zkncj wrote:

sq256 wrote:

Also QF and VA (along with their LCC siblings) would ensure NZ either doesn't get SYD slots, or get the less ideal SYD slots (e.g late evening before curfew), also complicating any slot applications on the FRA end.

Yet how was NZ able to get additional peak hour slots for there additional services from AKL,WLG,CHC that we're launched this week? They must have some pull in getting slots, to be able to pick up these additional SYD slots at very short notice.

The new Air NZ SYD-AKL service (NZ 112) departs SYD at 3.50pm which IS NOT A PEAK PERIOD for SYD. So yes we know Air NZ is the best run carrier on earth, and Air NZ should launch SYD-BNE-MEL triangle services, has the best seats, yadayada but Air NZ isn't special and has no extra "pull" in getting slots

Your constant obsession talking about Air NZ is unrivalled

sq256 wrote:

Those slots I assume are used for international arrivals/departures.

There is no distinction between an international arrival/departure slot vs a domestic arrival/departure slot at SYD. The lack of suitable "slots" at peak hour in SYD is caused by:

1) The capped number of movements at SYD which is currently capped at a max of 80 per hour, and
2) The lack of gates (particularly at the international terminal) in the morning peak.

Neither a domestic vs an international slot request at SYD gets priority.

sq256 wrote:

Domestic slots are a different story entirely if NZ decide to enter the Australian domestic market with the QF and VA having huge pull on the domestic slots.

QF and VA do not have "huge pull" on domestic slots, no one gets any priority in the determination of who gets what slots. If Air NZ want to apply for slots, they'd go through the same process as QF and VA.

aerokiwi wrote:

On the VA/NZ divorce, it's hard to see how this benefits either carrier. Luxon's dummy spit at board level was over the top in my opinion but from what I've heard, VA didn't do themselves any favours with NZ at an operational level. Still the tit for tat between the two (mostly NZ's tit, publicly at least) was a little pathetic.

VA just needs to treat Tasman flights as domestic in terms of inflight service. Free streaming IFE and a small comp snack and drinks with BOB and their offering is about the same as a standard NZ seat only service. I don't really understand why this hasn't happened already. Perhaps ancillary revenues justified it but understandably peeves codeshare pax.

Can they survive as the much smaller third operator? Perhaps. Depends on objectives - standalone route profit or feed the Australian network/maintain Pacific Island ops? Twice daily SYD/MEL/BNE/OOL-AKL, dailies into CHC and WLG with leisure frequencies to ZQN and secondary cities like DUD and HLZ (using Tiger) might just work. Maybe Tiger would take over Pacific Island flights and finally generate competition

There is the below statement in the stuff article about the NZ and VA devoice - which does beg the question (if correct) how is VA going to strive on the Tasman alone? and if that is the case have they just lost 80% of there forward Tasman booking from October 26 onwards?

Seventy per cent of Air NZ/Virgin Australia alliance passengers now fly on Air NZ, and the Kiwi airline sells 80 per cent of the seats. ref: https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/103041222/inside-air-new-zealands-divorce-from-virgin


It does seem believable that 80% of VA's current Tasman passengers are booked via NZ, after all when did you last see any marketing in New Zealand for Virgin Australia? Have them maybe been to laid back in the alliance, and now resulted them self to the perceived "that horrible airline, that NZ booked me on"

The average New Zealander that has flown VA under the Tasman, has often perceived that Virgin is horrible and outdate product which they happily with share with friends when they get home.

The alliance also probably didn't help that oneway passengers would get an VA 738 with no seat back tvs, then come back on an NZ 320 with seat back tv's, to the average leasure traveler as outdated.

Can anyone explain QF12 ‘s current flight path??

SYDSpotter wrote:

zkncj wrote:

sq256 wrote:

Also QF and VA (along with their LCC siblings) would ensure NZ either doesn't get SYD slots, or get the less ideal SYD slots (e.g late evening before curfew), also complicating any slot applications on the FRA end.

Yet how was NZ able to get additional peak hour slots for there additional services from AKL,WLG,CHC that we're launched this week? They must have some pull in getting slots, to be able to pick up these additional SYD slots at very short notice.

The new Air NZ SYD-AKL service (NZ 112) departs SYD at 3.50pm which IS NOT A PEAK PERIOD for SYD. So yes we know Air NZ is the best run carrier on earth, and Air NZ should launch SYD-BNE-MEL triangle services, has the best seats, yadayada but Air NZ isn't special and has no extra "pull" in getting slots

Your constant obsession talking about Air NZ is unrivalled

sq256 wrote:

Those slots I assume are used for international arrivals/departures.

There is no distinction between an international arrival/departure slot vs a domestic arrival/departure slot at SYD. The lack of suitable "slots" at peak hour in SYD is caused by:

1) The capped number of movements at SYD which is currently capped at a max of 80 per hour, and
2) The lack of gates (particularly at the international terminal) in the morning peak.

Neither a domestic vs an international slot request at SYD gets priority.

sq256 wrote:

Domestic slots are a different story entirely if NZ decide to enter the Australian domestic market with the QF and VA having huge pull on the domestic slots.

QF and VA do not have "huge pull" on domestic slots, no one gets any priority in the determination of who gets what slots. If Air NZ want to apply for slots, they'd go through the same process as QF and VA.

That 1550 departure ex SYD is an old NZ flight and the same timed flight operates with VA now, agree not a peak time anyway.

HM7 wrote:

Can anyone explain QF12 ‘s current flight path??

Looks like it could be weather. Other flights have taken a northerly route out of JFK before heading west.

I will ask one of the other moderators as he works in ATC out of DC of which you will get a more accurate answer

tullamarine wrote:

You're right; the products are different:

Food: Snack or meal on VA depends on ticket, NZ, depends on your ticket
Tea/coffee: Included on both NZ and VA
Alcoholic drinks, Depends on ticket on both
IFE: BYOD entertainment included on all VA, IFE available but only included on Works tickets
WiFi Internet: Already available on about 50% of VA 737s, not available on NZ 320s
Checked luggage: Included on all VA tickets, not included in standard ticket on NZ
Fleet age: VA 737s 7.3 years(Total fleet 7.3 years), NZ A320s 8.2 years (Total fleet 7.3 years)
Business Class seating: Available on all VA flights, depends on NZ equipment

....what was your point again????

IFE: NZ provides IFE for all passenger (TV shows & Music), and 'the Works' get movies included (anyone else can add moves for $10).
Bags: VA sales an 'Go Fare' in the New Zealand market on the Tasman/Pacific islands that doesn't include checked bags.
Business Class: The hard product is more like an PE hard product.

Point - VA needs to do some hard work to restore there own brand image in the New Zealand, they want to keep the current service levels maybe TT would be an better option an target the passengers that would of flown JQ.

tullamarine wrote:

The average New Zealander that has flown VA under the Tasman, has often perceived that Virgin is horrible and outdate product which they happily with share with friends when they get home.

The alliance also probably didn't help that oneway passengers would get an VA 738 with no seat back tvs, then come back on an NZ 320 with seat back tv's, to the average leasure traveler as outdated.

You're right; the products are different:

Food: Snack or meal on VA depends on ticket, NZ, depends on your ticket
Tea/coffee: Included on both NZ and VA
Alcoholic drinks, Depends on ticket on both
IFE: BYOD entertainment included on all VA, IFE available but only included on Works tickets
WiFi Internet: Already available on about 50% of VA 737s, not available on NZ 320s
Checked luggage: Included on all VA tickets, not included in standard ticket on NZ
Fleet age: VA 737s 7.3 years(Total fleet 7.3 years), NZ A320s 8.2 years (Total fleet 7.3 years)
Business Class seating: Available on all VA flights, depends on NZ equipment

....what was your point again????

Excellent post. Maybe NZ isn't the best thing since sliced bread.

Seatback TV on short ( ish ) flights is overrated IMO. I'm QF Platinum who only flies Y so I fly alot. Even when on a flight with seatback TV I invariably use my phone to watch shows I've downloaded from Stan.

NZ is fine but for all intents and purposes there's really no difference between QF, VA and NZ across the Tasman in Y, except you get a few more bells and whistles in all QF fares.

It will be interesting to see how many Velocity members give NZ a wide berth. It ain't QFFF but there are alot of Velocity members in Australia.

zkncj wrote:

The average New Zealander that has flown VA under the Tasman, has often perceived that Virgin is horrible and outdate product which they happily with share with friends when they get home.

I just came back from an AKL-MEL-HBA trip on VA, and I think I'm a pretty average NZer. I did note that there were no seat-back PTVs, but some of us actually choose cheaper airlines (because I have to pay for it myself and I'm determined to travel to the max, ergo I travel "budget" most of the time) and I'm perfectly comfortable reading the newspaper or whatever for a few hours. I think it's a myth that people HAVE to have a moving image on the screen in front of them or they believe an airline is "horrible". And I think that the average travelling public now regards a plane as more like a glorified bus and doesn't feel the need so much any more to "share with friends" about their experiences. In days gone by, yes (and I was also someone that "shared" in such a way), but now I think that's all passé.

My trip back was on TT and JQ, and they are both pretty ordinary, but hey, ordinary is just fine. I'm prepared to believe that people who pay for premium fares do really care about what they get for their money, but for the vast majority of the rest of us, I don't think people expect that much any more, nor do they especially care as long as they perceive they're getting a good deal. Apart from A-netters, that is.

Some of the reasons above are why NZ is leaving VA, to give a bit more consistency, sure only NZ widebodies offer J and W while the A320’s are all Y.

It will be interesting to see what VA do, I think personally they will operate the main trunk AKL/WLG/CHC to SYD/MEL/BNE with maybe TT on some of the more leisure routes OOL/ZQN/DUD etc.

QF offer a different J product on the A330’s compared to the 738’s which is to be expected though given the 738’s are a short haul frame while the A330’s go to Asia/HNL.

All in all I agree not a great difference short haul, I do quite like VA but NZ and QF would be on par with them.

And no NZ won’t operate any domestic flights in Australia, why would they?

SYDSpotter wrote:

zkncj wrote:

sq256 wrote:

Also QF and VA (along with their LCC siblings) would ensure NZ either doesn't get SYD slots, or get the less ideal SYD slots (e.g late evening before curfew), also complicating any slot applications on the FRA end.

Yet how was NZ able to get additional peak hour slots for there additional services from AKL,WLG,CHC that we're launched this week? They must have some pull in getting slots, to be able to pick up these additional SYD slots at very short notice.

The new Air NZ SYD-AKL service (NZ 112) departs SYD at 3.50pm which IS NOT A PEAK PERIOD for SYD. So yes we know Air NZ is the best run carrier on earth, and Air NZ should launch SYD-BNE-MEL triangle services, has the best seats, yadayada but Air NZ isn't special and has no extra "pull" in getting slots

Your constant obsession talking about Air NZ is unrivalled

sq256 wrote:

Those slots I assume are used for international arrivals/departures.

There is no distinction between an international arrival/departure slot vs a domestic arrival/departure slot at SYD. The lack of suitable "slots" at peak hour in SYD is caused by:

1) The capped number of movements at SYD which is currently capped at a max of 80 per hour, and
2) The lack of gates (particularly at the international terminal) in the morning peak.

Neither a domestic vs an international slot request at SYD gets priority.

sq256 wrote:

Domestic slots are a different story entirely if NZ decide to enter the Australian domestic market with the QF and VA having huge pull on the domestic slots.

QF and VA do not have "huge pull" on domestic slots, no one gets any priority in the determination of who gets what slots. If Air NZ want to apply for slots, they'd go through the same process as QF and VA.

There are some peak hour slots that are ring-fenced for flights to destinations in regional NSW, which are almost entirely taken by Rex and QantasLink. These are to ensure that markets like TMW, WGA, DBO etc retiran peak hour service to SYD, as opposed to those slots being used for yet more flights to Melbourne. I assume this is required by legislation but don’t actually know.

HM7 wrote:

Can anyone explain QF12 ‘s current flight path??

I'll preface this by saying that I don't work in the New York area, so I can only speculate based on what I know about their flows.

It looks to me that the line of weather moving through the Midwest definitely played a factor. They may have been required to file a more northerly departure routing to get around it, but that would keep them north for quite a while. All arrivals into the New York area from the west follow a track just to the south of QFA12's flight path. It would probably not be ideal for them to file a more southerly departure, then deviate right (north) for weather across all of those arrival flows. As a controller, the last thing you want when you're working a busy New York flow sector is for a bunch of airplanes to be cutting across all your traffic. It's like playing a game of chicken with a 1,000kt closure rate.

They were probably given this different routing by the Traffic Management Unit (TMU) for efficiency's sake. It's interesting to me that this apparent TMU reroute pushed them into Canadian airspace, but I don't work near the border, so maybe that's common. It looks like AAL35, DAL454, and several others were given the same route, which makes me pretty sure it's a TMU reroute.

If you're interested, FlightRadar24 would give you a good idea of what the arrival flows into the northeast look like. Just apply an arrival filter for JFK, EWR, LGA, and TEB, and compare that to QFA12's route. Basically QFA12 and the others were kept north of these flows rather than the usual route that would keep them south, since they'd want to deviate north for weather anyway.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Some of the reasons above are why NZ is leaving VA, to give a bit more consistency, sure only NZ widebodies offer J and W while the A320’s are all Y.

It will be interesting to see what VA do, I think personally they will operate the main trunk AKL/WLG/CHC to SYD/MEL/BNE with maybe TT on some of the more leisure routes OOL/ZQN/DUD etc.

QF offer a different J product on the A330’s compared to the 738’s which is to be expected though given the 738’s are a short haul frame while the A330’s go to Asia/HNL.

All in all I agree not a great difference short haul, I do quite like VA but NZ and QF would be on par with them.

And no NZ won’t operate any domestic flights in Australia, why would they?

I think VA is potentially in a particularly difficult situation. NZ has increased capacity to take away from VA the pax that it is currently placing on VA. Given the disparity in sales of seats evidenced in the Newsroom article, the number of seats that VA is selling on NZ, and which it could in turn "repatriate" will be many fewer. Meaning that with its existing frequencies, VA will have emptier planes next summer than it does this summer. Potentially significantly emptier.

VA's current offering is well-established in AKL, with flights to BNE, OOL, SYD and MEL, but all of these will get NZ frequency increases. However, from WLG it only has BNE (and this will come under pressure with the addition of NZ to the route) and in CHC only BNE and MEL (both of which have been targeted by NZ frequency increases. From ZQN it operates to BNE and SYD, and NZ is starting up 4x weekly on the BNE sector at least. On all of its existing flights (with the exception of ZQN-SYD) it is going to face a loss of passengers and at the same time increased competition.

Against this backdrop, is it realistic to think that VA will go for broke (literally?) and ramp up their services and add new ones to fill out a core AKL/WLG/CHC-SYD/MEL/BNE network? And add new services to OOL (from where, CHC? WLG?) and ZQN? Even BNE-DUD cannot be considered "safe" because IIRC it was a "condition" imposed on the NZ/VA JV to ensure that DUD did not lose all its Transtasman flights. With the JV gone, does BNE-DUD still stack up?

Never say never, of course, and VA may yet surprise with the boldness of its response. But any significant response will be in the "high-risk" category, requiring them to (a) re-fill planes on routes from which they've lost a significant number of their passengers to NZ, and (b) establish new routes (which takes time and investment, with no guarantees of success). Very interesting times ahead. In airline terms, this is a truly seismic event.

Agree David, I do think there is that possibility for AKL atleast to remain competitive there that they run 3-4 daily to SYD, 2-3 daily MEL, 2 BNE. WLG and CHC I’m not sure how many main trunk routes will do well with more than 1 daily really, partly as you say keeping planes full but not being able to offer flights at each end of the day for business travellers.

DavidByrne wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Some of the reasons above are why NZ is leaving VA, to give a bit more consistency, sure only NZ widebodies offer J and W while the A320’s are all Y.

It will be interesting to see what VA do, I think personally they will operate the main trunk AKL/WLG/CHC to SYD/MEL/BNE with maybe TT on some of the more leisure routes OOL/ZQN/DUD etc.

QF offer a different J product on the A330’s compared to the 738’s which is to be expected though given the 738’s are a short haul frame while the A330’s go to Asia/HNL.

All in all I agree not a great difference short haul, I do quite like VA but NZ and QF would be on par with them.

And no NZ won’t operate any domestic flights in Australia, why would they?

I think VA is potentially in a particularly difficult situation. NZ has increased capacity to take away from VA the pax that it is currently placing on VA. Given the disparity in sales of seats evidenced in the Newsroom article, the number of seats that VA is selling on NZ, and which it could in turn "repatriate" will be many fewer. Meaning that with its existing frequencies, VA will have emptier planes next summer than it does this summer. Potentially significantly emptier.

VA's current offering is well-established in AKL, with flights to BNE, OOL, SYD and MEL, but all of these will get NZ frequency increases. However, from WLG it only has BNE (and this will come under pressure with the addition of NZ to the route) and in CHC only BNE and MEL (both of which have been targeted by NZ frequency increases. From ZQN it operates to BNE and SYD, and NZ is starting up 4x weekly on the BNE sector at least. On all of its existing flights (with the exception of ZQN-SYD) it is going to face a loss of passengers and at the same time increased competition.

Against this backdrop, is it realistic to think that VA will go for broke (literally?) and ramp up their services and add new ones to fill out a core AKL/WLG/CHC-SYD/MEL/BNE network? And add new services to OOL (from where, CHC? WLG?) and ZQN? Even BNE-DUD cannot be considered "safe" because IIRC it was a "condition" imposed on the NZ/VA JV to ensure that DUD did not lose all its Transtasman flights. With the JV gone, does BNE-DUD still stack up?

Never say never, of course, and VA may yet surprise with the boldness of its response. But any significant response will be in the "high-risk" category, requiring them to (a) re-fill planes on routes from which they've lost a significant number of their passengers to NZ, and (b) establish new routes (which takes time and investment, with no guarantees of success). Very interesting times ahead. In airline terms, this is a truly seismic event.

Interesting analysis. I'm asking this as I really have no idea - is there a risk of NZ losing passengers ( Velocity members ) which will make their capacity increases vulnerable?

Surely the repercussions don't run all one way. I'm not suggesting that's what you're saying BTW.

RyanairGuru wrote:

SYDSpotter wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Yet how was NZ able to get additional peak hour slots for there additional services from AKL,WLG,CHC that we're launched this week? They must have some pull in getting slots, to be able to pick up these additional SYD slots at very short notice.

The new Air NZ SYD-AKL service (NZ 112) departs SYD at 3.50pm which IS NOT A PEAK PERIOD for SYD. So yes we know Air NZ is the best run carrier on earth, and Air NZ should launch SYD-BNE-MEL triangle services, has the best seats, yadayada but Air NZ isn't special and has no extra "pull" in getting slots

Your constant obsession talking about Air NZ is unrivalled

sq256 wrote:

Those slots I assume are used for international arrivals/departures.

There is no distinction between an international arrival/departure slot vs a domestic arrival/departure slot at SYD. The lack of suitable "slots" at peak hour in SYD is caused by:

1) The capped number of movements at SYD which is currently capped at a max of 80 per hour, and
2) The lack of gates (particularly at the international terminal) in the morning peak.

Neither a domestic vs an international slot request at SYD gets priority.

sq256 wrote:

Domestic slots are a different story entirely if NZ decide to enter the Australian domestic market with the QF and VA having huge pull on the domestic slots.

QF and VA do not have "huge pull" on domestic slots, no one gets any priority in the determination of who gets what slots. If Air NZ want to apply for slots, they'd go through the same process as QF and VA.

There are some peak hour slots that are ring-fenced for flights to destinations in regional NSW, which are almost entirely taken by Rex and QantasLink. These are to ensure that markets like TMW, WGA, DBO etc retiran peak hour service to SYD, as opposed to those slots being used for yet more flights to Melbourne. I assume this is required by legislation but don’t actually know.

Exactly. I'm not sure of how the exact regulations work, but there are slots that are required for domestic regional services. This was highlighted during the AN takeover of Hazelton with authorities ensuring that AN doesn't use Hazelton's slots for their mainline domestic or international services.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Agree David, I do think there is that possibility for AKL atleast to remain competitive there that they run 3-4 daily to SYD, 2-3 daily MEL, 2 BNE. WLG and CHC I’m not sure how many main trunk routes will do well with more than 1 daily really, partly as you say keeping planes full but not being able to offer flights at each end of the day for business travellers.

I'm wondering if there is now when VA wished they hadn't finished exiting there E190 fleet, e.g CHC-SYD,MEL,BNE and WLG-MEL,SYD,BNE might have been better of suited to an double daily E190 service, which could even of given them an advantage over NZ (who aren't double daily on all of these).

ZK-NBT wrote:

Agree David, I do think there is that possibility for AKL atleast to remain competitive there that they run 3-4 daily to SYD, 2-3 daily MEL, 2 BNE. WLG and CHC I’m not sure how many main trunk routes will do well with more than 1 daily really, partly as you say keeping planes full but not being able to offer flights at each end of the day for business travellers.

IIRC VA (Short Haul Int'l) doesn't really have the flexibility to shift the planes around considering the 737 fleet are divided into 2 fleets. The larger VA mainline fleet, and the 737 subfleet that are registered to "Virgin Australia International Pty Ltd" (Formerly Pacific Blue Pty Ltd).

If VA were to concentrate on AKL for example to at least offer frequency (plus the HX, HU, DL, etc feed).
CHC or WLG (alongside marginal or low yielding destinations such as DUD and ZQN) would very likely be transferred to TT as the 737 fleet registered to VA Int'l would be tied up to increased AKL in that scenario

NZ currently have 5 daily 777’s and a single A320 loaded for NW for AKL-SYD, they are filling in the gap left by VA with the 1300 ex AKL, they have a decent sized hub in AKL to fill the morning departures with American connections aswell. Plenty of time yet for schedule updates though 6 months out although I wouldn’t expect any huge changes, A321’s to be delivered maybe replace the single A320.

Both carriers will probably lose some pax, however VA’s much smaller operation would make them seem potentially more vulnerable

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ currently have 5 daily 777’s and a single A320 loaded for NW for AKL-SYD, they are filling in the gap left by VA with the 1300 ex AKL, they have a decent sized hub in AKL to fill the morning departures with American connections aswell. Plenty of time yet for schedule updates though 6 months out although I wouldn’t expect any huge changes, A321’s to be delivered maybe replace the single A320.

Both carriers will probably lose some pax, however VA’s much smaller operation would make them seem potentially more vulnerable

Comparing NS18 vs NW18 shows NZ are willing to fight, and create an capacity war.

Current NZ & VA have: 3x 77E, 2x 320, 2x 738 - 1,627 daily seats
Post Alliance NZ have: 1x 77W, 4x 777E, 1x A320 - 1768 daily seats

So post alliance NZ has (typical weekday) 141 more seats an day, compared to what they currently have in the alliance.

Pre alliance on an week day NZ was operating 1279 seats - post alliance that increases too 1768 seats (486 more). They have basically added to 2.5 VA 738s worth of seats.

zkncj wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ currently have 5 daily 777’s and a single A320 loaded for NW for AKL-SYD, they are filling in the gap left by VA with the 1300 ex AKL, they have a decent sized hub in AKL to fill the morning departures with American connections aswell. Plenty of time yet for schedule updates though 6 months out although I wouldn’t expect any huge changes, A321’s to be delivered maybe replace the single A320.

Both carriers will probably lose some pax, however VA’s much smaller operation would make them seem potentially more vulnerable

Comparing NS18 vs NW18 shows NZ are willing to fight, and create an capacity war.

Current NZ & VA have: 3x 77E, 2x 320, 2x 738 - 1,627 daily seats
Post Alliance NZ have: 1x 77W, 4x 777E, 1x A320 - 1768 daily seats

So post alliance NZ has (typical weekday) 141 more seats an day, compared to what they currently have in the alliance.

Pre alliance on an week day NZ was operating 1279 seats - post alliance that increases too 1768 seats (486 more). They have basically added to 2.5 VA 738s worth of seats.

What exactly will a capacity war achieve ? QF and VA had a capacity war and they both lost.

Also, I don't mean to be picky but an should be used before a vowel. Your use of an makes your posts harder to read than they should be.

DavidByrne wrote:

zkncj wrote:

The average New Zealander that has flown VA under the Tasman, has often perceived that Virgin is horrible and outdate product which they happily with share with friends when they get home.

I just came back from an AKL-MEL-HBA trip on VA, and I think I'm a pretty average NZer. I did note that there were no seat-back PTVs, but some of us actually choose cheaper airlines (because I have to pay for it myself and I'm determined to travel to the max, ergo I travel "budget" most of the time) and I'm perfectly comfortable reading the newspaper or whatever for a few hours. I think it's a myth that people HAVE to have a moving image on the screen in front of them or they believe an airline is "horrible". And I think that the average travelling public now regards a plane as more like a glorified bus and doesn't feel the need so much any more to "share with friends" about their experiences. In days gone by, yes (and I was also someone that "shared" in such a way), but now I think that's all passé.

My trip back was on TT and JQ, and they are both pretty ordinary, but hey, ordinary is just fine. I'm prepared to believe that people who pay for premium fares do really care about what they get for their money, but for the vast majority of the rest of us, I don't think people expect that much any more, nor do they especially care as long as they perceive they're getting a good deal. Apart from A-netters, that is.

Interesting post

I read recently because of social media airlines have to be more aware of the total customer travel experience, including areas of the trip out of an airlines control. For instance a poor experience going from the airport to the hotel, which would not normally fall under an airlines responsibility could result in a negative flight experience. As such, a help desk, app, etc. to help passengers for their entire journey can be the difference between a good and bad airline rating.

travelhound wrote:

I read recently because of social media airlines have to be more aware of the total customer travel experience, including areas of the trip out of an airlines control. For instance a poor experience going from the airport to the hotel, which would not normally fall under an airlines responsibility could result in a negative flight experience. As such, a help desk, app, etc. to help passengers for their entire journey can be the difference between a good and bad airline rating.

An great example social media effect - was the recent HiFly 343 on AKL-SYD on behalf of NZ, people we're posting complaints on social media which then in turn got picked up by the main stream media. Even though NZ was trying todo there best (e.g. wet lease - rather than cancel services) the media turned (by social media influence) to these aircraft are terrible.

NTLDaz wrote:

Also, I don't mean to be picky but an should be used before a vowel. Your use of an makes your posts harder to read than they should be.

It's not that picky. An and the use of incorrect words that sound similar. Suspect english is a second language that he needs some help with.

PA515

tullamarine wrote:

Once there are no Velocity points to be earned on NZ flights, most higher spending Australians will leave NZ ...

NTLDaz wrote:

It will be interesting to see how many Velocity members give NZ a wide berth ...

IMO, NZ will be fine, because:

1. High-yielding customers on short routes (like AKL - SYD) are most driven by frequency, which VA simply does not match NZ and QF on.
2. On most other drivers for high-yield, like Business Class on-board product and lounge, NZ beats VA (particularly with the 777/787 push).
3. The traditional FFP benefits like lounge access and standby privileges are already included when you're on a higher-priced ticket anyway.
4. If high-yielding VA-loyal customers are desperate to maintain some sort of FFP recognition on both carriers, they could join SQ's KrisFlyer.

The lack of points-earning will not act as that big of a disincentive to time-conscious premium passengers from using NZ's services over VA's.

Cheers,

C.

This morning's diversion QF568 PER-SYD to MEL was due to an airconditioning issue. Aircraft encountered the problem after flying over the WA/SA border, aircraft did an emergency descent to 10,000 feet where the airconditioning was restarted, the aircraft then climbed to 17,000 feet and elected to divert to MEL. All passengers on the flight were put on other services to SYD this morning

https://twitter.com/9NewsAUS/status/985070202407665664

https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/qantas-f ... b88806420z

NZ aren’t after a capacity war, however they are going to protect their market share.

The NW schedule not set in stone yet however I don’t expect the frequency to change given they just announced an additional service, some flights could get A320/321’s although through the NW I don’t expect to much to change.

They need to offer flights throughout the day for business pax, they have a flight at 1100 and 1600 and now 1300 though VA currently offer a 1300 in the JV.

There are fewer competitors on the Tasman now only fifth freedom are CI and LA ex AKL with EK and seasonal CI ex CHC and SQ ex WLG.

NTLDaz wrote:

Interesting analysis. I'm asking this as I really have no idea - is there a risk of NZ losing passengers ( Velocity members ) which will make their capacity increases vulnerable?

Surely the repercussions don't run all one way. I'm not suggesting that's what you're saying BTW.

Sure, NZ will lose some pax to VA. But when you consider that VA offers 30% of the seats within the JV but only sells 20% of the tickets, then the balance is surely in NZ's favour.

tullamarine wrote:

If VA doesn't offer suitable times, many Australians will use QF instead.

NZ can hold its own. Some will use QF for FFP reasons, but equally some will use NZ too, even if they don't want to, for a whole host of other reasons. For example, case in point - NZ's all-important domestic New Zealand connections. Even though JQ offers these too, their frequencies and timings are vastly inferior, as is their route network. Think Australian traffic to the likes of TRG (New Zealand's largest port, and fastest growing city) or NPL (New Zealand's oil and gas hub, and wealthiest region).

tullamarine wrote:

QF has about 12 M members, Velocity has about 8M members.

Good luck to VA at maintaining high-yielding FFP membership worth talking about in that '8M' figure, particularly with the withdrawal of the wide-bodies to PER (without a competitive replacement Business Class product on the narrow-bodies), and the soon-to-be massively inferior schedule and route offering to New Zealand. Velocity's partner offerings are also diminishing too, with the likes of EY pulling out of PER, leaving PER residents with SQ's inferior European and African network as the alternative.

Cheers,

C.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ aren’t after a capacity war, however they are going to protect their market share.

The NW schedule not set in stone yet however I don’t expect the frequency to change given they just announced an additional service, some flights could get A320/321’s although through the NW I don’t expect to much to change.

They need to offer flights throughout the day for business pax, they have a flight at 1100 and 1600 and now 1300 though VA currently offer a 1300 in the JV.

There are fewer competitors on the Tasman now only fifth freedom are CI and LA ex AKL with EK and seasonal CI ex CHC and SQ ex WLG.

That's what QF said when the capacity war started and they both suffered.

I wouldn’t be surprised if QF added a sixth daily SYD-AKL possibly on an A330 to not fall to far behind capacity wise. As I said less fifth freedom capacity now than there has been for a while. Interesting to read QF are looking to codeshare on CI’s Tasman routes.

planemanofnz wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

If VA doesn't offer suitable times, many Australians will use QF instead.

NZ can hold its own. Some will use QF for FFP reasons, but equally some will use NZ too, even if they don't want to, for a whole host of other reasons. For example, case in point - NZ's all-important domestic New Zealand connections. Even though JQ offers these too, their frequencies and timings are vastly inferior, as is their route network. Think Australian traffic to the likes of TRG (New Zealand's largest port, and fastest growing city) or NPL (New Zealand's oil and gas hub, and wealthiest region).


C.

But that cuts both ways. How is NZ’s schedule to CBR, TSV and DRW these days? At this stage it isn’t clear what interline agreements NZ will have in place for domestic feedb come November.

RyanairGuru wrote:

But that cuts both ways. How is NZ’s schedule to CBR, TSV and DRW these days?

Oh, I totally agree. My point was that not all of VA's customers will go just to QF, based on the FFP situation. QF and NZ will likely both get VA customers - NZ could get those from Australia wanting to travel to regional New Zealand, who may have previously used VA, and QF could get those from New Zealand wanting to travel to regional Australia, who may have previously used VA.

A further point to add is that QF already has a regional presence in New Zealand (through JQ), while NZ is well-positioned to establish a regional presence in Australia (to the likes of CBR, TSV etc, all of which have international flights, unlike the regional ports in New Zealand, such as TRG and NPL). I doubt VA could effectively take on QF or NZ on these respective market strategies.

Cheers,

C.

atcsundevil wrote:

HM7 wrote:

Can anyone explain QF12 ‘s current flight path??

I'll preface this by saying that I don't work in the New York area, so I can only speculate based on what I know about their flows.

It looks to me that the line of weather moving through the Midwest definitely played a factor. They may have been required to file a more northerly departure routing to get around it, but that would keep them north for quite a while. All arrivals into the New York area from the west follow a track just to the south of QFA12's flight path. It would probably not be ideal for them to file a more southerly departure, then deviate right (north) for weather across all of those arrival flows. As a controller, the last thing you want when you're working a busy New York flow sector is for a bunch of airplanes to be cutting across all your traffic. It's like playing a game of chicken with a 1,000kt closure rate.

They were probably given this different routing by the Traffic Management Unit (TMU) for efficiency's sake. It's interesting to me that this apparent TMU reroute pushed them into Canadian airspace, but I don't work near the border, so maybe that's common. It looks like AAL35, DAL454, and several others were given the same route, which makes me pretty sure it's a TMU reroute.

If you're interested, FlightRadar24 would give you a good idea of what the arrival flows into the northeast look like. Just apply an arrival filter for JFK, EWR, LGA, and TEB, and compare that to QFA12's route. Basically QFA12 and the others were kept north of these flows rather than the usual route that would keep them south, since they'd want to deviate north for weather anyway.

Thank you, very insightful. Now that I think about it, there have been nights when they send those flights on a really southernly route, like down past virginia

flyjetstar wrote:

TasFlyer wrote:

An update on the QF 717 situation:

For the NW18-19 period (28 Oct to 30 March), QF will continue using 737s on HBA-MEL [previously the 737 schedules had only been loaded up to 27 Oct with the old 717 schedule resuming on the 28th]; CBR-MEL is still showing some 717s for NW18-19 but this may of course change as the schedules are updated.

Either there is still a problem with the 717 operation or they are being redeployed elsewhere?

What is the issue with the 717's?

There were a couple of reliability issues for a period of time, but mostly a labour issue (Cobham crews are negotiating a new EBA, I believe).

TasFlyer has asked the same question before, and the answer remains that it appears the B717 will not regularly operate on any flights out of MEL for the NS18 season (there was a single CBR-MEL-CBR rotation operated by a B717 a couple of Saturdays ago, and a B717 positioned from CBR to MEL on Saturday just gone to operate a MEL-LST-MEL rotation (covering what seems to have been a failed Q400), then returned to CBR - so they will no doubt pop up from time to time, but are not listed in the schedule to do so). The online schedule is unreliable beyond October (perhaps even beyond about July), and is likely to change somewhat for NW18/19 over the coming months.

VA to increase flights to NZ

SYD-AKL to go 3 daily on weekdays, 2 daily on weekends

MEL-AKL increases from 11 weekly to double daily

BNE-AKL 2 daily except Saturday’s, third flight will operate Monday mornings one way and Friday evenings the other way

MEL-CHC goes from 4 weekly to a daily service

MEL-ZQN new service 3 weekly, 4 weekly during busier periods

SYD-WLG new service 4 weekly

BNE-WLG reduced from 2 daily to 9 weekly

All other routes no change

https://www.ausbt.com.au/virgin-austral ... ource=hero

Emirates SYD changes from 1 JUL 18, will continue into NW18/19

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... july-2018/

That EK B77W SYD changes dont make sense, the departure from SYD is before the aircraft arrives?

qf789 wrote:

VA to increase flights to NZ

SYD-AKL to go 3 daily on weekdays, 2 daily on weekends

MEL-AKL increases from 11 weekly to double daily

BNE-AKL 2 daily except Saturday’s, third flight will operate Monday mornings one way and Friday evenings the other way

MEL-CHC goes from 4 weekly to a daily service

MEL-ZQN new service 3 weekly, 4 weekly during busier periods

SYD-WLG new service 4 weekly

BNE-WLG reduced from 2 daily to 9 weekly

All other routes no change

https://www.ausbt.com.au/virgin-austral ... ource=hero

Good luck to VA, but they're in a "quadruple whammy" situation right now:

* Increased capacity by NZ will put pressure on them
* Loss of pax booked on VA flights by NZ will reduce their loads (at the same time that they're increasing capacity)
* Some of the VA-booked pax will at the same time defect to QF because the offering is not going to be nearly as convenient as the VA/NZ JV offered.
* And now, with the decision to increase their offering significantly, they've got a whole lot more seats to fill that they need to find pax for

I don't know how good the VA marketing strategy is in Australia, but I can assure you that here in NZ there is almost zero VA marketing in major newspapers, radio, TV etc. If they want to attract NZers to fill these new flights (and to fill up the old ones as well) then they have a serious marketing and image issue to get on with.

As I say, good luck to them. But I think it will be a very difficult task to get themselves independently established on the Tasman.

DavidByrne wrote:

qf789 wrote:

VA to increase flights to NZ

SYD-AKL to go 3 daily on weekdays, 2 daily on weekends

MEL-AKL increases from 11 weekly to double daily

BNE-AKL 2 daily except Saturday’s, third flight will operate Monday mornings one way and Friday evenings the other way

MEL-CHC goes from 4 weekly to a daily service

MEL-ZQN new service 3 weekly, 4 weekly during busier periods

SYD-WLG new service 4 weekly

BNE-WLG reduced from 2 daily to 9 weekly

All other routes no change

https://www.ausbt.com.au/virgin-austral ... ource=hero

Good luck to VA, but they're in a "quadruple whammy" situation right now:

* Increased capacity by NZ will put pressure on them
* Loss of pax booked on VA flights by NZ will reduce their loads (at the same time that they're increasing capacity)
* Some of the VA-booked pax will at the same time defect to QF because the offering is not going to be nearly as convenient as the VA/NZ JV offered.
* And now, with the decision to increase their offering significantly, they've got a whole lot more seats to fill that they need to find pax for

I don't know how good the VA marketing strategy is in Australia, but I can assure you that here in NZ there is almost zero VA marketing in major newspapers, radio, TV etc. If they want to attract NZers to fill these new flights (and to fill up the old ones as well) then they have a serious marketing and image issue to get on with.

As I say, good luck to them. But I think it will be a very difficult task to get themselves independently established on the Tasman.

I agree.

If you are flying from an Australian city serviced by ANZ, the better option for NZ connecting flights will always be ANZ (of QF/JQ). Either VA subsidise the connecting flight or they try and ask their Australian passengers to pay the premium. Either option isn't looking good to me.

All we need now is a competitive response from QANTAS. The yields on the Trans Tasman will take a beating.

I suspect I will going to New Zealand for holidays this year. The only problem will be trying to find a hotel room.

DeltaB717 wrote:

flyjetstar wrote:

TasFlyer wrote:

An update on the QF 717 situation:

For the NW18-19 period (28 Oct to 30 March), QF will continue using 737s on HBA-MEL [previously the 737 schedules had only been loaded up to 27 Oct with the old 717 schedule resuming on the 28th]; CBR-MEL is still showing some 717s for NW18-19 but this may of course change as the schedules are updated.

Either there is still a problem with the 717 operation or they are being redeployed elsewhere?

What is the issue with the 717's?

There were a couple of reliability issues for a period of time, but mostly a labour issue (Cobham crews are negotiating a new EBA, I believe).

TasFlyer has asked the same question before, and the answer remains that it appears the B717 will not regularly operate on any flights out of MEL for the NS18 season (there was a single CBR-MEL-CBR rotation operated by a B717 a couple of Saturdays ago, and a B717 positioned from CBR to MEL on Saturday just gone to operate a MEL-LST-MEL rotation (covering what seems to have been a failed Q400), then returned to CBR - so they will no doubt pop up from time to time, but are not listed in the schedule to do so). The online schedule is unreliable beyond October (perhaps even beyond about July), and is likely to change somewhat for NW18/19 over the coming months.

I agree the NW18-19 schedules are unreliable in general; but, given HBA-MEL has just had the 717 replaced by 73H for NW18-19 (with different timings to the NS18 73H flights) we can take that part as reliable. The other 717 routes (e.g. MEL-CBR, HBA-SYD) will hopefully be updated soon.

[twoid][/twoid]

qf789 wrote:

Emirates SYD changes from 1 JUL 18, will continue into NW18/19

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... july-2018/

That can’t be the end of it as that leaves the 77W in SYD for 23 hours. I sincerely doubt that they are looking at another tag route so I suspect that there will be more schedule changes to come. I wouldn’t be shocked if EK418/419 became a 77W in this scenario as the aircraft could be routed EK418/EK417 and EK416/419.

ZK-NBT wrote:

I wouldn’t be surprised if QF added a sixth daily SYD-AKL possibly on an A330 to not fall to far behind capacity wise. As I said less fifth freedom capacity now than there has been for a while. Interesting to read QF are looking to codeshare on CI’s Tasman routes.

How much slack does QF currently have there A332 fleet? With AKL-SYD 2x Daily, AKL-MEL 2x Daily and AKL-BNE 1x Daily. Wouldn't that already be consuming around 3-3.5ish aircraft allocations? Would the reaming East/West services have to be downgraded to 738s?

If they we're to increase beyond the current of A332 service into AKL, it would surely come to an point when they would need to say soft base an fleet of 4-5 here (Like JQNZ's fleet - which is just rotated out on the Tasman).

It makes more to operate AKL-SYD-AKL-SYD-AKL or AKL-MEL-AKL-MEL-AKL due to time zones.

tullamarine wrote:

NZ are in much the same situation and trans-Tasman is a much bigger part of their revenue makeup than it is for VA or QF who both have a domestic market many times bigger than the NZ domestic market to fall back on (and QF have a very profitable international market as well). An extended fare war is not good for any of the players but it is likely to materially affect NZ more.

I'm not sure that's correct, but I'm open to the argument. VA offered 30% of the JV capacity, but only sold 20% of the seats, so the removal of the JV surely impacts VA and benefits NZ if we assume that each carrier is able to place the seats previously booked on the other carrier on its own metal in future. Logically, this means that NZ would need to increase capacity to maintain a similar average load factor, but VA would have to decrease capacity to avoid the LF falling through the floor. That VA has chosen to increase capacity at a time when its loads are going to drop seems a very brave response.

There is also the possibility of NZ and VA pax defecting to other carriers - QF/JQ predominantly, on the basis that their new individual offerings are significantly less convenient than the JV offering. In NZ's case, it has compensated for the loss of many of the VA flights, and the total offering across the Tasman will be a little down in the number of flights compared with the JV. While VA has added some flights, their new total offering comes nowhere near the offering in the former JV. I'd on that basis expect VA pax to be far more susceptible to poaching by QF/JQ than NZ pax.

You're right in that the result could be an air fare war, but I don't see how the size of the VA domestic market is going to be their salvation. A loss of revenue is a loss of revenue, and a carrier which is "nearly profitable" (VA) is surely going to find it tough competing in a fare war with a carrier which is "very profitable" (NZ). Have I missed something in my logic?

zkncj wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

I wouldn’t be surprised if QF added a sixth daily SYD-AKL possibly on an A330 to not fall to far behind capacity wise. As I said less fifth freedom capacity now than there has been for a while. Interesting to read QF are looking to codeshare on CI’s Tasman routes.

How much slack does QF currently have there A332 fleet? With AKL-SYD 2x Daily, AKL-MEL 2x Daily and AKL-BNE 1x Daily. Wouldn't that already be consuming around 3-3.5ish aircraft allocations? Would the reaming East/West services have to be downgraded to 738s?

If they we're to increase beyond the current of A332 service into AKL, it would surely come to an point when they would need to say soft base an fleet of 4-5 here (Like JQNZ's fleet - which is just rotated out on the Tasman).

It makes more to operate AKL-SYD-AKL-SYD-AKL or AKL-MEL-AKL-MEL-AKL due to time zones.

QF really only uses about 2 -2.5 frames for their AKL flights. They are timed well enough to dovetail into the existing PER flights and filter through the network.

Ie
BNEAKL 0845/1355
AKLSYD 1515/1655
SYDAKL 1830/2330
AKLSYD 0650/0830
SYDAKL 0955/1500
AKLBNE 1625/1820
BNEPER 2020/2330
and then a different 332 comes through on the red-eye from PER to operate the morning BNE-AKL
MELAKL 1045/1620
AKLMEL 1800/2015
MELAKL 2315/0445
AKLMEL 1200/1415 then onto the 1615 to SIN

With some jiggling around, perhaps another frequency across the tasman could be upgauged, but is there much need at this point?

I would love QF to be a little more interesting across the tasman. Beat NZ to the punch and operate CBR-AKL. Bring back ADL-AKL and go year round to PER.

zkncj wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

I wouldn’t be surprised if QF added a sixth daily SYD-AKL possibly on an A330 to not fall to far behind capacity wise. As I said less fifth freedom capacity now than there has been for a while. Interesting to read QF are looking to codeshare on CI’s Tasman routes.

How much slack does QF currently have there A332 fleet? With AKL-SYD 2x Daily, AKL-MEL 2x Daily and AKL-BNE 1x Daily. Wouldn't that already be consuming around 3-3.5ish aircraft allocations? Would the reaming East/West services have to be downgraded to 738s?

If they we're to increase beyond the current of A332 service into AKL, it would surely come to an point when they would need to say soft base an fleet of 4-5 here (Like JQNZ's fleet - which is just rotated out on the Tasman).

It makes more to operate AKL-SYD-AKL-SYD-AKL or AKL-MEL-AKL-MEL-AKL due to time zones.

They don’t need to base aircraft in AKL, they overnight AKL anyway and do as you say AKL-SYD-AKL-BNE-PER-BNE-AKL-SYD or something like that for the A332 that does AKL-BNE. They would need 3 frames for the current Tasman routes. All the A332’s have the same config so rotate onto other routes both domestic and international, bar the 2 unrefurbished frames that do SYD-PEK mainly.

Personally I’m surprised at the 2 MEL-AKL flights they do, I’d have expected the other 2 flights the early flight ex AKL and the evening departure ex MEL rather than the redeye, think it’s to increase utilisation. Same ex SYD probably the last flight rather than the 1600 one.

AKL 0630 MEL 0840 MEL 1005 AKL 1540 AKL 1800 SYD 1940
AKL 0650 SYD 0830 SYD 0955 AKL 1500 AKL 1625 BNE 1810
BNE 0845 AKL 1355 AKL 1520 MEL 1730 MEL 1855 AKL 0030

That doesn’t work that well maybe, there is also an evening SYD-AKL.

qantas747 wrote:

I would love QF to be a little more interesting across the tasman. Beat NZ to the punch and operate CBR-AKL. Bring back ADL-AKL and go year round to PER.

I agree, particularly with CBR-AKL. It's a route that is going to happen eventually anyway so QF might as well grab the first mover advantage while NZ is preoccupied with other things. It's also a route where QF's two class configuration will give them an advantage over NZ's single class A320s.