ZK-OKI (ex 9V-SVL) arrives AKL about 2005 tonight from SIN as NZ6018.

http://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zk-oki

PA515

PA515 wrote:

ZK-OKI (ex 9V-SVL) arrives AKL about 2005 tonight from SIN as NZ6018.

http://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zk-oki

PA515

Seems to be delayed till Monday 18th.

ZK-NBT wrote:

https://australianaviation.com.au/2018/06/air-new-zealand-flags-new-widebody-order-in-2019/

Not sure if there is anything new in here but the 787-10 has been mentioned a couple of times more recently.

My uneducated take re the 787-10 seeming to be in the mix now if it wasn’t actually at all before now is that Boeing will give them a good deal on some if they order the 77X.

I could see 787-10’s on the leisure 789 routes, NRT, PER, TPE, SGN, DPS, PVG, possibly SIN, HND with all the 789’s getting the more premium config they could do possibly SIN, HND, EZE, HKG, YVR with say 5 778’s initially for NYC, ORD and a 3 weekly GRU?

Airbus will of course be offering a good deal on A350’s aswell which could end up being 20-25 frames long term if not more.

ZK-NBT wrote:

My uneducated take re the 787-10 seeming to be in the mix now if it wasn’t actually at all before now is that Boeing will give them a good deal on some if they order the 77X.

I could see 787-10’s on the leisure 789 routes, NRT, PER, TPE, SGN, DPS, PVG, possibly SIN, HND with all the 789’s getting the more premium config they could do possibly SIN, HND, EZE, HKG, YVR with say 5 778’s initially for NYC, ORD and a 3 weekly GRU?

If the 787-10 comes into the fleet, I could see it potentially replacing the 77W in time, as it's about the right capacity and has the legs (just) to do the current 77W missions. That would leave the 778 or the A359 as the aircraft for the ULH sectors that neither the 787-9 or 787-10 could do efficiently.

DavidByrne wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

My uneducated take re the 787-10 seeming to be in the mix now if it wasn’t actually at all before now is that Boeing will give them a good deal on some if they order the 77X.

I could see 787-10’s on the leisure 789 routes, NRT, PER, TPE, SGN, DPS, PVG, possibly SIN, HND with all the 789’s getting the more premium config they could do possibly SIN, HND, EZE, HKG, YVR with say 5 778’s initially for NYC, ORD and a 3 weekly GRU?

If the 787-10 comes into the fleet, I could see it potentially replacing the 77W in time, as it's about the right capacity and has the legs (just) to do the current 77W missions. That would leave the 778 or the A359 as the aircraft for the ULH sectors that neither the 787-9 or 787-10 could do efficiently.

That’s what I have said previously but others say freight is an issue even on the 302 seat 789. I think if Boeing can stretch the range of the 787-10 a little then definitely possible to use it to replace the 77W.

I definitely think one manufacturer for long haul with possible 77X/787 cross crewing down the line has to have some significant benefits despite others pushing the A350.

ZK-NBT wrote:

My uneducated take re the 787-10 seeming to be in the mix now if it wasn’t actually at all before now is that Boeing will give them a good deal on some if they order the 77X. I could see 787-10’s on the leisure 789 routes, NRT, PER, TPE, SGN, DPS, PVG, possibly SIN, HND with all the 789’s getting the more premium config they could do possibly SIN, HND, EZE, HKG, YVR with say 5 778’s initially for NYC, ORD and a 3 weekly GRU?

Or they could be looking at the 787-10s for Asian routes where they need more premium capacity, starting with Narita and Haneda. They were leaving lots of money on the table when they switched to 789s with reduced business class capacity - hence the switch to 777s on the Haneda route. Maybe Singapore and Hong Kong too. Can't see that it has any bearing on what they select for North America.

DavidByrne wrote:

If the 787-10 comes into the fleet, I could see it potentially replacing the 77W in time, as it's about the right capacity and has the legs (just) to do the current 77W missions. That would leave the 778 or the A359 as the aircraft for the ULH sectors that neither the 787-9 or 787-10 could do efficiently.

NZ have been clear (including at the latest investor day presentation) that the 787-10 has range issues. We have seen nothing to suggest that it has somehow become viable for North America with the sort of payload that NZ would want it to carry. For Asia on the other hand it looks like a great option for routes that have the volume to fill it.

ZK-NBT wrote:

I think if Boeing can stretch the range of the 787-10 a little then definitely possible to use it to replace the 77W.
I definitely think one manufacturer for long haul with possible 77X/787 cross crewing down the line has to have some significant benefits despite others pushing the A350.

Boeing have had years now to re-engineer the 787 if they wanted to increase weights and payload/range. They haven't done it. They have stuck with the short 788 wing and the 254t MTOW. Until they are ready to do a NEO in the late 2020s the only range gains will come from engine PIPs. Meantime we're basically stuck with the current spec. And the priority for new investment will be 797.

tealnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

My uneducated take re the 787-10 seeming to be in the mix now if it wasn’t actually at all before now is that Boeing will give them a good deal on some if they order the 77X. I could see 787-10’s on the leisure 789 routes, NRT, PER, TPE, SGN, DPS, PVG, possibly SIN, HND with all the 789’s getting the more premium config they could do possibly SIN, HND, EZE, HKG, YVR with say 5 778’s initially for NYC, ORD and a 3 weekly GRU?

Or they could be looking at the 787-10s for Asian routes where they need more premium capacity, starting with Narita and Haneda. They were leaving lots of money on the table when they switched to 789s with reduced business class capacity - hence the switch to 777s on the Haneda route. Maybe Singapore and Hong Kong too. Can't see that it has any bearing on what they select for North America.

DavidByrne wrote:

If the 787-10 comes into the fleet, I could see it potentially replacing the 77W in time, as it's about the right capacity and has the legs (just) to do the current 77W missions. That would leave the 778 or the A359 as the aircraft for the ULH sectors that neither the 787-9 or 787-10 could do efficiently.

NZ have been clear (including at the latest investor day presentation) that the 787-10 has range issues. We have seen nothing to suggest that it has somehow become viable for North America with the sort of payload that NZ would want it to carry. For Asia on the other hand it looks like a great option for routes that have the volume to fill it.

ZK-NBT wrote:

I think if Boeing can stretch the range of the 787-10 a little then definitely possible to use it to replace the 77W.
I definitely think one manufacturer for long haul with possible 77X/787 cross crewing down the line has to have some significant benefits despite others pushing the A350.

Boeing have had years now to re-engineer the 787 if they wanted to increase weights and payload/range. They haven't done it. They have stuck with the short 788 wing and the 254t MTOW. Until they are ready to do a NEO in the late 2020s the only range gains will come from engine PIPs. Meantime we're basically stuck with the current spec. And the priority for new investment will be 797.

Interesting re the premium capacity to TYO and premium 787-10, they want double daily to TYO, SIN, HKG, PVG, slots are an issue at 3 Of those but SIN will be double daily in NS19 for that season atleast. Should they add 787-10’s I would think it probably increases the chance of the 77X as an order for say 6-8 787-10’s pushes the 787 fleet to 20-22 plus 7 77W’s and a small fleet of 778’s. How long will they keep the 77W? It will be atleast 2025 meaning a 787NEO as you put it could be available as a 77W replacement by 2030 giving a potential 787-10ER a shot.

Regardless of 787-10 spec, I would hope that NZ has been burned by the whole 787 grounding thing and want to have a fleet where the eggs aren't all in the same basket for operational integrity. Imagine the chaos if the 772s had already been replaced by 787s when this grounding occurred, Imagine again if the 77Ws were replaced by 787-10s... The 777s have gotten the airline out of a massive whole just by being a different type. Maybe they would go for a mix of A359 and 77X, maybe they will go with just one type, but I think most carriers have ordered a mix.

I'm interested to hear what people think about the potential for NZ to add a BOB service to domestic flights. I've done a few JQ domestic flights recently, and have been amazed at 1) how wide a selection of products JQ offers for purchase, and 2) how many people on JQ actually purchase goods - everything from alcohol to both cold (like salads) and hot food (like toasted sandwiches).

NZ already offers a limited BOB service on short-haul international flights, so the logistics of extending this to domestic flights (at least the trunk routes) shouldn't be too hard. Similarly, despite short flight times, JQ seems to have more than enough time to run a BOB service on the trunk routes. The question then is - do the costs outweigh the benefits for NZ? Limited money-maker?

Cheers,

C.

aerorobnz wrote:

Regardless of 787-10 spec, I would hope that NZ has been burned by the whole 787 grounding thing and want to have a fleet where the eggs aren't all in the same basket for operational integrity. Imagine the chaos if the 772s had already been replaced by 787s when this grounding occurred, Imagine again if the 77Ws were replaced by 787-10s... The 777s have gotten the airline out of a massive whole just by being a different type. Maybe they would go for a mix of A359 and 77X, maybe they will go with just one type, but I think most carriers have ordered a mix.

Totally agree the 777’s have more than done their job to cover the current 787 issues. The airline won’t have an all 787 fleet given the 789 won’t carry a viable load NYC-AKL etc, it is however interesting that the 787 does now seem to be in the running as a 772 replacement or atleast partial replacement, I’d imagine a 10-12 aircraft order split between possibly 787-10’s maybe more premium for Asia or maybe leisure for Asia and 5 778’s for ULH initially. Definitely can’t see A350’s in there aswell unless it’s a 787/A350 mix which I’ve expressed my views on why they won’t go that way.

aerorobnz wrote:

Regardless of 787-10 spec, I would hope that NZ has been burned by the whole 787 grounding thing and want to have a fleet where the eggs aren't all in the same basket for operational integrity. Imagine the chaos if the 772s had already been replaced by 787s when this grounding occurred, Imagine again if the 77Ws were replaced by 787-10s... The 777s have gotten the airline out of a massive whole just by being a different type. Maybe they would go for a mix of A359 and 77X, maybe they will go with just one type, but I think most carriers have ordered a mix.

I think you have a valid point.

The latest is the GE 78J may be delayed due to the FAA scrutiny of the fuel icing issue. So the 787 is not out of the woods yet by any means - RR or GE powered (not that NZ would select GE for future 787s but never say never).

Agreed it makes more sense given NZ's geographical position to not rely on one type / one engine.

planemanofnz wrote:

I'm interested to hear what people think about the potential for NZ to add a BOB service to domestic flights. I've done a few JQ domestic flights recently, and have been amazed at 1) how wide a selection of products JQ offers for purchase, and 2) how many people on JQ actually purchase goods - everything from alcohol to both cold (like salads) and hot food (like toasted sandwiches).

NZ already offers a limited BOB service on short-haul international flights, so the logistics of extending this to domestic flights (at least the trunk routes) shouldn't be too hard. Similarly, despite short flight times, JQ seems to have more than enough time to run a BOB service on the trunk routes. The question then is - do the costs outweigh the benefits for NZ? Limited money-maker?

Cheers,

C.

They did trail it an couple of years back on the 733s and it didn't last long. Think on domestic NZ wants to be seen as giving you something for free for be the point of difference from JQ.

If anything I think they could look at introducing 'the Works' option on AKL-ZQN and AKL-DUD which are just under two hours.

zkncj wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

I'm interested to hear what people think about the potential for NZ to add a BOB service to domestic flights. I've done a few JQ domestic flights recently, and have been amazed at 1) how wide a selection of products JQ offers for purchase, and 2) how many people on JQ actually purchase goods - everything from alcohol to both cold (like salads) and hot food (like toasted sandwiches).

NZ already offers a limited BOB service on short-haul international flights, so the logistics of extending this to domestic flights (at least the trunk routes) shouldn't be too hard. Similarly, despite short flight times, JQ seems to have more than enough time to run a BOB service on the trunk routes. The question then is - do the costs outweigh the benefits for NZ? Limited money-maker?

Cheers,

C.

They did trail it an couple of years back on the 733s and it didn't last long. Think on domestic NZ wants to be seen as giving you something for free for be the point of difference from JQ.

If anything I think they could look at introducing 'the Works' option on AKL-ZQN and AKL-DUD which are just under two hours.

Or even HLZ-CHC. I could do a wine or tow on that 2hr flight.

zkncj wrote:

Think on domestic NZ wants to be seen as giving you something for free for be the point of difference from JQ.

True, but then why not apply that principle to Australian flights too, where NZ also competes with JQ? NZ could continue to differentiate itself from JQ domestically by continuing to offer the basics for free, perhaps, then offering BOB as a top-up? If it wanted to drop the free coffee and biscuit, then they'd still be able to differentiate themselves on lounges, schedules, etc.

77west wrote:

Or even HLZ-CHC. I could do a wine or tow on that 2hr flight.

You and me both! Though, I could envisage difficulties logistically in extending the BOB offering to the props and non-trunk routes. Plus, can you even heat up food items in the galleys of the ATR's? Another factor is that NZ doesn't have any competition on those sorts of routes - IMO, the BOB offering would be partly to ensure that NZ could erode any advantage JQ tries to have?

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Think on domestic NZ wants to be seen as giving you something for free for be the point of difference from JQ.

True, but then why not apply that principle to Australian flights too, where NZ also competes with JQ?

I think they do? IIRC tea, coffee and water is still complimentary even for seat only pax - which is not the case on VA (VA because I haven't actually flown on JQ trans-Tasman.)

planemanofnz wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Think on domestic NZ wants to be seen as giving you something for free for be the point of difference from JQ.

True, but then why not apply that principle to Australian flights too, where NZ also competes with JQ? NZ could continue to differentiate itself from JQ domestically by continuing to offer the basics for free, perhaps, then offering BOB as a top-up? If it wanted to drop the free coffee and biscuit, then they'd still be able to differentiate themselves on lounges, schedules, etc.

NZ provides fee Tea, Coffee, Water to all passengers on all services (including Seats2Suite routes). NZ's main trunk routes also attract an different customer base durring the week aka sometime it feels like half of the A320 has lounge access.

planemanofnz wrote:

You and me both! Though, I could envisage difficulties logistically in extending the BOB offering to the props and non-trunk routes. Plus, can you even heat up food items in the galleys of the ATR's? Another factor is that NZ doesn't have any competition on those sorts of routes - IMO, the BOB offering would be partly to ensure that NZ could erode any advantage JQ tries to have?
.

The ATR 72-500/600s and Q300s don't have ovens, NZ reduced the galley size on the ATR's when they introduced the current domestic product. They also had the Q300s delivered without the galley installed, and had the galley service door plugged up, The space the Q300 galley is meant to be in was added to the cargo hold.

Jetstar doesn't offer an BOB offering on the Q300s - you can only pre-purchase and muffin/water combo for like $5 when booking.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Interesting re the premium capacity to TYO and premium 787-10, they want double daily to TYO, SIN, HKG, PVG, slots are an issue at 3 Of those but SIN will be double daily in NS19 for that season atleast. Should they add 787-10’s I would think it probably increases the chance of the 77X as an order for say 6-8 787-10’s pushes the 787 fleet to 20-22 plus 7 77W’s and a small fleet of 778’s. How long will they keep the 77W? It will be atleast 2025 meaning a 787NEO as you put it could be available as a 77W replacement by 2030 giving a potential 787-10ER a shot.

Can't see why adding some 787-10s for Asian routes would make a 77X buy more likely. Start with NZ's strategy. They're still a leisure airline. We have seen nothing to suggest they're planning to go down the high-premium low-density path that SQ and QF are taking. So 789s aren't the answer for ULH routes, even though they're using a 789 to launch ORD. They need an airframe with more payload/range.

The other strategic driver is frequency on point-to-point routes. Like QF, NZ clearly wants to do non-stop to major US and South American destinations. More destinations and eventual daily frequencies will only work if you can limit capital cost and trip cost. That then means that Boeing have to show that the numbers for a 350t 778/779 can match those for a 280t A359/35K. It's a big ask - especially as we now know the 359 can carry more payload (at much lower fuel burn) at long ranges than a 77W.

ZK-NBT wrote:

The airline won’t have an all 787 fleet given the 789 won’t carry a viable load NYC-AKL etc, it is however interesting that the 787 does now seem to be in the running as a 772 replacement or atleast partial replacement, I’d imagine a 10-12 aircraft order split between possibly 787-10’s maybe more premium for Asia or maybe leisure for Asia and 5 778’s for ULH initially. Definitely can’t see A350’s in there aswell unless it’s a 787/A350 mix which I’ve expressed my views on why they won’t go that way.

I think it's more realistic to view the 787-10 option as driven by growth in premium traffic out of Asia. The 787-10 is still not an option for North/South American routes at the payloads NZ wants to carry. And a 350t 778 is going to struggle to win on trip cost and seat/mile cost against a 280t 359. It seems a more obvious option for Qantas.

planemanofnz wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Think on domestic NZ wants to be seen as giving you something for free for be the point of difference from JQ.

True, but then why not apply that principle to Australian flights too, where NZ also competes with JQ? NZ could continue to differentiate itself from JQ domestically by continuing to offer the basics for free, perhaps, then offering BOB as a top-up? If it wanted to drop the free coffee and biscuit, then they'd still be able to differentiate themselves on lounges, schedules, etc.

77west wrote:

Or even HLZ-CHC. I could do a wine or tow on that 2hr flight.

You and me both! Though, I could envisage difficulties logistically in extending the BOB offering to the props and non-trunk routes. Plus, can you even heat up food items in the galleys of the ATR's? Another factor is that NZ doesn't have any competition on those sorts of routes - IMO, the BOB offering would be partly to ensure that NZ could erode any advantage JQ tries to have?

Cheers,

C.

I don't think being 'inclusive" to have a point of difference is a factor. I just don't think there's time, demand, crew resource to pull it off properly.

I mean AKL-WLG seat-belt off time can often be down to 30-40 mins (some flights it doesn't come off at all), the crew still need to run through and do the tea, coffee and water thing without having to try complete credit card transactions, heat/prepare food let alone fight your way down the isle for delivery. We haven't even thought about even shorter flights such as WLG-CHC or Koru Hour flights either.

I'm not saying it can't be done, but it'll need to be a business case looking at cost to carry items, wastage etc over revenue. AS well as crew resource including 'rushing' other services at the potential expense of customer service which is a key point of difference (although not all will agree on that).

Without IFE on domestic jet and regional aircraft it would be down to a bell call, manual transaction and back forth from galley to seat at least 4 times, potentially 6-8. You can also run the risk of customer disappointment when you offer something but it's unavailable or seen as continuously unavailable, yes this occurs on the Tasman now but if you look to keep fresh good (sandwiches etc) then it can be a fine line between wastage and disappointment.

You'll need to weigh up potential profit over customer satisfaction etc and if it stacks up it could happen.

I once flew from LAS-LAX on 'full service', it was honestly one of my worst 'service' experiences ever. The crew were so rushed everything was about getting jobs done and there was no time left for 'looking after' the passengers, there was no hello with a smile smile when I got served, I think it was "Yes" while being pointed at when asked what I wanted and about 10 rows behind delivery was a rubbish trolley. Firstly I don't really care about it and I don't expect it to be as bad as that, but if not done well that's how things could end up.

Surely we can put a line through the 777-X for now. If anything it'll be a 77W replacement only.

As for the 787-10, even routes like AKL-YVR become marginal depending on the final configuration let alone any longer routes.

If they went this way, it would end up predominantly being a Asian only utilized aircraft and in my opinion is potentially too big and too restrictive to be used solely within this market. It would also mean the 787-9 would need to be redeployed in other markets which would mean a re-config into the code 2 configuration, that being said it would be doable by 2023-2025.

Whereas the A350 has more legs so can be used elsewhere across the network leaving the 787-9 fleet to be used within Asia allowing A350 to be used on North America and South America Routes and the bigger Asia routes such as HKG as it will has the capacity.

Very general but the A350-900 has a range of out to about 15,000km where the 787-10 is still back around 11,500.

Config is similar depending on how you want to configure it. NZ will know how premium heavy they want it and that may influence the purchase as well.

It's really complex as NZ now has (or will have) 14 new(ish) 787-9's. and 7x 77W's in their fleet so really a 787/777 fleet.

They don't want to end up with fleet complexity issues again so whatever they do now will have a massive impact on the 77W replacement and, I for one, am surprised they're not more publicly talking about this order being part of a 77W long term replacement program as no doubt 'options' for more aircraft will be part of the final agreement ensuring NZ will secure a good deal to replace these aircraft as one off order for 5-8 aircraft in itself wont' attract massive discounts.

What I personally want is

787-9 - as they're in the fleet now
A350-900: YVR, IAH, ORD, HKG, EZE, NYC etc. (tasman / pacific also)
A350-1000: AKL-SFO, LAX, LON (tasman / pacific also)

What we don't want it is

787-9
A350-900
777-8

If they did go with the 778 now, you can almost guarantee what the 77W replacement will be.

From my understanding obviously there have been no decisions made however there are preferences... or another way of it, more appealing propositions based on paper.

NZ6 wrote:

Surely we can put a line through the 777-X for now. If anything it'll be a 77W replacement only.

As for the 787-10, even routes like AKL-YVR become marginal depending on the final configuration let alone any longer routes.

If they went this way, it would end up predominantly being a Asian only utilized aircraft and in my opinion is potentially too big and too restrictive to be used solely within this market. It would also mean the 787-9 would need to be redeployed in other markets which would mean a re-config into the code 2 configuration, that being said it would be doable by 2023-2025.

Whereas the A350 has more legs so can be used elsewhere across the network leaving the 787-9 fleet to be used within Asia allowing A350 to be used on North America and South America Routes and the bigger Asia routes such as HKG as it will has the capacity.

Very general but the A350-900 has a range of out to about 15,000km where the 787-10 is still back around 11,500.

Config is similar depending on how you want to configure it. NZ will know how premium heavy they want it and that may influence the purchase as well.

It's really complex as NZ now has (or will have) 14 new(ish) 787-9's. and 7x 77W's in their fleet so really a 787/777 fleet.

They don't want to end up with fleet complexity issues again so whatever they do now will have a massive impact on the 77W replacement and, I for one, am surprised they're not more publicly talking about this order being part of a 77W long term replacement program as no doubt 'options' for more aircraft will be part of the final agreement ensuring NZ will secure a good deal to replace these aircraft as one off order for 5-8 aircraft in itself wont' attract massive discounts.

What I personally want is

787-9 - as they're in the fleet now
A350-900: YVR, IAH, ORD, HKG, EZE, NYC etc. (tasman / pacific also)
A350-1000: AKL-SFO, LAX, LON (tasman / pacific also)

What we don't want it is

787-9
A350-900
777-8

If they did go with the 778 now, you can almost guarantee what the 77W replacement will be.

From my understanding obviously there have been no decisions made however there are preferences... or another way of it, more appealing propositions based on paper.

So you are saying they will get the A359 then which will mean the A35K replaces the 77W, definitely won’t be 77X, A350, 787 all together.

I do agree the 787-10 doesn’t give as much flexibility as it will be for Asia only, defiantly can’t see it on YVR or LAX/SFO seem unlikely to.

NZ6 wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Think on domestic NZ wants to be seen as giving you something for free for be the point of difference from JQ.

True, but then why not apply that principle to Australian flights too, where NZ also competes with JQ? NZ could continue to differentiate itself from JQ domestically by continuing to offer the basics for free, perhaps, then offering BOB as a top-up? If it wanted to drop the free coffee and biscuit, then they'd still be able to differentiate themselves on lounges, schedules, etc.

77west wrote:

Or even HLZ-CHC. I could do a wine or tow on that 2hr flight.

You and me both! Though, I could envisage difficulties logistically in extending the BOB offering to the props and non-trunk routes. Plus, can you even heat up food items in the galleys of the ATR's? Another factor is that NZ doesn't have any competition on those sorts of routes - IMO, the BOB offering would be partly to ensure that NZ could erode any advantage JQ tries to have?

Cheers,

C.

I don't think being 'inclusive" to have a point of difference is a factor. I just don't think there's time, demand, crew resource to pull it off properly.

I mean AKL-WLG seat-belt off time can often be down to 30-40 mins (some flights it doesn't come off at all), the crew still need to run through and do the tea, coffee and water thing without having to try complete credit card transactions, heat/prepare food let alone fight your way down the isle for delivery. We haven't even thought about even shorter flights such as WLG-CHC or Koru Hour flights either.

I'm not saying it can't be done, but it'll need to be a business case looking at cost to carry items, wastage etc over revenue. AS well as crew resource including 'rushing' other services at the potential expense of customer service which is a key point of difference (although not all will agree on that).

Without IFE on domestic jet and regional aircraft it would be down to a bell call, manual transaction and back forth from galley to seat at least 4 times, potentially 6-8. You can also run the risk of customer disappointment when you offer something but it's unavailable or seen as continuously unavailable, yes this occurs on the Tasman now but if you look to keep fresh good (sandwiches etc) then it can be a fine line between wastage and disappointment.

You'll need to weigh up potential profit over customer satisfaction etc and if it stacks up it could happen.

I once flew from LAS-LAX on 'full service', it was honestly one of my worst 'service' experiences ever. The crew were so rushed everything was about getting jobs done and there was no time left for 'looking after' the passengers, there was no hello with a smile smile when I got served, I think it was "Yes" while being pointed at when asked what I wanted and about 10 rows behind delivery was a rubbish trolley. Firstly I don't really care about it and I don't expect it to be as bad as that, but if not done well that's how things could end up.

You should try the LCCs in Europe like EasyJet and Ryanair. What they can do on even a 45min flight is impressive. But it does require a step change in how Air NZ would operate and what passengers expect. Probably not worth it right now.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Surely we can put a line through the 777-X for now. If anything it'll be a 77W replacement only.

As for the 787-10, even routes like AKL-YVR become marginal depending on the final configuration let alone any longer routes.

If they went this way, it would end up predominantly being a Asian only utilized aircraft and in my opinion is potentially too big and too restrictive to be used solely within this market. It would also mean the 787-9 would need to be redeployed in other markets which would mean a re-config into the code 2 configuration, that being said it would be doable by 2023-2025.

Whereas the A350 has more legs so can be used elsewhere across the network leaving the 787-9 fleet to be used within Asia allowing A350 to be used on North America and South America Routes and the bigger Asia routes such as HKG as it will has the capacity.

Very general but the A350-900 has a range of out to about 15,000km where the 787-10 is still back around 11,500.

Config is similar depending on how you want to configure it. NZ will know how premium heavy they want it and that may influence the purchase as well.

It's really complex as NZ now has (or will have) 14 new(ish) 787-9's. and 7x 77W's in their fleet so really a 787/777 fleet.

They don't want to end up with fleet complexity issues again so whatever they do now will have a massive impact on the 77W replacement and, I for one, am surprised they're not more publicly talking about this order being part of a 77W long term replacement program as no doubt 'options' for more aircraft will be part of the final agreement ensuring NZ will secure a good deal to replace these aircraft as one off order for 5-8 aircraft in itself wont' attract massive discounts.

What I personally want is

787-9 - as they're in the fleet now
A350-900: YVR, IAH, ORD, HKG, EZE, NYC etc. (tasman / pacific also)
A350-1000: AKL-SFO, LAX, LON (tasman / pacific also)

What we don't want it is

787-9
A350-900
777-8

If they did go with the 778 now, you can almost guarantee what the 77W replacement will be.

From my understanding obviously there have been no decisions made however there are preferences... or another way of it, more appealing propositions based on paper.

So you are saying they will get the A359 then which will mean the A35K replaces the 77W, definitely won’t be 77X, A350, 787 all together.

I do agree the 787-10 doesn’t give as much flexibility as it will be for Asia only, defiantly can’t see it on YVR or LAX/SFO seem unlikely to.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying "What they will do", I actually don't know. Neither do they at the moment. People in specific roles have a preference and believe it will go a certain way. This post is nothing other than my own personal view on it.

NZ6 wrote:

I just don't think there's time, demand, crew resource to pull it off properly.

Of course there is, if NZ drops the free tea/coffee for all - not only does JQ pull it off, but so do various full-service carriers (think BA).

A few points:

Demand
- IMHO, demand is there - I have seen this on JQ domestically, and note that the likes of BA said demand "completely surprised us."
- The trend is definitely towards BOB, not just with BA, but with rumours of various other full-service carriers considering BOB also.
- You would arguably create some demand, if you dropped free tea/coffee, and also dropped the KoruHour free wines and cheeses.

Timing
- The shorter the service, arguably, the less likely it is that people will be buying products inflight anyway, which will help logistically.
- One option may be to limit it to flights >1 hour (e.g. excluding CHC - WLG). You may also limit the selection, relative to the Tasman.
- Technology will increasingly be used to make services like these more efficient - like a BOB smartphone app function down the line.

I'm not saying that NZ should or shouldn't do this, but I do think that it's something that should be considered by the airline seriously.

NZ6 wrote:

Koru Hour flights.

The KoruHour is an interesting concept - some comments:

- What does it actually achieve? Impressing high-yielding business customers? These people also fly outside of KoruHour (4 or 8pm).
- NZ could drop KoruHour in favour of improved lounge food offerings - for example, introducing meals at certain times of the day?
- Alternatively, could KoruHour be extended to business-focused prop flights, like WLG - HLZ / TRG? Even WLG - IVC is ~2 hours.

The timing restrictions of KoruHour seem to be a bit arbitrary, and can lead to disappointment (even though it's noted on your ticket).

I appreciate NZ may have stats to say that KoruHour is a success, but in light of Luxon's philosophy, I'm surprised it hasn't been cut.

Cheers,

C.

It's great to see EK's 77W's return to AKL - this picture from the inaugural DPS - AKL service which flew in last week:



According to Tim Clark:

- EK are very pleased to see the interest this new route ... reflected in strong bookings from Auckland to Denpasar
- Demand from New Zealand to Bali is mainly from tourists seeking to visit Indonesia (IMHO, this will be hurting NZ)
- Markets such as the UK, Europe and the Middle East have all responded keenly to the new option provided by EK

See: http://gulfbusiness.com/dubais-emirates ... -via-bali/.

All up, the flight seems to be going OK for now - it'll be interesting to see if NZ drops DPS, or EK moves to a SIN stop.

Cheers,

C.

What would happen to NZ's plan to start GRU flights at some point in the future if EK started DXB-GRU-AKL ?

Motorhussy wrote:

What would happen to NZ's plan to start GRU flights at some point in the future if EK started DXB-GRU-AKL ?

Or, if another carrier did - most likely LA. An Asian carrier shouldn't be written off either.

If it were EK or LA, it would be particularly bad for NZ - they could tap into JQ/QF at AKL.

I personally don't see it happening though. Brazil isn't doing great, and it'd be very risky.

Some other points:

- I don't know if EK has traffic rights to AKL from Brazil - Brazil can be quite protectionist.
- EK would likely have to use the 77L, right? The 388 and 77W would likely be too large.
- Why would EK fly to AKL from GRU, and not from BKK, CGK, SIN, PER or elsewhere?

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

Motorhussy wrote:

What would happen to NZ's plan to start GRU flights at some point in the future if EK started DXB-GRU-AKL ?

Some other points:
- I don't know if EK has traffic rights to AKL from Brazil - Brazil can be quite protectionist.
- EK would likely have to use the 77L, right? The 388 and 77W would likely be too large.
- Why would EK fly to AKL from GRU, and not from BKK, CGK, SIN, PER or elsewhere?

All good points. I'm going to advocate for Diablo here.

Traffic rights? I don't know either but it's fun to speculate.

Why would EK do it? They're running out of new routes to develop and a round-the-world route may appeal to them. And yes a 77L appears the logical choice.

Why to AKL from GRU rather than those other points mentioned? Because no other airline is doing it non-stop yet including two major alliances in the region. They have no competition.

Motorhussy wrote:

Why would EK do it? They're running out of new routes to develop and a round-the-world route may appeal to them.

I just don't see the appeal of a RTW offering for EK?

It'd be out of step of building up their DXB megahub.

Motorhussy wrote:

Why to AKL from GRU rather than those other points mentioned? Because no other airline is doing it non-stop yet ...

The same can be said for CGK and others though?

IMHO, there are various other factors at play here:

- Cost: AKL - GRU is nearly double the length of AKL - DPS (7,500 mi v 4,000 mi), so would be very pricey.
- Demand: While oil is picking up, the Brazilian economy isn't doing well, and forecasts aren't great either.
- Feed: Connections on either end would be limited, no? I doubt QF would pump traffic through AKL onto EK.
- Regulation: It'd be much easier for EK to get rights going through a more liberal jurisdiction like KUL or SIN.
- Strategy: A tag service like this, which doesn't feed DXB, goes against EK's strategy to build up its megahub.

I see EK looking more at AKL - BKK / KUL / SIN.

I see AKL - GRU as more of a route for NZ / LA.

Cheers,

C.

NZ6 wrote:

I'm just really curious as to what brings you to the conclusion that ICN is or would be high yield?

Thanks for your post on this, NZ6, and apologies for the delayed response - NZ at ICN is a topic that I'm really interested in. To start with, I was making the comment about yield at ICN relative to other untapped opportunities in Asia for NZ - that is, in comparison to the likes of BKK, CGK, KUL, MNL and others - obviously ICN would not be as high-yielding as HKG, SFO, SIN or LAX, but within Asia, I firmly believe that it represents the best opportunity for NZ in terms of growth / yield potential.

Let's look at some basic facts:

- Korea has the most unserved demand for travel to AKL of anywhere (per AKL Airport).
- Korean arrivals to New Zealand grew by more than 13% in the past year, and tourism by 13%.
- AKL has double the Korean population of BNE, and ~4 - 5x the Korean population of MEL.

See:
- https://corporate.aucklandairport.co.nz ... sentations.
- https://www.tourismnewzealand.com/marke ... uth-korea/.

Now, where is the yield you say? Well, according to Stats NZ, business-related arrivals from Korea grew more than 30% between 2017 - 2018, while conferences-related traffic grew 36% in the same period (albeit off small bases). The business arrivals (~3,000 in 2017) were the same as for Hong Kong, and only about half that of Singapore (~6,000) (which has ~4 daily flights to New Zealand). S. Korea's numbers in the indicator were 3x those of Taiwan's. The indicator is not perfect, but it is one sign.

See: https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-r ... nuary-2018.

NZ would be able to tap this business traffic, because some of the Korean companies would have contracts with OZ, and be Star FFP's. OZ themselves have talked about desperately wanting to expand in the long-haul space (where they have a competitive advantage over the LCC's in Korea), but are restricted by their fleet. In light of this, and in light of the fact that the 789 is probably more of the right-sized aircraft for AKL - ICN than OZ's 359 or 772 would be, an OZ deal could surely be done.

TPE had one thing that ICN does not, for NZ - that is, a lack of direct, non-stop competition. The big stumbling block at ICN for NZ is the fact that KE is already well-established in the market. There's no denying this, and AFAIK, NZ hasn't launched a route with direct, non-stop competition since the likes of LAX - LHR (replacing LGW), back in the 90's. However, with an OZ partnership and ICN being a Star hub, NZ can mitigate this risk somewhat, unlike at other Asian airports like KUL or MNL, no?

I'm honestly not phased by KE's presence at ICN though. The market is big enough for both. Further, when NZ launched TPE, it signalled that it was open to changing its strategy in competition. This is because, while CI doesn't fly non-stop on AKL - TPE, it still represented a strong competitive threat to NZ's analysis of AKL - TPE - potentially even more than KE would in an NZ analysis on the merits of opening AKL - ICN. Let's consider CI's strengths as a competitor and threat to NZ at AKL over KE's:

- While CI does not fly here non-stop, it does fly to two New Zealand destinations (both AKL and CHC), which KE has not done for about 15 years.
- CI maintains a daily AKL service (albeit indirect) over the New Zealand winter, whereas KE goes down to a lower frequency (4x flights per week).
- Through its Tasman flying (sometimes twice a day to AKL, in the past), CI has been able to build up brand recognition in AKL, IMO, to KE's levels.
- CI's competitiveness at AKL is only set to increase, with the introduction of the 359 here. Meanwhile, KE's product competitiveness has plateaued.

NZ6 wrote:

The modelling I've seen suggests it's a inbound VFR market and outbound is predominately low yield Europe bound traffic which now has all the Chinese carriers fighting over it. There is little to no outbound NZ and little business to Korea itself.

Would you mind sharing this modelling? I'd like to draw your attention to a few figures (albeit not perfect indicators, but interesting):

- Business arrivals from Korea are at the same levels as from Singapore - with Korea being a bigger and faster growing economy, those numbers will grow.
- The amount of New Zealanders visiting Korea is largely about the same amount of Taiwanese people visiting New Zealand per year, actually (~33,000).
- Just for the sake of comparison, there are 2 - 3x times the amount of New Zealanders visiting Korea than there are visiting Taiwan (~33,000 v ~14,500).

See:
- https://kto.visitkorea.or.kr/eng/touris ... /inout.kto.
- http://admin.taiwan.net.tw/statistics/y ... aspx?no=15.
- https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-r ... ember-2017.

NZ6 wrote:

My opinion on ICN has changed from a few months ago and I now give ICN an opportunity now ...

I'm interested to hear why you changed your mind on ICN, when the fundamentals haven't changed in the space of a few months?

Cheers,

C.

My recollection of earlier discussions about ICN was that the Korean market was seriously favourable toward Korean carriers, and that it was a very tough act for a foreign carrier to break into it.

Yes, I know, there are many foreign carriers that do serve Korea, but I'm just repeating what I recall of earlier discussions.

DavidByrne wrote:

My recollection of earlier discussions about ICN was that the Korean market was seriously favourable toward Korean carriers, and that it was a very tough act for a foreign carrier to break into it.

Yes, I know, there are many foreign carriers that do serve Korea, but I'm just repeating what I recall of earlier discussions.

That's certainly a valid point, and worth considering - though, I'd urge caution if you're going to stop NZ from serving based on that:

1. KE is facing a massive loss of face in the market - it's become a symbol of conglomerates’ perceived abuse of power within Korea.
2. NZ can mitigate this risk through a JV with OZ, with joint marketing to OZ's FFP base, and making use of OZ's corporate contracts.
3. Numerous foreign carriers in recent years have launched ICN, and been successful - think BA and LO. No reason NZ couldn't too.

On KE, an FT article just a few weeks ago has highlighted issues in the public's perception of the KE brand, in light of the scandals.

See: https://www.ft.com/content/65078bd8-621 ... 63a0613e56.

Now, more than ever before, NZ can take advantage of KE's recent reputational problems, and launch ICN itself. I am very hopeful.

Cheers,

C.

My god - despite the massive increase in the price of oil over the past year, flights to China are still running below NZD 500 return.

CHC to BJS and SHA on CZ is just NZD 496 return! Meanwhile, GS is offering AKL to CKG or TSN for just NZD 500 return. Crazy.

Despite this competition, NZ still feels that it is able to charge about double these prices for flights to PVG or TPE - good on them!

See:
- http://www.csair.com/nz/en/czadscale/20 ... ign=smflnz.
- https://global.tianjin-air.com/NZ/GB/HOME.

Cheers,

C.

CX's new 'restaurant-style' Business Class dining will be launched on AKL - HKG flights in February 2019, and follows SQ launching 'Book the Cook' in Business Class on its AKL - SIN flights late last year. Interestingly, there's no mention as to when CHC - HKG flights will get the new service, if at all. With NZ's long-haul partners upping their premium food game ex-AKL, what changes, if any, should NZ make to its premium meal offerings? Better lounge meals might be a winner?

See: https://www.ausbt.com.au/cathay-pacific ... ource=hero.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

I just don't think there's time, demand, crew resource to pull it off properly.

Of course there is, if NZ drops the free tea/coffee for all - not only does JQ pull it off, but so do various full-service carriers (think BA).

A few points:

Demand
- IMHO, demand is there - I have seen this on JQ domestically, and note that the likes of BA said demand "completely surprised us."
- The trend is definitely towards BOB, not just with BA, but with rumours of various other full-service carriers considering BOB also.
- You would arguably create some demand, if you dropped free tea/coffee, and also dropped the KoruHour free wines and cheeses.

Timing
- The shorter the service, arguably, the less likely it is that people will be buying products inflight anyway, which will help logistically.
- One option may be to limit it to flights >1 hour (e.g. excluding CHC - WLG). You may also limit the selection, relative to the Tasman.
- Technology will increasingly be used to make services like these more efficient - like a BOB smartphone app function down the line.

I'm not saying that NZ should or shouldn't do this, but I do think that it's something that should be considered by the airline seriously.

NZ6 wrote:

Koru Hour flights.

The KoruHour is an interesting concept - some comments:

- What does it actually achieve? Impressing high-yielding business customers? These people also fly outside of KoruHour (4 or 8pm).
- NZ could drop KoruHour in favour of improved lounge food offerings - for example, introducing meals at certain times of the day?
- Alternatively, could KoruHour be extended to business-focused prop flights, like WLG - HLZ / TRG? Even WLG - IVC is ~2 hours.

The timing restrictions of KoruHour seem to be a bit arbitrary, and can lead to disappointment (even though it's noted on your ticket).

I appreciate NZ may have stats to say that KoruHour is a success, but in light of Luxon's philosophy, I'm surprised it hasn't been cut.

Cheers,

C.

Does NZ even want to drop tea/coffee and water for in lieu of a buy on board service, that's a different service proposition. What you would need to understand is what customers would prefer, either for personal use or perception of the airline. Complimentary drink and small snack or a 'LCC style' optional buy on board service.

Firstly, I doubt anyone would a ticket domestically based on either option and before we worry about what people want or do offshore, remember this is short domestic NZ flights only.

Like I said in my original post, you'd need to do some targeted local market research and work the numbers based on things like the following...
- Cost to provide a range of 'snacks/meals' nationwide or at least via the 3-4 major hubs (you can't one menu for akl and other for chc)
- Estimated Wastage for spoiled goods.
- Cost to carry a range of meals / snacks across multiple sectors annually (weight is fuel, fuel is money...)
- Common Menu options across entire fleet or offer a complex product if regional a/c are unable to heat food etc.
- Negative customer perception / PR with removing complimentary service options vs potential service revenue and subsequent profit.
- Would customers actually use it and do they even want it?
- Evaluate other risks such as do you transact credit cards in the air or wait till on the ground? - you can end up with failed transactions, lost revenue, double charges etc etc etc..

Remember JQ and NZ are still battling for market share within NZ. Maybe not the best way to explain it but, NZ's has a strong reputation within the media and wider NZ population (maybe not always here) but, is there a need or requirement to change the service model, what are risks of a negative backlash from the media or public? Are the risks of this worth potential revenue? Are customers even asking for in-flight snacks? or would NZ be just making the change for let's say $300K but also give up 2% market share as people get pissed off and fly JQ out of principal.

I'm not saying these's models don't work, they absolutely do. What I'm saying is; is the revenue, well actually profit worth making any changes and or rocking the boat? Especially while NZ is seen as having a good in-flight experience domestically?

I'm also not saying this won't ever happen but there's many more factors to evaluate than just deciding to sell food/drink as it's worked for other airlines and the crew have plenty of time to do it so it must be easy money.

As for Koru Hour, it's targeted a peak traffic times. Offering a more complete service with alcohol etc and in return obviously releasing higher priced seats.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

I'm just really curious as to what brings you to the conclusion that ICN is or would be high yield?

Thanks for your post on this, NZ6, and apologies for the delayed response - NZ at ICN is a topic that I'm really interested in. To start with, I was making the comment about yield at ICN relative to other untapped opportunities in Asia for NZ - that is, in comparison to the likes of BKK, CGK, KUL, MNL and others - obviously ICN would not be as high-yielding as HKG, SFO, SIN or LAX, but within Asia, I firmly believe that it represents the best opportunity for NZ in terms of growth / yield potential.

Let's look at some basic facts:

- Korea has the most unserved demand for travel to AKL of anywhere (per AKL Airport).
- Korean arrivals to New Zealand grew by more than 13% in the past year, and tourism by 13%.
- AKL has double the Korean population of BNE, and ~4 - 5x the Korean population of MEL.

See:
- https://corporate.aucklandairport.co.nz ... sentations.
- https://www.tourismnewzealand.com/marke ... uth-korea/.

Now, where is the yield you say? Well, according to Stats NZ, business-related arrivals from Korea grew more than 30% between 2017 - 2018, while conferences-related traffic grew 36% in the same period (albeit off small bases). The business arrivals (~3,000 in 2017) were the same as for Hong Kong, and only about half that of Singapore (~6,000) (which has ~4 daily flights to New Zealand). S. Korea's numbers in the indicator were 3x those of Taiwan's. The indicator is not perfect, but it is one sign.

See: https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-r ... nuary-2018.

NZ would be able to tap this business traffic, because some of the Korean companies would have contracts with OZ, and be Star FFP's. OZ themselves have talked about desperately wanting to expand in the long-haul space (where they have a competitive advantage over the LCC's in Korea), but are restricted by their fleet. In light of this, and in light of the fact that the 789 is probably more of the right-sized aircraft for AKL - ICN than OZ's 359 or 772 would be, an OZ deal could surely be done.

TPE had one thing that ICN does not, for NZ - that is, a lack of direct, non-stop competition. The big stumbling block at ICN for NZ is the fact that KE is already well-established in the market. There's no denying this, and AFAIK, NZ hasn't launched a route with direct, non-stop competition since the likes of LAX - LHR (replacing LGW), back in the 90's. However, with an OZ partnership and ICN being a Star hub, NZ can mitigate this risk somewhat, unlike at other Asian airports like KUL or MNL, no?

I'm honestly not phased by KE's presence at ICN though. The market is big enough for both. Further, when NZ launched TPE, it signalled that it was open to changing its strategy in competition. This is because, while CI doesn't fly non-stop on AKL - TPE, it still represented a strong competitive threat to NZ's analysis of AKL - TPE - potentially even more than KE would in an NZ analysis on the merits of opening AKL - ICN. Let's consider CI's strengths as a competitor and threat to NZ at AKL over KE's:

- While CI does not fly here non-stop, it does fly to two New Zealand destinations (both AKL and CHC), which KE has not done for about 15 years.
- CI maintains a daily AKL service (albeit indirect) over the New Zealand winter, whereas KE goes down to a lower frequency (4x flights per week).
- Through its Tasman flying (sometimes twice a day to AKL, in the past), CI has been able to build up brand recognition in AKL, IMO, to KE's levels.
- CI's competitiveness at AKL is only set to increase, with the introduction of the 359 here. Meanwhile, KE's product competitiveness has plateaued.

NZ6 wrote:

The modelling I've seen suggests it's a inbound VFR market and outbound is predominately low yield Europe bound traffic which now has all the Chinese carriers fighting over it. There is little to no outbound NZ and little business to Korea itself.

Would you mind sharing this modelling? I'd like to draw your attention to a few figures (albeit not perfect indicators, but interesting):

- Business arrivals from Korea are at the same levels as from Singapore - with Korea being a bigger and faster growing economy, those numbers will grow.
- The amount of New Zealanders visiting Korea is largely about the same amount of Taiwanese people visiting New Zealand per year, actually (~33,000).
- Just for the sake of comparison, there are 2 - 3x times the amount of New Zealanders visiting Korea than there are visiting Taiwan (~33,000 v ~14,500).

See:
- https://kto.visitkorea.or.kr/eng/touris ... /inout.kto.
- http://admin.taiwan.net.tw/statistics/y ... aspx?no=15.
- https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-r ... ember-2017.

NZ6 wrote:

My opinion on ICN has changed from a few months ago and I now give ICN an opportunity now ...

I'm interested to hear why you changed your mind on ICN, when the fundamentals haven't changed in the space of a few months?

Cheers,

C.

No, obviously I can't share modelling.

Passenger arrival numbers etc are a good start, but like any statistic, take from it what you want. It's only showing a set of specific data and doesn't provide context or detail around it.

I don't doubt plenty of Korean nationals visit to NZ.

The question is, can NZ light up a plane and fly to ICN, pick up 280+ passengers each time (minimum 3 per week ideally) and charge them enough to fly them back here and make it worth their while?

- Why are business pax up?
- Why are pax numbers up last year?
- Is that going to continue / what is Tourism NZ doing?
- What is happening outbound re the above?
- What type of yield will you get
- Are they KE loyal how will you get PAX off KE?
- Can NZ compete with CX, SQ and other carriers on the price sensitive passenger
- Can NZ entice premium pax off KE
- How will NZ tap into the Korean market locally when KE has the market presence
- What leanings can NZ get from OZ's time here? why did they fail?

Again I'm shooting down you thoughts on this, all I'm able to say is when you looking at more specific and targeted analysis of this. It's not as black and white as saying passengers numbers are up, population is big so NZ should go get 15% of that pie as it's easy money.

Finally and ultimately, Where does NZ get the equipment from or is that better sent elsewhere?

NZ6 wrote:

No, obviously I can't share modelling.

Okay, but that modelling seems to be questionable:

1) The in-bound market isn't VFR-oriented - holiday arrivals (68,000 pa) are much greater than VFR ones (12,000 pa).
2) The out-bound market is unlikely Europe-dominant, as KE isn't competitive in that space - it forces overnight transits.

NZ6 wrote:

Are they KE loyal how will you get PAX off KE? Can NZ entice premium pax off KE? How will NZ tap into the Korean market locally when KE has the market presence?

The KE issue is the stumbling block for this route - not demand or yield, IMO (I mean, compare Korea to Taiwan). As I stated above, a key development in Korea of late has been the tarnishing of KE's brand in both the government and public arenas. As per the FT, it's become a symbol of conglomerates’ perceived abuse of power and reputation loss within Korea. The company is under investigation, has fired several executives, and covers the front page of the Korean media with stories like 'Nut Rage'. Now, more than ever before, NZ can take advantage of KE's recent reputational problems, and launch ICN itself (with a boost from OZ, too).

NZ6 wrote:

My opinion on ICN has changed from a few months ago and I now give ICN an opportunity now ...

By the way, would you mind sharing what's changed your mind on NZ's odds at ICN from merely a few months ago?

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

No, obviously I can't share modelling.

Okay, but that modelling seems to be questionable:

1) The in-bound market isn't VFR-oriented - holiday arrivals (68,000 pa) are much greater than VFR ones (12,000 pa).
2) The out-bound market is unlikely Europe-dominant, as KE isn't competitive in that space - it forces overnight transits.

NZ6 wrote:

Are they KE loyal how will you get PAX off KE? Can NZ entice premium pax off KE? How will NZ tap into the Korean market locally when KE has the market presence?

The KE issue is the stumbling block for this route - not demand or yield, IMO (I mean, compare Korea to Taiwan). As I stated above, a key development in Korea of late has been the tarnishing of KE's brand in both the government and public arenas. As per the FT, it's become a symbol of conglomerates’ perceived abuse of power and reputation loss within Korea. The company is under investigation, has fired several executives, and covers the front page of the Korean media with stories like 'Nut Rage'. Now, more than ever before, NZ can take advantage of KE's recent reputational problems, and launch ICN itself (with a boost from OZ, too).

NZ6 wrote:

My opinion on ICN has changed from a few months ago and I now give ICN an opportunity now ...

By the way, would you mind sharing what's changed your mind on NZ's odds at ICN from merely a few months ago?

Cheers,

C.

I was wondering what you were talking about with the VFR market but I see I used it earlier on when I used the wrong acronym and should have said FIT which includes your GIT's etc etc

Modeling is more than just passenger numbers, it's about market share, revenue, yield and pax loads across cabins and seasons. You overlap this with aircraft utilization, sector times, operational fees along with many other variables.

From there you make a decision on potential flights.

If flying there gave you a even slice of the pie then NZ would probably do it.

And let's not consume June's thread with ICN pro's and con's. You believe it's viable and I don't completely disagree I just don't think it's as clear cut as you do.

NZ6 wrote:

Modeling is more than just passenger numbers, it's about market share, revenue, yield and pax loads across cabins and seasons. You overlap this with aircraft utilization, sector times, operational fees along with many other variables.

Which of these variables has developed so as to change your mind on NZ's odds at ICN, within just the past few months?

Cheers,

C.

Not forgetting that ICN could probably have a lot of belly freight which is the most profitable part of flying for NZ. Would also provide some (admittedly not a huge amount) of extra fees for EZE.

ZK-OKI presently en route SIN-AKL as NZ6018.
http://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zk-oki

And ZK-OKC due back from SIN in the next two days.
http://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zk-okc

PA515

PA515 wrote:

ZK-OKI presently en route SIN-AKL as NZ6018.
http://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zk-oki

And ZK-OKC due back from SIN in the next two days.
http://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zk-okc

PA515

How do Flightradar get to know in advance, what individual planes
are scheduled to do?

OKI is in the untitled SQ livery according to another forum.

Just arrived into AKL too.

So it seems OKI won't get a black tail?

Have to say would be quite weird to see SQ colours flying around with the Air New Zealand name on the fuselage in it's traditional font but otherwise Singapore Airlines livery. Anyhow this plane will certainly offer a comfy ride to HNL if that's where it's likely to be utilised.

BTW it's interesting to look at the TAP A321NEO config:

16 Flatbed Business
42 Economy Plus (6 abreast)
117 Economy
175 total

And their A339 NEO which features a skycouch

32 flatbed business
96 Economy plus including 12 rows of the 4 middle 4 seats as sky couch
176 Economy

Total: 304

Interesting that they are using a sky-couch across 4 seats (as opposed to 3 on NZ) and interesting that they have chosen such a low density A321 NEO layout with flatbeds and premium econ.

NZ321 wrote:

BTW it's interesting to look at the TAP A321NEO config:

16 Flatbed Business
42 Economy Plus (6 abreast)
117 Economy
175 total

Interesting that ... they have chosen such a low density A321 NEO layout with flatbeds and premium econ.

That is interesting - I wonder how much range they'll squeeze out of their 321NEO's with that? Also, interestingly, Airbus is reportedly considering a 321NEOXLR version (with more range than the LR) - is this something that NZ could be interested in, or other carriers might use to New Zealand? Routes like AKL - CGK / MNL and WLG / ZQN - SIN spring to mind (WLG and ZQN, pending their runways being able to handle the plane, which is unclear). This is also the type of plane that could re-start routes like AKL - BWN on BI, IMO (as BI is reportedly going to re-open BNE - BWN with their 320NEO's).

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

Interesting that ... they have chosen such a low density A321 NEO layout with flatbeds and premium econ.

That is interesting - I wonder how much range they'll squeeze out of their 321NEO's with that? Also, interestingly, Airbus is reportedly considering a 321NEOXLR version (with more range than the LR) - is this something that NZ could be interested in, or other carriers might use to New Zealand? Routes like AKL - CGK / MNL and WLG / ZQN - SIN spring to mind (WLG and ZQN, pending their runways being able to handle the plane, which is unclear). This is also the type of plane that could re-start routes like AKL - BWN on BI, IMO (as BI is reportedly going to re-open BNE - BWN with their 320NEO's).

Cheers,

C.[/quote]

Unless ZQN gets an runway extension - it would be hard to see an A321NEO of any version being able to operate long-haul ex ZQN.

zkncj wrote:

Unless ZQN gets an runway extension - it would be hard to see an A321NEO of any version being able to operate long-haul ex ZQN.

Yes, you're right. Though, I wonder if a low density one on ZQN - PER could make it?

Cheers,

C.

zkncj wrote:

Unless ZQN gets an runway extension - it would be hard to see an A321NEO of any version being able to operate long-haul ex ZQN.

ZQN is the main reason they didn't go for a single fleet of A321NEO's

Zkpilot wrote:

Not forgetting that ICN could probably have a lot of belly freight ...

100% - Korea is our fifth largest export destination, and not many households in New Zealand would be without at least one product from Korea, be it Samsung, LG or Hyundai.

Cheers,

C.

NZ6 wrote:

ZQN is the main reason they didn't go for a single fleet of A321NEO's

So, they thought CHC and WLG could fill the 321NEO's fine? If ZQN was the main reason, then wouldn't they have split the order more in favour of the 321NEO's?

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Not forgetting that ICN could probably have a lot of belly freight ...

100% - Korea is our fifth largest export destination, and not many households in New Zealand would be without at least one product from Korea, be it Samsung, LG or Hyundai.

Cheers,

C.

Not saying you're wrong but most of those consumables go via Sea