aerorobnz wrote:

Thai's business has always been freight. Fresh produce, fresh flowers, fresh meat/seafood. That is where they have an advantage over XJ IMO.

I didn't know that - thanks for the insight. It'll be interesting to see if NZ ends up at HKT (possibly as a replacement of DPS, in light of EK's AKL - DPS launch) - if this happens, TG should be able to hold its own with a) cargo, and b) transfers then?

NZ321 wrote:

I really hope AKL is upgraded by TG permanently to 77W or even better A359. A sub fleet of just 2 aircraft operating AKL and KIX is a bit tight IMHO.

Yes, please - not forgetting too that the 3-3-3 configuration in Y of their 77W's is industry-leading. However, the 77W's would be more expensive to operate here. Perhaps a greater tie-up with NZ might help them to fill the extra seats on the 77W?

Cheers,

C.

It's very interesting to hear that AR are interested in serving "Oceanía" again in the future. IMO, this includes New Zealand, as if it was just Australia, they could have explicitly said so (but maybe I'm wrong).

See: https://aviacionline.com/2018/04/aeroli ... -cabotaje/.

In any event, how will this affect NZ's partnership with AR? Could we see:

- NZ and AR enter into a JV, with perhaps up to 10x weekly AKL - EZE flights (5x weekly on each carrier)?
- NZ terminate its AR partnership, having built up EZE enough to sustain itself, or drop EZE for GRU/GIG?

Another risk for NZ in this corridor could be LA de-tagging AKL and SYD.

Cheers,

C.

ZKOXA wrote:

Also today NZ99 operated by ZK-NZL has been circling presumably dumping fuel, unsure if this is related to the ongoing RR issues.

ZKOXA

I’m pretty sure 99 is going to keep going to Narita, but has to tech stop at Agana for fuel. I know why it is holding but not sure i should state. Nothing bad, just a result of the fluid operational environment the 787 is in at the moment.

Air New Zealand has had to ground two more 787s because of the ongoing RR engine issues.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/103295313/Air-New-Zealand-engine-checks-to-cause-further-disruption-to-travelers

Also today NZ99 operated by ZK-NZL has been circling presumably dumping fuel, unsure if this is related to the ongoing RR issues.

ZKOXA

All of ZK-NZL future flights have been cancelled apparently. Hoping its nothing serious ansd its just as a precaution

ZKOXA wrote:

Air New Zealand has had to ground two more 787s because of the ongoing RR engine issues.

I wonder whether this whole debacle will influence NZ's upcoming long-haul aircraft and engine order this year?

Cheers,

C.

NZ99 coming in for approach into AKL as we speak. Found some further info: http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/travel/20 ... ssues.html

Oh well, different issue than what I thought....

planemanofnz wrote:

ZKOXA wrote:

Air New Zealand has had to ground two more 787s because of the ongoing RR engine issues.

I wonder whether this whole debacle will influence NZ's upcoming long-haul aircraft and engine order this year?

Cheers,

C.

Not sure if it'll be an order this year: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 22-446108/

The Flight article has the NZ CFO as saying they usually go for a 2-year lead time between order and delivery, and the 777-200 replacement is to start in 2022. They'll certainly be working on it (and I think the ongoing RR engine issues will likely come into play somewhere along the decision making) but I probably wouldn't bet on any orders being announced this year.

777ER wrote:

All of ZK-NZL future flights have been cancelled apparently. Hoping its nothing serious ansd its just as a precaution

Of course it's serious, and it's also a precaution. You don't take a 300 million asset out of circulation for shits & giggles.

Excuse me for being really, really thick here; but at what point does both NZ and RR just decide to cut their losses and re-engine the things?

777ER wrote:

All of ZK-NZL future flights have been cancelled apparently. Hoping its nothing serious ansd its just as a precaution

FR24 has it going to both SIN at 2355 and PER at 1040 which is impossible. PER seems more likely given it was going to be in NRT today and wouldn’t be back to go to sin

Gasman wrote:

777ER wrote:

All of ZK-NZL future flights have been cancelled apparently. Hoping its nothing serious ansd its just as a precaution

Of course it's serious, and it's also a precaution. You don't take a 300 million asset out of circulation for shits & giggles.

Excuse me for being really, really thick here; but at what point does both NZ and RR just decide to cut their losses and re-engine the things?

There is 380 odd engines affected worldwide, probly not just NZ thinking that atm. I wonder if anyone will do that?

Inspection after 300 cycles as opposed to 2000. So you have to take the aircraft out of circulation seven times as frequently as anticipated. I'm no airline accountant, but I would have thought loss of airline revenue because of this over the course of an aircraft's lifetime would be in the ballpark of a couple of new engines.

Not to mention the costs of the litigation itself.........

Gasman wrote:

Inspection after 300 cycles as opposed to 2000. So you have to take the aircraft out of circulation seven times as frequently as anticipated. I'm no airline accountant, but I would have thought loss of airline revenue because of this over the course of an aircraft's lifetime would be in the ballpark of a couple of new engines.

Not to mention the costs of the litigation itself.........

Yes for sure, I’d think once the current issues are sorted I’d ever, then they will schedule checks around A checks which are monthly? NZ’s must average about 3-4 cycles daily so 25ish a week day or 100 a month so maybe every 3rd A check will be a little longer than 12 hours?

I thought the inspection could be done on the wing in 2-3 hours?

Gasman wrote:

Not to mention the costs of the litigation itself.

If it gets to that stage (assuming negotiations break down), I imagine that they would use international arbitration, rather than litigation - that would be a private process, the result of which we would be unlikely to ever find out.

Cheers,

C.

Could be unrelated but NZ281 just diverted to SYD - ZK-NZC

thaigold wrote:

Could be unrelated but NZ281 just diverted to SYD - ZK-NZC

Not sure, it may have been scheduled as such today? NZ282 to SIN is scheduled via DRW tonight. While NZ99 today which turned back was scheduled via Guam as was NZ92 from HND tomorrow.

PA515 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

as was NZ92 from HND tomorrow.

Missed that. So, ZK-NZK is also being restricted.

The 789's substituting for ZK-NZL on AKL-IAH are ZK-NZD and ZK-NZH which are the two that recently returned to service, so they would have the new engine parts.

PA515

Ok makes sense, NZK is on NZ288 from PVG atm and as you say will stop at GUM to top up.

ZK-NBT wrote:

... will stop at GUM to top up.

Cool - AKL - GUM in the future, anyone? AFAIK, it can be done with the NEO.

Cheers,

C.

NZ 787 rescheduling
Just why is it that these refuel stops are needed?

What a mess. My thoughts are with all the Air New Zealanders who have had an absolute disaster of a day. Really sad to see the airline's long haul network collapsing like this. Thoughts in particular with Aerorobnz who is no doubt under a lot of stress to try and keep the airline's network "working" despite all of this. Similarly for all the customer facing staff who have to deal with lots of unhappy/stressed passengers.

How soon are the HiFly reinforcements arriving? Do we know what type it will be (I'll definitely do an extra TransTasman trip if there's an A340-500 operating for Air New Zealand). Any news on what happened to ZK-NZL, I hope its not out of service for long?

Deepinsider wrote:

NZ 787 rescheduling
Just why is it that these refuel stops are needed?

They're reducing the fuel load on departure (so that less engine power is needed).

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

... will stop at GUM to top up.

Cool - AKL - GUM in the future, anyone? AFAIK, it can be done with the NEO.

On a lighter note, I guess none of us here guessed that Guam would be Air New Zealand's newest Pacific Rim destination.

planemanofnz wrote:

ZKOXA wrote:

Air New Zealand has had to ground two more 787s because of the ongoing RR engine issues.

I wonder whether this whole debacle will influence NZ's upcoming long-haul aircraft and engine order this year?

Which direction would if affect the order? On one hand the A350's engines have had an excellent reliability, but are made by Rolls Royce, who nodoubt aren't very popular in the Air New Zealand board room. On the other hand the 777x's engines are completely unproven; they're not even certified yet, so who knows what problems they might have? Would all the current chaos caused by Rolls Royce result in them giving Air New Zealand a PBTH offer for Trent XWBs that they can't refuse?

By the time that the first 77E replacement arrives (2022), the A350 will have been in service 7 years, the 777x 3 years (assuming that certification, testing and production goes as planned - which it might not).

I agree with above sentiments. Extraordinary effort by NZ and really trying times for all involved. I imagine that this incident might be cause for pause in terms of advancing the much discussed 778 / A359 order. One question I have: Can NZ replace the Trent 1000s on some of its aircraft with Trent 1000 Tens (i.e. is it logistically possible)?

Gasman wrote:

Excuse me for being really, really thick here; but at what point does both NZ and RR just decide to cut their losses and re-engine the things?

Considering RR has transitioned production from the Package C engines to the TEN (which is not affected by the current issues), it could be an idea to just gradually retire all Package C engines (which are the only non-TEN RR engines for the 787-9, as Package A and B are for the 787-8 only - and all Package A engines have been retired.) But being that Package C engines means all the 787-9 engines from before November 2017, that's quite a lot of engines with quite a lot of airlines, so I wouldn't expect anything to happen overnight. Source for RR Trent 1000 "Packages" information: https://www.caa.govt.nz/aircraft/Type_A ... _Trent.pdf

But of course RR is said to be developing a modification that will address the IPC issue, and if successful would remove the current restrictions (both the EASA one and the FAA one relate to the IPC stage 2 blades), so it may be worth their while holding out for the modification and paying the airlines compensation in the mean time.

NZ321 wrote:

I thought the inspection could be done on the wing in 2-3 hours?

Yes - unless of course the inspection reveals a problem that needs fixing, which has apparently happened and caused two NZ 789s to be taken out of service so far, according to a Stuff article.

zkojq wrote:

How soon are the HiFly reinforcements arriving? Do we know what type it will be (I'll definitely do an extra TransTasman trip if there's an A340-500 operating for Air New Zealand). Any news on what happened to ZK-NZL, I hope its not out of service for long?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-t ... urn-around
NZL's return is said to be an aircon issue, and the article says "Air New Zealand said the flight would be attended by engineers upon arrival and that engineering support would "easily correct the problem"."

NZ321 wrote:

One question I have: Can NZ replace the Trent 1000s on some of its aircraft with Trent 1000 Tens (i.e. is it logistically possible)?

I would say technically yes - the TEN will become the default RR engine on the 787, and RR will soon produce the TEN exclusively (if not already). The CAANZ type acceptance report even talks about future engine intermix capability for operation with a combination of Trent 1000-TEN and Trent 1000 Package B or C engines (i.e. one of each). (Source: https://www.caa.govt.nz/aircraft/Type_A ... ng_787.pdf )

Technically possible, but with so many engines and operators affected I doubt there would be enough spare TENs to pass around.

PA515 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZK is on NZ288 from PVG atm and as you say will stop at GUM to top up.

ZK-NZJ is NZ288 PVG-AKL and ZK-NZK is NZ92 HND-AKL, both making fuel stops at GUM.

Four aircraft so far making fuel stops ZK-NZC, ZK-NZJ, ZK-NZK and ZK-NZL.

ZK-NZM with the Trent 1000 TEN doing AKL-IAH is not affected.

ZK-NZD and ZK-NZH doing AKL-IAH but with a track closer to HNL than normal.

ZK-NZE appeared ready to resume flying earlier this week, but it didn't happen. It would have had two good engines available, so assume these are being swapped with other aircraft.

ZK-NZF and ZK-NZG not flying presently.

ZK-NZI probably in the same category as ZK-NZC etc.

PA515

WTF - fuel stops???!! What is this,1957??

Before we bloke smoke up the arse of NZ for "keeping things running", we should first acknowledge the magnitude of the disaster at hand. This is HUGE. It's 2018. Fare paying passengers are not going to be accepting of fuel stops that even in the slickest of hands will add 90 mins to an already long trip. If this situation carries on for more than a week it's a PR disaster for the company which not even a new safety video or internet survey will fix (they're bound to try those things first though).

This is going to be a real test of Luxon's leadership. Fuel stops need to be for a very, very finite period and I suspect the NZ flier's acceptance of HiFly - if there ever was any - has now well and truly run out.

The fuel stops are purely as a consequence of the AD for the package C engine. Gasman, I'm at a bit of a loss as to why the vitriol. This is not a mess of Air NZ's creating. The alternative for those pax is a cancelled flight. Which would you prefer?
From the inside, everyone is slogging their guts out to keep things working as best they can.

zkojq wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Every year AC/AT spend more and more on consultants to the point where consultants are a significant part of their annual budget.
A lot of this used to be done in house by people who had good working relationships with each other and knew how to get things done. These days a consultant will be paid 3x the amount to do the same job and even then often don't get the job done completely so another consultant is needed. It's a bit of a gravy train. Sounds like it may have hit a bit close to home for you.

There's a lot of this in many central government departments too. The previous government's ideological mindset that there were "too many public servants" resulted in a lot of departments making staff redundant.....and then using their services again on a semi-permanent basis as consultants (at a substantially higher cost).

Zkpilot wrote:

They are promoting Regional Rapid Rail (which connects Hamilton and Tauranga and should be great to help access the airport by transferring at Puhinui) but that doesn't really do anything for Auckland itself.

Zkpilot wrote:

They don't want HR out to Kumeu etc (despite the tracks already being in place and it costing only a tiny amount to implement).

In an ideal world, you'd have decent highspeed train services up to Kumeu, Kaukapakapa and Wellsford (ideally Warkworth, but the exiting lines don't go particularly close) so that those places would be viable commuter suburbs. Same with Pukekohe and Waiuku in the other direction. Smart urban planning would also involve having quicker ferries going to/from Gulf Harbour and Beachlands.
).

The Gulf Harbour would be better served with the long delayed Penlink and an extension of the Northern Busway to Silverdale. In winter only the brave take the Gulf Harbour Ferry.

DougS wrote:

The fuel stops are purely as a consequence of the AD for the package C engine. Gasman, I'm at a bit of a loss as to why the vitriol. This is not a mess of Air NZ's creating. The alternative for those pax is a cancelled flight. Which would you prefer?
From the inside, everyone is slogging their guts out to keep things working as best they can.

I really don't care how hard everyone inside NZ is working. Whose "fault" this is is immaterial. For the fare paying PAX a fuel stop is still a massive sh!t sandwich. Yes, a better option perhaps than a cancelled flight; but still a significant downgrade (with flow on effects) from the non stop flight you'd booked and paid for.

The purpose of my "vitriol" as you put it is to create awareness amongst someone/anyone that this is really serious. Hardworking staff at NZ who have kept the ship running with fuel stops haven't made it any less serious, really. If this situation persists NZ fliers are going to vote with their feet in droves, and won't stop to acknowledge that someone inside NZ worked hard to give them a flight with a fuel stop.

So this problem needs to be resolved, ASAP. Money needs to be thrown at it, and we'll worry about who compensates who for what later.

someone in QF must be happy they did not refresh their fleet so early and the majority of their fleet is with tried and tested aircraft....

Kashmon wrote:

someone in QF must be happy they did not refresh their fleet so early and the majority of their fleet is with tried and tested aircraft....

Mmmmm not really comparable. This is nothing to do with prudent fleet purchasing (or lack therof) on NZ's part. It's not relevant here anyway, but the only fleet decision that I believe NZ have got wrong in recent times was retiring the 744s so quickly.

Gasman wrote:

I really don't care how hard everyone inside NZ is working. Whose "fault" this is is immaterial. For the fare paying PAX a fuel stop is still a massive sh!t sandwich. Yes, a better option perhaps than a cancelled flight; but still a significant downgrade (with flow on effects) from the non stop flight you'd booked and paid for.

The purpose of my "vitriol" as you put it is to create awareness amongst someone/anyone that this is really serious. Hardworking staff at NZ who have kept the ship running with fuel stops haven't made it any less serious, really. If this situation persists NZ fliers are going to vote with their feet in droves, and won't stop to acknowledge that someone inside NZ worked hard to give them a flight with a fuel stop.

So this problem needs to be resolved, ASAP. Money needs to be thrown at it, and we'll worry about who compensates who for what later.

I'm pretty sure the fuel stops are a result of the FAA Airworthiness Directive which (having read it) limits the maximum weight at ETOPS entry as well as maximum diversion time. As I've said before this affects most RR-powered 789s out there so NZ is not alone in this worldwide crisis, they have made it quite public that disruptions are on the way and is now working on managing the disruption to minimise the cancellations.

I think NZ management is aware that this is serious, and are investigating how best to throw money at it. Source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=12037061

I think you might be overestimating how dramatic people are about it - in a time of great disruption many (most?) will be glad to just be travelling on something close to the original schedule without going out and purchasing another ticket. The media attention also helps manage expectations - people are aware of issues and how widespread they are rather than turning up to the airport to be sprung with a 12-hour delay.

Kashmon wrote:

someone in QF must be happy they did not refresh their fleet so early and the majority of their fleet is with tried and tested aircraft....

Irrelevant as QF chose GE engines for their B787s, so even if Boeing had delivered to the original timetable [ ] QF would not be affected by this particular problem.

Gemuser

Kashmon wrote:

someone in QF must be happy they did not refresh their fleet so early and the majority of their fleet is with tried and tested aircraft....

QF does not have the cashflow to refresh their fleet, they are selling assets just to bring existing a320 leases onto balance sheet. When the oil next hit 100, which is becoming more likely by the day, their 747s will be heads up against competitors that are now running 789s/77w/a359s across the pacific.

Gasman wrote:

This is going to be a real test of Luxon's leadership. Fuel stops need to be for a very, very finite period and I suspect the NZ flier's acceptance of HiFly - if there ever was any - has now well and truly run out.

I have to laugh when I see a post like this complaining about a few fuel stops.

Additional stops to get anywhere is what passengers from Wellington get to face every day to every long haul destination.

Be thankful its not affecting all airlines serving Auckland!

a7ala wrote:

Gasman wrote:

This is going to be a real test of Luxon's leadership. Fuel stops need to be for a very, very finite period and I suspect the NZ flier's acceptance of HiFly - if there ever was any - has now well and truly run out.

I have to laugh when I see a post like this complaining about a few fuel stops.

Additional stops to get anywhere is what passengers from Wellington get to face every day to every long haul destination.

I would laugh at your post too; but the lack of insight it demonstrates is actually a little bit sad. Passengers book their long haul travel out of WLG with full knowledge of what they're booking and paying for. That's kind of different from the passenger who booked and paid to fly from Auckland to Japan non stop who is now told they have to stop in Guam because of technical issues, don't you think?

a7ala wrote:

Be thankful its not affecting all airlines serving Auckland!

Errrm......... no. I very much doubt NZ management, and most of the posters on this thread are thankful for this at all.

Gasman wrote:

PA515 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZK is on NZ288 from PVG atm and as you say will stop at GUM to top up.

ZK-NZJ is NZ288 PVG-AKL and ZK-NZK is NZ92 HND-AKL, both making fuel stops at GUM.

Four aircraft so far making fuel stops ZK-NZC, ZK-NZJ, ZK-NZK and ZK-NZL.

ZK-NZM with the Trent 1000 TEN doing AKL-IAH is not affected.

ZK-NZD and ZK-NZH doing AKL-IAH but with a track closer to HNL than normal.

ZK-NZE appeared ready to resume flying earlier this week, but it didn't happen. It would have had two good engines available, so assume these are being swapped with other aircraft.

ZK-NZF and ZK-NZG not flying presently.

ZK-NZI probably in the same category as ZK-NZC etc.

PA515

WTF - fuel stops???!! What is this,1957??

Before we bloke smoke up the arse of NZ for "keeping things running", we should first acknowledge the magnitude of the disaster at hand. This is HUGE. It's 2018. Fare paying passengers are not going to be accepting of fuel stops that even in the slickest of hands will add 90 mins to an already long trip. If this situation carries on for more than a week it's a PR disaster for the company which not even a new safety video or internet survey will fix (they're bound to try those things first though).

This is going to be a real test of Luxon's leadership. Fuel stops need to be for a very, very finite period and I suspect the NZ flier's acceptance of HiFly - if there ever was any - has now well and truly run out.

Slow down, this is effecting more than Air NZ and is a RR issue, then Boeing issue before it's an Air NZ issue. Yes, NZ and it's customers are most effected immediately and trust me this is not good.

In fact I suspect this is going to drag on some time before we see a permanent solution.

Given the DC10 grounding (McDonnell Douglas is now part of the bigger Boeing legacy), the massive delay of the 787 and now this... I really hope NZ seriously looks at the A350, not just because it's a great aircraft but it seems Boeing is not capable of delivering new technology.

Airbus led the way with fly by wire with the A320, got the A380 off the ground much closer to original schedule than the 787 and the A350 program was very well run compared to other new airline programs. Do we have any confidence on the 777-8 at the moment.

Okay not so black and white as that but I'm starting to wonder how much weight all of the 787 issues will have on the Air NZ Exco Team and Board.

NZ6 wrote:

Given the DC10 grounding (McDonnell Douglas is now part of the bigger Boeing legacy), the massive delay of the 787 and now this... I really hope NZ seriously looks at the A350, not just because it's a great aircraft but it seems Boeing is not capable of delivering new technology.

Airbus led the way with fly by wire with the A320, got the A380 off the ground much closer to original schedule than the 787 and the A350 program was very well run compared to other new airline programs. Do we have any confidence on the 777-8 at the moment.

Okay not so black and white as that but I'm starting to wonder how much weight all of the 787 issues will have on the Air NZ Exco Team and Board.

You'd have to imagine it's at least a factor - albeit not a big one. This current issue of course has everything to do with RR and nothing to do with Boeing.

I've come to support Airbus aircraft because as a passenger they have provided a significantly better experience for some time now. The A330 and A380 are a pleasure to travel in in any class. The same can't be said of the 777 and 787.

Do we know when Air NZ's first Neos are due? Should be coming up pretty soon if I recall correctly.

downdata wrote:

When the oil next hit 100, which is becoming more likely by the day ...

Which makes me wonder how many of these ULH routes like AKL - DOH / DXB / ORD will be sustainable, if that does occur?

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

downdata wrote:

When the oil next hit 100, which is becoming more likely by the day ...

Which makes me wonder how many of these ULH routes like AKL - DOH / DXB / ORD will be sustainable, if that does occur?

Cheers,

C.

Well ORD surely isn't happening until the current engine issues are history?

It certainly has been fun, the hours just fly by, there hasn't been a dull moment for some time. There are others in even more critical roles than mine here, they really have been honing their juggling skills to try and move everyone as quickly and safely as possible.

Without the fuel stops either a number of passengers or large numbers of baggage would be left behind, it's that simple. The AD is explicit and has to be complied with to the letter. As I am sure everyone here understands, We passengers like 1) to go where they are going, and 2) like to arrive with their luggage. Because this is the school holidays there are hugely high load factors with numbers of family groups and that isn't conducive to being able to rebook easily even on other airlines if necessary.

The changes that have been made to schedules are to ensure everyone moves where they are going with minimum disruption for everyone and the network at large. Some destinations are easier to rebook than others, so they tend to get more rescheduling/ cancellation. whereas there are other destinations with no seats available for days on end. Yes, this issue is serious and it will be resolved in the quickest and safest manner it can be. It is not a simple black and white issue that can be fixed with throwing good money after bad.

1) Rolls can't produce engines fast enough for deliveries, let alone replacements
2) Neither can GE, so buying engines to swap out is a waste of time
3) Suitable aircraft can't be delivered fast enough, so new aircraft isn't an option, even if there were slots (which there aren't)
4) This may resolve itself and wet-leasing is the only logical option because there are so many aircraft worldwide outfits like HiFly don't have infinite aircraft and crew to throw at all the RR issues.

Will this affect NZ's ability to continue operating the 789 domestically, on AKL-CHC-AKL through October? Less slack in the fleet now?

Also, is it possible that we could see Hi Fly's new 388 here, given that they will take delivery of it in the next month or two? I can dream.

The carrier plans to use the aircraft for its core business activity—wet-leasing capacity to other airlines ... delivery of its first Airbus A380 in May or June

See: http://atwonline.com/leasing/hi-fly-acq ... 0-mid-year.

It could be effective on the high-demand routes like AKL - SYD / MEL, and also has the range to do ORD, whereas the 343 does not.

Cheers,

C.

Well, seeing as NZ have to make some fuel stops across some of the 789 fleet, why don’t they use them on routes that can benefit from them? Even in the short term. Why not reintroduce AKL-APW-LAX and AKL-TBU-LAX?