Sylus wrote:

VA to drop CHC-SYD to seasonal from year round. Sep-Apr

With a LF on its Transtasman routes of 66% in the latest BITRE stats, I'm not surprised. Something had to change.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Re your guess, what will be your fleet route makeup? There will be several ULH routes and they could use the on IAH/ORD/YVR at times aswell. Think of the cost savings in the sense they are all 789s.

A350-900:
ORD
NYC
HKG
HND
YVR

A350-1000
IAH
SFO
GRU (if that route ever happens)

787-9 Config 1:
HNL
DPS
TPE
EZE
ICN
KIX
PVG

777-300ER: (eventual retirement, but obviously that's another five years after the 777-200ER retirement)
LAX
LHR
SIN



As I've said a few times in various spaces, long term you would probably want all 787-9s to be Config 1 birds, once there's enough A350/777Xs to fly the longer services.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Not saying they will but there is some evidence of improvements, with the poor 77X sales as you put it Boeing might need a 10ER so others don’t go A350.

To be honest, I think that they will, but it will be much longer term project (10 years away at lest) so that the 777X can take some of the 77W replacement cycle.

ZK-NBT wrote:

That’s getting off topic but the likes of QF could order a load of 778/779 but they could just as well go A350. KE aswell.

IMO KE will go for the 777-9x. Can't see them getting A350s, but that's just my opinion.

NZ6 wrote:

Why would NZ opt to replace the 772 with the 35K?

With that in mind, why would the airline replace the 772 with the even larger 787-10/777-9x as others on this website have advocated? To match capacity to demand on long haul routes and lower costs.

DavidByrne wrote:

I'm always very sceptical about web sites like Aviator Joe because you have no idea if the comparisons are "like-for-like" and in this case, there is no comparison at all of max payload or the payload that was used to achieve the range stated.

Case in point, the A350-900 has better payload/range capabilities than the 787-9 but the website lists the 787-9 as having superior range.

NZ6 wrote:

That's why I asked why he would replace the 772 with the larger 35K and ultimately that's my point in those links, the share size difference

787-10 is about the same size A350-1000, yet several people have advocated the purchase of that in this thread.

zkncj wrote:

I would look an differently think of the 77E being replaced by the 35K (in terms of replacing an aircraft), the 77Ws moved onto the the 77W routes and tge 35K replace the 77W. So effectively replacing the 77E, it swapping aircart around with route allocation.

The 77E/77W have simliar operating costs, and would be an good growth option for the current 77E routes.

A35K
AKL-LAX-LHR
AKL-SFO
AKL-IAH

77W
AKL-YVR
AKL-HKG
AKL-ORD
AKL-EZE

DavidByrne wrote:

There's still nothing that has changed my view that NZ's response will be to order more 789s and perhaps option some 787-10s for the possibility that they may be able to achieve AKL-LAX with performance improvements over the next few years. If they can achieve this in time, then there's a strong possibility that 787-10s will be used for AKL-LAX-LHR and AKL-SFO as a 77W replacement. In time, but not now. If the 787-10 falls short, then I think the 77W order is for the A350-1000 to lose, OR NZ will go for the 777-8, or even more 789s to create a single type fleet. There's no reason why 789s couldn't be used for a 77W replacement because capacity is not an issue (except perhaps for LAX-LHR), given NZ's stated strategy in North America is diversification of ports. And if LHR capacity did become an issue, there's always the possibility of a second daily frequency or the addition of SFO-LHR. But there would have to be a strong business case to add more transatlantic capacity, given that NZ has been clear that it does not want more one-stop services.

We’ve seen no evidence Boeing have a development path for the 78J that would let it carry payload from LAX comparable to the 77W. That matters: freight revenues for NZ are basically pure profit. There’s no way they’re going to give away that revenue stream. That’s also why the 789 will struggle in this competition: unlike the 359, the 789 will carry minimal freight on the longer routes (not to mention needing low-density pax configuration).

Is there any chance of the A330-900?

torin wrote:

Is there any chance of the A330-900?

About as much as a 388 or 74H tbh

tealnz wrote:

We’ve seen no evidence Boeing have a development path for the 78J that would let it carry payload from LAX comparable to the 77W. That matters: freight revenues for NZ are basically pure profit. There’s no way they’re going to give away that revenue stream. That’s also why the 789 will struggle in this competition: unlike the 359, the 789 will carry minimal freight on the longer routes (not to mention needing low-density pax configuration).

In which case when the time comes to decide whether to take up any 78J options (ie when the 77W replacement time comes around) they will talk to Boeing about the 777-8 or say “sorry” and go and talk to Airbus re the A350-1000. Right now, they’re only looking for a 300-odd seater, and there’s no sense in buying the A350-900 when you already have the 789 in your fleet. Even if it is a more capable aircraft.

With all due respect, we could be facing a scenario here where NZ need to let go certain 772s and have decided, on the basis of latest financial info, to not commit to the complete fleet reorganization at this time but to literally buy time and order a handful of 787s to replace said aircraft, and then wait and see what unfolds with regard to the 787-10ER and the A350 ultra-fan. So the decision we may see coming may not be all that enlightening as to the long term strategy. In some ways this makes sense. It buys time for NZ to see how new technology sets in, given the relatively young age of the 77W fleet. Thoughts?

zkncj wrote:

A35K
AKL-LAX-LHR
AKL-SFO
AKL-IAH

77W
AKL-YVR
AKL-HKG
AKL-ORD
AKL-EZE

Why introduce the 35K onto existing 77W routes? Why wouldn't they just deploy the 35K onto YVR, HKG etc?

HKG and YVR have never seen a 77W, YVR can't yet be year round 772 and has a "competitor" starting this peak season which will only add to capacity in the market so where is the logic coming from to increase capacity so much?

The 35K hasn't once been mentioned by anyone other than it supports a 359 order as it provides options to replace the 77W later in the next decade.

zkojq wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Re your guess, what will be your fleet route makeup? There will be several ULH routes and they could use the on IAH/ORD/YVR at times aswell. Think of the cost savings in the sense they are all 789s.

A350-900:
ORD
NYC
HKG
HND
YVR

A350-1000
IAH
SFO
GRU (if that route ever happens)

787-9 Config 1:
HNL
DPS
TPE
EZE
ICN
KIX
PVG

777-300ER: (eventual retirement, but obviously that's another five years after the 777-200ER retirement)
LAX
LHR
SIN


As I've said a few times in various spaces, long term you would probably want all 787-9s to be Config 1 birds, once there's enough A350/777Xs to fly the longer services.

Based on this, I assume you'll be offloading a few 789s as there isn't 14 frames worth of flying there. Either the unused code 2 or earlier code 1 frames and refitting code 2 versions?

I'd also question why you've got HKG in the same market as NYC/ORD which will require less dense configuration. Whichever way it goes, 787 or 350, to reach NYC you'll see a 'premium' config as you do with order ULR operations. The fact you're mixing that aircraft with HKG, YVR and TYO suggests to me you'll have a code 1 and code 2 within your 359 fleet.

Leaving a fleet of
789
359 V1
359 V2
35K
77W

zkojq wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Why would NZ opt to replace the 772 with the 35K?

With that in mind, why would the airline replace the 772 with the even larger 787-10/777-9x as others on this website have advocated? To match capacity to demand on long haul routes and lower costs.

zkojq wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

That's why I asked why he would replace the 772 with the larger 35K and ultimately that's my point in those links, the share size difference

787-10 is about the same size A350-1000, yet several people have advocated the purchase of that in this thread.

No it's not. It's about 6 meters shorter and 40-50 pax less.

The 35K is in my opinion superior to the 78J but if the airline Ops to go single type 787 then the way to increase capacity into some markets is the 78J which can support something the size of the 772 and on a more frequent/daily basis, HKG, LAX and maybe SIN, SFO. Depending on what the airline predicts the future of LAX is.

Something to think about...

The A359-900 aircraft isn't some super machine that can connect places like AKL-NYC without some sacrifices. While it's very similar to the 772 with regards to the passenger capacity and while it does offer superior legs to the 772 you won't see it reach NYC with a full possible payload once you factor in weather and alternatives etc.

It's fair to say NYC is the longest route on the agenda for now, but in addition to ORD and NYC, GRU, DEL/BOM are all out at about 12,000km so an aircraft capable of flying that distance is needed.

Remembering the airline is replacing the 772 which primarily serves markets like LAX, YVR, HKG, EZE and IAH.

Let's say the order went to Airbus; hypothetical as I did with Boeing last week. Would you see a premium heavy cabin with a generous seat pitch equalling a 'lighter' load providing more range or would the airline opt to a Code 1 and Code 2 mixed approach again as they don't want to be underserving HKG, LAX etc which are comfortably in the aircraft range at MTOW while providing the ULR growth it has its eyes set on.

Alternatively, has the likes of NYC been well overlooked in all of this and the 359 is being brought in to replace the 772 on current routes and the airline will decide over the first 1-2 years which frame (787/A350) is best suited to be converted into their URL equipment

I believe and always have, the A350 is a much better aircraft. Firstly on paper but secondly, I question Boeing's ability to design and manufacture an aeroplane, the 787 delays, the 737-MAX and I question what purpose the 787-10 offers airlines globally with its limited range... Is it a mistake? Don't get me started on the 757/767 market gap and the waste of money that was the 747-8. I do hope lessons have been learned for the 777X but this is a whole separate topic.

BUT.... Air New Zealand already has a long haul aircraft, 14 of them in fact, it's of similar size 270-320 seat market which can fly 15,000+km if configured correctly and QF have proven it can work. So how much does that outweigh what Airbus can offer?

ZK-OXB left Christchurch from 4 days out of maintenance to Auckland and left late to Christchurch and will be late to Auckland till it heads to Wellington at 5 PM because it will be so late when it gets there.

NZ6 wrote:

Something to think about...

The A359-900 aircraft isn't some super machine that can connect places like AKL-NYC without some sacrifices. While it's very similar to the 772 with regards to the passenger capacity and while it does offer superior legs to the 772 you won't see it reach NYC with a full possible payload once you factor in weather and alternatives etc.

It's fair to say NYC is the longest route on the agenda for now, but in addition to ORD and NYC, GRU, DEL/BOM are all out at about 12,000km so an aircraft capable of flying that distance is needed.

Remembering the airline is replacing the 772 which primarily serves markets like LAX, YVR, HKG, EZE and IAH.

Let's say the order went to Airbus; hypothetical as I did with Boeing last week. Would you see a premium heavy cabin with a generous seat pitch equalling a 'lighter' load providing more range or would the airline opt to a Code 1 and Code 2 mixed approach again as they don't want to be underserving HKG, LAX etc which are comfortably in the aircraft range at MTOW while providing the ULR growth it has its eyes set on.

Alternatively, has the likes of NYC been well overlooked in all of this and the 359 is being brought in to replace the 772 on current routes and the airline will decide over the first 1-2 years which frame (787/A350) is best suited to be converted into their URL equipment

I believe and always have, the A350 is a much better aircraft. Firstly on paper but secondly, I question Boeing's ability to design and manufacture an aeroplane, the 787 delays, the 737-MAX and I question what purpose the 787-10 offers airlines globally with its limited range... Is it a mistake? Don't get me started on the 757/767 market gap and the waste of money that was the 747-8. I do hope lessons have been learned for the 777X but this is a whole separate topic.

BUT.... Air New Zealand already has a long haul aircraft, 14 of them in fact, it's of similar size 270-320 seat market which can fly 15,000+km if configured correctly and QF have proven it can work. So how much does that outweigh what Airbus can offer?

Whereas I see the 78J as the likely cash cow for carriers, possibly the basis of an ER along the lines of the 777-300 to 300ER, while the 350/330neo combo is, well, an odd strategy from my perspective.

Effectively, the 350 is a zero/low growth option and the much repeated passenger comfort angle is waaaaay overplayed. Likewise the 77X is as yet unproven, both in flight capability and new interior comfort. If I'm in business, it doesn't matter as the seat will be the same (regardless, NZ is in dire need of a hard product upgrade... reverse herringbone!). If I'm in economy, I don't notice (I've lost count of 787 and 350 flights now) and, besides, the airline doesn't care, if we're honest. Though if it remains as tight as the 10 abreast 777 then yeah, we might start to have issues. Fortunately I'm at a stage where if I'm going 12 hours plus, Y class becomes less of a concern.

aerokiwi wrote:

Whereas I see the 78J as the likely cash cow for carriers, possibly the basis of an ER along the lines of the 777-300 to 300ER, while the 350/330neo combo is, well, an odd strategy from my perspective.

Out of the 1,400 or so orders, less than 200 are for the -10 which highlights the appeal under its current design.

Having said that, I completely agree with you if they can get another couple of thousand km out of the aeroplane. Time will tell.

Sylus wrote:

VA to drop CHC-SYD to seasonal from year round. Sep-Apr

I thought they were seasonal anyway?

NZ6 wrote:

HKG and YVR have never seen a 77W

Not “never” for HKG. There were a few 77W to HKG in Nov 2018, and in early Nov 2012 the 77W flew the All Blacks to LHR via HKG.

cchan wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

HKG and YVR have never seen a 77W

Not “never” for HKG. There were a few 77W to HKG in Nov 2018, and in early Nov 2012 the 77W flew the All Blacks to LHR via HKG.

Okay, almost/hardly seen, the point being, it's very rare and not the norm.

NZ6 wrote:

cchan wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

HKG and YVR have never seen a 77W

Not “never” for HKG. There were a few 77W to HKG in Nov 2018, and in early Nov 2012 the 77W flew the All Blacks to LHR via HKG.

Okay, almost/hardly seen, the point being, it's very rare and not the norm.

YVR has seen the 77W at peak periods over the last couple of years too, just NZ doesn't currently have enough 77Ws to venture outside of the current normal.

AKL-YVR is getting AC on the route, but its not going to be an major competition NZ/AC have already filed for an JV and the fares haven't gone down.

zkncj wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

cchan wrote:

Not “never” for HKG. There were a few 77W to HKG in Nov 2018, and in early Nov 2012 the 77W flew the All Blacks to LHR via HKG.

Okay, almost/hardly seen, the point being, it's very rare and not the norm.

YVR has seen the 77W at peak periods over the last couple of years too, just NZ doesn't currently have enough 77Ws to venture outside of the current normal.

AKL-YVR is getting AC on the route, but its not going to be an major competition NZ/AC have already filed for an JV and the fares haven't gone down.

Again not the norm re YVR.

AC/NZ is still adding capacity so any need for 77W/35K

Some on this forum get stuck on minor details and miss the big picture.

NZ6 wrote:

zkncj wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Okay, almost/hardly seen, the point being, it's very rare and not the norm.

YVR has seen the 77W at peak periods over the last couple of years too, just NZ doesn't currently have enough 77Ws to venture outside of the current normal.

AKL-YVR is getting AC on the route, but its not going to be an major competition NZ/AC have already filed for an JV and the fares haven't gone down.

Again not the norm re YVR.

AC/NZ is still adding capacity so any need for 77W/35K

Some on this forum get stuck on minor details and miss the big picture.

Agree, YVR only gets the 77W occasionally in peak season if loads warrent but it comes from LAX or SFO getting a 772 or not operating that day. HKG could possibly support a 77W? And IAH can on certain days although it drops to 4-5 weekly this year rather than 6-7 weekly 789 last year and future growth in some cases could be transferred to ORD to increase loads and frequency there.

It doesn’t really seem like a reason to get more larger aircraft to me although I think the in between 78J stands a very good chance with its efficiency initially into Asia and maybe later as you say if Boeing ER it or can squeeze a bit more out of it which would allow NZ to use it into LAX/SFO, reading between the lines elsewhere it seems UA and KL use it on some reasonably long hauls, not quite as far as AKL-LAX yet but getting up there for an aircraft that is only meant to fly 10 hrs according to some. Sure different configurations etc play a big part aswell.

The 78J seems like a good low risk option that can operate a good portion of the network freeing up the smaller 789s for ULH.

aerokiwi wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Something to think about...

The A359-900 aircraft isn't some super machine that can connect places like AKL-NYC without some sacrifices. While it's very similar to the 772 with regards to the passenger capacity and while it does offer superior legs to the 772 you won't see it reach NYC with a full possible payload once you factor in weather and alternatives etc.

It's fair to say NYC is the longest route on the agenda for now, but in addition to ORD and NYC, GRU, DEL/BOM are all out at about 12,000km so an aircraft capable of flying that distance is needed.

Remembering the airline is replacing the 772 which primarily serves markets like LAX, YVR, HKG, EZE and IAH.

Let's say the order went to Airbus; hypothetical as I did with Boeing last week. Would you see a premium heavy cabin with a generous seat pitch equalling a 'lighter' load providing more range or would the airline opt to a Code 1 and Code 2 mixed approach again as they don't want to be underserving HKG, LAX etc which are comfortably in the aircraft range at MTOW while providing the ULR growth it has its eyes set on.

Alternatively, has the likes of NYC been well overlooked in all of this and the 359 is being brought in to replace the 772 on current routes and the airline will decide over the first 1-2 years which frame (787/A350) is best suited to be converted into their URL equipment

I believe and always have, the A350 is a much better aircraft. Firstly on paper but secondly, I question Boeing's ability to design and manufacture an aeroplane, the 787 delays, the 737-MAX and I question what purpose the 787-10 offers airlines globally with its limited range... Is it a mistake? Don't get me started on the 757/767 market gap and the waste of money that was the 747-8. I do hope lessons have been learned for the 777X but this is a whole separate topic.

BUT.... Air New Zealand already has a long haul aircraft, 14 of them in fact, it's of similar size 270-320 seat market which can fly 15,000+km if configured correctly and QF have proven it can work. So how much does that outweigh what Airbus can offer?

Whereas I see the 78J as the likely cash cow for carriers, possibly the basis of an ER along the lines of the 777-300 to 300ER, while the 350/330neo combo is, well, an odd strategy from my perspective.

Effectively, the 350 is a zero/low growth option and the much repeated passenger comfort angle is waaaaay overplayed. Likewise the 77X is as yet unproven, both in flight capability and new interior comfort. If I'm in business, it doesn't matter as the seat will be the same (regardless, NZ is in dire need of a hard product upgrade... reverse herringbone!). If I'm in economy, I don't notice (I've lost count of 787 and 350 flights now) and, besides, the airline doesn't care, if we're honest. Though if it remains as tight as the 10 abreast 777 then yeah, we might start to have issues. Fortunately I'm at a stage where if I'm going 12 hours plus, Y class becomes less of a concern.

That’s the thing though. The 777 is very tight in Y and whilst the 77X will improve on the legacy 777 slightly in width (thinner sidewalls) it’s not going to make a huge difference (and it is a noisy aircraft down the back compared to A350 and 787). If NZ was just sticking to its existing routes then fine, however they are looking at the likes of EWR, GRU and the new ORD route. These are bloody long flights and there is only so much the human body can take. Those extra couple of centimetres here and there coupled with a quieter cabin do add up to be a factor (more-so if they don’t impact on economics much). Yes NZ would love a 78JER that could do EWR with a full passenger load in a not too premium configuration while still able to carry some freight. The problem is that this isn’t likely to be in the air for a good 5 years at least (unless Boeing is very good at keeping a secret, or if they have been pool-sharking everyone on unrealised growth potential).

I just don’t see NZ wanting all it’s eggs in one basket after recent issues. The fact is that you only need around 10 wide body aircraft of a type to make for a viable pool. Even better if you can make it a dozen. Well NZ has this already with the 789 and will do with whatever replaces the 777s so diversifying does make a lot of sense especially if it brings other benefits to the table.

Zkpilot wrote:

aerokiwi wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Something to think about...

The A359-900 aircraft isn't some super machine that can connect places like AKL-NYC without some sacrifices. While it's very similar to the 772 with regards to the passenger capacity and while it does offer superior legs to the 772 you won't see it reach NYC with a full possible payload once you factor in weather and alternatives etc.

It's fair to say NYC is the longest route on the agenda for now, but in addition to ORD and NYC, GRU, DEL/BOM are all out at about 12,000km so an aircraft capable of flying that distance is needed.

Remembering the airline is replacing the 772 which primarily serves markets like LAX, YVR, HKG, EZE and IAH.

Let's say the order went to Airbus; hypothetical as I did with Boeing last week. Would you see a premium heavy cabin with a generous seat pitch equalling a 'lighter' load providing more range or would the airline opt to a Code 1 and Code 2 mixed approach again as they don't want to be underserving HKG, LAX etc which are comfortably in the aircraft range at MTOW while providing the ULR growth it has its eyes set on.

Alternatively, has the likes of NYC been well overlooked in all of this and the 359 is being brought in to replace the 772 on current routes and the airline will decide over the first 1-2 years which frame (787/A350) is best suited to be converted into their URL equipment

I believe and always have, the A350 is a much better aircraft. Firstly on paper but secondly, I question Boeing's ability to design and manufacture an aeroplane, the 787 delays, the 737-MAX and I question what purpose the 787-10 offers airlines globally with its limited range... Is it a mistake? Don't get me started on the 757/767 market gap and the waste of money that was the 747-8. I do hope lessons have been learned for the 777X but this is a whole separate topic.

BUT.... Air New Zealand already has a long haul aircraft, 14 of them in fact, it's of similar size 270-320 seat market which can fly 15,000+km if configured correctly and QF have proven it can work. So how much does that outweigh what Airbus can offer?

Whereas I see the 78J as the likely cash cow for carriers, possibly the basis of an ER along the lines of the 777-300 to 300ER, while the 350/330neo combo is, well, an odd strategy from my perspective.

Effectively, the 350 is a zero/low growth option and the much repeated passenger comfort angle is waaaaay overplayed. Likewise the 77X is as yet unproven, both in flight capability and new interior comfort. If I'm in business, it doesn't matter as the seat will be the same (regardless, NZ is in dire need of a hard product upgrade... reverse herringbone!). If I'm in economy, I don't notice (I've lost count of 787 and 350 flights now) and, besides, the airline doesn't care, if we're honest. Though if it remains as tight as the 10 abreast 777 then yeah, we might start to have issues. Fortunately I'm at a stage where if I'm going 12 hours plus, Y class becomes less of a concern.

That’s the thing though. The 777 is very tight in Y and whilst the 77X will improve on the legacy 777 slightly in width (thinner sidewalls) it’s not going to make a huge difference (and it is a noisy aircraft down the back compared to A350 and 787). If NZ was just sticking to its existing routes then fine, however they are looking at the likes of EWR, GRU and the new ORD route. These are bloody long flights and there is only so much the human body can take. Those extra couple of centimetres here and there coupled with a quieter cabin do add up to be a factor (more-so if they don’t impact on economics much). Yes NZ would love a 78JER that could do EWR with a full passenger load in a not too premium configuration while still able to carry some freight. The problem is that this isn’t likely to be in the air for a good 5 years at least (unless Boeing is very good at keeping a secret, or if they have been pool-sharking everyone on unrealised growth potential).

I just don’t see NZ wanting all it’s eggs in one basket after recent issues. The fact is that you only need around 10 wide body aircraft of a type to make for a viable pool. Even better if you can make it a dozen. Well NZ has this already with the 789 and will do with whatever replaces the 777s so diversifying does make a lot of sense especially if it brings other benefits to the table.

I'm at a point where I will try not to book an 8 hour+ flight on an A330/777 because I find the increased humidity on the A350s/787s/A380s and reduced noise dramatically improve what I feel like at the other end. I know I'm in the minority there, and I know that doesn't factor hugely into NZ's decision, but that's what I do. Even if I'm in J or F.

On the other hand, NZ has very recently reinforced that they are drawing back on growth and capacity and taking a very conservative approach to future capacity growth (they recently deferred deliveries because of that I believe). The 777X doesn't really align with that. Similarly, and much like QF, NZ seems to be wanting to move to having a larger number of routes that are more narrow. The 787 started that process, as it has for more airlines. Again, a big plane doesn't align with that, just as more A380s for QF would never have happened. I just don't see how the 777X fits into NZ's most recent stated goals, unless its for price reasons only.

ZK-NNE was in it's first flight on service this morning.

ZK-NNF test reg is correct it must've been a person did D-AVYR wrong instead the photo says D-AVAR

tu2130 wrote:

ZK-NNF test reg is correct it must've been a person did D-AVYR wrong instead the photo says D-AVAR

The test registration for ZK-NNF (msn 8839) is D-AYAR.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/143531276@N06/46825965805

The A320 production list at https://aibfamily.flights has now been changed from D-AVYR to D-AYAR, both of which are valid A321 test registrations.

PA515

Does anyone know whats NZ's max range is for their A321NEO's with their configuration?

Airbus publishes it as 7,400km with an 2 class 206 seat configuration.

zkncj wrote:

Does anyone know whats NZ's max range is for their A321NEO's with their configuration?

Airbus publishes it as 7,400km with an 2 class 206 seat configuration.

214 pax in NZ's configuration. No idea on range sorry.

Motorhussy wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Does anyone know whats NZ's max range is for their A321NEO's with their configuration?

Airbus publishes it as 7,400km with an 2 class 206 seat configuration.

214 pax in NZ's configuration. No idea on range sorry.

Likely less than others due to all Y configuration (more weight). Currently AKL-CNS is the longest it flies. If it did PPT then that would just push it over 4000km still well within max range (but getting close to it once diversion fuel taken into account).

Zkpilot wrote:

Motorhussy wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Does anyone know whats NZ's max range is for their A321NEO's with their configuration?

Airbus publishes it as 7,400km with an 2 class 206 seat configuration.

214 pax in NZ's configuration. No idea on range sorry.

Likely less than others due to all Y configuration (more weight). Currently AKL-CNS is the longest it flies. If it did PPT then that would just push it over 4000km still well within max range (but getting close to it once diversion fuel taken into account).

Sometimes I think it would be more interesting to know an airliner’s range in time, rather than distance.

Although AKL-CNS is NZ’s longest A320 sector (3,619km//5hr 35mins), PER-AKL block time is only 35mins more (6hrs 10mins) due to tailwinds inbound. This is despite the PER-AKL distance (5348km) being 36% farther than AKL-CNS.

I’ve flown AKL-CNS a few times and the longest air time I’ve experienced was 6hrs 5mins due to adverse winds. On that day I was told all the cargo, except for my two cats, was off loaded.

So Haven't got any update about ZK-NNF since 30 April 2019

Gangurru wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Motorhussy wrote:

214 pax in NZ's configuration. No idea on range sorry.

Likely less than others due to all Y configuration (more weight). Currently AKL-CNS is the longest it flies. If it did PPT then that would just push it over 4000km still well within max range (but getting close to it once diversion fuel taken into account).

Sometimes I think it would be more interesting to know an airliner’s range in time, rather than distance.

Although AKL-CNS is NZ’s longest A320 sector (3,619km//5hr 35mins), PER-AKL block time is only 35mins more (6hrs 10mins) due to tailwinds inbound. This is despite the PER-AKL distance (5348km) being 36% farther than AKL-CNS.

I’ve flown AKL-CNS a few times and the longest air time I’ve experienced was 6hrs 5mins due to adverse winds. On that day I was told all the cargo, except for my two cats, was off loaded.

Yep, I don’t think the NZ 321 could do AKL/CHC-PER with a viable load? A narrow body would probably add 20-30 mins on a sector that length. I feel like they would need the LR to make it viable.

tu2130 wrote:

So Haven't got any update about ZK-NNF since 30 April 2019

Only that ZK-NNF and ZK-NNG were at the 'River side store' on 04 May 2019.
https://digitalairliners.com/category/xfw-spotter-log/

PA515

Zkpilot wrote:

Motorhussy wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Does anyone know whats NZ's max range is for their A321NEO's with their configuration?

Airbus publishes it as 7,400km with an 2 class 206 seat configuration.

214 pax in NZ's configuration. No idea on range sorry.

Likely less than others due to all Y configuration (more weight). Currently AKL-CNS is the longest it flies. If it did PPT then that would just push it over 4000km still well within max range (but getting close to it once diversion fuel taken into account).

It would be interesting to see what the A321NEO could lead to in the future - its defiantly an set up in published range over the current A320CEO's.

A321NEO - published is 7,400km
A320NEO - published is 6,300km
A320CEO - published at 6,112km (non sharklet)

Do wonder if down the track we code see a similar solution as with the 789 having a code 1 and code 2.

An 190 seater option which J/PE could be interesting what it could achieve?
- AKL-PPT daily
- CHC-PER daily

zkncj wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Motorhussy wrote:

214 pax in NZ's configuration. No idea on range sorry.

Likely less than others due to all Y configuration (more weight). Currently AKL-CNS is the longest it flies. If it did PPT then that would just push it over 4000km still well within max range (but getting close to it once diversion fuel taken into account).

It would be interesting to see what the A321NEO could lead to in the future - its defiantly an set up in published range over the current A320CEO's.

A321NEO - published is 7,400km
A320NEO - published is 6,300km
A320CEO - published at 6,112km (non sharklet)

Do wonder if down the track we code see a similar solution as with the 789 having a code 1 and code 2.

An 190 seater option which J/PE could be interesting what it could achieve?
- AKL-PPT daily
- CHC-PER daily

My personal opinion is that there just isn’t enough routes where a ‘code 2’ would be viable given they have gone for all Y on the new NEOs. Early days I no however routes like AKL-PPT and CHC-PER aren’t imo in need of frequency given a lack of competition, they codeshare with TN to PPT and offer 6 weekly flights between them while CHC-PER is a seasonal 2 weekly, better imo to grow from there but unless the current A321 can do it with a viable payload which I have my doubts then extend the season or add a third frequency is my guess.

This in the NZ Herald at 1830 today.

Air New Zealand reveals plans to change the shape of its economy cabin.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12230900

Cam Wallace said they are planning on 30 to 40 extra legroom economy seats in widebody aircraft and compares them to UA's 'Economy Plus'.

Also, the 77E replacement announcement before the end of June.

PA515

What's the river side store? Is it something for planes.

PA515 wrote:

This in the NZ Herald at 1830 today.

Air New Zealand reveals plans to change the shape of its economy cabin.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12230900

Cam Wallace said they are planning on 30 to 40 extra legroom economy seats in widebody aircraft and compares them to UA's 'Economy Plus'.

Also, the 77E replacement announcement before the end of June.

PA515

This sounds to me like premium economy is dead. Or will we have 4 classes?

NZ321 wrote:

This sounds to me like premium economy is dead. Or will we have 4 classes?

Four classes.

PA515

PE is always full when I’ve been in it lately, to a variety of destinations. Long haul needs Y+ too. Good on them. Good way of extracting further value from pax or rewarding FF’ers.

PA515 wrote:

NZ321 wrote:

This sounds to me like premium economy is dead. Or will we have 4 classes?

Four classes.

PA515

Wow - well that's a relief.

PA515 wrote:

This in the NZ Herald at 1830 today.

Air New Zealand reveals plans to change the shape of its economy cabin.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12230900

Cam Wallace said they are planning on 30 to 40 extra legroom economy seats in widebody aircraft and compares them to UA's 'Economy Plus'.

Also, the 77E replacement announcement before the end of June.

PA515

Such a good move. I generally don't pay for PE, but if Y+ is only a couple of hundred more, I would buy it without question.

PA515 wrote:

This in the NZ Herald at 1830 today.

Air New Zealand reveals plans to change the shape of its economy cabin.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12230900

Cam Wallace said they are planning on 30 to 40 extra legroom economy seats in widebody aircraft and compares them to UA's 'Economy Plus'.

Also, the 77E replacement announcement before the end of June.

PA515

Also seems to confirm there will be an all new J from 2022 and the current refurb to start later this year is just a ‘soft’ refurb.

Will this new Econmy plus be 9 abreast on a 777 and 8 on a 787 I wonder? W seems extremely popular, I can’t imagine any reduction in seas there? This is at the expense of Y class seats?

Also a further sign NZ are going more for the premium leisure market, ie people willing to pay a little more, I wonder how this has impacted the 77E replacement?

ZK-NBT wrote:

PA515 wrote:

This in the NZ Herald at 1830 today.

Air New Zealand reveals plans to change the shape of its economy cabin.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12230900

Cam Wallace said they are planning on 30 to 40 extra legroom economy seats in widebody aircraft and compares them to UA's 'Economy Plus'.

Also, the 77E replacement announcement before the end of June.

PA515

Also seems to confirm there will be an all new J from 2022 and the current refurb to start later this year is just a ‘soft’ refurb.

Will this new Econmy plus be 9 abreast on a 777 and 8 on a 787 I wonder? W seems extremely popular, I can’t imagine any reduction in seas there? This is at the expense of Y class seats?

Also a further sign NZ are going more for the premium leisure market, ie people willing to pay a little more, I wonder how this has impacted the 77E replacement?

Should be the same seat as the rest of Y but with bigger recline allowed. Same 10 & 9 abreast. This is one way to reduce weight on a plane to increase range. Eg take out 20 seats and maybe a toilet (which gives you back 3 seats) means you reduce weight on board by around 2.5t which in turn could give you around 500km more range all while being roughly revenue neutral.

Zkpilot wrote:

This is one way to reduce weight on a plane to increase range. Eg take out 20 seats and maybe a toilet (which gives you back 3 seats) means you reduce weight on board by around 2.5t which in turn could give you around 500km more range all while being roughly revenue neutral.

I'm wondering if this isn't associated with the analyses being done for a 77E replacement, where the main options are a 789 with reduced capacity and the A350 series. There's been a lot of discussion about whether the carrier might go for the 789 as a replacement, though some scepticism as to whether it would be able to do the AKL-EWR leg, even in a "Code 3" configuration, with a useful payload. Gaining a further 2.5 t, or 500 km (or whatever the amount is) could be an indication that they're leaning toward the 789. I still expect to see a firm order for 8 789s, of which 6 are for 77E replacement and two for new destinations already foreshadowed (initial 3x weekly frequencies on AKl-EWR and AKL-GRU), plus another four short-term options (replacement of the remaining two 77Es and further growth). Can't be long now before all is clear.

It's been 3 to 5 weeks now Imean maybe NZE is delayed???

UA eventually gave up on trying to make their low-density 789 work on LAX-SIN non-stop and retreated to SFO. LAX-SIN is 7600nm great circle. EWR-AKL is a little more than 7600nm. Adding a bunch of Y+ seats isn't going to be enough to make the 789 viable on AKL-NYC. It would need a genuine low-density configuration like the QF 789s. Could NZ make that work within their leisure and freight oriented business model? I guess we should always be ready to be surprised but at this point we're not seeing the evidence.

tu2130 wrote:

It's been 3 to 5 weeks now Imean maybe NZE is delayed???

NZE had its engines transferred to another frame NZJ I think it was. I’m unsure if the issue it had has been fixed, nothing to do with engines.

DavidByrne wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

This is one way to reduce weight on a plane to increase range. Eg take out 20 seats and maybe a toilet (which gives you back 3 seats) means you reduce weight on board by around 2.5t which in turn could give you around 500km more range all while being roughly revenue neutral.

I'm wondering if this isn't associated with the analyses being done for a 77E replacement, where the main options are a 789 with reduced capacity and the A350 series. There's been a lot of discussion about whether the carrier might go for the 789 as a replacement, though some scepticism as to whether it would be able to do the AKL-EWR leg, even in a "Code 3" configuration, with a useful payload. Gaining a further 2.5 t, or 500 km (or whatever the amount is) could be an indication that they're leaning toward the 789. I still expect to see a firm order for 8 789s, of which 6 are for 77E replacement and two for new destinations already foreshadowed (initial 3x weekly frequencies on AKl-EWR and AKL-GRU), plus another four short-term options (replacement of the remaining two 77Es and further growth). Can't be long now before all is clear.

I’d go 78J on most 772 routes to Asia, although that’s only HKG regularly. But also SIN/NRT, it’s been said that some routes need more premium capacity, I’d say a similar number of premium seats to the code 2 and a similar number of Y to the code 1. I’m still backing 6 78Js and an additional 4 789s code 3 HGW, I did read some of the newer current 789s may be able to get a MTOW increase?

tealnz wrote:

UA eventually gave up on trying to make their low-density 789 work on LAX-SIN non-stop and retreated to SFO. LAX-SIN is 7600nm great circle. EWR-AKL is a little more than 7600nm. Adding a bunch of Y+ seats isn't going to be enough to make the 789 viable on AKL-NYC. It would need a genuine low-density configuration like the QF 789s. Could NZ make that work within their leisure and freight oriented business model? I guess we should always be ready to be surprised but at this point we're not seeing the evidence.

Sure, they would drop imo to 240-250 seats. UA already flew SFO-SIN successfully with the 789 and probably decided they could do better with 2 daily there than keeping LAX, sure distance played a part here to I’m sure.

The evidence imo is that Luxon mentioned the possibility of a code 3 789 with a possible slight MTOW increase and now we see NZ to tinkering with their cabins. Maybe I’m off track?

I'm not convinced a premium heavy configuration will work for NZ in the long distance markets as their business model is dependant on Australian transit pax. NZ would need to steel the loyal premium QF (and to a lesser extent VA) frequent flyers to fill these high yield seats. While mostly successful at capturing back of the bus transit traffic, premium/corporate is another matter entirely. Also, SQ had to revert to more economy class configurations in some Australian markets.

A small number of 789s (say 4) to replace the 77Es coming off lease might be a likely scenario for the upcoming order and some tweaking of cabin config to boot. Then when NZ orders the replacement for the balance of 77Es and 77W we could see an order for a mix of further 787s (if Boeing launches an upgraded 787-9 plus some 78J) or for A350 NEO which could be just for the A359 or a mix of A359 and A35K. As I said before that allows NZ to consider the ultra-fan / A350 NEO which is expected to be available about 2024. at that point they could also reduce the 789 fleet somewhat if needed by disposing of older aircraft / aircraft on leases. This sort of approach positions NZ to be in a good position to take advantage of the next step-change in engine technology and efficiency.