ZK-NBT wrote:

A 737 operating costs are a lot lower than a 777.

It's just not going to happen - as long as WLG needs to be a one-stop service, that service will go through one of the main ports, like BNE, MEL or SYD, as opposed to ADL, CBR or CNS, because fifth-freedom traffic between Australia and New Zealand will be needed to top up the service (SIN - WLG traffic isn't enough). Even with a 737 flying on SIN - CBR - WLG, and with SIN - WLG traffic, there would not be enough CBR - WLG traffic to sustain the increased frequency of a narrow-body tag to WLG that you're talking about. As it's highly unlikely that SQ would ever deploy a narrow-body to BNE, MEL or SYD, WLG is highly likely to continue to receive a wide-body from SQ in the future.

Aside from this, there are other reasons too, such as i) VA deliberately not launching MEL - WLG, while launching SYD - WLG, potentially allowing for a Tasman VA - SQ tie-up on MEL - WLG, ii) SQ having a premium brand position in the long-haul market, which deploying a narrow-body to a destination more than 5,000 mi away from SIN would be inconsistent with, and iii) a wide-body being able to lift bigger individual cargo items than a narrow-body ever could, giving SQ, at least on the cargo front, a mitigating factor for the stop ex-WLG in Australia. IMO, you're more likely to see SQ's 737's be deployed regionally to non-stop destinations ex-SIN, of which there are many options before WLG:



Cheers,

C.

Who knows if there is any merit to this or not, but it seems that VN is launching AKL via PHE!

... plans for flights to Auckland with Vietnam Airlines from March, 2019

See: https://thewest.com.au/news/north-west- ... b88840296z.



There are still lots of unanswered questions, like whether this will be flown by a narrow-body.

IMO, this is risky against NZ's non-stop AKL - SGN service. Why won't VN go non-stop too?

Cheers,

C.

I'm a bit bemused by the antagonism on this thread toward the idea that WLG might some day have long-haul services. Forgive me for reducing the discussion to the most simplistic, but
(1) WLG will get a longer runway only if the owners decide to finance it. Infratil in particular is not going to pony up its share unless it is pretty confident that it will get a return on its investment.
(2) NZ is surely the carrier with the most to lose if the runway is extended - we should read its opposition to an extension in the light of that, and not take anything it says as anything more than patch-protection
(3) That WLG has so far not attracted serious interest from long-haul carriers other than SQ is not evidence that there is no market, but rather that the runway length doesn't permit their operations nonstop (which most carriers would require in order to make a buck)
(4) You don't need to look that far back to see that CHC struggled to attract long-haul carriers initially, even with the runway length it has, but now has a thriving (but limited) long-haul sector

I find it ironic to be spouting "free market" principles, as I'm not really a free marketeer at all, but this is one of those situations where the market will ultimately decide, no matter what any of us on this thread think. If a runway is built, it will be because the shareholders are prepared to risk their money. If new long-haul airlines service the airport, it will be because they've done their sums and think they can turn a profit. We don't need to worry about whether it will be successful or not because (unless we are ratepayers within the WCC area) we won't be risking our money.

It seems to me that many who dismiss the idea of WLG attracting long-haul services are actually arguing against a runway extension, rather than long haul services per se. Let's assume, just for a moment, that the runway fairy does flash her wand over Rongotai, and a 9,000 ft runway does appear. What then? Will people actively discourage potential new long-haul entrants as wasting their cash and energy? Will they still insist that SIN should remain served via MEL, rather than direct from SIN? I think not!

Which make me wonder again - why all the antagonism about extending the runway? Are we that much in thrall to protecting NZ's market position that we actively want to stop Infratil and the WCC risking their money to extend the runway? If not, why the angst over a possible extension? It's got me scratching my head. Will we see an active campaign on this thread to try to stop VN operating SGN-PHE-AKL because it's clearly not going to be viable? Or will we just be prepared to see them risk their money and hope that we're surprised by the outcome? [Not that I seriously think that one will ever get off the ground, but I'd be delighted if they gave it a go]

planemanofnz wrote:

Who knows if there is any merit to this or not, but it seems that VN is launching AKL via PHE!

... plans for flights to Auckland with Vietnam Airlines from March, 2019

See: https://thewest.com.au/news/north-west- ... b88840296z.



There are still lots of unanswered questions, like whether this will be flown by a narrow-body.

IMO, this is risky against NZ's non-stop AKL - SGN service. Why won't VN go non-stop too?
C.

The way I read the presso is that it's being promoted as a series of charter flights by the local business community, not by VN. And that's why it's not non-stop - it's a local venture, not a VN venture. I'll be surprised if it lasts until the mooted extension to AKL in March next year. And it is only "mooted".

We must also be able to place New Zealand in the world. Were a small island nation in the pacific with a population of 4.5 million reknowned for being a low yield destination. With 33% of our total trade going being with Australia.
Its not about picking and choosing how many ports that's served by Asian/foreign airlines. They arent lining up to serve us with 5 departures a day like SYD. The thought that a runway extension would provide Wellington with a plethora of Asian airlines is a dream that makes little sense. The costs for this does not in anyway justify the traffic that can be expected. When i read thoughts such as VN will serve Wellington I get really scared. They wont, unless someone subsidies the route - look at traffic figures...

For the country to see its greatest benefit we need one strong primary gateway. That gateway is Auckland. Its perfectly situated to serve every destination in Asia. A great Auckland airport would allow us to improve the total cake of service to New Zealand further. A new combined terminal would be the best investment for the provinces. Such an investment would if done right help improve not just inetrnational but also provincial service by providing a really attractive large hub in the right end of the country.
Seamless transitions between domestic/International in Auckland is a win/win for both provincial towns and New Zealand Ltd.

NZ6 wrote:

This is another reason AKL should sort their 's**t' out and make the domestic terminal integrated with the international one asap, making the transit process so appealing and world class therefore having Wellingtonians want to transit in AKL aka SIN

Finally someone states the obvious. Wel is not the answer. Whatever money a few down there want to spend on a lengthened runway, out of hubris, is better directed towards an integrated terminal in Auckland. It will never happen of course but...

MillwallSean wrote:

The thought that a runway extension would provide Wellington with a plethora of Asian airlines is a dream that makes little sense. The costs for this does not in anyway justify the traffic that can be expected. . .

For the country to see its greatest benefit we need one strong primary gateway. That gateway is Auckland. Its perfectly situated to serve every destination in Asia. . .

Finally someone states the obvious. Wel is not the answer. Whatever money a few down there want to spend on a lengthened runway, out of hubris, is better directed towards an integrated terminal in Auckland. It will never happen of course but...

Again, I don't understand why so many are exercised about the costs and are ready to dismiss the idea out of hand for this reason. Any money from Infratil or WCC that is "not invested" in WLG is not going to be transferred north to develop AKL, so it's not an "either/or" situation in terms of investment.

Where it may be an "either/or" situation is in terms of passenger traffic. Traffic that would prefer to use WLG but can't because the runway is too short will certainly use AKL (or CHC). There seems to be an assumption that this would somehow be "good for New Zealand", but no one actually says in what way the nation benefits through this centralisation. But, absent a national strategy that says that AKL and CHC are the two national long-haul gateways, and that no other port should even try for these pax, then WLG is free to give it a go. Which it has done, through bringing SQ to the capital. But no one is arguing that WLG shouldn't be allowed one-stop long-haul services, so this shoots down the "two-gateway" strategy from the outset. Indeed, people are even talking about SIN-SYD-ZQN as a serious option (which I find less serious than WLG, but never mind), so there's an implicit acceptance that there's an open opportunity for other airports to attract long-haul traffic.

The conclusion I draw is that in some posters' minds, one-stop long-haul services to WLG and/or ZQN are OK, but nonstops are not OK. The only reason that nonstops are dismissed is because to accommodate them, the runway would need to be extended. Which will happen, or not happen, according to the shareholders' willingness to invest, but won't affect passengers flying out of AKL or CHC. The only reasoning I can come up with is that many people have bought into NZ's "patch-protection" opposition, and there is a fear that NZ may suffer if WLG gets long-haul services.

Don't get me wrong - I doubt very much that WLG would be successful as a long-haul port. But for the life of me, I can't think why the decision cannot be left to the airport owners and the airlines to either try and fail or try and succeed. For all my scepticism, I'm not losing any sleep over either possibility.

[deleted]

We can forget about any runway extension at WLG under a left wing government. Regardless of the financial realities of the project the political message it would send would be unpalatable to the constituency.

Which means no long haul services out of WLG anytime soon for that reason alone - aside from the fact, as many others have pointed out there is no tangible evidence of demand.

MillwallSean wrote:

For the country to see its greatest benefit we need one strong primary gateway. That gateway is Auckland.

With all due respect, nobody is suggesting that AKL's status as the country's gateway be challenged by WLG securing one, two or god forbid, even three long-haul flights. There are several airlines who have already built up AKL to a point that, while they are unlikely to add further services to AKL, they may add services to a new destination - think the likes of CZ, who already have 2x daily AKL and 1x daily CHC flights during the peak season. I don't see CZ adding a third daily AKL flight, but if WLG has a runway extension, they may add flights there, particularly with WLG having the second highest 'un-served by non-stop' demand to China in Oceania (behind NAN, but ahead of CBR). Other airlines in this boat in the 2020's and 2030's could include CX and EK.

Cheers,

C.

Gasman wrote:

We can forget about any runway extension at WLG under a left wing government. Regardless of the financial realities of the project the political message it would send would be unpalatable to the constituency.

Which means no long haul services out of WLG anytime soon for that reason alone - aside from the fact, as many others have pointed out there is no tangible evidence of demand.

Don't get the logic here. WIAL is a limited company, and central government can't arbitrarily tell them what to do or what not to do. If they want to lengthen the runway, it's a matter of an application for consent under the RMA, which will succeed or fail on its merits. RMA processes are quasi-judicial, and go to the Environment Court if appealed, so short of interfering in the judicial process there's no way for central government to dictate what will and what won't happen.

DavidByrne wrote:

Gasman wrote:

We can forget about any runway extension at WLG under a left wing government. Regardless of the financial realities of the project the political message it would send would be unpalatable to the constituency.

Which means no long haul services out of WLG anytime soon for that reason alone - aside from the fact, as many others have pointed out there is no tangible evidence of demand.

Don't get the logic here.

The logic is...............

DavidByrne wrote:

WIAL is a limited company, and central government can't arbitrarily tell them what to do or what not to do. If they want to lengthen the runway, it's a matter of an application for consent under the RMA, which will succeed or fail on its merits. RMA processes are quasi-judicial, and go to the Environment Court if appealed, so short of interfering in the judicial process there's no way for central government to dictate what will and what won't happen.

........ Labour voters won't get this ^ logic. They'll see a massive infrastructure project which they will believe is funded indirectly by the taxpayer via stealth.

Gasman wrote:

........ Labour voters won't get this ^ logic. They'll see a massive infrastructure project which they will believe is funded indirectly by the taxpayer via stealth.

You may well be right. But that doesn’t provide a mechanism whereby the government can legally interfere. Labour may just have to suck it up.

MillwallSean wrote:

We must also be able to place New Zealand in the world. Were a small island nation in the pacific with a population of 4.5 million reknowned for being a low yield destination. With 33% of our total trade going being with Australia.
Its not about picking and choosing how many ports that's served by Asian/foreign airlines. They arent lining up to serve us with 5 departures a day like SYD. The thought that a runway extension would provide Wellington with a plethora of Asian airlines is a dream that makes little sense. The costs for this does not in anyway justify the traffic that can be expected. When i read thoughts such as VN will serve Wellington I get really scared. They wont, unless someone subsidies the route - look at traffic figures...

For the country to see its greatest benefit we need one strong primary gateway. That gateway is Auckland. Its perfectly situated to serve every destination in Asia. A great Auckland airport would allow us to improve the total cake of service to New Zealand further. A new combined terminal would be the best investment for the provinces. Such an investment would if done right help improve not just inetrnational but also provincial service by providing a really attractive large hub in the right end of the country.
Seamless transitions between domestic/International in Auckland is a win/win for both provincial towns and New Zealand Ltd.

NZ6 wrote:

This is another reason AKL should sort their 's**t' out and make the domestic terminal integrated with the international one asap, making the transit process so appealing and world class therefore having Wellingtonians want to transit in AKL aka SIN

Finally someone states the obvious. Wel is not the answer. Whatever money a few down there want to spend on a lengthened runway, out of hubris, is better directed towards an integrated terminal in Auckland. It will never happen of course but...

Commendations on the dramatics but I’d like to draw your attention to New Zealand’s largest trading partner, China.

Also, I don’t think anyone is suggesting a runway extension would bring a “plethora” of new Asian carriers. But there are Chinese carriers aggressively looking to extend their international ops.

The conservative here, including myself, have been advocating an initial runway extension to accommodate existing trans-Tasman operations that are not passenger or freight limited, whether WB or NB. This would allow for safety over-runs etc too.

If this works to make WLG a busier and more profitable destination for airlines, it would also make it a more desirable port for further operations and perhaps provide the impetus to make the long-haul runway extension.

ZK-NBT wrote:

1. A 737 operating costs are a lot lower than a 777.
2. It’s not about what I would rather as a plane geek, the average joe wouldn’t have a clue what aircraft they are on, I’d take a widebody any day btw.
3a. The rebranding looks to start in 2020, CBR now has a stop inbound.
3b. Not sure but if it means they can profitability serve some different markets 13 hours away with a stop, in not sure I see why not, as I say I’d prefer a widebody myself.

re 2) I think the travelling public (especially returning customers) are often more informed than we give them credit for - plenty of people wouldn't describe themselves as plane geeks (or visit A.Net) but do look up a thing or two about planes as they travel. And there's a general perception that if you're flying on a long haul flight you can expect the plane to be pretty big. There'll be a bunch of unsuspecting customers that rock up to the gate, look at the 737 Max, look to the side at the other 737 and A320 flying domestic and trans-Tasman, see the lack of significant difference and say "We're flying to Singapore in THAT? I thought this was a long haul service..."

When airlines, crews, travel agents and fellow travellers talk so much about what type of airplane you'll be flying on, and finding out more about it is a simple google or wiki away, it takes a pretty oblivious traveller these days to not at least notice the difference between a 777 and a 737.

re 3b) But it's a market they already serve - even before they started the SIN-CBR-WLG and SIN-MEL-WLG, they have been serving WLG on a one-stop basis. Via AKL on NZ codeshare domestic (since both are Star Alliance even before the JV partnership.) If they terminate WLG altogether when the subsidy runs out, then they'll simply accommodate the WLG travellers via AKL - or any of the Australian ports - on NZ codeshare.

I have been thinking this morning, there are two separate but related issues regarding WLG.

1. WLG runway extension, $500M cost estimate with a disputed $1.5-$2.3B economic benefit.
2. International Long haul operations ex WLG

Regarding point 1, some people are against extending the runway into the harbor 350m, either because it's not worth it financially or the environmental impact etc, to me I'm not bothered either way.

My comments have been targeted around point 2 only.

Re point one, I'm not personally bothered by the environmental impact. If WLG can argue the an extension will have return on investment without the long haul ops (point 2) then build it. I just can't see how 1 and 2 are not hard wired together, where is the return coming from without long haul Ops?

For example, if it was built today and there were no long haul operations how has it benefited WLG? If NZ wanted to operate a domestic 787 they could today, they can run it on the Tasman also, the proof is in SQ, so my argument is why is is required?

it seems it's only required for long haul, yet WLG hasn't got commitment from a carrier that will actually use it. So arguably it could be a $500 white elephant? or an expense today which will benefit WLG sometime in the future 15+ years?

Regarding NZ's 'neglect' of WLG, I think it's a simple miss-understanding of the business model NZ like most airlines these days use. I don't want to patronize anyone here as I'm sure you've all heard about the Hub and Spoke method, that's all NZ's doing, Most airlines use it.

The bigger your network or bigger the population base the more 'Hubs' you can have, is WLG and NZ (country) big enough for 2-3 long haul hubs? If you're not familiar with it google it but
here's a couple of links (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoke%E2%80%93hub_distribution_paradigm, https://mse135.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/airline-networks-from-hub-and-spoke-to-point-to-point-networks/)

NZ6 wrote:

it seems it's only required for long haul, yet WLG hasn't got commitment from a carrier that will actually use it. So arguably it could be a $500 white elephant? or an expense today which will benefit WLG sometime in the future 15+ years?

Maybe it would - we won't know until it's built - LOL.

I get depressed at this sentiment, expressed here, that Air New Zealand's way is the only way.

mariner

Gasman wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

Gasman wrote:

We can forget about any runway extension at WLG under a left wing government. Regardless of the financial realities of the project the political message it would send would be unpalatable to the constituency.

Which means no long haul services out of WLG anytime soon for that reason alone - aside from the fact, as many others have pointed out there is no tangible evidence of demand.

Don't get the logic here.

The logic is...............

DavidByrne wrote:

WIAL is a limited company, and central government can't arbitrarily tell them what to do or what not to do. If they want to lengthen the runway, it's a matter of an application for consent under the RMA, which will succeed or fail on its merits. RMA processes are quasi-judicial, and go to the Environment Court if appealed, so short of interfering in the judicial process there's no way for central government to dictate what will and what won't happen.

........ Labour voters won't get this ^ logic. They'll see a massive infrastructure project which they will believe is funded indirectly by the taxpayer via stealth.

Ummmmm, you do know the local council has been pushing for this for years and those elected tend towards the Green/Labour alignment.

Anyways, I'd love to see a runway extension. It's the cheapest of the reasonable options. I think it would attract a few asian carriers as the end of a spoke. Air NZ and Qantas are quite happy with the status quo so are understanably against any extension. Basically all stuff I've said before when this has come up.

I'll leave it up the WIAL to come to a decision and the consent process to proceed. It won't be the end of the world if no extension is made as traffic to the airport seems to be increasing anyways.

mariner wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

it seems it's only required for long haul, yet WLG hasn't got commitment from a carrier that will actually use it. So arguably it could be a $500 white elephant? or an expense today which will benefit WLG sometime in the future 15+ years?

Maybe it would - we won't know until it's built - LOL.

I get depressed at this sentiment, expressed here, that Air New Zealand's way is the only way.

mariner

Do you really think a sensible business would spend $500 million to find out if maybe carriers would use it? That's the same as saying it's a half billion dollar gamble and it might be for nothing.

I'm not saying it's the only way. All I'm saying is NZ's model doesn't fit with what WLG wants to achieve so it's only open to foreign carriers flying in.

NZ6 wrote:

I have been thinking this morning, there are two separate but related issues regarding WLG.

1. WLG runway extension, $500M cost estimate with a disputed $1.5-$2.3B economic benefit.
2. International Long haul operations ex WLG

. . . it seems [the runway extension is] only required for long haul, yet WLG hasn't got commitment from a carrier that will actually use it. So arguably it could be a $500 white elephant? or an expense today which will benefit WLG sometime in the future 15+ years?

I think you're right to separate the two issues, and of course they are interrelated, as you suggest. However, I think it's quite unrealistic to expect any airline to commit to a route that it will operate in several years' time, after the runway extensions are complete. If that was the criterion for airport extensions, there would be precious few airports extended (or built, for that matter). Airport development is always a leap of faith that the current strategy/growth trajectory will not be derailed by external events or other changes in the meantime.

I appreciate that the economic benefit is disputed (naturally, by the opponents of the extension, of which NZ has to be the foremost). While the NZ government is on the sidelines on this issue, compared with most of the infrastructure projects that previous governments have been willing to hitch their wagons to (I'm in particular thinking of National's RONS highway projects) the B/C ratio for Wellington Airport extension, on the basis of the benefits claimed, is stellar - in the range 3.0 to 4.6. Even if that's wildly optimistic, it would presumably still work out better than these RONS projects, which had B/Cs less than 1.0 - or even (some of them) negative. I didn't know the claimed B/C ratio for WLG extensions until your post - but having seen them I think that the project is far more viable than I ever imagined.

NZ6 wrote:

Regarding NZ's 'neglect' of WLG, I think it's a simple miss-understanding of the business model NZ like most airlines these days use. I don't want to patronize anyone here as I'm sure you've all heard about the Hub and Spoke method, that's all NZ's doing, Most airlines use it.

The bigger your network or bigger the population base the more 'Hubs' you can have, is WLG and NZ (country) big enough for 2-3 long haul hubs? If you're not familiar with it google it but
here's a couple of links (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoke%E2%80%93hub_distribution_paradigm, https://mse135.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/airline-networks-from-hub-and-spoke-to-point-to-point-networks/)

I don't think anyone is proposing that NZ set up a hub at WLG. The argument is that foreign carriers may prefer to increase their service offering to New Zealand by diversifying away from Auckland (and saving their pax an intermediate transit stop). I can't see NZ operating a second hub at WLG or CHC for the very long term foreseeable future. NZ's opposition to the extension is in strong measure a fear that other carriers will get the jump on them by flying direct where NZ flies via AKL. Much though I'm a strong supporter of the national carrier, I do not want to buy into any malignant strategy to block other carriers' preferred route options.

[quote="NZ6"]Do you really think a sensible business would spend $500 million to find out if [b]maybe[/b] carriers would use it? That's the same as saying it's a half billion dollar gamble and it might be for nothing.[/quote]

WE won't know, we here on a.net. We who set ourselves as authorities on everything but in fact know very little.

mariner

DavidJ08 wrote:

I think the travelling public (especially returning customers) are often more informed than we give them credit for - plenty of people wouldn't describe themselves as plane geeks (or visit A.Net) but do look up a thing or two about planes as they travel. And there's a general perception that if you're flying on a long haul flight you can expect the plane to be pretty big. There'll be a bunch of unsuspecting customers that rock up to the gate, look at the 737 Max, look to the side at the other 737 and A320 flying domestic and trans-Tasman, see the lack of significant difference and say "We're flying to Singapore in THAT? I thought this was a long haul service..."

I beg to disagree. I think that those of us who work or play in the av-bubble have some difficulty seeing aviation as others do. For so many people, travelling by air is now just akin to catching a bus. The romance, the excitement of the journey have faded into the past for most people, alas.

Just an observation, though: it's not THAT many years ago when no one thought twice about travelling around the world in a narrow body aircraft - because that's all there were. The 747 changed that, and we went from 140-seaters to 420-seaters almost overnight. More recently, though, we're seeing a gradual trend toward smaller wide bodies for long-haul routes, which have become quite diversified, and this is surely a trend that will continue. At the same time, narrow body aircraft that were previously short-range have been developed to the point where their latest incarnations (such as the A321LR) are almost as range-capable as the early 707s and DC8s. It may take time, but airlines will surely make use of these capabilities and we will see long-haul operations on narrow bodies that we previously would have baulked at. Look at SilkAir's SIN-CNS, for example - or some of the budget carriers' operations across the Atlantic. These have very quickly become "ordinary" for large numbers of the travelling public. Perhaps not for all passengers, but there will obviously still be wide-body choices (with a transit en route) that will avoid these long-haul point-to-point services.

As an aside, I recall that when NZ and QF brought in 737s on the Tasman, there were many who were horrified that they were not travelling on a 767. We've certainly accepted that now, and even embraced it.

What's going on at ZQN? Planes circling, NZ621 appears to have diverted to CHC

DavidByrne wrote:

DavidJ08 wrote:

I think the travelling public (especially returning customers) are often more informed than we give them credit for - plenty of people wouldn't describe themselves as plane geeks (or visit A.Net) but do look up a thing or two about planes as they travel. And there's a general perception that if you're flying on a long haul flight you can expect the plane to be pretty big. There'll be a bunch of unsuspecting customers that rock up to the gate, look at the 737 Max, look to the side at the other 737 and A320 flying domestic and trans-Tasman, see the lack of significant difference and say "We're flying to Singapore in THAT? I thought this was a long haul service..."

I beg to disagree. I think that those of us who work or play in the av-bubble have some difficulty seeing aviation as others do. For so many people, travelling by air is now just akin to catching a bus. The romance, the excitement of the journey have faded into the past for most people, alas.

Just an observation, though: it's not THAT many years ago when no one thought twice about travelling around the world in a narrow body aircraft - because that's all there were. The 747 changed that, and we went from 140-seaters to 420-seaters almost overnight. More recently, though, we're seeing a gradual trend toward smaller wide bodies for long-haul routes, which have become quite diversified, and this is surely a trend that will continue. At the same time, narrow body aircraft that were previously short-range have been developed to the point where their latest incarnations (such as the A321LR) are almost as range-capable as the early 707s and DC8s. It may take time, but airlines will surely make use of these capabilities and we will see long-haul operations on narrow bodies that we previously would have baulked at. Look at SilkAir's SIN-CNS, for example - or some of the budget carriers' operations across the Atlantic. These have very quickly become "ordinary" for large numbers of the travelling public. Perhaps not for all passengers, but there will obviously still be wide-body choices (with a transit en route) that will avoid these long-haul point-to-point services.

As an aside, I recall that when NZ and QF brought in 737s on the Tasman, there were many who were horrified that they were not travelling on a 767. We've certainly accepted that now, and even embraced it.

I tend to agree to Davidbyrne here the thing is NZ as a country is so far from anywhere that widebodies with a long range have been required and still are. I remember as a young kid seeing AA, CP, GA, CO DC10’s and UA, CO, BA, JL 747’s early in the morning with NZ and QF 747’s and 767’s. Everything else from Asia SQ, CX, TG, MH was the same later in the day. The main thing now is a lot more smaller widebodies 777’s 787’s, A330, A350’s with a handful of 747’s and A380’s serving the NZ market.

One that amuses me current is the Philippine thread where in order to boost AKL flights some mention the thought of the A321LR MNL-AKL, your looking at 11hrs, way to far, but I may eat my own words and it just might me doable in 15-20 years, quite different to an A320 via CNS.

It comes up from time to time NZ and the A321LR but routes like HNL and PER would be about the only viable routes and they are generally a minimum of 6 weekly 787/777 with upto 12 weekly in peak so not really a need for such an aircraft unless they look to CHC more but it gets a seasonal PER service which isn’t frequency sensitive, who knows could they do a 2 weekly CHC-HNL June/September?

Back to the original point it makes sense for NZ/QF to run multiple daily 737/A320 on the Tasman, but NZ have always maintained widebody service ex AKL to SYD/MEL/BNE on some flights which is increasing and QF went all 737 for years have recently reintroduced A330’s ex AKL to SYD/MEL/BNE which imo might well increase as there is only a need for a certain number of flights.

Will we see SQ run a 738 to WLG via OZ daily? I personally wouldn’t rule it out but if a widebody can be sustainable that’s well and good otherwise the route will go in favour of codeshares again. VA not adding MEL-WLG is interesting.

ZK-NBT wrote:

I tend to agree to Davidbyrne here the thing is NZ as a country is so far from anywhere that widebodies with a long range have been required and still are. I remember as a young kid seeing AA, CP, GA, CO DC10’s and UA, CO, BA, JL 747’s early in the morning with NZ and QF 747’s and 767’s. Everything else from Asia SQ, CX, TG, MH was the same later in the day. The main thing now is a lot more smaller widebodies 777’s 787’s, A330, A350’s with a handful of 747’s and A380’s serving the NZ market.

One that amuses me current is the Philippine thread where in order to boost AKL flights some mention the thought of the A321LR MNL-AKL, your looking at 11hrs, way to far, but I may eat my own words and it just might me doable in 15-20 years, quite different to an A320 via CNS.

How is spending 11hours in an A321LR any different to 11hours in 787?

An typically A320/321NEO Y seat is wider than an 777 with 3-4-3 or an 787 with 3-3-3, so could be better for an passenger.

zkncj wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

I tend to agree to Davidbyrne here the thing is NZ as a country is so far from anywhere that widebodies with a long range have been required and still are. I remember as a young kid seeing AA, CP, GA, CO DC10’s and UA, CO, BA, JL 747’s early in the morning with NZ and QF 747’s and 767’s. Everything else from Asia SQ, CX, TG, MH was the same later in the day. The main thing now is a lot more smaller widebodies 777’s 787’s, A330, A350’s with a handful of 747’s and A380’s serving the NZ market.

One that amuses me current is the Philippine thread where in order to boost AKL flights some mention the thought of the A321LR MNL-AKL, your looking at 11hrs, way to far, but I may eat my own words and it just might me doable in 15-20 years, quite different to an A320 via CNS.

How is spending 11hours in an A321LR any different to 11hours in 787?

An typically A320/321NEO Y seat is wider than an 777 with 3-4-3 or an 787 with 3-3-3, so could be better for an passenger.

Considering an A321LR wouldn’t be able to fly anywhere near 11hrs YET landing in the pacific isn’t really a good outcome.

Sure the seats maybe wider that’s great, but the cabins are also narrower less space to move around. Of course my view might change in a few years when narrowbodies on long thin 10-12hr flights becomes normal. As for today, no thanks.

zkncj wrote:

How is spending 11hours in an A321LR any different to 11hours in 787?

Space to get up, walk around, and stretch your legs, for starters. The general feeling of space is heightened in a wide-body - you feel more closed in in a narrow-body. Also, according to SeatGuru, the seat width on NZ's 320's (international) is less than that in all of the wide-bodies in Y - be it the 772, the 77W or the 789, despite the 3-4-3 / 3-3-3 arrangements.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

zkncj wrote:

How is spending 11hours in an A321LR any different to 11hours in 787?

Space to get up, walk around, and stretch your legs, for starters. The general feeling of space is heightened in a wide-body - you feel more closed in in a narrow-body. Also, according to SeatGuru, the seat width on NZ's 320's (international) is less than that in all of the wide-bodies in Y - be it the 772, the 77W or the 789, despite the 3-4-3 / 3-3-3 arrangements.

Cheers,

C.

Currently seats are 45.4cm wide. New aisle and window seats will be 46.4cm wide and middle seats 48.6cm wide.
source: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=11832210

Currently the A320s are 17.89inches, increasing to 18.4inches for the window and aisle on the NEO and 19.3" for the middle seats.

Currently the 77E are 17.8", 77W is 17.1"and 17.2" on the 789.

So an A321LR could end up being more comfortable for an Y passenger.

Ah this was what was going on at ZQN:
Two Air NZ flights struck by lightning on their way to Queenstown
http://nzh.tw/12055261

DavidByrne wrote:

I think you're right to separate the two issues, and of course they are interrelated, as you suggest. However, I think it's quite unrealistic to expect any airline to commit to a route that it will operate in several years' time, after the runway extensions are complete. If that was the criterion for airport extensions, there would be precious few airports extended (or built, for that matter). Airport development is always a leap of faith that the current strategy/growth trajectory will not be derailed by external events or other changes in the meantime.

I appreciate that the economic benefit is disputed (naturally, by the opponents of the extension, of which NZ has to be the foremost). While the NZ government is on the sidelines on this issue, compared with most of the infrastructure projects that previous governments have been willing to hitch their wagons to (I'm in particular thinking of National's RONS highway projects) the B/C ratio for Wellington Airport extension, on the basis of the benefits claimed, is stellar - in the range 3.0 to 4.6. Even if that's wildly optimistic, it would presumably still work out better than these RONS projects, which had B/Cs less than 1.0 - or even (some of them) negative. I didn't know the claimed B/C ratio for WLG extensions until your post - but having seen them I think that the project is far more viable than I ever imagined.

Surely, the powers at be in WLG would have spoken at length with various carriers around the pacific to gauge their 'interest' in flying into WLG, I'm assume many would be non committal this far out without even consent, however I'm hoping their will be some more intent in some using it before it's built. If carriers are not interested why build it.

AKL knew EK and SQ were interested in flying the A380 down here hence the investment was made.

DavidByrne wrote:

I don't think anyone is proposing that NZ set up a hub at WLG. The argument is that foreign carriers may prefer to increase their service offering to New Zealand by diversifying away from Auckland (and saving their pax an intermediate transit stop). I can't see NZ operating a second hub at WLG or CHC for the very long term foreseeable future. NZ's opposition to the extension is in strong measure a fear that other carriers will get the jump on them by flying direct where NZ flies via AKL. Much though I'm a strong supporter of the national carrier, I do not want to buy into any malignant strategy to block other carriers' preferred route options.

Some have argued NZ is focusing too much on AKL.

NZ6 wrote:

Surely, the powers at be in WLG would have spoken at length with various carriers around the pacific to gauge their 'interest' in flying into WLG, I'm assume many would be non committal this far out without even consent, however I'm hoping their will be some more intent in some using it before it's built.

Yes, I’m sure you’re right and WLG management will have done soundings around many Asian carriers. But just as NZ usually makes its commitments to serve new routes public less than 12 months before starting service, I doubt other carriers are going to commit before, as you say, consent for a runway extension has even been applied for, let alone granted.

NZ6 wrote:

Some have argued NZ is focusing too much on AKL.

NZ’s AKL focus offers other airlines opportunities elsewhere. No-one predicted SQ starting CHC back in the day let alone WLG. Who’d have thought not so long ago that CZ, EK and CX would be flying there too.

Motorhussy wrote:

Who’d have thought not so long ago that CZ, EK and CX would be flying there too.

Don't forget CI too!

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

Motorhussy wrote:

Who’d have thought not so long ago that CZ, EK and CX would be flying there too.

Don't forget CI too!

Who knows - maybe they can attract KE and D7 back as well, in time. TG once served CHC too, with a weekly triangular BKK-CHC-AKL-BKK, but I'm doubtful they'll be back.

DavidByrne wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

Motorhussy wrote:

Who’d have thought not so long ago that CZ, EK and CX would be flying there too.

Don't forget CI too!

Who knows - maybe they can attract KE and D7 back as well, in time. TG once served CHC too, with a weekly triangular BKK-CHC-AKL-BKK, but I'm doubtful they'll be back.

I'm sure I would remember TG flying CHC-AKL. I don't though. Are you sure, what aircraft type, when?

NZ321 wrote:

Maybe also another Chinese airline. Fingers crossed for continued international interest in CHC.

Another Chinese airline would be my prediction as the next long haul development for CHC. Perhaps MU to PVG?

CHC has seen over 100,000 Chinese visitor arrivals in the 12 months to March 2018 (an increase of over 22% compared to March 2017), and with SQ operating the A350 next year and the subsequent reduction in direct Y class capacity to Asia - seems in my completely amateur opinion that there may be some room for another carrier.

CZ's CHC services began with a few charter flights around Chinese New Year, and approx. 1/5 of the Chinese visitor arrivals over the past 12 months were in February - I wouldn't be at all surprised to see another Chinese carrier at CHC next summer, may it be scheduled or charter.

http://www.christchurchairport.co.nz/me ... 018-01.pdf
http://www.christchurchairport.co.nz/me ... 018-01.pdf

^ Sources for the figures stated

ZK-NBT wrote:

777ER wrote:

One thing that has recently been grinding my gears is the talk on Aucklands rail to the airport. The majority of it has actually been low quality and off topic - more suited to the Non Aviation forum. Many posts about it have been deleted but some were saved by actually discussing real aviation in it.

WLGs main problem has been its runway and will mainly continue to be till an extension is done. Emirates CEO has publicly stated in the past that the runway was the only barrier to EK launching services via Aussie. When the alliance with QF came in, he again publicly stated that it now enables a WLG marker on their route map.

Vietnam Airlines have expressed publicly (or signed an agreement with WIAL) an interest in a Vietnam to WLG route but only once the runway is extended.

WLG will continue to grow but via which airline is yet to be seen

Probably the 2 most boring topics that I try to say as little as possible. I’m in my mid 30’s, there’s a part of me that thinks I won’t see either of them ie next 50 years we will still be talking about it while costs quadruple in that time.

If the commercial shareholder isn't prepared to fund it's share (because it doesn't see the required rate of return), the airport's two largest customers are strongly against as existing domestic & international travellers will have to pay a runway extension tax for ever, and even proponents have struggled with a real business case, that leaves it to local and central government, so local residents will pay twice.

NZ321 wrote:

As for the SQ narrowbody debate I lean towards Planeman's comments to date. A single aisle plane on such a long route doesn't square with SQ's philosophy. Once SQ fit out a 738 whatever version in a comparable layout there will still be the problem that the comfort factor in economy on a flight of around 12 hours is just well outside of their parameters. The 78J was bought purely for regional routes. YES this includes Australia and may include an add on to WLG. But single narrow aisle 737 for 12 hours in SQ. Can you seriously imagine it? I can't.

I too can't imagine SQ deploying the 738/7M8 to WLG - definitely can't imagine sitting in a 737 (or any narrow body aircraft, for that matter) for 12 hours, albeit with a stop. There is definitely a possibility that SQ could deploy their 78J to WLG, however, SQ is also slated to start receiving some regional config A359 from early next year, and apparently these regional A359 is supposed to have the same business and economy class seats as their 78J, so we might even get to see the A359 regional being deployed to WLG in the longer term. That could mean more space as compared to the 78J...

DavidJ08 wrote:

re 2) I think the travelling public (especially returning customers) are often more informed than we give them credit for - plenty of people wouldn't describe themselves as plane geeks (or visit A.Net) but do look up a thing or two about planes as they travel. And there's a general perception that if you're flying on a long haul flight you can expect the plane to be pretty big. There'll be a bunch of unsuspecting customers that rock up to the gate, look at the 737 Max, look to the side at the other 737 and A320 flying domestic and trans-Tasman, see the lack of significant difference and say "We're flying to Singapore in THAT? I thought this was a long haul service..."

This is interesting as it's often my personal internal frustration on the topic as a whole.

What defines an 'expert'?

Having many of my wider friends and family in travel industry we still laugh at people who refer to aircraft regional aircraft as a 'flying pencil' or request a 'jumbo' to Sydney. Those who still dress like they're going to ball when travelling economy to Sydney, you then have those who get disgruntled when there's not frequent or direct flight between bizarre city pairs and the ones who personally make me laugh are those who've traveled on a few occasions and believe they are now the lonely planet guide to flying on an airline.

Some people couldn't tell you what aircraft Air NZ has in their fleet or where they fly, from here people tend to know a bit more but the more they know the more it's typically wrong, outdated or opinionated (like this is) until you reach an enthusiast ('a.netter', 'av geek' etc). Then I believe most have good knowledge of the industry which probably sits alongside or slightly higher than many employees in the industry.

From there you're looking at airline / aviation management / specialist roles (engineering, pilots etc) who typically know their stuff.

However the vast majority of the public are in the first camp, they know stuff all and what they know is most often from previous experiences only and they couldn't care less about what they don't know. Just like I know stuff all about the preforming arts and I'm happy to leave it like this.

Motorhussy wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Some have argued NZ is focusing too much on AKL.

NZ’s AKL focus offers other airlines opportunities elsewhere. No-one predicted SQ starting CHC back in the day let alone WLG. Who’d have thought not so long ago that CZ, EK and CX would be flying there too.

Sure does, this is almost NZ's strength though, They're using AKL as a hub with their domestic legs becoming the 'spokes' in the process.

I support and believe there is demand for CHC, I would argue that CHC could actually see more international carriers heading North East in the near future. I'm not saying everything needs to go via AKL.

As I just said, NZ's using AKL has a hub for it's short haul operations to connect long haul. I love competition and don't believe foreign carriers need to do the same as NZ. What I have said is AKL would be the preferred port for many foreign carriers given the cities size and cargo movements and the option of domestic connections if required. Secondary to this, CHC would be the second preferred gateway well before WLG that's all.

Deepinsider wrote:

I'm sure I would remember TG flying CHC-AKL. I don't though. Are you sure, what aircraft type, when?

I knew someone would call me on this, but afraid I can't provide details. I do recall it was a DC10, though, well before the MD-11 era. I just checked Wikipedia to see if that can provide details, but though it does mention CHC as a TG terminated destination, it doesn't give dates. I know that it didn't last long.

Interestingly, back in the mid-90s NZ also flew BKK-CHC (via BNE). This was part of the BNE Asian hub strategy which served a whole raft of Asian ports. Obviously unsuccessfully.

NZ6 wrote:

Some have argued NZ is focusing too much on AKL.

. . . this is almost NZ's strength though, They're using AKL as a hub with their domestic legs becoming the 'spokes' in the process.

Absolutely this is NZ's strength, and in an era where two-sector services are seen as undesirable, this is clearly going to remain NZ's focus - for which I would applaud them: why wouldn't you play to your strengths?

Never say never to long-haul services by NZ out of WLG and CHC, though. But they will only work if they can be justified as point-to-point services. We've already seen that NZ is willing to embark on that kind of route with its seasonal CHC-PER service. Yes, I know that many would not consider that true "long haul", but it does involve wide-body ops from a secondary gateway over a sector that the narrow body fleet is not able to fly. And who knows: while the current North American focus is on developing new gateways from AKL, if the market continues to expand at the current rate, perhaps CHC-LAX on NZ is not a ridiculous idea. But CHC will never be a hub in the way AKL is now.

Planesmart wrote:

[re WLG runway extensions]: If the commercial shareholder isn't prepared to fund it's share (because it doesn't see the required rate of return), the airport's two largest customers are strongly against as existing domestic & international travellers will have to pay a runway extension tax for ever, and even proponents have struggled with a real business case, that leaves it to local and central government, so local residents will pay twice.

If the 66% commercial shareholder isn't prepared to pay its share, then the extension is not happening, period.

DavidByrne wrote:

Absolutely this is NZ's strength, and in an era where two-sector services are seen as undesirable, this is clearly going to remain NZ's focus - for which I would applaud them: why wouldn't you play to your strengths?

Is it the best thing for the country, though?

DavidByrne wrote:

But CHC will never be a hub in the way AKL is now.

Absolutely. Nor will WLG, runway extension or not. But it is a question of fair dibs and at the moment the rest of the country ain't getting any.

mariner

DavidByrne wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Some have argued NZ is focusing too much on AKL.

. . . this is almost NZ's strength though, They're using AKL as a hub with their domestic legs becoming the 'spokes' in the process.

Absolutely this is NZ's strength, and in an era where two-sector services are seen as undesirable, this is clearly going to remain NZ's focus - for which I would applaud them: why wouldn't you play to your strengths?

Never say never to long-haul services by NZ out of WLG and CHC, though. But they will only work if they can be justified as point-to-point services. We've already seen that NZ is willing to embark on that kind of route with its seasonal CHC-PER service. Yes, I know that many would not consider that true "long haul", but it does involve wide-body ops from a secondary gateway over a sector that the narrow body fleet is not able to fly. And who knows: while the current North American focus is on developing new gateways from AKL, if the market continues to expand at the current rate, perhaps CHC-LAX on NZ is not a ridiculous idea. But CHC will never be a hub in the way AKL is now.

Re CHC-PER that's also due to AKL-PER having gone from 2-3 per week 15 years ago to more than daily and is also competitive move to deter the likes of QF commencing it and to overcome the attractive option of the MEL transit.

I'd love to see more widebody Tasman flying from both WLG and CHC, as I said the other day, I would love WLG to also become a real big player in the short haul market. The fact WLG can't sustain more than a single A320 to SYD some days paints a bleak picture of longer services to more remote ports.

mariner wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

[Re NZ's focus on AKL for long-haul] Absolutely this is NZ's strength, and in an era where two-sector services are seen as undesirable, this is clearly going to remain NZ's focus - for which I would applaud them: why wouldn't you play to your strengths?

Is it the best thing for the country, though?

. . . it is a question of fair dibs and at the moment the rest of the country ain't getting any.

mariner

Unless NZ has a public service obligation to require them to service WLG or CHC with long-haul flights, "fairness" or the "best thing for the country" doesn't apply - it's a fully commercial operation. Shades of the earlier discussion on NZ withdrawing from PPQ . . . The real opportunity lies with other carriers serving WLG or CHC through their own hubs, and offering nonstop services there, with one-stop services to other parts of their region.

Arguably, NZ is already doing this - providing one-stop services to other parts of the region via its AKL hub. It's just that the hub in question is still in NZ.