Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
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.
planemanofnz wrote:With immigration reforms too, perhaps more could be done to encourage overseas-trained pilots to migrate down under?
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)
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).
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.
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.
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.
camfloss wrote:What they do have in common is their ridiculously high ticket prices.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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??
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
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.
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
aerokiwi wrote:... regardless of what you think about this issue, surely we can agree NZ has badly mismanaged it.
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.
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).
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 ...
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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??
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.
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.
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?
.
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.
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.
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.
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.
NZ6 wrote:Is PPQ really hard done by?
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.
NZ6 wrote:IVC: Only has flights north to CHC, closest alternate is ZQN 190km
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
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.
SelandiaBaru wrote:NZ6 wrote:IVC: Only has flights north to CHC, closest alternate is ZQN 190km
NZ8872/NZ8876 operate most days to WLG
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.
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?
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?
NZ6 wrote:My entire point appears missed. Look at the ... proximity to WLG it's not surprising this hasn't worked ...
NZ6 wrote:Load factors mean zip. Heck you can get a 100% load factor if you wanted it, just price it right.
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.
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.
NZ6 wrote:You assume they want to go to AKL.
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?
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.