torin
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:53 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Thu Nov 08, 2018 9:49 pm

planemanofnz wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:
3) Services the whole Europe market as a gateway.

For LAX-based customers, sure - for everyone else on NZ's network, no. For New Zealand-based NZ customers, SIN is the gateway to the EU.


Cheers,

C.


No its not. NZ fares to Europe are mainly constructed to be flown via LON. Until very recently the SQ JV was limited to only the points that SQ flew (even then not all of them). You could get to more of Europe with NZ using CX to LON and then whatever carrier from LON (mainly BA) that NZ have on their LON add-ons.

It gets a little frustrating that you keep on making these statements as if they are fact and your viewpoint is the only one, but it doesnt really seem to be backed up by anything...
 
NZ6
Posts: 657
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:42 pm

torin wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:
3) Services the whole Europe market as a gateway.

For LAX-based customers, sure - for everyone else on NZ's network, no. For New Zealand-based NZ customers, SIN is the gateway to the EU.


Cheers,

C.


No its not. NZ fares to Europe are mainly constructed to be flown via LON. Until very recently the SQ JV was limited to only the points that SQ flew (even then not all of them). You could get to more of Europe with NZ using CX to LON and then whatever carrier from LON (mainly BA) that NZ have on their LON add-ons.

It gets a little frustrating that you keep on making these statements as if they are fact and your viewpoint is the only one, but it doesnt really seem to be backed up by anything...


I wouldn't try to debate it with him, others including myself have and he won't budge even when he's wrong.

The fact is right here.
https://www.airnzagent.co.nz/uk-europe-long-term-fares
https://p-airnz.com/cms/assets/NZ-Agent ... ep18v1.pdf

Fact is on both fare sheets you can see LON is valid routing to most of Europe, you just need to apply the LON add-on. SIN is one of many Europe gateways if you're happy to avoid LON. To state SIN is the gateway is nothing short of wrong.

Europe from NZ is highly competitive, QR, EK. SQ, TG, CX, QF, MH, CA, CI, MU UA, AA for example.... all but QF and CI there offering 1 stop flights into Europe.

To take people over LON is 3 legs and more expensive for the airline, so given
1. NZ wants to protect NZ for LAX-LHR traffic
2. The market is competitive and is driving lower prices

NZ's lead in fares offer direct partner routes but LON is still more than valid.

This is just fare sheets, inventory also plays a big part in controlling where passengers are encouraged to fly over.
 
Gasman
Posts: 1935
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Fri Nov 09, 2018 12:01 am

torin wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:
3) Services the whole Europe market as a gateway.

For LAX-based customers, sure - for everyone else on NZ's network, no. For New Zealand-based NZ customers, SIN is the gateway to the EU.


Cheers,

C.


No its not. NZ fares to Europe are mainly constructed to be flown via LON. Until very recently the SQ JV was limited to only the points that SQ flew (even then not all of them). You could get to more of Europe with NZ using CX to LON and then whatever carrier from LON (mainly BA) that NZ have on their LON add-ons.

It gets a little frustrating that you keep on making these statements as if they are fact and your viewpoint is the only one, but it doesnt really seem to be backed up by anything...


I'm not saying you're wrong but - back when I was an NZ frequent flier, this was not my practice flying to Europe. Even if my destination was LHR, I'd route via SIN (hopefully on SQ metal all the way from AKL).
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4189
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Fri Nov 09, 2018 12:35 am

torin wrote:
It gets a little frustrating that you keep on making these statements as if they are fact and your viewpoint is the only one, but it doesnt really seem to be backed up by anything...

I'm sorry you are frustrated - I truly am - and I wasn't aware of fare pricing sheets cited, which are interesting to read. My view about SIN being NZ's gateway into Europe was based on experience of NZ's website offering me, personally, more options through SIN to Europe than via elsewhere, and in recollections when NZ and SQ tied-up that the alliance would have a focus on Europe, unlike the CX, UA or other ones - crucially, IIRC, there are more one-stop connections to Europe with an NZ code the whole way through, via SIN (through the tie-up), than via any other airport? To me, that makes SIN NZ's primary gateway into Europe, but yes - that's just my opinion - it's not fact, and it's obviously open to different interpretations as to where the gateway is (particularly given things like those fare pricing sheets).

NZ6 wrote:
Fact is on both fare sheets you can see LON is valid routing to most of Europe, you just need to apply the LON add-on.

To me, offering more fares through a certain port (than others) to a region doesn't make that port the gateway to that region, for any given airline (appreciate others have differing views). For me, the more formal codeshare system is needed for a port to be a true gateway to a region - things like FPP benefits aren't accrued through mere interlining, limiting things like lounge access, in turn, limiting the status of a port as being a gateway (IMHO). Plus, most NZ fares to Europe being routed through LON wouldn't be using LAX - LHR - they'd be using CX on HKG - LHR, and others, which goes back to my original point about the future of LAX - LHR. The point was made that LHR is NZ's gateway to the EU, which, even if true, isn't relevant to NZ keeping LAX - LHR (because most NZ LHR fares aren't through LAX)?

Cheers,

C.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 6834
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Fri Nov 09, 2018 1:15 am

aerorobnz wrote:
IAs for VA, I don't trust Borghetti one bit, I have seen his internal communications to his staff, and even when they were making record losses and his leadership was in question at the board level he was still telling his staff they are doing well and everything is alright.


Going off the loads I have seen the NZ routes are doing well despite some claims here before particular from one NZ poster that claimed that 70% of the passengers on VA where actually NZ passengers. I would also say that one route in particular is performing extremely well with 90% plus loads on a daily basis and would not be surprised if extra services where added. I have also been keeping an eye out on the numbers on PER-AKL and would say they are a bit lower now than what they were before with VA codesharing on the route. I do not think it is all one way as some suggest.
Forum Moderator
 
zkncj
Posts: 3023
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Fri Nov 09, 2018 1:20 am

qf789 wrote:
I have also been keeping an eye out on the numbers on PER-AKL and would say they are a bit lower now than what they were before with VA codesharing on the route. I do not think it is all one way as some suggest.


Could maybe see VA start PER-AKL with the 737-8MAX? if they do go with an configuration which has an decent J product.
 
torin
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:53 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Fri Nov 09, 2018 1:51 am

Gasman wrote:
torin wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:


For LAX-based customers, sure - for everyone else on NZ's network, no. For New Zealand-based NZ customers, SIN is the gateway to the EU.


Cheers,

C.


No its not. NZ fares to Europe are mainly constructed to be flown via LON. Until very recently the SQ JV was limited to only the points that SQ flew (even then not all of them). You could get to more of Europe with NZ using CX to LON and then whatever carrier from LON (mainly BA) that NZ have on their LON add-ons.

It gets a little frustrating that you keep on making these statements as if they are fact and your viewpoint is the only one, but it doesnt really seem to be backed up by anything...


I'm not saying you're wrong but - back when I was an NZ frequent flier, this was not my practice flying to Europe. Even if my destination was LHR, I'd route via SIN (hopefully on SQ metal all the way from AKL).


Im not referring to preferences though, Im talking about how NZ constructs and offers its fares - they dont use a single gateway method - LAX, SFO, SIN, and HKG are the major's. The main point though was that more cities in Europe (until the revision on 28Sep) were accessible when specifically not going via SIN - the LON add-ons linked above, prior to 28Sep, were not possible on a JV fare (going through SIN). So anyone that wanted a destination that wasnt operated by SQ and apart of the alliance had to either go via LON not using SQ, or buy a separate ticket in Europe.

Prior to June or July NZ had a lot more offerings than the fares above show. In the last few months a lot of carriers have narrowed down their offerings ex New Zealand.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 6834
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Fri Nov 09, 2018 1:57 am

zkncj wrote:
qf789 wrote:
I have also been keeping an eye out on the numbers on PER-AKL and would say they are a bit lower now than what they were before with VA codesharing on the route. I do not think it is all one way as some suggest.


Could maybe see VA start PER-AKL with the 737-8MAX? if they do go with an configuration which has an decent J product.


Personally I dont think the much talked up PER product J Class will be on the 737MAX8's, rather it will installed on the 737MAX10's instead. A new J class would eat into the Y cabin of which is important to VA. The 737MAX8 would lack range without taking a payload hit on the wesbound AKL-PER.

I do wonder now that the A332 weekend NAN services are not operating whether they could operate weekend services on PER-AKL and fill the void left by QF, IMO QF have kept talking about PER-AKL but failed to deliver so there may be an opportunity there for VA.
Forum Moderator
 
a7ala
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Fri Nov 09, 2018 2:30 am

zkncj wrote:
qf789 wrote:
I have also been keeping an eye out on the numbers on PER-AKL and would say they are a bit lower now than what they were before with VA codesharing on the route. I do not think it is all one way as some suggest.


Could maybe see VA start PER-AKL with the 737-8MAX? if they do go with an configuration which has an decent J product.


Why? AKL-PER loads has been on steady decline since Sep 2016 despite a significant reduction in capacity over that period. Its a very soft market at the moment so I dont know why people are obsessed that QF or VA should fly it.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3023
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Fri Nov 09, 2018 3:12 am

a7ala wrote:
Why? AKL-PER loads has been on steady decline since Sep 2016 despite a significant reduction in capacity over that period. Its a very soft market at the moment so I dont know why people are obsessed that QF or VA should fly it.


It's still flown daily by NZ with an 789, thats up from an few years back with it was a couple times an week with an 763
 
a7ala
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Fri Nov 09, 2018 3:34 am

zkncj wrote:
a7ala wrote:
Why? AKL-PER loads has been on steady decline since Sep 2016 despite a significant reduction in capacity over that period. Its a very soft market at the moment so I dont know why people are obsessed that QF or VA should fly it.


It's still flown daily by NZ with an 789, thats up from an few years back with it was a couple times an week with an 763


Depends on what you mean by a few years ago. In 2014 Air NZ were operating almost all B772's and B789's (daily across both), and QF were doing their seasonals. 2011 was the last year they had predominately B767s on it and they were doing pretty much a year round daily then.
Last edited by a7ala on Fri Nov 09, 2018 3:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1219
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Fri Nov 09, 2018 3:35 am

qf789 wrote:
Going off the loads I have seen the NZ routes are doing well despite some claims here before particular from one NZ poster that claimed that 70% of the passengers on VA where actually NZ passengers.

IIRC the airline itself (NZ) made a claim along these lines back when the divorce was announced.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 6834
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Fri Nov 09, 2018 3:36 am

a7ala wrote:
zkncj wrote:
qf789 wrote:
I have also been keeping an eye out on the numbers on PER-AKL and would say they are a bit lower now than what they were before with VA codesharing on the route. I do not think it is all one way as some suggest.


Could maybe see VA start PER-AKL with the 737-8MAX? if they do go with an configuration which has an decent J product.


Why? AKL-PER loads has been on steady decline since Sep 2016 despite a significant reduction in capacity over that period. Its a very soft market at the moment so I dont know why people are obsessed that QF or VA should fly it.


There has not been a significant reduction in capacity on PER-AKL, last summer QF flew its 2 weekly and NZ 10 weekly services. If we look at a month such as April 2018 where this year there were 5000 less passengers carried between the 2 cities, there were at least 7 return services cancelled which equates to just over 4200 passengers which was due to RR engines on the 787's. Its fine looking at figures but not everyone uses the direct service, many would use a domestic service and connect on either a QF or VA flight instead.

Some didnt like what I said back in April when I asked the question why NZ kept on cancelling services to PER but everywhere else serviced by 787's werent impacted yet at the time it was cited by NZ themselves that the cancellations where a direct result of the Trent1000 issues on the 787's. At the end of the day NZ brand in PER has taken a hit, they let their passengers here down in a big way last summer and that is going to take some time to prepare. While this may not be all their fault, there is some fault on NZ's part in the way things were handled of which should have been handled better. Ultimately the passengers dont care what the issue is and who's fault it is, they just want to get their destination.
Forum Moderator
 
a7ala
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Fri Nov 09, 2018 3:48 am

qf789 wrote:
a7ala wrote:
zkncj wrote:

Could maybe see VA start PER-AKL with the 737-8MAX? if they do go with an configuration which has an decent J product.


Why? AKL-PER loads has been on steady decline since Sep 2016 despite a significant reduction in capacity over that period. Its a very soft market at the moment so I dont know why people are obsessed that QF or VA should fly it.


There has not been a significant reduction in capacity on PER-AKL, last summer QF flew its 2 weekly and NZ 10 weekly services. If we look at a month such as April 2018 where this year there were 5000 less passengers carried between the 2 cities, there were at least 7 return services cancelled which equates to just over 4200 passengers which was due to RR engines on the 787's. Its fine looking at figures but not everyone uses the direct service, many would use a domestic service and connect on either a QF or VA flight instead.


Pax are down around -12% on PER-AKL since Sept 2016 peak according to BITRE. Some of that will be driven by a reduced QF season last year, but not all of it.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4189
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Fri Nov 09, 2018 4:10 am

a7ala wrote:
Pax are down around -12% on PER-AKL since Sept 2016 peak according to BITRE. Some of that will be driven by a reduced QF season last year, but not all of it.

QF leaving and the economic slump would have played a part, no doubt, but I wonder if NZ's constant product inconsistency on the route of late has put off repeat customers from using NZ to the Americas, over going QF via SYD/MEL?

Cheers,

C.
 
QF41
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 12:21 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Fri Nov 09, 2018 4:21 am

Hi all. Just wondering how many flights Emirates have a day to Auckland? Are there any more trans tasman flights? or have they all gone? All i can find is one flight to DPS and one flight to DXB. Am i missing any?

Cheers
Must be somewhere can't be nowhere

QF, VA, JQ, SQ, AA, BA, DJ, MH, RJ, EK, EY, GA, AY, LA, CU, UL, NZ, CI, PR, AZ, AT, U2, MZ, NC, 3K
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6307
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Fri Nov 09, 2018 4:30 am

QF41 wrote:
Hi all. Just wondering how many flights Emirates have a day to Auckland? Are there any more trans tasman flights? or have they all gone? All i can find is one flight to DPS and one flight to DXB. Am i missing any?

Cheers


That is all they offer now.

Still a CHC-SYD.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4189
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Fri Nov 09, 2018 4:54 am

QF41 wrote:
Hi all. Just wondering how many flights Emirates have a day to Auckland? Are there any more trans tasman flights? or have they all gone? All i can find is one flight to DPS and one flight to DXB. Am i missing any?

Ignoring changes relating to DXB runway upgrades, there are usually 3x daily EK flights to New Zealand:

1x daily (DXB - AKL, non-stop, 388)
1x daily (DXB - DPS - AKL, 77W)
1x daily (DXB - SYD - CHC, 388)

Cheers,

C.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 6834
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Fri Nov 09, 2018 6:16 am

planemanofnz wrote:
a7ala wrote:
Pax are down around -12% on PER-AKL since Sept 2016 peak according to BITRE. Some of that will be driven by a reduced QF season last year, but not all of it.

QF leaving and the economic slump would have played a part, no doubt, but I wonder if NZ's constant product inconsistency on the route of late has put off repeat customers from using NZ to the Americas, over going QF via SYD/MEL?

Cheers,

C.


I do think product inconsistency is in play here. Currently you have 789's operating some days both V1 and V2 are used along with 772's on other days which could be either NZ ones or the leased ones. The average person sees and thinks the ex SQ aircraft as SQ aircraft, while there may not have been time for repainting or they deemed they would have the aircraft temporarily its not good for the brand, the least they could do is put a decal on the side of the aircraft with Air New Zealand on it.
Forum Moderator
 
NZ6
Posts: 657
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Fri Nov 09, 2018 6:17 am

planemanofnz wrote:
torin wrote:
It gets a little frustrating that you keep on making these statements as if they are fact and your viewpoint is the only one, but it doesnt really seem to be backed up by anything...

I'm sorry you are frustrated - I truly am - and I wasn't aware of fare pricing sheets cited, which are interesting to read. My view about SIN being NZ's gateway into Europe was based on experience of NZ's website offering me,


This goes for a lot of your posts planemanofnz. I've said it before, you use a lot of fact, stats or information either in isolation or incorrectly for form opinion. No one can take your thoughts and opinions away. My concern is that you go to an extent to tell others they are wrong and stand your ground which devalues the conversation. The NZ website accounts to a very small fraction of NZ-Europe traffic and let's not forget also, Europe to NZ traffic. You've essentially told someone they were wrong because the NZ site shows you SIN as a transit stop. There is a whole separate reason for this.

planemanofnz wrote:
To me, offering more fares through a certain port (than others) to a region doesn't make that port the gateway to that region, for any given airline (appreciate others have differing views). For me, the more formal codeshare system is needed for a port to be a true gateway to a region - things like FPP benefits aren't accrued through mere interlining, limiting things like lounge access, in turn, limiting the status of a port as being a gateway (IMHO). Plus, most NZ fares to Europe being routed through LON wouldn't be using LAX - LHR - they'd be using CX on HKG - LHR, and others, which goes back to my original point about the future of LAX - LHR. The point was made that LHR is NZ's gateway to the EU, which, even if true, isn't relevant to NZ keeping LAX - LHR (because most NZ LHR fares aren't through LAX)?

Cheers,

C.


A 'Fare' is valid from point A to point B. Then rules and conditions say how it can be used. So looking at AKL-FRA, you have seasonality, stopovers, booking classes etc and also routing. For example AKL-HKG-FRA, AKL-SIN-FRA and AKL-LAX-LON-FRA are all valid for the 'Fare'. NZ just charges a fee to go via LON.

As for the remainder of your post, I'm not sure what you mean by the gateway, why is there just one gateway? does FFP/Lounge access relevant to everyone? Many are happy to look for the cheapest and most convenient way to get to where they need.

Some of the top end of this group is the ones NZ are happy to keep on NZ to LHR.

Don't assume all customers have the same passion and knowledge as we do, some don't even know who they're flying, expect a jumbo between WLGAKL and wonder if the beer is free let alone worry about codeshare, lounges and FFP points
 
NZ6
Posts: 657
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Fri Nov 09, 2018 6:22 am

planemanofnz wrote:
but I wonder if NZ's constant product inconsistency on the route of late has put off repeat customers from using NZ to the Americas, over going QF via SYD/MEL?

Cheers,

C.


Given 75% of Australians lack knowledge that NZ flies beyond NZ and where to. I don't think the.... and I'll quote you "product inconsistency" is putting many off.

Not really sure what the "product inconsistency" is either, 772 and 789 are very similar. Many airlines fly a variety of aircraft on a route with slight variations. Perhaps it's a dig at the Seats to Suit options again?
 
NZ6
Posts: 657
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Fri Nov 09, 2018 6:34 am

qf789 wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
a7ala wrote:
Pax are down around -12% on PER-AKL since Sept 2016 peak according to BITRE. Some of that will be driven by a reduced QF season last year, but not all of it.

QF leaving and the economic slump would have played a part, no doubt, but I wonder if NZ's constant product inconsistency on the route of late has put off repeat customers from using NZ to the Americas, over going QF via SYD/MEL?

Cheers,

C.


I do think product inconsistency is in play here. Currently you have 789's operating some days both V1 and V2 are used along with 772's on other days which could be either NZ ones or the leased ones. The average person sees and thinks the ex SQ aircraft as SQ aircraft, while there may not have been time for repainting or they deemed they would have the aircraft temporarily its not good for the brand, the least they could do is put a decal on the side of the aircraft with Air New Zealand on it.


The average person probably has no idea. Sorry, but we get all too consumed in our hobby and how much we know. The majority travel economy and probably couldn't tell you the difference. I'm not saying inconsistency is good. I just don't believe it's a big factor.
 
Gasman
Posts: 1935
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Fri Nov 09, 2018 7:04 am

NZ6 wrote:
qf789 wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
QF leaving and the economic slump would have played a part, no doubt, but I wonder if NZ's constant product inconsistency on the route of late has put off repeat customers from using NZ to the Americas, over going QF via SYD/MEL?

Cheers,

C.


I do think product inconsistency is in play here. Currently you have 789's operating some days both V1 and V2 are used along with 772's on other days which could be either NZ ones or the leased ones. The average person sees and thinks the ex SQ aircraft as SQ aircraft, while there may not have been time for repainting or they deemed they would have the aircraft temporarily its not good for the brand, the least they could do is put a decal on the side of the aircraft with Air New Zealand on it.


The average person probably has no idea. Sorry, but we get all too consumed in our hobby and how much we know. The majority travel economy and probably couldn't tell you the difference. I'm not saying inconsistency is good. I just don't believe it's a big factor.


This is absolutely correct. The fact that it is correct pisses me off; but it is correct nonetheless. NZ (and other airlines) know full well that their customer base is not that discerning or attentive and they take full advantage of that fact.
 
NZ6
Posts: 657
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Fri Nov 09, 2018 7:42 am

Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
qf789 wrote:

I do think product inconsistency is in play here. Currently you have 789's operating some days both V1 and V2 are used along with 772's on other days which could be either NZ ones or the leased ones. The average person sees and thinks the ex SQ aircraft as SQ aircraft, while there may not have been time for repainting or they deemed they would have the aircraft temporarily its not good for the brand, the least they could do is put a decal on the side of the aircraft with Air New Zealand on it.


The average person probably has no idea. Sorry, but we get all too consumed in our hobby and how much we know. The majority travel economy and probably couldn't tell you the difference. I'm not saying inconsistency is good. I just don't believe it's a big factor.


This is absolutely correct. The fact that it is correct pisses me off; but it is correct nonetheless. NZ (and other airlines) know full well that their customer base is not that discerning or attentive and they take full advantage of that fact.


Why does it piss you off? You have been clear you don't fly them and turned your back a long time ago. Seems like an odd thing to be pissed off about given it can't effect you :?
 
Gasman
Posts: 1935
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Fri Nov 09, 2018 8:46 am

NZ6 wrote:
Why does it piss you off? You have been clear you don't fly them and turned your back a long time ago. Seems like an odd thing to be pissed off about given it can't effect you :?


Are you offering to be my Psychiatrist? Believe me, you don't have the stamina.

It bothers me for two reasons. Firstly, I feel woefully alone in that I'm one of the very few that notice incremental declines in product quality, like 10 abreast on a 777 etc.

That's bad enough. But the fact the airlines KNOW this, and take full advantage of it, and what's more use successfully use gimmicky distraction techniques like jokesy safety videos and in-seat drinks ordering, to me just seems wrong wrong wrong on so many levels. It's like the world doesn't know they're being taken advantage of, and they keep coming back for more.

There! It feels good to get that off my chest. Cheque (Czech?) is in the mail.
 
NZ321
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Fri Nov 09, 2018 9:35 am

Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Why does it piss you off? You have been clear you don't fly them and turned your back a long time ago. Seems like an odd thing to be pissed off about given it can't effect you :?


Are you offering to be my Psychiatrist? Believe me, you don't have the stamina.

It bothers me for two reasons. Firstly, I feel woefully alone in that I'm one of the very few that notice incremental declines in product quality, like 10 abreast on a 777 etc.

That's bad enough. But the fact the airlines KNOW this, and take full advantage of it, and what's more use successfully use gimmicky distraction techniques like jokesy safety videos and in-seat drinks ordering, to me just seems wrong wrong wrong on so many levels. It's like the world doesn't know they're being taken advantage of, and they keep coming back for more.

There! It feels good to get that off my chest. Cheque (Czech?) is in the mail.


HA! You are not alone Gasman.... :)
Plane mad!
 
Polo5959
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:18 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Fri Nov 09, 2018 7:28 pm

planemanofnz wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
I wonder what EK’s next response will be?

Yeah, me too. The two ports I'd love to see them replace DPS with in Asia are 1) SIN (to give some competition to that important market), and/or 2) CGK (with it being arguably the biggest hole in AKL's Asian connectivity). I think they'll give DPS at least 12 - 18 months to mature, before they make a change.

Separate to the DPS flight, I do wonder what will happen with the non-stop flight. For one, IIRC, it is heavily restricted on the westbound leg (something like 100 seats blocked off - correct me if I'm wrong). Another element is the degree to which people are kind of over the 17 hour non-stop options to EMEA regions.

I also wonder what will happen to CHC? It can't be sustainable to fly a half-empty 388 on SYD - CHC every day, and have the crew layover in CHC too. The options are limited - there are minimal 77W Australian flights to tag CHC with, the 77L's aren't doing ULH now, and a 388 is too big. Could they drop CHC, like CI?

Cheers,

C.


I still believe they intended to serve AKL-SIN-DXB but when NZ/SQ announced their third daily service they re-evaluated their plans. I do believe they can possibly make DPS work as long as they adjust frequency in the off season.

I think going forward for EK BKK might be a better option for their one stop AKL service. It’s less seasonal than DPS and could do with some competition. If TG/NZ were to protect this market NZ could enter a JV with TG and do BKK 3x weekly.

I flew TG a few months ago and both cabins were 90-95% full.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 11658
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Fri Nov 09, 2018 7:47 pm

planemanofnz wrote:

- Because nothing says "New Zealand" more than hip hop and pretending you live in South Central Los Angeles?

Cheers,

C.


Hip Hop is pretty ingrained in NZ culture, The NZ crew the Royal Family have been consistently one of the world’s best for about ten years. There’s a few other crews that has also won world championships from NZ.
 
Gasman
Posts: 1935
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Fri Nov 09, 2018 8:11 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:

- Because nothing says "New Zealand" more than hip hop and pretending you live in South Central Los Angeles?

Cheers,

C.


Hip Hop is pretty ingrained in NZ culture, The NZ crew the Royal Family have been consistently one of the world’s best for about ten years. There’s a few other crews that has also won world championships from NZ.


Disagree. It's one of those things that get disproportionate exposure, either because someone with an agenda thinks it needs a boost; or because some hand wringing media person thinks that mainstreaming it will validate them in some way. I'd say 95% of NZ pax couldn't give a flying rat's about hip hop. Either way, to say it's "pretty ingrained in New Zealand culture" is a stretch.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 11658
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Fri Nov 09, 2018 8:28 pm

You’re really showing your age and cultural bias Gasman, my neice is in a competitive crew, and her school crew, a lot of my friends kids are doing hip hop, I’ve got cousins who are into it. Most schools in NZ have a crew, and a lot more than one. You’d be really surprised at how big it is in NZ. School sports are more than rugby and rowing these days.
 
NZ6
Posts: 657
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Fri Nov 09, 2018 9:18 pm

Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Why does it piss you off? You have been clear you don't fly them and turned your back a long time ago. Seems like an odd thing to be pissed off about given it can't effect you :?


Are you offering to be my Psychiatrist? Believe me, you don't have the stamina.

It bothers me for two reasons. Firstly, I feel woefully alone in that I'm one of the very few that notice incremental declines in product quality, like 10 abreast on a 777 etc.

That's bad enough. But the fact the airlines KNOW this, and take full advantage of it, and what's more use successfully use gimmicky distraction techniques like jokesy safety videos and in-seat drinks ordering, to me just seems wrong wrong wrong on so many levels. It's like the world doesn't know they're being taken advantage of, and they keep coming back for more.

There! It feels good to get that off my chest. Cheque (Czech?) is in the mail.


Not a chance! :spin:

Jokesy safety videos is a marketing ploy and nothing else. Different conversation.

But on a serious note, if you want to look at it that way hasn't there been a continued decline in product quality in air travel since the 60's when only the rich and famous flew? While aircraft are lighter and more fuel efficient things like employee wages, airport fees and oil have skyrocketed, yet, with this in mind, the cost of travel continues to decline.

How does this happen?

I recall paying somewhere around $2899 for AKL-LAX in the early 2000's and thought it was a great deal, now a great deal is closer to the $1K mark.

Things like ultra slimline seats that allow the airline to squeeze extra row(s) in, IFE that allows passengers to relax within their seat and not stretch to see the big screen, narrow aisles and carts which allow 10 abreast seating with more passengers, these are all initiatives that all airlines are looking at to recover the costs of competition driving airfares down.

A very quick look at Qantas cabins on a.net found this, the seat pitch looks more than generous don't you think.



We've also become so accustomed to technology that we complain when we can't find a movie to watch in an array of 60+ movies and can order a drink without having to ding the well and let everyone know we're sobering up.

The world has changed Gasman.
15 years ago, while you would have had a wider seat, slightly more leg room and spent $1-$2K more on your airfare but had to sit through only 1 or 2 movies on a 12-hour flight, neither movie would be your choice with no pause, rewind functions. You sometimes had to stare around crew as they served meals. If you didn't like the movie, had seen it before or lost track of it due to childcare or a toilet stop too bad. The next one started in 2.5 hours. Better luck then. If you sat within the first few rows of the big screen, good luck sleeping the 55" projector lights were more than enough to keep you awake. While you're awake you might as well ding your bell and wait for the crew to wander down and see what you wanted. Once the movies finished, lights out for everyone. Turn your tiny reading light on if you want to do anything. Barely enough light to read, but you can if you hold your book directly below the light.

If you look at today, IFE with hours and hours of TV, Movies and games. Flight map on demand to help those who like to see where they are. Charging ports become more and more available which allows the passenger to bring on board their own devices and use them for the duration of the flight. More more and airlines are allowing customers to order additional drinks, snacks via the IFE to minimise the number of trips through the cabin with the carts. You can now even work or go online with onboard WIFI.

While components of these changes don't appeal to everyone and each airline does things slightly differently, I'm sorry to say, Gasman, it's the evolution of air travel and is here to stay.
 
Gasman
Posts: 1935
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Fri Nov 09, 2018 10:10 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
You’re really showing your age and cultural bias Gasman, my neice is in a competitive crew, and her school crew, a lot of my friends kids are doing hip hop, I’ve got cousins who are into it. Most schools in NZ have a crew, and a lot more than one. You’d be really surprised at how big it is in NZ. School sports are more than rugby and rowing these days.


But neither your neice nor my daughter who is also in a competitive crew is likely to go and buy a J ticket to LHR. And I'd guarantee that by the time they can, a hip hop video won't resonate with them either.

NZ6 wrote:
We've also become so accustomed to technology that we complain when we can't find a movie to watch in an array of 60+ movies and can order a drink without having to ding the well and let everyone know we're sobering up.

The world has changed Gasman.
15 years ago, while you would have had a wider seat, slightly more leg room and spent $1-$2K more on your airfare but had to sit through only 1 or 2 movies on a 12-hour flight, neither movie would be your choice with no pause, rewind functions. You sometimes had to stare around crew as they served meals. If you didn't like the movie, had seen it before or lost track of it due to childcare or a toilet stop too bad. The next one started in 2.5 hours. Better luck then. If you sat within the first few rows of the big screen, good luck sleeping the 55" projector lights were more than enough to keep you awake. While you're awake you might as well ding your bell and wait for the crew to wander down and see what you wanted. Once the movies finished, lights out for everyone. Turn your tiny reading light on if you want to do anything. Barely enough light to read, but you can if you hold your book directly below the light.

If you look at today, IFE with hours and hours of TV, Movies and games. Flight map on demand to help those who like to see where they are. Charging ports become more and more available which allows the passenger to bring on board their own devices and use them for the duration of the flight. More more and airlines are allowing customers to order additional drinks, snacks via the IFE to minimise the number of trips through the cabin with the carts. You can now even work or go online with onboard WIFI.

While components of these changes don't appeal to everyone and each airline does things slightly differently, I'm sorry to say, Gasman, it's the evolution of air travel and is here to stay.


Utter, utter bollocks. If you want to patronise me, you're going to have to do a lot better than that. I'm not sure if you actually believe the BS you're pedaling; or are simply singing from the NZ songsheet but the argument "we're cramping things up in order to give you, the customer, lower fares" is the catch cry disseminated to anyone who feels aggrieved enough to complain about the reduction in pitch/width/aisle space/meal quality and, while it's effective it is still a fallacy.

The market dictates fares in general, and within that framework airlines set out to maximise profits. This involves squeezing in as many seats as possible and providing the lowest possible service.If the market dictates fares can be higher; those gains are not diverted to the customer in terms of a higher quality product but are returned to the shareholders. To claim that anything more than a weak correlation exists between product quality and fare is false. It's the same with Seats to Suit. It provides the illusion of choice but overall the passenger pool is paying more.

Fares have undeniably got cheaper over the years in real terms but that is due to the evolving market economy and would have happened anyway even if seat density had been maintained at 1990's levels. *Every* marketable commodity these days is cheaper and unlike air travel is usually higher quality than its siblings from yesteryear. I've just bought a television set for a fraction of the cost of my last one and this was not achieved by Samsung making it smaller.

So please don't tell me that progressive declines in quality are being driven by me, or are being provided for me because I demand to pay less. They are being driven by the needs of the company and the shareholder, not the needs of the fare paying passenger.

You also imply that I'm supposed to take modern IFE as some sort of compensation for everything else. Well firstly, IFE doesn't cost the airline much. Secondly, especially now that all the IFE I need is on my cellphone, I'd foresake it in a heartbeat for a bigger seat. Through to the early 2000's, NZ's 744s had 36" inch pitch. It made long haul Y travel actually enjoyable, even without IFE.
 
NZ6
Posts: 657
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:49 pm

Before I acknowledge your comments, there is a lot of reference to yourself here. That's fine but there is just under 4.5 billion passengers boarded onto commercial aviation services each year.

Gasman wrote:
If you want to patronise me, you're going to have to do a lot better than that. I'm not sure if you actually believe the BS you're pedaling; or are simply singing from the NZ songsheet but the argument "we're cramping things up in order to give you, the customer, lower fares" is the catch cry disseminated to anyone who feels aggrieved enough to complain about the reduction in pitch/width/aisle space/meal quality and, while it's effective it is still a fallacy.


None of this was a reference to NZ. I actually referenced QF via the image I used and highlighted the word all as I predicted this response.
I'm not sure how you expect lower fares without some form of compromise? Either way, the market determines the competitive rate. The airlines need to then formulate a strategy to achieve strong returns and maintain a high level of customer satisfaction (not all, a high level). In many cases, looking at your configuration and product is the first step.

If you as a consumer are not price driven, options like the premium economy are often priced around the Economy levels of 15-20 years ago once inflation is factored in. The offering is personally, superior to that era's economy class.

Ultimately though, you're stuck wanting more and paying less.

Gasman wrote:
The market dictates fares in general, and within that framework airlines set out to maximise profits. This involves squeezing in as many seats as possible and providing the lowest possible service.If the market dictates fares can be higher; those gains are not diverted to the customer in terms of a higher quality product but are returned to the shareholders. To claim that anything more than a weak correlation exists between product quality and fare is false. It's the same with Seats to Suit. It provides the illusion of choice but overall the passenger pool is paying more.


This is business, isn't it? Isn't any shareholder looking to maximise profits?
If you can do this with the market driving lower fares and having lower density cabin than industry you'd be a rich man.

Not exactly sure what you by service in the comment "lowest possible service". Do you mean cabin crew vs hard products?

I'd actually argue this comment and to quote you...
Gasman wrote:
Utter, utter bollocks.

Look at SIN-EWR, this market dictates fares can be higher; those gains are not diverted to the customer in terms of a higher quality product.


Gasman wrote:
Fares have undeniably got cheaper over the years in real terms but that is due to the evolving market economy and would have happened anyway even if seat density had been maintained at 1990's levels. *Every* marketable commodity these days is cheaper and unlike air travel is usually higher quality than its siblings from yesteryear. I've just bought a television set for a fraction of the cost of my last one and this was not achieved by Samsung making it smaller.

Sure, TV manufacturing has become automated and cheaper to produce whereas the main cost of air travel (fuel) has increased while fares reduced. Not exactly oranges with oranges is it.

Gasman wrote:
So please don't tell me that progressive declines in quality are being driven by me, or are being provided for me because I demand to pay less. They are being driven by the needs of the company and the shareholder, not the needs of the fare paying passenger.

They are driven by the market and competition. So indirectly it is driven by you, you and the other 4.5 billion air passenger trips last year.

Gasman wrote:
You also imply that I'm supposed to take modern IFE as some sort of compensation for everything else. Well firstly, IFE doesn't cost the airline much. Secondly, especially now that all the IFE I need is on my cellphone, I'd foresake it in a heartbeat for a bigger seat. Through to the early 2000's, NZ's 744s had 36" inch pitch. It made long haul Y travel actually enjoyable, even without IFE.

I never said anything of the sort, I'm merely stating the world is a changing place, IFE, WIFI, Devices are more important to people than they were 20 years ago, in fact, they didn't really exist.

I have no doubt, the majority of the travelling public would prefer today's offering (not airline specific) over the 2000's no IFE but slightly more leg room higher priced option.

Ultimately I'm sure you want all the bells and whistles, WIFI, IFE, Meals, Bar Service, Magazines, Amenity Kits, 40" pitch, FFP points, lounge with a sense of infinite space yet be priced competitively?

Sadly they world doesn't work like this, the majority vote with what important to them and without insulting you personally I don't believe you are relevant to what the majority find important to them these days.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4159
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Sat Nov 10, 2018 5:54 am

planemanofnz wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
2) Traditional ties between UK and NZ.

As has been stated many times here, it's not really a New Zealand - UK route - it's a US - UK one, so traditional ties shouldn't be that relevant?

Zkpilot wrote:
3) Services the whole Europe market as a gateway.

For LAX-based customers, sure - for everyone else on NZ's network, no. For New Zealand-based NZ customers, SIN is the gateway to the EU.

Zkpilot wrote:
4) Freight.

There are many bigger planes and airlines with lower costs, which IMO, erodes freight potential for NZ on both of LAX - LHR and AKL - LHR.

Cheers,

C.

1) Is still a traditional market and still a fair amount of traffic. The LAX-LHR segment simply provides the icing on the cake as high margin. Brits like NZ and know about it’s Commonwealth connections and of course prefer it to US Airlines.
2) It is still a gateway to Europe for West Coast customers, along with an option for Kiwis. Why would NZ want to put all its eggs in one basket and feed an airline like SQ who they have had issues with in the past?? This gives them diversified options.
3) There aren’t many passenger aircraft that can haul more freight than a 77W (can’t think of any actually - 744 has less freight space, same with A380 and A340). NZ does make a lot of money from freight - in fact it actually makes more money from freight per kg than it does from passengers. Sure their are specific cargo only services out there but plenty of airlines make good money from belly cargo.

The simple fact is that NZ has been operating this route for a long time, is well established and known on it (especially amoungst the B-list crowd or those not particularly aligned to a carrier/alliance - of course being in *A means getting some UA/LH pax). NZ does make a solid profit on this route and it does help the company image with a) flying to UK, and b) being seen out there and offering that option.
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
59 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 6834
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Sat Nov 10, 2018 9:11 am

The ATSB says an investigation into a VA aircraft having a tailstrike at AKL back in January was due to a change in headwind

http://australianaviation.com.au/2018/1 ... ailstrike/
Forum Moderator
 
DobboDobbo
Posts: 675
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 1:02 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Sat Nov 10, 2018 9:41 am

Hi all - a quick question.

I'll be in Wellington for a reasonable period of time in the new year and quite fancy a day trip to Picton/Queen Charlotte Sound/Havelock North. I'm thinking flying into PCN or NSN from WEL (as opposed to the inter-islander) but wasn't sure what the car hire situation is at either location (not for want of trying). Is anyone able to give an indication on whether this option works?

Cheers!
 
7seven7nz
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 4:44 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Sat Nov 10, 2018 9:56 am

DobboDobbo wrote:
Hi all - a quick question.

I'll be in Wellington for a reasonable period of time in the new year and quite fancy a day trip to Picton/Queen Charlotte Sound/Havelock North. I'm thinking flying into PCN or NSN from WEL (as opposed to the inter-islander) but wasn't sure what the car hire situation is at either location (not for want of trying). Is anyone able to give an indication on whether this option works?

Cheers!


Plenty of rental car options in either location, easy to book online. Nelson airport has all the big ones like hertz, europecar, budget etc. Nelson is a long drive but quite scenic via queen charlotte. If picking up in Picton you probably need to get a taxi or shuttle in to town and pick up a rental car from the ferry terminal as the airport there is pretty basic. You can usually pick up from one location and drop off in the other but may pay an extra fee.
 
DobboDobbo
Posts: 675
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 1:02 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:05 am

7seven7nz wrote:
DobboDobbo wrote:
Hi all - a quick question.

I'll be in Wellington for a reasonable period of time in the new year and quite fancy a day trip to Picton/Queen Charlotte Sound/Havelock North. I'm thinking flying into PCN or NSN from WEL (as opposed to the inter-islander) but wasn't sure what the car hire situation is at either location (not for want of trying). Is anyone able to give an indication on whether this option works?

Cheers!


Plenty of rental car options in either location, easy to book online. Nelson airport has all the big ones like hertz, europecar, budget etc. Nelson is a long drive but quite scenic via queen charlotte. If picking up in Picton you probably need to get a taxi or shuttle in to town and pick up a rental car from the ferry terminal as the airport there is pretty basic. You can usually pick up from one location and drop off in the other but may pay an extra fee.


Super stuff - thank you very much!

I suspected PCN wouldn’t have on site rental, so I’ll have a think about what works best!
 
NZ6
Posts: 657
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Sat Nov 10, 2018 7:23 pm

7seven7nz wrote:
DobboDobbo wrote:
Hi all - a quick question.

I'll be in Wellington for a reasonable period of time in the new year and quite fancy a day trip to Picton/Queen Charlotte Sound/Havelock North. I'm thinking flying into PCN or NSN from WEL (as opposed to the inter-islander) but wasn't sure what the car hire situation is at either location (not for want of trying). Is anyone able to give an indication on whether this option works?

Cheers!


Plenty of rental car options in either location, easy to book online. Nelson airport has all the big ones like hertz, europecar, budget etc. Nelson is a long drive but quite scenic via queen charlotte. If picking up in Picton you probably need to get a taxi or shuttle in to town and pick up a rental car from the ferry terminal as the airport there is pretty basic. You can usually pick up from one location and drop off in the other but may pay an extra fee.


Yeah bang on, you'll need to get into town to get a car rental, well it was the case last last time I was there. Sounds Air website has some info. about getting shuttles.

https://www.soundsair.com/travel-Inform ... rt-guides/

Their link doesn't work but I'd say just contact them. They obviously have information and the service is available.
 
zkeoj
Posts: 1119
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:00 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Sat Nov 10, 2018 9:21 pm

7seven7nz wrote:
DobboDobbo wrote:
Hi all - a quick question.

I'll be in Wellington for a reasonable period of time in the new year and quite fancy a day trip to Picton/Queen Charlotte Sound/Havelock North. I'm thinking flying into PCN or NSN from WEL (as opposed to the inter-islander) but wasn't sure what the car hire situation is at either location (not for want of trying). Is anyone able to give an indication on whether this option works?

Cheers!


Plenty of rental car options in either location, easy to book online. Nelson airport has all the big ones like hertz, europecar, budget etc. Nelson is a long drive but quite scenic via queen charlotte. If picking up in Picton you probably need to get a taxi or shuttle in to town and pick up a rental car from the ferry terminal as the airport there is pretty basic. You can usually pick up from one location and drop off in the other but may pay an extra fee.


Not being mean, but I had to chuckle at the use of the term "airport" and Picton in one sentence. This is Picton "airport": http://www.airport-data.com/airport/photo/041310.html

:D :D :D
 
master14225
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 6:38 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:18 pm

Is it possible for NZ to do AKL-YYZ since they already serve YVR and also they're adding ORD too?
 
NZ6
Posts: 657
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:30 pm

zkeoj wrote:
7seven7nz wrote:
DobboDobbo wrote:
Hi all - a quick question.

I'll be in Wellington for a reasonable period of time in the new year and quite fancy a day trip to Picton/Queen Charlotte Sound/Havelock North. I'm thinking flying into PCN or NSN from WEL (as opposed to the inter-islander) but wasn't sure what the car hire situation is at either location (not for want of trying). Is anyone able to give an indication on whether this option works?

Cheers!


Plenty of rental car options in either location, easy to book online. Nelson airport has all the big ones like hertz, europecar, budget etc. Nelson is a long drive but quite scenic via queen charlotte. If picking up in Picton you probably need to get a taxi or shuttle in to town and pick up a rental car from the ferry terminal as the airport there is pretty basic. You can usually pick up from one location and drop off in the other but may pay an extra fee.


Not being mean, but I had to chuckle at the use of the term "airport" and Picton in one sentence. This is Picton "airport": http://www.airport-data.com/airport/photo/041310.html

:D :D :D


Don't forget to knock on the door when you arrive to check-in.. or use the doorbell
 
Gasman
Posts: 1935
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:43 pm

master14225 wrote:
Is it possible for NZ to do AKL-YYZ since they already serve YVR and also they're adding ORD too?


Not *really*. It's right on the outer limit of useful 789 range and the market from Australasia to Toronto, while bigger than you might think, isn't huge.
 
NZ321
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Sun Nov 11, 2018 11:13 am

I am kinda hoping that the D7 withdrawal will improve yields on KUL-AKL for MH such that they reconsider their decision to abandon deployment of the A359 to AKL. I flew this sector last month on the ex Air Berlin A332 in Business and it was awful. Definite product downgrade. OK for regional flying. Not OK to AKL. 11 hours on that beast and I was itching to get off. Cabin is cramped and dated and seats just okay but inflight entertainment not up to the usual standard. Seems some differences in galleys with the problems experienced in both directions with food service. And crew not positive about them either. Meanwhile I am back to TG and SQ/NZ.
Plane mad!
 
DobboDobbo
Posts: 675
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 1:02 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Sun Nov 11, 2018 11:47 am

NZ6 wrote:
zkeoj wrote:
7seven7nz wrote:

Plenty of rental car options in either location, easy to book online. Nelson airport has all the big ones like hertz, europecar, budget etc. Nelson is a long drive but quite scenic via queen charlotte. If picking up in Picton you probably need to get a taxi or shuttle in to town and pick up a rental car from the ferry terminal as the airport there is pretty basic. You can usually pick up from one location and drop off in the other but may pay an extra fee.


Not being mean, but I had to chuckle at the use of the term "airport" and Picton in one sentence. This is Picton "airport": http://www.airport-data.com/airport/photo/041310.html

:D :D :D


Don't forget to knock on the door when you arrive to check-in.. or use the doorbell


Many thanks all - caused much amusement on this side of the globe! I’ll have a think about the options, hopefully I’ll get the chance to let you know what decision was made!
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3441
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:57 pm

master14225 wrote:
Is it possible for NZ to do AKL-YYZ since they already serve YVR and also they're adding ORD too?


Yes it’s possible but, considering they already serve those other two ports, it’s highly improbable as they’re already servicing the catchment area of Toronto. Next will be either EWR or JFK.

And on a separate note, we’ve just returned from a month’s holiday in Latin America. It’s the first time in a while I’ve flown NZ long-haul and I’d just like to say how good I thought they were. The NZ 77E (replacing the 789) was in excellent condition. The crew were superb. Catering in Y very good good. And we got a complimentary Skycouch in each direction (frequent flier benefits I guess).

It is however the first time I’ve flown on a 777 long-haul with 10-abreast. Have been flying CX and SQ mostly recently. And while the NZ seats were fine, the aisles were not. Too narrow and I bumped into several people waking them as I made my way to the loo in the darkened cabin.

Just an observation.
come visit the south pacific
 
Gasman
Posts: 1935
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Sun Nov 11, 2018 11:12 pm

Motorhussy wrote:
It is however the first time I’ve flown on a 777 long-haul with 10-abreast. Have been flying CX and SQ mostly recently. And while the NZ seats were fine, the aisles were not. Too narrow and I bumped into several people waking them as I made my way to the loo in the darkened cabin.

Just an observation.


Yet judging by the tone of your post, not enough of an issue to cause you to actively pursue other options in the future. And you're one of the connoisseurs.

Disappointed as I was/am with it, there can now be little doubt that in terms of getting bums on seats NZ got the 10 abreast decision right.
 
aklrno
Posts: 1404
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:18 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Mon Nov 12, 2018 12:09 am

DobboDobbo wrote:
Hi all - a quick question.

I'll be in Wellington for a reasonable period of time in the new year and quite fancy a day trip to Picton/Queen Charlotte Sound/Havelock North. I'm thinking flying into PCN or NSN from WEL (as opposed to the inter-islander) but wasn't sure what the car hire situation is at either location (not for want of trying). Is anyone able to give an indication on whether this option works?

Cheers!

I didn't notice in any of the replies to this, but have you considered flying to Blenheim? They have rentals there and it's not far to Picton or Queen Charlotte Sound or Havelock. Closer than Nelson.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8139
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Mon Nov 12, 2018 1:25 am

Motorhussy wrote:

And on a separate note, we’ve just returned from a month’s holiday in Latin America. It’s the first time in a while I’ve flown NZ long-haul and I’d just like to say how good I thought they were. The NZ 77E (replacing the 789) was in excellent condition. The crew were superb. Catering in Y very good good. And we got a complimentary Skycouch in each direction (frequent flier benefits I guess).

It is, however, the first time I’ve flown on a 777 long-haul with 10-abreast. Have been flying CX and SQ mostly recently. And while the NZ seats were fine, the aisles were not. Too narrow and I bumped into several people waking them as I made my way to the loo in the darkened cabin.

Just an observation.


I largely concur with all your observations of long-haul NZ 777s, I will state, however, that crew are intensely variable and I have had had a very mixed bag on NZ lately. As long as you are in a window seat I think the negatives of the configuration are navigated. As usual, the best crew are the ones who are not entitled, complacent or hung up on contrived awards and validation and are the ones who realise they actually have to make an effort for these things to happen. All too often lately I have been met with indifference, inattention to detail and a smug persona or "sass" on NZ.

Let me also say this, Airlines collectively have upped their game the world over and NZ is no longer "unique" in their service offering, nor is it perceivably better (except that it does have 3 Metallica albums on the IFE;-)). Airlines like PR, CZ, UA have raised their game with their hard products, and their crew are, at very least, as consistent and just as likeable. I used to pay extra to avoid flying 'lesser' airlines, now they are able to match the very best in the business, and often for a price that is much better value.
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
Gasman
Posts: 1935
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Mon Nov 12, 2018 2:54 am

aerorobnz wrote:
Motorhussy wrote:

And on a separate note, we’ve just returned from a month’s holiday in Latin America. It’s the first time in a while I’ve flown NZ long-haul and I’d just like to say how good I thought they were. The NZ 77E (replacing the 789) was in excellent condition. The crew were superb. Catering in Y very good good. And we got a complimentary Skycouch in each direction (frequent flier benefits I guess).

It is, however, the first time I’ve flown on a 777 long-haul with 10-abreast. Have been flying CX and SQ mostly recently. And while the NZ seats were fine, the aisles were not. Too narrow and I bumped into several people waking them as I made my way to the loo in the darkened cabin.

Just an observation.


I largely concur with all your observations of long-haul NZ 777s, I will state, however, that crew are intensely variable and I have had had a very mixed bag on NZ lately. As long as you are in a window seat I think the negatives of the configuration are navigated. As usual, the best crew are the ones who are not entitled, complacent or hung up on contrived awards and validation and are the ones who realise they actually have to make an effort for these things to happen. All too often lately I have been met with indifference, inattention to detail and a smug persona or "sass" on NZ.

Let me also say this, Airlines collectively have upped their game the world over and NZ is no longer "unique" in their service offering, nor is it perceivably better (except that it does have 3 Metallica albums on the IFE;-)). Airlines like PR, CZ, UA have raised their game with their hard products, and their crew are, at very least, as consistent and just as likeable. I used to pay extra to avoid flying 'lesser' airlines, now they are able to match the very best in the business, and often for a price that is much better value.


I completely agree but by any objective parameter (limitations notwithstanding) there's no evidence that many other people do. Even if it were suggested that because of their product and service NZ are not doing as well as they could potentially be; I don't think anyone could assert they're performing badly as such, and that the whole operation is in blatant need of a fix.

It confuses me, because (internationally at least) there really are other options that have unarguably better hard products, a high sense of professionalism, generous loyalty schemes, and cheaper.

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