getluv wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Also, before any suggests this is a New Zealand market and Qantas is an Australian airline, ask yourself, if so, why do they fly here domestically?

Because it stops their competitor from making even more money. Imagine the profits NZ would make without JQ around.

Do you have any idea how much money they've sunk and lost in the NZ market over the last 20-30 years, we've seen 4 version of the QF group here. Also, each time DJ, AN, QF(s) have exited it's made little difference. NZ puts a heap of effort into making the NZ market strong for themselves without competition, they do this to deter anyone from trying. You've seen this with all their regional markets moving to Q300 or being dropped, strengthing capacity and decreasing CASM.

That's making it really hard for JQ to open more regionals even though they have deep pockets. We should really see IVC and HLZ by now if they were here to give them what they deserve (whatever their punch line was when they went regional).

I don't think the QF group are too worried about stopping NZ from making more money, especially given NZ aren't in the Aussie game anymore and use QF to pull for their Tasman network.

NZ6 wrote:

If this was the case

a) Why did QF switch to the A330
b) Why did QF pull out then retire some 744's?
c) All markets naturally compare to each with regard to revenue, but if you have to choose between route X and Y to utilise your last piece of equipment on then it isn't always about which one is earning the most revenue today.
[/quote]

a) they didn't want to give up on it completely,
b) because at the same time the 25yo jumbos were being replaced, the A330 fleet was increasing from 6-17 with ex JQ 332s 2012-2015.

NZ6 wrote:

getluv wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Also, before any suggests this is a New Zealand market and Qantas is an Australian airline, ask yourself, if so, why do they fly here domestically?

Because it stops their competitor from making even more money. Imagine the profits NZ would make without JQ around.

Do you have any idea how much money they've sunk and lost in the NZ market over the last 20-30 years, we've seen 4 version of the QF group here. Also, each time DJ, AN, QF(s) have exited it's made little difference. NZ puts a heap of effort into making the NZ market strong for themselves without competition, they do this to deter anyone from trying. You've seen this with all their regional markets moving to Q300 or being dropped, strengthing capacity and decreasing CASM.

That's making it really hard for JQ to open more regionals even though they have deep pockets. We should really see IVC and HLZ by now if they were here to give them what they deserve (whatever their punch line was when they went regional).

I don't think the QF group are too worried about stopping NZ from making more money, especially given NZ aren't in the Aussie game anymore and use QF to pull for their Tasman network.

I’m more talking about trunk routes like AKL-WLG and AKL-CHC. If JQ wasn’t on these routes NZ’s domestic profit would easily double.

Regionals are much harder even when there’s a monopoly. Those Q300s were in storage and they made councils play off each other and got money thrown at them, so the capex would have been very minimal. Unfortunately QF don’t have aircraft lying around anymore and if they were really committed to JQ in New Zealand they would have spent the money. And you could basically make the same assumption about AKL-LAX, there’s probably money in it but they can make more money elsewhere.

Now that’s there’s a truce between NZ and QF I doubt you’ll see JQ expanding in NZ. However, my original point still remains, QF kept JQ in New Zealand to stop NZ from making easy profits. The same way NZ has always had skin in the game with Ansett and VA.

Do we know for sure that JQ regional was subsidised by local Councils, or is this just speculation? I’d not heard that before. Sure there was lobbying, but cash . . . ?

aerorobnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

If this was the case

a) Why did QF switch to the A330
b) Why did QF pull out then retire some 744's?
c) All markets naturally compare to each with regard to revenue, but if you have to choose between route X and Y to utilise your last piece of equipment on then it isn't always about which one is earning the most revenue today.

a) they didn't want to give up on it completely,
b) because at the same time the 25yo jumbos were being replaced, the A330 fleet was increasing from 6-17 with ex JQ 332s 2012-2015.

So you're saying QF was forced to retire the aging 744's and the only other piece of kit they had is the A330 (which is the wrong aircraft for the job). They deployed that and lost up to $1M to had to leave the market.

Based on this, my original question of does QF regret leaving, the answer would be yes. You've even said it yourself; "they didn't want to give up on it completely".

Again, QF didn't order the 777 and kept all their large long haul flying in the quad space and not the twin space where virtually all other airlines ended up.

getluv wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

getluv wrote:

Because it stops their competitor from making even more money. Imagine the profits NZ would make without JQ around.

Do you have any idea how much money they've sunk and lost in the NZ market over the last 20-30 years, we've seen 4 version of the QF group here. Also, each time DJ, AN, QF(s) have exited it's made little difference. NZ puts a heap of effort into making the NZ market strong for themselves without competition, they do this to deter anyone from trying. You've seen this with all their regional markets moving to Q300 or being dropped, strengthing capacity and decreasing CASM.

That's making it really hard for JQ to open more regionals even though they have deep pockets. We should really see IVC and HLZ by now if they were here to give them what they deserve (whatever their punch line was when they went regional).

I don't think the QF group are too worried about stopping NZ from making more money, especially given NZ aren't in the Aussie game anymore and use QF to pull for their Tasman network.

I’m more talking about trunk routes like AKL-WLG and AKL-CHC. If JQ wasn’t on these routes NZ’s domestic profit would easily double.

Regionals are much harder even when there’s a monopoly. Those Q300s were in storage and they made councils play off each other and got money thrown at them, so the capex would have been very minimal. Unfortunately QF don’t have aircraft lying around anymore and if they were really committed to JQ in New Zealand they would have spent the money. And you could basically make the same assumption about AKL-LAX, there’s probably money in it but they can make more money elsewhere.

Now that’s there’s a truce between NZ and QF I doubt you’ll see JQ expanding in NZ. However, my original point still remains, QF kept JQ in New Zealand to stop NZ from making easy profits. The same way NZ has always had skin in the game with Ansett and VA.

Look at how low JQ's market share is! I have no idea how NZ's profits will double. I assume the assumption is prices will go up, that can't and won't happen because
a) NZ now has too much capacity to fill to lower pricing fills this.
b) Make want to make it harder for new carriers to enter but having a string network
c) NZ needs to keep the trust of the NZ public with affordable pricing and solid products thus also making it harder for future competitors

I'm actually speechless, you actually believe Alan Joyce and the QF board keep their low-cost branch open into NZ to stop NZ making easy profits or to quote your original comment "it stops their competitor from making even more money".

NZ is almost no risk to QF now, they'll never run an Australian airline again (AN) they tried an alliance with the only other real Australian airline (VA) and that failed so NZ is now working with QF in Australia instead of against them, so what's QF so concerned about?

How much of a compliment could you pay NZ?

It doesn't have anything to do with the QF group strengthing their Tasman and long haul networks and an attempt into having a slice of a healthy market to improve their own business?

NZ6 wrote:

getluv wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Do you have any idea how much money they've sunk and lost in the NZ market over the last 20-30 years, we've seen 4 version of the QF group here. Also, each time DJ, AN, QF(s) have exited it's made little difference. NZ puts a heap of effort into making the NZ market strong for themselves without competition, they do this to deter anyone from trying. You've seen this with all their regional markets moving to Q300 or being dropped, strengthing capacity and decreasing CASM.

That's making it really hard for JQ to open more regionals even though they have deep pockets. We should really see IVC and HLZ by now if they were here to give them what they deserve (whatever their punch line was when they went regional).

I don't think the QF group are too worried about stopping NZ from making more money, especially given NZ aren't in the Aussie game anymore and use QF to pull for their Tasman network.

I’m more talking about trunk routes like AKL-WLG and AKL-CHC. If JQ wasn’t on these routes NZ’s domestic profit would easily double.

Regionals are much harder even when there’s a monopoly. Those Q300s were in storage and they made councils play off each other and got money thrown at them, so the capex would have been very minimal. Unfortunately QF don’t have aircraft lying around anymore and if they were really committed to JQ in New Zealand they would have spent the money. And you could basically make the same assumption about AKL-LAX, there’s probably money in it but they can make more money elsewhere.

Now that’s there’s a truce between NZ and QF I doubt you’ll see JQ expanding in NZ. However, my original point still remains, QF kept JQ in New Zealand to stop NZ from making easy profits. The same way NZ has always had skin in the game with Ansett and VA.

Look at how low JQ's market share is! I have no idea how NZ's profits will double. I assume the assumption is prices will go up, that can't and won't happen because
a) NZ now has too much capacity to fill to lower pricing fills this.
b) Make want to make it harder for new carriers to enter but having a string network
c) NZ needs to keep the trust of the NZ public with affordable pricing and solid products thus also making it harder for future competitors

I'm actually speechless, you actually believe Alan Joyce and the QF board keep their low-cost branch open into NZ to stop NZ making easy profits or to quote your original comment "it stops their competitor from making even more money".

NZ is almost no risk to QF now, they'll never run an Australian airline again (AN) they tried an alliance with the only other real Australian airline (VA) and that failed so NZ is now working with QF in Australia instead of against them, so what's QF so concerned about?

How much of a compliment could you pay NZ?

It doesn't have anything to do with the QF group strengthing their Tasman and long haul networks and an attempt into having a slice of a healthy market to improve their own business?

I tend to agree with what you've said.

NZ really is no threat to QF. Project Sunrise if correctly executed may pose some threat to NZ as it could potentially reduce the allure of connecting through AKL for Oz passengers but even then it would be marginal.

JQ has a niche in NZ and if it was losing bucketl loads of money I think QF would pull the plug.

IMO QF would probably like to still be serving Akl-LAX but had the wrong aircraft. In hindsight should have ordered the 777 but hey they thought they would've had a heap of 787's long ago.

I see strong futures for QF, VA and NZ. Australia is certainly big enough for 2 big carriers whereas NZ isn't- hence the niche role for JQ.

If the QF / AA JV is approved we will likely see QF back on LAX in the form of AA.

NZ6 wrote:

aerorobnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

If this was the case

a) Why did QF switch to the A330
b) Why did QF pull out then retire some 744's?
c) All markets naturally compare to each with regard to revenue, but if you have to choose between route X and Y to utilise your last piece of equipment on then it isn't always about which one is earning the most revenue today.

a) they didn't want to give up on it completely,
b) because at the same time the 25yo jumbos were being replaced, the A330 fleet was increasing from 6-17 with ex JQ 332s 2012-2015.

So you're saying QF was forced to retire the aging 744's and the only other piece of kit they had is the A330 (which is the wrong aircraft for the job). They deployed that and lost up to $1M to had to leave the market.

Based on this, my original question of does QF regret leaving, the answer would be yes. You've even said it yourself; "they didn't want to give up on it completely".

Again, QF didn't order the 777 and kept all their large long haul flying in the quad space and not the twin space where virtually all other airlines ended up.

Around the time QF cut AKL-LAX they cut HKG-LHR, BKK-LHR, SIN-FRA, SYD-BOM, changes EZE to SCL, all 744s except BOM which was an A330.

I remember they said since being privatised in 1995 that international had only made money 3 years out of 20 up to 2014 or so, a bit like NZ’s Pacific Island-LAX routes many of these routes had been around a long time and had become unprofitable in many cases. GFC 2008-2011 high fuel prices 2012-2014 etc.

Some of the issues weren’t I don’t think the 744 per sae, more the high overheads QF had and I don’t think a 777 would have saved to many of those routes that were cut.

I do believe QF did miss a trick however in not ordering 777s, probably 77Es in the late 1990s replacing the 747 classics, they did hold onto the 743s till 2008 probably 5 years to long, they upgraded them in 2003/04, maybe should have parked them and then added 77Ws.

The 743s were used on AKL-LAX a lot in 2006-08, older product than the 744s, mechanical delays, weight restrictions on freight. Not ideal. May have hurt the route a fair bit.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Around the time QF cut AKL-LAX they cut HKG-LHR, BKK-LHR, SIN-FRA, SYD-BOM, changes EZE to SCL, all 744s except BOM which was an A330.

I remember they said since being privatised in 1995 that international had only made money 3 years out of 20 up to 2014 or so, a bit like NZ’s Pacific Island-LAX routes many of these routes had been around a long time and had become unprofitable in many cases. GFC 2008-2011 high fuel prices 2012-2014 etc.

Some of the issues weren’t I don’t think the 744 per sae, more the high overheads QF had and I don’t think a 777 would have saved to many of those routes that were cut.

I do believe QF did miss a trick however in not ordering 777s, probably 77Es in the late 1990s replacing the 747 classics, they did hold onto the 743s till 2008 probably 5 years to long, they upgraded them in 2003/04, maybe should have parked them and then added 77Ws.

The 743s were used on AKL-LAX a lot in 2006-08, older product than the 744s, mechanical delays, weight restrictions on freight. Not ideal. May have hurt the route a fair bit.

I do wonder what would have happened if QF had ordered the 777 even if it was in addition to the A380, HKG-LHR, BKK-LHR all needed to be consolidated in my mind when the A380 came into the picture but there was also a difficult period in there for the airline who needed to also reduce costs.

The 772 & 77W should have replaced the 744 in the early 2000s leaving the A380 doing SYD-SIN-LHR, SYD-LAX, SYD-DFW, MEL-LAX and the 777's doing routes like SYD-HKG, BNE-LAX, MEL/SYD-SFO, AKL-LAX, MEL-SIN, SYD-TYO

The A330's then heading onto 2nd tier Asian routes like BNE-HKG, BNE-SIN, SYD-PVG, SYD-MNL etc as well as domestic flying.

This has broken into two mini-topics, QF's fleeting planning and the original topic, does QF regret leaving NZ-NA market. I think we've established an overlap, QF got their fleet wrong which contributed to QF to exiting the market.

I'll raise a new question;

Will QF reenter or does that depend more on AA?

We've seen UA, AA, CO here in addition to QF and NZ. SQ has shown interest before and EK has long been rumoured to be interested. There is room for QF and there is money to be made. Will we one day see a QF 787 on the route?

NZ6 wrote:

QF got their fleet wrong which contributed to QF to exiting the market.

Not sure. This statement is often made without data to back it up. QF is a large airline serving a decent population and can more easily sustain a VLA fleet than can an airline like NZ. If QF had become yet another 777 yawn-fest, I personally wouldn't have switched loyalty to them. There are consequences to fleet choice that are difficult to quantify. Foolhardy people would pretend that because they're difficult to quantify, they don't exist.

nz6 wrote:

I'll raise a new question;

Will QF reenter or does that depend more on AA?

We've seen UA, AA, CO here in addition to QF and NZ. SQ has shown interest before and EK has long been rumoured to be interested. There is room for QF and there is money to be made. Will we one day see a QF 787 on the route?

Who knows. I think there is room for two year round daily competitors on the AKL-LAX route, and it doesn't really matter who the second one is (as long as it's not tied up in some bogus price fixing alliance with NZ). It would have made the most sense for QF - with their established trans-Tasman network and infrastructures at both AKL and LAX - not to quit in the first place.

But that is done and AA have entered the market - albeit with something of a whimper rather than a shout. I think if QF re-renter, it will be with the blessing of AA and AA will exit. I like the idea of US airlines flying here, so I hope this doesn't happen. And I still haven't *entirely* forgiven QF for basically handing my credit card details over to NZ in 2012 by leaving the route.

NZ6 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Around the time QF cut AKL-LAX they cut HKG-LHR, BKK-LHR, SIN-FRA, SYD-BOM, changes EZE to SCL, all 744s except BOM which was an A330.

I remember they said since being privatised in 1995 that international had only made money 3 years out of 20 up to 2014 or so, a bit like NZ’s Pacific Island-LAX routes many of these routes had been around a long time and had become unprofitable in many cases. GFC 2008-2011 high fuel prices 2012-2014 etc.

Some of the issues weren’t I don’t think the 744 per sae, more the high overheads QF had and I don’t think a 777 would have saved to many of those routes that were cut.

I do believe QF did miss a trick however in not ordering 777s, probably 77Es in the late 1990s replacing the 747 classics, they did hold onto the 743s till 2008 probably 5 years to long, they upgraded them in 2003/04, maybe should have parked them and then added 77Ws.

The 743s were used on AKL-LAX a lot in 2006-08, older product than the 744s, mechanical delays, weight restrictions on freight. Not ideal. May have hurt the route a fair bit.

I do wonder what would have happened if QF had ordered the 777 even if it was in addition to the A380, HKG-LHR, BKK-LHR all needed to be consolidated in my mind when the A380 came into the picture but there was also a difficult period in there for the airline who needed to also reduce costs.

The 772 & 77W should have replaced the 744 in the early 2000s leaving the A380 doing SYD-SIN-LHR, SYD-LAX, SYD-DFW, MEL-LAX and the 777's doing routes like SYD-HKG, BNE-LAX, MEL/SYD-SFO, AKL-LAX, MEL-SIN, SYD-TYO

The A330's then heading onto 2nd tier Asian routes like BNE-HKG, BNE-SIN, SYD-PVG, SYD-MNL etc as well as domestic flying.

This has broken into two mini-topics, QF's fleeting planning and the original topic, does QF regret leaving NZ-NA market. I think we've established an overlap, QF got their fleet wrong which contributed to QF to exiting the market.

I'll raise a new question;

Will QF reenter or does that depend more on AA?

We've seen UA, AA, CO here in addition to QF and NZ. SQ has shown interest before and EK has long been rumoured to be interested. There is room for QF and there is money to be made. Will we one day see a QF 787 on the route?

I believe QF getting the A380 was the right aircraft at the time and as they say they do work on the routes they use them on now, however they won’t get more ever.

They then got the A330 as part of the A380 deal, fair enough they are a very good aircraft and QF use them well into Asia and on peak domestic runs plus PER-East coast.

The 777 would have been another type plus they had the 767 aswell, they probably could have got away with 5 wide body types

12 A380s
20 A330s
24 744s
10 77Es (747 classic replacement late 1990s)
10 77Ws (744 replacement from 2007 3rd D checks)
22 763s( replaced by A330s by 2010)

Etops wouldn’t have allowed Pacific ops until 2002 atleast but initial 777s could have been used into Asia replacing 763s, then A330s replacing 77Es to Asia in early 2000s with 77Es moving to BNE-LAX, AKL-LAX, SYD-SFO, SYD-YVR with some off peak SYD-LAX etc.

One question the 744ER was available in 2002 and the 77W in 2004 and wasn’t known how good the 77W would become so they may have still ended up with 30 744s anyway given the extra lift they gave on pacific routes particularly MEL-LAX at the time.

Gasman wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

QF got their fleet wrong which contributed to QF to exiting the market.

Not sure. This statement is often made without data to back it up. QF is a large airline serving a decent population and can more easily sustain a VLA fleet than can an airline like NZ. If QF had become yet another 777 yawn-fest, I personally wouldn't have switched loyalty to them. There are consequences to fleet choice that are difficult to quantify. Foolhardy people would pretend that because they're difficult to quantify, they don't exist.

A few comments on this.
a) This is based on comments from others on why QF left the AKL-LAX market.
b) I also agree they replaced/upgraded a number of 744's for their top tier routes SYD-LAX, SYD-LHR routes with the A380 and this was the right move. However was/is 12 the right number and have they failed to replace the remaining 744's with something with size and range. I believe they have.
c) Is the A330 aircraft the right aircraft for long-range missions with premium and cargo demand. The answer is No
d) I assume VLA is for the common meaning 'Very Large Array'? - I don't suggest QF needs more types, they needed to replace the 744's with a mix of A380 and 777 vs the A380 and 744 mix they've been left with. In saying that, you're actually suggesting QF could sustain more types if I read that correctly.
e) 777 may be seen as a yawn-fest in your eyes however the 77W is a heck of a lot more efficient than the 744's and can carry more cargo. Twin engine is 100% the way forward and has been for a long time.
f) The 744's days are numbered. What will happen to your loyalty then? Dear I suggest the A380 won't be that far behind it. Once the aircraft for project sunrise is in the fleet I think QF will start to wonder what to do with the A380's.... QF may very well become a 777 airline after all.

Gasman wrote:

Who knows. I think there is room for two year round daily competitors on the AKL-LAX route, and it doesn't really matter who the second one is (as long as it's not tied up in some bogus price fixing alliance with NZ). It would have made the most sense for QF - with their established trans-Tasman network and infrastructures at both AKL and LAX - not to quit in the first place.

But that is done and AA have entered the market - albeit with something of a whimper rather than a shout. I think if QF re-renter, it will be with the blessing of AA and AA will exit. I like the idea of US airlines flying here, so I hope this doesn't happen. And I still haven't *entirely* forgiven QF for basically handing my credit card details over to NZ in 2012 by leaving the route.

So you've got the pip with NZ and QF now

Was it 2001 (before 911) when NZ was only operating to LAX with NZ2 and NZ6, opened NZ8, opened NZ4 (still used occasionally) NZ24, NZ28 and then NZ26. We've also got AA82 and UA916. You can also consider HA446 with their one-stop promo to X number of USA destinations, FJ, TN offering indirect also.

My point being, there has been so much growth in the US market. NZ is monitoring and evaluating two more ports in the US.

Like I've said before, I fail to see why QF can't feed into AKL from the Tasman and Domestic markets and onto LAX. Meet up with AA, BA and even LA

ZK-NBT wrote:

I believe QF getting the A380 was the right aircraft at the time and as they say they do work on the routes they use them on now, however they won’t get more ever.

They then got the A330 as part of the A380 deal, fair enough they are a very good aircraft and QF use them well into Asia and on peak domestic runs plus PER-East coast.

The 777 would have been another type plus they had the 767 aswell, they probably could have got away with 5 wide body types

12 A380s
20 A330s
24 744s
10 77Es (747 classic replacement late 1990s)
10 77Ws (744 replacement from 2007 3rd D checks)
22 763s( replaced by A330s by 2010)

Etops wouldn’t have allowed Pacific ops until 2002 atleast but initial 777s could have been used into Asia replacing 763s, then A330s replacing 77Es to Asia in early 2000s with 77Es moving to BNE-LAX, AKL-LAX, SYD-SFO, SYD-YVR with some off peak SYD-LAX etc.

One question the 744ER was available in 2002 and the 77W in 2004 and wasn’t known how good the 77W would become so they may have still ended up with 30 744s anyway given the extra lift they gave on pacific routes particularly MEL-LAX at the time.

I find it interesting the Allan Joyce is making comments like he can send two 787's on a mission cheaper than a single A380. I wonder what's behind that....

Going back to the early 2000's the A380 was looking to be the right aircraft and I don't think it's wrong for some of their trunk routes like I said, SYD-LAX, SYD-LHR where they have First demand and high Y requirement etc. In fact for these routes, it's a good aircraft.

Loosely I just think QF should have done

8-12x A380
16-18x 77W and/or 772
18-20x A330

I'd need to closely look at timelines again, but again the 787 should now be coming in to replace the A330 and 772's with the 77W being replaced by 779 and options to phase the A380 out at around 2030

Some could argue if you went down this path was the A330 redundant and the 772 could have picked these up too... and that's very possible however the 772 is a bit bigger for the A330 which was more comparable to the 763 it replaced.

I assume QF have always been kept the A380 options to open replace the remaining 744's which must have been part of the original plan but are now seeing the merit in a 350 seat twin engine with 50C and 300+Y over a similar distance.

I don't think QF will reenter AKL-LAX, it has been almost 7 years already. If they were going to do it they would have already. I think if maybe NZ announced another US route AA might consider DFW and QF might take over the AA82/83 schedule then. QF definitely hinges on the joint agreement with AA, if that goes through then it becomes far more likely, but let's focus on year-round service first for AA. In all honesty, I don't think there is any kind of priority for QF to return on the route. AA hasn't made much traction really.

aerorobnz wrote:

I don't think QF will reenter AKL-LAX, it has been almost 7 years already. If they were going to do it they would have already. I think if maybe NZ announced another US route AA might consider DFW and QF might take over the AA82/83 schedule then. QF definitely hinges on the joint agreement with AA, if that goes through then it becomes far more likely, but let's focus on year-round service first for AA. In all honesty, I don't think there is any kind of priority for QF to return on the route. AA hasn't made much traction really.

I agree QF are unlikely to re enter, hopefully a QF/AA JV would allow AA to operate year round and add a DFW service.

NZ6 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

I believe QF getting the A380 was the right aircraft at the time and as they say they do work on the routes they use them on now, however they won’t get more ever.

They then got the A330 as part of the A380 deal, fair enough they are a very good aircraft and QF use them well into Asia and on peak domestic runs plus PER-East coast.

The 777 would have been another type plus they had the 767 aswell, they probably could have got away with 5 wide body types

12 A380s
20 A330s
24 744s
10 77Es (747 classic replacement late 1990s)
10 77Ws (744 replacement from 2007 3rd D checks)
22 763s( replaced by A330s by 2010)

Etops wouldn’t have allowed Pacific ops until 2002 atleast but initial 777s could have been used into Asia replacing 763s, then A330s replacing 77Es to Asia in early 2000s with 77Es moving to BNE-LAX, AKL-LAX, SYD-SFO, SYD-YVR with some off peak SYD-LAX etc.

One question the 744ER was available in 2002 and the 77W in 2004 and wasn’t known how good the 77W would become so they may have still ended up with 30 744s anyway given the extra lift they gave on pacific routes particularly MEL-LAX at the time.

I find it interesting the Allan Joyce is making comments like he can send two 787's on a mission cheaper than a single A380. I wonder what's behind that....

Going back to the early 2000's the A380 was looking to be the right aircraft and I don't think it's wrong for some of their trunk routes like I said, SYD-LAX, SYD-LHR where they have First demand and high Y requirement etc. In fact for these routes, it's a good aircraft.

Loosely I just think QF should have done

8-12x A380
16-18x 77W and/or 772
18-20x A330

I'd need to closely look at timelines again, but again the 787 should now be coming in to replace the A330 and 772's with the 77W being replaced by 779 and options to phase the A380 out at around 2030

Some could argue if you went down this path was the A330 redundant and the 772 could have picked these up too... and that's very possible however the 772 is a bit bigger for the A330 which was more comparable to the 763 it replaced.

I assume QF have always been kept the A380 options to open replace the remaining 744's which must have been part of the original plan but are now seeing the merit in a 350 seat twin engine with 50C and 300+Y over a similar distance.

The 787 allows more Point to point, the A380 doesn’t give the flexibility, I agree its the right frame for the thickest routes though and 12 is good for them.

The remaining 8 A380s were to be J, W, Y and used on routes like SIN-FRA, BNE-LAX, would have been a lot of Y seats probably a 550 seater. Which 350 seat twin do QF have? Neither the 787 or A330 are that big, are you talking about the A35K/779 in a few years?

aerorobnz wrote:

I don't think QF will reenter AKL-LAX, it has been almost 7 years already. If they were going to do it they would have already. I think if maybe NZ announced another US route AA might consider DFW and QF might take over the AA82/83 schedule then. QF definitely hinges on the joint agreement with AA, if that goes through then it becomes far more likely, but let's focus on year-round service first for AA. In all honesty, I don't think there is any kind of priority for QF to return on the route. AA hasn't made much traction really.

But the issues that apparently had them pull out still exist. I think once they have more 787's and the 744's are gone there is a small chance. The 787 is a nice aircraft for the route. I agree though it's not a priority and our best bet it to hope QF/AA marriage is approved.

ZK-NBT wrote:

The 787 allows more Point to point, the A380 doesn’t give the flexibility, I agree its the right frame for the thickest routes though and 12 is good for them.

The remaining 8 A380s were to be J, W, Y and used on routes like SIN-FRA, BNE-LAX, would have been a lot of Y seats probably a 550 seater. Which 350 seat twin do QF have? Neither the 787 or A330 are that big, are you talking about the A35K/779 in a few years?

So like the rest of the world has worked out, the 787 allows the airline to provide cheaper and more convenient/direct options over the A380 Hub to Hub style

I say seeing merit in a 350 seat twin being the 77W or now 77X - didn't mean they have it now. Sorry if that was confusing. It can be hard on my phone.

NZ6 wrote:

getluv wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Do you have any idea how much money they've sunk and lost in the NZ market over the last 20-30 years, we've seen 4 version of the QF group here. Also, each time DJ, AN, QF(s) have exited it's made little difference. NZ puts a heap of effort into making the NZ market strong for themselves without competition, they do this to deter anyone from trying. You've seen this with all their regional markets moving to Q300 or being dropped, strengthing capacity and decreasing CASM.

That's making it really hard for JQ to open more regionals even though they have deep pockets. We should really see IVC and HLZ by now if they were here to give them what they deserve (whatever their punch line was when they went regional).

I don't think the QF group are too worried about stopping NZ from making more money, especially given NZ aren't in the Aussie game anymore and use QF to pull for their Tasman network.

I’m more talking about trunk routes like AKL-WLG and AKL-CHC. If JQ wasn’t on these routes NZ’s domestic profit would easily double.

Regionals are much harder even when there’s a monopoly. Those Q300s were in storage and they made councils play off each other and got money thrown at them, so the capex would have been very minimal. Unfortunately QF don’t have aircraft lying around anymore and if they were really committed to JQ in New Zealand they would have spent the money. And you could basically make the same assumption about AKL-LAX, there’s probably money in it but they can make more money elsewhere.

Now that’s there’s a truce between NZ and QF I doubt you’ll see JQ expanding in NZ. However, my original point still remains, QF kept JQ in New Zealand to stop NZ from making easy profits. The same way NZ has always had skin in the game with Ansett and VA.

Look at how low JQ's market share is! I have no idea how NZ's profits will double. I assume the assumption is prices will go up, that can't and won't happen because
a) NZ now has too much capacity to fill to lower pricing fills this.
b) Make want to make it harder for new carriers to enter but having a string network
c) NZ needs to keep the trust of the NZ public with affordable pricing and solid products thus also making it harder for future competitors

I'm actually speechless, you actually believe Alan Joyce and the QF board keep their low-cost branch open into NZ to stop NZ making easy profits or to quote your original comment "it stops their competitor from making even more money".

NZ is almost no risk to QF now, they'll never run an Australian airline again (AN) they tried an alliance with the only other real Australian airline (VA) and that failed so NZ is now working with QF in Australia instead of against them, so what's QF so concerned about?

How much of a compliment could you pay NZ?

It doesn't have anything to do with the QF group strengthing their Tasman and long haul networks and an attempt into having a slice of a healthy market to improve their own business?

Without competition (JQ), NZ would simply tighten control of the market and make the barriers even harder for competitors. I’m not saying NZ will just start charging outrageous prices but they’ll be charging higher prices the market is willing to pay (classic monopolistic pricing method) because they havepricing power - not consumers. Profits can double without charging double - you do realise this?

I will say you can observe my arguments in other industries, and almost nearly everywhere else in the aviation industry, where the market share is held by only a few. Competitors open loss making stores or routes near incumbents to limit market share and profits; I’m not talking disrupters I’m talking the big guys.

JQ’s marketshare is low because it’s not worth the investment for QF. However, just having JQ on those trunks is enough to limit the pricing power of NZ.

Where in different world how that QF and NZ are at a truce by this wasn’t always the case, hence why QF felt compelled to have skin in the game in New Zealand.

I think you’ve gone on some weird tangent at the end so I’m not sure what your point is. But then again arguing with you is kind of pointless because you’ve taken a lot of what I’ve said out of context and don’t address the arguments that I counter your arguments with. You obviously too emotive (“I’m actually speechless” - seriously?) to have a balanced discussion with so I won’t be arguing with you anymore. It’s a lost cause.

getluv wrote:

I think you’ve gone on some weird tangent at the end so I’m not sure what your point is. But then again arguing with you is kind of pointless because you’ve taken a lot of what I’ve said out of context and don’t address the arguments that I counter your arguments with. You obviously too emotive (“I’m actually speechless” - seriously?) to have a balanced discussion with so I won’t be arguing with you anymore. It’s a lost cause.

It's often called a conversation that evolves and goes off on tangents as they evolve. I've actually enjoyed many of the opinions and comments made. I'm not a QF employee and I'm not aware of any others here who are so it's all speculation. It started off as QF flying AKL-LAX and moved into their overall fleet as it was made clear by several their fleet was one of the major reasons why AKL-LAX wasn't or didn't work for them at the time.

If you don't value conversation, I've no idea why you subscribed to a forum and paid money for it.

There are no arguments here either, well not from my end. as I said, I've actually really joyed this QF debate.

getluv wrote:

Without competition (JQ), NZ would simply tighten control of the market and make the barriers even harder for competitors. I’m not saying NZ will just start charging outrageous prices but they’ll be charging higher prices the market is willing to pay (classic monopolistic pricing method) because they havepricing power - not consumers. Profits can double without charging double - you do realise this?

JQ’s marketshare is low because it’s not worth the investment for QF. However, just having JQ on those trunks is enough to limit the pricing power of NZ.

There's no evidence of the sort and in fact, there was a period before DJ started where NZ did a whole lot of activity to try to deter DJ from entering. I was part of that project. Now, NZ has so much capacity in the market they couldn't really increase prices as they'd end up lowering their revenue and increasing their costs with grounded aircraft.

Besides, I like JQ here in the market. My issue was, it was suggested they're here to stop NZ from making more money which is so incredibly odd. Surely they're here as QF feels it's an asset to their business.

787 turns back from PVG. Apparently not approved
by Chinese authorities! What ever could that be about?

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12202409

Gasman wrote:

Of course, QF could also steal the jump on NZ by launching AKL-JFK.

yes this would surely be better for many than entering USA at LAX, SFO or DFW + plenty of feed from all over Australia to AKL.

lots of talk about AKL/LAX, but what about market share that NZ lost when AC started doing BNE/YVR & MEL/YVR nonstop ?

Many BNE & MEL pax used to fly on AKL/YVR services. Now only the price sensitive would fly that route.

Because AC has a monopoly on BNE & MEL/YVR & almost a monopoly on SYD/YVR, no high yielding passenger would fly via AKL.

RE SYD/LAX does't NZ codeshare on UA nonstop services ?

Deepinsider wrote:

787 turns back from PVG. Apparently not approved
by Chinese authorities! What ever could that be about?

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12202409

I imagine regulations may have been updated due to RR 787 issues or perhaps an unlreated issue but regardless this is embarrassing for Air NZ to say the least; they talk about accommodating passengers in the Strata Lounge!

NZ321 wrote:

Deepinsider wrote:

787 turns back from PVG. Apparently not approved
by Chinese authorities! What ever could that be about?

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12202409

I imagine regulations may have been updated due to RR 787 issues or perhaps an unlreated issue but regardless this is embarrassing for Air NZ to say the least; they talk about accommodating passengers in the Strata Lounge!

Was ZK-NZQ, I’m not sure if this had been to PVG before being the newest 789 and a code 2 so not a regular to PVG, could have subbed in late, although the flight left on time.

That article is speculation, just rubbish reporting really.

JimWhite wrote:

lots of talk about AKL/LAX, but what about market share that NZ lost when AC started doing BNE/YVR & MEL/YVR nonstop ?

Many BNE & MEL pax used to fly on AKL/YVR services. Now only the price sensitive would fly that route.

Because AC has a monopoly on BNE & MEL/YVR & almost a monopoly on SYD/YVR, no high yielding passenger would fly via AKL.

RE SYD/LAX does't NZ codeshare on UA nonstop services ?

NZ haven’t reduced flights at all, the market has grown. If NZ have good J fares people will fly them.

I think NZ codeshare with UA SYD-LAX, no JV on the OZ-US though while there is a JV NZ-US for NZ/UA.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ321 wrote:

Deepinsider wrote:

787 turns back from PVG. Apparently not approved
by Chinese authorities! What ever could that be about?

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12202409

I imagine regulations may have been updated due to RR 787 issues or perhaps an unlreated issue but regardless this is embarrassing for Air NZ to say the least; they talk about accommodating passengers in the Strata Lounge!

Was ZK-NZQ, I’m not sure if this had been to PVG before being the newest 789 and a code 2 so not a regular to PVG, could have subbed in late, although the flight left on time.

That article is speculation, just rubbish reporting really.

Mmm not really. The article detailed the incident and sought informed opinion as to what was behind it.

Someone will be summoned to Chris's office tomorrow, I would think.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12202496

Different article. This is the one I was meaning.

Gasman wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ321 wrote:

I imagine regulations may have been updated due to RR 787 issues or perhaps an unlreated issue but regardless this is embarrassing for Air NZ to say the least; they talk about accommodating passengers in the Strata Lounge!

Was ZK-NZQ, I’m not sure if this had been to PVG before being the newest 789 and a code 2 so not a regular to PVG, could have subbed in late, although the flight left on time.

That article is speculation, just rubbish reporting really.

Mmm not really. The article detailed the incident and sought informed opinion as to what was behind it.

Someone will be summoned to Chris's office tomorrow, I would think.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ321 wrote:

Deepinsider wrote:

787 turns back from PVG. Apparently not approved
by Chinese authorities! What ever could that be about?


I imagine regulations may have been updated due to RR 787 issues or perhaps an unlreated issue but regardless this is embarrassing for Air NZ to say the least; they talk about accommodating passengers in the Strata Lounge!

Was ZK-NZQ, I’m not sure if this had been to PVG before being the newest 789 and a code 2 so not a regular to PVG, could have subbed in late, although the flight left on time.

That article is speculation, just rubbish reporting really.

There was a 787 down for 24 hours in PPT that was due to arrive saturday morning in Auckland originally. Could be the reason for the swap.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ321 wrote:

Deepinsider wrote:

787 turns back from PVG. Apparently not approved
by Chinese authorities! What ever could that be about?

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12202409

I imagine regulations may have been updated due to RR 787 issues or perhaps an unlreated issue but regardless this is embarrassing for Air NZ to say the least; they talk about accommodating passengers in the Strata Lounge!

Was ZK-NZQ, I’m not sure if this had been to PVG before being the newest 789 and a code 2 so not a regular to PVG, could have subbed in late, although the flight left on time.

That article is speculation, just rubbish reporting really.

Sorry, seemed interesting and unusual at the time.

That article is speculation, just rubbish reporting really.

Actually, I don't like the Herald's aviation reporting any more
than most others here. but when there's an event, I thought
including that quote would save me more typing, and possibly
suggest to others that something was actually afoot. I'm
disappointed it's reflected in this way.

"it was discovered a technicality meant the particular aircraft operating this service did not have regulatory authority to land in China" - as per Stuff
https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/110485 ... -midflight

Most interesting... Would it be equipment related or just paperwork? I'm imagining the latter scenario being something like "NZ has to register with Chinese authorities all airframes it intends to send to China, but because NZQ is new and Code 2 (therefore not a regular on the route), the fact that it hasn't yet been registered with Chinese authorities wasn't picked up until it had taken off on its first trip to Shanghai" - but I'm only speculating here.

DavidJ08 wrote:

"it was discovered a technicality meant the particular aircraft operating this service did not have regulatory authority to land in China" - as per Stuff
https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/110485 ... -midflight

Most interesting... Would it be equipment related or just paperwork? I'm imagining the latter scenario being something like "NZ has to register with Chinese authorities all airframes it intends to send to China, but because NZQ is new and Code 2 (therefore not a regular on the route), the fact that it hasn't yet been registered with Chinese authorities wasn't picked up until it had taken off on its first trip to Shanghai" - but I'm only speculating here.

Paperwork.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/air-new-zeal ... 79&ref=rss

Communication can always be improved and ground handling during a disrupt is always an issue. Seems like some of the choices were logical but potentially not explained. Sounds like an evolving issue which I would be pissed off about too. Maybe an explanation should have been provided post-flight.

As for Taxi's to and from the airport, FFS the original issue was weather... almost, if not every other airline in the world would handle this that way. Go buy yourself travel insurance or suck it up. Not sure why any airline should pay for your private transfer home and back, especially in Auckland for your $89 ticket to Queenstown, after all, it's not their fault either that you couldn't get into ZQN

How is this even 'news' ??? Isn't this just a customer complaint? Obviously, anything Aviation related is good click material lately.

NZ6 wrote:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/air-new-zealand/news/article.cfm?o_id=5&objectid=12202379&ref=rss


How is this even 'news' ??? Isn't this just a customer complaint? Obviously, anything Aviation related is good click material lately.

Really? an AKL-ZQN that ended up doing AKL-sortof ZQN-CHC-AKL- pax next day -ZQN isnt news? Its not normal. The airline didnt handle it well, really. Having an experience like that goes far beyond 'customer complaint'

People bitching about the poor reporting or 'how is this news' - Im grateful that something is there, its interesting and I wouldnt have known anything about it otherwise so Im glad that an attempting at getting information out has at least been made

I've had two diversions in the last year - one on AA, one on QF. Both times, judging by the way they were handled you could be forgiven for thinking it was the first time it had ever happened. Passengers are completely at the mercy of the airline in such circumstances and airlines take full advantage of this in their complacency. It is only through reporting - clickbait or otherwise - that airlines might be forced to lift their game.

torin wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/air-new-zealand/news/article.cfm?o_id=5&objectid=12202379&ref=rss


How is this even 'news' ??? Isn't this just a customer complaint? Obviously, anything Aviation related is good click material lately.

Really? an AKL-ZQN that ended up doing AKL-sortof ZQN-CHC-AKL- pax next day -ZQN isnt news? Its not normal. The airline didnt handle it well, really. Having an experience like that goes far beyond 'customer complaint'

People bitching about the poor reporting or 'how is this news' - Im grateful that something is there, its interesting and I wouldnt have known anything about it otherwise so Im glad that an attempting at getting information out has at least been made

Um, no, not really. Diverted for safety reasons due to weather (tailwinds at both ends of the runway - happens at ZQN often). Safety is always first priority. Passengers were well informed on that. Happens every day all around the world. If CHC had available domestic gates might have been a better outcome for some but they didn’t.
This is what travel insurance is for. Air NZ went well above what was required of it.

Zkpilot wrote:

torin wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/air-new-zealand/news/article.cfm?o_id=5&objectid=12202379&ref=rss


How is this even 'news' ??? Isn't this just a customer complaint? Obviously, anything Aviation related is good click material lately.

Really? an AKL-ZQN that ended up doing AKL-sortof ZQN-CHC-AKL- pax next day -ZQN isnt news? Its not normal. The airline didnt handle it well, really. Having an experience like that goes far beyond 'customer complaint'

People bitching about the poor reporting or 'how is this news' - Im grateful that something is there, its interesting and I wouldnt have known anything about it otherwise so Im glad that an attempting at getting information out has at least been made

Um, no, not really. Diverted for safety reasons due to weather (tailwinds at both ends of the runway - happens at ZQN often). Safety is always first priority. Passengers were well informed on that. Happens every day all around the world. If CHC had available domestic gates might have been a better outcome for some but they didn’t.
This is what travel insurance is for. Air NZ went well above what was required of it.

No Kidding. Just because its Ok to happen doesnt make it normal. Why wouldnt you deplane in CHC and bus them to ZQN? Read a report that a gate wasnt meant to open for 1.5 hours, but thats still quicker than returning to AKL and trying again the next day.

Whats wrong with using stairs and walking them into the terminal via the regional gates? And I really dont understand how NZ went well above what was required of it?

Anyway, main point is the media bashing is a bit pointless. Better to have something to get awareness then nothing at all

torin wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

torin wrote:

Really? an AKL-ZQN that ended up doing AKL-sortof ZQN-CHC-AKL- pax next day -ZQN isnt news? Its not normal. The airline didnt handle it well, really. Having an experience like that goes far beyond 'customer complaint'

People bitching about the poor reporting or 'how is this news' - Im grateful that something is there, its interesting and I wouldnt have known anything about it otherwise so Im glad that an attempting at getting information out has at least been made

Um, no, not really. Diverted for safety reasons due to weather (tailwinds at both ends of the runway - happens at ZQN often). Safety is always first priority. Passengers were well informed on that. Happens every day all around the world. If CHC had available domestic gates might have been a better outcome for some but they didn’t.
This is what travel insurance is for. Air NZ went well above what was required of it.

No Kidding. Just because its Ok to happen doesnt make it normal. Why wouldnt you deplane in CHC and bus them to ZQN? Read a report that a gate wasnt meant to open for 1.5 hours, but thats still quicker than returning to AKL and trying again the next day.

Whats wrong with using stairs and walking them into the terminal via the regional gates? And I really dont understand how NZ went well above what was required of it?

Anyway, main point is the media bashing is a bit pointless. Better to have something to get awareness then nothing at all

I agree.

These diversions follow a recurring theme of disorganisation and poor communication. That's where the news is. No one is blaming the airline for the weather at ZQN.

torin wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/air-new-zealand/news/article.cfm?o_id=5&objectid=12202379&ref=rss


How is this even 'news' ??? Isn't this just a customer complaint? Obviously, anything Aviation related is good click material lately.

Really? an AKL-ZQN that ended up doing AKL-sortof ZQN-CHC-AKL- pax next day -ZQN isnt news? Its not normal. The airline didnt handle it well, really. Having an experience like that goes far beyond 'customer complaint'

People bitching about the poor reporting or 'how is this news' - Im grateful that something is there, its interesting and I wouldnt have known anything about it otherwise so Im glad that an attempting at getting information out has at least been made

Diversions happen on the network so incredibly frequently... it's almost routine. I can't say they're daily but it's a safe bet to suggest you'll get at least once a week. Obviously particular times of the year you'll get multiple occurrences in a day while at other times you won't get any for a while.

NZ has made many attempts to improve their disrupt procedures and there's now even a team who focus on communication however I think in this case it was just an evolving mess. Not saying it' acceptable but it's just a bad customer service story. Hardly 'news'.

As Zkpilot suggests, they could have been offloaded in CHC and left to wait for available seats on scheduled services to ZQN with a crappy little coffee voucher, returning to AKL was probably the easiest and best thing to do for the customer... if only she knew how else it could have ended for her

No excuses for the lack of communication though.

torin wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

torin wrote:

Really? an AKL-ZQN that ended up doing AKL-sortof ZQN-CHC-AKL- pax next day -ZQN isnt news? Its not normal. The airline didnt handle it well, really. Having an experience like that goes far beyond 'customer complaint'

People bitching about the poor reporting or 'how is this news' - Im grateful that something is there, its interesting and I wouldnt have known anything about it otherwise so Im glad that an attempting at getting information out has at least been made

Um, no, not really. Diverted for safety reasons due to weather (tailwinds at both ends of the runway - happens at ZQN often). Safety is always first priority. Passengers were well informed on that. Happens every day all around the world. If CHC had available domestic gates might have been a better outcome for some but they didn’t.
This is what travel insurance is for. Air NZ went well above what was required of it.

No Kidding. Just because its Ok to happen doesnt make it normal. Why wouldnt you deplane in CHC and bus them to ZQN? Read a report that a gate wasnt meant to open for 1.5 hours, but thats still quicker than returning to AKL and trying again the next day.

Whats wrong with using stairs and walking them into the terminal via the regional gates? And I really dont understand how NZ went well above what was required of it?

Anyway, main point is the media bashing is a bit pointless. Better to have something to get awareness then nothing at all

Some fair questions...

Firstly, the airline isn't required to provide road option for Weather-related disruptions when returning to the point of origin. They can, but don't have to.

There was a 1.5-hour wait for a gate... was there stairs, crew and busses available to take them from International to Domestic or what was the expected delay looking like?
What was the likelihood of getting from CHC to ZQN vs AKL-ZQN on a new service?
What was the passenger load of this flight? You may have needed 4-6+ Buses and what was their availability given peak tourism time...

Imagine the headline.. 1.5 hours to get off the planes, a 2.5 hour wait for the bus and then a 7-hour drive.

If you offer road, some want it some don't, you need to offload those who do and also offload their bags the whole process becomes a mess. Better off going back to AKL and starting again.

Also, if you offload in CHC and there aren't buses available, you need to accommodate people in CHC as they're now seen as in a diverted transit point. Given there's still a lack of accommodation in peak season, was that worth the risk?

Communication is key, too much makes it complex, not enough pisses people off. What and how much do you tell them?

Finally, it's taken a week for this to become available in public and some of the words used when they quote her tell a story of the type of passenger she may be. Was it as bad as it's made out do we think?

PS: For the record, I'm not defending NZ. I know first hand they have a habit of screwing up disruptions.

ZK-NBT wrote:

JimWhite wrote:

lots of talk about AKL/LAX, but what about market share that NZ lost when AC started doing BNE/YVR & MEL/YVR nonstop ?

Many BNE & MEL pax used to fly on AKL/YVR services. Now only the price sensitive would fly that route.

Because AC has a monopoly on BNE & MEL/YVR & almost a monopoly on SYD/YVR, no high yielding passenger would fly via AKL.

RE SYD/LAX does't NZ codeshare on UA nonstop services ?

NZ haven’t reduced flights at all, the market has grown. If NZ have good J fares people will fly them.

I think NZ codeshare with UA SYD-LAX, no JV on the OZ-US though while there is a JV NZ-US for NZ/UA.

sorry what I meant about AC nonstops to YVR form BNE, SYD, MEL was premium traffic wojuld now go nonstop rather than via AKL or NZ would have to lower their premium fares.

Exactly- and with all this new capacity in the market NZ has for some time always been the cheapest option ex AU. With the fares plummeting even further this is not good news. I did read layoffs are coming so I expect the sales staff to be affected- just like they were when NZ did this same exact staff expansion 10 years ago.

torin wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

torin wrote:

Really? an AKL-ZQN that ended up doing AKL-sortof ZQN-CHC-AKL- pax next day -ZQN isnt news? Its not normal. The airline didnt handle it well, really. Having an experience like that goes far beyond 'customer complaint'

People bitching about the poor reporting or 'how is this news' - Im grateful that something is there, its interesting and I wouldnt have known anything about it otherwise so Im glad that an attempting at getting information out has at least been made

Um, no, not really. Diverted for safety reasons due to weather (tailwinds at both ends of the runway - happens at ZQN often). Safety is always first priority. Passengers were well informed on that. Happens every day all around the world. If CHC had available domestic gates might have been a better outcome for some but they didn’t.
This is what travel insurance is for. Air NZ went well above what was required of it.

No Kidding. Just because its Ok to happen doesnt make it normal. Why wouldnt you deplane in CHC and bus them to ZQN? Read a report that a gate wasnt meant to open for 1.5 hours, but thats still quicker than returning to AKL and trying again the next day.

Whats wrong with using stairs and walking them into the terminal via the regional gates? And I really dont understand how NZ went well above what was required of it?

Anyway, main point is the media bashing is a bit pointless. Better to have something to get awareness then nothing at all

Do you know how long it takes to drive to ZQN from CHC on a bus? Let alone waiting to unload plane and arrange said bus? Faster to fly to AKL and back to ZQN.
Some people didn’t end up going to ZQN as they were only going for the day. Others were going on to other destinations. Inconvenient yes, alternates? Not really. Maybe flying to Invercargil but that isn’t always a suitable alternative so you could be looking at multiple missed approaches in a very short space of time.

As for walking along the apron from Intl to Domestic? No, just no. By bus? Maybe if a suitable one is available.

NZ went above and beyond by arranging accommodation in AKL which they aren’t required to do (and no doubt picking up a few other expenses).

Zkpilot wrote:

torin wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Um, no, not really. Diverted for safety reasons due to weather (tailwinds at both ends of the runway - happens at ZQN often). Safety is always first priority. Passengers were well informed on that. Happens every day all around the world. If CHC had available domestic gates might have been a better outcome for some but they didn’t.
This is what travel insurance is for. Air NZ went well above what was required of it.

No Kidding. Just because its Ok to happen doesnt make it normal. Why wouldnt you deplane in CHC and bus them to ZQN? Read a report that a gate wasnt meant to open for 1.5 hours, but thats still quicker than returning to AKL and trying again the next day.

Whats wrong with using stairs and walking them into the terminal via the regional gates? And I really dont understand how NZ went well above what was required of it?

Anyway, main point is the media bashing is a bit pointless. Better to have something to get awareness then nothing at all

Do you know how long it takes to drive to ZQN from CHC on a bus? Let alone waiting to unload plane and arrange said bus? Faster to fly to AKL and back to ZQN.
Some people didn’t end up going to ZQN as they were only going for the day. Others were going on to other destinations. Inconvenient yes, alternates? Not really. Maybe flying to Invercargil but that isn’t always a suitable alternative so you could be looking at multiple missed approaches in a very short space of time.

As for walking along the apron from Intl to Domestic? No, just no. By bus? Maybe if a suitable one is available.

NZ went above and beyond by arranging accommodation in AKL which they aren’t required to do (and no doubt picking up a few other expenses).

Above and beyond ? Probably. However, events like this highlight the lack of consumer protection in AU and NZ.

NTLDaz wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

torin wrote:

No Kidding. Just because its Ok to happen doesnt make it normal. Why wouldnt you deplane in CHC and bus them to ZQN? Read a report that a gate wasnt meant to open for 1.5 hours, but thats still quicker than returning to AKL and trying again the next day.

Whats wrong with using stairs and walking them into the terminal via the regional gates? And I really dont understand how NZ went well above what was required of it?

Anyway, main point is the media bashing is a bit pointless. Better to have something to get awareness then nothing at all

Do you know how long it takes to drive to ZQN from CHC on a bus? Let alone waiting to unload plane and arrange said bus? Faster to fly to AKL and back to ZQN.
Some people didn’t end up going to ZQN as they were only going for the day. Others were going on to other destinations. Inconvenient yes, alternates? Not really. Maybe flying to Invercargil but that isn’t always a suitable alternative so you could be looking at multiple missed approaches in a very short space of time.

As for walking along the apron from Intl to Domestic? No, just no. By bus? Maybe if a suitable one is available.

NZ went above and beyond by arranging accommodation in AKL which they aren’t required to do (and no doubt picking up a few other expenses).

Above and beyond ? Probably. However, events like this highlight the lack of consumer protection in AU and NZ.

The other side of that argument is back to AKL ASAP before any penalties kick in and offload the passengers as quickly as we can. Doesn't always drive the right solutions and customer outcomes

Is the only thing wrong here, the lack of communication, or this individuals perception on lack of communication? I mean.. the wait on the ground in CHC was too long and something should have been said via the PA and the wait in AKL for vouchers sounds like its usual mess. I can't understand why or how she quotes an hour... didn't she go home?

Typical emotive crap though....
- 'compensated' by who and for what? who is compensating the airline? Used to take the ferry to work many years ago, I never got compensated by fullers when the swell was too big.
- "Sorensen said it was quite a "cavalier and arrogant attitude" for Air NZ to say it "appreciated the passengers' patience"... come on, what else can they say. They need to acknowledge it.
- "This meant for me a $120 taxi ride home and a 5.30am start back to the airport the following morning. - Did she ask to be transferred onto an alternative service the next day?
- I lost a day's work and was exhausted... how so? didn't she spend the entire time sitting?
- Passengers accused the airline of poor communication and treating them "like cattle" - I'm sure they wanted to use cattle prods on some of these passengers but like usual there's nothing to highlight why they felt like cattle, communication wouldn't change this surely?

NZ6 wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Do you know how long it takes to drive to ZQN from CHC on a bus? Let alone waiting to unload plane and arrange said bus? Faster to fly to AKL and back to ZQN.
Some people didn’t end up going to ZQN as they were only going for the day. Others were going on to other destinations. Inconvenient yes, alternates? Not really. Maybe flying to Invercargil but that isn’t always a suitable alternative so you could be looking at multiple missed approaches in a very short space of time.

As for walking along the apron from Intl to Domestic? No, just no. By bus? Maybe if a suitable one is available.

NZ went above and beyond by arranging accommodation in AKL which they aren’t required to do (and no doubt picking up a few other expenses).

Above and beyond ? Probably. However, events like this highlight the lack of consumer protection in AU and NZ.

The other side of that argument is back to AKL ASAP before any penalties kick in and offload the passengers as quickly as we can. Doesn't always drive the right solutions and customer outcomes

Is the only thing wrong here, the lack of communication, or this individuals perception on lack of communication? I mean.. the wait on the ground in CHC was too long and something should have been said via the PA and the wait in AKL for vouchers sounds like its usual mess. I can't understand why or how she quotes an hour... didn't she go home?

Typical emotive crap though....
- 'compensated' by who and for what? who is compensating the airline? Used to take the ferry to work many years ago, I never got compensated by fullers when the swell was too big.
- "Sorensen said it was quite a "cavalier and arrogant attitude" for Air NZ to say it "appreciated the passengers' patience"... come on, what else can they say. They need to acknowledge it.
- "This meant for me a $120 taxi ride home and a 5.30am start back to the airport the following morning. - Did she ask to be transferred onto an alternative service the next day?
- I lost a day's work and was exhausted... how so? didn't she spend the entire time sitting?
- Passengers accused the airline of poor communication and treating them "like cattle" - I'm sure they wanted to use cattle prods on some of these passengers but like usual there's nothing to highlight why they felt like cattle, communication wouldn't change this surely?

Not at all arguing about this current situation. However, there is little protection for consumers in AU NZ like in Europe.

If what has been reported about the PVG flight returning to AKL is correct there should be mandated compensatory rights to the passengers. At the moment there is reliance upon the goodwill of the airlines.

For example, in Oz Tiger cancels a flight and puts passengers on a flight 2 days later. They should be penalised for this.

NTLDaz wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

torin wrote:

No Kidding. Just because its Ok to happen doesnt make it normal. Why wouldnt you deplane in CHC and bus them to ZQN? Read a report that a gate wasnt meant to open for 1.5 hours, but thats still quicker than returning to AKL and trying again the next day.

Whats wrong with using stairs and walking them into the terminal via the regional gates? And I really dont understand how NZ went well above what was required of it?

Anyway, main point is the media bashing is a bit pointless. Better to have something to get awareness then nothing at all

Do you know how long it takes to drive to ZQN from CHC on a bus? Let alone waiting to unload plane and arrange said bus? Faster to fly to AKL and back to ZQN.
Some people didn’t end up going to ZQN as they were only going for the day. Others were going on to other destinations. Inconvenient yes, alternates? Not really. Maybe flying to Invercargil but that isn’t always a suitable alternative so you could be looking at multiple missed approaches in a very short space of time.

As for walking along the apron from Intl to Domestic? No, just no. By bus? Maybe if a suitable one is available.

NZ went above and beyond by arranging accommodation in AKL which they aren’t required to do (and no doubt picking up a few other expenses).

Above and beyond ? Probably. However, events like this highlight the lack of consumer protection in AU and NZ.

States or Canada you get dumped at the nearest airport, or return to original airport and are usually left to your own devices. It is a weather diversion, different from a mechanical etc.

NTLDaz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

Above and beyond ? Probably. However, events like this highlight the lack of consumer protection in AU and NZ.

The other side of that argument is back to AKL ASAP before any penalties kick in and offload the passengers as quickly as we can. Doesn't always drive the right solutions and customer outcomes

Is the only thing wrong here, the lack of communication, or this individuals perception on lack of communication? I mean.. the wait on the ground in CHC was too long and something should have been said via the PA and the wait in AKL for vouchers sounds like its usual mess. I can't understand why or how she quotes an hour... didn't she go home?

Typical emotive crap though....
- 'compensated' by who and for what? who is compensating the airline? Used to take the ferry to work many years ago, I never got compensated by fullers when the swell was too big.
- "Sorensen said it was quite a "cavalier and arrogant attitude" for Air NZ to say it "appreciated the passengers' patience"... come on, what else can they say. They need to acknowledge it.
- "This meant for me a $120 taxi ride home and a 5.30am start back to the airport the following morning. - Did she ask to be transferred onto an alternative service the next day?
- I lost a day's work and was exhausted... how so? didn't she spend the entire time sitting?
- Passengers accused the airline of poor communication and treating them "like cattle" - I'm sure they wanted to use cattle prods on some of these passengers but like usual there's nothing to highlight why they felt like cattle, communication wouldn't change this surely?

Not at all arguing about this current situation. However, there is little protection for consumers in AU NZ like in Europe.

If what has been reported about the PVG flight returning to AKL is correct there should be mandated compensatory rights to the passengers. At the moment there is reliance upon the goodwill of the airlines.

For example, in Oz Tiger cancels a flight and puts passengers on a flight 2 days later. They should be penalised for this.

The PVG flight is a totally different thing to the ZQN flight. The PVG flight passengers will be getting compensation and definitely looked after as it is actually the airlines fault unlike the ZQN flight which was weather. I’m not sure if you’ve ever been to ZQN or understand it? It is a high workload RNP approach very close to terrain with wind being funneled from 3 directions over the airport.

Zkpilot wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Do you know how long it takes to drive to ZQN from CHC on a bus? Let alone waiting to unload plane and arrange said bus? Faster to fly to AKL and back to ZQN.
Some people didn’t end up going to ZQN as they were only going for the day. Others were going on to other destinations. Inconvenient yes, alternates? Not really. Maybe flying to Invercargil but that isn’t always a suitable alternative so you could be looking at multiple missed approaches in a very short space of time.

As for walking along the apron from Intl to Domestic? No, just no. By bus? Maybe if a suitable one is available.

NZ went above and beyond by arranging accommodation in AKL which they aren’t required to do (and no doubt picking up a few other expenses).

Above and beyond ? Probably. However, events like this highlight the lack of consumer protection in AU and NZ.

States or Canada you get dumped at the nearest airport, or return to original airport and are usually left to your own devices. It is a weather diversion, different from a mechanical etc.

Do you think there is adequate consumer protection ? Not talking about this particular case but overall.

NTLDaz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

Above and beyond ? Probably. However, events like this highlight the lack of consumer protection in AU and NZ.

The other side of that argument is back to AKL ASAP before any penalties kick in and offload the passengers as quickly as we can. Doesn't always drive the right solutions and customer outcomes

Is the only thing wrong here, the lack of communication, or this individuals perception on lack of communication? I mean.. the wait on the ground in CHC was too long and something should have been said via the PA and the wait in AKL for vouchers sounds like its usual mess. I can't understand why or how she quotes an hour... didn't she go home?

Typical emotive crap though....
- 'compensated' by who and for what? who is compensating the airline? Used to take the ferry to work many years ago, I never got compensated by fullers when the swell was too big.
- "Sorensen said it was quite a "cavalier and arrogant attitude" for Air NZ to say it "appreciated the passengers' patience"... come on, what else can they say. They need to acknowledge it.
- "This meant for me a $120 taxi ride home and a 5.30am start back to the airport the following morning. - Did she ask to be transferred onto an alternative service the next day?
- I lost a day's work and was exhausted... how so? didn't she spend the entire time sitting?
- Passengers accused the airline of poor communication and treating them "like cattle" - I'm sure they wanted to use cattle prods on some of these passengers but like usual there's nothing to highlight why they felt like cattle, communication wouldn't change this surely?

Not at all arguing about this current situation. However, there is little protection for consumers in AU NZ like in Europe.

If what has been reported about the PVG flight returning to AKL is correct there should be mandated compensatory rights to the passengers. At the moment there is reliance upon the goodwill of the airlines.

For example, in Oz Tiger cancels a flight and puts passengers on a flight 2 days later. They should be penalised for this.

MASSIVE difference is... here airline royally F'd up with PVG flight and yes there should be set guidelines here, but geez that's miles from this ZQN flight.