DavidByrne wrote:NZ6 wrote:The 78J in its current design is perfect for Asia.
. . . assuming that NZ have ditched its stated strategy of putting frequency into Asia (2x daily on key routes was foreshadowed to make for better fleet utilisation on flights around 12 hr or more) as opposed to just increasing capacity. Hence why I think that the order will be for 789s with 78Js on option, giving Boeing time to improve the range before having to commit. But not for Asia, for the US.
Has there been any hint that NZ would like to use larger aircraft on Asia, or is it just an A-net rumour that becomes “truth” by repetition? Not getting at you, NZ6 - everyone seems to be quoting this as if it was fact, but is it?NZ6 wrote:A scenario based on if NZ went for a 787 order...
- could you see all SFO/LAX operated by the 77W
- could you see NZ look to operate into HNL, PPT, IAH, ORD, NYC, YVR with a code 1, 2 and or 3 version of the 789 with improved frequency?
- potential to see SIN/HKG/TYO operated by a 78J
Based on 78J performance 77W replaced by the 778 or more 78J as the business model continues to be focused on direct city parings with frequency over hub/capacity flying.
Yes, I could see this, though I’d see a 78J order as being contingent on being capable of AKL-LAX/SFO as a future 77W replacement rather than as extra capacity for Asia.
As for the discussion about belly cargo and premium demand on ULH services, I’ve the following points:
1. ULH services by their nature are fuel-hungry because of the need to carry fuel for the last few thousand km many thousands of km just to get to that point. Almost all ULH services as a consequence do have a higher premium config to try to recoup these extra fuel costs. I saw an analysis once that showed there were significantly lower costs flying AKL-LAX-EWR compared with AKL-EWR nonstop, for example. So I would fully expect that if the 789 is used to EWR the carrier would want to focus on getting the most premium bums on seats that it can. A Config 3 789 may well be a better response in the overall fleet analysis rather than adding a new aircraft type (the A350). Much though my heart would like to see the A350 in NZ colours.
2. Re belly cargo on EWR: right now there are no EWR flights and therefore no belly cargo being carried except via other ports. There’s no market that they are having to turn away by using an aircraft that can’t carry much over ULH routes that they can’t continue to carry by their existing ops. I doubt very much that any ULH route has been designed with belly cargo front of mind.
In my ideal scenario NZ would have a one-type LH fleet - the A350 in its two variants. But in the real world the 789 is already in the fleet, so I think that the most likely outcome is an all-787 fleet with the -9 and -10. The only thing that would change this for me is the question of the 78J’s range - could it reach LAX with some -ER tweaks? How likely is such a version or sufficient improvement in the base aircraft?
NZ themselves said the 78J is a good plane for Asia which doesn’t mean they will order it, then others here have said more premium capacity is needed on some Asian routes, maybe SIN getting code 2 is a hint?