• 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 5962
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sat Apr 14, 2018 3:18 am

Yes DFW was mentioned as a potential route for AA to AKL if LAX did well. No idea if they would consider 2 seasonal routes or wait until LAX is year round? I can’t imagine AA would use a 777 LAX-AKL in the interim To increase capacity, 77W to premium heavy and 772 has similar capacity to the 789 but more J I think but no where near as efficient. Though that doesn’t worry UA who have 772’s scheduled next NS albeit 3 weekly.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 2691
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sat Apr 14, 2018 4:02 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
Yes DFW was mentioned as a potential route for AA to AKL if LAX did well. No idea if they would consider 2 seasonal routes or wait until LAX is year round? I can’t imagine AA would use a 777 LAX-AKL in the interim To increase capacity, 77W to premium heavy and 772 has similar capacity to the 789 but more J I think but no where near as efficient. Though that doesn’t worry UA who have 772’s scheduled next NS albeit 3 weekly.

Regarding the "too premium heavy" comment, it's interesting that UA uses the 77W's to AKL seasonally, which have the Polaris product, plus that NZ has developed a premium-heavy 789 sub-fleet for the likes of IAH - there must be some yield to be had in the New Zealand - North America corridor? The problem with AA's 77W's is that they have F, which is probably hard to sell for AKL (though, I'm not sure on this).

A shorter (and therefore, cheaper) second New Zealand route for AA could be a seasonal LAX - CHC service, which would build upon AA's APAC strategy at its LAX hub. This route might command more of a premium than AKL - DFW (given the lack of any non-stop direct competition at CHC), as well as more demand (with California O&D traffic to New Zealand being far greater than anywhere else in the United States). :crossfingers:

Separately, I'd love to see a bold move like AA on AKL - JFK, albeit it'd be unlikely.

Cheers,

C.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 5962
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sat Apr 14, 2018 4:50 am

Yes the UA 77W is their most premium aircraft but also most high capacity, the fact they have only 14 soon 18 and use them to AKL seasonally shows imo they see some potential in the market, certainly much nicer than their 772 and much more efficient than the now retired 744.

Oh I’d say there is certainly decent yield in the NZ-North America market, it’s just very seasonal in terms of being able to maintain more than 1 carrier but for NZ it is their bread and butter, I’d imagine QF see Australia-North America still as their bread and butter aswell despite 5 carriers now year round to the mainland with AA/UA/DL/VA, DL/VA have a JV.

I think for NZ they wanted routes like ORD which a more premium 789 can do aswell as increase offpeak frequency to IAH.

I’m really not sure I could see AA LAX-CHC, probably more likely than AKL-JFK though. I agree I think an AA 77W with F would be harder to sell than a few more Y seats.
 
NZ321
Posts: 618
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:54 am

But if the JV isn't approved then I would hold your breath on AA continuing NZ. They have more important fish to fry.
Plane mad!
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8035
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:26 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
zkncj wrote:
[url]http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12032557
[/url]

Looks like the early models of the RR Trent engine installed on 9 of NZ's 789s - is now causing more issues, with an service directive to now inspect every 300 cycles rather than 2000 cycles.

Could we see HiFly return?


NZ have plenty of capacity over winter


Even so, I think HiFly will be likely in some capacity - maybe just one plane this time though. With TPE, the extra transtasman sectors, CHC and an incoming ORD they will need to be prepared for.
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.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 2691
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sat Apr 14, 2018 1:07 pm

NZ321 wrote:
But if the JV isn't approved then I would hold your breath on AA continuing NZ.

In which case, I wouldn't rule out the DL-VA JV being extended to a DL service on AKL - LAX, particularly given JB's animosity towards NZ. :stirthepot:

Cheers,

C.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8035
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sat Apr 14, 2018 1:36 pm

planemanofnz wrote:
NZ321 wrote:
But if the JV isn't approved then I would hold your breath on AA continuing NZ.

In which case, I wouldn't rule out the DL-VA JV being extended to a DL service on AKL - LAX, particularly given JB's animosity towards NZ. :stirthepot:

Cheers,

C.

If it hasn't become a post-tax profit this year for VA, JB will be lucky to keep his job given the hurdles they face.this year with HNA Group losses and loss of their major partner NZ.
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.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 2691
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sat Apr 14, 2018 1:47 pm

aerorobnz wrote:
If it hasn't become a post-tax profit this year for VA, JB will be lucky to keep his job given the hurdles they face.this year with HNA Group losses ...

So, you're saying that HNA might try to oust JB, because HNA is suffering losses and wants VA to make more money for it? Luxon tried that - it didn't work.

As one person put it:

"It all seems maddeningly meaningless given that the only interests Virgin’s efforts will effect are in no particular order Richard Branson, Singapore Airlines, Etihad and two China investors. There is no evidence that Branson is going to do anything positive in terms of money to gain management clout, and the carriers based in Abu Dhabi and Singapore appear a little distracted by other events at the moment" - the same can be said for the HNA Group!

See: https://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalkin ... australia/.

IMO, if the investors were going to oust JB, they would've done it by now. To the contrary, JB actually received a massive cash bonus only within the last year.

See: https://www.smh.com.au/business/compani ... ylcha.html.

Even if there's a change of leadership at VA, VA and DL in their JV might still be interested in AKL - LAX, should AA exit, given the continued market growth.

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 2691
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sat Apr 14, 2018 2:10 pm

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned or not, but for those unaware, SQ will boost CHC to 10x weekly for NW.

See: https://www.facebook.com/ChristchurchAi ... =3&theater.

According to CHC's Facebook, bookings for the 3x weekly additional services opened on 11 April (on Thursday).

I wonder what the next Asia route development for CHC will be - perhaps MU to PVG, D7 to KUL or KE to ICN?

Cheers,

C.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 5962
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sat Apr 14, 2018 7:42 pm

planemanofnz wrote:
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned or not, but for those unaware, SQ will boost CHC to 10x weekly for NW.

See: https://www.facebook.com/ChristchurchAi ... =3&theater.

According to CHC's Facebook, bookings for the 3x weekly additional services opened on 11 April (on Thursday).

I wonder what the next Asia route development for CHC will be - perhaps MU to PVG, D7 to KUL or KE to ICN?

Cheers,

C.


They did this last year also and I think 9 weekly for a period for 1-2 years before that.

D7 have talked about AKL non stop maybe when they get their A330NEO’s? They could do OOL-CHC maybe. I could see KE seasonal same with MU.


aerorobnz wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
zkncj wrote:
[url]http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12032557
[/url]

Looks like the early models of the RR Trent engine installed on 9 of NZ's 789s - is now causing more issues, with an service directive to now inspect every 300 cycles rather than 2000 cycles.

Could we see HiFly return?


NZ have plenty of capacity over winter


Even so, I think HiFly will be likely in some capacity - maybe just one plane this time though. With TPE, the extra transtasman sectors, CHC and an incoming ORD they will need to be prepared for.


Yes I saw that article after I posted, i wonder if the TEN engines would be affected or not, could make ORD not viable?
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19390
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sat Apr 14, 2018 7:59 pm

planemanofnz wrote:
So, you're saying that HNA might try to oust JB, because HNA is suffering losses and wants VA to make more money for it? Luxon tried that - it didn't work.


It never has

Since John Borghetti took over in 2010, he turned an essentially profitable airline (Virgin Blue) into an essentially unprofitable one (Virgin Australia) almost immediately and with the connivance of Richard Branson. Along the way he has destroyed countless hundreds of thousands of Australian dollars by way of shareholder value, survived at least one board room takeover and is now busy changing the bulk of the airline back to LCC (Tiger) again.

He must know where the bodies are buried because he's still there.

Whether Blue Swan Daily is right - that Etihad is making getting out noises - is yet to be seen, as is whether this would finally cause the exit of John Borghetti. But something has to give.

Stay or go, you're right, it makes no difference to whether Virgin does a JV with Delta, but it woulld provoke some soul-searching.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:58 pm

Or perhaps negotiations are to package HNA and VA with cornerstone shareholders SQ, ET, plus one other.
 
sq256
Posts: 229
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:37 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sat Apr 14, 2018 11:55 pm

EY are also loss making, due to their Air Berlin and Alitalia failures, with the continual rumblings whether if they are going to beat HNA into selling their VA stake.

Whether the usual suspects of SQ and DL react remains to be seen. Keeping in mind VA doesnt have much Alliance options available (basically only Skyteam) if they are to move away from their bespoke approach with or without JB.

In the unlikely event of SQ performing a takeover, VA will likely still remain independent of the alliances. Any attempts by SQ to bring VA into *A will be veto-ed by NZ and UA.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8035
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 15, 2018 12:07 am

Etihad is under hard rationalisation right now. Cutting routes, staff and selling off the deadwood shareholdings, and will likely cost them more when he asks for yet another cash handout. TBH it is hard to see what benefit VA offers any of them right now. Like Luxon has said, the market has changed from 8 years ago and that change applies to that old chestnut of providing feed and exposure to the Australian market. Why bother with a feeder if you can operate it yourself? A320/321NEOs, 7M8 justifying routes that were not commercially viable with the older gen aircraft at the smaller end and A350 and 787 justifying themselves at the larger end.
You see this with SQ/MI, serving all the main ports inc CBR, and NZ's interest in doing the same.You see this with EY deciding PER isn't even worth operating to. The AUD has plummeted to 0.95NZD..

HNA will also not be best pleased to fork out more money for no return, and current investors or not, VA could end up back where it started. No assets and no means of stumping up to cash to invest in being relevant. QF and NZ both realised to deal with strong competition in the region you have to be fit and healthy as an airline before you can compete. SQ have realised this, they are also expecting a massive increase to net profit this year.
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.
 
DougS
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 15, 2018 12:21 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
Yes I saw that article after I posted, i wonder if the TEN engines would be affected or not, could make ORD not viable?


Only Package C engines affected. TEN all clear (at this stage...)
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 5962
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 15, 2018 1:01 am

DougS wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
Yes I saw that article after I posted, i wonder if the TEN engines would be affected or not, could make ORD not viable?


Only Package C engines affected. TEN all clear (at this stage...)


Right hopefully that remains the case, they can cover IAH and ORD with the 3 TEN’S while SIN would need to use NZL, not the most flexible if there’s a delay maybe a swap to 772’s and use NZL to HND or something if need be since that’s 3 weekly and would give more flexibility with the long ground times.
 
flyjetstar
Posts: 689
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:37 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 15, 2018 3:01 am

sq256 wrote:
In the unlikely event of SQ performing a takeover, VA will likely still remain independent of the alliances. Any attempts by SQ to bring VA into *A will be veto-ed by NZ and UA.


If JB was gone and SQ owned VA then I don't see what reason UA or NZ would have to veto Star membership. It is likely that VA under SQ control would be run in a way that is more in line with what UA or NZ would like. Had Luxon been successful in his attempt to remove JB things could be quite different now and VA and NZ might not be divorcing.
 
sq256
Posts: 229
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:37 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 15, 2018 4:13 am

flyjetstar wrote:
sq256 wrote:
In the unlikely event of SQ performing a takeover, VA will likely still remain independent of the alliances. Any attempts by SQ to bring VA into *A will be veto-ed by NZ and UA.


If JB was gone and SQ owned VA then I don't see what reason UA or NZ would have to veto Star membership. It is likely that VA under SQ control would be run in a way that is more in line with what UA or NZ would like. Had Luxon been successful in his attempt to remove JB things could be quite different now and VA and NZ might not be divorcing.


Even without JB, SQ would still at least hold some ambition of at least maintaining a presence on the Trans-Pac corridor through VA as they won't be able to it themselves. SQ are still at least on working terms with JB, whereas NZ are not. UA's block is through VA's long term relationship with their rival DL. If DL ends up purchasing a stake, VA ends up being more closer to SkyTeam.

Also, when NZ (Luxon) allegedly suggested VA become purely a domestic feeder for NZ and everyone else at the time of Luxon trying to oust JB. SQ, Branson and EY rejected it outright on the provision that NZ (Luxon) was being entirely selfish.

I wouldn't think SQ's views has changed since then for them to change their mind and strip VA back to being a entirely domestic carrier. Thus VA still remaining independent in the unlikely case of a SQ takeover.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19390
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 15, 2018 4:24 am

sq256 wrote:
I wouldn't think SQ's views has changed since then for them to change their mind and strip VA back to being a entirely domestic carrier. Thus VA still remaining independent in the unlikely case of a SQ takeover.


Unless there is stuff going on behind the scenes which I don't know about - as there was with Tiger - I can't think why Singapore should take over Virgin Australia.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
sq256
Posts: 229
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:37 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 15, 2018 4:33 am

mariner wrote:
sq256 wrote:
I wouldn't think SQ's views has changed since then for them to change their mind and strip VA back to being a entirely domestic carrier. Thus VA still remaining independent in the unlikely case of a SQ takeover.


Unless there is stuff going on behind the scenes which I don't know about - as there was with Tiger - I can't think why Singapore should take over Virgin Australia.

mariner


SQ had a number of chances to increase their stake-holding in VA over the years. Considering they haven't done despite the opportunities (e.g the NZ exit, the extra shares that led to HNA's entry, etc) suggests they're either happy with the status quo for now, or they are also considering drawing back (without exiting entirely) as well.

Also SQ and UA aren't exactly best friends either, so I can't see UA being a obstacle in SQ's Trans-Pac ambitions via VA. Although NZ-USA is definitely off-limits for SQ due to their JV with NZ.
 
NZ321
Posts: 618
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 15, 2018 4:38 am

Would be great to see Skyteam expand their presence in NZ through a DL service through Auckland or through HA taking the plunge but seems either is unlikely.
Plane mad!
 
sq256
Posts: 229
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:37 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 15, 2018 4:47 am

Can only see DL in AKL if they are the party to purchase the EY or HNA stakes in VA.

Even then, DL in AKL may be questionable (not much yield for DL/VA, and the multiple frequencies from the incumbents NZ/UA) even if DL are able to fund VA 737 feeders from the main AU capitals + the large regional cities to feed into the flight.

The Pacific isn't exactly on DL's radar as of the moment.
 
nz2
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:38 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 15, 2018 7:03 am

I flew AKL/SYD last Wednesday, my flight NZ101 was cancelled due to weather closing the airport and thus the inbound aircraft couldn't land. As a result i was waitlisted on NZ103 and being a GE they somehow managed to get me on board (yay!) but lost my preferred seat selection (but was grateful just to get on board) and ended up in seat 36F. I don't believe I have flown that far back in a 777 before and was astounded to see that there were 3 entertainment boxes under the seats in front, this was sort of bearable for a 3 hour flight but gee, I could not stand a long haul under such space constraints. I have read a lot about the 10 abreast seat width issue but it wasn't too bad, especially if you were sitting next to your partner, I wasn't on this flight so I did have to keep my elbows to myself.

I have long thought about the 4 seat middle section and after flying Premium eco in the 747 main deck a few years back (2/2 seating), the cabin was very cool like a private jet because of the galley (I think) occupying the middle section. If an airline could install a slim, central vertical partition/wall effectively dividing the cabin into two halves, this would then offer options of 3 seats on the window or 2 seats in the middle in a 10 abreast T7, despite being only an inch from your neighbor, not seeing or hearing or touching (arm rest battles) would be a major plus and mean those seats become actually desirable. I know there is a weight penalty (minimal) and possibly an evacuation issue but this would certainly set the airline apart. It would mean installing 2 sets of 2 in the middle - can entertainment in a 2 seat set be run by 1 box? In a 9 abreast 787 this would offer seating options of 3, 2 and 1 by themselves which would be awesome.

Curious if this is actually feasible or not but as I say, that 2/2 cabin in the 747 PE section was really nice....
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 2691
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 15, 2018 7:26 am

NZ321 wrote:
Would be great to see Skyteam expand their presence in NZ ... but seems ... unlikely.

sq256 wrote:
DL in AKL may be questionable ...

I think that the key should be to work towards a year-round competitor service on AKL - LAX - be it from AA-QF, or DL-VA. It'd be really sad to see the non-stop mainland North American market return to a monopoly for NZ, with the resulting pricings.

Given the size of the market, as well as growth projections, as well as indicators on yield (like UA sending Polaris to AKL and NZ developing a premium-heavy 789 sub-fleet for the likes of IAH), I firmly believe that there's room for sustained competition.

Cheers,

C.
 
Unclekoru
Posts: 254
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 15, 2018 7:33 am

nz2 wrote:
IIf an airline could install a slim, central vertical partition/wall effectively dividing the cabin into two halves, this would then offer options of 3 seats on the window or 2 seats in the middle in a 10 abreast T7, despite being only an inch from your neighbor, not seeing or hearing or touching (arm rest battles) would be a major plus and mean those seats become actually desirable. I know there is a weight penalty (minimal) and possibly an evacuation issue but this would certainly set the airline apart. It would mean installing 2 sets of 2 in the middle - can entertainment in a 2 seat set be run by 1 box? In a 9 abreast 787 this would offer seating options of 3, 2 and 1 by themselves which would be awesome.

Curious if this is actually feasible or not but as I say, that 2/2 cabin in the 747 PE section was really nice....



Much like the L1011.
It sounds like english, but I can't understand a word you're saying
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 11238
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:19 am

NZ6 wrote:
I give it till 2040 still.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=12031322

"Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull yesterday pledged $5b towards a $10b project to run trains from downtown Melbourne to Tullamarine Airport. The Victorian Government is expected to fund the other half.

Auckland councillor Mike Lee said Melbourne has the most extensive and most sophisticated tram system in the world and to choose to go with trains is based on experience operating trams and trains, confirming international best practice.

"The Australian decision is instructive and should give our new Government (reason to) pause. To blindly push ahead with a multibillion-dollar tram connection to Auckland airport would be a grave mistake," said Lee, a big player in the renaissance of rail in Auckland.

In Sydney, a 12km inner city tram project has be called a "horror story", the cost has soared from $1.6b to a new estimate of $3.3b, Spanish contractors are demanding more money and businesses have been starved of customers and gone bust."


Completely agree, trams to the airport is daft especially when the train already goes half way there.
 
axio
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:44 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 15, 2018 10:09 am

Kiwirob wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

Completely agree, trams to the airport is daft especially when the train already goes half way there.


At the risk of going non-av, it's not just about the airport. It's about relieving a corridor that is approaching bus saturation (Dominion Road), and providing rapid transit to an area that currently has none (Mangere & Bridge), as well as serving the airport.
To put it into another context, it's the Piccadilly Line not the Heathrow Express - because there is no way we could justify building and funding any airport rapid transit option it were only the latter.
Time for a new viewing deck at AKL!
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1058
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 15, 2018 10:50 am

axio wrote:
At the risk of going non-av, it's not just about the airport. It's about relieving a corridor that is approaching bus saturation (Dominion Road), and providing rapid transit to an area that currently has none (Mangere & Bridge), as well as serving the airport.
To put it into another context, it's the Piccadilly Line not the Heathrow Express - because there is no way we could justify building and funding any airport rapid transit option it were only the latter.

Exactly - there has been so much focus on the Airport as the purpose for the route that all and sundry (well, most) have lost sight of the fact that what is proposed is, in effect, a "South-Western Line", not an "Airport Line". Others have suggested a heavy rail link from the Airport to Puhinui, which would add just one station to the network for $1bn plus cost. Never going to happen. The idea of travelling with light rail via Dominion Road didn't just come out of a flash of inspiration by Len Brown; it was a result of painstaking analysis by AT staff and management over a period of time. Not that that counts for anything on A-net - the idea that NZ's decisions might actually be rooted in serious analysis involving multiple factors, most of which we are not privy to, also eludes many posters!

Am I getting too cynical in my old age?
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1058
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:00 am

NZ6 wrote:
Auckland councillor Mike Lee said Melbourne has the most extensive and most sophisticated tram system in the world and to choose to go with trains is based on experience operating trams and trains, confirming international best practice.

"The Australian decision is instructive and should give our new Government (reason to) pause. To blindly push ahead with a multibillion-dollar tram connection to Auckland airport would be a grave mistake," said Lee, a big player in the renaissance of rail in Auckland.

In Sydney, a 12km inner city tram project has be called a "horror story", the cost has soared from $1.6b to a new estimate of $3.3b, Spanish contractors are demanding more money and businesses have been starved of customers and gone bust."

Mike Lee is more interested in his "legacy" of "saving" heavy rail in Auckland - for which he does deserve some credit. However, he has shown himself to be woefully unable to grasp the realities of the Airport rail discussion and is like a dog with a bone on heavy rail, despite evidence to the contrary that light rail is a better option all told.

And as for the Sydney light rail project having a cost blow-out: well, that obviously means that all light rail projects will have cost blow-outs, and Auckland shouldn't go there. At all. In Sydney's case there was a reason for the blow-out which is in dispute between the government and the contractor - primarily someone under-estimated the amount of services which would have to be shifted in order to make the project happen.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 11238
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:10 am

axio wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

Completely agree, trams to the airport is daft especially when the train already goes half way there.


At the risk of going non-av, it's not just about the airport. It's about relieving a corridor that is approaching bus saturation (Dominion Road), and providing rapid transit to an area that currently has none (Mangere & Bridge), as well as serving the airport.
To put it into another context, it's the Piccadilly Line not the Heathrow Express - because there is no way we could justify building and funding any airport rapid transit option it were only the latter.


It's all a load of bollocks, to minimise traffic interference and achieve the proposed 42-minute journey time from Britomart to the airport, trams will run on a kerb-protected central reservation limiting road traffic in each direction to a single lane shared between cycles, cars, buses and trucks, and restricting right turns into or out of Dominion Rd.

It will also limit Dominion Rd tram stops to 800m intervals, about twice the current bus stop distance.

The airport train via Onehunga would also provide transport to Mangere & Bridge.

There is also no reason why a tram line can't be built along Dominion Rd, as well as the heavy rail line from Onehunge to the airport. Eventually the Dominion Rd light rail line could link up to the Onehunge train station.

Image
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 2691
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:58 am

DavidByrne wrote:
... the idea that NZ's decisions might actually be rooted in serious analysis involving multiple factors, most of which we are not privy to, also eludes many posters!

Some of that so-called serious analysis has also resulted in several major botch-ups, like the VA shareholding (which NZ made a hefty loss on), the Premium Economy SpaceSeat (which NZ has now decided to dump), and the failed MNL launch (which NZ, in its own words, under-estimated the regulatory framework for) among many, many others - IMO, too many people here treat NZ's word as the holy grail, and throw the 'serious analysis with factors we are not privy to' card out far too easily at any criticism of NZ.

Cheers,

C.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1058
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 15, 2018 1:10 pm

planemanofnz wrote:
Some of that so-called serious analysis has also resulted in several major botch-ups, like the VA shareholding (which NZ made a hefty loss on), the Premium Economy SpaceSeat (which NZ has now decided to dump), and the failed MNL launch (which NZ, in its own words, under-estimated the regulatory framework for) among many, many others - IMO, too many people here treat NZ's word as the holy grail, and throw the 'serious analysis with factors we are not privy to' card out far too easily at any criticism of NZ.

Absolutely agree that NZ should be held to account for botch-ups - though as always, hindsight is a wonderful thing. But especially when it comes to strategically targetting new destinations in a reasonably conservative manner, it's done well. Of course there have been glitches, and sometimes things beyond the airline's control have upset things, but it's hard disagree with the bottom line, which speaks for solid research having been done before committing to new routes. Yet the debates on A-net as to why route X or route Y might or might not be an immediate prospect sometimes show a distinct lack of appreciation of the complexities of route development and the multiple and often independent cost factors which might rule a route in or out. Or even of the payload-range balance involved in ULH flights and the complexities of yield management on flights on which a mistake would cost you your shirt.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
DavidJ08
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:18 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 15, 2018 2:58 pm

ZK-NBT wrote:
Right hopefully that remains the case, they can cover IAH and ORD with the 3 TEN’S while SIN would need to use NZL, not the most flexible if there’s a delay maybe a swap to 772’s and use NZL to HND or something if need be since that’s 3 weekly and would give more flexibility with the long ground times.

SIN should be okay as it's flyable on ETOPS 140? (I'm assuming this is talking about the potential for 787s with Package C engines to be downgraded to ETOPS140 from ETOPS330?)

Assuming the NZ Herald article is fully factual, that means NZ has 9 affected engines - at most that only means 5x 789s affected by whatever is to come (and that's assuming zero spare engines.) To summarise the situation so far they've been hit with more regular inspections, and there's rumours of an upcoming ETOPS downgrade.

Inspection-wise the NZ spokesperson is quoted as saying the inspection is completed with the engine on the wing and only takes a couple of hours, so the inspection itself shouldn't cause too much drama - the timing though will be inconvenient, especially with school holidays in the coming two weeks - when the directive kicks in, if multiple 789s need to have the inspection done at the same time there will be disruptions. Having ETOPS downgraded by FAA would be more inconvenient - but not having ETOPS 330 should only affect North America and EZE anyway (as ETOPS 140 will cover flying from here to Asia) - and looking at those, only IAH is flown by 789 at the moment (YVR still 772, EZE has been 772 since December), which is done with NZL and NZM anyways being code 2.

I think once the initial shock to the system is handled, NZ should be able to work out a plan to comply with new inspection requirements without impacting the schedule - as long as we don't get the same situation again with multiple engines out of service for extended periods of time.
 
DavidJ08
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:18 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 15, 2018 3:25 pm

planemanofnz wrote:
Some of that so-called serious analysis has also resulted in several major botch-ups, like the VA shareholding (which NZ made a hefty loss on), the Premium Economy SpaceSeat (which NZ has now decided to dump), and the failed MNL launch (which NZ, in its own words, under-estimated the regulatory framework for) among many, many others - IMO, too many people here treat NZ's word as the holy grail, and throw the 'serious analysis with factors we are not privy to' card out far too easily at any criticism of NZ.

I wonder if "NZ" in the context of the original post quoted might actually stand for New Zealand (as in New Zealand government and the various councils) - rather than Air New Zealand?

Also I think the three examples there aren't discrediting Air NZ's actual statistical analyses, so much as their business decision-making (and project management in the case of MNL.)

The fact stands: Air NZ has access to a lot more data than we do. It doesn't mean their executives will make great decisions all the time, it doesn't mean they will have ALL the data they need for any given situation, and it certainly doesn't mean they can predict the future without fail; but it does mean that they have more data and more analysts (and therefore are more informed) than the average A.net poster - and that shouldn't be dismissed so easily, either. Yes, it's easy to pull out the "I think they used data we're not privy to" card, but it also seems pretty easy to pull out the "I believe I know better than the airlines" card around here ;) The fact that an airline makes blunders doesn't mean that their thinking (or their access to information) is any less valid than us armchair critics over here. (Not a flippant use of "armchair critic" if I'm being a critic and am literally sitting in an armchair as I type this.)

I think sometimes it does help to think about it in terms of "what does the airline know that we don't, and how might that affect whether this decision makes sense" - it's all part of critical thinking after all.
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 3105
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 15, 2018 3:55 pm

Zkpilot wrote:
With NZ getting A321's and able to match aircraft capacity to flights quite easily VA is going to find it very tough on the Tasman especially with QF stepping up it's game also.


zkncj wrote:
Does anyone know how much of Air Berlin's fleet is remaining to find an new home? Could NZ pickup a couple of short-term leases on A320s from AB previous fleet.

There always the option that HiFly will be back next Christmas.....



I certainly get the impression that the airline intends to keep five or so International A320s (say ZK-OJA through OJE) for longer than intended inorder to open up additional frequencies/destinations and make up for the VA capacity.

aerorobnz wrote:
US departures are shortly to start the additional screening required and -4h check-in restriction. They will also be moving from gates 6/8/10 to 16/17/18. I believe there may even be a new NZ Lounge going in out there to reduce the distance for those passengers.

What's the point of the 4 hour check-in restriction?
Most recent planes I've been in: A318 F-GUGQ, A319 F-GRHR, A320ceo D-AIZH, A320neo D-AINE, A330-300 VH-QPD, A350-900 B-LRA, A380-800 D-AIMH, B737-600 LN-RPA, B737-700 OY-JTY, B737-800 LN-NGA, B767-300 ZK-NCI, B777-300 ZK-OKN, B787-9 VH-ZNA, CS100 HB-JBG
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19390
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 15, 2018 7:40 pm

I've read the Herald - why do they still call them Dreamliners?

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
NZ6
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 15, 2018 8:31 pm

nz2 wrote:
I have long thought about the 4 seat middle section and after flying Premium eco in the 747 main deck a few years back (2/2 seating), the cabin was very cool like a private jet because of the galley (I think) occupying the middle section. If an airline could install a slim, central vertical partition/wall effectively dividing the cabin into two halves, this would then offer options of 3 seats on the window or 2 seats in the middle in a 10 abreast T7, despite being only an inch from your neighbor, not seeing or hearing or touching (arm rest battles) would be a major plus and mean those seats become actually desirable. I know there is a weight penalty (minimal) and possibly an evacuation issue but this would certainly set the airline apart. It would mean installing 2 sets of 2 in the middle - can entertainment in a 2 seat set be run by 1 box? In a 9 abreast 787 this would offer seating options of 3, 2 and 1 by themselves which would be awesome.

Curious if this is actually feasible or not but as I say, that 2/2 cabin in the 747 PE section was really nice....


I love ideas like this, surely there's better ways of configuring an airplane.

three potential issues I can think of

a) surely there's a safety / evacuation issue with it.
b) You'll feel more claustrophobic as you'll essentially only see half the available 'free space' not sure if this partition is to go to the ceiling of not but put a fake call, even a movable whiteboard into a meeting room in the middle and see how much smaller the room would feel.
c) even though you shouldn't poke your elbow into your neighbors zone it happens, imagine the discomfort if every time you did it you hit your elbow, reason it doesn't happen on the window is due to the curvature on the plane fuselage, there's actually room for a couple of inches in that area although some passengers feel it's still like sitting next to a hard wall.
 
NZ6
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 15, 2018 8:47 pm

axio wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

Completely agree, trams to the airport is daft especially when the train already goes half way there.


At the risk of going non-av, it's not just about the airport. It's about relieving a corridor that is approaching bus saturation (Dominion Road), and providing rapid transit to an area that currently has none (Mangere & Bridge), as well as serving the airport.
To put it into another context, it's the Piccadilly Line not the Heathrow Express - because there is no way we could justify building and funding any airport rapid transit option it were only the latter.


I hear ya but I'm interested in the massive proposed development being undertaken at AIAL and the lack of public transport to what is apparently a world class airport. that is expected to double in passenger numbers.

The proposal of "trams" is crazy, did I read top speed is 70km/hr? There's motorway now from the CBD to the airport at 100km/hr excluding the Waterview tunnel. It'll travel down dominion road so will likely travel at about 50km/hr and stop for lights even though they'll say it's programmed to get a green flush. You'll also end up with commuters travelling to work squeezed in with holiday makers and their 3 bags at 8am. Same thing will happen on heavy rail but at least there's more room.

Sounds like it's a two for 1 deal. I like trams for dominion road and many other Auckland corridors, not for discussion here but I hate the idea for it as a Airport link.

Like you say, rail is almost all the way there anyway, connect some type of expressway for 'trams' or automated people movers like at SFO, SIN, HKG, NYC etc etc Imagine an airport link at Manakau (supports that line extension) and with a 4-5km run into the airport.

Manukau Station to the Airport is about 8Km, JFK has a similar system to Jamaica Street Station where you connect to the long island railroad network. Works perfectly.
 
NZ6
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 15, 2018 8:53 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Auckland councillor Mike Lee said Melbourne has the most extensive and most sophisticated tram system in the world and to choose to go with trains is based on experience operating trams and trains, confirming international best practice.

"The Australian decision is instructive and should give our new Government (reason to) pause. To blindly push ahead with a multibillion-dollar tram connection to Auckland airport would be a grave mistake," said Lee, a big player in the renaissance of rail in Auckland.

In Sydney, a 12km inner city tram project has be called a "horror story", the cost has soared from $1.6b to a new estimate of $3.3b, Spanish contractors are demanding more money and businesses have been starved of customers and gone bust."

Mike Lee is more interested in his "legacy" of "saving" heavy rail in Auckland - for which he does deserve some credit. However, he has shown himself to be woefully unable to grasp the realities of the Airport rail discussion and is like a dog with a bone on heavy rail, despite evidence to the contrary that light rail is a better option all told.

And as for the Sydney light rail project having a cost blow-out: well, that obviously means that all light rail projects will have cost blow-outs, and Auckland shouldn't go there. At all. In Sydney's case there was a reason for the blow-out which is in dispute between the government and the contractor - primarily someone under-estimated the amount of services which would have to be shifted in order to make the project happen.


I take nothing from Sydney's blow out or an opinion on the matter from someone with a biased view. To me I took two things out of this

1. There's still doubt over which way to go so could be a long drawn up progress
2. MEL's commitment to go heavy rail given their love for trams must be reviewed and understood by Auckland.
 
NZ6
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:51 pm

planemanofnz wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
... the idea that NZ's decisions might actually be rooted in serious analysis involving multiple factors, most of which we are not privy to, also eludes many posters!

Some of that so-called serious analysis has also resulted in several major botch-ups, like the VA shareholding (which NZ made a hefty loss on), the Premium Economy SpaceSeat (which NZ has now decided to dump), and the failed MNL launch (which NZ, in its own words, under-estimated the regulatory framework for) among many, many others - IMO, too many people here treat NZ's word as the holy grail, and throw the 'serious analysis with factors we are not privy to' card out far too easily at any criticism of NZ.

Cheers,

C.


I'm aware you'v choose to ignore my posts and I'm okay with this however I'll continue to reply for others benefit as it's shows a balanced view.

You made a comment that some hold NZ's word as 'holy grail', I likewise feel more want to bag out NZ for any decision made which is not agreed with (Safety Videos, Pulling out of Routes, 10 Abreast, not operating routes, no amenity kits, lounges, airpoints "value", Koru, Uniform, no inflight magazine, pricing, almost anything the airline does.

Here are 3 decsions your raised.

1: VA Shareholding:
Hindsight is such a powerful tool, let's not forget you have this and the NZ Exco team & Board did not. NZ wanted to reenter the Australian aviation market and to support many of their long term growth aspirations. South America, deepening routes into USA etc. It also also allowed them to coordinated their Tasman operations strengthening this market and making NZ more attractive to the AU corporate base by offering lounge, loyalty and other benefits when in an alliance.

VA also had a strategy to moving from a LCC brand into a more full service brand.

At this time the shareholding looked like a sound decision as VA were coming off a long continued period to strong performance, also not forgetting a QF alliance was rejected several years earlier and no one wanted a repeat of Ansett.

Throughout the duration of the alliance NZ has preformed exceptionally well financially, they've changed their entire international fleet and/or in-flight product. 767, 744's gone A320's replaced and 777's refurbed etc.

VA on the other hand hasn't lived up to expectation and Luxon has been putting heat on VA performance however with no immediate benefit or turn around in sight NZ has considered a new approach going forward.

Criticize NZ all you like, however I question anyone who believes they knew better at the time of where VA would be positioned in the market now vs where they were at the time.

I liken this to a cheap shot.

Also, NZ hasn't been the only creditable airline effected here which highlights my point.

2. SpaceSeats
NZ came up with a new seat type on the 77W and attempted to ramp up the Y+ offering after it was successful on the 744's. However NZ learnt along the way the seat design was somewhat polarizing and it started to push too much into the C class market. Over time NZ established it's product is better suited to a Y+ seat vs a C- seat.

Fair criticism that at NZ got it wrong, but NZ addressed it quickly. Show me a business that doesn't change it's products or get things wrong however?

Given this post is about poor NZ decisions or "botch up's", I think it's worth noting your second example is about 7-8 years old....

MNL
Again NZ got it wrong, but you're attacking and airline who was attempting to grow aggressively in a market. I'm going to also assume you don't know why it was announcement when it was,

Good or bad call, either way NZ has announced and launched SIN, EZE, IAH, DPS, SGN and new routes such as CHC-PER, alliances with CX, CA, NH, SQ etc... got all these right along with ORD which is yet to come however NZ got one wrong and it's a "botch up"? Writing that makes me feel that any criticism here would be from someone trying to find errors..

Should we look at QF who recently switched all European traffic to transit and DXB but more recently reverted back to SIN? Is this a botch up? after all their long term goal is to eliminate the transit. Perhaps it's just business working in a commercial marketplace and constantly adjusting and attempting to improve their product and brand.


Finally, NZ like any other business will do things and later change them, either they didn't live up to expectations or they're improving the product for commercial reasons or customer satisfaction... sometimes in aviation external influences can also be a factor.

Show me a business that doesn't do this?

it's really easy to list all the things NZ's done and changed over the years and call them "botch up's" but if you do, how about to also make a even list of all the good things NZ's done. Some of the "botch ups" may actually become things they've done.
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 15, 2018 10:04 pm

sq256 wrote:
Can only see DL in AKL if they are the party to purchase the EY or HNA stakes in VA.

Even then, DL in AKL may be questionable (not much yield for DL/VA, and the multiple frequencies from the incumbents NZ/UA) even if DL are able to fund VA 737 feeders from the main AU capitals + the large regional cities to feed into the flight.

The Pacific isn't exactly on DL's radar as of the moment.

DL was the 'other' in post 212.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1058
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 15, 2018 10:15 pm

NZ6 wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
... the idea that NZ's decisions might actually be rooted in serious analysis involving multiple factors, most of which we are not privy to, also eludes many posters!

Some of that so-called serious analysis has also resulted in several major botch-ups, like the VA shareholding (which NZ made a hefty loss on), the Premium Economy SpaceSeat (which NZ has now decided to dump), and the failed MNL launch (which NZ, in its own words, under-estimated the regulatory framework for) among many, many others - IMO, too many people here treat NZ's word as the holy grail, and throw the 'serious analysis with factors we are not privy to' card out far too easily at any criticism of NZ.

Cheers,

C.


I'm aware you'v choose to ignore my posts and I'm okay with this however I'll continue to reply for others benefit as it's shows a balanced view.

You made a comment that some hold NZ's word as 'holy grail', I likewise feel more want to bag out NZ for any decision made which is not agreed with (Safety Videos, Pulling out of Routes, 10 Abreast, not operating routes, no amenity kits, lounges, airpoints "value", Koru, Uniform, no inflight magazine, pricing, almost anything the airline does.

Here are 3 decsions your raised.

1: VA Shareholding:
Hindsight is such a powerful tool, let's not forget you have this and the NZ Exco team & Board did not. NZ wanted to reenter the Australian aviation market and to support many of their long term growth aspirations. South America, deepening routes into USA etc. It also also allowed them to coordinated their Tasman operations strengthening this market and making NZ more attractive to the AU corporate base by offering lounge, loyalty and other benefits when in an alliance.

VA also had a strategy to moving from a LCC brand into a more full service brand.

At this time the shareholding looked like a sound decision as VA were coming off a long continued period to strong performance, also not forgetting a QF alliance was rejected several years earlier and no one wanted a repeat of Ansett.

Throughout the duration of the alliance NZ has preformed exceptionally well financially, they've changed their entire international fleet and/or in-flight product. 767, 744's gone A320's replaced and 777's refurbed etc.

VA on the other hand hasn't lived up to expectation and Luxon has been putting heat on VA performance however with no immediate benefit or turn around in sight NZ has considered a new approach going forward.

Criticize NZ all you like, however I question anyone who believes they knew better at the time of where VA would be positioned in the market now vs where they were at the time.

I liken this to a cheap shot.

Also, NZ hasn't been the only creditable airline effected here which highlights my point.

2. SpaceSeats
NZ came up with a new seat type on the 77W and attempted to ramp up the Y+ offering after it was successful on the 744's. However NZ learnt along the way the seat design was somewhat polarizing and it started to push too much into the C class market. Over time NZ established it's product is better suited to a Y+ seat vs a C- seat.

Fair criticism that at NZ got it wrong, but NZ addressed it quickly. Show me a business that doesn't change it's products or get things wrong however?

Given this post is about poor NZ decisions or "botch up's", I think it's worth noting your second example is about 7-8 years old....

MNL
Again NZ got it wrong, but you're attacking and airline who was attempting to grow aggressively in a market. I'm going to also assume you don't know why it was announcement when it was,

Good or bad call, either way NZ has announced and launched SIN, EZE, IAH, DPS, SGN and new routes such as CHC-PER, alliances with CX, CA, NH, SQ etc... got all these right along with ORD which is yet to come however NZ got one wrong and it's a "botch up"? Writing that makes me feel that any criticism here would be from someone trying to find errors..

Should we look at QF who recently switched all European traffic to transit and DXB but more recently reverted back to SIN? Is this a botch up? after all their long term goal is to eliminate the transit. Perhaps it's just business working in a commercial marketplace and constantly adjusting and attempting to improve their product and brand.


Finally, NZ like any other business will do things and later change them, either they didn't live up to expectations or they're improving the product for commercial reasons or customer satisfaction... sometimes in aviation external influences can also be a factor.

Show me a business that doesn't do this?

it's really easy to list all the things NZ's done and changed over the years and call them "botch up's" but if you do, how about to also make a even list of all the good things NZ's done. Some of the "botch ups" may actually become things they've done.

Exactly. The armchair critic has the luxury of having no skin in the game, and is free to use hindsight whenever it suits.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1058
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 15, 2018 10:31 pm

NZ6 wrote:
I take nothing from Sydney's blow out or an opinion on the matter from someone with a biased view. To me I took two things out of this

1. There's still doubt over which way to go so could be a long drawn up progress
2. MEL's commitment to go heavy rail given their love for trams must be reviewed and understood by Auckland.

Actually
1. There isn't any doubt any more as to which way to go. The decision to go light rail was taken around two years ago more or less, and the current government has said it will commit funding to light rail without even mentioning the heavy rail alternative. Because it no longer is an alternative. The ongoing sniping about the issue is generated by those who fundamentally disagree with the decision, but it's a waste of breath because there is no doubt whatsoever how this will play out. Time for people to accept that their favoured option hasn't been adopted, and to look for the positives that will arrive when the light rail reaches the airport.

2. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Why would a future QF decision to go for (say) the 777-8 result in a re-examination of an NZ decision to go for (say) the A359? In MEL's case, they did their homework and came to a decision based on the local circumstances. In AKL's case, the homework was also done, but with a different outcome for different local circumstances.

I liken this discussion to the discussion about NZ and its "multiple botch-ups". Behind the decision on light rail there is a wealth of analysis based on multiple and often independent factors that most of us are completely ignorant of, and which indicate that overall (for the network, not just the airport) light rail is the way to go. It's easy for the armchair critics to pronounce that the decision is "wrong", based on a simplistic back-of the envelope analysis - or even based on personal instincts and prejudices. But thankfully, decisions on transport infrastructure are based on more rigorous analysis than this.

[Edit] Excepting, of course, the previous government's decisions on RONS, which were solely politically driven and didn't need analysis.
Last edited by DavidByrne on Sun Apr 15, 2018 10:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1058
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 15, 2018 10:36 pm

[Duplication, deleted]
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8035
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:44 pm

zkojq wrote:
What's the point of the 4-hour check-in restriction?


Because all passengers are being questioned by security staff in a secured part of check-in. They are only there for the 4 hours ahead.
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.
 
NZ6
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 16, 2018 12:47 am

DavidByrne wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
I take nothing from Sydney's blow out or an opinion on the matter from someone with a biased view. To me I took two things out of this

1. There's still doubt over which way to go so could be a long drawn up progress
2. MEL's commitment to go heavy rail given their love for trams must be reviewed and understood by Auckland.

Actually
1. There isn't any doubt any more as to which way to go. The decision to go light rail was taken around two years ago more or less, and the current government has said it will commit funding to light rail without even mentioning the heavy rail alternative. Because it no longer is an alternative. The ongoing sniping about the issue is generated by those who fundamentally disagree with the decision, but it's a waste of breath because there is no doubt whatsoever how this will play out. Time for people to accept that their favoured option hasn't been adopted, and to look for the positives that will arrive when the light rail reaches the airport.

2. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Why would a future QF decision to go for (say) the 777-8 result in a re-examination of an NZ decision to go for (say) the A359? In MEL's case, they did their homework and came to a decision based on the local circumstances. In AKL's case, the homework was also done, but with a different outcome for different local circumstances.

I liken this discussion to the discussion about NZ and its "multiple botch-ups". Behind the decision on light rail there is a wealth of analysis based on multiple and often independent factors that most of us are completely ignorant of, and which indicate that overall (for the network, not just the airport) light rail is the way to go. It's easy for the armchair critics to pronounce that the decision is "wrong", based on a simplistic back-of the envelope analysis - or even based on personal instincts and prejudices. But thankfully, decisions on transport infrastructure are based on more rigorous analysis than this.

[Edit] Excepting, of course, the previous government's decisions on RONS, which were solely politically driven and didn't need analysis.


Yeah I'll give you that regarding point 1. Still, until soil is turned and tracks laid I don't have any confidence that this will happen.

Regarding point 2, I'm not saying we must follow MEL's direction, I'm just saying we must understand the circumstances around how they came this conclusion and consider if any of that applies to our situation, there are some similarities (largely end of line airport, 24km from CBD etc etc) but there are also many vast differences so it's not a clone of MEL.

Looking at it another way, given the extensive use of trams in MEL and to $10B cost for build heavy rail, why has this option been taken. Imagine, for example its due to the slower journey time and boarding time etc of trams therefore MEL is able to move 4x as many passengers via heavy rail and trams reaching capacity at x point. I'm not saying this fact it's hypothetical however if true is this an issue for AKL?
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 5962
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:57 am

DavidJ08 wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
Right hopefully that remains the case, they can cover IAH and ORD with the 3 TEN’S while SIN would need to use NZL, not the most flexible if there’s a delay maybe a swap to 772’s and use NZL to HND or something if need be since that’s 3 weekly and would give more flexibility with the long ground times.

SIN should be okay as it's flyable on ETOPS 140? (I'm assuming this is talking about the potential for 787s with Package C engines to be downgraded to ETOPS140 from ETOPS330?)

Assuming the NZ Herald article is fully factual, that means NZ has 9 affected engines - at most that only means 5x 789s affected by whatever is to come (and that's assuming zero spare engines.) To summarise the situation so far they've been hit with more regular inspections, and there's rumours of an upcoming ETOPS downgrade.

Inspection-wise the NZ spokesperson is quoted as saying the inspection is completed with the engine on the wing and only takes a couple of hours, so the inspection itself shouldn't cause too much drama - the timing though will be inconvenient, especially with school holidays in the coming two weeks - when the directive kicks in, if multiple 789s need to have the inspection done at the same time there will be disruptions. Having ETOPS downgraded by FAA would be more inconvenient - but not having ETOPS 330 should only affect North America and EZE anyway (as ETOPS 140 will cover flying from here to Asia) - and looking at those, only IAH is flown by 789 at the moment (YVR still 772, EZE has been 772 since December), which is done with NZL and NZM anyways being code 2.

I think once the initial shock to the system is handled, NZ should be able to work out a plan to comply with new inspection requirements without impacting the schedule - as long as we don't get the same situation again with multiple engines out of service for extended periods of time.


Yes what I mean is The 2 code 2 789’s NZL and NZM only NZM has the TEN engines so NZM and the following 2 frames will hopefully be unaffected by any groundings or inspections, meaning if the issue goes on a while they will hopefully still launch ORD NOV 30th 3 weekly and maintain daily IAH which can be covered with 3 frames.’

The other code 2 frame NZL is scheduled to be used to SIN, given it’s a daily flight 1 frame can do it easily enough and often they do use the same frame for several days. Given peak season I wondered if they might use a 772 instead to SIN and send NZL to HND which is 3 weekly and uses 1 frame with longer ground times which could give a bit more slack.
 
NZ321
Posts: 618
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:33 am

IAH could go back to 772 if needed :)
Plane mad!
 
ADrum23
Posts: 1279
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 11:54 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:38 am

planemanofnz wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
Yes DFW was mentioned as a potential route for AA to AKL if LAX did well. No idea if they would consider 2 seasonal routes or wait until LAX is year round? I can’t imagine AA would use a 777 LAX-AKL in the interim To increase capacity, 77W to premium heavy and 772 has similar capacity to the 789 but more J I think but no where near as efficient. Though that doesn’t worry UA who have 772’s scheduled next NS albeit 3 weekly.

Regarding the "too premium heavy" comment, it's interesting that UA uses the 77W's to AKL seasonally, which have the Polaris product, plus that NZ has developed a premium-heavy 789 sub-fleet for the likes of IAH - there must be some yield to be had in the New Zealand - North America corridor? The problem with AA's 77W's is that they have F, which is probably hard to sell for AKL (though, I'm not sure on this).

A shorter (and therefore, cheaper) second New Zealand route for AA could be a seasonal LAX - CHC service, which would build upon AA's APAC strategy at its LAX hub. This route might command more of a premium than AKL - DFW (given the lack of any non-stop direct competition at CHC), as well as more demand (with California O&D traffic to New Zealand being far greater than anywhere else in the United States). :crossfingers:

Separately, I'd love to see a bold move like AA on AKL - JFK, albeit it'd be unlikely.

Cheers,

C.


If the AA/QF JV goes through, you don't think AA will launch DFW-AKL in response to UA launching IAH-SYD?
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2436
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - April 2018

Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:39 am

NZ6 wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
I take nothing from Sydney's blow out or an opinion on the matter from someone with a biased view. To me I took two things out of this

1. There's still doubt over which way to go so could be a long drawn up progress
2. MEL's commitment to go heavy rail given their love for trams must be reviewed and understood by Auckland.

Actually
1. There isn't any doubt any more as to which way to go. The decision to go light rail was taken around two years ago more or less, and the current government has said it will commit funding to light rail without even mentioning the heavy rail alternative. Because it no longer is an alternative. The ongoing sniping about the issue is generated by those who fundamentally disagree with the decision, but it's a waste of breath because there is no doubt whatsoever how this will play out. Time for people to accept that their favoured option hasn't been adopted, and to look for the positives that will arrive when the light rail reaches the airport.

2. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Why would a future QF decision to go for (say) the 777-8 result in a re-examination of an NZ decision to go for (say) the A359? In MEL's case, they did their homework and came to a decision based on the local circumstances. In AKL's case, the homework was also done, but with a different outcome for different local circumstances.

I liken this discussion to the discussion about NZ and its "multiple botch-ups". Behind the decision on light rail there is a wealth of analysis based on multiple and often independent factors that most of us are completely ignorant of, and which indicate that overall (for the network, not just the airport) light rail is the way to go. It's easy for the armchair critics to pronounce that the decision is "wrong", based on a simplistic back-of the envelope analysis - or even based on personal instincts and prejudices. But thankfully, decisions on transport infrastructure are based on more rigorous analysis than this.

[Edit] Excepting, of course, the previous government's decisions on RONS, which were solely politically driven and didn't need analysis.


Yeah I'll give you that regarding point 1. Still, until soil is turned and tracks laid I don't have any confidence that this will happen.

Regarding point 2, I'm not saying we must follow MEL's direction, I'm just saying we must understand the circumstances around how they came this conclusion and consider if any of that applies to our situation, there are some similarities (largely end of line airport, 24km from CBD etc etc) but there are also many vast differences so it's not a clone of MEL.

Looking at it another way, given the extensive use of trams in MEL and to $10B cost for build heavy rail, why has this option been taken. Imagine, for example its due to the slower journey time and boarding time etc of trams therefore MEL is able to move 4x as many passengers via heavy rail and trams reaching capacity at x point. I'm not saying this fact it's hypothetical however if true is this an issue for AKL?


My understanding was that government had only agreed to fund "Stage 1" - the Dominion Road component, leaving "Stage 2" (the airport) to a later date. If so, then a classic government manoeuvre to kick the can, while satisfyng the inner-city types who have some gilded view of trams.

I completely agree with Councillor Lee on this one. I live with trams every day here in Melbourne. Great for short hops - atrocious for longer ones. They're inflexible (unlike buses), very very expensive to introduce and maintain, slow, have far lower seating capacity than you'd think and require full grade separation from road traffic to be even remotely effective (in which case, just re-do the Northern Busway in the south).

There's even a tram here that gets within cooee of the Airport (the 59 - its destination is 'Airport West'), but no one has talked about extending that since forever because the severe limitations are recognised, not least of which being the intermingling of commuters and airport passengers in very very space-confined vehicles.

For once I hope Auckland invests in the longer term and goes for heavy rail for Auckland Airport, using elevated tracks if necessary to reduce cost (tunneling is insanely expensive).
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

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