DavidJ08 wrote:

Kashmon wrote:

so odd that Western airlines don't get lower costs by using larger planes on short haul routes
yet CX/JL/NH/SQ go all out on using wide bodies for short haul flights

We don't really have the population density here to justify larger planes to be honest. I know Japan domestic has the density for bigger planes (and high-density configurations), but I wonder if CX/SQ just maintain a wide-body fleet and use them for the high-density routes between major cities (which have both the population density and the hubbing effect), and run subsidiaries (Cathay Dragon, SilkAir) with narrowbodies for the smaller cities. I mean even in China and India a lot of the domestic flights are run with narrowbodies.


EDIT: Actually, I should mention that NZ runs AKL-SYD/MEL/BNE with widebodies, and QF is running A330 on AKL-SYD and shortly AKL-MEL. So we have something similar - some regional routes between population centres and airline hubs run with widebodies, and others (CHC/WLG/ZQN to SYD/MEL/BNE) run with narrowbodies.

of course we do not have the traffic but that was not what I was talking about...
everyone here seems to think per seat wide bodies were more expensive, if that was true why would CX/SQ etc operated widebodies shorthaul even when their airports were not slot constrained.

if anything per seat economics should be cheaper

Kashmon wrote:

everyone here seems to think per seat wide bodies were more expensive, if that was true why would CX/SQ etc operated widebodies shorthaul even when their airports were not slot constrained.

if anything per seat economics should be cheaper

I don't know... I think it depends. The wide bodies are much heavier (disproportionately compared to the increased seating) and fuel burn doesn't always scale that way. Also note that the airframe (and a widebody is a lot more expensive than a narrowbody) is rated for a certain number of flight cycles (the repeated pressurisation wears down the structure) so one flight cycle of a widebody may be so expensive it outweighs the extra pax.

I have a tool called PFPX for flight sim which does flight planning and fuel calculations, I know it's not that convincing but in the absence of real-world operational data I'll just have to use it as a rough indication. With zero cargo, an A320 flying AKL-CHC with 162 pax and baggage (not as dense as NZ's A320D which has 9 more seats) in today's winds aloft uses 2781kg of fuel for the trip; a 777-300ER with 342 pax and corresponding baggage (again zero cargo) uses 7561kg fuel. Not taking the numbers as gospel (they could be wildly wrong) but it illustrates that per-seat fuel burn may be more.

Of course there's everything else (crew costs, ground handling, ATS fees, landing fees, etc), and the wide-bodies have much greater capacity for cargo uplift on these short flights, but that's why I say it depends on the specific situation. CX and SQ both have "regional" configured aircraft on those shorthaul routes (like SQ has a C30Y293 config on a 772 on SIN-BKK, which carries more people than their 77W) and one can only speculate as to their cargo situation.

I think the airlines would have thought about all of this and they would have the numbers to perform a proper analysis for each route. In some cases (SQ, CX) they decide to do it, in other cases not. For example QF uses A330 on some SYD-MEL flights, but most of them are still 737-800, which means there's a tipping point somewhere and sometimes it's worthwhile, and other times not.

planemanofnz wrote:

DavidJ08 wrote:

... if you pay an extra $30 for a "preferred seat" it looks like you can seat yourself in business premier. Perhaps I should give this a go since 18APR is my day off.

That is so cool - NZD 98 for a ride in Business Premier (albeit, minus the service). I wonder if NZ will consider more of these wide-body domestic flights?

Just occurred to me... Perhaps Premium Economy is being reserved for gold, elite and Koru? Normally on the A320D and A320R they have Space+ seats near the front reserved for them, so maybe they're automatically in PE on a 777 domestic flight? (As for "regular joes" being able to pay for BP seating, it's not unlike paying for Works Deluxe on A320R vs Space+ that comes complimentary for Gold/Elite/Koru.)

There is some really interesting debate going on about airport-related fees in New Zealand, with NZ chipping in too.

In particular, "Air New Zealand is arguing that airport parking fees are inflated and unfair and make New Zealand one of the most expensive countries to be an airline passenger in."

See: https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/03/07/9 ... ng-prices#.

Cheers

C.

PA515 wrote:

77west wrote:

Anyone know why NZ8217 Whangarei-Auckland has been cancelled tomorrow morning? I have an elderly family member that was arranged to be delivered by the ambulance to the airport and picked up again in AKL. I don't know if 4 hours on a bus is going to work for him. NZ just say "technical reasons". This is the worst possible cancellation I have had to deal with..

The aircraft is ZK-NED. Arrived from BHE this afternoon, then four sectors cancelled.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zk-ned

PA515

Thanks. The family member in question was not allowed on the bus with no one to keep an eye on him so someone had to drive to get him, they left AKL at 7AM and have now only got back. Nightmare situation, especially considering NED was back in service by around 8AM... Oh well. Thanks for the info.

Air NZ has announced they're pulling out of Kapiti Coast (PPQ):

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=12009408

Air New Zealand stops Kapiti Coast-Auckland daily flights

"On withdrawal, Air New Zealand will extend support to any other airline that operates the route as it has in other ports.

"The last service between Kapiti Coast and Auckland will operate on 3 April 2018.

I like "extend support to any other airline..." - it's an open invitation to Air Chats (why they bought the Saabs?) or even Sounds Air.

mariner

mariner wrote:

Air NZ has announced they're pulling out of Kapiti Coast (PPQ):

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=12009408

Air New Zealand stops Kapiti Coast-Auckland daily flights

"On withdrawal, Air New Zealand will extend support to any other airline that operates the route as it has in other ports.

"The last service between Kapiti Coast and Auckland will operate on 3 April 2018.

I like "extend support to any other airline..." - it's an open invitation to Air Chats (why they bought the Saabs?) or even Sounds Air.

mariner

Sounds very plausible - I have been wracking my brains trying to think why CV would be buying more Saabs. They would almost certainly have been given a heads-up; the official announcement has only come a month before the termination date, and NZ will be conscious of the need for continuity to minimise backlash from locals and damage to the airline's image.

mariner wrote:

Air NZ has announced they're pulling out of Kapiti Coast (PPQ)

It'd be good to also note the positive regional NZ announcements today, too - NZ will increase capacity into and out of TRG by adding a new weekday WLG return flight and operating the larger ATR 72 aircraft on early morning flights to AKL.

See: https://sunlive.co.nz/news/174806-air-n ... ights.html.

DavidByrne wrote:

CV ... would almost certainly have been given a heads-up ...

I'm not so sure - the local mayor said that they had wanted several months of notice prior to the cut being announced, presumably, so as to tie up another carrier to plug the gap. These comments suggest no other carrier has been sourced.

Cheers,

C.

NLK is pushing for financial assistance for a direct flight to be re-established to New Zealand:

"We want assistance in attracting an airline to service the New Zealand market."

See: https://www.radionz.co.nz/international ... g-a-crisis.

Who would be best placed for this? CV with Saab 340's? JQ with A320's? NZ with ATR 72's?

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

CV ... would almost certainly have been given a heads-up ...

I'm not so sure - the local mayor said that they had wanted several months of notice prior to the cut being announced, presumably, so as to tie up another carrier to plug the gap. These comments suggest no other carrier has been sourced.

Admittedly I'm guessing here, but I'd have thought that, after WHK, WSZ, KAT and WAG, that NZ would be in close liaison with potential successors in order to avoid a backlash. That they did not let the local mayor into the picture - well, I could understand that if they feared that their withdrawal might become politicised. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if I'm right or wrong. Ideally, a successor would have been ready to announce on the same day that NZ announced its withdrawal.

But re the Saabs - if not PPQ-AKL, then where?

planemanofnz wrote:

NLK is pushing for financial assistance for a direct flight to be re-established to New Zealand:

"We want assistance in attracting an airline to service the New Zealand market."

See: https://www.radionz.co.nz/international ... g-a-crisis.

Who would be best placed for this? CV with Saab 340's? JQ with A320's? NZ with ATR 72's?

I reckon that CV with their CV-580s might be the way to go. They are obviously equipped for long overwater flights and their capacity is such that two or three flights a week might be viable.

planemanofnz wrote:

mariner wrote:

Air NZ has announced they're pulling out of Kapiti Coast (PPQ)

It'd be good to also note the positive regional NZ announcements today, too - NZ will increase capacity into and out of TRG by adding a new weekday WLG return flight and operating the larger ATR 72 aircraft on early morning flights to AKL.

See: https://sunlive.co.nz/news/174806-air-n ... ights.html.

Hence the daily 77E/789 service on AKL-CHC-AKL, with the A320 getting swapped onto CHC-WLG-CHC freeing up some ATRs for AKL-TRG-AKL and WLG-TRG-WLG.

Anyone know the reason behind the daily widebody service that has now been added for April?

Think the Q300s days are coming to an end, it will come down to support an ATR 72-600 or be cut vibe from NZ.

zkncj wrote:

Think the Q300s days are coming to an end, it will come down to support an ATR 72-600 or be cut vibe from NZ.

If anything they need more Q300s and ATRs but increasingly as alluded to by Nathan Guy speaking on RNZ afternoons after discussions with Air New Zealand they are starting to face a pilot shortage. There is an argument to be made as to how much control there is in that but it's telling and we've seen it coming for a very long time.

I'm sad for the people of Kapiti but resourcing issues and a whole host of other issues, including runway length, obstacle limitations, oragraphic and geographic features, uncontrolled airspace, proximity to WLG when technical issues occur will have all played into it.

Close PPQ. There are houses a few hundred metres from each end of the runway and it's not big enough to serve as a diversionary airport for WLG (unlike PMR which has both the apron and terminal space). Greater Wellington needs somewhere for new houses and that's a nice big flat area, close to a nice beach on one side, expressway on the other, and which could easily run more feeder buses to the railway station.

zkncj wrote:

Hence the daily 77E/789 service on AKL-CHC-AKL, with the A320 getting swapped onto CHC-WLG-CHC freeing up some ATRs for AKL-TRG-AKL and WLG-TRG-WLG.

Anyone know the reason behind the daily widebody service that has now been added for April?

Think the Q300s days are coming to an end, it will come down to support an ATR 72-600 or be cut vibe from NZ.

The AKL-CHC-AKL 789 is the IAH aircraft that doesn't have enough time to do a return to Australia or the Pacific Islands between the long haul sectors in the Northern Summer schedule, so could be more than temporary.

The Q300s will be around for a while. They are all getting ADS-B fitted to comply with the NZCAA requirement effective from 2020.

I haven't seen the schedule yet but the extra TRG-WLG flight is a Q300 departing TRG "before 0730" so I expect the present WLG-TRG 0835/0950, TRG-WLG 1025/1145 ATR will be replaced by a Q300.

So Mo-Fr from 1 x ATR (68 pax) and 3 x Q300s (150 pax) = 218 pax, to 5 x Q300s = 250 pax would be my guess.

The WLG-TRG, TRG-WLG ATR will probably be used for a WLG-CHC, CHC-WLG. If an ATR is being removed from WLG-CHC, CHC-WLG then it could be getting used mostly out of AKL. Some extra TRG-AKL, AKL-TRG ATR flights have been announced.

PA515

PA515 wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Hence the daily 77E/789 service on AKL-CHC-AKL, with the A320 getting swapped onto CHC-WLG-CHC freeing up some ATRs for AKL-TRG-AKL and WLG-TRG-WLG.

Anyone know the reason behind the daily widebody service that has now been added for April?

Think the Q300s days are coming to an end, it will come down to support an ATR 72-600 or be cut vibe from NZ.

The AKL-CHC-AKL 789 is the IAH aircraft that doesn't have enough time to do a return to Australia or the Pacific Islands between the long haul sectors in the Northern Summer schedule, so could be more than temporary.

The Q300s will be around for a while. They are all getting ADS-B fitted to comply with the NZCAA requirement effective from 2020.

I haven't seen the schedule yet but the extra TRG-WLG flight is a Q300 departing TRG "before 0730" so I expect the present WLG-TRG 0835/0950, TRG-WLG 1025/1145 ATR will be replaced by a Q300.

So Mo-Fr from 1 x ATR (68 pax) and 3 x Q300s (150 pax) = 218 pax, to 5 x Q300s = 250 pax would be my guess.

The WLG-TRG, TRG-WLG ATR will probably be used for a WLG-CHC, CHC-WLG. If an ATR is being removed from WLG-CHC, CHC-WLG then it could be getting used mostly out of AKL. Some extra TRG-AKL, AKL-TRG ATR flights have been announced.

PA515

How are the seats sold - is business and premium Y blocked off, or what? I did a test booking and it sort of looks like they are selling business as Y with a $12 seat select fee (I am Koru and logged in)

But it has borked the seat map somewhat..

There has been some really strong criticism and language directed at NZ's decision to drop PPQ today - the latest is from Otaki MP Nathan Guy, who says NZ has robbed the Kapiti community by withdrawing its Auckland to Kapiti Coast air service, with just three weeks’ notice. “I also find it hypocritical of Air New Zealand to have been promoting flights from Kapiti Coast as recently as last weekend when they held an open day at the airport. They have deceived the community.” This followed the local mayor labelling NZ's handling of the service withdrawal as "appalling."



Separately, S8 appears to be not interested in taking over the service, and has suggested that other regional carriers would struggle on the route too - "The issue Air NZ will have had, plus any new operator to the sector will have, is that Air NZ and Jetstar offer below-cost fares between Wellington and Auckland - so passengers rightly go for that option." The community says that it wants to procure CV or OG - Otaki MP Nathan Guy will meet with CV next week, and separately, "The [local] council would now talk to other airlines, such as Air Chathams and Origin Air."

See:
- http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1803/S ... kapiti.htm.
- http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=12009399.
- http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/travel/20 ... coast.html.

Cheers,

C.

I have friends that have just bought up the Kapiti coast. Their final push over the line was because of the easy commute to AKL three days a week where she works in contact days with her company. They’ve sold their Lower Hutt house and move in three weeks.

PA515 wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Hence the daily 77E/789 service on AKL-CHC-AKL, with the A320 getting swapped onto CHC-WLG-CHC freeing up some ATRs for AKL-TRG-AKL and WLG-TRG-WLG.

Anyone know the reason behind the daily widebody service that has now been added for April?

Think the Q300s days are coming to an end, it will come down to support an ATR 72-600 or be cut vibe from NZ.

The AKL-CHC-AKL 789 is the IAH aircraft that doesn't have enough time to do a return to Australia or the Pacific Islands between the long haul sectors in the Northern Summer schedule, so could be more than temporary.

The Q300s will be around for a while. They are all getting ADS-B fitted to comply with the NZCAA requirement effective from 2020.

I haven't seen the schedule yet but the extra TRG-WLG flight is a Q300 departing TRG "before 0730" so I expect the present WLG-TRG 0835/0950, TRG-WLG 1025/1145 ATR will be replaced by a Q300.

So Mo-Fr from 1 x ATR (68 pax) and 3 x Q300s (150 pax) = 218 pax, to 5 x Q300s = 250 pax would be my guess.

The WLG-TRG, TRG-WLG ATR will probably be used for a WLG-CHC, CHC-WLG. If an ATR is being removed from WLG-CHC, CHC-WLG then it could be getting used mostly out of AKL. Some extra TRG-AKL, AKL-TRG ATR flights have been announced.

PA515

I dunno, if we do test-bookings for even May, CHC-WLG is back to the 2 A320 services daily plus a whole lot of ATRs again. And no more 787 AKL-CHC after 30APR. This could mean they're temporary, or NZ hasn't updated the May schedule yet - which seems a bit close to time to not have done yet...

77west wrote:

How are the seats sold - is business and premium Y blocked off, or what? I did a test booking and it sort of looks like they are selling business as Y with a $12 seat select fee (I am Koru and logged in)

But it has borked the seat map somewhat..

As a bit of a nobody doing a test booking, premium economy is blocked off, and business seats are selectable at a $30 seat select fee on top of the base fare. And yes the seat map looks a little interesting.

Another unviable route goes by the wayside. You can say a number of things impacted the route, but ultimately the issue is that PPQ doesn't do enough in the way of the passenger demand to sustain the Q300 ops it wants, let alone sustain ATR operation. The nature of smaller aircraft always means higher fares than the equivalent A320 flying to WLG, and their own community is choosing not to use it for the sake of the cheaper airfares ex WLG. That is their choice, you always have to pay for the convenience of taking the fastest/nearest of anything - go to the dairy at the end of the road Milk costs more than it does at the chain supermarket 10min down the road.

Smaller point to point operators is the way for these ports, They lose direct connectivity but they gain lower overheads of network airlines without reservations systems and marketing campaigns, large workforces and Airport equipment to pay for.

I'm not at all surprised by the PPQ reaction.

For some reason, it's NZ's fault that the economics don't stack up when you look at simple supply and demand. NZ only has a Q300 aircraft, there isn't the demand to full it yet NZ's the bad guy?

I question the Major in this, does he understand what is residents want? They're voting with their tickets. Everyone wants an easily accessible airport but they more prefer cheaper airfares and a small commute. Why is he not looking at how to make WLG more accessible? (rail connection etc)

Unfortunately WLG is just to convenient for the residents and the cost to serve WLG is far cheaper therefore the cost to the consumer is cheaper and they'll commute. Looking long term, the Greens want light rail to WLG by 2027 and transmission gully is to be completed in 2 years so it'll only get easier.

As an Aucklander it makes me laugh, those living in Kumeu/Riverhead/Huapai area or north in Silverdale/Orewa area commute just as far but AKL's go no need for a second airport. Although some believe it should I guess.

My only thought it as some time in the next 50-100 years WLG will reach capacity. It would be nice to have a dedicated airport somewhere, PPQ isn't that place however. It needs to be dedicated away from residential housing.

NZ6 wrote:

I question the Major in this, does he understand what is residents want? They're voting with their tickets. Everyone wants an easily accessible airport but they more prefer cheaper airfares and a small commute. Why is he not looking at how to make WLG more accessible? (rail connection etc)

Of course the Mayor's upset - many of his citizens will be, too. This is just a louder rerun of the shouts that happened when NZ dropped Kaitaia, Taupo, Whakatane, Whanganui and Westport.

The trouble is, there's no clear replacement here. Sounds operate to PPQ from Nelson and Blenheim, but have never relaunched the PPQ-CHC route that NZ dropped and have said they don't see a value fo them of PPQ-AKL. Money could change that, I suppose, or some kind of numbers guarantee such as they have at Taupo.

But realistically, it's all up to Air Chathamss and how they feel about the route.

Incidentally, Silverdale/Orewa does have a small, functioning airport, North Shore Aerodrome, which Barrier Air uses, so I'm not sure of your point.

mariner

NZ6 wrote:

For some reason, it's NZ's fault that the economics don't stack up ...

I think many would accept that NZ is within its right to cancel a service because of economics, but it's how it handled the cancellation that is debatable:

- The 3-4 week lead-in time pre-cancellation is half the notice given for the AKL - WAG cancellation, and 1/5th the notice given for that of AKL - WHK's.
- The airline was promoting itself at the local airport (with aircraft tours and crew Q&A's) six days before the cancellation of the service was announced.

That being said, I personally feel that long-term, while inconvenient, this is not a major issue for the area - the Transmission Gully (due to open in two years) will remove a lot of the angst of driving into WLG to catch a flight, meaning easier access for PPQ's residents. After all, the distance is only about 50 km.

mariner wrote:

This is just a louder rerun of the shouts that happened when NZ dropped ... Taupo ...

No - NZ has not dropped TUO.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

No - NZ has not dropped TUO.

It dropped WLG-TUO and Sounds Air has been flying the route since.

mariner

mariner wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

No - NZ has not dropped TUO.

It dropped WLG-TUO and Sounds Air has been flying the route since.

Sure, but your comment was "NZ dropped .. Taupo ..," suggesting that all NZ TUO services had been dropped - I thought it should be clear that NZ still served TUO (from AKL).

See: https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/flights-to-taupo.

Cheers,

C.

mariner wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

I question the Major in this, does he understand what is residents want? They're voting with their tickets. Everyone wants an easily accessible airport but they more prefer cheaper airfares and a small commute. Why is he not looking at how to make WLG more accessible? (rail connection etc)

Of course the Mayor's upset - many of his citizens will be, too. This is just a louder rerun of the shouts that happened when NZ dropped Kaitaia, Taupo, Whakatane, Whanganui and Westport.

The trouble is, there's no clear replacement here. Sounds operate to PPQ from Nelson and Blenheim, but have never relaunched the PPQ-CHC route that NZ dropped and have said they don't see a value fo them of PPQ-AKL. Money could change that, I suppose, or some kind of numbers guarantee such as they have at Taupo.

But realistically, it's all up to Air Chathamss and how they feel about the route.

Incidentally, Silverdale/Orewa does have a small, functioning airport, North Shore Aerodrome, which Barrier Air uses, so I'm not sure of your point.

mariner

Who's upset? The people who used it? - we'll that's nothing to worry about... hardly anyone is using it. That's the entire issue. I'm not sure why those who don't use it will be upset? Are you suggesting they are complaining about loosing something they don't use?

Re: North Shore airport, you not sure if you see my point...

We're comparing PPQ-AKL and North Shore-Great Barrier, so connecting the wider Kapiti Coast to New Zealand's most significant city >500Km away with the National Carrier operating a Q300. A route supposedly opened to support the economic growth on the Kapiti Coast and allowing residents to connect over AKL to a wide range of national and international destinations.. Whereas North Shore and a single service to Great Barrier Island 80km away also serviced by a local ferry with no connections. Oranges and Apples. If you don't see the point, no need to reply.

NZ6 wrote:

Who's upset? The people who used it? - we'll that's nothing to worry about... hardly anyone is using it. That's the entire issue. I'm not sure why those who don't use it will be upset? Are you suggesting they are complaining about loosing something they don't use?

Sure. An airport is a symbol of growth, or at least stature, in people's minds, whether they use it or not.

NZ6 wrote:

Re: North Shore airport, you not sure if you see my point...

We're comparing PPQ-AKL and North Shore-Great Barrier, so connecting the wider Kapiti Coast to New Zealand's most significant city >500Km away with the National Carrier operating a Q300.

I'm not comparing anything. I'm just saying that Silverdale/Orewa has an airfield which has, in its time, been used for various routes including Salt Air to WRE and Sun Air when it was operating to the south.

NZ321 wrote:

Surprised somewhat that Sounds have said they are not interested. Maybe Sounds are not interested in AKL at all?

That's certainly a possibility, although it's more likely they perceive PPQ to be the problem. But, as I said, it's possible that a guarantee might change their mind - might.

mariner

NZ6 wrote:

... hardly anyone is using it.

NZ6 wrote:

That's the entire issue.

What? You say that "hardly anyone is using it" - yet, only a few months ago, NZ explicitly said that it "was happy with demand for its Paraparaumu air services." I suspect that it is not as simple as saying that "hardly anyone is using it" - it would have to do with a lot of other factors, such as the comparative strength of other markets for NZ's limited resources.

Separately, it is noteworthy that as recently as last month, NZ was saying: "We have been working closely with the Chambers and Council to grow awareness for the direct Kāpiti Coast – Auckland link ... We’re looking forward to ... engaging with the community" - mis-leading, and not the sort of forward-looking talk you would expect just before pulling the plug.

See:
- http://www.nzherald.co.nz/kapiti-news/n ... d=11896317.
- http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1802/S ... om-link-01.

NZ6 wrote:

I'm not sure why those who don't use it will be upset?

Eh, lower investment and lower tourism from the reduced connectivity?

There are plenty of reasons why non-users are also losers from the decision.

Cheers,

C.

https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/travel- ... 2vslMFiJL7

There is a peice in this NZ release about the 789/772 on domestic over traffic coming months. Doesn’t really stay why.

ZK-NBT wrote:

https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/travel-alerts#AKSSR57MMM2vslMFiJL7

There is a peice in this NZ release about the 789/772 on domestic over traffic coming months. Doesn’t really stay why.

I find it interesting that the release says the widebodies will be placed on the route for "months" (plural - indicating longer than just April).

Further, it appears that the planes will be boarded via stairs, and not air-bridges, indicating that the domestic AKL terminal will be used.

So cool!

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

Further, it appears that the planes will be boarded via stairs, and not air-bridges, indicating that the domestic AKL terminal will be used.
.

Although boarding starts 45minutes before departure - almost 2/3rds of the flight time just on boarding.

Wonder if it is an trail to see if they could use the A321NEO on AKL-CHC with 230seats?

zkncj wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

Further, it appears that the planes will be boarded via stairs, and not air-bridges, indicating that the domestic AKL terminal will be used.
.

Although boarding starts 45minutes before departure - almost 2/3rds of the flight time just on boarding.

Wonder if it is an trail to see if they could use the A321NEO on AKL-CHC with 230seats?

Not to sure what’s going on, 767’s were regular on domestic years ago though so doubt any trial at all.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

... hardly anyone is using it.

NZ6 wrote:

That's the entire issue.

What? You say that "hardly anyone is using it" - yet, only a few months ago, NZ explicitly said that it "was happy with demand for its Paraparaumu air services." I suspect that it is not as simple as saying that "hardly anyone is using it" - it would have to do with a lot of other factors, such as the comparative strength of other markets for NZ's limited resources.

Separately, it is noteworthy that as recently as last month, NZ was saying: "We have been working closely with the Chambers and Council to grow awareness for the direct Kāpiti Coast – Auckland link ... We’re looking forward to ... engaging with the community" - mis-leading, and not the sort of forward-looking talk you would expect just before pulling the plug.

See:
- http://www.nzherald.co.nz/kapiti-news/n ... d=11896317.
- http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1802/S ... om-link-01.

NZ6 wrote:

I'm not sure why those who don't use it will be upset?

Eh, lower investment and lower tourism from the reduced connectivity?

There are plenty of reasons why non-users are also losers from the decision.

Cheers,

C.

Good find, planeman. It's always satisfying to throw the PR bollocks back in NZ's face. One hopes the journalists might, but... free flights, eh?

NZ appears perfectly happy to trade off New Zealand's image and its unofficial (?) status as our flag/national carrier. But when it comes to actually serving the country it's all business baby! And how dare we question otherwise, right NZ staff?

Because if you remove aircraft suitable for certain smaller ports then yeah they're going to become unprofitable/unsustainable. It's a circular logic. Interesting too because NZ appeared to be unable to operate the 1900s profitably while smaller carriers around the world can just fine. I suspect it had something to do with Eagle or other internal guff that we'll never be told.

So enough of this nationalistic, kiwiana PR guff that's spoonfed to us, in exchange for predominantly AT72 flights on a trunk route (which really really suck compared to the jets) and the ever shrinking local network. Let's remember this next time "the national carrier" needs a bailout or cries poor.

Now if only someone could remind me that business is business etc.

aerokiwi wrote:

Now if only someone could remind me that business is business etc.

Ummm - business is business?

I think its great that Air NZ is changing from the behemoth and is actively encouraging the small fry to take on routes which it has given up. I'm guessing it will be Air Chathams for the North Island and Sounds Air for the South Island, but to real extent that will depend on them.

They may fail, they have a crisis of growth, they not be the airlines I expect them to be, but then others will rise up and take their place. I'm a free marketeer, and it's great, I think, that at long last, New Zealand is being run on something starting to approach free market lines.

You may disagree, but that's the beauty of the free market.

mariner

mariner wrote:

I'm a free marketeer ... at long last, New Zealand is being run on something starting to approach free market lines.

I'm not so sure that aviation in New Zealand is truly a free market affair, or that if it is, it benefits us in all cases - for example, at Auckland Airport, little regulation around certain revenue streams and reporting has meant that the likes of parking fees are (unnecessarily) high, and according to NZ, "[some] of the most expensive [in the world]." On the flip side, look at where intervention has been positive - for example, the subsidization of SQ's WLG service has boosted cargo (and thus export) capacity from WLG, and increased WLG's profile in various markets (though I appreciate the extent to which is debatable). Subsidization of infrastructure upgrades could also lead to really beneficial private sector investment, like CHT's runway being upgraded by the government, in exchange for CV upgrading CHT's flights to 737's, boosting CHT's export and tourism capacity, and thus economic development. There are pros and cons to each side, I guess.

aerokiwi wrote:

It's always satisfying to throw the PR bollocks back in NZ's face. One hopes the journalists might, but... free flights, eh?

So true - I see that Mr Bradley of The Herald has been reporting this week on the likes of "Why Hawaiian Airlines is joining the Dreamliner club," but not a word on PPQ, nor even a word on the Antarctica safety video.



Cheers,

C.

HA ordering dreamliners is a lot more significant than NZ doing a safety video in Antarctica.

As to NZ again it’s a business and if the small towns can’t sustain service they will lose it. It is great that there is a few smaller operators coming through that can take over some of these routes without NZ taking them out.

As to the fleet, NZ couldn’t operate B1900’s profitably and wanted to simplify the fleet meaning they were out as were any routes that couldn’t be flown with a Q300.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

... hardly anyone is using it.

NZ6 wrote:

That's the entire issue.

What? You say that "hardly anyone is using it" - yet, only a few months ago, NZ explicitly said that it "was happy with demand for its Paraparaumu air services." I suspect that it is not as simple as saying that "hardly anyone is using it" - it would have to do with a lot of other factors, such as the comparative strength of other markets for NZ's limited resources.

Separately, it is noteworthy that as recently as last month, NZ was saying: "We have been working closely with the Chambers and Council to grow awareness for the direct Kāpiti Coast – Auckland link ... We’re looking forward to ... engaging with the community" - mis-leading, and not the sort of forward-looking talk you would expect just before pulling the plug.

See:
- http://www.nzherald.co.nz/kapiti-news/n ... d=11896317.
- http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1802/S ... om-link-01.

NZ6 wrote:

I'm not sure why those who don't use it will be upset?

Eh, lower investment and lower tourism from the reduced connectivity?

There are plenty of reasons why non-users are also losers from the decision.

Cheers,

C.

“Happy” can mean anything, doesn’t mean they can’t change their mind, working with chamber of commerce could also mean that they’re doing what they can to keep the route alive.

Again you’re quoting media outlets as fact and don’t know the full story.

Lower investment? How
Lower tourism? How it’s not a tourist route
As stated, the people have opted to vote with flying ex WLG, obviously that’s shows it seen by many as a more than reasonable alternative. If the residents and major want a service so badly let’s see if they want to fork out for it In their rates.. after all the investment and tourism will pay for it.....

mariner wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Who's upset? The people who used it? - we'll that's nothing to worry about... hardly anyone is using it. That's the entire issue. I'm not sure why those who don't use it will be upset? Are you suggesting they are complaining about loosing something they don't use?

Sure. An airport is a symbol of growth, or at least stature, in people's minds, whether they use it or not.

NZ6 wrote:

Re: North Shore airport, you not sure if you see my point...

We're comparing PPQ-AKL and North Shore-Great Barrier, so connecting the wider Kapiti Coast to New Zealand's most significant city >500Km away with the National Carrier operating a Q300.

I'm not comparing anything. I'm just saying that Silverdale/Orewa has an airfield which has, in its time, been used for various routes including Salt Air to WRE and Sun Air when it was operating to the south.

mariner

Well as I just in my other reply, if they want a symbol of growth and stature then pay for it. Either by buying tickets or subsidising a non profitable route for that “stature” ultimately though NZ is a business not a charity.

North Shore airport was raised by you and not comparable to this debate.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If NZ were to consider a top off order for 789'S do you think NZ might consider routes from AKL to MNL,CPT or JNB,CTS or KIX,DEL or BOM, GIG or GRU although I think LIM would be a great place to connect with AV'S South and Central American flight network. I could see most of those routes I asked about working 3x or 4x. Not sure about the yield or potential for premium seats sales. But perhaps freight demand might off set any lack for premium priced services.
As mentioned before NZ is unlikely to order the 788 would the proposed Boeing NMA aircraft be of interest to NZ in the future? How much of Asia could NZ operate the 787-10 without taking a payload hit?

Your thoughts

planemanofnz wrote:

I'm not so sure that aviation in New Zealand is truly a free market affair, or that if it is, it benefits us in all cases - for example, at Auckland Airport, little regulation around certain revenue streams and reporting has meant that the likes of parking fees are (unnecessarily) high, and according to NZ, "[some] of the most expensive [in the world]."

Nor am I - yet.

But in the sector that includes smaller airlines it appears to be headed oil that direction. I doutbt that "New Zealand" will ever be a truly free market, but I prefer the way we're going to the way we were.

NZ6 wrote:

Well as I just in my other reply, if they want a symbol of growth and stature then pay for it. Either by buying tickets or subsidising a non profitable route for that “stature” ultimately though NZ is a business not a charity.

Sure, but those are two issues - (i) wanting something and (ii) paying for that same thing.

No one is denying that NZ is a business, free to make its own decisions. And no one is denying - or I'm not - the right of people to be happy or unhappy about those decisions. It's part of democracy.

mariner

NZ321 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

HA ordering dreamliners is a lot more significant than NZ doing a safety video in Antarctica.

.

For whom? Do you really think that the 789 is going to significantly improve or reduce the travelling public's experience from NZ beyond what is currently offered? I doubt that, frankly. It's just another airline order amidst all airline orders for new equipment all of which we currently experience in NZ. It's been on the cards for ages. What do you see that is of such particular benefit to New Zealanders that it warrants more significance than the Antarctica issue? I don't see either as less or more significant than the other. It's surely a question of one's connection to the topic that determines significance.

I was not born when Erubus happened, however for the most part this safety video seems to have gone down ok. I’m not the biggest supporter of it due to the surrounding circumstances, others will be upset that were directly or indirectly ie born at the time but it’s a cool video.

HA buying 10 789’s is news not necessarily to NZ, all that’s happened is an article has been published about an aircraft order which we may see in AKL in a few years.

mariner wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Well as I just in my other reply, if they want a symbol of growth and stature then pay for it. Either by buying tickets or subsidising a non profitable route for that “stature” ultimately though NZ is a business not a charity.

Sure, but those are two issues - (i) wanting something and (ii) paying for that same thing.

No one is denying that NZ is a business, free to make its own decisions. And no one is denying - or I'm not - the right of people to be happy or unhappy about those decisions. It's part of democracy.

mariner

So my point is why do the regions and those anti NZ always complain when these decisions are made.
- If NZ never started the route, there would be not complaint.
- There's no recognition for attempting to make it successful. You can be disappointed, appreciative and optimistic on building a service again in the future etc etc.
- NZ gave it a go, stayed in the market for several years.
- As quoted above they've worked in the region to help develop it and make it work.
- Launched programs like Airpoints for Business to help encourage small business.
- Have Gotta Go Fares for the regions. Applies to PPQ but not WLG.
- Simple economics say it's cheaper to operate an A320 into WLG meaning costs savings per seat to that route. NZ is simply passing on the savings where it can on the jets.
- How is NZ at fault if residents prefer to commute and save money. I would!
- Is the Kapiti Coast prepared to subsidize the service, if the stature and emotional feeling of having an airport? If it's worth so much then pay it, if you're not prepared to pay why should NZ"s bottom line be effected? - Essentially they're saying, NZ should forgo it's profits to support a region and ensure they feel good because they have an airport.

I get really annoyed and the continuous region bashing on NZ. Not always here but in the media.

How many airlines, or variations of airlines have we seen come and go, many struggle on the trunks let alone the regions. Yet NZ is expected to offer loss leading fares to the public and not be government funded. You can't have both. Unfortunately many towns around NZ just don't have the population, infrastructure and travel demand for regular A320 or 737 services. Meaning NZ need to operate aircraft which have a higher cost per seat than the major cities.

If NZ was taking so much advantage of the public, why have these airlines left and not taken over?

Ansett
Origin Pacific
Qantas 1.0
Qantas NZ
Pacific Blue
Regioanl Kiwi Airlines
Virgin

planemanofnz wrote:

mariner wrote:

I'm a free marketeer ... at long last, New Zealand is being run on something starting to approach free market lines.

I'm not so sure that aviation in New Zealand is truly a free market affair, or that if it is, it benefits us in all cases - for example, at Auckland Airport, little regulation around certain revenue streams and reporting has meant that the likes of parking fees are (unnecessarily) high, and according to NZ, "[some] of the most expensive [in the world]."

C.

Although I wouldn't put this topic under the topic of "I'm not so sure that aviation in New Zealand is truly a free market affair". I do have an issue with the conflict of interested between AIAL's profits and public infrastructure requirements for a rail connection to the airport.

Obviously there are two issues.
1: AIAL don't really want a rail connection as it'll mean less parking revenue.
2: If AIAL loose parking revenue, expect them to claim this back via either:
a) Increase airline fees which will end up on your passenger ticket.
b) A platform levi on your rail ticket - probably called a 'development tax' or similar. SYD did this and I think still do.

I would love to to see a legal case somewhere in the future if this happens, claiming noncompetitive behavior, essentially stating, you've got no 'reasonable' way of getting to the airport which is their primary business without either paying high parking charges or unreasonable public transport costs. I can't see this happening though.

So it'll be status quo for years to come.

NZ6 wrote:

So my point is why do the regions and those anti NZ always complain when these decisions are made.

Only when decisions negative to them are made and then usually only a few of the louder voices - for which the media is always looking.

When decisions positive to them are made they'll be pleased. It's human nature.

mariner

mariner wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

So my point is why do the regions and those anti NZ always complain when these decisions are made.

Only when decisions negative to them are made and then usually only a few of the louder voices - for which the media is always looking.

When decisions positive to them are made they'll be pleased. It's human nature.

mariner

Typically the media quote a numerous local residents /business owners who provide an emotional twist to simple math.

It can often come on the back of price changes and schedule changes.

I would just love to see NZ say to the Kapiti Coast (as one example), we’ll provide you x services a week. You pay us $Y upfront to cover operating costs and we’ll pass on revenue income from ticket, freight sales. You set the price of fares as it’s now your income.

You keep profits from the economic boost and use this towards next years fee.

This will then tell if residents are really prepared to have air services at rock bottom prices.

Clearly not business but would be interesting none the less.