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?

ZK-NBT wrote:

Would they need 3 789 configurations? Maybe a ULH one to IAH/ORD/EWR/GRU and a code 1.5 between the current 2 configurations with say 24J 28W 227Y or something to cover EZE/TPE/KIX/ICN/PVG/ HNL/PER/YVR etc and 78Js to LAX/LHR/SFO/HKG/SIN/NRT etc with additional 789s where required.

Well, they have two already and a 3rd is going to be needed for anything like NYC.

Do they want to do away with Code 1? Not a chance
Do they want to do away with Code 2? Perhaps in lieu of a Code 3, But it's a no to very unlikely.
Will we not see a code 3, perhaps for a while, depends on the market over the coming years but unlikely if it went 787 based on NZ's clear aspirations in North and South America.

So if they ordered the 789, you would see a code 3 come in at some point. Luxon has already stated the 787 analysis was looked at and they believe a code 3 could work or words to the effect. It's really only a question on when and will code 2 remain as well.

DavidByrne wrote:

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?

Not as such, it's more a possibility based on HKG having the demand, SIN growth and already being 3x ex AKL & 2x ex CHC in peak etc.

DavidByrne wrote:

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?

So you've basically said it's going to Boeing. Nice.

One thing to remember, did NZ replace the 767 with the closest type, that would have been the A330, right? My point being, let's not assume they want to replace the 772 with the most comparable aircraft. That's not actually a factor at all.

NZ6 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Would they need 3 789 configurations? Maybe a ULH one to IAH/ORD/EWR/GRU and a code 1.5 between the current 2 configurations with say 24J 28W 227Y or something to cover EZE/TPE/KIX/ICN/PVG/ HNL/PER/YVR etc and 78Js to LAX/LHR/SFO/HKG/SIN/NRT etc with additional 789s where required.

Well, they have two already and a 3rd is going to be needed for anything like NYC.

Do they want to do away with Code 1? Not a chance
Do they want to do away with Code 2? Perhaps in lieu of a Code 3, But it's a no to very unlikely.
Will we not see a code 3, perhaps for a while, depends on the market over the coming years but unlikely if it went 787 based on NZ's clear aspirations in North and South America.

So if they ordered the 789, you would see a code 3 come in at some point. Luxon has already stated the 787 analysis was looked at and they believe a code 3 could work or words to the effect. It's really only a question on when and will code 2 remain as well.

DavidByrne wrote:

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?

Not as such, it's more a possibility based on HKG having the demand, SIN growth and already being 3x ex AKL & 2x ex CHC in peak etc.

DavidByrne wrote:

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?

So you've basically said it's going to Boeing. Nice.

One thing to remember, did NZ replace the 767 with the closest type, that would have been the A330, right? My point being, let's not assume they want to replace the 772 with the most comparable aircraft. That's not actually a factor at all.

That’s the thing, to many configurations of 1 aircraft type in a fleet that isn’t that large gets complicated, maybe 2 789 configurations and 2 78J configurations? An ULH premium 789 and a code 1 then? And 2 78Js with an Asian configuration and a LAX/SFO/LHR configuration?

I agree this 359 replacement for the 772 is interesting, like I say performance wise is probably the closet but that’s about it, fine aircraft absolutely, for NZ not so sure given their current fleet and adding more point to point flying.

That’s my 2 cents, no change for mine, it will be all 787 long haul.

There is no evidence a serious increase in payload/range is in the works for the 78J - the current airframe is maxed out. The only solid info we have seen suggests there might be a very small MTOW increase available for the 789. But even with such an increase the 789 would be marginal for the more demanding North American routes ex AKL. It looks likely that a serious increase in 787 payload range will have to wait for a re-engining in the second half of the 2020s. That doesn’t work for NZ’s current 77E replacement decision.

tealnz wrote:

There is no evidence a serious increase in payload/range is in the works for the 78J - the current airframe is maxed out. The only solid info we have seen suggests there might be a very small MTOW increase available for the 789. But even with such an increase the 789 would be marginal for the more demanding North American routes ex AKL. It looks likely that a serious increase in 787 payload range will have to wait for a re-engining in the second half of the 2020s. That doesn’t work for NZ’s current 77E replacement decision.

Which routes are you talking about ?

tealnz wrote:

There is no evidence a serious increase in payload/range is in the works for the 78J - the current airframe is maxed out. The only solid info we have seen suggests there might be a very small MTOW increase available for the 789. But even with such an increase the 789 would be marginal for the more demanding North American routes ex AKL. It looks likely that a serious increase in 787 payload range will have to wait for a re-engining in the second half of the 2020s. That doesn’t work for NZ’s current 77E replacement decision.

If you’re correct, then I agree, the 350 is in the box seat. There’s been a lot of discussion about possible future enhancements to the 789 and 78J but little solid info. But in my own mind I keep coming back to the fact that QF is apparently making PER-LHR work - a route that’s around 200 miles longer. Yes, I know that you can’t just make direct comparisons like this, but it does tell me that a 789 is definitely in the ballpark as far as EWR is concerned - albeit with a less dense config that NZ’s current fleet. To me the decision then comes down to cost and whether the improved capabilities of the A350 are sufficient to outweigh the downside of having a second WB type in the fleet.

I meant if there was. Then that would be good.

NZ6001 scheduled for May 5th and arriving on Monday from Austin to Auckland
Reg: ZK-OKE

tealnz wrote:

There is no evidence a serious increase in payload/range is in the works for the 78J - the current airframe is maxed out. The only solid info we have seen suggests there might be a very small MTOW increase available for the 789. But even with such an increase the 789 would be marginal for the more demanding North American routes ex AKL. It looks likely that a serious increase in 787 payload range will have to wait for a re-engining in the second half of the 2020s. That doesn’t work for NZ’s current 77E replacement decision.

Second half of the 2020s might be about right then to replace the 77W fleet. Boeing have a bit of a gap the 77X is big and heavy, the 789 is smaller and there 78J lacks range, in talking as a worldwide 77W replacement. They need a 10ER IMO to fill an A350 shaped gap in their line up.

The current 78J will be great to Asia.

Has anyone else noticed that the a321NEO's lack seat recline on NZ, and NZ has quietly gotten away with it so far.

Although the free WIFI appears to be allot better than on the 777s, was able to get 18mbps download tonight across the Tasman and able to use Netflix seamlessly.

zkeoj wrote:

Hi Everybody

just a fun game for those of you who keep a log:

Just the top few domestics with flights listed too (for the sake of brevity). The NZ fleet is too small it is virtually impossible not to dupe frequently on the same routings. I have already flown NNA, NNC, NND so it won't be long until I start to dupe those too.

OJQ (12)
WLG-AKL (6)
AKL-WLG (3)
ZQN-AKL
AKL-CHC
AKL-ZQN

OAB (10)
AKL-WLG (3)
WLG-AKL (5)
AKL-CHC
AKL-ZQN

OJR (9)
AKL-WLG (5)
WLG-AKL (2)
ZQN-AKL
AKL-CHC

NGI (8)
AKL-WLG (4)
WLG-AKL (3)
AKL-DUD (1)

OJS (7)
OXA (7)
OXD (7)
OXC (5)
OXH (5)
NGG (5)
NGH (5)
SJB (5)
NGP (4)
SJE (4) (SJ x3, NZ x1)
AKL-WLG
WLG-CHC
CHC-AKL
AKL-CHC
OXB (3)
OXE (3)
OXF (3)
OXG (3)
OXJ (3)
OXK (3)
OXM (3)
FRE(3)
NGF (3)
NGJ (3)
NGK (3)
OXI (2)

International

OKD (7)
AKL-HKG (2)
HKG-AKL (2)
NRT-AKL
KIX-CHC
CHC-AKL

SUI (4)
HKG-AKL
AKL-LAX
LAX-LHR
LAX-AKL

NCK (3)
AKL-SYD
SYD-AKL
APW-AKL

OKA (3)
OKB (3) AKL-LAX,AKL-SFO,AKL-HKG
OKE (3)
OKG (3)
AKL-SIN, AKL-HKG, RAR-AKL
OKC (2)
OKH (2)
NZK (2x NRT-AKL)

Is it time that New Zealand/Australia look at better regulations like the EU to protect passengers when the airline is at fault? Currently New Zealand and Australian airlines aren’t really accountable to psssengers for delays caused by operational reasons etc, compared to say the EU.

With NZ’s slipping OTP l’ve been starting to think they need to be held more accountable to there actions.

For example last night NZ734 left BNE 45minutes late due to “cleaners not arriving on time” to be honest is an pretty weak excuse for delaying an flight, and the lack of communication from ground staff doesn’t help.

NZ made the choice to save money and outsource Australian ground handling to SwissPort who seems to be doing an less than great job (probably because NZ is paying min fees). OTP and ground service in Australia has slipped so much since they made the switch.

Yet there seems no accountability on the airlines todo anything to improve there OTP.

zkncj wrote:

Is it time that New Zealand/Australia look at better regulations like the EU to protect passengers when the airline is at fault? Currently New Zealand and Australian airlines aren’t really accountable to psssengers for delays caused by operational reasons etc, compared to say the EU.

With NZ’s slipping OTP l’ve been starting to think they need to be held more accountable to there actions.

For example last night NZ734 left BNE 45minutes late due to “cleaners not arriving on time” to be honest is an pretty weak excuse for delaying an flight, and the lack of communication from ground staff doesn’t help.

NZ made the choice to save money and outsource Australian ground handling to SwissPort who seems to be doing an less than great job (probably because NZ is paying min fees). OTP and ground service in Australia has slipped so much since they made the switch.

Yet there seems no accountability on the airlines todo anything to improve there OTP.

In Europe compensation is for delays 3 hours and more, so the 45 minutes won't get you anything....

aerorobnz wrote:

zkeoj wrote:

Hi Everybody

just a fun game for those of you who keep a log:

Just the top few domestics with flights listed too (for the sake of brevity). The NZ fleet is too small it is virtually impossible not to dupe frequently on the same routings. I have already flown NNA, NNC, NND so it won't be long until I start to dupe those too.

OJQ (12)
WLG-AKL (6)
AKL-WLG (3)
ZQN-AKL
AKL-CHC
AKL-ZQN

OAB (10)
AKL-WLG (3)
WLG-AKL (5)
AKL-CHC
AKL-ZQN

OJR (9)
AKL-WLG (5)
WLG-AKL (2)
ZQN-AKL
AKL-CHC

NGI (8)
AKL-WLG (4)
WLG-AKL (3)
AKL-DUD (1)

OJS (7)
OXA (7)
OXD (7)
OXC (5)
OXH (5)
NGG (5)
NGH (5)
SJB (5)
NGP (4)
SJE (4) (SJ x3, NZ x1)
AKL-WLG
WLG-CHC
CHC-AKL
AKL-CHC
OXB (3)
OXE (3)
OXF (3)
OXG (3)
OXJ (3)
OXK (3)
OXM (3)
FRE(3)
NGF (3)
NGJ (3)
NGK (3)
OXI (2)

International

OKD (7)
AKL-HKG (2)
HKG-AKL (2)
NRT-AKL
KIX-CHC
CHC-AKL

SUI (4)
HKG-AKL
AKL-LAX
LAX-LHR
LAX-AKL

NCK (3)
AKL-SYD
SYD-AKL
APW-AKL

OKA (3)
OKB (3) AKL-LAX,AKL-SFO,AKL-HKG
OKE (3)
OKG (3)
AKL-SIN, AKL-HKG, RAR-AKL
OKC (2)
OKH (2)
NZK (2x NRT-AKL)

Very interesting. You seem to fly much more domestically than I do... And your max is 7 so far, which is similar to mine I wonder if anybody has some/a lot of dupes o other NZ registered aircraft, such as Barrier, Sounds, Chats etc...?

zkncj wrote:

Is it time that New Zealand/Australia look at better regulations like the EU to protect passengers when the airline is at fault? Currently New Zealand and Australian airlines aren’t really accountable to psssengers for delays caused by operational reasons etc, compared to say the EU.

With NZ’s slipping OTP l’ve been starting to think they need to be held more accountable to there actions.

For example last night NZ734 left BNE 45minutes late due to “cleaners not arriving on time” to be honest is an pretty weak excuse for delaying an flight, and the lack of communication from ground staff doesn’t help.

NZ made the choice to save money and outsource Australian ground handling to SwissPort who seems to be doing an less than great job (probably because NZ is paying min fees). OTP and ground service in Australia has slipped so much since they made the switch.

Yet there seems no accountability on the airlines todo anything to improve there OTP.

If you wish to complain be factual and don't jump to hyperbole. NZ734 departed 26 minutes late and arrived 20 minutes late. Could it be better? Absolutely but the actual delay was close to half of what you indicated.

NZ8762 from Christchurch to New Plymouth
Flight Time: 1hr30 mins
Aircraft: Bombardier Dash-8 Q300
Reg: ZK-NET

tu2130 wrote:

NZ8762 from Christchurch to New Plymouth
Flight Time: 1hr30 mins
Aircraft: Bombardier Dash-8 Q300
Reg: ZK-NET

What’s this flight? Did you take it?

ZK-NBT wrote:

That’s the thing, to many configurations of 1 aircraft type in a fleet that isn’t that large gets complicated, maybe 2 789 configurations and 2 78J configurations? An ULH premium 789 and a code 1 then? And 2 78Js with an Asian configuration and a LAX/SFO/LHR configuration?

I agree this 359 replacement for the 772 is interesting, like I say performance wise is probably the closet but that’s about it, fine aircraft absolutely, for NZ not so sure given their current fleet and adding more point to point flying.

That’s my 2 cents, no change for mine, it will be all 787 long haul.

I don't see how it's complicated if it's a single type with two or three configs or if it's two different types. Either way, the fleet or sub-fleet is 'pooled' and used onto specific markets. What I mean by this is forget they're both 787s, they're seen as essentially two different assets used for different markets, just like you don't see the 77W getting sent to PVG or DPS etc.

The benefit would come from engineering savings as it's a single type and having a single pilot and crew base which can be deployed anywhere on the network.

There will some issues as there is today around adding additional capacity into markets where say a code 3 has time in the cycle but the airline needing a code 1 or 2 to make it work etc or how to replace code 2 when it's out for MX etc. But these issues exist with a mixed fleet type as well.

DavidByrne wrote:

tealnz wrote:

There is no evidence a serious increase in payload/range is in the works for the 78J - the current airframe is maxed out. The only solid info we have seen suggests there might be a very small MTOW increase available for the 789. But even with such an increase the 789 would be marginal for the more demanding North American routes ex AKL. It looks likely that a serious increase in 787 payload range will have to wait for a re-engining in the second half of the 2020s. That doesn’t work for NZ’s current 77E replacement decision.

If you’re correct, then I agree, the 350 is in the box seat. There’s been a lot of discussion about possible future enhancements to the 789 and 78J but little solid info. But in my own mind I keep coming back to the fact that QF is apparently making PER-LHR work - a route that’s around 200 miles longer. Yes, I know that you can’t just make direct comparisons like this, but it does tell me that a 789 is definitely in the ballpark as far as EWR is concerned - albeit with a less dense config that NZ’s current fleet. To me the decision then comes down to cost and whether the improved capabilities of the A350 are sufficient to outweigh the downside of having a second WB type in the fleet.

Because of the urban myth that Cargo is everything to the airline and they need the highest MTOW to make markets like LAX work. Even though, as you say DavidByrne QF is making PER-LHR work but also BNE-LAX, MEL-LAX and NZ itself has its own data on AKL-IAH and AKL-ORD.

So, hypothetical theory.. is NZ happy to make AKL-LAX & AKL-SFO both double daily 789's and build the market capacity into ORD, IAH, NYC, DEN, LAS etc over the coming 2 decades.

Real money is made via perishable cargo, things like live bees into the US has been a cash cow and isn't actually that heavy either.

NZ6 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

That’s the thing, to many configurations of 1 aircraft type in a fleet that isn’t that large gets complicated, maybe 2 789 configurations and 2 78J configurations? An ULH premium 789 and a code 1 then? And 2 78Js with an Asian configuration and a LAX/SFO/LHR configuration?

I agree this 359 replacement for the 772 is interesting, like I say performance wise is probably the closet but that’s about it, fine aircraft absolutely, for NZ not so sure given their current fleet and adding more point to point flying.

That’s my 2 cents, no change for mine, it will be all 787 long haul.

I don't see how it's complicated if it's a single type with two or three configs or if it's two different types. Either way, the fleet or sub-fleet is 'pooled' and used onto specific markets. What I mean by this is forget they're both 787s, they're seen as essentially two different assets used for different markets, just like you don't see the 77W getting sent to PVG or DPS etc.

The benefit would come from engineering savings as it's a single type and having a single pilot and crew base which can be deployed anywhere on the network.

There will some issues as there is today around adding additional capacity into markets where say a code 3 has time in the cycle but the airline needing a code 1 or 2 to make it work etc or how to replace code 2 when it's out for MX etc. But these issues exist with a mixed fleet type as well.

The less frames you have in a specific configuration and the more configurations you have the more complex it has the potential to become. However I get your point that the savings come in crew and being the same type in maintenance etc.

Having said that the 77W is a different type to the 789 so it doesn’t get sent to DPS/PVG etc, KL for example I think do cross crew the 777/787 and will operate them into the same markets a few times a week each, anyway NZ won’t do that most likely and don’t have a cross crewd pilot pool.

I suppose there is the potential for a fleet of 25-30 789s and 12-14 78Js in a decade. So a fleet of 25-30 frames has some flexibility for 3 configurations.

zkncj wrote:

Is it time that New Zealand/Australia look at better regulations like the EU to protect passengers when the airline is at fault? Currently New Zealand and Australian airlines aren’t really accountable to psssengers for delays caused by operational reasons etc, compared to say the EU.

With NZ’s slipping OTP l’ve been starting to think they need to be held more accountable to there actions.

For example last night NZ734 left BNE 45minutes late due to “cleaners not arriving on time” to be honest is an pretty weak excuse for delaying an flight, and the lack of communication from ground staff doesn’t help.

NZ made the choice to save money and outsource Australian ground handling to SwissPort who seems to be doing an less than great job (probably because NZ is paying min fees). OTP and ground service in Australia has slipped so much since they made the switch.

Yet there seems no accountability on the airlines todo anything to improve there OTP.

I don't believe it's needed. QF and NZ both offer pretty good options and service for disrupts. Most of the long haul carriers have enough turnaround time or are reliable enough as it is too.

I'd be more worried about that cost being handed over to the consumer as well. It'd be suitable via

- Reduction in services to allow more turn time on domestic flights (decrease capacity increase in fares)
- Increased servicing fees being passed on via ticket prices if the airline demands staff from their GHA's - you're cleaning issue
- The expected $X price tag would be accounted for somewhere and offset via ticket prices.

The question needs to be asked, as a consumer, is the issue so bad it requires legislation or is it something the consumer can vote for with bums on seats forcing the airline to take action. I know the airports team are heavily reviewed and questioned on OTP.

NZ6 wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

tealnz wrote:

There is no evidence a serious increase in payload/range is in the works for the 78J - the current airframe is maxed out. The only solid info we have seen suggests there might be a very small MTOW increase available for the 789. But even with such an increase the 789 would be marginal for the more demanding North American routes ex AKL. It looks likely that a serious increase in 787 payload range will have to wait for a re-engining in the second half of the 2020s. That doesn’t work for NZ’s current 77E replacement decision.

If you’re correct, then I agree, the 350 is in the box seat. There’s been a lot of discussion about possible future enhancements to the 789 and 78J but little solid info. But in my own mind I keep coming back to the fact that QF is apparently making PER-LHR work - a route that’s around 200 miles longer. Yes, I know that you can’t just make direct comparisons like this, but it does tell me that a 789 is definitely in the ballpark as far as EWR is concerned - albeit with a less dense config that NZ’s current fleet. To me the decision then comes down to cost and whether the improved capabilities of the A350 are sufficient to outweigh the downside of having a second WB type in the fleet.

Because of the urban myth that Cargo is everything to the airline and they need the highest MTOW to make markets like LAX work. Even though, as you say DavidByrne QF is making PER-LHR work but also BNE-LAX, MEL-LAX and NZ itself has its own data on AKL-IAH and AKL-ORD.

So, hypothetical theory.. is NZ happy to make AKL-LAX & AKL-SFO both double daily 789's and build the market capacity into ORD, IAH, NYC, DEN, LAS etc over the coming 2 decades.

Real money is made via perishable cargo, things like live bees into the US has been a cash cow and isn't actually that heavy either.

I agree NZ6, we well most of us certainly here do t no what Boeing and NZ and other airlines are talking about behind closed doors, the 77W entered service 6 after the 773 what’s to say a 787-10ER won’t be launched soon? To enter service in 5-6 years time? Or is because it can’t because the A350 is so much better and lifts more anyway, I feel that’s an A.net thing for sure, the A350 is a fine aircraft and there is 1 certain rediculous thread 300 posts long.

NZ as you say have plenty of info on what the 789 is capable of, agree on freight, volume wise they probably fill the hold but no where near MTOW most of the time I’d be picking? I may be wrong.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

If you’re correct, then I agree, the 350 is in the box seat. There’s been a lot of discussion about possible future enhancements to the 789 and 78J but little solid info. But in my own mind I keep coming back to the fact that QF is apparently making PER-LHR work - a route that’s around 200 miles longer. Yes, I know that you can’t just make direct comparisons like this, but it does tell me that a 789 is definitely in the ballpark as far as EWR is concerned - albeit with a less dense config that NZ’s current fleet. To me the decision then comes down to cost and whether the improved capabilities of the A350 are sufficient to outweigh the downside of having a second WB type in the fleet.

Because of the urban myth that Cargo is everything to the airline and they need the highest MTOW to make markets like LAX work. Even though, as you say DavidByrne QF is making PER-LHR work but also BNE-LAX, MEL-LAX and NZ itself has its own data on AKL-IAH and AKL-ORD.

So, hypothetical theory.. is NZ happy to make AKL-LAX & AKL-SFO both double daily 789's and build the market capacity into ORD, IAH, NYC, DEN, LAS etc over the coming 2 decades.

Real money is made via perishable cargo, things like live bees into the US has been a cash cow and isn't actually that heavy either.

I agree NZ6, we well most of us certainly here do t no what Boeing and NZ and other airlines are talking about behind closed doors, the 77W entered service 6 after the 773 what’s to say a 787-10ER won’t be launched soon? To enter service in 5-6 years time? Or is because it can’t because the A350 is so much better and lifts more anyway, I feel that’s an A.net thing for sure, the A350 is a fine aircraft and there is 1 certain rediculous thread 300 posts long.

NZ as you say have plenty of info on what the 789 is capable of, agree on freight, volume wise they probably fill the hold but no where near MTOW most of the time I’d be picking? I may be wrong.

Boeing committing to a true -10ER? A new main bogey, new power plant and new wing would surely be needed.

zkeoj wrote:

Very interesting. You seem to fly much more domestically than I do... And your max is 7 so far, which is similar to mine I wonder if anybody has some/a lot of dupes o other NZ registered aircraft, such as Barrier, Sounds, Chats etc...?

Maximum is OJQ 12x OJR 10x. I have 3 flights on ZK-CIC too, AKL-WHK, WHK-AKL, WAG-AKL

ZK-NBT wrote:

tu2130 wrote:

NZ8762 from Christchurch to New Plymouth
Flight Time: 1hr30 mins
Aircraft: Bombardier Dash-8 Q300
Reg: ZK-NET

What’s this flight? Did you take it?

It was a flight I saw and filmed

aerorobnz wrote:

zkeoj wrote:

Very interesting. You seem to fly much more domestically than I do... And your max is 7 so far, which is similar to mine I wonder if anybody has some/a lot of dupes o other NZ registered aircraft, such as Barrier, Sounds, Chats etc...?

Maximum is OJQ 12x OJR 10x. I have 3 flights on ZK-CIC too, AKL-WHK, WHK-AKL, WAG-AKL

I lost track long ago. Between a dozen to 30 flights on most domestic A320’s and slightly less on the international ones. About 4+ on NNA/B/C/D too.

Zkpilot wrote:

aerorobnz wrote:

zkeoj wrote:

Very interesting. You seem to fly much more domestically than I do... And your max is 7 so far, which is similar to mine I wonder if anybody has some/a lot of dupes o other NZ registered aircraft, such as Barrier, Sounds, Chats etc...?

Maximum is OJQ 12x OJR 10x. I have 3 flights on ZK-CIC too, AKL-WHK, WHK-AKL, WAG-AKL

I lost track long ago. Between a dozen to 30 flights on most domestic A320’s and slightly less on the international ones. About 4+ on NNA/B/C/D too.

Yep, by the time you retire as cabin crew you should be up a fair bit higher than that!

Very interesting article in Stuff today about NZ flights to China, and the struggle for profitability. Could we see another Air China codeshare into Shanghai instead of NZ flying its own metal?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indust ... a-ceo-says

jimmyah wrote:

Very interesting article in Stuff today about NZ flights to China, and the struggle for profitability. Could we see another Air China codeshare into Shanghai instead of NZ flying its own metal?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indust ... a-ceo-says

Read that carefully otherwise, you could be misled by that article and I'd say there some political comments from Luxon.

It almost reads that NZ has constantly hemorrhaged money in China over the last 13 years, but the tide has definitely turned from the early years and when the airline also operated into BJS. As quoted more revenue could be earned elsewhere but the airline is committed to a massive region which is still very much developing.

My point being, it's not as bad today as the article suggests.

I think it was Planemanofnz who disputed the airline wanted more access/flights into China, well here it is first hand.

Luxon said he wanted to double the number of airport slots it had access to in China but securing existing spots was proving difficult enough because Chinese airlines took preference.

zkeoj wrote:

Hi Everybody

just a fun game for those of you who keep a log:

My list would probably be a lot shorter compared to a number of you guys here, but here it is anyway:

NGE (2)
NGM (2)
NGP (2)
SJB (2)
OJH (2)
OJQ (2)
OJR (3)
OAB (2)
OXC (2)
OKF (2) - 1x AKL-MEL and MEL-AKL each
NZC (2)
NZK (2) - both time AKL-TPE on PEY

So it appears that I've been on OJR 3 times (the most in a single plane), including at least once when it was painted in the All Blacks livery...

Other interesting facts - most of my flight sectors are AKL-WLG vv, with quite a number AKL-SIN vv (on both SQ and NZ) and followed by AKL-CHC vv

-C

jimmyah wrote:

Very interesting article in Stuff today about NZ flights to China, and the struggle for profitability. Could we see another Air China codeshare into Shanghai instead of NZ flying its own metal?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indust ... a-ceo-says

There is nothing new here. Luxon said years ago that Rob Fyfe had lost them millions of dollars in China. We can read it as the recent profit made from PVG is not enough to offset the loss made in earlier years otherwise I can't understand why they are looking to double the slots. Don't forget that part of the reason for a second daily flight is that they will get China-South America transit business which has all the potential, especially when GRU comes online.

PVG will open its satellite terminals later this year linked by light rail which would hopefully improve the transit experience. Perhaps this would attract more people to choose transit via PVG which would improve the sustainability of the route.

I would assume slots would be easier to get then than now. CA recently reshuffled their PVG long haul routes to focus only on Europe and I doubt they would be interested to take over NZ's daily PVG service and I don't see NZ exit for all the above reasons.

Is ZK-OXB have planned maintenance I literally tracked it at 9,625 ft

xiaotung wrote:

jimmyah wrote:

Very interesting article in Stuff today about NZ flights to China, and the struggle for profitability. Could we see another Air China codeshare into Shanghai instead of NZ flying its own metal?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indust ... a-ceo-says

There is nothing new here. Luxon said years ago that Rob Fyfe had lost them millions of dollars in China. We can read it as the recent profit made from PVG is not enough to offset the loss made in earlier years otherwise I can't understand why they are looking to double the slots. Don't forget that part of the reason for a second daily flight is that they will get China-South America transit business which has all the potential, especially when GRU comes online.

PVG will open its satellite terminals later this year linked by light rail which would hopefully improve the transit experience. Perhaps this would attract more people to choose transit via PVG which would improve the sustainability of the route.

I would assume slots would be easier to get then than now. CA recently reshuffled their PVG long haul routes to focus only on Europe and I doubt they would be interested to take over NZ's daily PVG service and I don't see NZ exit for all the above reasons.

Luxon said Fyfe lost them millions? Thing is it wasn’t until the 789 came into the fleet that PVG started to turn a profit was it? Fyfe started PVG in 2006 3x weekly 77E, then went 5 weekly, it was an odd decision to add PEK at the expense of PVG frequency, PEK was 2 weekly only and dropped to 1 weekly at times, while PVG was only 2 weekly in off peak aswell. The 763 flew some PVG services between 2012-15.

They would like 2 daily, there was a 2nd service seasonally in CNY for 2-3 years but the slots were pretty poor with a midnight arrival. I’m sure somehow they will get better slots in future.

tu2130 wrote:

Is ZK-OXB have planned maintenance I literally tracked it at 9,625 ft

Certainly not the normal flight path between AKL and CHC. Must be maintenance.

Whoopeecock wrote:

tu2130 wrote:

Is ZK-OXB have planned maintenance I literally tracked it at 9,625 ft

Certainly not the normal flight path between AKL and CHC. Must be maintenance.

Yeah, imagine if I heard it over my house, I would've filmed it.

tu2130 wrote:

Whoopeecock wrote:

tu2130 wrote:

Is ZK-OXB have planned maintenance I literally tracked it at 9,625 ft

Certainly not the normal flight path between AKL and CHC. Must be maintenance.

Yeah, imagine if I heard it over my house, I would've filmed it.

To fly AKL-CHC at 9,625 ft means they didn't have cabin pressure. Could have been damaged on the ground and had a temporary repair to get to CHC.
It was on the ground at AKL for three days prior to the NZ6207 AKL-CHC positioning flight.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zk-oxb

PA515

First, I dont think the PVG route is net profitable as it stands. My understanding is that the 'profit' is something that can be questioned by anyone with access to full financials. But that's just what I have heard and hence my understanding.

Second, the suggestion that there is so such potential between PVG and South America that a second flight could exploit this seems to be based more on wishful thinking than on realistic ability/demand. It is my understanding that numbers that might consider NZ are far from sufficient for such an operation to be the main driver of a second flight (other than strategic, should the company believe the potential warrants loss-leaders).

Another limiting factor with PVG is that it is, in my opinion, the least suitable airport for transfers in China. It is my belief that any such undertaking (transfers at PVG) would cause undue headaches for operations. Reliability and time to connect is not a strength at PVG hence I struggle to see that PVG would be operationally/financially wise. Now maybe that can change after the lightrail is up and running, who knows. Delays at PVG wont go away only through light-rail though.

The other issue with PVG is that it is the airport in China where North American carriers (AM, AA, DL and UA) provides plenty of capacity but sees quite low occupancy (especially to inland and east coast ports). China is, to my understanding generally loss-making for them, which leads them to offer cheap connections to markets within NB reach (Asia - Central America/ Colombia/Ecuador etc) and more importantly for NZ, Brazil. This has led to ticket prices reducing substantially on Brazil-Asia routes. Carriers such as AM, UA and AA often offers heavily discounted one stop PVG-GRU tickets and the route through AKL does not reduce traveling time vs competitors reducing the ability for NZ to obtain a potential strategic competitive advantage. Add on that flights between PVG to Brazil and Argentina sees one stop connections in Europe and the middle east already and the general consensus that transfer passengers are less profitable than O/D and the business-case for PVG-AKL-South America can be questioned.

Hence, based on this and quite a bit more that I didnt write, I struggle to see that transfer passengers between China and South America provides a vable rationale for an additional PVG flight. Instead such a flight would be dependent on the market AKL-China (and European carriers that use this flight due to it being the cheapest available to connect passengers to AKL on)..

PA515 wrote:

Air NZ A321-271NX ZK-NNE (msn 8799) on delivery XFW-MCT as NZ6098.

ZK-NNE spent two nights in MCT instead of the usual one, but made up for it by doing CNS-CHC overnight and arrived yesterday morning.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zk-nne

PA515

PA515 wrote:

tu2130 wrote:

Whoopeecock wrote:

Certainly not the normal flight path between AKL and CHC. Must be maintenance.

Yeah, imagine if I heard it over my house, I would've filmed it.

To fly AKL-CHC at 9,625 ft means they didn't have cabin pressure. Could have been damaged on the ground and had a temporary repair to get to CHC.
It was on the ground at AKL for three days prior to the NZ6207 AKL-CHC positioning flight.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zk-oxb

PA515

I flew on OXB on Tuesday last week and it got grounded overnight in WLG with brake warning ⚠️ could be related, then again how did it get to CHC? Probably no issue just getting more maintenance done.

aerorobnz wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

aerorobnz wrote:

Maximum is OJQ 12x OJR 10x. I have 3 flights on ZK-CIC too, AKL-WHK, WHK-AKL, WAG-AKL

I lost track long ago. Between a dozen to 30 flights on most domestic A320’s and slightly less on the international ones. About 4+ on NNA/B/C/D too.

Yep, by the time you retire as cabin crew you should be up a fair bit higher than that!

haha, cabin crew is not fair (just kidding). I know cabin crew who keep track on FlightMemory. You can see right away if there is a cabin crew member, since it is 90% on one airline, most on a couple of types, and thousands of flights

Megatop747-412 wrote:

zkeoj wrote:

Hi Everybody

just a fun game for those of you who keep a log:

My list would probably be a lot shorter compared to a number of you guys here, but here it is anyway:

NGE (2)
NGM (2)
NGP (2)
SJB (2)
OJH (2)
OJQ (2)
OJR (3)
OAB (2)
OXC (2)
OKF (2) - 1x AKL-MEL and MEL-AKL each
NZC (2)
NZK (2) - both time AKL-TPE on PEY

So it appears that I've been on OJR 3 times (the most in a single plane), including at least once when it was painted in the All Blacks livery...

Other interesting facts - most of my flight sectors are AKL-WLG vv, with quite a number AKL-SIN vv (on both SQ and NZ) and followed by AKL-CHC vv

-C

Thanks, Megatop - looking good!

I won't reply to each post so I won't flood the thread, but I appreciate all your post all the same. Please don't feel ignored

Regarding the 777-200ER replacement RFP, my guess is six A350-900s and four (initially) A350-1000s.

ZK-NBT wrote:

I’d have thought in those ULH routes there would be a reasonable Premium demand, and need for a few less Y seats. The CEO said they could remove 30Y seats from the 789, I’d say remove 45 and add a few more W, J, something like 33J, 47W, 170Y total 250.

The problem then is that a configuration like that would only really work on the ULH routes.

tealnz wrote:

There is no evidence a serious increase in payload/range is in the works for the 78J - the current airframe is maxed out. The only solid info we have seen suggests there might be a very small MTOW increase available for the 789. But even with such an increase the 789 would be marginal for the more demanding North American routes ex AKL. It looks likely that a serious increase in 787 payload range will have to wait for a re-engining in the second half of the 2020s. That doesn’t work for NZ’s current 77E replacement decision.

Indeed. It's a difficult situation for Boeing to be in. A 787-10ER would hamper the already poor sales of the 777x.

zkojq wrote:

Regarding the 777-200ER replacement RFP, my guess is six A350-900s and four (initially) A350-1000s.

ZK-NBT wrote:

I’d have thought in those ULH routes there would be a reasonable Premium demand, and need for a few less Y seats. The CEO said they could remove 30Y seats from the 789, I’d say remove 45 and add a few more W, J, something like 33J, 47W, 170Y total 250.

The problem then is that a configuration like that would only really work on the ULH routes.

Why would NZ opt to replace the 772 with the 35K? The link below is very basic compassion of two aircraft based on the brochure statistics but you can clearly see the capacity is much higher and it's 10 meters longer so even a 'lighter' load will still offer an increase on the LOPA.

It doesn't offer much range improvement either. I agree the 359 is a very nice and a very suitable aircraft but with the youngest 77W being just 5 years old do they need more aircraft of this size now?

https://www.aviatorjoe.net/go/compare/7 ... A350-1000/

You'd also question the value of any benefit gained from a 359 vs a single type based on this data

https://www.aviatorjoe.net/go/compare/787-9/A350-900/

NZ6 wrote:

Why would NZ opt to replace the 772 with the 35K? The link below is very basic compassion of two aircraft based on the brochure statistics but you can clearly see the capacity is much higher and it's 10 meters longer so even a 'lighter' load will still offer an increase on the LOPA.

It doesn't offer much range improvement either. I agree the 359 is a very nice and a very suitable aircraft but with the youngest 77W being just 5 years old do they need more aircraft of this size now?

https://www.aviatorjoe.net/go/compare/7 ... A350-1000/

You'd also question the value of any benefit gained from a 359 vs a single type based on this data

https://www.aviatorjoe.net/go/compare/787-9/A350-900/

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.

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.

DavidByrne wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Why would NZ opt to replace the 772 with the 35K? The link below is very basic compassion of two aircraft based on the brochure statistics but you can clearly see the capacity is much higher and it's 10 meters longer so even a 'lighter' load will still offer an increase on the LOPA.

It doesn't offer much range improvement either. I agree the 359 is a very nice and a very suitable aircraft but with the youngest 77W being just 5 years old do they need more aircraft of this size now?

https://www.aviatorjoe.net/go/compare/7 ... A350-1000/

You'd also question the value of any benefit gained from a 359 vs a single type based on this data

https://www.aviatorjoe.net/go/compare/787-9/A350-900/

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.

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.

That's why I said "The link below is very basic compassion of two aircraft based on the brochure statistics". It was the only source I could quickly find showing a side by side comparison.

Where does the 772 operate to and what new growth routes are there that we can we see a 35K being used on? To replace the 77W maybe.

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

You might have read it otherwise but I was basically agreeing with you!

NZ6 wrote:

zkojq wrote:

Regarding the 777-200ER replacement RFP, my guess is six A350-900s and four (initially) A350-1000s.

ZK-NBT wrote:

I’d have thought in those ULH routes there would be a reasonable Premium demand, and need for a few less Y seats. The CEO said they could remove 30Y seats from the 789, I’d say remove 45 and add a few more W, J, something like 33J, 47W, 170Y total 250.

The problem then is that a configuration like that would only really work on the ULH routes.

Why would NZ opt to replace the 772 with the 35K? The link below is very basic compassion of two aircraft based on the brochure statistics but you can clearly see the capacity is much higher and it's 10 meters longer so even a 'lighter' load will still offer an increase on the LOPA.

It doesn't offer much range improvement either. I agree the 359 is a very nice and a very suitable aircraft but with the youngest 77W being just 5 years old do they need more aircraft of this size now?

https://www.aviatorjoe.net/go/compare/7 ... A350-1000/

You'd also question the value of any benefit gained from a 359 vs a single type based on this data

https://www.aviatorjoe.net/go/compare/787-9/A350-900/

What routes need more capacity that a 35K would replace the 772? Is what Airbus are proposing QF a modified aircraft? It seems to have a lot of range? NZ don’t need 330+ seats for ULH imo, initially I was for the 778 but I think it’s to big and unlikely to be used to replace the 77W either.

The 359 could do most routes sure but so could the 789, with the larger 78J on the busiest routes.

[quote="ZK-NBT"]
Why would NZ opt to replace the 772 with the 35K? The link below is very basic compassion of two aircraft based on the brochure statistics but you can clearly see the capacity is much higher and it's 10 meters longer so even a 'lighter' load will still offer an increase on the LOPA.
.[/quote]

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

zkncj wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Why would NZ opt to replace the 772 with the 35K? The link below is very basic compassion of two aircraft based on the brochure statistics but you can clearly see the capacity is much higher and it's 10 meters longer so even a 'lighter' load will still offer an increase on the LOPA.
.

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

I just don’t think they need more capacity on a year round basis other than maybe HKG, YVR seasonally sure, ORD it wouldn’t likely make it, and EZE frequency could be increased with smaller frames.

I’m not convinced and I’m no expert on operating costs but the 77W burns a fair bit more fuel than a 77E so it really depends on the route and configuration as to weather you can cover the additional coat of the larger aircraft.

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