• 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 12
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 3121
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:11 am

With BA saying that it wants to expand its presence in the region beyond its single daily SYD flight, and potentially go back to MEL, does anyone think that they might re-evaluate AKL in the future too? It's unlikely - I know - but business traffic could get a significant boost with a free-trade deal post-Brexit, and, of course, VFR traffic is growing rapidly with all of that British immigration to New Zealand too (not that they'd be after VFR traffic, but it's a nice top-up). With no year-round oneworld presence from North America to New Zealand, a small BA 788 on LHR - LAX - AKL might be high-yielding enough to cover the added costs of the longer crew-layovers on this sort of route. A JV could help, too.

I personally don't see it happening - BA would want to get MEL up and running before AKL - but it's an interesting topic, in light of growing traffic in this corridor.

Cheers,

C.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4107
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:28 am

planemanofnz wrote:
With BA saying that it wants to expand its presence in the region beyond its single daily SYD flight, and potentially go back to MEL, does anyone think that they might re-evaluate AKL in the future too? It's unlikely - I know - but business traffic could get a significant boost with a free-trade deal post-Brexit, and, of course, VFR traffic is growing rapidly with all of that British immigration to New Zealand too (not that they'd be after VFR traffic, but it's a nice top-up). With no year-round oneworld presence from North America to New Zealand, a small BA 788 on LHR - LAX - AKL might be high-yielding enough to cover the added costs of the longer crew-layovers on this sort of route. A JV could help, too.

I personally don't see it happening - BA would want to get MEL up and running before AKL - but it's an interesting topic, in light of growing traffic in this corridor.

Cheers,

C.

Problem is that BA used to have the reputation as being one of the very best. These days there are dozens of airlines that are better. Why would anyone want to pay what would likely be a premium to fly an airline like BA when there are better and cheaper options? The ex-pats likely no longer have a BA frequent flyer card so it’s really only the Brits in the UK themselves.
57 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
User avatar
MillwallSean
Posts: 918
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:35 am

Zkpilot wrote:
Problem is that BA used to have the reputation as being one of the very best. These days there are dozens of airlines that are better. Why would anyone want to pay what would likely be a premium to fly an airline like BA when there are better and cheaper options? The ex-pats likely no longer have a BA frequent flyer card so it’s really only the Brits in the UK themselves.


For the same reason overseas kiwis fly NZ?
Same thing, the airline is nothing special yet overseas kiwis love to fly NZ. The further away you are from the country of birth the more rose tinted the glasses often gets.

And no I dont see BA starting AKL.

------------------------------------------------------

In regards to TransTasman.Outside of a few flights morning/evening it seems to be a lot of VFR and tourism. Prefect for Tiger.
Migrant kiwis that have headed off for a better life in Aussie or their families seems to dominate the less business friendly departures. Thats a perfect market segment for Tiger.

I agree with those that say, ditch the Virgin brand to everything but a few select flights to AKL.
AKL is the only city with critical mass enough to sustain a little bit more premium offerings. No I dont call Virgin premium, but tickets that are flexible sold in greater quantities for example. And even to AKL I believe they can send Tiger during weekends and less business friendly hours.
No One Likes Us - We Dont Care.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 3121
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:36 am

Zkpilot wrote:
These days there are dozens of airlines that are better. Why would anyone want to pay what would likely be a premium to fly an airline like BA when there are better and cheaper options?

The same reason why people fly LHR to SYD on BA - UK-based corporate contracts and loyalty schemes. If we're talking about a 789, that's a very small and premium-heavy plane - they wouldn't need a big quantity of traffic, they'd just need a high quality of traffic. I don't really see AKL as offering this quality of traffic for now, despite the growing luxury tourism market - perhaps if business ties expand rapidly in the FTA and post-Brexit era, it might be looked at? In any event, an interesting topic.

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 3121
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:41 am

Regarding the NZ - QF deal potentially running into regulatory headwinds, it seems that this won't be an issue:

... the Commerce Commission here says the code-share doesn't require any inspection ''based on the information available'', while its Australian counterpart rather enigmatically says it doesn't comment on ''potential investigations''.

See: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12066321.

Cheers,

C.
 
Kashmon
Posts: 628
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 8:08 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Thu Jun 07, 2018 12:10 pm

MillwallSean wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
Problem is that BA used to have the reputation as being one of the very best. These days there are dozens of airlines that are better. Why would anyone want to pay what would likely be a premium to fly an airline like BA when there are better and cheaper options? The ex-pats likely no longer have a BA frequent flyer card so it’s really only the Brits in the UK themselves.


For the same reason overseas kiwis fly NZ?
Same thing, the airline is nothing special yet overseas kiwis love to fly NZ. The further away you are from the country of birth the more rose tinted the glasses often gets.

And no I dont see BA starting AKL.

------------------------------------------------------

In regards to TransTasman.Outside of a few flights morning/evening it seems to be a lot of VFR and tourism. Prefect for Tiger.
Migrant kiwis that have headed off for a better life in Aussie or their families seems to dominate the less business friendly departures. Thats a perfect market segment for Tiger.

I agree with those that say, ditch the Virgin brand to everything but a few select flights to AKL.
AKL is the only city with critical mass enough to sustain a little bit more premium offerings. No I dont call Virgin premium, but tickets that are flexible sold in greater quantities for example. And even to AKL I believe they can send Tiger during weekends and less business friendly hours.



I don't think anyone thinks BA was the very best at least for the last 20 years..
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3428
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Thu Jun 07, 2018 12:32 pm

So are the 15 x undisclosed A350 orders for NZ? That would be a coup. Replace 8 x 77E and 7 x 77W with a mix of -900 and -1000 models.
come visit the south pacific
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 3121
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Thu Jun 07, 2018 12:36 pm

Motorhussy wrote:
So are the 15 x undisclosed A350 orders for NZ? That would be a coup. Replace 8 x 77E and 7 x 77W with a mix of -900 and -1000 models.

Eh, I don't think so? See earlier posts in the thread - it seems the order isn't being made until late-2019. Maybe Luxon was putting us off with those comments?

Cheers,

C.
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 616
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Thu Jun 07, 2018 12:37 pm

Motorhussy wrote:
This story on Hamilton’s Pacific Aerospace being fined for breaching a UN ban for trade with the DPRK is interesting …

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/359136/nz-firm-fined-nearly-75k-for-breaching-un-sanctions


So it sounds like they didn't get dinged for the plane ending up in North Korea. But rather knowing it was there and then sending replacement parts.
 
Deepinsider
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:36 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Thu Jun 07, 2018 12:47 pm

MillwallSean wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
Problem is that BA used to have the reputation as being one of the very best. These days there are dozens of airlines that are better. Why would anyone want to pay what would likely be a premium to fly an airline like BA when there are better and cheaper options? The ex-pats likely no longer have a BA frequent flyer card so it’s really only the Brits in the UK themselves.


For the same reason overseas kiwis fly NZ?
Same thing, the airline is nothing special yet overseas kiwis love to fly NZ. The further away you are from the country of birth the more rose tinted the glasses often gets.

And no I dont see BA starting AKL.

------------------------------------------------------

In regards to TransTasman.Outside of a few flights morning/evening it seems to be a lot of VFR and tourism. Prefect for Tiger.
Migrant kiwis that have headed off for a better life in Aussie or their families seems to dominate the less business friendly departures. Thats a perfect market segment for Tiger.

I agree with those that say, ditch the Virgin brand to everything but a few select flights to AKL.
AKL is the only city with critical mass enough to sustain a little bit more premium offerings. No I dont call Virgin premium, but tickets that are flexible sold in greater quantities for example. And even to AKL I believe they can send Tiger during weekends and less business friendly hours.


Talking about brand image/profile, in the New Zealand market (except AirNZ), my feeling is that Qantas would easily
be the best thought of, way above Jetstar, Virgin OZ, or the little known Tiger. (context, domestic/Tasman)
Qantas should rebrand it's local operations back to their own name. (behind the scenes, the LCC Jetstar remains
in operation. but the outside paint scheme, and the ticket logo might change. Together with hints that former Jetstar
policies are softened to the QF standards). Consumer authorities couldn't complain too much. It's only a label change,
not the product/price.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 3121
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Thu Jun 07, 2018 1:23 pm

Deepinsider wrote:
Qantas should rebrand it's local operations back to their own name. (behind the scenes, the LCC Jetstar remains in operation. but the outside paint scheme, and the ticket logo might change.

I disagree - the mainline QF brand will then suffer, being associated with an LCC-styled offering on selected routes (unless QF introduced free drinks and food domestically here, as they do in Australia). IMO, the idea that JQ's brand here is so tarnished that it can no longer be saved is, IMO, over the top - their reputation has improved, as their on-time performance has over the years, and their operation here is profitable (albeit by a small amount). If they were loss-making, and the situation was getting worse, maybe - but, it's not. JQ is not fully reaping the branding and publicity benefit from their move into regional New Zealand, but I don't think that bringing QF along is the answer to that particular issue - better advertising, communications, marketing, promotions and sponsorship, is.

Cheers,

C.
 
NZ321
Posts: 787
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Thu Jun 07, 2018 3:31 pm

Agree with the above, Planeman. It is not a goer in the present climate for QF to rebrand without pulling Jetstar out and then what is to gain? QF brand is not needed here to deliver the necessary product provision over the short haul sectors within NZ. And JQ is now not spilling red ink. That signals a recipe for success to me.
Plane mad!
 
NZ6
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Thu Jun 07, 2018 9:42 pm

planemanofnz wrote:
With BA saying that it wants to expand its presence in the region beyond its single daily SYD flight, and potentially go back to MEL, does anyone think that they might re-evaluate AKL in the future too? It's unlikely - I know - but business traffic could get a significant boost with a free-trade deal post-Brexit, and, of course, VFR traffic is growing rapidly with all of that British immigration to New Zealand too (not that they'd be after VFR traffic, but it's a nice top-up). With no year-round oneworld presence from North America to New Zealand, a small BA 788 on LHR - LAX - AKL might be high-yielding enough to cover the added costs of the longer crew-layovers on this sort of route. A JV could help, too.

I personally don't see it happening - BA would want to get MEL up and running before AKL - but it's an interesting topic, in light of growing traffic in this corridor.

Cheers,

C.


I for one am amazed between QF and BA they don't fly AKL-LAX-AKL, perhaps AA is influencing that but these alliances don't stop carriers doing what they need for their own business like sometimes it's suggested.
 
Gasman
Posts: 1840
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Thu Jun 07, 2018 9:50 pm

NZ6 wrote:
[I for one am amazed between QF and BA they don't fly AKL-LAX-AKL, perhaps AA is influencing that but these alliances don't stop carriers doing what they need for their own business like sometimes it's suggested.

:checkmark: +1

I was actually astonished when QF pulled out of AKL-LAX. How the route was a cash cow for NZ with (at its peak) 2 daily 744s plus the odd 772 and 763 via the Pacific, yet QF couldn't make it viable with one daily 744 then downgrading it to a 332? Didn't make sense.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 3121
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:51 pm

Gasman wrote:
I was actually astonished when QF pulled out of AKL-LAX.

Was it a case that on the one hand, the 744 was too big, while on the other, the 332 was too restricted, and they couldn't have used JQ's 787's due to the crew rest issue? AA's 787 seems like a better option - here's hoping the US DOT approves the AA - QF JV, so the route can go year-round.

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 3121
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:53 pm

NZ is adjusting its schedule for its IUE flights.

From 31OCT18, the Airbus A320 aircraft will operate from Auckland on Day 26, instead of Day 36. Departure from Niue will also move to Day 15, instead of Day 25.

See: https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... djustment/.

Does anyone know how NZ is going at IUE?

Cheers,

C.
 
NZ6
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Fri Jun 08, 2018 1:45 am

planemanofnz wrote:
NZ is adjusting its schedule for its IUE flights.

From 31OCT18, the Airbus A320 aircraft will operate from Auckland on Day 26, instead of Day 36. Departure from Niue will also move to Day 15, instead of Day 25.

See: https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... djustment/.

Does anyone know how NZ is going at IUE?

Cheers,

C.


It's a subsidized flight. They don't make money, the route isn't intended for that purpose either.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 3121
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:30 am

NZ6 wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
NZ is adjusting its schedule for its IUE flights.

From 31OCT18, the Airbus A320 aircraft will operate from Auckland on Day 26, instead of Day 36. Departure from Niue will also move to Day 15, instead of Day 25.

See: https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... djustment/.

Does anyone know how NZ is going at IUE?

Cheers,

C.


It's a subsidized flight. They don't make money, the route isn't intended for that purpose either.

My undersranding was that it was only part subsidised, like only 1 of the weekly flights - is the full operation totally subsidised?

Cheers,

C.
 
zkncj
Posts: 2841
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:35 am

Motorhussy wrote:
So are the 15 x undisclosed A350 orders for NZ? That would be a coup. Replace 8 x 77E and 7 x 77W with a mix of -900 and -1000 models.


Or maybe just the replacement of the 77E + room for growth? over the next time couple of years e.g. 5x 763's became around 12x 789s so it possible.

With Tasman/Pacific now increasing with WB operations it could be possible that they are looking an some short-haul a350? for the likes of the AKL-SYD etc?

AKL-New York if done well would probably need 2x A350s alone.
 
Mr AirNZ
Posts: 908
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2002 10:24 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:36 am

zkncj wrote:
Motorhussy wrote:
So are the 15 x undisclosed A350 orders for NZ? That would be a coup. Replace 8 x 77E and 7 x 77W with a mix of -900 and -1000 models.


Or maybe just the replacement of the 77E + room for growth? over the next time couple of years e.g. 5x 763's became around 12x 789s so it possible.

With Tasman/Pacific now increasing with WB operations it could be possible that they are looking an some short-haul a350? for the likes of the AKL-SYD etc?

AKL-New York if done well would probably need 2x A350s alone.

Can we put this to bed? Various sources have already reported where this order is from and it isn't this hemisphere.

The CEO himself made it quite clear (less than a week ago!) the RFP has been delayed until next year. We might yet see A350s operated by the local carrier but there is such a thing as putting the cart before the horse.
 
NZ321
Posts: 787
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Fri Jun 08, 2018 8:15 am

Yes I have no doubt the A350 order is not NZ but where is the order from?
Plane mad!
 
Deepinsider
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:36 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:20 pm

NZ321 wrote:
Yes I have no doubt the A350 order is not NZ but where is the order from?


One guess might be here, but who knows, just co incidence?
https://airlinerwatch.com/hna-group-to- ... -airlines/
 
Deepinsider
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:36 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:54 pm

WLG. What do we know so far about Airbus testing/verifying the A350 for WLG op's?
My strong opinion is that the FAA and EASA rules are so well established and universal
that it would take an extreme example to give an individual airport, some sort of special
exemption from the the AFM capabilities.
Is this just a marketing stunt or is there a valid FAA/EASA protocol here?
Nobody doubts that AirNZ could be a major potential customer for this
amazing plane. And that's what I think this is all about. I cannot imagine
Boeing would bother to play this sort of game, being that they and AirNZ
know and respect the universal certification rules.
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 616
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:02 pm

Honestly I think ANZ using the A350 out of WLG is a complete red herring. ANZ leadership have made it super clear that AKL is the ANZ hub for international stuff. This was made clear with ANZ and QF statements around the runway extensions. Stuff like this is aimed squarely at SIA who may be considering taking SIN-MEL-WLG to SIN-WLG non stop. As well as any other Asian operators that many want to work into WLG or other similar airports.

Anyways, I haven't seen any announcments on the testing. And I wouldn't have expected any as the tests were at the start of the week. There will be a fair chunk of time spent analyzing them and even then we might not hear anything if the numbers don't show what they're after.
 
NZ321
Posts: 787
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Fri Jun 08, 2018 5:55 pm

Do they need a wet runway for the testing to be conclusive and did the WLG weather cooperate?
Plane mad!
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Fri Jun 08, 2018 7:05 pm

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
Honestly I think ANZ using the A350 out of WLG is a complete red herring. ANZ leadership have made it super clear that AKL is the ANZ hub for international stuff. This was made clear with ANZ and QF statements around the runway extensions. Stuff like this is aimed squarely at SIA who may be considering taking SIN-MEL-WLG to SIN-WLG non stop. As well as any other Asian operators that many want to work into WLG or other similar airports.

Anyways, I haven't seen any announcments on the testing. And I wouldn't have expected any as the tests were at the start of the week. There will be a fair chunk of time spent analyzing them and even then we might not hear anything if the numbers don't show what they're after.


I 100% concur. While NZ is a (very) potential customer for the A350, I think we will never see an A350 in NZ colours doing regular scheduled longhaul services out of WLG. SQ is certainly one of the main targets there, and probably the hope that some other (Asian) carrier(s) will serve WLG with an A350 (CX, CZ, CI...). It would be wonderful to see :-)
 
User avatar
ZKNEA
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 7:07 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Fri Jun 08, 2018 11:58 pm

NZ321 wrote:
Do they need a wet runway for the testing to be conclusive and did the WLG weather cooperate?


I was watching some of the testing on the Tuesday and there was no rain about after early morning, the Airport Fire Service was out there covering parts of the runway with water prior to each A350 landing. So from that and the few media statements about the testing I gather they needed some form of wet runway but they definitely didn’t have water on the full or used length of the runway that’s for sure. Whether or not that was enough for their testing I don’t know.

But without any inside knowledge it would appear that Wellington turned on a good few winter days - unfortunately for Airbus/WIAL/NZ/SQ or whoever else we speculate maybe interested in the tests....
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sat Jun 09, 2018 12:18 am

I've been following the recent discussion over the relative merits of the A350 and the B777X with interest. At least some of the preference for the A350 seems to relate to the greater level of comfort that the aircraft supposedly has over the B777X. However, when I check out the seat widths that are quoted on line I find that the B777X has 45.7cm seat width, and the A350 46 cm seat width. Is this really a factor then in the overall levels of comfort that people are claiming? Or are there other factors in play?

From a purely commonsense point of view, all other factors being equal, the real advantage that the A350 appears to have over the B777X is weight. This is all "back-of-the-envelope" stuff, but the references I saw showed the A350-1000 at MZFW 223 tonnes, while the 777-9 shows at 255 tonnes. Allowing 50 extra pax for the B779 at say 100kg per pax (ie 5 tonnes) for the purposes of comparison, then the A350 still has something like a 27 tonne advantage over the B779 before any fuel is added. [Couldn't find relevant figures for the 777-8, so had to compare the larger variants.] This, surely, in an era of high fuel prices, trending higher, is a major argument in favour of the A350. As is the fact that the A350 is much newer technology. Are there any mitigating factors in favour of the 777, assuming both aircraft could perform the missions that NZ seeks of them?
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
Gasman
Posts: 1840
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sat Jun 09, 2018 1:05 am

DavidByrne wrote:
I've been following the recent discussion over the relative merits of the A350 and the B777X with interest. At least some of the preference for the A350 seems to relate to the greater level of comfort that the aircraft supposedly has over the B777X. However, when I check out the seat widths that are quoted on line I find that the B777X has 45.7cm seat width, and the A350 46 cm seat width. Is this really a factor then in the overall levels of comfort that people are claiming? Or are there other factors in play?

Totally. The A350 is a 9 abreast aircraft, whereas the 77X is a 10 abreast one. Whenever you put more people in a row for a given seat width, comfort reduces. It feels more "populated". More people have to climb over each other. Pressure on bin space, which is the same whether you're 9 or 10 abreast. Why do you think the 2-3-2 config of the 767 was so popular?
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 3121
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sat Jun 09, 2018 1:45 am

DavidByrne wrote:
Are there any mitigating factors in favour of the 777?

Yes - cargo. Although heavier, the 777-X can carry more freight than the A350, and cargo is an important part of NZ's business.

Cheers,

C.
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2791
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sat Jun 09, 2018 2:18 am

Deepinsider wrote:
WLG. What do we know so far about Airbus testing/verifying the A350 for WLG op's?
My strong opinion is that the FAA and EASA rules are so well established and universal
that it would take an extreme example to give an individual airport, some sort of special
exemption from the the AFM capabilities.
Is this just a marketing stunt or is there a valid FAA/EASA protocol here?

Financiers and leasors look at airports 'their' aircraft are operated into, as it can impact insurance costs and cover.

For example, ICAO requires more fire fighting crew and equipment at an airport for WB operations than for NB. Gets messy where only infrequent WB flights, or seats are blocked. Presumably operating under some form of exemption for each WB arrival / departure until the recently added fire fighting vehicle arrived? Still? Extra emergency staff rostered for each WB arrival and departure?

Tax payers will meet 100% of these additional costs, given previous comments from other airport users (and a.net contributors) about their unwillingness.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4107
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sat Jun 09, 2018 2:33 am

DavidByrne wrote:
I've been following the recent discussion over the relative merits of the A350 and the B777X with interest. At least some of the preference for the A350 seems to relate to the greater level of comfort that the aircraft supposedly has over the B777X. However, when I check out the seat widths that are quoted on line I find that the B777X has 45.7cm seat width, and the A350 46 cm seat width. Is this really a factor then in the overall levels of comfort that people are claiming? Or are there other factors in play?

From a purely commonsense point of view, all other factors being equal, the real advantage that the A350 appears to have over the B777X is weight. This is all "back-of-the-envelope" stuff, but the references I saw showed the A350-1000 at MZFW 223 tonnes, while the 777-9 shows at 255 tonnes. Allowing 50 extra pax for the B779 at say 100kg per pax (ie 5 tonnes) for the purposes of comparison, then the A350 still has something like a 27 tonne advantage over the B779 before any fuel is added. [Couldn't find relevant figures for the 777-8, so had to compare the larger variants.] This, surely, in an era of high fuel prices, trending higher, is a major argument in favour of the A350. As is the fact that the A350 is much newer technology. Are there any mitigating factors in favour of the 777, assuming both aircraft could perform the missions that NZ seeks of them?

The 77X only gets those seat widths by making the walls thinner (so an already noisy plane won’t get quieter) and by making the aisles narrower - reducing passenger comfort. The 77X is a great aircraft but especially when it comes to ULH the A350 definitely has the advantage in passenger comfort.
57 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6060
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sat Jun 09, 2018 2:56 am

DavidByrne wrote:
I've been following the recent discussion over the relative merits of the A350 and the B777X with interest. At least some of the preference for the A350 seems to relate to the greater level of comfort that the aircraft supposedly has over the B777X. However, when I check out the seat widths that are quoted on line I find that the B777X has 45.7cm seat width, and the A350 46 cm seat width. Is this really a factor then in the overall levels of comfort that people are claiming? Or are there other factors in play?

From a purely commonsense point of view, all other factors being equal, the real advantage that the A350 appears to have over the B777X is weight. This is all "back-of-the-envelope" stuff, but the references I saw showed the A350-1000 at MZFW 223 tonnes, while the 777-9 shows at 255 tonnes. Allowing 50 extra pax for the B779 at say 100kg per pax (ie 5 tonnes) for the purposes of comparison, then the A350 still has something like a 27 tonne advantage over the B779 before any fuel is added. [Couldn't find relevant figures for the 777-8, so had to compare the larger variants.] This, surely, in an era of high fuel prices, trending higher, is a major argument in favour of the A350. As is the fact that the A350 is much newer technology. Are there any mitigating factors in favour of the 777, assuming both aircraft could perform the missions that NZ seeks of them?


Current crew are 777 being it’s the incumbent aircraft type, and keeping to 1 manufacturer for long haul, some countries allow 777/787 cross crewing, I believe it the NZ CAA that don’t? This could change one day.

The 779 isn’t that much larger about 5% than a 77W and probably 5% ish smaller than a 744 aswell so with a new bigger J product we could have a 360 seat 779 and 320 seat 778. Or a 330 seat 35K and 300 seat 359? Estimates of course.

NZ are certainly about upsizing these days, the 359 almost seems best on the premium 789 routes like IAH/ORD? Where as YVR has almost outgrown the 772 and could use something a bit bigger rather than more frequency?

When it comes to 772 replacement I could see 5 778 and 5 779 or 5 359 and 5 35K with the larger frames doing LAX/LHR and maybe allowing the 77W to be reconfigured and used to YVR etc with a few less premium seats and more Y while the smaller frames do ULH like NYC.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6060
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sat Jun 09, 2018 3:05 am

Zkpilot wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
I've been following the recent discussion over the relative merits of the A350 and the B777X with interest. At least some of the preference for the A350 seems to relate to the greater level of comfort that the aircraft supposedly has over the B777X. However, when I check out the seat widths that are quoted on line I find that the B777X has 45.7cm seat width, and the A350 46 cm seat width. Is this really a factor then in the overall levels of comfort that people are claiming? Or are there other factors in play?

From a purely commonsense point of view, all other factors being equal, the real advantage that the A350 appears to have over the B777X is weight. This is all "back-of-the-envelope" stuff, but the references I saw showed the A350-1000 at MZFW 223 tonnes, while the 777-9 shows at 255 tonnes. Allowing 50 extra pax for the B779 at say 100kg per pax (ie 5 tonnes) for the purposes of comparison, then the A350 still has something like a 27 tonne advantage over the B779 before any fuel is added. [Couldn't find relevant figures for the 777-8, so had to compare the larger variants.] This, surely, in an era of high fuel prices, trending higher, is a major argument in favour of the A350. As is the fact that the A350 is much newer technology. Are there any mitigating factors in favour of the 777, assuming both aircraft could perform the missions that NZ seeks of them?

The 77X only gets those seat widths by making the walls thinner (so an already noisy plane won’t get quieter) and by making the aisles narrower - reducing passenger comfort. The 77X is a great aircraft but especially when it comes to ULH the A350 definitely has the advantage in passenger comfort.


That’s the thing though about pax comfort. How many airlines order based on that? SQ will in a few years have A380, 779, 359, 78X for different missions. I do agree Airbus aircraft are comfortable, I’ve not flown an 350 but the A330/340/380 are great, the 767 was great as was the 747 and 9 abreast 777 and my only 787 flight was NH with 8 abreast which seemed to have excessive space almost so I can see why airlines would go 9 abreast same with the 777 9 vs 10 abreast.
 
zkncj
Posts: 2841
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sat Jun 09, 2018 3:34 am

Does anyone know who the crazy airline is who is offering AKL-Paris for $999/return this weekend via Flight Centre?
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 3121
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sat Jun 09, 2018 3:40 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
Where as YVR has almost outgrown the 772 and could use something a bit bigger rather than more frequency?

IMO, once these sorts of routes get to a year-round daily service (which, AFAIK, YVR is not at yet), NZ will look to add a new route, rather than to increase capacity on existing routes. This negates the need for the larger 777-X. Those new routes will relieve pressure on the existing ports, like YVR.

The exceptions to these are obviously LAX (which will demand a 350-1000 or 777-X), as well as SFO, YVR, HKG and SIN, each of which are (or in the case of YVR, likely will be) operated in JV's, meaning NZ can fly the 359's or 789's there, while allowing the JV partners to pick up any other slack.

Cheers,

C.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sat Jun 09, 2018 3:56 am

zkncj wrote:
Does anyone know who the crazy airline is who is offering AKL-Paris for $999/return this weekend via Flight Centre?

CZ I think.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sat Jun 09, 2018 4:09 am

Gasman wrote:
The A350 is a 9 abreast aircraft, whereas the 77X is a 10 abreast one. Whenever you put more people in a row for a given seat width, comfort reduces. It feels more "populated". More people have to climb over each other. Pressure on bin space, which is the same whether you're 9 or 10 abreast. Why do you think the 2-3-2 config of the 767 was so popular?

Yes, that did occur to me but I dismissed it as an illusion! It’s a feeling of space, perhaps, but not actual space. And there’s no more climbing over pax in a 3-4-3 layout than there is in a 3-3-3 layout. As for bin space, I agree the A350 has the edge, but the most congested bins will always be those on the sides of the plane rather than in the centre, where in both aircraft there are three passengers competing.

Cargo is a factor, yes. How much will that balance against the lower trip costs of the A350, I wonder?

TBH the most compelling argument in favour of the A350 in my view is the lower fuel burn - especially when the kinds of missions anticipated are ULH. Less fuel burned early in the flight to carry fuel for the latter stages of the flight.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 3121
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sat Jun 09, 2018 4:36 am

DavidByrne wrote:
zkncj wrote:
Does anyone know who the crazy airline is who is offering AKL-Paris for $999/return this weekend via Flight Centre?

CZ I think.

That would make sense - earlier in the year, they did a promotion to FCO for the same price, I believe.

AFAIK, the only other carrier to have offered sub-NZD 1,000 return flights to Europe ex-AKL is PR, no?

Cheers,

C.
 
PA515
Posts: 1288
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sat Jun 09, 2018 4:39 am

My reading of the A350-900 WLG visit is that it's more about performance if an aircraft is diverted from AKL.

It would determine whether the aircraft could land if it was diverted from another destination, or could be used for special visits.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/1043 ... s-aircraft (tenth paragraph from the end)

PA515
 
zkncj
Posts: 2841
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sat Jun 09, 2018 4:48 am

planemanofnz wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
zkncj wrote:
Does anyone know who the crazy airline is who is offering AKL-Paris for $999/return this weekend via Flight Centre?

CZ I think.

That would make sense - earlier in the year, they did a promotion to FCO for the same price, I believe.

AFAIK, the only other carrier to have offered sub-NZD 1,000 return flights to Europe ex-AKL is PR, no?

Cheers,

C.


Pretty sure it was PR, wasn't it like an $799 return deal?
 
Gasman
Posts: 1840
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sat Jun 09, 2018 4:53 am

DavidByrne wrote:
And there’s no more climbing over pax in a 3-4-3 layout than there is in a 3-3-3 layout.

Of course there is.

With 3-3-3; five pax don't have direct aisle access. With 3-4-3, six don't.

Or, to look at it another way, the next time you're traveling 3-3-3, ask the pax in the middle 3 if they'd mind having another seat stuffed in there.

If you're on the outer seats of that middle three, there is only a 50% chance that the person next to you is going to climb over you to get up inflight (they might go the other way). If you're in a block of four, and all seats are filled, that chance increases to 100%

So yes, 3-3-3 is definitely better than 3-4-3 even if the seat width is the same
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sat Jun 09, 2018 5:17 am

Gasman wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
And there’s no more climbing over pax in a 3-4-3 layout than there is in a 3-3-3 layout.

Of course there is.

With 3-3-3; five pax don't have direct aisle access. With 3-4-3, six don't.

You're right, but it's marginal. The way I was looking at it is that in the centre block, no one in either aircraft has more than one pax to climb over. Now I've looked at the average number of passengers that a random passenger would have to clamber over in both configs - and it's 0.80 for 10-abreast, and very slightly better at 0.78 for 9-abreast 3-3-3.

Interestingly, the hands-down "winner" in the 9-abreast stakes is the now-out-of-favour 2-5-2 config, where the average passenger only has to clamber over 0.67 other passengers. Despite this, I always despised travelling in the centre of a 2-5-2 DC10 as I felt really constrained. Even though I was no more constrained than if I had a window seat. Strange things the mind does . . . perhaps it's because a window seat gives you a feeling of privacy on one side at least.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6060
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sat Jun 09, 2018 5:42 am

planemanofnz wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
Where as YVR has almost outgrown the 772 and could use something a bit bigger rather than more frequency?

IMO, once these sorts of routes get to a year-round daily service (which, AFAIK, YVR is not at yet), NZ will look to add a new route, rather than to increase capacity on existing routes. This negates the need for the larger 777-X. Those new routes will relieve pressure on the existing ports, like YVR.

The exceptions to these are obviously LAX (which will demand a 350-1000 or 777-X), as well as SFO, YVR, HKG and SIN, each of which are (or in the case of YVR, likely will be) operated in JV's, meaning NZ can fly the 359's or 789's there, while allowing the JV partners to pick up any other slack.

Cheers,

C.


True, although as you say LAX is an exception and SFO with UA JV, YVR is daily about 5-6 months of the year this year, so could command either a larger 77W or more fuel efficient 789 at different times. These west coast destinations are more hub like in the sense that they don’t have to overfly anywhere if they are heading east, Also more O&D traffic. I’d see AC to AKL seasonally atleast initially to take up the slack possibly under a JV if allowed. Eventually they might consider YYZ?
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 9974
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sat Jun 09, 2018 6:37 am

Does anyone know the CAA rules regarding passengers flying domestic under someone elses name?


Planesmart wrote:
Deepinsider wrote:
WLG. What do we know so far about Airbus testing/verifying the A350 for WLG op's?
My strong opinion is that the FAA and EASA rules are so well established and universal
that it would take an extreme example to give an individual airport, some sort of special
exemption from the the AFM capabilities.
Is this just a marketing stunt or is there a valid FAA/EASA protocol here?

Financiers and leasors look at airports 'their' aircraft are operated into, as it can impact insurance costs and cover.

For example, ICAO requires more fire fighting crew and equipment at an airport for WB operations than for NB. Gets messy where only infrequent WB flights, or seats are blocked. Presumably operating under some form of exemption for each WB arrival / departure until the recently added fire fighting vehicle arrived? Still? Extra emergency staff rostered for each WB arrival and departure?

Tax payers will meet 100% of these additional costs, given previous comments from other airport users (and a.net contributors) about their unwillingness.

WIAL have just taken delivery of their 6th (3rd Rosenbourgh) operational heavy duty crash appliance.
Head Forum Moderator
moderators@airliners.net
Flown: 1900D,S340,Q300,AT72-5/6,DC3,CR2/7,E145,E70/75/90,A319/20/21,A332/3,A380,F100,B717,B733/4/8/9,B742/4,B752/3,B763,B772/W,B789
With: NZ,SJ,QF,JQ,EK,VA,AA,UA,DL,FL,AC,FJ
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 3121
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sat Jun 09, 2018 8:55 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
Where as YVR has almost outgrown the 772 and could use something a bit bigger rather than more frequency?

IMO, once these sorts of routes get to a year-round daily service (which, AFAIK, YVR is not at yet), NZ will look to add a new route, rather than to increase capacity on existing routes. This negates the need for the larger 777-X. Those new routes will relieve pressure on the existing ports, like YVR.

The exceptions to these are obviously LAX (which will demand a 350-1000 or 777-X), as well as SFO, YVR, HKG and SIN, each of which are (or in the case of YVR, likely will be) operated in JV's, meaning NZ can fly the 359's or 789's there, while allowing the JV partners to pick up any other slack.

Cheers,

C.


True, although as you say LAX is an exception and SFO with UA JV, YVR is daily about 5-6 months of the year this year, so could command either a larger 77W or more fuel efficient 789 at different times.

NZ have options - they could boost capacity to:

- SFO, by getting UA (in the JV) to build up a second daily, year-round service, if necessary (removing the need for a bigger plane)
- YVR, by getting AC (in a new JV) to build up a second daily, seasonal service, if necessary (removing the need for a bigger plane)
- LAX, by building up a third daily service, 3-4x weekly from AKL, and 3-4x weekly from CHC (removing the need for a bigger plane)

With this, a 359 and 789 combination will be sufficient. To add DEN, NYC and others will ease pressure on LAX, SFO and YVR too.

But NZ might have other plans and/or considerations? They might not want to over-rely on JV's, and might want to prioritize cargo?

Cheers,

C.
 
a7ala
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:31 am

PA515 wrote:
My reading of the A350-900 WLG visit is that it's more about performance if an aircraft is diverted from AKL.

It would determine whether the aircraft could land if it was diverted from another destination, or could be used for special visits.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/1043 ... s-aircraft (tenth paragraph from the end)

PA515


Nah. Seems like a huge expense to go to for everyone involved for diversion when chc and oha are both available and more than capable. Must be more to it than that.
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2791
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sat Jun 09, 2018 11:09 am

777ER wrote:
Does anyone know the CAA rules regarding passengers flying domestic under someone elses name?


Planesmart wrote:
Deepinsider wrote:
WLG. What do we know so far about Airbus testing/verifying the A350 for WLG op's?
My strong opinion is that the FAA and EASA rules are so well established and universal
that it would take an extreme example to give an individual airport, some sort of special
exemption from the the AFM capabilities.
Is this just a marketing stunt or is there a valid FAA/EASA protocol here?

Financiers and leasors look at airports 'their' aircraft are operated into, as it can impact insurance costs and cover.

For example, ICAO requires more fire fighting crew and equipment at an airport for WB operations than for NB. Gets messy where only infrequent WB flights, or seats are blocked. Presumably operating under some form of exemption for each WB arrival / departure until the recently added fire fighting vehicle arrived? Still? Extra emergency staff rostered for each WB arrival and departure?

Tax payers will meet 100% of these additional costs, given previous comments from other airport users (and a.net contributors) about their unwillingness.

WIAL have just taken delivery of their 6th (3rd Rosenbourgh) operational heavy duty crash appliance.

Presumably because for ICAO WB compliance three (or comparable) of these appliances are required, not two plus one older unit the latest replaces.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sat Jun 09, 2018 1:03 pm

planemanofnz wrote:
With this, a 359 and 789 combination will be sufficient. To add DEN, NYC and others will ease pressure on LAX, SFO and YVR too.

And LAS too - we know it’s on the airline’s radar. I believe first mover advantage for the Australasia-LAS market could be a winner.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
Deepinsider
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:36 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - June 2018

Sat Jun 09, 2018 1:09 pm

A350 vs. 777x

Comfort; There is no question that any more than three in the centre
rows significantly reduces comfort, increases boarding chaos, and is
generally disliked. (anyone remember the terrible DC-10 2-5-2 ?)

Noise; The 777 has much better airflow (aircon) than pretty well all the
Airbuses , and while this is an important comfort factor, it's a major
reason why airbuses seem quieter. Boeing know this, and one should
assume that the 777x will come with changes to that, and soundproofing
improvements.

Payload/range capability; This is a mystery to me, being that we don't know
the inservice empty weight of either type. Clearly, the maximum payload will
be the difference between empty weight and max zero fuel weight. The weight
difference then, between max ZFW and max TOW shows how much fuel can be
loaded, for that (max payload) flight. If that's not enough for the desired flight
distance, extra fuel will reduce the payload accordingly.
Does anyone here have these vital numbers? Otherwise we cannot even guess.
one vs. the other...Furthermore, we'd need to know the fuel consumption of
each. And the 777x numbers are just a guess now, but are reasonably likely
to be way better than the already capable 300ER
Last edited by Deepinsider on Sat Jun 09, 2018 1:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 12

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos