flights. If you look to the Europe, you will see that airlines like easyjet are putting people into the first officer's seat of A319/A320s with only ~250 hours total time. That's an incredible figure from an Australasian perspective, yet airlines like easyjet have been doing that for more than a decade. The important point is that the airline is used to this and have adapted + resourced their training department to deal with training up crew who have lesser experience. The airline's excellent safety record would suggest that it has dealt with this successfully. By comparison, it was only five years or so ago that Eagle Air was requiring a minimum of 5,000 hours for someone to even apply for a F/O job....

I suspect that, long term, all the big Australasian airlines are going to have to have their own cadet programs from which they will source most of their pilots. That is probably still a decade or so away though.

OTOH a Swiss friend told me that in Switzerland, a portion of all departure taxes is set aside to cover the costs of student's flight training. Seems fair.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

Some news on the P-3 replacement. Looks like the government has tapped the brakes so that Ron Mark can convince himself that the P-8 is worth the cost.

Why the attack on Ron Mark? Should we not be pleased that the government is trying to spend money carefully (especially on big ticket items)?

A 737-8 can't takeoff from Whenuapai at MTOW, so I suspect that the P-8 Poseidon would be compromised on range for South Pacific operations.

camfloss wrote:

What they do have in common is their ridiculously high ticket prices.

And operating costs!

camfloss wrote:

Which is why I think Ron Mark will be a complete hypocrite if he endorses purchasing P8s after what he said about the C17. From memory he endorsed buying new Hercs.

The C17 would have been an enormous step up in operating capability.

And an enormous step up in operating costs. The C-17 burns upwards of 10T of fuel an hour - that's not far off how much an A380 drinks!

I think the A400m or Embraer KC390 would be a lot more appropriate in terms of size and running costs.

It seems that intervention by a Minister, has really put the cat among the pigeons on regional air services.
But we all know AirNZ is a totally private company. (albeit once in the past in trouble, and rescued by the
Gov't of the day, and we all know with dividends/share value, over the years is really totally repaid. And
think how good in all that time since, it's been having our own major and successful local airline)
What I don't understand is how AirNZ gets 100 percent of the criticism for deciding not to serve Paraparaumu
yet JETSTAR gets zero criticism for it's (equally valid) decision not to serve Paraparaumu....?
Many countries around the world suffer from political interference with their local Airlines, mostly to the long
term detriment of those carriers. I repeat, JETSTAR has Q300's. Why not blame them for not serving some
provincial places that local Mayors consider important? (Meanwhile, they quietly cherry pick the highly
profitable main trunk stuff)

zkojq wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

Some news on the P-3 replacement. Looks like the government has tapped the brakes so that Ron Mark can convince himself that the P-8 is worth the cost.

Why the attack on Ron Mark? Should we not be pleased that the government is trying to spend money carefully (especially on big ticket items)?

A 737-8 can't takeoff from Whenuapai at MTOW, so I suspect that the P-8 Poseidon would be compromised on range for South Pacific operations.

It wasn't an attack on Ron Mark. As the minister of defence he'll have to sign off on any purchase. Which means he has to convince himself it's worth whatever the cost is.
And I imagine a Whenuapai upgrade or relocation may have to also be considered as part of a purchase. Otherwise as you say we might not be able to easily make full use of the range. Which would affect the total price.

zkojq wrote:

Whilst I can see the motivations behind the government cutting student loan funding, it certainly goes against the notion of an egalitarian society. It has resulted in most of those in flight training now are their due to having wealthy parents.

I suspect that a better way to have moved forwards would be for the government to fund a fixed number of flight training loans each year and make the flight schools fight over them (who can place the most graduates in jobs gets the biggest allocation of those loans). Or something similar.

+1

The more I think on it, the more wrong it seems to me - instead of just capping places and working on achieving job placements for graduates (and therefore solve the problem causing those large student loans to be repaid at a slow rate), they went with something that only makes budgetary sense and introduced a funding gap, which as you say restricts flight training to those with wealthy enough parents - not egalitarian at all.

I'm tempted to say something about funding based on parental income (sort of like student allowance), with a funding gap for those with wealthy parents and less/no funding gap for those without; but I haven't quite thought it through, it's just an idea inspired by this graphic:

wstakl wrote:

So a company that is owned by the Crown and has been bailed out by taxpayers throws a hissy fit because a politician expresses an opinion

"always act independently of the Crown" What a self centred and arrogant comment. Would they if the Blue Team was running the show? Ol' Mate John already starting to have a negative impact.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politi ... al-flights

This whole topic is just insane.

NZ is not obliged to serve regional New Zealand in it's entirety. There is absolutely no recognition for attempting new routes, PPQ, OAM, WKA etc. If the economics and demand isn't there then pull it they do have an obligation to the all of New Zealand.

1) Regional Economic Development Minister must say something negative so these comments should be taken with a grain of salt, he's not doing a very good job if he sits back and appears happy with it.
2) PPQ is hardly a region without air transport. Up until 3-4 years ago they commuted to WLG with few complaints.
3) Is there any difference to Auckland's Norrthern Beachs? (Snells Beach, Omaha, Matakana etc)
4) Look at western Sydney for a more extreme case of the above. How do commuters from Blacktown, Penrith, Richmand etc commute to SYD?
5) This is part of a bigger issue. NZ does not have the population or geographical size to support extensive well serviced air travel. We should be looking at more affordable long term options for ground travel such as investing more in rail and roading (which I don't like personally).
6) PPQ was part of the greater WLG 'Super City' concept 2 years ago. No city in NZ has two airports operating. Why should WLG be any different.
7) Passengers in other regions travel further via land to reach an airport.The Kiwi lifestyle means our cities are expanding outwards. This will only continue to be an issue for airports such as WLG, AKL without transport options.

I'd love NZ to have rail between major settlements and the minor satellite towns i.e WHK > TRG, KAT > KKE, PPQ > WLG, WKA > ZQN, GIS > NPE, TIU > CHC. I'm not saying we can support 8 car high frequency rail or that is should be centered around airports. But rail lines which bypass airports with single car rail would allow passenger to quickly and conveniently commute to larger airports which provide higher frequency and more affordable flights, rail lines would also take freight off the roads.

Here is a German example:

NZ6 wrote:

NZ is not obliged to serve regional New Zealand in it's entirety. There is absolutely no recognition for attempting new routes, PPQ, OAM, WKA etc. If the economics and demand isn't there then pull it

This is absolutely correct.

In fact, as far as I am aware, NZ is under no obligation to serve any airport in the world; be it in regional New Zealand or elsewhere. The only obligation NZ is under is to provide a return to its shareholders; and it is quite entitled to achieve this in any way it sees fit. I am not aware of any charter, either explicit or implied which decrees NZ must provide services to XYZ.

What we should be discussing is whether is purely capitalist model that we operate under is appropriate for New Zealand society. But NZ are not responsible for inventing it.

Gasman wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

In fact, as far as I am aware, NZ is under no obligation to serve any airport in the world; be it in regional New Zealand or elsewhere. The only obligation NZ is under is to provide a return to its shareholders; and it is quite entitled to achieve this in any way it sees fit. I am not aware of any charter, either explicit or implied which decrees NZ must provide services to XYZ.

What we should be discussing is whether is purely capitalist model that we operate under is appropriate for New Zealand society. But NZ are not responsible for inventing it.

Exactly so. It's disingenuous to blame NZ for failing to meet an obligation that they haven't had imposed on them. And if government, as the major shareholder, wants to impose obligations on NZ to take on specific routes, then it can do so but there will need to be a financial quid pro quo or the 49% non-state shareholders will find the airline a much less attractive investment opportunity - with the consequence that the government's own shareholding will also be devalued.

DavidByrne wrote:

It's disingenuous to blame NZ for failing to meet an obligation that they haven't had imposed on them. And if government, as the major shareholder, wants to impose obligations on NZ to take on specific routes, then it can do so but there will need to be a financial quid pro quo or the 49% non-state shareholders will find the airline a much less attractive investment opportunity - with the consequence that the government's own shareholding will also be devalued.

It sounds like a bunch of old fashioned hard-liners furious that Air NZ has stated its independence:

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/politica ... nce-air-nz

"Govt has 'means and mechanisms' to influence Air NZ"

Nor is Mr. Jones inclined to back-off - although he does reveal his political leaning:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=12016961

"Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones has taken aim at the board of Air New Zealand, with his sights set on chairman Tony Carter first.

Jones, who has been highly critical of Air New Zealand's decision to cut flights to Kapiti, also warned Air New Zealand chief executive Christopher Luxon to butt out of politics.

"Do not poke your nose into the political boxing ring unless you're going to resign today and join the ranks of the National Party. This is a legitimate issue on behalf of those provincial areas who have been shortchanged. I've said all along, my focus is on the board."

I can only hope that he doesn't get his way.

mariner

This statement from Peters defies belief:

"You can't make every route profitable in any transportation scheme, but the combination of them all together is what makes the profit - we just want them to have regard for that."

In other words, passengers on profitable routes should subsidise those that aren't.

As regional development minister. Shane Jones should be focused setting up a fully integrated collaboration with depts of treasury/transport/immigration/social development etc and focus on closing down gang controlled or benefit ridden towns with no reason to exist, closing down pointless aerodromes that are a burden to taxpayers to keep open and building up places like PMR, NSN and NPE to jet services and feeding those ports with easy access motorways/fast commuter trains on loop lines with a proper highspeed rail gauge - Link Auckland/Hamilton/Tauranga/Rotorua by fast commuter loop train that feeds directly to AKL, link Wellington/Palmy/Wanganui/Napier by fast commuter train. As you lay the groundwork for the rail you lay the expressway in a straight alongside. If they force NZ to be competitive then they will have to be.

He should be looking at the new technologies and trying to get them set up in the regions with tax incentives (and disincentives for remaining in Auckland) and feeding them with staff that have also been incentivised by targeted migration (int/dom). By targeted migration I mean set up region-specific visas that require you to register a local address on the visa/resident card which must be updated and remain in that region with immigration officers auditing/visiting which will result in visa revocation/ deportation (as I think is required in Netherlands and some others) Build the regions up in population You do that, you get/maintain air service with frequency. The only successful regional ports are the ones that tap into a specific business demand from particular industries. Blenheim/Gisborne/Napier = wine/forestry, Nelson = Salmon/Agriculture, Chathams = Commercial Fishing, Tauranga/Hamilton = Agriculture/Dairy, Palmerston Nth Agriculture/University, Taupo/Rotorua = Tourism/Forestry/Hydro Electric and New Plymouth = gas/dairy. All of these industries bring high-value people to those regions and generate local high-value individuals which generate demand out of those regions.

We do not have to live where we live, we choose to live where you live for a reason and we can choose to live anywhere and we can be moved very easily, with the right encouragement. To be honest, (not that PPQ is one of them) there are many places that would better serve New Zealand if they were flooded and turned into Water reservoirs/dams/reclaimed forest rather than remain as towns/villages. It's about time New Zealand actually thought about the best way to move into the future. Not every region will be successful or productive, and there is no point just continuing the antiquated model we have now. We no longer live in the 1860s.

Take the distance from AKL-PMR. That is 499km airport to airport. Current travel time 6h+. If I was covering the roughly the same distance as Frankfurt-Hamburg which in peak traffic could still be driven in 5h or 3h20 by ICE. It's a similar distance/time from Phoenix-Las Vegas. Make the goal to keep regional service within 90min of a jet operated airport by 130kph bypass expressway with rest/fuel/charging stops or 60min by 180kph rail and set nominal tolls along the way. That would drop the road toll, reduce driver fatigue etc

Gasman wrote:

This statement from Peters defies belief:

"You can't make every route profitable in any transportation scheme, but the combination of them all together is what makes the profit - we just want them to have regard for that."

In other words, passengers on profitable routes should subsidise those that aren't.

This would be all very well IF AND ONLY IF it was a formal and agreed understanding between NZ and the Government. It would represent a significant shift from the current situation, and would not necessarily be well received by the 49% minority shareholders.

Informally, that's what airlines do all the time - not all routes are profitable (especially routes under development) and there is of course some level of internal cross-subsidisation. But it's another matter altogether to have the major shareholder weigh in and dictate that certain routes are to be retained through an internal cross-subsidy.

I think Messrs Peters and Jones are running dangerously close to the line by trying to influence internal NZ decision making without any kind of formal understanding being in existence. The risk is that NZ gets run according to political "necessities", rather than along business lines, and without some recompense for taking on such political obligations, I'd be very anxious if I was still a shareholder.

zkojq wrote:

And an enormous step up in operating costs. The C-17 burns upwards of 10T of fuel an hour - that's not far off how much an A380 drinks!

I think the A400m or Embraer KC390 would be a lot more appropriate in terms of size and running costs.

Very true, the KC390 is my pick ...although I've heard a few people in the industry state that Super Hercules are the most likely choice for a variety of engineering reasons...
My main point was the hypocrisy of the man not so much whether the C17 was actually viable for our small military budget.

NZ6 wrote:

5) This is part of a bigger issue. NZ does not have the population or geographical size to support extensive well serviced air travel. We should be looking at more affordable long term options for ground travel such as investing more in rail and roading (which I don't like personally).
g]

Yes it does, Norway has a slightly larger population and is little more spread out, they have airports all over the country supporting tiny local communities with direct flights to Oslo or one of the the other main centres. If they can donut I don’t see why we can’t??

Gasman wrote:

This statement from Peters defies belief:

"You can't make every route profitable in any transportation scheme, but the combination of them all together is what makes the profit - we just want them to have regard for that."

In other words, passengers on profitable routes should subsidise those that aren't.

I can't stand Peters but he's actually pointing out that route profitability is more complex than simply looking at it on a route by route basis, which has always been a bollacky NZ tactic to justify cuts. So not only is your paraphrasing wrong but your defied velief itself, well, defies belief.

Meanwhile, regardless of what you think about this issue, surely we can agree NZ has badly mismanaged it. Consider:

1. Super short notice of ending services
2. No other carrier lined up to take over
3. Provokes predictable response from populist regional development politician
4. Carries on fight with said politician
5. Forgot to deploy shmoozed journos to cover them in the media

The end result is a whole tonne of negative publicity, questions raised around NZ board members and the underlying question... why bother owning an airline if you can't influence anything about it?

What a balls up.

Kiwirob wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

5) This is part of a bigger issue. NZ does not have the population or geographical size to support extensive well serviced air travel. We should be looking at more affordable long term options for ground travel such as investing more in rail and roading (which I don't like personally).
g]

Yes it does, Norway has a slightly larger population and is little more spread out, they have airports all over the country supporting tiny local communities with direct flights to Oslo or one of the the other main centres. If they can donut I don’t see why we can’t??

Based on reading Wiki only, their per-capita GDP is almost twice ours, and their population is less concentrated in cities - 1.6 out of 5.2 million people (31%) live in the 10 biggest population centres in Norway, compared to 3.2 out of 4.8 million (65%) in NZ; and for top 5 cities this goes to 1.3 out of 5.2 (25%) for Norway, vs 2.7 out of 4.8 (56%) for NZ.

Then my number crunching was made redundant when I read that those flights to tiny local communities are actually subsidised by the government on Public Service Obligation contracts, operators bid for those contracts (read: subsidies) a bit like how our urban buses are done.

aerorobnz wrote:

As regional development minister. Shane Jones should be focused setting up a fully integrated collaboration with depts of treasury/transport/immigration/social development etc and focus on closing down gang controlled or benefit ridden towns with no reason to exist, closing down pointless aerodromes that are a burden to taxpayers to keep open and building up places like PMR, NSN and NPE to jet services and feeding those ports with easy access motorways/fast commuter trains on loop lines with a proper highspeed rail gauge - Link Auckland/Hamilton/Tauranga/Rotorua by fast commuter loop train that feeds directly to AKL, link Wellington/Palmy/Wanganui/Napier by fast commuter train. As you lay the groundwork for the rail you lay the expressway in a straight alongside. If they force NZ to be competitive then they will have to be.

He should be looking at the new technologies and trying to get them set up in the regions with tax incentives (and disincentives for remaining in Auckland) and feeding them with staff that have also been incentivised by targeted migration (int/dom). By targeted migration I mean set up region-specific visas that require you to register a local address on the visa/resident card which must be updated and remain in that region with immigration officers auditing/visiting which will result in visa revocation/ deportation (as I think is required in Netherlands and some others) Build the regions up in population You do that, you get/maintain air service with frequency. The only successful regional ports are the ones that tap into a specific business demand from particular industries. Blenheim/Gisborne/Napier = wine/forestry, Nelson = Salmon/Agriculture, Chathams = Commercial Fishing, Tauranga/Hamilton = Agriculture/Dairy, Palmerston Nth Agriculture/University, Taupo/Rotorua = Tourism/Forestry/Hydro Electric and New Plymouth = gas/dairy. All of these industries bring high-value people to those regions and generate local high-value individuals which generate demand out of those regions.

We do not have to live where we live, we choose to live where you live for a reason and we can choose to live anywhere and we can be moved very easily, with the right encouragement. To be honest, (not that PPQ is one of them) there are many places that would better serve New Zealand if they were flooded and turned into Water reservoirs/dams/reclaimed forest rather than remain as towns/villages. It's about time New Zealand actually thought about the best way to move into the future. Not every region will be successful or productive, and there is no point just continuing the antiquated model we have now. We no longer live in the 1860s.

Take the distance from AKL-PMR. That is 499km airport to airport. Current travel time 6h+. If I was covering the roughly the same distance as Frankfurt-Hamburg which in peak traffic could still be driven in 5h or 3h20 by ICE. It's a similar distance/time from Phoenix-Las Vegas. Make the goal to keep regional service within 90min of a jet operated airport by 130kph bypass expressway with rest/fuel/charging stops or 60min by 180kph rail and set nominal tolls along the way. That would drop the road toll, reduce driver fatigue etc

Wow that's a horrific attitude to regional New Zealand. Like, actually awful. What if I personally opposed your home's location? Would you be cool if we "flooded it out"? No? Because your circumstances are different? Wow. It's like people saying we should "cut population" massively... but just not anyone they care about (or themselves!).

And muddled thinking - invest in rail (massively expensive by the way, prohibitively in NZ) but screw local population centres that might justify it and ignore existing assets (airports). Plan for the future... but neglect existing facilities and population growth centres that support that planning, while reducing pressure on the shizshow that is Auckland. And... "encouragement"? Oh yeah, sure, when you're left alone right? And wouldn't a reliable air service equate to "encouragement"?

Jones is actually doing exactly what he's supposed to, and if you think NZFirst wouldn't ride the populist train on this type of issue then I'd suggest you pick up a newspaper. If you disagree with his approach then run for office or vote for the centre right. Expect a LOT more of thus in the next 3 years.

Gasman wrote:

I am clearly destined to keep repeating this for another 10 years - ORD ain't happening. ORD is NZ's version of the Boeing Sonic Cruiser. It genetates mystique and excitement and costs absolutely nothing.I have yet to see one viable argument why adding this destination to the network would benefit NZ's bottom line.

For the same reason that they've added Houston, to build scale from their AKL hub. I believe it will happen and if they keep pursuing their current strategy, they'll keep adding East-West destinations that build on their current network. If they stand still, their belief is they'll quickly be overtaken in the AUS-US market by additional non-stop services. Whether it works or not is a different question, yields ex AUS are likely pretty poor (comparatively). That's probably the reason why NZ's premium product has struggled to keep pace with change across the industry.

aerorobnz wrote:

Take the distance from AKL-PMR. That is 499km airport to airport. Current travel time 6h+. If I was covering the roughly the same distance as Frankfurt-Hamburg which in peak traffic could still be driven in 5h or 3h20 by ICE. It's a similar distance/time from Phoenix-Las Vegas. Make the goal to keep regional service within 90min of a jet operated airport by 130kph bypass expressway with rest/fuel/charging stops or 60min by 180kph rail and set nominal tolls along the way. That would drop the road toll, reduce driver fatigue etc

While I agree with a lot of what you wrote, population density makes the comparrison difficult. Air transport is the most efficient means of connecting regional NZ with our largest cities due population density. Our lack of land based intra regional connections (such as those that exist in Germany, the Netherlands etc) mean that the spread of regional ports that exists in Europe is not nearly as practical in NZ. In my opinion, this is not so much a problem for Air NZ to solve but one that needs a central government solution.

A laissez faire approach to air services will see provincial New Zealand at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to transport options compared to NZ's bigger cities. And while there are markets for the likes of Air Chatham's and Sounds Air, they do not provide the same utility or market penetration as NZ, especially with regard to network connections. And lets not forget that most routes that have been cut in recent times were not exactly short of users, profitable or otherwise, i.e. it's not like only two or three users where turning up for each flight, they generally operated with half decent loads.

It's my own view that arguments which state that NZ is well served compared to other countries do injustice to the difficulties of terrain, population and the social history of our nation. I want to see our smaller communities assisted to ensure they survive and prosper, and transport infrastructure is crucial to this.

aerokiwi wrote:

... regardless of what you think about this issue, surely we can agree NZ has badly mismanaged it.

This.

I find it strange that this angle hasn't been discussed more here, as well as in the general media, including the arguable deception of the open day sponsorship and statement, as well as the comparatively low termination notice period, among other failings. All of this from the airline that constantly reminds you through on-board announcements that it's not only New Zealand's best airline, but the world's. I'm surprised that the on-board servings of Kāpiti cheese and Kāpiti ice cream haven't also been targeted, given the company's push to cut costs just about everywhere.

Unclekoru wrote:

... lets not forget that most routes that have been cut in recent times were not exactly short of users, profitable or otherwise, i.e. it's not like only two or three users where turning up for each flight, they generally operated with half decent loads.

Be careful - unless you're an NZ insider, it seems futile to suggest here that PPQ's loads and/or profits were "half decent" (despite no evidence disclosed here to the contrary). I saw PPQ's mayor on 'The Project' tonight, who asserted that load factors were in the 80's, and that the service was profitable - whether or not this is true, I haven't got a clue, but it's telling that a few other individuals have come out saying the same thing (like PPQ's former owner), and yet, AFAIK, NZ hasn't replied that the service was suffering losses and/or low loads (correct me if I'm wrong).

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

Be careful - unless you're an NZ insider, it seems futile to suggest here that PPQ's loads and/or profits were "half decent" (despite no evidence disclosed here to the contrary). I saw PPQ's mayor on 'The Project' tonight, who asserted that load factors were in the 80's, and that the service was profitable - whether or not this is true, I haven't got a clue, but it's telling that a few other individuals have come out saying the same thing (like PPQ's former owner), and yet, AFAIK, NZ hasn't replied that the service was suffering losses and/or low loads (correct me if I'm wrong).

And unless we're an NZ insider, we would have no access to information to say either way. Please don't tell me you're expecting evidence of loading data to be disclosed here - that's the sort of information leak that costs people their jobs, and I haven't met someone so eager to win an internet debate that they would put their employment in jeopardy.

But I do wonder, if it's not a pure question of "does PPQ make money", but also "if so, does it make enough money that our aircraft isn't better used elsewhere". Keeping in mind that Air NZ is a commercial business, and as per those hanging onto the past bailout, should operate in a financially prudent manner. This means if a particular service is is tying up valuable resources but not giving the expected returns on investment, that it may be better to invest said resources elsewhere. The Travel Alert regarding PPQ certainly seems to suggest this - "As domestic travel continues to grow, Air New Zealand is currently making domestic schedule adjustments to better match its aircraft seat capacity to areas of growing demand." (Source: https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/travel-alerts)

Also on that same page is more information on the 777/787 AKL-CHC services, (of which the 787 service is now loaded into the booking system as far as 1st of July) answering a lot of the questions we had about them: earlier check-in and earlier boarding; pax required to be able to use stairs unaided (suggesting bus to aircraft on one or both ends); Premium Economy is for Silver, Gold, Elite, and Koru only; Business Premier available at $30 per one-way journey through seat select.

DavidJ08 wrote:

Please don't tell me you're expecting evidence of loading data to be disclosed here - that's the sort of information leak that costs people their jobs ...

You're right - any disclosure which could land someone unemployed is going too far. But, please tell me that you don't expect a vague assertion to not face a probe for greater specificity? On the one hand, we have NZ insiders claiming that "hardly anyone" uses the service, while on the other, we have public statements (like from the mayor, and former airport owner) claiming that loads were in the 80's, which NZ hasn't rebuked. If you won't get fired for asserting that "hardly anyone" uses the service, surely you won't get fired for, for example, confirming that those public statements are incorrect?

Cheers,

C.

DavidJ08 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

5) This is part of a bigger issue. NZ does not have the population or geographical size to support extensive well serviced air travel. We should be looking at more affordable long term options for ground travel such as investing more in rail and roading (which I don't like personally).
g]

Yes it does, Norway has a slightly larger population and is little more spread out, they have airports all over the country supporting tiny local communities with direct flights to Oslo or one of the the other main centres. If they can donut I don’t see why we can’t??

Based on reading Wiki only, their per-capita GDP is almost twice ours, and their population is less concentrated in cities - 1.6 out of 5.2 million people (31%) live in the 10 biggest population centres in Norway, compared to 3.2 out of 4.8 million (65%) in NZ; and for top 5 cities this goes to 1.3 out of 5.2 (25%) for Norway, vs 2.7 out of 4.8 (56%) for NZ.

Then my number crunching was made redundant when I read that those flights to tiny local communities are actually subsidised by the government on Public Service Obligation contracts, operators bid for those contracts (read: subsidies) a bit like how our urban buses are done.

Norway hasn’t gone through the urban drift phase that most developed countries have gone through, part of that is due to the govts stated policy of keeping the regions viable, part of doing that is making sure people can move easily from there little village to other parts of the country. If the regions in NZ had better transport links the same could also be true here. If I ever move back to NZ it won’t be to Auckland, I don’t want to live in large city again.

NZ6 wrote:

5) This is part of a bigger issue. NZ does not have the population or geographical size to support extensive well serviced air travel. We should be looking at more affordable long term options for ground travel such as investing more in rail and roading (which I don't like personally).

NZ6 wrote:

I'd love NZ to have rail between major settlements and the minor satellite towns i.e WHK > TRG, KAT > KKE, PPQ > WLG, WKA > ZQN, GIS > NPE, TIU > CHC. I'm not saying we can support 8 car high frequency rail or that is should be centered around airports. But rail lines which bypass airports with single car rail would allow passenger to quickly and conveniently commute to larger airports which provide higher frequency and more affordable flights, rail lines would also take freight off the roads.

IIRC the current government supported/adopted plans for reintroducing rail services to Hamilton and Tauranga?

camfloss wrote:

My main point was the hypocrisy of the man not so much whether the C17 was actually viable for our small military budget.

I think you're getting the wrong end of the stick though; the impression I got from the article was that Ron Mark was trying to halt/postpone a decision to purchase P-8s so that more cost effective alternatives could be considered/reassessed.

planemanofnz wrote:

I find it strange that this angle hasn't been discussed more here, as well as in the general media, including the arguable deception of the open day sponsorship and statement, as well as the comparatively low termination notice period, among other failings. All of this from the airline that constantly reminds you through on-board announcements that it's not only New Zealand's best airline, but the world's. I

From my perspective that's the least of it, however badly NZ handled the cancellation.

At issue is whether a government Minister has the right to tell NZ where to fly, and to use his power to bring that about. I don't often agree with Kate Hawkesby, but I think she has this one absolutely right.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=12017708

So on Air NZ's big day, a day when it should've been basking in its PR coup of scenic photo opps with Barack Obama, (ironically, in one of the regions Shane Jones is so concerned about), Air NZ is instead deflecting talk of resignations and the CEO being told to get 'back in his box'.

While from the sidelines this looks mildly comical, the implications are deeply serious for Air NZ - and any other company with a large government interest. And on an even grander scale, what does all this say about the coalition government? Is this the first sign of cracks?

Old mate Shane - 'I'll say what I want', watcher of movies in the buff - ends up with a Prime Ministerial rebuff. Of sorts.

In what's looking increasingly like a 'sit on the fence' Prime Minister when it comes to dealing with her Cabinet members she gave a light rap over the knuckles, while at the same time agreeing with much of the sentiment of his statement.

Dp you really want government telling NZ how to run its business?

mariner

NZ6 wrote:

Not sure why it's not just incorporated into a "Government Services Fee" which covers all, Customs, Immigration and Security.

It should then be set by central government and imposed on all international flights regardless of which international airport you use.

Obviously applying this internationally is a challenge but I would have thought New Zealand would be able to impose this.

Agree. Same should apply to domestic flights.
Other than Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, no NZ airport runs at a profit. Yes, some do after including rate payer subsidies (including local authority interest-free loans, etc) and nebulous regional economic benefits.

As CORSIA initially excludes domestic flights, this will provide small airlines with a boost, as international airlines will focus on main centres, less fragmentation, bigger aircraft and higher load factors.

However, when domestic aviation is included, regions, towns and centres with good rail and bus connections will likely see a reduction in air services.

Gasman wrote:

This statement from Peters defies belief:

"You can't make every route profitable in any transportation scheme, but the combination of them all together is what makes the profit - we just want them to have regard for that."

In other words, passengers on profitable routes should subsidize those that aren't.

It's also saying forgo any future profits and return to investors just so those on the Kapiti can have a air link which not everyone uses and which doesn't serve everyone anyway (PPQ-South for example)

If this is what he wants, someone should call him out and ask if the government is prepared to bail NZ out again, if the bottom falls out of the US market NZ is highly exposed, regional sectors which loose money will only further place NZ in a position when they need to be bailed out again.

Kiwirob wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

5) This is part of a bigger issue. NZ does not have the population or geographical size to support extensive well serviced air travel. We should be looking at more affordable long term options for ground travel such as investing more in rail and roading (which I don't like personally).
g]

Yes it does, Norway has a slightly larger population and is little more spread out, they have airports all over the country supporting tiny local communities with direct flights to Oslo or one of the the other main centres. If they can donut I don’t see why we can’t??

You can argue we can also, as we do. The question is to what extent. I don't know much about Norway or the market. But Kiwis, Kiwi Business especially the SME market just don't have the money for $200 one way flights PPQ-AKL when a 90 minute drive will give you $109 one way.

aerokiwi wrote:

Meanwhile, regardless of what you think about this issue, surely we can agree NZ has badly mismanaged it. Consider:

1. Super short notice of ending services
2. No other carrier lined up to take over
3. Provokes predictable response from populist regional development politician
4. Carries on fight with said politician
5. Forgot to deploy shmoozed journos to cover them in the media

The end result is a whole tonne of negative publicity, questions raised around NZ board members and the underlying question... why bother owning an airline if you can't influence anything about it?

What a balls up.

1. Super short notice of ending services - Do we even know why this was?
2. No other carrier lined up to take over - Hardly NZ's responsibility. The residents are hardly isolated now are they, remember those that commute to CHC are already doing what the future holds, driving to WLG.
3. Provokes predictable response from populist regional development politician - Yip
4. Carries on fight with said politician - They've been poked into a response on the wider issue I feel.
5. Forgot to deploy shmoozed journos to cover them in the media - Perhaps

Could it have managed differently, maybe, more than likely but do any of us know why it happened when it did as quickly as it did?

planemanofnz wrote:

Unclekoru wrote:

... lets not forget that most routes that have been cut in recent times were not exactly short of users, profitable or otherwise, i.e. it's not like only two or three users where turning up for each flight, they generally operated with half decent loads.

Be careful - unless you're an NZ insider, it seems futile to suggest here that PPQ's loads and/or profits were "half decent" (despite no evidence disclosed here to the contrary). I saw PPQ's mayor on 'The Project' tonight, who asserted that load factors were in the 80's, and that the service was profitable - whether or not this is true, I haven't got a clue, but it's telling that a few other individuals have come out saying the same thing (like PPQ's former owner), and yet, AFAIK, NZ hasn't replied that the service was suffering losses and/or low loads (correct me if I'm wrong).

Cheers,

C.

I assume these comments were directed my way.

Surely you can understand I'm not going to share data like this online while this is in the media let alone any other time.

Load factors mean zip. Heck you can get a 100% load factor if you wanted it, just price it right.

zkojq wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

5) This is part of a bigger issue. NZ does not have the population or geographical size to support extensive well serviced air travel. We should be looking at more affordable long term options for ground travel such as investing more in rail and roading (which I don't like personally).

NZ6 wrote:

I'd love NZ to have rail between major settlements and the minor satellite towns i.e WHK > TRG, KAT > KKE, PPQ > WLG, WKA > ZQN, GIS > NPE, TIU > CHC. I'm not saying we can support 8 car high frequency rail or that is should be centered around airports. But rail lines which bypass airports with single car rail would allow passenger to quickly and conveniently commute to larger airports which provide higher frequency and more affordable flights, rail lines would also take freight off the roads.

IIRC the current government supported/adopted plans for reintroducing rail services to Hamilton and Tauranga?
.

I know, but the irony is it's between two places with half decent flight connections. Still a good start.

mariner wrote:

At issue is whether a government Minister has the right to tell NZ where to fly, and to use his power to bring that about. I don't often agree with Kate Hawkesby, but I think she has this one absolutely right.

This really is the nub of the issue. The answer is "no", as things stand, no matter how much Peters and Jones might wish it were otherwise. My concern is that the share market may not respond well to this kind of interference (especially with suggestions that executives should consider their positions) because it indicates real uncertainty in who is actually pulling the strings at the airline. And the markets absolutely do not like uncertainty.

That said, it's always open to the government to negotiate a "public service obligation" with NZ which would specify exactly which services the government wanted to protect, and how any losses on these routes would be addressed. But that hasn't happened, and until it does, government ministers should refrain from comment. It's clearly pandering to the (regional) electorate, but at the expense of the investors as things stand, and that's a really unproductive way of behaving.

DavidByrne wrote:

That said, it's always open to the government to negotiate a "public service obligation" with NZ which would specify exactly which services the government wanted to protect, and how any losses on these routes would be addressed. But that hasn't happened, and until it does, government ministers should refrain from comment. It's clearly pandering to the (regional) electorate, but at the expense of the investors as things stand, and that's a really unproductive way of behaving.

Great summary. I personally would support such a "public service charter"; but in the absence of one it's ludicrous to blame NZ for playing by the rules.

On the other hand, Luxon hasn't handled the situation cleverly either. The smart thing to do would have been to not respond to Jones's tirade - secure in the knowledge that he was operating with commercial prudence and well within the bounds of ethics and the law.

DavidByrne wrote:

That said, it's always open to the government to negotiate a "public service obligation" with NZ which would specify exactly which services the government wanted to protect, and how any losses on these routes would be addressed. But that hasn't happened, and until it does, government ministers should refrain from comment. It's clearly pandering to the (regional) electorate, but at the expense of the investors as things stand, and that's a really unproductive way of behaving.

The government is open to do that but they haven't, and I cannot help wondering if that's why Mr. Jones has his knickers in a twist about PPQ - or, come to that, KAT?

There's been no mention of Westport, for example, but that's South Island so perhaps Mr. Jones doesn't think it matters.

It certainly doesn't say much for Barrier Air which - apparently - is not good enough for KAT or Mr. Jones. Well, well, KKE is just an hour sir so down the road, and is to have a smart new terminal, courtesy, Mr Jones would say, of Mr. Jones, but it all comes sheeting home to his boss, Winston Peters - LOL.

As to PPQ, it's not an arduous drive to Rongotai and PPQ functioned as Wellington's main airport for about five years. It wasn't considered an arduous drive then.

So why go to bat for those two?

My concern is that Mr. Jones will have had an effect and it will be some time (the life of this government?) until NZ drops another regional route, which is detrimental to both NZ and to Air Chathams and to Sounds Air.

mariner

Hawkesby also says "Perhaps the government could set up another working party on how to deal with business" #brilliant

DavidByrne wrote:

That said, it's always open to the government to negotiate a "public service obligation" with NZ which would specify exactly which services the government wanted to protect, and how any losses on these routes would be addressed.

I believe that Ireland does this, with DUB - CFN and DUB - KIR, even though both CFN and KIR have non-DUB services already.

So far, our government hasn't had to do this, because (except for PPQ), the recent regional routes dropped have been replaced.

I can't think of anywhere in New Zealand where an obligation is needed? Perhaps smaller islands (like CHT), if they're dropped?

Cheers,

C.

It'll be very interesting to see what happens at tonight's event, as Jones seems to want to speak to Luxon there:

Shane Jones is courting fresh controversy by claiming Air NZ boss Christopher Luxon wants to be a National MP. Jones noted that National MP Jonathan Coleman had announced his retirement, adding that people in the industry had told him that Luxon had ambitions to stand for National. Jones says he will not park his opinions in his back pocket and was looking forward to seeing Air New Zealand's top brass at the Barack Obama function. Jones said he would not be muzzled by Air New Zealand.

See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=12018097.

And here's me thinking that the rumours of Samoan government pressure on NZ re APW were over the top.

Cheers,

C.

An interesting thought, the population of the Kapiti Coast is about 49,000 based on Wiki (I'm not going to get too scientific here). Comparable cities in NZ are: IVC (50,000), WAG (40,000) and NPL (58,000).

Interestingly
IVC: Only has flights north to CHC, closest alternate is ZQN 190km
WAG has lost it's service on NZ, closest alternate is PMR 80km
NPL has flights north and south, closest alternate is PMR at 230km then HLZ at 240km, also being the largest and most isolated.

PPQ to WLG is 50km.

Distance from Orewa to Auckland Airport 62km, Riverhead to Auckland Airport 39km.

Is PPQ really hard done by?

NZ6 wrote:

Is PPQ really hard done by?

No, not at all.

But if someone wants to fly it, why shouldn't they? Or, more germanely, why does it have to be NZ? I think Chathams Air stands a pretty good shot at it and I wish them nothing but luck if they decide to go for it.

mariner

NZ6 wrote:

Interestingly
IVC: Only has flights north to CHC, closest alternate is ZQN 190km
WAG has lost it's service on NZ, closest alternate is PMR 80km
NPL has flights north and south, closest alternate is PMR at 230km then HLZ at 240km, also being the largest and most isolated.

PPQ to WLG is 50km.

Distance from Orewa to Auckland Airport 62km, Riverhead to Auckland Airport 39km.

The km distance comparisons are premature, as a whole host of factors could render them redundant. For example, traffic in Greater Auckland and Greater Wellington is likely to make car journey times there, per km, a lot longer than in other areas. Another example could be the different quality of different roads.

Cheers,

C.

NZ6 wrote:

IVC: Only has flights north to CHC, closest alternate is ZQN 190km

NZ8872/NZ8876 operate most days to WLG

mariner wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Is PPQ really hard done by?

No, not at all.

But if someone wants to fly it, why shouldn't they? Or, more germanely, why does it have to be NZ? I think Chathams Air stands a pretty good shot at it and I wish them nothing but luck if they decide to go for it.

mariner

As long as they have enough pilots to crew it . And it will be interesting to see the technical assessment, load wise the route will easily sustain a Saab as it has a Q300 but I'm not sure what the second segment performance of the Saab is like given the present limitations thanks to the growing trees affecting the obstacle limitation surface.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Interestingly
IVC: Only has flights north to CHC, closest alternate is ZQN 190km
WAG has lost it's service on NZ, closest alternate is PMR 80km
NPL has flights north and south, closest alternate is PMR at 230km then HLZ at 240km, also being the largest and most isolated.

PPQ to WLG is 50km.

Distance from Orewa to Auckland Airport 62km, Riverhead to Auckland Airport 39km.

The km distance comparisons are premature, as a whole host of factors could render them redundant. For example, traffic in Greater Auckland and Greater Wellington is likely to make car journey times there, per km, a lot longer than in other areas. Another example could be the different quality of different roads.

Cheers,

C.

As I said, not too scientific. You could look at google maps to calculate travel times. But by in large, PPQ-WLG is frree flowing the majority of the way and as mentioned earlier in the thread, the transition gully project is only going to improve on this and you can always take rail to the CBD.

My entire point appears missed.

Look at the catchment area size and proximity to WLG it's not surprising this hasn't worked when compared to via other ports within NZ.

As I said, and i'll repeat it. This isn't scientific, it's just interesting.

SelandiaBaru wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

IVC: Only has flights north to CHC, closest alternate is ZQN 190km

NZ8872/NZ8876 operate most days to WLG

I completely forgot about this one.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Interestingly
IVC: Only has flights north to CHC, closest alternate is ZQN 190km
WAG has lost it's service on NZ, closest alternate is PMR 80km
NPL has flights north and south, closest alternate is PMR at 230km then HLZ at 240km, also being the largest and most isolated.

PPQ to WLG is 50km.

Distance from Orewa to Auckland Airport 62km, Riverhead to Auckland Airport 39km.

The km distance comparisons are premature, as a whole host of factors could render them redundant. For example, traffic in Greater Auckland and Greater Wellington is likely to make car journey times there, per km, a lot longer than in other areas. Another example could be the different quality of different roads.

Cheers,

C.

Further to this, I've just done

Upper Hutt > Wellington Airport: 39 Mins
Paraparaumu > Wellington Airport: 52mins

So we're talking about an entire second set up for an airline, for an additional 13 minutes travel via car. Upper Hutt is seen as WLG or where are we drawing the line?

NZ6 wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Interestingly
IVC: Only has flights north to CHC, closest alternate is ZQN 190km
WAG has lost it's service on NZ, closest alternate is PMR 80km
NPL has flights north and south, closest alternate is PMR at 230km then HLZ at 240km, also being the largest and most isolated.

PPQ to WLG is 50km.

Distance from Orewa to Auckland Airport 62km, Riverhead to Auckland Airport 39km.

The km distance comparisons are premature, as a whole host of factors could render them redundant. For example, traffic in Greater Auckland and Greater Wellington is likely to make car journey times there, per km, a lot longer than in other areas. Another example could be the different quality of different roads.

Cheers,

C.

Further to this, I've just done

Upper Hutt > Wellington Airport: 39 Mins
Paraparaumu > Wellington Airport: 52mins

So we're talking about an entire second set up for an airline, for an additional 13 minutes travel via car. Upper Hutt is seen as WLG or where are we drawing the line?

I think we need to acknowledge - if only to immediately move on once we've done so - that it's not *just* about driving convenience.

The good people of Kapiti will be lamenting the loss of not just their convenient local air service, but also the validation that said air service provided to their choice of hometown. Having an airport and air service associated with where you live makes you feel better about where you live. You feel connected. Worthy of being a destination. Economically significant. Removal of said service - by the national carrier no less - just reinforces the perception that you're probably not a community or economy that's going places, and pride is hurt.


Should NZ have taken this into consideration? Of course not. But I felt personally affronted when AA went seasonal into AKL. I get how the people of Kapiti feel.

NZ6 wrote:

I've just done

Upper Hutt > Wellington Airport: 39 Mins
Paraparaumu > Wellington Airport: 52mins

So we're talking about an entire second set up for an airline, for an additional 13 minutes travel via car. Upper Hutt is seen as WLG or where are we drawing the line?

Is it really worth citing your one trip, at one particular time, on one particular day? Just as it took you those times on one day, it's taken me double that time from PPQ, on another day.

NZ6 wrote:

My entire point appears missed. Look at the ... proximity to WLG it's not surprising this hasn't worked ...

If your point is proximity in km terms, then again, that's a bit premature, given variables like traffic. NZ's cut could up to double the overall journey time for PPQ residents going to AKL.

NZ6 wrote:

Load factors mean zip. Heck you can get a 100% load factor if you wanted it, just price it right.

I know, but again, you were the one that said "hardly anyone" used it, and that that was the "entire issue" - not anyone else. We're not asking you for a number, but some greater specificity would be appreciated, when there have been inconsistent claims made about this.

If you won't get fired for asserting that "hardly anyone" used it, then surely you won't get fired for confirming that all the public comments on load factors being in the 80's are well off the mark. While load factors may "mean zip" for profitability, they're still of interest to us.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

Is it really worth citing your one trip, at one particular time, on one particular day? Just as it took you those times on one day, it's taken me double that time from PPQ, on another day.

lol it's called a quick google maps experiment, nothing more.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

My entire point appears missed. Look at the ... proximity to WLG it's not surprising this hasn't worked ...

If your point is proximity in km terms, then again, that's a bit premature, given variables like traffic. NZ's cut could up to double the overall journey time for PPQ residents going to AKL.

You assume they want to go to AKL.

So, the NZ-sponsored Obama event has just finished in AKL, and it seems that no ORD launch was announced. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like there won't be any event tomorrow for him to launch such a route at either, as he's only meeting a women's leadership group tomorrow morning, before flying out to Australia. I also don't see any tweets or the like from him about his time in New Zealand, like playing golf, or his traditional Maori welcome today. Given all of this, was sponsoring his visit really worth it for NZ?



See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=12018318.

NZ6 wrote:

You assume they want to go to AKL.

So the media reports of load factors on PPQ - AKL being in the 80's are incorrect then?

Again, while you say "hardly anyone" used the service, many others say this is incorrect.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

So, the NZ-sponsored Obama event has just finished in AKL, and it seems that no ORD launch was announced. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like there won't be any event tomorrow for him to launch such a route at either, as he's only meeting a women's leadership group tomorrow morning, before flying out to Australia. I also don't see any tweets or the like from him about his time in New Zealand, like playing golf, or his traditional Maori welcome today. Given all of this, was sponsoring his visit really worth it for NZ?

Could the trip have been used to create future promotional material to use in the Local ORD market?

Hoping someone from NZ can help me here.

While looking at a long haul flight I've got booked with NZ/SQ, I noticed a really good deal to upgrade to either Y+ or J. If I decide to upgrade now (flight is in September), would I get the new class status points/airpoints earning or the original class earning that I'm currently booked in?

planemanofnz wrote:

So, the NZ-sponsored Obama event has just finished in AKL, and it seems that no ORD launch was announced. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like there won't be any event tomorrow for him to launch such a route at either, as he's only meeting a women's leadership group tomorrow morning, before flying out to Australia. I also don't see any tweets or the like from him about his time in New Zealand, like playing golf, or his traditional Maori welcome today. Given all of this, was sponsoring his visit really worth it for NZ?



See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=12018318.

NZ6 wrote:

You assume they want to go to AKL.

So the media reports of load factors on PPQ - AKL being in the 80's are incorrect then?

Again, while you say "hardly anyone" used the service, many others say this is incorrect.

Cheers,

C.

Surprise surprise....

Sorry I'm not debating this topic any further with you. I believe other readers will be getting annoyed with it. I'm personally fed up with PPQ talk. I wish CV the best of luck.

I've made my knowledge clear. you've made your view clear.

Let's leave it at that.