• 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 12
 
Kashmon
Posts: 628
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 8:08 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Tue Mar 13, 2018 8:14 am

an airline that should not exist and was bailed out by the taxpayer has no right to be cutting routes ( even if they paid the money back....)
meh- just a matter of time.
next time they are bankrupt they should be shut down
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6057
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Tue Mar 13, 2018 8:27 am

Kashmon wrote:
an airline that should not exist and was bailed out by the taxpayer has no right to be cutting routes ( even if they paid the money back....)
meh- just a matter of time.
next time they are bankrupt they should be shut down


What are you on about?
 
User avatar
SXI899
Posts: 220
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:02 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Tue Mar 13, 2018 8:36 am

PA515 wrote:
Air NZ's next ATR 72-600 (ZK-MVR) has been painted. No msn or test registration details yet.
https://digitalairliners.com/category/tls-spotter-log/

MSN1487 / F-WWEM

ZK-MVU will be MSN1500.
We deliver......
 
NZ6
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Tue Mar 13, 2018 8:36 am

Kashmon wrote:
an airline that should not exist and was bailed out by the taxpayer has no right to be cutting routes ( even if they paid the money back....)
meh- just a matter of time.
next time they are bankrupt they should be shut down


With no regard to trade within New Zealand or Internationally with NZ and international or domestic tourism?

There is no certainty a foreign carrier will serve the New Zealand market equally let alone better than NZ.

The New Zealand tourism market will be subject to foreign carriers and exposed to severe Fluctuations based on the desire of foreign airlines serving New Zealand.

Although NZ was bailed out by the government they are still required to operate as commercial entity. If NZ was obliged to serve all regional New Zealand expect your text payers money to go towards subsidising this. It depends if you want this money spent there or on things like infrastructure, medical, schooling, Social development etc
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:30 am

NZ6 wrote:
Kashmon wrote:
an airline that should not exist and was bailed out by the taxpayer has no right to be cutting routes ( even if they paid the money back....)
meh- just a matter of time.
next time they are bankrupt they should be shut down


With no regard to trade within New Zealand or Internationally with NZ and international or domestic tourism?

There is no certainty a foreign carrier will serve the New Zealand market equally let alone better than NZ.

The New Zealand tourism market will be subject to foreign carriers and exposed to severe Fluctuations based on the desire of foreign airlines serving New Zealand.

Although NZ was bailed out by the government they are still required to operate as commercial entity. If NZ was obliged to serve all regional New Zealand expect your text payers money to go towards subsidising this. It depends if you want this money spent there or on things like infrastructure, medical, schooling, Social development etc

He's just trolling. Thought we'd done quite well up to now to avoid such antics . . .
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 3112
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:39 am

zkncj wrote:
There was an article about CV looking into purchasing an 737 fleet last year, on the basis that they could do it if CHT got its runway upgraded funded by the Government.

I understood that it was conditional on the runway extension being approved:

"General manager Duane Emeny said last year that a Boeing 737 service to the Chatham Islands was also on the cards, though that depended on whether a planned runway expansion went ahead"

See: https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national ... costs-rise.

Perhaps the NZ First 'Regional Development Fund' might be used for CHT?

NZ6 wrote:
That is the issue, the factors to why aren't black and white.

Eh, I'm really sorry, but this sentence makes no grammatical sense to me?

Cheers,

C.
 
PA515
Posts: 1288
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:40 am

Kashmon wrote:
an airline that should not exist and was bailed out by the taxpayer has no right to be cutting routes ( even if they paid the money back....)
meh- just a matter of time.
next time they are bankrupt they should be shut down


What a weird thing to say. Another person with a grudge?

PA515
 
PA515
Posts: 1288
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:43 am

SXI899 wrote:
PA515 wrote:
Air NZ's next ATR 72-600 (ZK-MVR) has been painted. No msn or test registration details yet.
https://digitalairliners.com/category/tls-spotter-log/

MSN1487 / F-WWEM

ZK-MVU will be MSN1500.


Thanks Yorden. ZK-MVT must have been reserved by someone other than Air NZ.

PA515
 
NZ321
Posts: 786
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:01 am

737s would be a huge move for CV. Much of what we are talking about needs smaller aircraft (TIU and PPQ for instance). This issue in my humble opinion is that NZ have quit the B1900 and there isn't a viable service without adequate frequency and in such situations people chose the larger airport further away so they have more choice of flights. It ain't rocket science is it?

Have flown into and out of TIU and it's way more convenient than the trek to CHC. So, here is another route for the taking if one of the regionals can get their act together and purchase enough of an aircraft of the right size. I suspect west coast (Hokitika) will be next and possible other candidates Gisborne and Kerikeri. This is looking like a veritable feast for the interested parties if they do their homework.
Plane mad!
 
NZ321
Posts: 786
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:11 am

Another thing I would add about this sort of regional infrastructure is, what tools do government - national and regional - have to incentivise, say a bus operator, to provide convenient regional connections to the nearest airport? Bus operators when left to their own devices will be looking to maximise revenue and time spent on coach and less interested in being part of a more complex transportation chain. If we look at using resources efficiently and maximising the potential of existing infrastructure then this surely warrants attention. These sorts of incentives exist in many countries with more efficient transport networks than NZ. These are unharnessed opportunities in regional NZ from my perspective.
Plane mad!
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 3112
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:24 am

NZ321 wrote:
737s would be a huge move for CV. Much of what we are talking about needs smaller aircraft (TIU and PPQ for instance).

I think a big chunk of CV's business is cargo-related, so the 737's make sense on that front, given growing exports out of CHT.

NZ321 wrote:
This is looking like a veritable feast for the interested parties if they do their homework.

An interesting point will be whether or not NZ co-operates more with CV and the other players, in the future (codeshares etc).

Cheers,

C.
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2454
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:42 am

NZ6 wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

What’s the load factor on the route?


aerorobnz wrote:
I checked the loads for PPQ over a couple of days and they were literally half empty for all bar one flight on the day of departure or 1-2 days prior. The AM flight was "full" in one direction but the saleable config was reduced by a substantial amount, not sure of the reason - but there was a cyclone around, who knows?... They would be able to fill an extra Q300 between pretty much any of the main ports, a better use IMO. There are passengers, but it needs to be operated by 1) smaller aircraft and 2) reduced service. That said CV did boost passenger traffic for WAG so they might be able to do the same for PPQ. A 19 seater (metro) would be about right to ensure 2-3 full services a day.and frequency.


What we do know is that NZ said as recently as a few months ago that it was happy with demand, and, according to the former PPQ owner, "Air NZ have always said to me that if they're over 60 per cent loading they're happy — and last year it has been well over 80 per cent". Your snapshot is interesting though, aerorobnz.

See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=12011794.

Cheers,

C.


Here we go again, you still haven't got this one.

Let me explain this in the simplist way possible, the numbers used are just round numbers and don't reflect reality in any way. I'm using these numbers by way of explaining it

- NZ has demand for 1,500 seats PPQ / AKL vv each week = Happy with this demand
- NZ adds 1,000 seats into the market each week for capture this demand and make money.
- NZ needs to sell each of the 1,000 seats at $100 to be profitable
- NZ is only able to sell seats at $75 due to factors such as the close proximity of WLG, it's not converting demand.

As the price point needs to be $75 to capture the demand and with the actual price point being over this, the entire issue is people are not using it.

As I said last week, Happy with demand can mean anything. :banghead:

This isn't the only issue but hopefully you can see why I'm saying you need to look beyond single quotes and media articles. Commercial Aviation is a complex business, the SLT who are making these decisions are earning well into 6 figures so please appreciate there's more than just playing with little integers and everything turning out positive.

You can look at a single load factor, or a range of load factors for this week. You can jump of board and look around. Let's say it's full, it's full of $50 seats, half what NZ needs. Is it successful because it's full?

What's the long term load factor, what's the booking curve look like, what's the loads -90, -30, -7, -1 (days) etc?


Let's see...

NZ spits it at the 1900, withdraws fleet. Regions get anxious NZ will withdraw service. Nah no way not gonna happen. Then it happens - not filling enough seats. Plane's too big. Duh.

Repeat when the Dash 8s go and they standardise on AT72s. I'd imagine Gisborne, Whangarei, Blenheim, Timaru, Taupo are next in line.

Then NZ6 can enlighten us all to the immense intricacies of the complexities of... etc etc, insert monopoly airline doing what monopoly airlines do. Meanwhile, populations grow and spread, traffic worsens, existing monopoly airports do what they do - as little as possible. Oh New Zealand.
 
NZ321
Posts: 786
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Tue Mar 13, 2018 1:26 pm

Yes but this is not just about airlines is it? It is about regional and city community needs and this then surely heads to a governance level. We don't know what we don't have access to in terms of current conversations in regional centers of NZ about the problem that is under discussion and has been emerging over the past couple of years. Do we have a sufficiently informed quorum of people to fuel and inform the discussion?

To say it is NZ's responsibility alone as a purely commercial player to provide adequate service to the regions is frankly a bit rich in the current environment.

What we need is guidance and clarity at a national level about what is needed and how this will be paid for in terms of some isolated and much needed regional routes. Any state funding needs to be tagged, of course. But the more I think about this the more I think that what is missing is a key stakeholder (government) at the table of discussions about regional services. I don't have the sense this is happening in a functional way.

Many countries have well coordinated and funded infrastructure yet New Zealand continues to play in the sheep paddock. Maybe we need a more coordinated approach to some of these services if they are to be sustained. Look at Germany for instance. Berlin's new airport aside, this country has spent a lot of time coordinating efficient connections for citizens from small rural centers and big cities alike, all the while conscious of the need to reduce their footprint. they do this very successfully. Why do we need to wait or leave a vacuum? No need to reinvent the wheel. Why not learn from what ain't broken? My sense is that there are solutions to this that we are not embracing and our citizens and the economy are the worse off for it. Opportunity aplenty if we want to take it. If not... goodbye PPQ, TIU and the rest.
Plane mad!
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19466
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:02 pm

aerokiwi wrote:
Let's see...

NZ spits it at the 1900, withdraws fleet. Regions get anxious NZ will withdraw service. Nah no way not gonna happen. Then it happens - not filling enough seats. Plane's too big. Duh.Repeat when the Dash 8s go and they standardise on AT72s. I'd imagine Gisborne, Whangarei, Blenheim, Timaru, Taupo are next in line.

Then NZ6 can enlighten us all to the immense intricacies of the complexities of... etc etc, insert monopoly airline doing what monopoly airlines do. Meanwhile, populations grow and spread, traffic worsens, existing monopoly airports do what they do - as little as possible. Oh New Zealand.


I'm not sure what the problem is. The market is operating as it should, it's just that the overall plan isn't yet in sight. Nobody said that NZ had to serve all these smaller places, it's own (Me Tarzan!) monopolist instincts led to it, and now, hallelujah, it is moving away from the monopoly it created and into the 21st century.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
Gasman
Posts: 1838
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:05 pm

aerokiwi wrote:
[I'd imagine Gisborne, Whangarei, Blenheim, Timaru, Taupo are next in line.

I would too.

Whether this is in any way a matter of NZ shirking some wider responsibility is a matter of philosophical debate that we won't resolve here. Certainly, most posters in this forum seem to advocate the "shareholders first" mentality that NZ operates by. This is an issue that the regions face constantly - not only in aviation, but also in general infrastructure, healthcare, and education.

To require NZ to be an international carrier, a domestic main trunk carrier AND a regional carrier almost seems like too big an ask for one organisation operating under one umbrella. I've long suspected that NZ in fact believe (as I do) that it would be better for all concerned if the regions were served by a few niche operators each with a task-specific business model. Getting there - if we ever do - will involve a certain amount of pain.
 
NZ6
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:22 pm

planemanofnz wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
This isn't the only issue ...

Finally! Yes, so the entire issue is not that hardly anyone uses the service - it's not that black and white.

Cheers,

C.


planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:
That is the issue, the factors to why aren't black and white.

Eh, I'm really sorry, but this sentence makes no grammatical sense to me?

Cheers,

C.


I’m not sure if you’re not wanting to get it or when topics get complex you’re getting lost in the details?

That sentence makes perfect grammatical sense.

For the record:

The entire issue is people are not using it. The reasons why people are not using it is not black-and-white the keyword is why, one example is my price scenario above. Like I highlighted the required seat priceAs above what the market is willing to pay factors such as replace proximately Wellington but for contributing to this.
 
DavidJ08
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:18 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:57 pm

planemanofnz wrote:
What we do know is that NZ said as recently as a few months ago that it was happy with demand, and, according to the former PPQ owner, "Air NZ have always said to me that if they're over 60 per cent loading they're happy — and last year it has been well over 80 per cent". Your snapshot is interesting though, aerorobnz.

See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=12011794.

Actually, if you think about how PR and how business works in general, they're not going to reveal anything until they're ready. So they will respond to questions with vague answers like "oh yes we're happy with the demand" until they're ready to announce the axing of the route. If I recall correctly SQ was quoted as saying they're happy with the WLG-CBR service before they announced that CBR is being upgauged and WLG is being transferred.

That's the kind of critical thinking that we need more of: don't take people's words at face value and continue to quote it as gospel, think about the context in which comments were made, and whether it was an open, honest response or a throwaway comment to brush past a question without divulging information (like if they said "oh yes we're happy with the demand" and quickly moved on). If people start qualifying their comments with "I think..." "I was told..." "I understand that..." "I'm pretty sure..." then they are defending themselves from being proven wrong in future rather than making a solid factual statement. And most of all, think about who's making the comment and what their interests are - airlines making vague comments are usually trying to stay tight-lipped, people affected by a route axe will be commenting in a heavily tilted way quoting only their side of the story without regard to the other side (or the reality). There's always two sides to every coin ;)

The article itself seems to be a great example of a one-sided article with the emotive responses of people affected by the route cut, and IMHO does little to explore the commercial reality of the service and simply paints NZ as a bad guy for cutting the route.

An unrelated example of a media beat-up: Environment Canterbury regional council is catching flak because the construction of a new motorway is forcing a local bus to change its route (because the intersection it uses will be changed permanently) - quoting multiple parties bashing the route change without even bothering to mention that the new motorway will leave the bus unable to access the street from one direction (it'll be left-turn-in, left-turn-out only onto a motorway) and attributing blame to ECan for the fact that a bus can't turn across a 4-lane motorway http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/christ ... ch-locals/
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 3112
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Wed Mar 14, 2018 12:34 am

NZ6 wrote:
... hardly anyone is using it ... That's the entire issue.

NZ6 wrote:
The entire issue is people are not using it.

I see that you've now changed from "hardly anyone is using it" a more vague "people are not using it" - okay, that's your opinion, but IMHO, there's a significant base which was using the service, as supported by: 1) comments that some flights were full (see aerorobnz and Planesmart's comments above, as examples) and 2) NZ's comments a few months ago that it was happy with demand. I also note that NZ didn't cut the PPQ - AKL service when it could have, during PPQ - CHC's cut, or the WAG, WHK or WSZ cuts. That speaks volumes.

In contrast, your responses have largely been hypothetical, like NZ could be saying its happy, just to throw off JQ, or NZ could be charging X more than the market is prepared to pay. Are those possibilities? Sure, but recognize them for what they are - hypotheticals - before claiming that posters "can't face being wrong." As an NZ insider, could you provide actuals? Ultimately, and totally IMHO, there's a level of base demand at PPQ, which CV, S8 or someone else will hopefully build upon (with far fewer cancellations and delays than NZ imposed).

DavidJ08 wrote:
Actually, if you think about how PR and how business works in general, they're not going to reveal anything until they're ready. So they will respond to questions with vague answers like "oh yes we're happy with the demand" until they're ready to announce the axing of the route ...

I don't buy this at all - airlines are often open about their struggles. For example, the MH CEO recently said AKL's performance has deteriorated to the point where it can no longer support 359's. Even NZ is open about its performance issues, like by saying its Asian operations have been under pressure. NZ is a listed company, subject to disclosure requirements - it's not the type of entity that has a reputation for misrepresenting its affairs. But if you want to debate "happy with demand" with hypotheticals for pages, that's your right to.

Cheers,

C.
 
NZ6
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Wed Mar 14, 2018 1:47 am

aerokiwi wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:

What we do know is that NZ said as recently as a few months ago that it was happy with demand, and, according to the former PPQ owner, "Air NZ have always said to me that if they're over 60 per cent loading they're happy — and last year it has been well over 80 per cent". Your snapshot is interesting though, aerorobnz.

See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=12011794.

Cheers,

C.


Here we go again, you still haven't got this one.

Let me explain this in the simplist way possible, the numbers used are just round numbers and don't reflect reality in any way. I'm using these numbers by way of explaining it

- NZ has demand for 1,500 seats PPQ / AKL vv each week = Happy with this demand
- NZ adds 1,000 seats into the market each week for capture this demand and make money.
- NZ needs to sell each of the 1,000 seats at $100 to be profitable
- NZ is only able to sell seats at $75 due to factors such as the close proximity of WLG, it's not converting demand.

As the price point needs to be $75 to capture the demand and with the actual price point being over this, the entire issue is people are not using it.

As I said last week, Happy with demand can mean anything. :banghead:

This isn't the only issue but hopefully you can see why I'm saying you need to look beyond single quotes and media articles. Commercial Aviation is a complex business, the SLT who are making these decisions are earning well into 6 figures so please appreciate there's more than just playing with little integers and everything turning out positive.

You can look at a single load factor, or a range of load factors for this week. You can jump of board and look around. Let's say it's full, it's full of $50 seats, half what NZ needs. Is it successful because it's full?

What's the long term load factor, what's the booking curve look like, what's the loads -90, -30, -7, -1 (days) etc?


Let's see...

NZ spits it at the 1900, withdraws fleet. Regions get anxious NZ will withdraw service. Nah no way not gonna happen. Then it happens - not filling enough seats. Plane's too big. Duh.

Repeat when the Dash 8s go and they standardise on AT72s. I'd imagine Gisborne, Whangarei, Blenheim, Timaru, Taupo are next in line.

Then NZ6 can enlighten us all to the immense intricacies of the complexities of... etc etc, insert monopoly airline doing what monopoly airlines do. Meanwhile, populations grow and spread, traffic worsens, existing monopoly airports do what they do - as little as possible. Oh New Zealand.


This is all just assumption on the future.

You don't know how the B1900D services operated, economics of the equipment, replacement options and economics, performance, maintenance etc etc

Why does NZ HAVE to serve routes that are unprofitable given they are a commercial business? it's not state run organisation that must serve all of NZ. These withdraws open the door to smaller carriers to enter and grow which is healthy them and the region. This is a positive thing for other airlines yet it's seen as a short sighted negative on NZ only.
 
NZ6
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Wed Mar 14, 2018 2:54 am

planemanofnz wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
... hardly anyone is using it ... That's the entire issue.

NZ6 wrote:
The entire issue is people are not using it.


I see that you've now changed from "hardly anyone is using it" a more vague "people are not using it" - okay, that's your opinion, but IMHO, there's a significant base which was using the service, as supported by: 1) comments that some flights were full (see aerorobnz and Planesmart's comments above, as examples) and 2) NZ's comments a few months ago that it was happy with demand. I also note that NZ didn't cut the PPQ - AKL service when it could have, during PPQ - CHC's cut, or the WAG, WHK or WSZ cuts. That speaks volumes.

In contrast, your responses have largely been hypothetical, like NZ could be saying its happy, just to throw off JQ, or NZ could be charging X more than the market is prepared to pay. Are those possibilities? Sure, but recognize them for what they are - hypotheticals - before claiming that posters "can't face being wrong." As an NZ insider, could you provide actuals? Ultimately, and totally IMHO, there's a level of base demand at PPQ, which CV, S8 or someone else will hopefully build upon (with far fewer cancellations and delays than NZ imposed).

Cheers,

C.


It's not an opinion, the ridiculous thing here is you're again challenging fact. I'm trying inform / educate you on what has happened as per fact yet you're trying to tell someone who knows the truth why something happened based on opinion. What i'm telling you is I know why this service was pulled, I'm not able to share specific economics and data however I've been attempting to enlighten you to the basics.

It is now up to you, if you want to listen, learn and understand or make your own mind up with you're own conspiracy? A strong word, but it's seem appropriate given you know I'm an employee yet don't seem to believe the truth

You're quoting and comparing "hardly anyone is using it" to "people are not using it" and trying to pick apart a difference. These are nothing more than comments written in a forum that mean nothing more than that the demand is not being converted into usable revenue, at different times I've chosen different words to write this message, that is all. I've also explained and provided a simple example of how this works. This is just really semantics now as those quotes are one in the same.

Please try to understand the message being given, read to understand and don't just read to reply.

1) Full planes don't equal money making. Learn 101 of yield management
2) Happy with demand has been highlighted by a few members as being rather open to it's interpretation. I've also confirmed there is demand air travel ex PPQ but NZ is not able to convert it at the required yield
3) Not making cuts means it was more viable and at the time worth pursavering with and attempting to simulate that demand and convert these travelers to fly ex PPQ

No one has questioned that residents who live on the Kapiti Coast travel via air for business and leisure. The issue is getting them to travel on services ex PPQ at the required price point.

I'm not sure what you mean by the JQ comment, I've only raised JQ in this conversation when provided an example or why an airline won't be an open book when pulling a route. I never stated this was an actual reason.

Personally I would love for CV or S8 to enter and fly PPQ-AKL, it would be great for the region. They're a different business with a different business model and different equipment, if they can make it work then great I support that. See NZ is the largest carrier domestically but I encourage competition if they can make it work. No one is stopping them if it's so viable.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 3112
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Wed Mar 14, 2018 3:55 am

NZ6 wrote:
I've chosen different words to write this message ...

NZ6 wrote:
This is just really semantics ...

Just for future, choice of words is important - IMO, it'd have been more helpful to say that the loads weren't within NZ's expectations, rather than to assert that "hardly anyone used it."

We have no idea what your role is, nor your access to load factors, and you can't actually provide any proof or "specifics," but I guess we cannot and should not challenge you, ever?

:scratchchin:

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 3112
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:03 am

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.

Given the new government's education reforms, I wonder if we'll see more subsidies going into pilot training fees, which, AFAIK, are much higher than doing a normal university course. With immigration reforms too, perhaps more could be done to encourage overseas-trained pilots to migrate down under?

See: http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/larr ... of-pilots/.

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 3112
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:06 am

Vietnam's Prime Minister in AKL today "underscored the significance of strengthening aviation connectivity between Vietnam and New Zealand, suggesting opening more direct flights to facilitate bilateral trade and tourism." I wonder who would be more interested in expanding aviation ties - NZ beefing up its service to a year-round offering, or VN coming in, either via, say, BNE, or directly? With its 789's freed up from 78J deliveries in 2019, VN has to be a contender?

See: http://vietnamnews.vn/politics-laws/424 ... e1ldWos.97.

Cheers,

C.
 
DavidJ08
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:18 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Wed Mar 14, 2018 9:42 am

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.

Given the new government's education reforms, I wonder if we'll see more subsidies going into pilot training fees, which, AFAIK, are much higher than doing a normal university course. With immigration reforms too, perhaps more could be done to encourage overseas-trained pilots to migrate down under?

See: http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/larr ... of-pilots/.

AFAIK the global shortage has not hit NZ - in the likes of Asia and Middle East they recruit local youngsters into cadet programmes (airline pays for training in exchange for x years bonded service) and recruit second officers internationally with low requirements (e.g. SQ S/O recruitment only requires CPL/frozenATPL, CX S/O recruitment requires CPL + MEIR + ATPL theory + 250hrs). We have not seen anything like this here.

In Australia, we have QF with a S/O programme for long-haul jet fleet (CPL+MEIR, ATPL theory, 500hrs, Aus citizen or PR), QantasLink which has direct entry F/O and trainee F/O pathways plus a partnership with universities for aviation graduates, and JQ & VA have their own cadetship programmes, which, unlike the Asian airlines, require AU$45k self-funding on top of a $100k student loan (sounding like regular flight school just with a probable job at the end).

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), and with the jet fleet requiring 2000+ hrs I'd speculate that the traditional turboprop -> jet progression is still in place. Other employers on this side of the ditch include JetStar (A320 F/O or B787 S/O requiring 1500hrs, with 500hrs PIC or F/O on multi-engine, 250hrs PIC; Q300 F/O requiring 700hrs, with 250hrs multi-engine command OR 250hrs command singe engine turbine >3000kg MTOW OR 250hrs F/O on multi-engine turboprop) and 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).

New Zealand is a beautiful country with easy access to general aviation (and where commercial aviation is the mainstream mode of transport if you're going anywhere far), which would help to cultivate an interest in aviation in many youngsters (unlike some other parts of the world), but the local commercial aviation scene isn't busy enough to put all of them to use, particularly immediately after training - 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.)

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.

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.
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 9974
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Wed Mar 14, 2018 10:13 am

aerokiwi wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:



What we do know is that NZ said as recently as a few months ago that it was happy with demand, and, according to the former PPQ owner, "Air NZ have always said to me that if they're over 60 per cent loading they're happy — and last year it has been well over 80 per cent". Your snapshot is interesting though, aerorobnz.

See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=12011794.

Cheers,

C.


Here we go again, you still haven't got this one.

Let me explain this in the simplist way possible, the numbers used are just round numbers and don't reflect reality in any way. I'm using these numbers by way of explaining it

- NZ has demand for 1,500 seats PPQ / AKL vv each week = Happy with this demand
- NZ adds 1,000 seats into the market each week for capture this demand and make money.
- NZ needs to sell each of the 1,000 seats at $100 to be profitable
- NZ is only able to sell seats at $75 due to factors such as the close proximity of WLG, it's not converting demand.

As the price point needs to be $75 to capture the demand and with the actual price point being over this, the entire issue is people are not using it.

As I said last week, Happy with demand can mean anything. :banghead:

This isn't the only issue but hopefully you can see why I'm saying you need to look beyond single quotes and media articles. Commercial Aviation is a complex business, the SLT who are making these decisions are earning well into 6 figures so please appreciate there's more than just playing with little integers and everything turning out positive.

You can look at a single load factor, or a range of load factors for this week. You can jump of board and look around. Let's say it's full, it's full of $50 seats, half what NZ needs. Is it successful because it's full?

What's the long term load factor, what's the booking curve look like, what's the loads -90, -30, -7, -1 (days) etc?


Let's see...

NZ spits it at the 1900, withdraws fleet. Regions get anxious NZ will withdraw service. Nah no way not gonna happen. Then it happens - not filling enough seats. Plane's too big. Duh.

Repeat when the Dash 8s go and they standardise on AT72s. I'd imagine Gisborne, Whangarei, Blenheim, Timaru, Taupo are next in line.

Then NZ6 can enlighten us all to the immense intricacies of the complexities of... etc etc, insert monopoly airline doing what monopoly airlines do. Meanwhile, populations grow and spread, traffic worsens, existing monopoly airports do what they do - as little as possible. Oh New Zealand.

I suspect NZ will eventually go down the ATR42 path as a Q300 replacement.

Yes regional New Zealand is VERY well served in regards to aviation, but our roads aren't and will never be as good as Australia's, Canada or the USA's. Due to this, there will be a need for a 50 seat regional aircraft.

Some airports which are close to each other (ROT and TUO for example) each serve different markets and geography. If TUO looses NZ service for example then Central New Zealand will have a long drive for many to either PMR, Napier or ROT on roads which isn't like what you get overseas in Australua for instance

On the PPQ and CV front, there was a facebook post today from Kris Faafoi, MP for Mana to Raumati South (southern end of PPQ). Kris is on the Chatham Islands currently and today met with the CEO of CV and discussed options for a CV service with possible funding - something to keep an eye on!
Head Forum Moderator
moderators@airliners.net
Flown: 1900D,S340,Q300,AT72-5/6,DC3,CR2/7,E145,E70/75/90,A319/20/21,A332/3,A380,F100,B717,B733/4/8/9,B742/4,B752/3,B763,B772/W,B789
With: NZ,SJ,QF,JQ,EK,VA,AA,UA,DL,FL,AC,FJ
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8077
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Wed Mar 14, 2018 1:48 pm

I see that Germany was used upthread as an example of infrastructure development, I'm not 100% sure why it is a comparison to New Zealand transport ops, as it is a wealthy economic superpower that props up an entire economic region, but I will nibble the bait on the hook all the same.

The German population is solidly dense throughout the entire country and also is many times larger in population so all the main ports can sustain jets, but this was also cultivated that way.. For the many towns that can't justify, they have a network of autobahn motorways where you can just hop on and drive many hundreds of kilometres to either the nearest jet port or if travelling domestically to your destination. Secondly, If we use Germany as an example, you see that many airports are designed to share towns/cities. Cologne/Bonn, Leipzig/Halle and much more that aren't named as such. They worked out long ago that a country needs to reduce airports to maximise infrastructure investment and to increase demand for the remaining ports,

That would be distinctly unpopular with New Zealanders, who tend to still have small-minded, short-sighted ideas when it comes to tax collection and expenditure and infrastructure investment. We like to put band-aids on gaping wounds so to speak, and have little regard for the greater good of society or the proportional allocation of resources. A German way to look at the New Zealand market would be to take more in tax, and build it as quickly and efficiently as possible, custom built a larger airport between two or 3 towns Auckland/Hamilton, Palmerston North/Wanganui, Rotorua/Taupo etc and close down the local airports like PPQ for commercial operation and then link the city centres directly to the airports with rail and high-speed autobahn to increase the surrounding pool.

I don't know about anyone else, but when I saw the FX order for Cessna (Textron) Skycourier, and read they were considering a passenger version I thought of Air Chathams/Soundsair. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/2017/ ... kycouriers
It seems ideal for New Zealand ops, especially if it is quick to convert freight/pax ops. It also occurred to me that below par ports such PPQ could be linked and served by NZ as milk-run flights between the centres with them to boost frequency, NZ used to do this in F27 days, and it is still common practice in remote places like Peru/Bolivia/Canada and Africa. Perhaps the Govt can set up a fleet as a civil arm of the RNZAF as they do in Peru, Argentina if they are still hellbent on serving these markets if no commercial carrier is interested,
Flown to 128 Airports in 48 Countries on 81 Operators. Visited 56 Countries and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
NZ321
Posts: 786
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:44 pm

There must be many airlines around the world who need a passenger aircraft of the size of the B1900 o r Cessna Skycourier". This is after all essentially an updated B1900. Why not? It is clearly designed for both passenger and freight ops. I'm curious as to why this wasn't on the NZ drawing board but I guess we have to take it that they are not interested in this segment of the market. It doesn't however, preclude others from taking the plunge. But is there potential investment for regionals to enable them to purchase or lease such aircraft?
Plane mad!
 
User avatar
SelandiaBaru
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 2:39 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Wed Mar 14, 2018 9:21 pm

DavidJ08 wrote:
AFAIK the global shortage has not hit NZ - in the likes of Asia and Middle East they recruit local youngsters into cadet programmes (airline pays for training in exchange for x years bonded service) and recruit second officers internationally with low requirements (e.g. SQ S/O recruitment only requires CPL/frozenATPL, CX S/O recruitment requires CPL + MEIR + ATPL theory + 250hrs). We have not seen anything like this here.


And thanks to institutional inertia and that very kiwi head in the sand perhaps never will. But the shortage has been building for some time. It has certainly been felt in turboprop operations for the last couple of years and is only getting worse.

I'm loathe to add anything more to the PPQ discussion but it's obvious that crew shortages played a role in not only the reliability of the service but also its cancellation. I'm also surprised nothing was made of the take-off performance limitations due to locals not willing to lop the tops off their trees, but fair play for not heaping blame on the victims so to speak.

777ER wrote:
I suspect NZ will eventually go down the ATR42 path as a Q300 replacement.


Perhaps, the reality is without a runway extension program around regional NZ an ATR 72 will be too limited at many places where Air NZ currently make good money. Despite its age the Q300 has been a good platform and certainly with the recent upgrades has a good 8 years left in it. I really don't think a huge amount of thought has been put in to the future past that because the only current available solutions will be massive compromises. The ATR is also a good platform also but has a number of downsides, both in 42 and 72 models for operations in NZ.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4107
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Wed Mar 14, 2018 11:14 pm

DavidJ08 wrote:
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.

Given the new government's education reforms, I wonder if we'll see more subsidies going into pilot training fees, which, AFAIK, are much higher than doing a normal university course. With immigration reforms too, perhaps more could be done to encourage overseas-trained pilots to migrate down under?

See: http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/larr ... of-pilots/.

AFAIK the global shortage has not hit NZ - in the likes of Asia and Middle East they recruit local youngsters into cadet programmes (airline pays for training in exchange for x years bonded service) and recruit second officers internationally with low requirements (e.g. SQ S/O recruitment only requires CPL/frozenATPL, CX S/O recruitment requires CPL + MEIR + ATPL theory + 250hrs). We have not seen anything like this here.

In Australia, we have QF with a S/O programme for long-haul jet fleet (CPL+MEIR, ATPL theory, 500hrs, Aus citizen or PR), QantasLink which has direct entry F/O and trainee F/O pathways plus a partnership with universities for aviation graduates, and JQ & VA have their own cadetship programmes, which, unlike the Asian airlines, require AU$45k self-funding on top of a $100k student loan (sounding like regular flight school just with a probable job at the end).

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), and with the jet fleet requiring 2000+ hrs I'd speculate that the traditional turboprop -> jet progression is still in place. Other employers on this side of the ditch include JetStar (A320 F/O or B787 S/O requiring 1500hrs, with 500hrs PIC or F/O on multi-engine, 250hrs PIC; Q300 F/O requiring 700hrs, with 250hrs multi-engine command OR 250hrs command singe engine turbine >3000kg MTOW OR 250hrs F/O on multi-engine turboprop) and 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).

New Zealand is a beautiful country with easy access to general aviation (and where commercial aviation is the mainstream mode of transport if you're going anywhere far), which would help to cultivate an interest in aviation in many youngsters (unlike some other parts of the world), but the local commercial aviation scene isn't busy enough to put all of them to use, particularly immediately after training - 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.)

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.

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.

Good post.

Yes the main problem in NZ is the gap between training and getting an airline job.
Generally most people fill that gap by becoming an instructor for about 3 years which is enough to get to around 1000 hours (although most are short on multi-hours). This of course isn't ideal since in NZ instructors basically get paid minimum wage and are often only paid for the hours they are actually flying (so they might work for 8 hours a day in total including flight briefings etc but only get paid for 5 hours of that). Most could probably get by for a year doing that but to do that for 3 years is quite a tough ask (especially with rent prices these days).
Traditionally flight training has been a giant pyramid scheme... for every 12 people getting their PPL there might be 3 that go on to become instructors and of those 3 - 1 will go on to the airlines, 1 will stay on as an instructor or work in GA (or go overseas), 1 will give up and get a normal job. For instructors to get enough instructing hours they need to have enough students below them.

Airlines like Air NZ should definitely be putting in place some kind of cadetship or bonding. If the student can pass their entry requirements then they get offered a job once they complete their training and are bonded for say 3 years.
57 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
Gasman
Posts: 1838
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Thu Mar 15, 2018 12:56 am

Zkpilot wrote:
Airlines like Air NZ should definitely be putting in place some kind of cadetship or bonding. If the student can pass their entry requirements then they get offered a job once they complete their training and are bonded for say 3 years.

Absolutely - although the bonding should probably be something like 5 years to get a return on investment.

The old pilot hiring formula where value to the airline is directly proportional to flying hours accumulated and nothing much else is antiquated and short sighted. Airlines should be targeting PPL graduates with University qualifications and subjecting them to aptitude testing and an interview process, then taking ownership of the training from that point on.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 3112
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:34 am

New Zealand has come out as the most expensive international destination ex-SYD / MEL, on cost per mile:

The least cost-effective flight routes from Sydney (cost per mile)
1. Queenstown 27.17¢
2, Wellington 21.76¢
3. Auckland 19.18¢
4. Christchurch 17.06¢


The least cost-effective flight routes from Melbourne (cost per mile)
1. Christchurch 13.90¢
2. Auckland 13.43¢


See: http://www.traveller.com.au/most-expens ... led-h0xgz3.

No doubt, if we became a single aviation market (like Schengen), this might reduce taxes and therefore cost?

Cheers,

C.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:59 am

planemanofnz wrote:
No doubt, if we became a single aviation market (like Schengen), this might reduce taxes and therefore cost?

We are already a SAM, but not like Schengen because of the passport control requirements.

My main point though is the issue of "taxes". People very glibly speak of "taxes" as being a component of air fares, but I wonder how much of an air fare (say) to Australia is actually "tax". My guess is that most of the non-airline component is not actually a tax as such, but a "user charge" - for which there is a world of difference. Navigation charges, airport charges etc are not taxes at all. Much though the industry likes to portray them that way as if to indicate that air fares could be lower if only the government stopped revenue-raising. Does anyone know how ticket prices breakdown between (1) air fares, (2) user charges and (c) genuine taxes?
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
NZ6
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:20 am

DavidByrne wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
No doubt, if we became a single aviation market (like Schengen), this might reduce taxes and therefore cost?

We are already a SAM, but not like Schengen because of the passport control requirements.

My main point though is the issue of "taxes". People very glibly speak of "taxes" as being a component of air fares, but I wonder how much of an air fare (say) to Australia is actually "tax". My guess is that most of the non-airline component is not actually a tax as such, but a "user charge" - for which there is a world of difference. Navigation charges, airport charges etc are not taxes at all. Much though the industry likes to portray them that way as if to indicate that air fares could be lower if only the government stopped revenue-raising. Does anyone know how ticket prices breakdown between (1) air fares, (2) user charges and (c) genuine taxes?


Do not get me started on Taxes, I can't believe in this modem age airports (and airlines) are able to collect some of the "Tax" they do.

I can appreciate an "Airport Security Levi" as security is provided by a central government agency, not all tax payers should subsidize this as many don't every use it so it seems appropriate it's passed onto only travelers.

How on earth PMR got away with their $5 "Airport Development Fee" for some long I don't know. By memory there was story on TVNZ (Seven Sharpe's equivalent) highlighting that even with inflation factored in the airport had collected something like double the actual Terminal Developments costs. The project the levi was introduced to cover. The airport then started to use it on other projects.

Isn't this like going to Countdown for some bread and paying $2 extra as a store redevelopment charge? What exactly is the difference?

Airways NZ fees and the offshore equivalents, they charge the airline, why is the airline then charging a fee? shouldn't it be built into the operating expense? Again keeping in line with my supermarket analogy, not all grocery items are delivered directly to the supermarket but the manufacturer, you don't pay a delivery levi on these items. It's built into the cost.

Now the old "departure tax" - can someone even explain what that is? You're being charged a fee to depart and airport even though the airport also charges the airline to land, use gates etc etc....
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2790
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:26 am

Like cramped seating, it's more about what the market will bear, than true cost or charge recovery.
 
camfloss
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2018 5:58 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Thu Mar 15, 2018 6:17 am

aerokiwi wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:



Let's see...

NZ spits it at the 1900, withdraws fleet. Regions get anxious NZ will withdraw service. Nah no way not gonna happen. Then it happens - not filling enough seats. Plane's too big. Duh.

Repeat when the Dash 8s go and they standardise on AT72s. I'd imagine Gisborne, Whangarei, Blenheim, Timaru, Taupo are next in line.

Then NZ6 can enlighten us all to the immense intricacies of the complexities of... etc etc, insert monopoly airline doing what monopoly airlines do. Meanwhile, populations grow and spread, traffic worsens, existing monopoly airports do what they do - as little as possible. Oh New Zealand.



Why include Blenheim? That airport handled more passengers than Invercargill last year and has regularly had ATRs.
 
Qantas16
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 3:51 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Thu Mar 15, 2018 7:19 am

NZ6 wrote:
Now the old "departure tax" - can someone even explain what that is? You're being charged a fee to depart and airport even though the airport also charges the airline to land, use gates etc etc....


In theory, departure tax should cover the cost of providing border and immigration services I think? That's the best reasoning I can come up with.

I don't have an issue with departure tax overall, but think ex-Australia it should be reduced for pax travelling to NZ and other short haul destinations (maybe $30 instead of $60)
 
camfloss
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2018 5:58 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Thu Mar 15, 2018 8:35 am

NZ6 wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
Isn't this like going to Countdown for some bread and paying $2 extra as a store redevelopment charge? What exactly is the difference?
....


In most cases places like Countdown lease their buildings from property investment companies..
Airports on the other hand usually own their own assets and have to fund them... Which as we know, anything to do with aviation is not cheap...

From memory the development charge at PMR was brought in to pay for upgrades to the terminal and runway extension for international services.
At the end of the day they had to fund this somehow. They could have levied it against the airlines directly, which is standard practice now, or as usual got an advance on the ratepayer.
They ended up charging the end user, so reasonable at the time if you ask me.. SHould they have kept it after loosing international services etc.? Well that is a different matter.

In practice, these days no NZ domestic airports that I'm aware of charge a departure tax. They charge airlines directly for things like terminal & runway maintenance. This is a fixed charge based on a per passenger basis. In most cases they use financial models which the airlines must agree to upfront. These models have the airport costs, and an expected return built in, which is all made available to the airlines. For most airports this airline is Air NZ, so who has the real power?.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Thu Mar 15, 2018 11:46 am

Ultimately the money extracted from passengers gets used to fund operational costs for the airlines or airports, capital investment, and shareholders’ dividends. As long as my ticket price includes all charges, whether levies, taxes, fuel supplements or whatever I don’t care what the breakdown is - providing of course that the whole transport operation is financially efficient.

You could argue that the current system is at least transparent. Or that in airline terms it’s kind of analogous to unbundling. So I wouldn’t in principle object to a PMR-like charge as long as it was included in my ticket price (which PMR’s wasn’t). And if it collected more funds than needed for a project and the funds went into another capital project - why not?
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
NZ6
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Thu Mar 15, 2018 7:54 pm

Qantas16 wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Now the old "departure tax" - can someone even explain what that is? You're being charged a fee to depart and airport even though the airport also charges the airline to land, use gates etc etc....


In theory, departure tax should cover the cost of providing border and immigration services I think? That's the best reasoning I can come up with.

I don't have an issue with departure tax overall, but think ex-Australia it should be reduced for pax travelling to NZ and other short haul destinations (maybe $30 instead of $60)


Interesting though, given a lot of this is now automated, and you pay for it on departure yet not arrival?

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.
 
NZ6
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Thu Mar 15, 2018 8:02 pm

camfloss wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:


In most cases places like Countdown lease their buildings from property investment companies..
Airports on the other hand usually own their own assets and have to fund them... Which as we know, anything to do with aviation is not cheap...

From memory the development charge at PMR was brought in to pay for upgrades to the terminal and runway extension for international services.
At the end of the day they had to fund this somehow. They could have levied it against the airlines directly, which is standard practice now, or as usual got an advance on the ratepayer.
They ended up charging the end user, so reasonable at the time if you ask me.. SHould they have kept it after loosing international services etc.? Well that is a different matter.

In practice, these days no NZ domestic airports that I'm aware of charge a departure tax. They charge airlines directly for things like terminal & runway maintenance. This is a fixed charge based on a per passenger basis. In most cases they use financial models which the airlines must agree to upfront. These models have the airport costs, and an expected return built in, which is all made available to the airlines. For most airports this airline is Air NZ, so who has the real power?.


Sure my point being; in any other industry all facility upgrades and improvements are paid for by being a profitable business, either via cash-flow or loan. Where else does a business charge you a "fee" so they can upgrade their building or other infrastructure?

Do you pay $5 extra for your jeans so Westfield can redo the food court?
Did you pay $10 extra on your rugby ticket so Eden Park can be upgraded?
Did you pay extra $2 on parking so they could relay the asphalt?

The answer is yes but it was built into the purchase price and you had no idea. So if PMR needed to upgrade their runway, they needed to review their landing fees etc. Terminal would be airline/gate fees and terminal leases on retail space and lounges etc

I just don't understand why you're being forced to pay a fee for essentially maintenance and improvements. Essentially it's because you're forced to use the facilities and have no alternative option. So because they can, they will.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Thu Mar 15, 2018 8:50 pm

NZ6 wrote:
Sure my point being; in any other industry all facility upgrades and improvements are paid for by being a profitable business, either via cash-flow or loan. Where else does a business charge you a "fee" so they can upgrade their building or other infrastructure?

Do you pay $5 extra for your jeans so Westfield can redo the food court?
Did you pay $10 extra on your rugby ticket so Eden Park can be upgraded?
Did you pay extra $2 on parking so they could relay the asphalt?

The answer is yes but it was built into the purchase price and you had no idea. So if PMR needed to upgrade their runway, they needed to review their landing fees etc. Terminal would be airline/gate fees and terminal leases on retail space and lounges etc

I just don't understand why you're being forced to pay a fee for essentially maintenance and improvements. Essentially it's because you're forced to use the facilities and have no alternative option. So because they can, they will.

The irony is that if everything was bundled into the air fare, and there was no transparency about how the fare was broken down, no one would be the least concerned. It's the mere fact of being transparent about where the money goes that has caused the angst.

One of the interesting by-products of the openness about how the air fare is broken down is that you can see exactly how much the airline itself is receiving for its services. And in the case of some seriously discounted fares, by the time the various charges have been taken off, the airline is left with very little.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 615
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Fri Mar 16, 2018 12:12 am

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.

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/03/15/9 ... -postponed

A $2 billion decision on whether to purchase new maritime surveillance aircraft for the NZ Defence Force has been kicked down the road, with Defence Minister Ron Mark saying he has secured “a window” to review his predecessor’s plans.

Mark says the Government will not be dragged into making a hasty decision on whether to purchase four Boeing P-8A Poseidons from the United States.

In April last year, the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency released details of the “potential sale” of the P-8As to NZDF to replace the retiring P-3 Orion fleet, at an estimated cost of up to US$1.46b (NZ$2b).

...


Overall I'd read that as the P-8 being the clear frontrunner.
 
camfloss
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2018 5:58 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Fri Mar 16, 2018 12:25 am

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
Overall I'd read that as the P-8 being the clear frontrunner.


He was the same guy who was scathing of the C17, due to the steep ticket price.

So I find it hard to believe he would support mega expensive P-8s too.
 
camfloss
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2018 5:58 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Fri Mar 16, 2018 12:36 am

[quote="NZ6
Do you pay $5 extra for your jeans so Westfield can redo the food court?
Did you pay $10 extra on your rugby ticket so Eden Park can be upgraded?
Did you pay extra $2 on parking so they could relay the asphalt?
[/quote]

I'd liken it more to paying a road tool, than a retail purchase. I would say that the main reason PMR were forced to fund it that way was because Air NZ wouldn't come to the party
in terms of paying their share of an international facility there. It wasn't in there interests as history has proved. No negotiationwas required if they just charged the public directly.
You want to fly to Sydney from our airport? Then pay the $5, simple....Clearly this method has fallen out of vogue anyway so is relegated to the history books...

To me I don't really mind if margins for airports are included in my ticket price or if I pay directly as a " departure tax". I will support the method that best allows airports to develop
decent infrastructure. Many NZ airports have been undercapitalised for years, with woeful facilities.

I do have a slightly different opinion on the funding and profits of the major airports, which in most cases are very profitable, but that is another discussion.
 
NZ6
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Fri Mar 16, 2018 4:19 am

DavidByrne wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Sure my point being; in any other industry all facility upgrades and improvements are paid for by being a profitable business, either via cash-flow or loan. Where else does a business charge you a "fee" so they can upgrade their building or other infrastructure?

Do you pay $5 extra for your jeans so Westfield can redo the food court?
Did you pay $10 extra on your rugby ticket so Eden Park can be upgraded?
Did you pay extra $2 on parking so they could relay the asphalt?

The answer is yes but it was built into the purchase price and you had no idea. So if PMR needed to upgrade their runway, they needed to review their landing fees etc. Terminal would be airline/gate fees and terminal leases on retail space and lounges etc

I just don't understand why you're being forced to pay a fee for essentially maintenance and improvements. Essentially it's because you're forced to use the facilities and have no alternative option. So because they can, they will.

The irony is that if everything was bundled into the air fare, and there was no transparency about how the fare was broken down, no one would be the least concerned. It's the mere fact of being transparent about where the money goes that has caused the angst.

One of the interesting by-products of the openness about how the air fare is broken down is that you can see exactly how much the airline itself is receiving for its services. And in the case of some seriously discounted fares, by the time the various charges have been taken off, the airline is left with very little.


Is it, or is that just how we see it because it's what we're used to.

What if your jeans had a cost of $60, then we added GST, a delivery fee, mall security fee, mall improvement fee, thread fee (lol) and the actual cost was $94.. my point is it's not different to other industries, we're just used to be it being operated whereas charges elsewhere are just included into the RRP.
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 615
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Fri Mar 16, 2018 9:31 am

camfloss wrote:
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
Overall I'd read that as the P-8 being the clear frontrunner.


He was the same guy who was scathing of the C17, due to the steep ticket price.

So I find it hard to believe he would support mega expensive P-8s too.


The C-17 was more capability than the NZDF reasonably needed. As much as I would have loved to have seen RNZAF C-17s. The only required capability it would have had would be a non stop round trip flight to Antarctica. Which really was the only reason it was being considered.

And I would argue the P-8 is more appropriate for NZ use as the main mission of the P-3 is maratime patrol and search and rescue. The P-8 would provide a useful increase in that capability.

Anyways, it's up to the MoD to decide what they want to buy. And price is only one factor for these major political purchases.
 
DavidJ08
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:18 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:14 pm

NZ6 wrote:
Is it, or is that just how we see it because it's what we're used to.

What if your jeans had a cost of $60, then we added GST, a delivery fee, mall security fee, mall improvement fee, thread fee (lol) and the actual cost was $94.. my point is it's not different to other industries, we're just used to be it being operated whereas charges elsewhere are just included into the RRP.

I sometimes think the taxes are viewable as extras because that's how they justify charging those same taxes on reward flights. My understanding is that when you redeem points/miles you still have to pay taxes and fees in cash. My take on it is that whether it's departure fees or the "taxes & fees" component, the airlines have decided that if you are getting a freebie from loyalty points, they are not prepared to cover those costs as part of your freebie - and hence have accounted for it separately to make it easier to explain to people when they can't pay for their entire fare with Airpoints dollars. I wonder why it is that (other than Air NZ domestic flights) award tickets generally aren't actually free? The local sushi shop doesn't charge a fee when you max out the loyalty card and claim your free box of sushi...
 
NZ321
Posts: 786
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Fri Mar 16, 2018 2:08 pm

I thought production of C17 was coming to an end? Also, surely the P-8 has so many parts common with 737 in this part of the world that in the event that an aircraft went tech there would be more possible solutions with P-8 than C-17. Or is this not a consideration for such an order?
Plane mad!
 
NZ321
Posts: 786
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Fri Mar 16, 2018 2:25 pm

aerorobnz wrote:

I don't know about anyone else, but when I saw the FX order for Cessna (Textron) Skycourier, and read they were considering a passenger version I thought of Air Chathams/Soundsair. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/2017/ ... kycouriers
It seems ideal for New Zealand ops, especially if it is quick to convert freight/pax ops. It also occurred to me that below par ports such PPQ could be linked and served by NZ as milk-run flights between the centres with them to boost frequency, NZ used to do this in F27 days, and it is still common practice in remote places like Peru/Bolivia/Canada and Africa. Perhaps the Govt can set up a fleet as a civil arm of the RNZAF as they do in Peru, Argentina if they are still hellbent on serving these markets if no commercial carrier is interested,


Exactly; opportunities. NZ is too small (no Germany for sure) to support only aircraft of Q300 or above in size for regional ops. The solutions to this warrant interrogation IMHO as at the moment there appear to be none on the horizon. This should be of concern to New Zealanders and especially those doing business in the regions.
Plane mad!
 
DavidJ08
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:18 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - March 2018

Fri Mar 16, 2018 2:45 pm

Gasman wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
Airlines like Air NZ should definitely be putting in place some kind of cadetship or bonding. If the student can pass their entry requirements then they get offered a job once they complete their training and are bonded for say 3 years.

Absolutely - although the bonding should probably be something like 5 years to get a return on investment.

The old pilot hiring formula where value to the airline is directly proportional to flying hours accumulated and nothing much else is antiquated and short sighted. Airlines should be targeting PPL graduates with University qualifications and subjecting them to aptitude testing and an interview process, then taking ownership of the training from that point on.

Sometimes the bond is more - for reference SQ has 7 year bonds for cadets and Second Officers - and that's 7 years from becoming a First Officer (which means probably a whole lot of years in the case of the cadet). Direct Entry First Officers who are provided with B777/A330 type rating training are also required to enter into a training bond (doesn't say how long - also I'm guessing that means the direct entry F/O positions are all on their 777 and A330 fleets.)

I think the flying hours requirements probably reflect supply and demand - where there is a plentiful pool of candidates (as has been the case in New Zealand in the past) the airlines can pick and choose and say they want x number of flight hours (much in the same way that other employers require x number of years in certain industries) to get the most experienced candidates. (I'd also be interested to know whether airlines judge purely by hours - I would've thought if someone with 2000hrs performed exceptionally well in assessments that they might get in ahead of someone with 2500hrs but mediocre performance.) In places like Hong Kong and Singapore where GA isn't really a big thing it's only logical that airlines recruit as you say - targeting fresh high school and uni graduates, go through aptitude testing and interview process, and take ownership of training from there on, often sending them overseas for PPL/CPL/MEIR/ATPL-theory training before bringing them back to home base for type rating training and deployment as second officers.

I've been reading into it a bit more, and remembered there's another obstacle to the bridging programme - Civil Aviation Rule Part 121 (which Air NZ operates under) basically prevents operators from having pilots with less than 500 total hours. From a brief reading, it would seem that a pilot must have at least 500 total hours (and 25 night hours) before an operator is allowed to start training them. In that light, Air NZ's minimum requirement for turboprop fleet of 500 total hours seems to just be the legal requirement - which means there must be some level of shortage since they're willing to hire down to the legal minimum. So any bridging programme they come up with would either have to be accompanied by law changes to lower the minimum requirement (presumably difficult - and probably unpopular for politicians since opponents can accuse them of "compromising air safety") or somehow put people through some 250 hours worth of flying experience above and beyond what's required for flight training in order to meet regulatory requirements (which is quite costly if not impractical). No doubt this helps to put such a bridging programme into the "too hard" basket.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 12

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos