Gasman
Posts: 2016
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Mon Feb 04, 2019 8:42 am

planemanofnz wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
A few questions... thoughts, those are stats showing an improvement WLGMEL, does it show us anything WLGSIN or WLGSIN->Beyond?
Is this either...
a) Demonstrating WLG's need for long haul travel - something I highly doubt
or
b) nothing other than Tasman flying

Remember the time when EK, MH, TG and others all flew one-stop to AKL via Australia? A significant chunk of those services to start off with were O&D Tasman passengers. With time, the carriers built up their profile, and economic opportunities increased, such that the tags were no longer needed and non-stops became viable. I view SQ to WLG as similar. For the first few years, O&D MEL passengers - and the subsidy - will sustain SQ here, as it builds up its profile. As the years go on, the viability of a non-stop SIN flight will increase (pending the runway extension, or better technology).

I also feel that the performance of the current one-stop service does not capture the true potential demand of a non-stop service. Obviously the current SQ service via MEL is not much more competitive than other one-stop services via AKL or SYD. However, if a non-stop flight was offered, that would be able to capture more of the NZ and QF one-stop traffic to SIN, and two-stop traffic to India and Europe, than the current one-stop SQ flight to SIN via MEL does. WLG would also become more competitive as a transit stop to/from regional New Zealand - DUD, NSN, TRG etc - giving a boost.

Just a few thoughts.

Cheers,

C.


But WHY? Why would any airline take the risk??

The ONLY reason would be if you calculated that the introduction of a new long haul service would generate NEW passengers. And I keep coming back to the fact there is not the inbound market, not the population in central New Zealand...... and they're already well served by AKL and CHC anyway.

Look, I get it. When I lived in Wellington I dreamed of a WLG-NAN-LAX 762 service. I'm still waiting.
 
planemanofnz
Posts: 4214
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Mon Feb 04, 2019 8:52 am

Gasman wrote:
But WHY? Why would any airline take the risk??

For SQ, because the risk of its WLG service has been mitigated somewhat by:
1. The Wellington Council's subsidy
2. Routing via MEL, with large O&D

Broader than that, why even take the risk with those mitigations in place? Well:
1. SQ is coming under pressure from Chinese and ME3 carriers in Australasia - this gives them a unique POD and growth
2. WLG isn't totally backwards - there is high-yield, albeit low volume traffic, with diplomatic, tech, film and other industries

For each airline, the rationale is different. For example, a Chinese carrier might view WLG or CBR non-commercially, in political terms (think CA to HAV or PTY). As another example, high parking costs and the need for long ground times in certain cases in SYD might increase the attractiveness of a tag to a New Zealand city like WLG, when otherwise not the case (arguably EK fell into this category, back in the day, pre-388).

Cheers,

C.
 
pbm
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:38 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:00 am

Gasman wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
A few questions... thoughts, those are stats showing an improvement WLGMEL, does it show us anything WLGSIN or WLGSIN->Beyond?
Is this either...
a) Demonstrating WLG's need for long haul travel - something I highly doubt
or
b) nothing other than Tasman flying

Remember the time when EK, MH, TG and others all flew one-stop to AKL via Australia? A significant chunk of those services to start off with were O&D Tasman passengers. With time, the carriers built up their profile, and economic opportunities increased, such that the tags were no longer needed and non-stops became viable. I view SQ to WLG as similar. For the first few years, O&D MEL passengers - and the subsidy - will sustain SQ here, as it builds up its profile. As the years go on, the viability of a non-stop SIN flight will increase (pending the runway extension, or better technology).

I also feel that the performance of the current one-stop service does not capture the true potential demand of a non-stop service. Obviously the current SQ service via MEL is not much more competitive than other one-stop services via AKL or SYD. However, if a non-stop flight was offered, that would be able to capture more of the NZ and QF one-stop traffic to SIN, and two-stop traffic to India and Europe, than the current one-stop SQ flight to SIN via MEL does. WLG would also become more competitive as a transit stop to/from regional New Zealand - DUD, NSN, TRG etc - giving a boost.

Just a few thoughts.

Cheers,

C.


But WHY? Why would any airline take the risk??

The ONLY reason would be if you calculated that the introduction of a new long haul service would generate NEW passengers. And I keep coming back to the fact there is not the inbound market, not the population in central New Zealand...... and they're already well served by AKL and CHC anyway.

Look, I get it. When I lived in Wellington I dreamed of a WLG-NAN-LAX 762 service. I'm still waiting.


I get the scepticism and think it’s a valid question to ask ‘is there enough demand today?’, but given air travel seems to keep growing, it’s a fair opinion to ask when, not if there will be enough demand.

I don’t think it has to generate new traffic either as an operator would likely take passengers off of indirect services.

It would be wrong to say there is no demand, the question is, when will there be enough demand to support a direct service.
 
DavidJ08
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:18 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:04 pm

planemanofnz wrote:
Gasman wrote:
But WHY? Why would any airline take the risk??

For SQ, because the risk of its WLG service has been mitigated somewhat by:
1. The Wellington Council's subsidy
2. Routing via MEL, with large O&D

Broader than that, why even take the risk with those mitigations in place? Well:
1. SQ is coming under pressure from Chinese and ME3 carriers in Australasia - this gives them a unique POD and growth
2. WLG isn't totally backwards - there is high-yield, albeit low volume traffic, with diplomatic, tech, film and other industries

For each airline, the rationale is different. For example, a Chinese carrier might view WLG or CBR non-commercially, in political terms (think CA to HAV or PTY). As another example, high parking costs and the need for long ground times in certain cases in SYD might increase the attractiveness of a tag to a New Zealand city like WLG, when otherwise not the case (arguably EK fell into this category, back in the day, pre-388).

Cheers,

C.

I think the question was why would SQ (or anyone) take the plunge and start a WLG non-stop - you've addressed SQ's rationale for the current WLG tag, but not the merits of a SIN-WLG direct. By the time the runway extension is complete, I don't know if the subsidy will still be relevant for SQ; and for a non-stop service the routing via MEL won't apply. In fact, with airlines being a boom-bust cyclic business, and Asian tourism being trend-heavy, who knows if the Chinese and ME3 carriers will still be relevant.

I honestly don't know if WLG's local traffic will sustain a non-stop long-haul any time soon. I doubt CHC would sustain any of the long-hauls without the tourism traffic (in fact we see that with the large capacity increase over summer, SQ with the 2nd flight 3x per week, CZ upgauging to 789 and going daily, CX seasonal service) - and WLG is looking at a similar local population minus the tourism. Hell, AKL has the population and even their long-haul capacity increases dramatically over summer, tied to the tourism season.
 
User avatar
QuayWeeAir
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2017 12:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:14 pm

I wonder if we will ever see Virgin Australia take on Air New Zealand on their lucrative AKL-LAX route or in fact maybe AKL-ATL (Codeshare with their mates at Delta)...

Would be good competition for Air NZ and Virgin Australia already has a strong presence with its AKL hub.

I know Qantas pulled off the AKL-LAX route (Was this because of their American Airlines JSA/JV?)
 
Gasman
Posts: 2016
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:05 pm

QuayWeeAir wrote:
I wonder if we will ever see Virgin Australia take on Air New Zealand on their lucrative AKL-LAX route or in fact maybe AKL-ATL (Codeshare with their mates at Delta)...

Would be good competition for Air NZ and Virgin Australia already has a strong presence with its AKL hub.

I know Qantas pulled off the AKL-LAX route (Was this because of their American Airlines JSA/JV?)


No. Truth is, no one really knows why QF pulled their daily AKL-LAX. There were rumours about it being stacked with non-revs which, even if true, doesn't really wash as a reason to can the service, which to the casual observer seemed to be doing well. NZ simply said "thanks" and commenced printing money on the route like there was no tomorrow.

AA entering the fray has helped, but I wish the route wasn't seasonal.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6433
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Mon Feb 04, 2019 10:01 pm

QuayWeeAir wrote:
I wonder if we will ever see Virgin Australia take on Air New Zealand on their lucrative AKL-LAX route or in fact maybe AKL-ATL (Codeshare with their mates at Delta)...

Would be good competition for Air NZ and Virgin Australia already has a strong presence with its AKL hub.

I know Qantas pulled off the AKL-LAX route (Was this because of their American Airlines JSA/JV?)


VA don’t have the equipment to do AKL-LAX,let alone AKL-ATL, DL would be a lot more likely to operate either of those most likely LAX first if at all.

I wonder if either could get enough feed however.

QF pulled off AKL-LAX in 2012 when they were cutting a lot, AA have since stated in 2016, but have been seasonal only. Hopefully it will go year round as it was for the first year
 
User avatar
SCFlyer
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:14 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:33 am

More than likely DL would be the candidate to operate AKL-LAX or ATL than VA. As was mentioned, VA doesn't have the aircraft. The feed out of AKL would be fairly minimal (if any) for DL, with mostly VA Trans-Tasman and Pacific Island flights.

QF pulled AKL-LAX for many reasons (including debt at the time), as well as "allegedly" low yields on QF's end of the route at the time.
 
NZ6
Posts: 821
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:41 am

QuayWeeAir wrote:
I wonder if we will ever see Virgin Australia take on Air New Zealand on their lucrative AKL-LAX route or in fact maybe AKL-ATL (Codeshare with their mates at Delta)...

Would be good competition for Air NZ and Virgin Australia already has a strong presence with its AKL hub.

I know Qantas pulled off the AKL-LAX route (Was this because of their American Airlines JSA/JV?)


I've said before AKL-ATL operated by DL would be dangerous. We've seen the following successes, AKL-IAH, AKL-ORD, SYD-DFW, SYD-IAH QF wants SYD-NYC, NZ wants AKL-NYC for a reason... VA/DL have that AU/NZ-East Coast Covered but aren't in the AU/NZ-Mid/West Coast game. AKL-ATL on DL allows this using VA's Tasman network and DL's massive ATL hub to their advantage but I don't think either can do SYD-ATL

Will it happen, doubt it but it would be bloody good.
 
NZ6
Posts: 821
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:01 am

planemanofnz wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
A few questions... thoughts, those are stats showing an improvement WLGMEL, does it show us anything WLGSIN or WLGSIN->Beyond?
Is this either...
a) Demonstrating WLG's need for long haul travel - something I highly doubt
or
b) nothing other than Tasman flying

Remember the time when EK, MH, TG and others all flew one-stop to AKL via Australia? A significant chunk of those services to start off with were O&D Tasman passengers. With time, the carriers built up their profile, and economic opportunities increased, such that the tags were no longer needed and non-stops became viable. I view SQ to WLG as similar. For the first few years, O&D MEL passengers - and the subsidy - will sustain SQ here, as it builds up its profile. As the years go on, the viability of a non-stop SIN flight will increase (pending the runway extension, or better technology).

I also feel that the performance of the current one-stop service does not capture the true potential demand of a non-stop service. Obviously the current SQ service via MEL is not much more competitive than other one-stop services via AKL or SYD. However, if a non-stop flight was offered, that would be able to capture more of the NZ and QF one-stop traffic to SIN, and two-stop traffic to India and Europe, than the current one-stop SQ flight to SIN via MEL does. WLG would also become more competitive as a transit stop to/from regional New Zealand - DUD, NSN, TRG etc - giving a boost.

Just a few thoughts.

Cheers,

C.


The question is why WLG?

Why not focus on building CHC-SIN into double daily first. If NZ/SQ alliance can see AKL-SIN 3x daily, CHC-SIN 2x daily I would then say add the capacity and start building WLG but we're a long way from that.

Of course, if the runway was long enough and AKL was 2x daily and CHC daily, I'd also support it. So my comments are based on the need for the Aussie transit based on the runway length.

Neither carrier is trying to build the market into WLG as there are already 'tags' from Australia on NZ to/from SYD/BNE/MEL and onto SQ from there, there's already a heap of domestic flights north and south connecting to AKSIN or CHCSIN so it's not the same scenario as EK/PR/TG/CI/MH/D7 who when entering the New Zealand market extended it from their Australian services.

I still question, is the runway works on the basis of attracting long haul flights money well spent and are the ratepayers getting a return for their subsidies or are they essentially all subsidising another option to MEL.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4192
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:05 am

nomorerjs wrote:
NYKiwi wrote:
Apart from.the last video, all the others have been refreshing. I do like the antartica one and the Gris one....like someone said earlier maybe something like these with some kiwiana would be good.

Secondly had asked before but didnt get a response, why does the ORD flight fly west over LA or SF then south...i would have thought it would go straight like IAH....dunno if this routing is longer or what the reason is just curious


Jetstream. Look at NZ26 today. Left a few minutes late and flew over SoCal and arrived into ORD almost 1 hour early. Same reason on reverses and why UA from ORD to HNL & OGG often go over SFO heading west, to avoid the winds.

I’ve heard this route is doing quite well and going to 4x weekly next northern winter. Wonder if QF will jump into ORD in the next year or two.

That, and avoiding Mexico overflight charges where possible.
59 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4192
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:13 am

Gasman wrote:
QuayWeeAir wrote:
I wonder if we will ever see Virgin Australia take on Air New Zealand on their lucrative AKL-LAX route or in fact maybe AKL-ATL (Codeshare with their mates at Delta)...

Would be good competition for Air NZ and Virgin Australia already has a strong presence with its AKL hub.

I know Qantas pulled off the AKL-LAX route (Was this because of their American Airlines JSA/JV?)


No. Truth is, no one really knows why QF pulled their daily AKL-LAX. There were rumours about it being stacked with non-revs which, even if true, doesn't really wash as a reason to can the service, which to the casual observer seemed to be doing well. NZ simply said "thanks" and commenced printing money on the route like there was no tomorrow.

AA entering the fray has helped, but I wish the route wasn't seasonal.

QF pulled it for these reasons - amoungst others:
No suitable aircraft - too far economically for their A332 and not viable with 744 or A388.
They were in chaos at the time - lots of cutting led by AJ, they are only now starting to build back a lot of what they lost. They had a pile of debt, old fleet, management at war with its workers, and had had several safety scares recently.
On top of that the A380 added a lot of capacity to the Oz-US market, the USA and AC carriers were adding capacity and you had NZ also expanding.

If QF had the 777 they almost certainly would have kept it, as for now? Quite hard to restart a route. If they can get AA on board then with a 789 could be viable.
59 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6433
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:16 pm

Zkpilot wrote:
Gasman wrote:
QuayWeeAir wrote:
I wonder if we will ever see Virgin Australia take on Air New Zealand on their lucrative AKL-LAX route or in fact maybe AKL-ATL (Codeshare with their mates at Delta)...

Would be good competition for Air NZ and Virgin Australia already has a strong presence with its AKL hub.

I know Qantas pulled off the AKL-LAX route (Was this because of their American Airlines JSA/JV?)


No. Truth is, no one really knows why QF pulled their daily AKL-LAX. There were rumours about it being stacked with non-revs which, even if true, doesn't really wash as a reason to can the service, which to the casual observer seemed to be doing well. NZ simply said "thanks" and commenced printing money on the route like there was no tomorrow.

AA entering the fray has helped, but I wish the route wasn't seasonal.

QF pulled it for these reasons - amoungst others:
No suitable aircraft - too far economically for their A332 and not viable with 744 or A388.
They were in chaos at the time - lots of cutting led by AJ, they are only now starting to build back a lot of what they lost. They had a pile of debt, old fleet, management at war with its workers, and had had several safety scares recently.
On top of that the A380 added a lot of capacity to the Oz-US market, the USA and AC carriers were adding capacity and you had NZ also expanding.

If QF had the 777 they almost certainly would have kept it, as for now? Quite hard to restart a route. If they can get AA on board then with a 789 could be viable.


If QF can get AA on board it will be with an approved JV which would hopefully see AA operating yearround. I don’t see the point in QF operating it themselves then. In that case I wonder if AA would then use a larger frame or more frequency on the NW? Maybe a smaller 788 in NS. AKL-DFW in addition to LAX?
 
NZ6
Posts: 821
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:20 am

Zkpilot wrote:
QF pulled it for these reasons - amoungst others:
No suitable aircraft - too far economically for their A332 and not viable with 744 or A388.
They were in chaos at the time - lots of cutting led by AJ, they are only now starting to build back a lot of what they lost. They had a pile of debt, old fleet, management at war with its workers, and had had several safety scares recently.
On top of that the A380 added a lot of capacity to the Oz-US market, the USA and AC carriers were adding capacity and you had NZ also expanding.

If QF had the 777 they almost certainly would have kept it, as for now? Quite hard to restart a route. If they can get AA on board then with a 789 could be viable.


While you're right, the 744 could have still worked nicely on the route until they had a 787 available anyway.

I can't recall if at the time QF was domestic or not but now they've obviously JQ with strong Tasman connections.

NZ has gone up to 3x daily to LAX with the 744 in conjunction with SFO and YVR. Now they're still up to 2 daily with 77W in conjunction with SFO, YVR, IAH and ORD. As well as UA and AA coming to NZ.

Did QF let go too easily? surely' they're slightly regretting it.
 
User avatar
eta unknown
Posts: 2197
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 5:03 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Wed Feb 06, 2019 4:01 am

Except that the 744 was better utilised on more profitable routes. I don't think QF is fretting over not serving AKL-LAX at all- it was the worst performing of the LAX routes and in 744 days operated with the higher Y configured aircraft.
And don't forget, an NZ 744 deployed on AKL-LAX can be much more profitable than a QF 744 in the NZ market.
 
NZ6
Posts: 821
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Wed Feb 06, 2019 6:36 am

eta unknown wrote:
Except that the 744 was better utilised on more profitable routes. I don't think QF is fretting over not serving AKL-LAX at all- it was the worst performing of the LAX routes and in 744 days operated with the higher Y configured aircraft.
And don't forget, an NZ 744 deployed on AKL-LAX can be much more profitable than a QF 744 in the NZ market.


But they've also freed up some 744's.

No one is saying they're fretting over it. More a would the like to still have it if things had gone another course.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4192
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:09 am

NZ6 wrote:
eta unknown wrote:
Except that the 744 was better utilised on more profitable routes. I don't think QF is fretting over not serving AKL-LAX at all- it was the worst performing of the LAX routes and in 744 days operated with the higher Y configured aircraft.
And don't forget, an NZ 744 deployed on AKL-LAX can be much more profitable than a QF 744 in the NZ market.


But they've also freed up some 744's.

No one is saying they're fretting over it. More a would the like to still have it if things had gone another course.

At the time they didn’t have spare 744 capacity.
59 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
LYuen
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:58 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:20 am

Cannot search HX27/28 from May onward
Implying an end of HKG-AKL service from Hong Kong Airline?
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6433
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:51 am

LYuen wrote:
Cannot search HX27/28 from May onward
Implying an end of HKG-AKL service from Hong Kong Airline?


Drops to 3 weekly, try a different day. That was the last change atleast.
 
LYuen
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:58 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:59 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
LYuen wrote:
Cannot search HX27/28 from May onward
Implying an end of HKG-AKL service from Hong Kong Airline?


Drops to 3 weekly, try a different day. That was the last change atleast.

Quick checking on Hong Kong Airline website,
Non-daily service between late April to 19 May, and it drops to completely none from 20 May
Not yet open for booking?
 
NZ321
Posts: 976
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:38 am

Looks like HX will exit AKL
Imho they will not sustain a service with this frequency given the competition and known context. Hope I am wrong.
Plane mad!
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5073
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:11 pm

Heads up for spotters, ZK-MCO is flying AKL-WLG-BHE-TEU-ZQN-AKL today.

V/F
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh
 
NZ6
Posts: 821
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:28 pm

Zkpilot wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
eta unknown wrote:
Except that the 744 was better utilised on more profitable routes. I don't think QF is fretting over not serving AKL-LAX at all- it was the worst performing of the LAX routes and in 744 days operated with the higher Y configured aircraft.
And don't forget, an NZ 744 deployed on AKL-LAX can be much more profitable than a QF 744 in the NZ market.


But they've also freed up some 744's.

No one is saying they're fretting over it. More a would the like to still have it if things had gone another course.

At the time they didn’t have spare 744 capacity.


Not really that accurate. QF axed AKL-LAX in 2012 and by this time QF had all their A380's onboard, this allowed them to send away a few of their 744's for storage.

Given NZ's criticized for their monopoly on the route and as it's been called a 'cash-cow' by some, I find it odd that QF didn't redeploy their older 744's into this market for a few years until the 787 was available, let's also not forget in 2012 the 787 was only a few years away from being available to them. They instead tried the A330 before pulling the plug.

https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-axes-so ... sts-others
https://onemileatatime.com/qantas-cuts- ... ay-6-2012/
https://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Qan ... d-b747.htm
 
Gasman
Posts: 2016
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:57 pm

NZ6 wrote:
Did QF let go too easily? surely' they're slightly regretting it.


I think so, yes.

Putting aside the fact that AKL-LAX is an awesome route with easily room for more than one carrier for a moment, there's also the fact that this was the route that established QF as a long haul player out of New Zealand. So in abandoning it, they lost not only the route itself but also a "New Zealand to the world" market presence. Presumably it cost them in loyalty also.

For them to walk away from a route like this I wonder if they were closer to bankruptcy at the time than anyone realises.
 
NZ6
Posts: 821
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:01 am

Gasman wrote:
Putting aside the fact that AKL-LAX is an awesome route with easily room for more than one carrier for a moment, there's also the fact that this was the route that established QF as a long haul player out of New Zealand. So in abandoning it, they lost not only the route itself but also a "New Zealand to the world" market presence. Presumably it cost them in loyalty also.


I made the comment last year, as a New Zealander I don't believe QF really is that interested in me as a consumer (which I am as I fly revenue tickets frequently).

I say this partly because they pulled out of AKL-LAX, not really their core business I admit but in addition to QF version 1, 2 and 3 on the domestic trunk market, now JQ all of who offer(ed) stuff all frequency and bugger all wrap around products. The promise of JQ regional that never grew beyond the famous '4 N's'. But more so, where is their presence into ADL, CNS, PER, HBA etc...

QF is a great brand and has a quality product.

There is ample room for them to do more on the Tasman, Domestic and also run a North American service again.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2016
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:16 am

NZ6 wrote:
There is ample room for them to do more on the Tasman, Domestic and also run a North American service again.


Agree - except for domestic. I just don't see a niche for another player. NZ offer a comprehensive and well priced product. And to keep NZ on their toes, flying the QF flag (so to speak) is JQ - an arguably better priced but markedly less frequent service with fewer loyalty benefits. And whatever slack isn't being covered by the likes of NZ and JQ is being increasingly picked up by the likes of Air Chathams etc.
 
User avatar
eta unknown
Posts: 2197
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 5:03 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:42 am

I don't know if NZ staff ZED tickets count as revenue tickets lol

Anyhow NZ-USA can't be such a goldmine, otherwise AA (or any other non *A carrier) would be operating year-round. And as one poster mentioned in the AU thread, yields are now trashed between North America and the South Pacific, probably due to capacity increases with all these new routes- which NZ was part complicit in.

Also remember QF operated SYD-AKL-PPT-LAX for years so their AKL-LAX experience wasn't just with the nonstops.

Having chimed in on that, does NZ rue not resurrecting SYD-LAX?
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6433
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:13 am

eta unknown wrote:
I don't know if NZ staff ZED tickets count as revenue tickets lol

Anyhow NZ-USA can't be such a goldmine, otherwise AA (or any other non *A carrier) would be operating year-round. And as one poster mentioned in the AU thread, yields are now trashed between North America and the South Pacific, probably due to capacity increases with all these new routes- which NZ was part complicit in.

Also remember QF operated SYD-AKL-PPT-LAX for years so their AKL-LAX experience wasn't just with the nonstops.

Having chimed in on that, does NZ rue not resurrecting SYD-LAX?


I wonder how AKL-LAX is compared to SYD-LAX revenue or profit wise? NZ are though the only year round carrier AKL-LAX.

NZ would prefer to route any OZ-US traffic via AKL and can offer service to LAX/SFO/IAH/ORD/HNL/YVR/EZE where as they would only run say SYD-LAX so you would end up with someone from MEL having to do MEL-SYD-LAX-ORD etc rather than MEL-AKL-ORD.

QF running AKL-LAX is a more natural route in the sense they can connect any overflow off there SYD/MEL/BNE -LAX services through AKL, probably affected yields? NZ wouldn’t want to route people CHC-SYD-LAX instead of CHC-AKL-LAX I don’t think.

QF ran AKL-EZE and were going to do AKL-SCL but decided to leave it to LA, DFW was seriously considered to run via AKL in the early 2000’s, I’m surprised they never ran an AKl-SIN to connect to 1 stop to LHR/FRA/CDG/FCO in the early 2000’s, JQ had a go at SIN but probably to late and LCLH from NZ hasn’t done well.
 
NZ6
Posts: 821
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Thu Feb 07, 2019 2:34 am

eta unknown wrote:
I don't know if NZ staff ZED tickets count as revenue tickets lol

Anyhow NZ-USA can't be such a goldmine, otherwise AA (or any other non *A carrier) would be operating year-round. And as one poster mentioned in the AU thread, yields are now trashed between North America and the South Pacific, probably due to capacity increases with all these new routes- which NZ was part complicit in.

Also remember QF operated SYD-AKL-PPT-LAX for years so their AKL-LAX experience wasn't just with the nonstops.

Having chimed in on that, does NZ rue not resurrecting SYD-LAX?


Not sure why some need to be so argumentative. I have two upcoming holidays this year, both purchased as full commercial airfares via the carriers public website. I do this for two main reasons a) NZ doesn't fly where I'm going and/or b) I have children and are restricted to school holidays which is busy and I can't afford/don't want to be offloaded. So, no. They are not 'ZED' fares.

An example of this is DPS, I was looking at tickets over Xmas when weighing up going there in July. I shopped around on NZ, EK, QF and VA before ultimately deciding on a different destination.

If NZ-USA isn't such a gold mine; why is NZ criticised for charging what they do and having it labelled a monopoly?

If it's not a Goldmine wheres the credit for 2x LAX, 1x ORD, 1x IAH and 2x SFO* on some days?

Re NZ on SYD-LAX. Their business model has dramatically changed since NZ14/15 days. Now, they are more determined to use AKL as a hub for Pacific Rim flying, hence the removal of NANLAX, APWLAX, PPTLAX as well.

*SFO is 1 operated & 1 alliance
 
User avatar
eta unknown
Posts: 2197
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 5:03 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Thu Feb 07, 2019 4:20 am

APWLAX was subsidised and APW/TBU didn't want to pay higher subsidies when the contract was up for renewal. PPTLAX NZ lost their traffic rights. RARLAX exists.
Yes NZ operates 2xLAX, 1xORD, 1xIAH, 2xSFO some days- and as you've seen from the lastest earnings announcement, it's not as rosey as before.
QF business model has changed too- hence no more AKLLAX.
Who's being argumentative?!?
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6433
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Thu Feb 07, 2019 4:26 am

eta unknown wrote:
APWLAX was subsidised and APW/TBU didn't want to pay higher subsidies when the contract was up for renewal. PPTLAX NZ lost their traffic rights. RARLAX exists.
Yes NZ operates 2xLAX, 1xORD, 1xIAH, 2xSFO some days- and as you've seen from the lastest earnings announcement, it's not as rosey as before.
QF business model has changed too- hence no more AKLLAX.
Who's being argumentative?!?


I’m quite sure NZ didn’t lose its rights for PPT-LAX, they were expensive routes to maintain and in many ways a hangover from the DC8 days. They dropped it in favour of a codeshare with TN, same for NAN-LAX dropped in favour of a codeshare with FJ.
 
NZ6
Posts: 821
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Thu Feb 07, 2019 4:59 am

eta unknown wrote:
APWLAX was subsidised and APW/TBU didn't want to pay higher subsidies when the contract was up for renewal. PPTLAX NZ lost their traffic rights. RARLAX exists.
Yes NZ operates 2xLAX, 1xORD, 1xIAH, 2xSFO some days- and as you've seen from the lastest earnings announcement, it's not as rosey as before.
QF business model has changed too- hence no more AKLLAX.
Who's being argumentative?!?


That's a very political topic, ultimately though NZ wanted to operate via AKL and others weren't willing to pay for the direct service so they got axed, RAR was willing to pay but I believe it has an expiry date on it.

The latest earnings announcement is an adjustment based on fuel and the 787 issues otherwise, compared to previous years over their entire history it's still an amazing result. In fact, go back 10 years, you'd be overwhelmed with this adjusted result let alone the original prediction.

Little old NZ making in the range of half a billion dollars a year, their largest long haul market being the US. I can't imagine why it's not seen as a market with potential. Given many visit here once that once in a lifetime trip, I can see why QF wouldn't want to bring them here and convince them to carry onto Australia and home from there. :roll:

Argumentative was in response to questioning me as a consumer based on the assumption I travel on "ZED" fares.
 
NZ6
Posts: 821
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Thu Feb 07, 2019 5:03 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
eta unknown wrote:
APWLAX was subsidised and APW/TBU didn't want to pay higher subsidies when the contract was up for renewal. PPTLAX NZ lost their traffic rights. RARLAX exists.
Yes NZ operates 2xLAX, 1xORD, 1xIAH, 2xSFO some days- and as you've seen from the lastest earnings announcement, it's not as rosey as before.
QF business model has changed too- hence no more AKLLAX.
Who's being argumentative?!?


I’m quite sure NZ didn’t lose its rights for PPT-LAX, they were expensive routes to maintain and in many ways a hangover from the DC8 days. They dropped it in favour of a codeshare with TN, same for NAN-LAX dropped in favour of a codeshare with FJ.


Very much correct. It's typically the low end of the market who fly on 'round the world fares' who used these routes and some local O&D traffic.

NZ is seeing the wealthy European market come to NZ and do a week side trip in the Pacific but remaining based in NZ so to speak. The yanks, well not many come down this way to visit just the Pacific, those that do, do so via AKL/RAR or on FJ, HA, TN etc.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4192
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Thu Feb 07, 2019 7:27 am

NZ6 wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

But they've also freed up some 744's.

No one is saying they're fretting over it. More a would the like to still have it if things had gone another course.

At the time they didn’t have spare 744 capacity.


Not really that accurate. QF axed AKL-LAX in 2012 and by this time QF had all their A380's onboard, this allowed them to send away a few of their 744's for storage.

Given NZ's criticized for their monopoly on the route and as it's been called a 'cash-cow' by some, I find it odd that QF didn't redeploy their older 744's into this market for a few years until the 787 was available, let's also not forget in 2012 the 787 was only a few years away from being available to them. They instead tried the A330 before pulling the plug.

https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-axes-so ... sts-others
https://onemileatatime.com/qantas-cuts- ... ay-6-2012/
https://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Qan ... d-b747.htm

QF had been struggling by on antique 743’s for about a decade longer than they should have been so these were rightly retired. Couple that with the GFC and yes AKL was a struggle for them. They didn’t know when the 787s would come and since there were numerous delays with the program that made it even less certain. I’m not saying they shouldn’t have stuck it out, I’m just saying that they had multiple reasons to cancel including having limited suitable aircraft available.
59 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2016
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:50 pm

Of course, QF could also steal the jump on NZ by launching AKL-JFK.
 
NZ6
Posts: 821
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Thu Feb 07, 2019 8:05 pm

Zkpilot wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
At the time they didn’t have spare 744 capacity.


Not really that accurate. QF axed AKL-LAX in 2012 and by this time QF had all their A380's onboard, this allowed them to send away a few of their 744's for storage.

Given NZ's criticized for their monopoly on the route and as it's been called a 'cash-cow' by some, I find it odd that QF didn't redeploy their older 744's into this market for a few years until the 787 was available, let's also not forget in 2012 the 787 was only a few years away from being available to them. They instead tried the A330 before pulling the plug.

https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-axes-so ... sts-others
https://onemileatatime.com/qantas-cuts- ... ay-6-2012/
https://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Qan ... d-b747.htm

QF had been struggling by on antique 743’s for about a decade longer than they should have been so these were rightly retired. Couple that with the GFC and yes AKL was a struggle for them. They didn’t know when the 787s would come and since there were numerous delays with the program that made it even less certain. I’m not saying they shouldn’t have stuck it out, I’m just saying that they had multiple reasons to cancel including having limited suitable aircraft available.


This isn't really that accurate either, QF retired 747-400's in 2012 so they had 744's going into storage before they pulled out of AKL-LAX. So it's not about not having spare 744's as they put some into storage that they didn't want to use and it has nothing to do with the 743's.

The GFC was around 2007-2008 so more than 4 years before QF pulled out of AKL-LAX, 3 years after QF's withdrawal NZ commenced AKL-IAH so the market was obviously doing more than just showing signs recovery. FY12 had normalised earnings of $91m up 21% for NZ and FY13 was $256M so don't blame the global economy.

Also, not knowing when the 787's would become available isn't really a reason in itself to leave a sizable market, NZ kept their 763's for the exact same reason and actually opened new routes with them.

At the end of the day, QF left for a variety of reasons. The question is, was it the correct move and do they wish they still had a slice of that pie.

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?
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8167
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Thu Feb 07, 2019 9:34 pm

QF did not want to fly AKL-LAX because they had better use for the 747-400 on HND where the demand was increasing and the yields could sustain a 744 (even became QF25/26 from memory). They were not making enough on AKL-LAX to justify the higher operating costs of the 747, didn't have the loads to justify an A380 or first class and the A330 was payload restricted which meant that the A330-200 too was better utilised elsewhere.where they could take cargo to boost revenue. The 787 was a long way off at that stage, but in truth, any route is about how does it compete against other routes in the network.
Equally, Why fly NZ AKL-SGN when the same 787 can operate additional AKL-SIN with more passengers, more premium passengers, more cargo, shorter crew layovers and as a result make more money. It doesn't mean that AKL-SGN is a bad route, it just means that other markets are stronger. This is the curse of the New Zealand market, there are always high yields to be made elsewhere, so in times of "belt tightening" or seasonal slump, airlines will cut our market first. A number of carriers have done this over the years.
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5073
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Thu Feb 07, 2019 9:37 pm

Air Chathams ATR 72 ZK-MCO is again out and about - it appears to have started operating the Tauck Tours contract.

V/F
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh
 
NZ6
Posts: 821
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Thu Feb 07, 2019 9:55 pm

aerorobnz wrote:
QF did not want to fly AKL-LAX because they had better use for the 747-400 on HND where the demand was increasing and the yields could sustain a 744 (even became QF25/26 from memory). They were not making enough on AKL-LAX to justify the higher operating costs of the 747, didn't have the loads to justify an A380 or first class and the A330 was payload restricted which meant that the A330-200 too was better utilised elsewhere.where they could take cargo to boost revenue. The 787 was a long way off at that stage, but in truth, any route is about how does it compete against other routes in the network.
Equally, Why fly NZ AKL-SGN when the same 787 can operate additional AKL-SIN with more passengers, more premium passengers, more cargo, shorter crew layovers and as a result make more money. It doesn't mean that AKL-SGN is a bad route, it just means that other markets are stronger. This is the curse of the New Zealand market, there are always high yields to be made elsewhere, so in times of "belt tightening" or seasonal slump, airlines will cut our market first. A number of carriers have done this over the years.


So they put them onto HND now, I thought they had no spare AC?

You also say they were not making enough, this information is not available outside QF accountants and senior executives so I'm not sure how you can draw this conclusion, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm simply saying this can only be a guess or opinion.

There are 6-8 widebody flights to North America daily now, QF has Tasman and Domestic network to feed it, Why isn't QF looking into ADL-AKL-LAX? BNE-AKL-DFW, PER-AKL-LAX etc.

Essentially are you saying QF is regretting putting the fleet planning into two jumbo-sized planes, the 747 and A380 and the next size down is either payload and/or range-restricted A330? AKL-LAX isn't the only long route in their network which would benefit from a 777.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4192
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Thu Feb 07, 2019 10:18 pm

NZ6 wrote:
aerorobnz wrote:
QF did not want to fly AKL-LAX because they had better use for the 747-400 on HND where the demand was increasing and the yields could sustain a 744 (even became QF25/26 from memory). They were not making enough on AKL-LAX to justify the higher operating costs of the 747, didn't have the loads to justify an A380 or first class and the A330 was payload restricted which meant that the A330-200 too was better utilised elsewhere.where they could take cargo to boost revenue. The 787 was a long way off at that stage, but in truth, any route is about how does it compete against other routes in the network.
Equally, Why fly NZ AKL-SGN when the same 787 can operate additional AKL-SIN with more passengers, more premium passengers, more cargo, shorter crew layovers and as a result make more money. It doesn't mean that AKL-SGN is a bad route, it just means that other markets are stronger. This is the curse of the New Zealand market, there are always high yields to be made elsewhere, so in times of "belt tightening" or seasonal slump, airlines will cut our market first. A number of carriers have done this over the years.


So they put them onto HND now, I thought they had no spare AC?

You also say they were not making enough, this information is not available outside QF accountants and senior executives so I'm not sure how you can draw this conclusion, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm simply saying this can only be a guess or opinion.

There are 6-8 widebody flights to North America daily now, QF has Tasman and Domestic network to feed it, Why isn't QF looking into ADL-AKL-LAX? BNE-AKL-DFW, PER-AKL-LAX etc.

Essentially are you saying QF is regretting putting the fleet planning into two jumbo-sized planes, the 747 and A380 and the next size down is either payload and/or range-restricted A330? AKL-LAX isn't the only long route in their network which would benefit from a 777.

Well I know they were losing about $1m using the A332 so the larger more fuel inefficient 744 would be worse.
59 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
NZ6
Posts: 821
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Thu Feb 07, 2019 10:44 pm

Zkpilot wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
aerorobnz wrote:
QF did not want to fly AKL-LAX because they had better use for the 747-400 on HND where the demand was increasing and the yields could sustain a 744 (even became QF25/26 from memory). They were not making enough on AKL-LAX to justify the higher operating costs of the 747, didn't have the loads to justify an A380 or first class and the A330 was payload restricted which meant that the A330-200 too was better utilised elsewhere.where they could take cargo to boost revenue. The 787 was a long way off at that stage, but in truth, any route is about how does it compete against other routes in the network.
Equally, Why fly NZ AKL-SGN when the same 787 can operate additional AKL-SIN with more passengers, more premium passengers, more cargo, shorter crew layovers and as a result make more money. It doesn't mean that AKL-SGN is a bad route, it just means that other markets are stronger. This is the curse of the New Zealand market, there are always high yields to be made elsewhere, so in times of "belt tightening" or seasonal slump, airlines will cut our market first. A number of carriers have done this over the years.


So they put them onto HND now, I thought they had no spare AC?

You also say they were not making enough, this information is not available outside QF accountants and senior executives so I'm not sure how you can draw this conclusion, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm simply saying this can only be a guess or opinion.

There are 6-8 widebody flights to North America daily now, QF has Tasman and Domestic network to feed it, Why isn't QF looking into ADL-AKL-LAX? BNE-AKL-DFW, PER-AKL-LAX etc.

Essentially are you saying QF is regretting putting the fleet planning into two jumbo-sized planes, the 747 and A380 and the next size down is either payload and/or range-restricted A330? AKL-LAX isn't the only long route in their network which would benefit from a 777.

Well I know they were losing about $1m using the A332 so the larger more fuel inefficient 744 would be worse.


I think I've heard something similar before, from what I understand and believe it's an exaggerated worst-case scenario at one moment in time when in fact operationally it was far more even. The 744 operational costs are higher but depending on A/C used you may have had 14 first seats available or otherwise 56C and 36Y+ vs just 36C on the A330. There's also the higher economy revenue and significant cargo revenue improvements with the 744 which offset some of the fuel costs

Again, sounds like QF did themselves out of route based on aircraft purchasing decisions based on what's said here.

It's up to QF to make it work for them, given they have traffic fed from Domestic NZ and Australia. Also, if they were committed to the Tasman, would have opened ADL, CNS, PER, MCY, OOL, HBA (routes NZ has opened except HBA) and feed these onto the AKL-LAX, meaning 1 international transit over the horrific SYD transit for those ports without N.A direct services. It worked well when it was BNE-AKL-LAX.

QF was easy competition at the time, they didn't really push the service via the trade and didn't compete in the corporate space to draw one world customers in.

If the route is so uneconomical, let's never hear a word again that a) NZ holds a monopoly in the market and only flies routes with no competition b) NZ changes through the roof as a result

NZ is doing very well in N.A and is clear in that they will be growing the market. QF is doing the same ex AU. Why couldn't QF make AKL work? or as I said originally, do they regret leaving and not hanging in there?
 
Gasman
Posts: 2016
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:28 am

NZ6 wrote:
If the route is so uneconomical, let's never hear a word again that a) NZ holds a monopoly in the market and only flies routes with no competition b) NZ changes through the roof as a result

NZ is doing very well in N.A and is clear in that they will be growing the market. QF is doing the same ex AU. Why couldn't QF make AKL work? or as I said originally, do they regret leaving and not hanging in there?


Very good point. You can't have it both ways.

I personally think the overwhelming weight of evidence suggests that AKL-LAX is a great route. For a while a return J ticket was costing $8000, and people were prepared to pay. You can get return fares on legacy carriers to Europe for less.

I also don't really buy that QF left because they couldn't make it work, or the aircraft were uneconomical. Even NZ probably regret retiring the 744 as quickly as they did. I reckon at the time QF felt they had bigger fish to fry with available aircraft. If they're not regretting - or at least reevaluating their decision; they're dumb. But that doesn't necessarily translate into an argument towards starting the route up again in 2019.
 
aotearoa
Posts: 149
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 1:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:02 am

I don’t believe Air New Zealand ever regretted retiring the 744 fleet. The fleet was maintenance heavy and the direct operating costs were huge. I believe the timing was perfect. NZ made excellent fleet purchasing decisions, as compared to QF, which represents everything an airline shouldn’t do when making the all important fleet purchase decisions.

Make the wrong choice and you can be ‘punished’ for decades.
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2557
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:34 am

VirginFlyer wrote:
Air Chathams ATR 72 ZK-MCO is again out and about - it appears to have started operating the Tauck Tours contract.

V/F


Oooo are there any pictures of this yet? Air Chathams and Sounds Air are such interesting little operators.
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 3482
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:41 am

ZK-NHA in XFW

Image

320neo Air New Zealand ZK-NHA by Tobias Gudat, on Flickr
Most recently flown: A318 F-GUGQ A319 F-GRHR A320ceo D-AIZH A320neo D-AINE A330-300 VH-QPD A350-900 B-LRA A380-800 D-AIMH 717 VH-YQW 737-600 LN-RPA 737-700 OY-JTY 737-800 LN-NGA 767-300 ZK-NCI 777-200 ZK-OKA 777-300 ZK-OKN 787-9 ZK-NZK CS100 HB-JBG
 
Gasman
Posts: 2016
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:30 am

aotearoa wrote:
I don’t believe Air New Zealand ever regretted retiring the 744 fleet. The fleet was maintenance heavy and the direct operating costs were huge. I believe the timing was perfect. NZ made excellent fleet purchasing decisions, as compared to QF, which represents everything an airline shouldn’t do when making the all important fleet purchase decisions.

Make the wrong choice and you can be ‘punished’ for decades.


The final days of the 744 wasn't so much a retirement as it was an execution. Nearly overnight it seemed, the entire fleet (some frames of which were still relatively young) disappeared. Immediately after fuel prices plummeted and the argument for the 77Ws - to which by then NZ was committed and required a huge capital investment - suddenly became a whole lot weaker. And for nearly another decade airlines like QF, KL, BA, TG all utilised their 744s very effectively.

Don't get me wrong, as I've said many times I don't think NZ have ever made a *bad* purchasing decision - but what happened to fuel prices which couldn't have been predicted, made the timing of the 744 retirement suboptimal.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8167
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:39 pm

Hong Kong Airlines confirmed as seasonal ops.
Hong Kong Airlines in recent inventory update adjusted Hong Kong – Auckland route, as the airline converted this route from year-round to seasonal service. Reservation for travel is closed from 22MAY19 to 26OCT19
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8167
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Sat Feb 09, 2019 12:25 am

I reiterate that it wasn't that AKL-LAX was doing so badly for QF, it was just not at the same level compared to other markets that were competing for the same aircraft. If you make 1million dollars on a flight AKL-LAX but can make 1.5 million using the same aircraft on another route with fewer limitations, why would you not take the extra money (especially during financial hardship?)

Off the top of my head the 744 burned in the region of 130-140 tons fuel on AKL-LAX, the 77W burns 100-110 tons, carries more cargo, uses less crew, requires less engineering.heavy maintenance and a reduced spare parts stock, the A330 used around 75-85t of fuel and significantly less payload and available seats

I would suggest NZ has a monopoly by virtue of the small scale economics here. NZ uses its position as the big fish in a tiny pond to be the airline which stands the best chance of profit on the low yielding local market. The market may only be able to sustain a certain amount, so if NZ is first in the ring it can mould/grow the market to the point that there is enough market for all parties to compete without a bloodbath. NZ have a home town advantage when it comes to understanding the market nuances and having hometown retail connections and loyalties..

If QF/AA wants to they both now have the right aircraft for the job of US growth, but you can never look at one route in isolation, the management likely isn't. They look at the individual business case, check the available slots and then they incorporate it into a larger business model and aircraft utilisation table and reevaluate. route management is about juggling and risk evaluation. A route can have it all on paper but if it doesn't in operational reality then an airline won't risk it. Seasonal routes are a way of minimising the risk and maximising profits they make sense for a small market like NZ
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
getluv
Posts: 392
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:11 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Sat Feb 09, 2019 4:08 am

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.
You meant lose, not loose.
 
NZ6
Posts: 821
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Sat Feb 09, 2019 4:49 am

I won't get into this too much as I think it upsets some readers when topics are bashed out (which I think can be fun)

aerorobnz wrote:
I reiterate that it wasn't that AKL-LAX was doing so badly for QF, it was just not at the same level compared to other markets that were competing for the same aircraft. If you make 1million dollars on a flight AKL-LAX but can make 1.5 million using the same aircraft on another route with fewer limitations, why would you not take the extra money (especially during financial hardship?)


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.

aerorobnz wrote:
Off the top of my head the 744 burned in the region of 130-140 tons fuel on AKL-LAX, the 77W burns 100-110 tons, carries more cargo, uses less crew, requires less engineering.heavy maintenance and a reduced spare parts stock, the A330 used around 75-85t of fuel and significantly less payload and available seats


Isn't this just highlighting that QF is hamstrung by the fact they kept the 744 and then also ordered the A380?

The A330 was an acceptable aircraft to replace their 767 fleet on 2nd tier Asian routes but they never adjusted into the twin-engine long haul game for 300+ configs with 50C

QF really needed the 77W and maybe the 772 which would also work nicely to go with their 787 fleet and if they get the 77X

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