ZK-NBT wrote:

Looks to be an additional Saturday YVR service with a Tuesday service on 7th and 14th JAN. No aircraft type listed yet.

NZ26 AKL 2230 YVR 1435
NZ25 YVR 2055 AKL 0800

Last year there was an additional Saturday flight for 2 weeks that left AKL 1645 so this schedule will allow the aircraft a short haul in between, if 789’s are used I’d imagine the additional flight will be code 1 302 seaters.

NZ have already said the 78N (premium configuration) will be used.

planemanofnz wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

This is where knowing a bit about the subject is important. The early 2000's was a period when Newcastle was going through a painful transition following the closure of its biggest employer- the BHP steelworks. Newcastle has now transformed itself to a knowledge and service economy. Which has boomed from the days of a dirty industrial town. The days of Freedom are irrelevant to present day Newcastle. This flight is a toe dipper which may fail. IMO Newcastle's proximity to Sydney has hampered international flights. I'd expect to see Air Asia X in the foreseeable future.

Thanks - I didn't know all of that about NTL and the BHP connection. I agree that VA may fail on this route - that being so, I wonder if, if it does fail, VA would be willing to give it another shot in the 2019/20 NW season with TT instead? I'm not sure that things like VA's Business Class are needed on this route? Is there even a lounge at NTL?

Cheers,

C.

No there is no lounge which as a QF Platinum makes me unhappy:)

As VA only have 8 J seats it's probably not a huge deal. My work has just changed travel policy so I'll be seeking a status match to use VA more often.

The fact TT doesn't fly to NTL makes it problematic in terms of them flying the route.

I would've thought JQ might have been the one - they have a crew and maintenance base at NTL. In fact JQ was born at NTL.

I'd have thought that NTL (and CBR and HBA) are NZ's markets to cede to their competitors. NZ has a significant advantage over VA with its connections at AKL to the Americas and the Pacific, and that has to be worth a good few more bums on seats in these markets than VA could manage, surely? So what's holding them back? - we don't know. The idea that they may have an "understanding" with QF over the launch of new routes is entirely speculation, as far as I'm aware, so we can't do more than hypothesise.

planemanofnz wrote:

Qantas16 wrote:

I also doubt NZ is overly concerned about a 3x weekly seasonal NTL service. It's unlikely to be a very high yielding service and doesn't compete with NZ on the lucrative Australia-USA/Canada/EZE route

IMHO, it's not about AKL - NTL in isolation - it's about the new direction that this could represent VA taking - that is, exploiting potentially lucrative secondary markets as a wider strategy (AKL - CBR / HBA / TSV etc). This has all sorts of risks for NZ, including the risk that this ends up providing enough feed to support a DL - VA JV AKL - LAX flight. It also arguably highlights a vulnerability in NZ's QF code-sharing strategy - that NZ is (unofficially) restricted from launching such secondary routes for fear of angering QF (and it can't exactly go back to VA now). In any event, I don't see NZ's response as being to launch AKL - NTL against VA - the response would more likely be to launch AKL - CBR or another route, to stop VA from doing so.

Cheers,

C.

If VA announces HBA-AKL and CBR-AKL in the next few months then sure, I could understand why NZ would be concerned... but right now I think you are way overanalysing a seasonal flight that is likely being heavily subsidies by NTL and the local government.

And I would absolutely argue that there is no unofficial restriction on NZ launching secondary routes. NTL is a great example of a route that NZ could have launched years ago if they wanted to... right now NTL-AKL requires passengers to either take a long detour via BNE/MEL or drive to SYD (most likely taking the latter) so there would be limited NZ to VA domestic transfers right now anyway for this city pairing and therefore VA would not have been overly concerned if NZ had launched a direct service it whilst they had a partnership anyway.

Zkpilot wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Looks to be an additional Saturday YVR service with a Tuesday service on 7th and 14th JAN. No aircraft type listed yet.

NZ26 AKL 2230 YVR 1435
NZ25 YVR 2055 AKL 0800

Last year there was an additional Saturday flight for 2 weeks that left AKL 1645 so this schedule will allow the aircraft a short haul in between, if 789’s are used I’d imagine the additional flight will be code 1 302 seaters.

NZ have already said the 78N (premium configuration) will be used.

To be clear I meant the 2 additional frequencies would likely be code 1 with code 2 on the daily which means most likely IAH gets 77E, IAH is probably higher yielding than YVR. Good for YVR if it’s year round it will likely be daily all year.

NTLDaz wrote:

zkncj wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

Confirmed - VA launching NTL - AKL (22 Nov - 17 Feb) - details to come.

See: https://www.facebook.com/ntlairport/.

Cheers,

C.

Now to watch NZ's reaction either ramp up SYD or maybe drop an NTL service with there A320 slack once the A321NEO come online.

Why on Earth would NZ react to this ? If they do it would display a pettiness not suited to a well run country.

If NTL ( of which I am one ) wish to go to NZ there are plenty of flights from SYD without NZ adding more.

NZ has an very long history of doing such that, for example Freedom Air was created solely to combat the earlier charter airlines from the 90s who tried to operate Tasman Flights and failed. SJ was pretty much put of every route that they operated, and let NZ's deeper pockets fund the operation.

More recently when JQ enter the regional market with Q300's, most flights on these routes we're operated by NZ's Q300s in response NZ switched these rules to almost fully become operated by the larger 68 seater ATR 72-500/600 fleets, and added additional flights onto the routes.

Or with the breakup with VA has resulted from December NZ increasing AKL-SYD to 5x Daily 777, which an year ago would of been around 2-3 daily 777/787 and 2x daily A320.

https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/travel-alerts?eventid=IyrZW21u82bCrajk7Om8

NZ seems to have given up on updated this page? it was last updated 41 days ago for July changes due to 787 issues.

Next week they have canceled NZ87 every day and replaced with NZ88, although its not reflected fully on the updates.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Looks to be an additional Saturday YVR service with a Tuesday service on 7th and 14th JAN. No aircraft type listed yet.

NZ26 AKL 2230 YVR 1435
NZ25 YVR 2055 AKL 0800

Last year there was an additional Saturday flight for 2 weeks that left AKL 1645 so this schedule will allow the aircraft a short haul in between, if 789’s are used I’d imagine the additional flight will be code 1 302 seaters.

NZ have already said the 78N (premium configuration) will be used.

To be clear I meant the 2 additional frequencies would likely be code 1 with code 2 on the daily which means most likely IAH gets 77E, IAH is probably higher yielding than YVR. Good for YVR if it’s year round it will likely be daily all year.

Ok your comment makes more sense now!
As for IAH, I’ve heard it is definitely going back to 77E (at least over the peak.
789 of either flavour would make more sense year round for YVR as it should allow low season to perform better and possibly allow for an extra flight weekly.

Stuff discussed over the last week

- HKT is a very realistic option. Don't rule it out.
- DL, why is everyone talking LAX-AKL. Why isn't ATL-AKL a serious contender, connecting East Coast USA direct to Australasia and using VA on top of the current LAX-SYD
- NZ is not going to order a A220 just because it's been re-branded and now sits in the airbus family. It's still the same aircraft and still does not align with NZ's fleet simplification strategy
- NZ is not the perfect market for a A220, nothing against the A220 series but when you look at the operating cost per sector on routes such as SYD-ROT understand expected loads, average fares, potential freight and freight revenue it doesn't stack up. Likewise, other routes are more efficient utilizing larger aircraft already in the fleet which aids the cost efficiency of a common fleet type. Boring but logical.
- Don't read much if anything into NTL. NZ has done it before under SJ, it's an average route at best, don't expect NZ or QF to react too much if at all.
- SJ reaction is slightly different to todays environment; at the time having LCC type carriers enter the market was new and NZ was full service only - the outlook was that the marketplace was going to be a different environment and LCC type model was going to change the market completely (which they did I guess). SJ was a way of combating this, then when NZ redesigned their in flight product in the early 2000's SJ was seen as being redundant. Today - with the seat only product NZ is able to compete at that price point via seat only and offer a reputable brand to fly with. Will an ultra LCC change this? My view is No. Kiwi's have shown with VA then JQ that they don't tolerate the Ultra LCC models all that well and NZ airports are too expensive to make them work long term currently.
- NZ has been clear where they are at with the 772 replacement program.

Other comments.

- More Tasman routes are possible and there are a number that are constantly being reviewed. They have small margins therefore come with risk. You typically need to run a service 2-4 times a week and over multiple seasons (if seasonal) or at least 18-24 months. this provides time to build awareness among the public but also trade. The trade you'd think know about routes but many have no idea and rely solely on their GDS to tell them. They also have upwards to a dozen carriers flooding them with sales talk which often leaves them overloaded.
- NZ relies heavily on inbound tourism. Routes like NTL-AKL, who is going to promote this? Tourism NZ? NTL airport? the airline? Given the margins the airline can't spend too much but the 21 year old travel agent in the mall in NTL may have no clue of the direct unless they spot it on his or her GDS or the customer asks for it.
- NTL also offers outbound from NZ. I heard it once on the radio yesterday but other than on here, see how many times you pick up on it over the next month that will give you a sense of how hard it is to tap your product into a busy world. If anything - many of you will see google ads etc from your electronic footprint on google, google chrome, facebook etc so that will be targeted but ask your neighbor (as an example) in a month.
- Based on the inbound nature of NZ's network - would you focus much effort into short haul routes like HBA, NTL, CBR or look at bang for buck in the USA, China markets?
- NZ has played with mid/long haul leisure routes for outbound - thanks to the 767 fleet and has proven successful. I'm surprised more discussion on this hasn't been had on where the next opportunity exists.
- Given traditional long haul routes (and new) HKG, PVG, LAX, LON, TYO, EZE, TPE etc all heavily rely on the inbound market how do we feel the wider tourism and education sector performs in this area?

zkncj wrote:

https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/travel-alerts?eventid=IyrZW21u82bCrajk7Om8

NZ seems to have given up on updated this page? it was last updated 41 days ago for July changes due to 787 issues.

Next week they have canceled NZ87 every day and replaced with NZ88, although its not reflected fully on the updates.

This would be due to 77W ZK-OKR being out of action for almost two weeks now with no sign it's returning to service in the next few days, which is why ZK-OKI started AKL-HNL earlier than planned.

PA515

PA515 wrote:

zkncj wrote:

https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/travel-alerts?eventid=IyrZW21u82bCrajk7Om8

NZ seems to have given up on updated this page? it was last updated 41 days ago for July changes due to 787 issues.

Next week they have canceled NZ87 every day and replaced with NZ88, although its not reflected fully on the updates.

This would be due to 77W ZK-OKR being out of action for almost two weeks now with no sign it's returning to service in the next few days, which is why ZK-OKI started AKL-HNL earlier than planned.

PA515

Is this why LAXAKL has been a -200 this week? My son is on NZ5 this Friday and I’m concerned it’s going to be downgauged and potentially bump him.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

PA515 wrote:

zkncj wrote:

https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/travel-alerts?eventid=IyrZW21u82bCrajk7Om8

NZ seems to have given up on updated this page? it was last updated 41 days ago for July changes due to 787 issues.

Next week they have canceled NZ87 every day and replaced with NZ88, although its not reflected fully on the updates.

This would be due to 77W ZK-OKR being out of action for almost two weeks now with no sign it's returning to service in the next few days, which is why ZK-OKI started AKL-HNL earlier than planned.

PA515

Is this why LAXAKL has been a -200 this week? My son is on NZ5 this Friday and I’m concerned it’s going to be downgauged and potentially bump him.

Showing as ZK-OKP

PA515 wrote:

This would be due to 77W ZK-OKR being out of action for almost two weeks now with no sign it's returning to service in the next few days, which is why ZK-OKI started AKL-HNL earlier than planned.
PA515

Explains why flight has been canceled just 7 days out.

NZ6 wrote:

I'm away from my desk but believe that will be operated by ZK-OKB as I think that's going up as 6 tonight.

NZ6 LAX-AKL on Friday 20 Jul is 77W ZK-OKP.
http://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/nz5

PA515

PA515 wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

I'm away from my desk but believe that will be operated by ZK-OKB as I think that's going up as 6 tonight.

NZ6 LAX-AKL on Friday 20 Jul is 77W ZK-OKP.
http://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/nz5

PA515

Yeah I corrected my post when I realized.

Awesome - thanks for the info.

Qantas16 wrote:

And I would absolutely argue that there is no unofficial restriction on NZ launching secondary routes.

Not sure how you can "absolutely argue" this - we just don't know what went on behind closed doors between NZ and QF in the lead-up to their agreement on the domestic codeshares. I certainly don't think it can be excluded as a possibility. Put yourself in QF's position - what advantage would there be for them to sign an agreement with NZ for domestic codeshares if there was a risk that NZ would undermine the agreement by launching direct flights (taking traffic away from key sectors) anyway? But as I say, we just don't know . . .

DavidByrne wrote:

Qantas16 wrote:

And I would absolutely argue that there is no unofficial restriction on NZ launching secondary routes.

Not sure how you can "absolutely argue" this - we just don't know what went on behind closed doors between NZ and QF in the lead-up to their agreement on the domestic codeshares. I certainly don't think it can be excluded as a possibility. Put yourself in QF's position - what advantage would there be for them to sign an agreement with NZ for domestic codeshares if there was a risk that NZ would undermine the agreement by launching direct flights (taking traffic away from key sectors) anyway? But as I say, we just don't know . . .

Sorry, you are correct... we don't know. But the comments on this thread by some members have continuously implied that such an agreement is almost certain to exist and all I was trying to say is that there is no evidence it does and the legality of it, whether formal or not, is questionable.

Qantas16 wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

Qantas16 wrote:

I also doubt NZ is overly concerned about a 3x weekly seasonal NTL service. It's unlikely to be a very high yielding service and doesn't compete with NZ on the lucrative Australia-USA/Canada/EZE route

IMHO, it's not about AKL - NTL in isolation - it's about the new direction that this could represent VA taking - that is, exploiting potentially lucrative secondary markets as a wider strategy (AKL - CBR / HBA / TSV etc). This has all sorts of risks for NZ, including the risk that this ends up providing enough feed to support a DL - VA JV AKL - LAX flight. It also arguably highlights a vulnerability in NZ's QF code-sharing strategy - that NZ is (unofficially) restricted from launching such secondary routes for fear of angering QF (and it can't exactly go back to VA now). In any event, I don't see NZ's response as being to launch AKL - NTL against VA - the response would more likely be to launch AKL - CBR or another route, to stop VA from doing so.

Cheers,

C.

If VA announces HBA-AKL and CBR-AKL in the next few months then sure, I could understand why NZ would be concerned... but right now I think you are way overanalysing a seasonal flight that is likely being heavily subsidies by NTL and the local government.

And I would absolutely argue that there is no unofficial restriction on NZ launching secondary routes. NTL is a great example of a route that NZ could have launched years ago if they wanted to... right now NTL-AKL requires passengers to either take a long detour via BNE/MEL or drive to SYD (most likely taking the latter) so there would be limited NZ to VA domestic transfers right now anyway for this city pairing and therefore VA would not have been overly concerned if NZ had launched a direct service it whilst they had a partnership anyway.

A DL AKL/LAX or AKL/another city in USA makes perfect sense & if NTL/AKL works this time around (they'd just change the timings), along with possible CBR/AKL, HBA/AKL & TSV/AKL, VA could then offer simple transfers at AKL vs the mess at BNE, SYD, MEL (not forgetting OOL/AKL + one stop options BNE, SYD, MEL/LAX via AKL)

At present pax in NTL, CBR, HBA or TSV wanting to go to USA virtually have to go via BNE, SYD or MEL & the time consuming & messy transfers from dom to int. Not changing terminals at AKL is so much easier. Presume a DL AKL/LAX would not be weight restricted in anyway.

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... r-in-nw18/

Confirming NZ 789 to YVR from October 31st. Believed to be code 2 aircraft. Doesn’t say what route swaps there are but I’d imagine IAH going 77E.

flyaustralian12 wrote:

A DL AKL/LAX or AKL/another city in USA makes perfect sense & if NTL/AKL works this time around (they'd just change the timings), along with possible CBR/AKL, HBA/AKL & TSV/AKL, VA could then offer simple transfers at AKL vs the mess at BNE, SYD, MEL (not forgetting OOL/AKL + one stop options BNE, SYD, MEL/LAX via AKL)

At present pax in NTL, CBR, HBA or TSV wanting to go to USA virtually have to go via BNE, SYD or MEL & the time consuming & messy transfers from dom to int. Not changing terminals at AKL is so much easier. Presume a DL AKL/LAX would not be weight restricted in anyway.

What you're suggesting is a massive change of strategy for the DL/VA alliance and one that I haven't heard any suggestion of from either airline (please correct me if I'm wrong there). It would also not be very efficient use of aircraft for VA if there was a once daily DL AKL-LAX flight... because it would require at least one 737 per Australian destination (one for MEL, SYD, BNE, OOL, ADL, NTL, TSV, HBA.... whatever other destinations you want to propose) in order to allow easy connections each way from AKL.There would also be no NZ domestic feed for DL.

What would be a far cheaper and more practical option would be for VA to improve their ground services for connecting pax in BNE/SYD/MEL to make the transfer smoother (though tbh I think a lot of it is just people being overly dramatic about how bad it is to have to change terminal). That way they can leverage there existing large domestic networks and not set up hubs in locations they have no domestic feed.

DavidByrne wrote:

Qantas16 wrote:

And I would absolutely argue that there is no unofficial restriction on NZ launching secondary routes.

Not sure how you can "absolutely argue" this - we just don't know what went on behind closed doors between NZ and QF in the lead-up to their agreement on the domestic codeshares. I certainly don't think it can be excluded as a possibility. Put yourself in QF's position - what advantage would there be for them to sign an agreement with NZ for domestic codeshares if there was a risk that NZ would undermine the agreement by launching direct flights (taking traffic away from key sectors) anyway? But as I say, we just don't know . . .

The agreement seems to come out of an common ground - which is both airlines dislike of VA and how much they want VA gone. VA has in theory push both of there bottom lines over the years, if anything they would both be happy if it was just back to NZ and QF, to to make essay profits and having an gentlmens agreement.

When NZ89 departs at 1:35am - do they still do an full diner service on departure?

NZ6 wrote:

DL, why is everyone talking LAX-AKL. Why isn't ATL-AKL a serious contender ...

There are many reasons, including (but not limited to):

1) There is minimal O&D between AKL and ATL, which makes AKL - ATL more risky than AKL - LAX, despite competition on the latter.
2) AKL - LAX is far more flexible fleet-wise, able to be operated by planes like the 332 and 772, while an ATL flight needs a 77L or 359.
3) Distance is a factor - as AKL - LAX is shorter than AKL - ATL, it is cheaper to operate, which is relevant given forecasts for oil prices.
4) DL is heavily investing in LAX, moving to T2 / T3. It's the fastest-growing carrier at LAX (since '09), and its Australasian hub is there.
5) To be in the JV, VA has to be a focus - AKL - ATL would not see as many VA connections through AKL as an AKL - LAX flight could.

Even AKL - JFK would be above AKL - ATL, IMO - good O&D and yield potential not at ATL, and better VA JV connection opportunities

However, even if DL goes for ATL, I'll still be stoked!

Cheers,

C.

NZ6 wrote:

HKT is a very realistic option. Don't rule it out.

This really surprises me, for a couple of reasons:

1) It'd be longer than any other Asian route NZ operates, meaning it'd be comparatively more expensive than other options like CGK.
2) It'd be relying almost solely on out-bound demand, which could be risky considering gloomy economic forecasts for New Zealand.
3) It'd risk cannibalizing other out-bound demand-reliant routes, like DPS, which need all the support they can get (post-EK's arrival).

That being said, HKT obviously has strong brand/name recognition in the New Zealand market. I'd love to see it on NZ's route map!

Cheers,

C.

NZ6 wrote:

Kiwi's have shown with VA then JQ that they don't tolerate the Ultra LCC models all that well and NZ airports are too expensive to make them work long term currently.

I thought:

1) NZ's move to an un-bundled short-haul product actually demonstrates the acceptance towards an LCC offering of New Zealanders.
2) JQ has been successful in New Zealand, achieving market penetration, and expanding into a range of markets QF didn't (like RAR).

I agree that charges make LCC offerings more difficult in this part of the world, but there is still clout to undercut NZ's seat-only prices.

Cheers,

C.

NZ6 wrote:

Based on the inbound nature of NZ's network - would you focus much effort into short haul routes like HBA, NTL, CBR or look at bang for buck in the USA, China markets?

Surely it's not a zero-sum game, and you can consider both? Arguably, the two could go hand-in-hand - that is, more feed from places like CBR, HBA and NTL could actually improve the viability of existing and new services to the Americas.

Cheers,

C.

Qantas16 wrote:

What would be a far cheaper and more practical option would be for VA to improve their ground services for connecting pax in BNE/SYD/MEL to make the transfer smoother (though tbh I think a lot of it is just people being overly dramatic about how bad it is to have to change terminal). That way they can leverage there existing large domestic networks and not set up hubs in locations they have no domestic feed.

Cheaper, for sure, but IMO, less effective, because:

1) Passenger surveys show that the most stressful part of a journey is time spent in airports - a same-terminal AKL transfer is much smoother.
2) SYD / MEL / BNE are huge and growing - you're taking away seats on existing flights for those cities, by building up regional transfer traffic.

That being said, this is simply my opinion - I appreciate that there are equally valid arguments to be made around leveraging existing networks.

Qantas16 wrote:

It would also not be very efficient use of aircraft for VA if there was a once daily DL AKL-LAX flight... because it would require at least one 737 per Australian destination (one for MEL, SYD, BNE, OOL, ADL, NTL, TSV, HBA.... whatever other destinations you want to propose) in order to allow easy connections each way from AKL.

VA already offer multiple daily frequencies ex-AKL to the main Australian cities, so there's absolutely no issue there. But to your point about the secondary Australian cities - you could run multiple flights at low frequencies, on complementary days, to these ports (using just one frame). For example, AKL - NTL on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday, AKL - HBA on Tuesday and Thursday, and AKL - TSV on Friday and Sunday, each feeding a daily AKL - LAX service on DL. At other times of the day, this plane could be used on other VA AKL flights, like to RAR / TBU, and on additional SYD / MEL / BNE / OOL frequencies. IMO, this is actually quite an efficient use of a frame, and could work because aside from CBR, none of these secondary cities strike me as being frequency-sensitive.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

HKT is a very realistic option. Don't rule it out.

This really surprises me, for a couple of reasons:

1) It'd be longer than any other Asian route NZ operates, meaning it'd be comparatively more expensive than other options like CGK.
2) It'd be relying almost solely on out-bound demand, which could be risky considering gloomy economic forecasts for New Zealand.
3) It'd risk cannibalizing other out-bound demand-reliant routes, like DPS, which need all the support they can get (post-EK's arrival).

That being said, HKT obviously has strong brand/name recognition in the New Zealand market. I'd love to see it on NZ's route map!

Cheers,

C.

Can you help me understand some of these?

Aren't CGK and HKT quite different markets to operate in? I am not sure I understand the comparison.
While there isn't spectacular growth forecast in NZ, where are the gloomy forecasts coming from?
For 3., doesn't that run a risk for any outbound additional routes/new services? Sure there is some additional risk because they are similar in nature, but saying that it will cannibalize other routes really takes away from any future growth. Also, what do we know about EK on the DPS route? Do we know what percentage of the load is DPS return, rather than a stop over? Do we know anything about its performance between DPS and DXB?

There's a lot to digest in your post and I want to understand the logic!

pbm wrote:

While there isn't spectacular growth forecast in NZ, where are the gloomy forecasts coming from?

For context:

- The services sector (2/3 of the New Zealand economy) has just slowed to its lowest growth levels since 2012 (6 years ago)
- Business confidence has hit a 7 year low - the lowest since March 2011 - which NZIER says will lead to lower GDP growth
- Just this week, Infometrics has slashed its GDP growth forecast to 2% per annum, through to 2021, half that of 2 years ago
- A combination of factors such as new taxes (the fuel tax) and house price inflation cooling, may reduce AKL's 'wealth effect'

Applying all of this to aviation, there is a higher risk (note - I say only a risk - not a confirmation) that out-bound holiday spending which AKL - HKT would be reliant on will i) contract or ii) not grow as fast as before. IMO, this is a reason for caution in approaching HKT. Though, who knows - it may still stack up.

Cheers,

C.

pbm wrote:

For 3., doesn't that run a risk for any outbound additional routes/new services?

Arguably, no. That is to say, HKT (beach destination) may be far more likely to cannibalize DPS (beach destination too) for out-bound dollars than, say, CTS (skiing destination) or LAS (entertainment destination) would. IMO, CTS / LAS (among others) would better stimulate untapped demand? Maybe I'm wrong.

Cheers,

C.

pbm wrote:

Aren't CGK and HKT quite different markets to operate in? I am not sure I understand the comparison.

If NZ has, say, one frame for a new 3x weekly route, then cities would have to compete with each other for that fleet resource to be deployed to - this includes out-bound-focused cities, such as, say, HKT and LAS, competing with in-bound focused cities, such as, say, CGK and ICN, for NZ's available capacity.

On HKT versus CGK specifically, it is just an example. The point I am making is that AKL - HKT is longer than other potential routes for this capacity, such as (but not limited to) AKL - CGK. That means that AKL - HKT is more expensive to operate than other routes such as (but not limited to) AKL - CGK.

Operational costs will be just one factor in NZ's analysis of which new city offers the best opportunity for its spare capacity. To HKT's favour, it does have strong brand recognition in the New Zealand market, as well as Star Alliance infrastructure through TG. Will this be enough to offset other factors? Who knows.

Cheers,

C.

pbm wrote:

... what do we know about EK on the DPS route? Do we know what percentage of the load is DPS return, rather than a stop over?

Not a lot, other than they're happy with demand ex-AKL to DPS. When a new carrier enters a monopoly route, pressures arise (e.g. with HNL). As adding HKT may reduce NZ's DPS demand for reasons stated above, and EK may be putting NZ under pressure at DPS, is now really the right time to consider HKT?

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

DL, why is everyone talking LAX-AKL. Why isn't ATL-AKL a serious contender ...

There are many reasons, including (but not limited to):

1) There is minimal O&D between AKL and ATL, which makes AKL - ATL more risky than AKL - LAX, despite competition on the latter.
2) AKL - LAX is far more flexible fleet-wise, able to be operated by planes like the 332 and 772, while an ATL flight needs a 77L or 359.
3) Distance is a factor - as AKL - LAX is shorter than AKL - ATL, it is cheaper to operate, which is relevant given forecasts for oil prices.
4) DL is heavily investing in LAX, moving to T2 / T3. It's the fastest-growing carrier at LAX (since '09), and its Australasian hub is there.
5) To be in the JV, VA has to be a focus - AKL - ATL would not see as many VA connections through AKL as an AKL - LAX flight could.

Even AKL - JFK would be above AKL - ATL, IMO - good O&D and yield potential not at ATL, and better VA JV connection opportunities

However, even if DL goes for ATL, I'll still be stoked!

Cheers,

C.

It's not about O&D traffic, it's about operating between regions and using partners, alliances and or networks to capture different markets within markets to generate passenger growth. You've seen this with the success of IAH and very strong forwards on ORD on NZ without a detrimental effect on LAX & SFO.

DL operates USA<>Australia market with LAX-SYD, ATL is a major hub for DL on the East Coast and the ATL-SYD distance is too great. It offers an East Coast alternative to QF/AA's DFW-SYD and NZ/UA's IAH-AKL & ORD-AKL.

East Coast USA is where the significant increase in passenger numbers is predicted to come from over the next 10 years. We've seen this with both carriers showing a desire to operate more direct into East Coast, USA.

DL can still heavily invest into LAX. Their investment doesn't constitute a obligation to operate any AKL service service from this gateway. Just like QF, any NZ destined passengers can transit over SYD and or fly NZ or AA direct. Does DL need to put all eggs in one basket so to speak.

DL doesn't have to use VA. They can if they choose to utilize NZ or QF on the Tasman. They already have ticketing agreements anyway.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

HKT is a very realistic option. Don't rule it out.

This really surprises me, for a couple of reasons:

1) It'd be longer than any other Asian route NZ operates, meaning it'd be comparatively more expensive than other options like CGK.
2) It'd be relying almost solely on out-bound demand, which could be risky considering gloomy economic forecasts for New Zealand.
3) It'd risk cannibalizing other out-bound demand-reliant routes, like DPS, which need all the support they can get (post-EK's arrival).

That being said, HKT obviously has strong brand/name recognition in the New Zealand market. I'd love to see it on NZ's route map!

Cheers,

C.

Why is distance a factor? it's only slightly longer than SGN and can offer a wide range of leisure markets to NZ including the premium market.

I'm not sure why DPS needed "all the support they can get" from year one capacity has been added into this route showing it's potential is positive. There is no indication tourists are substituting their Thai holiday for a Bali holiday based on the direct service.

Any route I'd imagine would look to take passengers off BKK, SIN and Australian transits. It would also look to generate tourism via the convenience of a direct flight and taking people out of OOL, NAN, RAR, HNL etc etc.

Again - look at passenger growth and gaining market share

Outbound seasonal leisure is proving to be success and I personal don't see or am not concerned with forwards on the existing routes based on the current economic climate.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Kiwi's have shown with VA then JQ that they don't tolerate the Ultra LCC models all that well and NZ airports are too expensive to make them work long term currently.

I thought:

1) NZ's move to an un-bundled short-haul product actually demonstrates the acceptance towards an LCC offering of New Zealanders.
2) JQ has been successful in New Zealand, achieving market penetration, and expanding into a range of markets QF didn't (like RAR).

I agree that charges make LCC offerings more difficult in this part of the world, but there is still clout to undercut NZ's seat-only prices.

Cheers,

C.

I'm referring to the constant "backlash" or media beat up when these carriers have entered and tried to enforce hard line rules on check-in times etc. Kiwis are happy to fly cheap without the bells and whistles but a hard noised approach to the customer experience and the mainstream media's appetite to publish these stories makes it really hard for them. NZ's then well positioned to pick up the pieces. I recall a specific 'policy' Airport's issued for how to manage JQ's denied boarding passengers when they entered and were facing a hailstorm of poor PR.

End of the day especially domestic trunk NZ and JQ offer relatively cheap fares anyway and the feedback I hear is it's cheap enough to fly NZ so why risk JQ for an extra $20 type thing.

Did NZ just place a firm (undisclosed) order for 8xA359?

downdata wrote:

Did NZ just place a firm (undisclosed) order for 8xA359?

I doubt it as I said earlier NZ don’t typically order like this and it is to soon. I’d expect more than 8 frames to replace the 772’s not to say they would all be 1 type however.

If we take HKT and CGK which are different markets I would still see them competing for the same code 1 302 seat 789, I don’t think either would be viable with any other. That’s not to say that either will happen however.

Good to see you back NZ6

ZK-NBT wrote:

downdata wrote:

Did NZ just place a firm (undisclosed) order for 8xA359?

I doubt it as I said earlier NZ don’t typically order like this and it is to soon. I’d expect more than 8 frames to replace the 772’s not to say they would all be 1 type however.

If we take HKT and CGK which are different markets I would still see them competing for the same code 1 302 seat 789, I don’t think either would be viable with any other. That’s not to say that either will happen however.

Good to see you back NZ6

Don't assume HKT and CGK will be NZ operated.

Qantas16 wrote:

flyaustralian12 wrote:

A DL AKL/LAX or AKL/another city in USA makes perfect sense & if NTL/AKL works this time around (they'd just change the timings), along with possible CBR/AKL, HBA/AKL & TSV/AKL, VA could then offer simple transfers at AKL vs the mess at BNE, SYD, MEL (not forgetting OOL/AKL + one stop options BNE, SYD, MEL/LAX via AKL)

At present pax in NTL, CBR, HBA or TSV wanting to go to USA virtually have to go via BNE, SYD or MEL & the time consuming & messy transfers from dom to int. Not changing terminals at AKL is so much easier. Presume a DL AKL/LAX would not be weight restricted in anyway.

What you're suggesting is a massive change of strategy for the DL/VA alliance and one that I haven't heard any suggestion of from either airline (please correct me if I'm wrong there). It would also not be very efficient use of aircraft for VA if there was a once daily DL AKL-LAX flight... because it would require at least one 737 per Australian destination (one for MEL, SYD, BNE, OOL, ADL, NTL, TSV, HBA.... whatever other destinations you want to propose) in order to allow easy connections each way from AKL.There would also be no NZ domestic feed for DL.

What would be a far cheaper and more practical option would be for VA to improve their ground services for connecting pax in BNE/SYD/MEL to make the transfer smoother (though tbh I think a lot of it is just people being overly dramatic about how bad it is to have to change terminal). That way they can leverage there existing large domestic networks and not set up hubs in locations they have no domestic feed.

there is already MEL, SYD, BNE, OOL/AKL

NTL/AKL could be realigned timewise, if it was a success in it's own right. HBA/AKL is on the cards, along with CBR/AKL. TSV/AKL would have to be an outside, but maybe a few times a week.

The important thing, is chaging aircraft at AKL iNT is easy. Not so easy at BNE, SYD or MEL.

NZ6 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

downdata wrote:

Did NZ just place a firm (undisclosed) order for 8xA359?

I doubt it as I said earlier NZ don’t typically order like this and it is to soon. I’d expect more than 8 frames to replace the 772’s not to say they would all be 1 type however.

If we take HKT and CGK which are different markets I would still see them competing for the same code 1 302 seat 789, I don’t think either would be viable with any other. That’s not to say that either will happen however.

Good to see you back NZ6

Don't assume HKT and CGK will be NZ operated.

Right that could’ve mean anything.

NZ6 wrote:

It's not about O&D traffic, it's about operating between regions and using partners, alliances and or networks to capture different markets within markets to generate passenger growth.

If a mass-hub within the New Zealand - United States corridor is king, then why did AA do AKL - LAX and not AKL - DFW (DFW being AA's biggest hub), and why did UA do AKL - SFO and not AKL - ORD (ORD being UA's biggest hub)? The power of O&D traffic to (among other things) mitigate risk cannot be understated, especially when, in this case, the markets through which ATL would target are coming off of a (comparatively) very low base.

NZ6 wrote:

You've seen this with the success of IAH and very strong forwards on ORD on NZ without a detrimental effect on LAX & SFO.

Let us explore this, because I actually think IAH and ORD are very different to ATL:

- Even before NZ launched IAH, Texas was the 2nd biggest source state for US visitor arrivals here - its O&D potential helped mitigate hubbing risks.
- ORD is the 3rd largest city and metro area in the US, while IAH is the the 4th largest city and 5th largest metro area - again, strong O&D potential.
- NZ only launched ORD and IAH after it had built up LAX and California to a point where additional frequencies weren't really necessary to compete.

ATL, in contrast, would be much more reliant on transfer traffic, and therefore, risky.

NZ6 wrote:

East Coast USA is where the significant increase in passenger numbers is predicted to come from over the next 10 years.

Okay, but:

- Again, this is coming off of a low base, so O&D traffic would help to mitigate risk.
- DL can still get a chunk of the pie through LAX - it flies ex-LAX to the East Coast.

Let's wait and see - either way, I'd be stoked if DL launched AKL, even from ATL!

Cheers,

C.

NZ6 wrote:

HKT ... Why is distance a factor?

Well, for many reasons. Let's look at just one - that is, rising oil prices, which disproportionately affect longer routes. Despite oil declining as a percentage of overall costs for airlines in recent years, it's still got to be a big consideration here, given the airline industry's margins.

NZ6 wrote:

... it's only slightly longer than SGN and can offer a wide range of leisure markets to NZ including the premium market.

What wide range though? What does HKT offer that DPS doesn't? SGN, to me, offers a bit more of a cultural and historical experience. CTS would offfer skiing. LAS would offer entertainment. Being an Asian beach destination like HKT, would HKT not partly cannibalize DPS?

I totally get your point that any new route would partly cannibalize other routes - DPS probably partly cannibalized HNL, and ORD will probably partly cannibalize LAX (all to different extents). HKT and DPS are so, so similar though - would the cannibalization not be higher?

NZ6 wrote:

I'm not sure why DPS needed "all the support they can get" from year one capacity has been added into this route showing it's potential is positive.

You're right - NZ has done well at DPS, adding capacity - let's wait and see how the market holds up once EK gets more established. I would've thought that EK poses a risk to NZ at DPS, and so NZ wouldn't risk taking away any demand from DPS by launching HKT (for now)?

Cheers,

C.

NZ6 wrote:

Kiwi's have shown with VA then JQ that they don't tolerate the Ultra LCC models all that well and NZ airports are too expensive to make them work long term currently.

NZ6 wrote:

I'm referring to the constant "backlash" or media beat up when these carriers have entered and tried to enforce hard line rules on check-in times etc. Kiwis are happy to fly cheap without the bells and whistles but a hard noised approach to the customer experience and the mainstream media's appetite to publish these stories makes it really hard for them.

I don't understand - media backlash doesn't necessarily mean that New Zealanders have shown a lack of appetite for LCC or ULCC offerings?

I do agree with your point that media backlash about no-frills may initially impact TT, as it did with JQ, but like JQ, they could get through that?

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

It's not about O&D traffic, it's about operating between regions and using partners, alliances and or networks to capture different markets within markets to generate passenger growth.

If a mass-hub within the New Zealand - United States corridor is king, then why did AA do AKL - LAX and not AKL - DFW (DFW being AA's biggest hub), and why did UA do AKL - SFO and not AKL - ORD (ORD being UA's biggest hub)? The power of O&D traffic to (among other things) mitigate risk cannot be understated, especially when, in this case, the markets through which ATL would target are coming off of a (comparatively) very low base.

What does AA have to do with DL? AA entered at a different time under different circumstances most likely trying to achieve a different goal. I'm not sure how comparing what another carrier has done weighs heavily on another carriers strategic growth move?

If NZ and QF have been able to make NZ & AU more accessible via their deeper routes into North America why wouldn't DL want to strengthen their position in the market before QF gets their ultra long aircraft in 2025ish and before NZ adds another deep N.A route?

While DL could easily enter under LAX-AKL - my point was is this the only option for them and how could / does ATL work as an option.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

You've seen this with the success of IAH and very strong forwards on ORD on NZ without a detrimental effect on LAX & SFO.

Let us explore this, because I actually think IAH and ORD are very different to ATL:

- Even before NZ launched IAH, Texas was the 2nd biggest source state for US visitor arrivals here - its O&D potential helped mitigate hubbing risks.
- ORD is the 3rd largest city and metro area in the US, while IAH is the the 4th largest city and 5th largest metro area - again, strong O&D potential.
- NZ only launched ORD and IAH after it had built up LAX and California to a point where additional frequencies weren't really necessary to compete.

ATL, in contrast, would be much more reliant on transfer traffic, and therefore, risky.

It's not meant to be a clone of IAH and ORD. I'll use my favorite word again, think strategically. it's about putting DL in the market long term on East Coast USA. As QF/NZ deepen their roots Australasia will become more attractive and more accessible to the vast majority of Americans who wish to visit the region, this is a massive number with the perceived 'connectivity issues' being a major barrier and one which IAH and ORD has shown to be a positive move in convincing people to travel down here.

I can't emphasis enough the importance of having an intimate understanding of the aviation business which is somewhat supported by I can only label as raw and non specific data which can also be miss leading. You also need to look long term around travel patterns predicted changes which includes alliances, travel demands, economic and political movements. The list can go on and it's massively complex business.

NZ6 wrote:

While DL could easily enter under LAX-AKL - my point was is this the only option for them and how could / does ATL work as an option

I understand, and I agree that it could be an option - I still don't think that it's as good an option as LAX though.

Longer and more expensive to run, less flexible fleet-wise, and a narrower passenger mix with no O&D traffic.

NZ6 wrote:

... it's about putting DL in the market long term on East Coast USA. As QF/NZ deepen their roots Australasia will become more attractive

New NZ routes will, IMO, even further reduce the scope for DL to capture this sort of traffic through ATL's hub.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

HKT ... Why is distance a factor?

Well, for many reasons. Let's look at just one - that is, rising oil prices, which disproportionately affect longer routes. Despite oil declining as a percentage of overall costs for airlines in recent years, it's still got to be a big consideration here, given the airline industry's margins.

Oil prices hit every route? Why is this an issue for HKT because of it's distance? I can only assume your basing this on HKT not being "Premium".

All I can really say is work would have been done to work out operational costs based on a number of variables (such as fuel) and assumptions made based on various scenarios such as average fares, loads etc. This will all be placed into a business case and submitted for executive approval.

Too often we call routes "Premium" or "Low Yield" in these forums and it's not for a second how it's looked at internally. All these business cases look at in simple terms is; who and how many people will use it, how they'll get these people on board, what it will cost for the airline to operate, how much they'll need to charge, calculations on what the market will pay for an average fare , technical and operational factors, business risks and mitigation and finally a summary outlining expected revenue.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

... it's only slightly longer than SGN and can offer a wide range of leisure markets to NZ including the premium market.

What wide range though? What does HKT offer that DPS doesn't? SGN, to me, offers a bit more of a cultural and historical experience. CTS would offfer skiing. LAS would offer entertainment. Being an Asian beach destination like HKT, would HKT not partly cannibalize DPS?

I totally get your point that any new route would partly cannibalize other routes - DPS probably partly cannibalized HNL, and ORD will probably partly cannibalize LAX (all to different extents). HKT and DPS are so, so similar though - would the cannibalization not be higher?

That's a question you can ask the market? Why do people go to RAR and not NAN or APW and not TBU, HNL and not PPT?

Seasonality is a key factor for travelers though, HKT is at it's best Dec-Feb while DPS is Jun-Aug

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

I'm not sure why DPS needed "all the support they can get" from year one capacity has been added into this route showing it's potential is positive.

You're right - NZ has done well at DPS, adding capacity - let's wait and see how the market holds up once EK gets more established. I would've thought that EK poses a risk to NZ at DPS, and so NZ wouldn't risk taking away any demand from DPS by launching HKT (for now)?

Cheers,

C.

That's if EK don't pull the plug and transit via another port which I still expect them too within the next 24 months.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Kiwi's have shown with VA then JQ that they don't tolerate the Ultra LCC models all that well and NZ airports are too expensive to make them work long term currently.

NZ6 wrote:

I'm referring to the constant "backlash" or media beat up when these carriers have entered and tried to enforce hard line rules on check-in times etc. Kiwis are happy to fly cheap without the bells and whistles but a hard noised approach to the customer experience and the mainstream media's appetite to publish these stories makes it really hard for them.

I don't understand - media backlash doesn't necessarily mean that New Zealanders have shown a lack of appetite for LCC or ULCC offerings?

I do agree with your point that media backlash about no-frills may initially impact TT, as it did with JQ, but like JQ, they could get through that?

Cheers,

C.

Well both VA and JQ relaxed their policies after this 'blacklash' which can only mean one thing.

NZ6 wrote:

Seasonality is a key factor for travelers though, HKT is at it's best Dec-Feb while DPS is Jun-Aug.

This is actually a very good point, and if executed that way, would offer an enhanced range of holidaying options.

A lot of people might actually want to take their holiday over the NW season, when commerce here shuts down.

However, isn't NZ's spare capacity during NW already tight? Wouldn't spare capacity be better available in NS?

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Seasonality is a key factor for travelers though, HKT is at it's best Dec-Feb while DPS is Jun-Aug.

This is actually a very good point, and if executed that way, would offer an enhanced range of holidaying options.

A lot of people might actually want to take their holiday over the NW season, when commerce here shuts down.

However, isn't NZ's spare capacity during NW already tight? Wouldn't spare capacity be better available in NS?

Cheers,

C.

For some reason I wrongly presumed HKT would be a NS destination totally forgetting it would be very hot and wet whereas DEC-FEB would be cooler and drier.

Agree NZ typically use their fleet fully to NA/SA Asia in the NW so HKT would seem unlikely given this.

I couldn’t see TG or JQ doing it.

zkncj wrote:

The agreement seems to come out of an common ground - which is both airlines dislike of VA and how much they want VA gone. VA has in theory push both of there bottom lines over the years, if anything they would both be happy if it was just back to NZ and QF, to to make essay profits and having an gentlmens agreement.

This is what I don't understand from Air New Zealand's perspective. Qantas is a far bigger rival to Air New Zealand than Virgin Australia ever will be. Air New Zealand does not benefit from Virgin Australia collapsing as that would make for a much stronger Qantas. A stronger Qantas makes more money, would lots of capacity to North America (South America too, long term) and Asia and outcompete Air New Zealand for AU-NA passengers. Virgin Australia has never been much of a competitor to Air New Zealand on transtasman routes or on routes to the Pacific. The only area Virgin Australia was ever a threat to Air New Zealand was back in the Pacific Blue days when they flew domestic New Zealand routes - a long time ago now and there is no prospect of them returning to those. Despite all this, Virgin Australia has been great for Air New Zealand in the sense that they have competed heavily with Qantas, keeping them 'honest', making Qantas spend lots of money refitting aircraft/lounges to stay competitive and making Qantas flush lots of money down the toilet with their Capacity Wars. With this in mind, Air New Zealand wanting VA gone is very short sighted.

I think it is safe to assume that IAH will be the BR 77W based on the YVR/ORD schedule that has been published for the 78N.