axio
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:44 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Mon Nov 05, 2018 6:22 pm

I'm assuming NZ's first A321 made it safe and sound: https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zk-nna
Was there any snaps of its late night arrival into AKL?
Time for a new viewing deck at AKL!
 
axio
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:44 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Mon Nov 05, 2018 6:27 pm

Zkpilot wrote:
New NZ safety video is out https://youtu.be/dYu8kkD0Gy4


I couldn't get through a minute of that. I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable being subjected to that on a flight, and I'm not sure it clearly communicates the safety messages (at least in the first minute before I couldn't stand it any more) - but then maybe I'm just a fuddy-duddy now and this is a more universal form of communication than I think it is....
Time for a new viewing deck at AKL!
 
bevan7
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:44 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Mon Nov 05, 2018 6:36 pm

Zkpilot wrote:
New NZ safety video is out https://youtu.be/dYu8kkD0Gy4


At least I now know my least favourite safety video. That one is painful
 
smartplane
Posts: 195
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Mon Nov 05, 2018 6:42 pm

axio wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
New NZ safety video is out https://youtu.be/dYu8kkD0Gy4


I couldn't get through a minute of that. I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable being subjected to that on a flight, and I'm not sure it clearly communicates the safety messages (at least in the first minute before I couldn't stand it any more) - but then maybe I'm just a fuddy-duddy now and this is a more universal form of communication than I think it is....

I'm old too, and it's firmly in the mental cruelty department. At least I can close my eyes and plug my ears. Take pity on the staff.
 
Gasman
Posts: 1935
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Mon Nov 05, 2018 10:17 pm

axio wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
New NZ safety video is out https://youtu.be/dYu8kkD0Gy4


maybe I'm just a fuddy-duddy now and this is a more universal form of communication than I think it is....


You're not, and it isn't. There are only two possible explanations for this abortive attempt at infotainment:

- It accurately represents NZ's target demographic. And if the target demographic is that which would be engaged/amused/informed by this drivel; then that further reinforces my decision to abandon NZ as my preferred carrier.

- It doesn't represent the target group at all, and therefore NZ's marketing and PR people have once again got it badly wrong.

So which is it?
 
NZ6
Posts: 657
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Mon Nov 05, 2018 10:19 pm

Zkpilot wrote:
New NZ safety video is out https://youtu.be/dYu8kkD0Gy4


Horrid I watched about 20 seconds of it in total at various points.
 
NZ6
Posts: 657
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Mon Nov 05, 2018 10:32 pm

Gasman wrote:

The tone of management speak which has been echoed by Grant Bradley as well as frequently here is that further ULH destinations are a certainty, only being held back for a moment while we wait impatiently for the "new aircraft" to arrive. Whereas the truth is more:


I'm starting to lose track of the actual point here. Sorry, but why can't Air NZ talk about a desire to fly deeper in the China, Deeper in the US and South America? I'm not going to go back digging through quotes over the last 10 years but just because ORD, IAH has opened does that mean it's a lie?

I'm lost over what the issue here is?


Gasman wrote:

In other words, this is no different from a normal evolutionary aircraft procurement cycle and the "new aircraft" (whatever they may turn out to be) are NOT being purchased with the sole aim of flying to Newark or Rio. Sure, they may be able to and sure, it may be part of the equation but years out from the event these routes are nothing like even approaching a certainty. That's what I feel we should be discussing, rather than the finer points between the 778 and A359. And if the best aircraft for AKL-EWR turns out to be the second best aircraft for AKL-LAX/LHR/SFO; then NZ have a real tough decision on their hands.


Hasn't NZ stated and this may be your issue above, their desire for the next generation of aircraft is that they need to be capable of flying AKL-NYC non-stop as this is their desired growth strategy? That is not a quote, but they want to open more routes deeper into the US. Now, for example, they can physically fly AKL-ORD with the 772, but to go daily do they need something with better economics. Would they have preferred EWR over ORD?

Are you also critical of Allan Joyce for project sunrise?

Let's not forget the 787 was once touted as being capable of flying AKL-NYC
 
NZ6
Posts: 657
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Mon Nov 05, 2018 10:38 pm

ZK-NBT wrote:

What I’ve wondered for a while is how the 778 will perform on regular long hauls in NZ’s case mostly 12-14hrs? The other carriers to order it EK/QR operate some very long flights that need the legs of the 778.

Many here would say it’s a 1 horse race with the A350 certain to win, it may well do but not before a tight imo battle with the 77X. Same either way but it may just make sense for NZ to go 77X for the sake of long haul fleet commonality with the 777/787, I’ve said that all along.



Is fleet commonality even an issue with just two types, heavy MX will likely be carried out offshore, crew and tech crew will likely be split into two pools anyway, fleet flexibility is a pro but also a con. I'm not suggesting you are wrong at all, I'm just posing the question, where and what are the savings?

To fly a 778 with say extra 40 seats, which they may go unsold will likely offset any savings from a single fleet manufacturer.
 
NZ6
Posts: 657
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Mon Nov 05, 2018 10:47 pm

Gasman wrote:
- It doesn't represent the target group at all, and therefore NZ's marketing and PR people have once again got it badly wrong.


I hate the video so I'm not defending NZ.

But what is their target group, what is the purpose of the video? It seems it doesn't appeal to any here but I've seen ideas before that I hate and be really successful, is it targeting a market none of us fit into? a.ka. Rico which was one of your favourites was controversial and divided opinions were made but looking back it served a purpose and served it well.

I can't say you're wrong, I'm not saying you're wrong. I just don't get it.

It may be a flop, I hope it is so we see something different sooner than otherwise but I'm happy to keep an open mind.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4189
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Mon Nov 05, 2018 10:49 pm

NZ6 wrote:
It may be a flop ...

There's no "may be" about it - it is a flop, through and through.

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4189
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Mon Nov 05, 2018 10:51 pm

NZ6 wrote:
Let's not forget the 787 was once touted as being capable of flying AKL-NYC

It is capable of flying AKL - NYC, if set out in a new, lower-density configuration - the route is 200 mi shorter than PER - LHR.

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4189
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Mon Nov 05, 2018 10:55 pm

NZ6 wrote:
Sorry, but why can't Air NZ talk about a desire to fly deeper in the China

What? NZ briefly expressed an interest in CTU, but quashed that and has committed to PVG and growth in China through a 2nd daily flight there.

Cheers,

C.
Last edited by planemanofnz on Mon Nov 05, 2018 10:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Gasman
Posts: 1935
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Mon Nov 05, 2018 10:57 pm

NZ6 wrote:

Hasn't NZ stated and this may be your issue above, their desire for the next generation of aircraft is that they need to be capable of flying AKL-NYC non-stop as this is their desired growth strategy? That is not a quote, but they want to open more routes deeper into the US.


My issue is that both Bradley and airliners.net have morphed the above into:

- EWR and/or GRU are certainties.
- They are only waiting for appropriate aircraft, at which time the routes will go live without delay.
- Capability for these routes is almost the only relevant factor in determining the next aircraft purchase.

It's as if things are such a certainly that the discussion had reached a point of arguing over which terminal NZ would be best to use at EWR.

Whereas we should be discussing:

What long haul aircraft would fit NZ's *current* long haul needs?
What characteristics might they be after in the future?

...and in 2022, which is realistically when the new aircraft will be in service:

What new routes MIGHT be up for consideration? (economics of 2022 being unknown at this point of course.
 
User avatar
LamboAston
Posts: 597
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:46 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Mon Nov 05, 2018 11:06 pm

Gasman wrote:
axio wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
New NZ safety video is out https://youtu.be/dYu8kkD0Gy4


maybe I'm just a fuddy-duddy now and this is a more universal form of communication than I think it is....


You're not, and it isn't. There are only two possible explanations for this abortive attempt at infotainment:

- It accurately represents NZ's target demographic. And if the target demographic is that which would be engaged/amused/informed by this drivel; then that further reinforces my decision to abandon NZ as my preferred carrier.

- It doesn't represent the target group at all, and therefore NZ's marketing and PR people have once again got it badly wrong.

So which is it?

I'm probably one of the younger people on here and I absolutely hate it. It gets no safety messages across, and is impossible to listen to.
AS350, B733/4/7/8, B744/8, B762/3, B77E/L/W, B789, A319, A320, A321, A332, A346, A380, AT73/5/6, Q300, Q400, CR2/7, E190, S340, B1900C/D, E110 (E for epic)
NZ, EK, QF, SQ, UA, US, CO, FZ, FR, U2, BA, VA, VS, MH, EI, EY, LH, EN, NM, TG, GZ
 
NZ6
Posts: 657
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Mon Nov 05, 2018 11:36 pm

planemanofnz wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
It may be a flop ...

There's no "may be" about it - it is a flop, through and through.

Cheers,

C.

Your opinion like my opinion is personal. Don't try to be right and speak on behalf of everyone.
 
NZ6
Posts: 657
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Mon Nov 05, 2018 11:37 pm

planemanofnz wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Let's not forget the 787 was once touted as being capable of flying AKL-NYC

It is capable of flying AKL - NYC, if set out in a new, lower-density configuration - the route is 200 mi shorter than PER - LHR.

Cheers,

C.


Again finer details, obviously I was meaning AKL-NYC with full payload and normal ops.
 
NZ6
Posts: 657
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Mon Nov 05, 2018 11:40 pm

planemanofnz wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Sorry, but why can't Air NZ talk about a desire to fly deeper in the China

What? NZ briefly expressed an interest in CTU, but quashed that and has committed to PVG and growth in China through a 2nd daily flight there.

Cheers,

C.


You're answered your own point. There is interest/desire to go deeper into and grow China as you've highlighted. In the meantime their focusing on PVG.

Not debating this further with you.
 
NZ6
Posts: 657
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Mon Nov 05, 2018 11:56 pm

Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

Hasn't NZ stated and this may be your issue above, their desire for the next generation of aircraft is that they need to be capable of flying AKL-NYC non-stop as this is their desired growth strategy? That is not a quote, but they want to open more routes deeper into the US.


My issue is that both Bradley and airliners.net have morphed the above into:

- EWR and/or GRU are certainties.
- They are only waiting for appropriate aircraft, at which time the routes will go live without delay.
- Capability for these routes is almost the only relevant factor in determining the next aircraft purchase.

It's as if things are such a certainly that the discussion had reached a point of arguing over which terminal NZ would be best to use at EWR.

Whereas we should be discussing:

What long haul aircraft would fit NZ's *current* long haul needs?
What characteristics might they be after in the future?

...and in 2022, which is realistically when the new aircraft will be in service:

What new routes MIGHT be up for consideration? (economics of 2022 being unknown at this point of course.


Yeah lol I hear you then! Remembering the original point raised was about fleet order and possible options.

All we know is
- NZ has a long-term Pacific rim strategy
- They are focused on flying direct into ports within this strategy vs focusing on major hubs, LAX for example.
- They're looking for the right aircraft for these "missions" as Luxon has called them.

That doesn't mean they can't fly them now, but in some cases, they can't. It's about if the current or future fleet is able to operate to and grow these markets under normal conditions...
- Not half full
- Not being restricted to 3 times a week
- Not having a premium focused cabin (SQ SINEWR example)..

None of us has the detailed spec sheets form Airbus or Boeing, formulas and market data to even come close to analysing it in any great detail.

All we can go on is speculation based on NZ's commentary around their future growth/expansion desires, historically known fact and very high-level manufacture specs.

While people talk of GRU/EWR etc, there are over a dozen markets which NZ monitor on an ongoing basis. like I've stated before, any new route has a business case behind it. Something like ORD has less risk than say EZE given the well-established presence in the US already. So a ORD route which has been 'hyped' about for the last 10 years, has in my mind always been when not if.

The success of IAH and the arrival of 787's has brought forward when I personally expected it to actually happen if you had asked me 4 years ago.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4189
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Tue Nov 06, 2018 12:04 am

NZ6 wrote:
There is interest/desire to go deeper into and grow China as you've highlighted. In the meantime their focusing on PVG.

Huh? Grow China - yes. But, I'm not familiar at all with a public interest/desire "to go deeper into ... China" (as in, further inland - to somewhere like CTU). AFAIK, they've explicitly said they're only interested in PVG, and growing that to 2x daily.

Cheers,

C.
 
Gasman
Posts: 1935
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Tue Nov 06, 2018 12:06 am

NZ6 wrote:
Gasman wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

Hasn't NZ stated and this may be your issue above, their desire for the next generation of aircraft is that they need to be capable of flying AKL-NYC non-stop as this is their desired growth strategy? That is not a quote, but they want to open more routes deeper into the US.


My issue is that both Bradley and airliners.net have morphed the above into:

- EWR and/or GRU are certainties.
- They are only waiting for appropriate aircraft, at which time the routes will go live without delay.
- Capability for these routes is almost the only relevant factor in determining the next aircraft purchase.

It's as if things are such a certainly that the discussion had reached a point of arguing over which terminal NZ would be best to use at EWR.

Whereas we should be discussing:

What long haul aircraft would fit NZ's *current* long haul needs?
What characteristics might they be after in the future?

...and in 2022, which is realistically when the new aircraft will be in service:

What new routes MIGHT be up for consideration? (economics of 2022 being unknown at this point of course.


Yeah lol I hear you then! Remembering the original point raised was about fleet order and possible options.

All we know is
- NZ has a long-term Pacific rim strategy
- They are focused on flying direct into ports within this strategy vs focusing on major hubs, LAX for example.
- They're looking for the right aircraft for these "missions" as Luxon has called them.

That doesn't mean they can't fly them now, but in some cases, they can't. It's about if the current or future fleet is able to operate to and grow these markets under normal conditions...
- Not half full
- Not being restricted to 3 times a week
- Not having a premium focused cabin (SQ SINEWR example)..

None of us has the detailed spec sheets form Airbus or Boeing, formulas and market data to even come close to analysing it in any great detail.

All we can go on is speculation based on NZ's commentary around their future growth/expansion desires, historically known fact and very high-level manufacture specs.

While people talk of GRU/EWR etc, there are over a dozen markets which NZ monitor on an ongoing basis. like I've stated before, any new route has a business case behind it. Something like ORD has less risk than say EZE given the well-established presence in the US already. So a ORD route which has been 'hyped' about for the last 10 years, has in my mind always been when not if.

The success of IAH and the arrival of 787's has brought forward when I personally expected it to actually happen if you had asked me 4 years ago.


Agreed.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4189
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Tue Nov 06, 2018 12:07 am

NZ6 wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Let's not forget the 787 was once touted as being capable of flying AKL-NYC

It is capable of flying AKL - NYC, if set out in a new, lower-density configuration - the route is 200 mi shorter than PER - LHR.

Cheers,

C.


Again finer details, obviously I was meaning AKL-NYC with full payload and normal ops.

It wasn't obvious at all. Which full payload? The one with the V1 or V2 configuration, or the QF configuration, or something else? All 787's. All relevant.

NZ could in fact get more 789's, configuring them with an even more premium layout than the V2 one, and do AKL - EWR / GRU. Though, very unlikely.

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4189
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Tue Nov 06, 2018 12:10 am

NZ6 wrote:
While people talk of GRU/EWR etc, there are over a dozen markets which NZ monitor on an ongoing basis.

Yes, but it's EWR and Brazil that they consistently and explicitly refer to.

Cheers,

C.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4189
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Tue Nov 06, 2018 12:20 am

NZ6 wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
It may be a flop ...

There's no "may be" about it - it is a flop, through and through.

Cheers,

C.

Your opinion like my opinion is personal. Don't try to be right and speak on behalf of everyone.

You're right - not everyone - just 99% of the population I'd say, who agree it's a fail.

You're right - I'll let 'everyone' speak for themselves and post some of the comments:

- TRASH

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

- I hope the safety regulator rejects this. As a Kiwi, I can’t even understand what they are saying. Just give me a short succinct safety briefing.

- I'm a huge fan of Air New Zealand but this garbage devalues their brand and seriously undermines their credibility.

- Every time I have to watch one of these silly adds I cringe and think of all the money that is needlessly spent on making them .

See: https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/108 ... ealand-yet.

Cheers,

C.
 
NZ6
Posts: 657
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:05 am

planemanofnz wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
There is interest/desire to go deeper into and grow China as you've highlighted. In the meantime their focusing on PVG.

Huh? Grow China - yes. But, I'm not familiar at all with a public interest/desire "to go deeper into ... China" (as in, further inland - to somewhere like CTU). AFAIK, they've explicitly said they're only interested in PVG, and growing that to 2x daily.

Cheers,

C.


- "NZ briefly expressed an interest in CTU" :checkmark: There's your proof there is some level of interest/desire to grow China. At that time NZ focused on PVG. What happens next decade. There are multiple opportunities within China that are on the table for when the time is right.
- "I'm not familiar at all with a public interest/desire" - So NZ will never grow beyond PVG? Is this fact, is this something you want to create its own post for and let everyone know about it?
- "as in, further inland" - Once again you are looking at everything literally. What does deeper into China mean! Please correct Air NZ management.
 
Gasman
Posts: 1935
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:08 am

planemanofnz wrote:
- I'm a huge fan of Air New Zealand but this garbage devalues their brand and seriously undermines their credibility.


It SO does!! And this is what I don't understand - who in NZ management doesn't GET this???

I was once a huge fan of Air New Zealand myself, and it was garbage like this that was partly responsible for making me not one anymore.
 
NZ6
Posts: 657
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:17 am

planemanofnz wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
It is capable of flying AKL - NYC, if set out in a new, lower-density configuration - the route is 200 mi shorter than PER - LHR.

Cheers,

C.


Again finer details, obviously I was meaning AKL-NYC with full payload and normal ops.

It wasn't obvious at all. Which full payload? The one with the V1 or V2 configuration, or the QF configuration, or something else? All 787's. All relevant.

NZ could in fact get more 789's, configuring them with an even more premium layout than the V2 one, and do AKL - EWR / GRU. Though, very unlikely.

Cheers,

C.


The 787 in the early 2000's was expected to reach the East Coast of the USA with a full payload, so not the reduced configuration as you see with QF and SQ on their ULH operations.

My comment was a reply to Gasman regarding NZ's long term talk of flying further into the USA. The point being is, the earlier commentary was likely on the back of the opportunities the 787 were anticipated to provide at the time and not how NZ could order more planes and reach EWR today.

You perseverance to be 'right' is getting in the way of thinking logically.
 
NZ6
Posts: 657
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:23 am

planemanofnz wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
There's no "may be" about it - it is a flop, through and through.

Cheers,

C.

Your opinion like my opinion is personal. Don't try to be right and speak on behalf of everyone.

You're right - not everyone - just 99% of the population I'd say, who agree it's a fail.

You're right - I'll let 'everyone' speak for themselves and post some of the comments:

- TRASH

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

- I hope the safety regulator rejects this. As a Kiwi, I can’t even understand what they are saying. Just give me a short succinct safety briefing.

- I'm a huge fan of Air New Zealand but this garbage devalues their brand and seriously undermines their credibility.

- Every time I have to watch one of these silly adds I cringe and think of all the money that is needlessly spent on making them .

See: https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/108 ... ealand-yet.

Cheers,

C.


A quick look at facebook, 911 likes, 197 hearts, 73 laughing, which could be taken both ways, 7 sad and 5 angry.

There are 545 shares with 57,000 views.

As far as marketing goes it's effective with regards to audience reach.

With regard to comments, there's a real mix.

I'm not sure that all 99% of the population agree with you as you quote.

As I said, I don't like it but that's me.
 
NZ6
Posts: 657
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:24 am

planemanofnz wrote:
- I'm a huge fan of Air New Zealand....


I'm yet to see much to support this.
 
Gasman
Posts: 1935
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:27 am

NZ6 wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Your opinion like my opinion is personal. Don't try to be right and speak on behalf of everyone.

You're right - not everyone - just 99% of the population I'd say, who agree it's a fail.

You're right - I'll let 'everyone' speak for themselves and post some of the comments:

- TRASH

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

- I hope the safety regulator rejects this. As a Kiwi, I can’t even understand what they are saying. Just give me a short succinct safety briefing.

- I'm a huge fan of Air New Zealand but this garbage devalues their brand and seriously undermines their credibility.

- Every time I have to watch one of these silly adds I cringe and think of all the money that is needlessly spent on making them .

See: https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/108 ... ealand-yet.

Cheers,

C.


A quick look at facebook, 911 likes, 197 hearts, 73 laughing, which could be taken both ways, 7 sad and 5 angry.

There are 545 shares with 57,000 views.

As far as marketing goes it's effective with regards to audience reach.

With regard to comments, there's a real mix.

I'm not sure that all 99% of the population agree with you as you quote.

As I said, I don't like it but that's me.


I think you're clutching at straws here.

Be that as it may, if it's getting "audience reach" (what Fyfe used to refer to as "cut through"), I'm not part of the audience it's reached. Unless a nudge further in the wrong direction counts as "reach".
 
Gasman
Posts: 1935
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:30 am

My daughter flew AKL-DXB last night on EK and said in Y the aircraft was virtually empty. What have loadings been like on this route overall?
 
NZ6
Posts: 657
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:33 am

Gasman wrote:
[
It SO does!! And this is what I don't understand - who in NZ management doesn't GET this???


Just to be difficult, why is it the NZ management is wrong. Could it be you who is wrong?

I'm not saying you are. It's just a bold statement based on an individual view. Whereas NZ tests ideas on the market before launching them. This fills a purpose whatever that is, something I'm trying to work out.

My point being, one of the two parties doesn't GET it... could it be you?? :scratchchin:
 
Gasman
Posts: 1935
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:40 am

NZ6 wrote:
Gasman wrote:
[
It SO does!! And this is what I don't understand - who in NZ management doesn't GET this???


Just to be difficult, why is it the NZ management is wrong. Could it be you who is wrong?

I'm not saying you are. It's just a bold statement based on an individual view. Whereas NZ tests ideas on the market before launching them. This fills a purpose whatever that is, something I'm trying to work out.

My point being, one of the two parties doesn't GET it... could it be you?? :scratchchin:

It's possible. It could be that I'm the only frequent flier they've alienated, and in fact hordes of people switched allegiance TO NZ on the basis of Ricco, various safety videos and skycouches. But I doubt it.
 
Gasman
Posts: 1935
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:41 am

NZ6 wrote:
Gasman wrote:
[
It SO does!! And this is what I don't understand - who in NZ management doesn't GET this???


Just to be difficult, why is it the NZ management is wrong. Could it be you who is wrong?

I'm not saying you are. It's just a bold statement based on an individual view. Whereas NZ tests ideas on the market before launching them. This fills a purpose whatever that is, something I'm trying to work out.

My point being, one of the two parties doesn't GET it... could it be you?? :scratchchin:

It's possible. It could be that I'm the only frequent flier they've alienated, and in fact hordes of people switched allegiance TO NZ on the basis of Ricco, various safety videos and skycouches. But I doubt it.
 
NZ6
Posts: 657
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:41 am

Gasman wrote:


I think you're clutching at straws here.


If you believe so, I'm just highlighting that not 99% of the population agree with us that it's bad.


Gasman wrote:


Be that as it may, if it's getting "audience reach" (what Fyfe used to refer to as "cut through"), I'm not part of the audience it's reached. Unless a nudge further in the wrong direction counts as "reach".


But it has reached you, without being horrible I don't think you understand the first thing about marketing and why reach is important. If NZ launched this as a TV add, it would have cost significantly more and would have higher ongoing costs to broadcast, it's unlikely 57,000 would have viewed it or had it placed in front of them. Remember this is only Facebook data, it's likely on youtube and other social channels as well.

Whether it be traditional channels such as TV, Social Channels or news Media. There is no guarantee you will like it. My point being, reach isn't about if it's captured you or your business it's about having the media placed in front of you.
 
NZ6
Posts: 657
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:43 am

Gasman wrote:

It's possible. It could be that I'm the only frequent flier they've alienated, and in fact hordes of people switched allegiance TO NZ on the basis of Ricco, various safety videos and skycouches. But I doubt it.


This conversation isn't about Ricco or Skycouhes it was about a safety video? why change it and make it about something else?
 
NZ321
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:47 am

Quite a reduction in HX service to AKL - May 1 - Oct 26:

HX027 HKG2110 – 1330+1AKL 332 357
HX028 AKL0030 – 0805HKG 332 257
Plane mad!
 
Gasman
Posts: 1935
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:53 am

NZ6 wrote:
Gasman wrote:


But it has reached you, without being horrible I don't think you understand the first thing about marketing and why reach is important. If NZ launched this as a TV add, it would have cost significantly more and would have higher ongoing costs to broadcast, it's unlikely 57,000 would have viewed it or had it placed in front of them. Remember this is only Facebook data, it's likely on youtube and other social channels as well.


No. This was precisely the argument used to justify Ricco and it's fanciful in the extreme. Sure, you may get a huge social media hit rate, but there's no valid way of extrapolating that into revenue gain for the airline. As I've said previously, if Ricco resulted in even one extra seat being sold I'd be astonished. Similarly for this latest effort at a safety video. It may get a zillion Facebook "likes" from the 20 somethings; but I doubt that'll translate into any extra return AKL-LHR J tickets sold.
 
a7ala
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Tue Nov 06, 2018 2:04 am

Gasman wrote:
My daughter flew AKL-DXB last night on EK and said in Y the aircraft was virtually empty. What have loadings been like on this route overall?


I've heard AKL-DPS has been pretty dire as well - hence the reducing of frequency next year. I dont think there are many ports that EK serves less than daily. Maybe only 9 out of the 130 ports they serve?
 
a7ala
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Tue Nov 06, 2018 2:06 am

NZ321 wrote:
Quite a reduction in HX service to AKL - May 1 - Oct 26:

HX027 HKG2110 – 1330+1AKL 332 357
HX028 AKL0030 – 0805HKG 332 257


Slippery slope - HX arent much longer for New Zealand.
 
NZ6
Posts: 657
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Tue Nov 06, 2018 2:53 am

Gasman wrote:
No. This was precisely the argument used to justify Ricco and it's fanciful in the extreme. Sure, you may get a huge social media hit rate, but there's no valid way of extrapolating that into revenue gain for the airline. As I've said previously, if Ricco resulted in even one extra seat being sold I'd be astonished. Similarly for this latest effort at a safety video. It may get a zillion Facebook "likes" from the 20 somethings; but I doubt that'll translate into any extra return AKL-LHR J tickets sold.


Isn't the idea about Brand awareness, probably not targeting the NZ audience too much with this approach.

Can't the airline then measure this within the trade? Tourism NZ data? website and GDS analytics, social analytics etc

There is an estimated number of Americans who have an interest in flying to NZ within their lifetime and also similar data for Australia, however, the three main barriers being (not in order)
1. Awareness of how to get there
2. Travel Time of perceived inconvenience (hence IAH/ORD making in more accessible)
3. Competition with other destinations

If you look at Australia, was it something like 75% of Australians were unaware NZ flew beyond NZ. Australia has 3 major free to air network stations as well as paid TV. TV with the record and fast-forward functions, as well as Netflix etc, so is becoming more and more ineffective but still very costly run.

If NZ can improve this rate, isn't that then success?
 
NZ6
Posts: 657
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Tue Nov 06, 2018 2:54 am

a7ala wrote:
NZ321 wrote:
Quite a reduction in HX service to AKL - May 1 - Oct 26:

HX027 HKG2110 – 1330+1AKL 332 357
HX028 AKL0030 – 0805HKG 332 257


Slippery slope - HX arent much longer for New Zealand.


How will that then impact the Alliance with NZ/CX
 
a7ala
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:17 am

NZ6 wrote:
a7ala wrote:
NZ321 wrote:
Quite a reduction in HX service to AKL - May 1 - Oct 26:

HX027 HKG2110 – 1330+1AKL 332 357
HX028 AKL0030 – 0805HKG 332 257


Slippery slope - HX arent much longer for New Zealand.


How will that then impact the Alliance with NZ/CX


Its an interesting one because NZ/CX partnership started before HX came to New Zealand. So on the one hand the alliance hasnt stopped other airlines entering the market. The question is whether HX finding it difficult is down to the alliance or the market not being there. A bit of both I guess.
 
NZ6
Posts: 657
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:26 am

a7ala wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
a7ala wrote:

Slippery slope - HX arent much longer for New Zealand.


How will that then impact the Alliance with NZ/CX


Its an interesting one because NZ/CX partnership started before HX came to New Zealand. So on the one hand the alliance hasnt stopped other airlines entering the market. The question is whether HX finding it difficult is down to the alliance or the market not being there. A bit of both I guess.


Yeah, it certainly won't help when it comes to renewing it if both airlines choose to do so next time.
 
Gasman
Posts: 1935
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:36 am

NZ6 wrote:
a7ala wrote:
NZ321 wrote:
Quite a reduction in HX service to AKL - May 1 - Oct 26:

HX027 HKG2110 – 1330+1AKL 332 357
HX028 AKL0030 – 0805HKG 332 257


Slippery slope - HX arent much longer for New Zealand.


How will that then impact the Alliance with NZ/CX


I reckon the Air New Zealand division of the Commerce Commission will say it's ok.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1219
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Tue Nov 06, 2018 4:58 am

I just watched the new NZ safety video, expecting to be absolutely appalled, as so many others on this thread have been. Shock, horror, I really liked it! Yes, some of the words are hard to pick, but on the whole I thought it was clear and entertaining. I should add that I am not the demographic that most people would consider the target demographic for this video, being quite a few decades older (but still quite keen on hip-hop for all my years).

I also had a look at the poll that is running on Stuff, asking people basically whether they were positive, neutral or negative about it (well, the actual words were different from this, but that's what it meant). To my surprise, the largest group (I think 37%) felt that it was "one of the best" NZ safety videos. I think this underscores NZ6's concern that we shouldn't make assumptions about how the rest of the world will feel about the video based on our own prejudices. And it certainly blows out of the water planemanofnz's assertion that 99% of the public would oppose it. Based on the Stuff poll, around 34% (IIRC) opposed it.

I think this highlights a wider issue: some posters on this thread believe themselves to be completely in tune with the needs and desires of the wider travelling public, and make pronouncements based on this belief as if they were unchallengeable fact. Whereas, in practice, we know that NZ's consistently strong financial results show that the same posters are dead wrong about what would make NZ a highly profitable carrier (and now dead wrong about how appealing the new video will prove to be).
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6307
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Tue Nov 06, 2018 8:10 am

NZ6 wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:

What I’ve wondered for a while is how the 778 will perform on regular long hauls in NZ’s case mostly 12-14hrs? The other carriers to order it EK/QR operate some very long flights that need the legs of the 778.

Many here would say it’s a 1 horse race with the A350 certain to win, it may well do but not before a tight imo battle with the 77X. Same either way but it may just make sense for NZ to go 77X for the sake of long haul fleet commonality with the 777/787, I’ve said that all along.



Is fleet commonality even an issue with just two types, heavy MX will likely be carried out offshore, crew and tech crew will likely be split into two pools anyway, fleet flexibility is a pro but also a con. I'm not suggesting you are wrong at all, I'm just posing the question, where and what are the savings?

To fly a 778 with say extra 40 seats, which they may go unsold will likely offset any savings from a single fleet manufacturer.



No idea I’m not an expert, at times it has been mentioned that NZ looked in the past at a single type for long haul with 300 seats, probably the 772 before deciding to keep the 744’s back in 2004/05, they could have probably kept more 763’s at the time and replaced the 744 then, then ordered the 77W earlier if more capacity was needed. Anyway that’s the past as for now like I say in no expert so don’t really no either. I agree heavy maintenance would likely be done offshore.

I’d place the 778 inbetween the 772/77W size wise, with a similar NZ configuration it might seat 320-340 depending on exact configuration. I’d imagine an A359 seating 290-310 again depends on the exact configuration.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6307
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Tue Nov 06, 2018 8:14 am

a7ala wrote:
Gasman wrote:
My daughter flew AKL-DXB last night on EK and said in Y the aircraft was virtually empty. What have loadings been like on this route overall?


I've heard AKL-DPS has been pretty dire as well - hence the reducing of frequency next year. I dont think there are many ports that EK serves less than daily. Maybe only 9 out of the 130 ports they serve?


I wonder what EK’s next response will be? Move DPS to SIN/KUL? Reduce non stop in winter or use a 77L?

On loads I was surprised how full SQ285 was today, was onboard and it was probably 90% full down the back, no idea up front, one day doesn’t tell a story I’m well aware but given they have just gone 3 daily NZ/SQ I didn’t expect it to be so full in early November.
 
User avatar
eta unknown
Posts: 2134
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 5:03 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Tue Nov 06, 2018 8:44 am

AKL-DPS-DXB... I suspect this flight is similar to the 02:30 BNE-SIN-DXB flight- basically a freight run that is never close to full outside peak season. FYI 2 weeks ago I had a substantial selection of 4 seats to myself on an SQ A380 SIN-LHR- it was fab :-)
 
User avatar
LaunchDetected
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Tue Nov 06, 2018 9:18 am

Zkpilot wrote:
New NZ safety video is out https://youtu.be/dYu8kkD0Gy4


Wew what was that? I guess i'm the target for this kind of videos but i almost feel insulted.
Lord of the Rings-themed safety videos were so classy and funny at the same time, even the All Blacks ones were cool. I never flew NZ in my life but i was really impressed by the brand image they conveyed.

That's unfit for a flag-carrier, and the safety message (the main purpose of these videos) is incomprehensible.

Obviously some people will find it funny and entertaining, there so much stuff happening it's entertaining, but the concern is about the image NZ try to convey. That's the safety video i would expect from a LCC, not a premium carrier. Is NZ a premium carrier? I don't know anymore. Does the average traveller cares about brand image? I don't think so.
Caravelle lover
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4189
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - November 2018

Tue Nov 06, 2018 9:49 am

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.

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