Updated, confirmed - Air NZ picks Boeing for wide-body order

Antarius · Mon May 20, 2019 1:09 pm

Motorhussy wrote:
They want the A359 but don't want to diversify the fleet.

If they wanted the 359, they would order it :roll:

musman9853 · Mon May 20, 2019 1:19 pm

smi0006 wrote:
So nothing actually new here - just a rumour?

It's Reuters. If they're reporting it, it's fact.

Airlines0613 · Mon May 20, 2019 2:58 pm

ZK-NBT wrote:
OA940 wrote:
Honestly a 777X order for NZ will actually shock me. I don't see many markets they can dump a plane with its capacity on.

Well they had 747s for 33 years and replaced them with 77Ws, granted they only fly to LAX/LHR/SFO regularly long haul and IAH seasonally sometimes.

But yes the trend is more P2P with smaller aircraft IAH/ORD/NYC where as everything used to funnel through LAX:SFO.

I do think the 77W replacement will be something smaller 787s likely imo.

IAH is not seasonal, it’s a year round route with a mix of 77E/77W.

PA515 · Mon May 20, 2019 3:14 pm

Airlines0613 wrote:
IAH is not seasonal, it’s a year round route with a mix of 77E/77W.

He was talking about the use of the 77W to IAH being seasonal.

PA515

Bricktop · Mon May 20, 2019 3:21 pm

musman9853 wrote:
smi0006 wrote:
So nothing actually new here - just a rumour?

It's Reuters. If they're reporting it, it's fact.

Let's calm down on canonizing any media source these days. When Air New Zealand announces it, then I will believe it.

Zkpilot · Mon May 20, 2019 3:28 pm

FlyHappy wrote:
Motorhussy wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:

I’ll wait for firm confirmation but I won’t be surprised at all by this decision.

What do you mean they want the A359?

I mean they want a plane that can fly AKL-EWR/GRU/ORD without having to block off seats and without compromising revenue by leaving the belly mostly empty.

ummmmm.... isn't the name of that aircraft 777-8 ?

at least for AKL-EWR (7655nm):

B789 - empty belly, maybe blocked seat?
A359 - empty belly, maybe blocked seat?
B778 - not an empty belly, well-sardine'd pax

so, what exactly am I missing here?

Oh, right - others in this thread have stated there's no traffic between NYC-AKL . So why does Air NZ want to fly this ULH folly? (I'm serious)

Everyone says "fleet too small for multiple types".... errrrrr... aside from having a split fleet now (does NZ share pilot pool 787/777 ?), being a remote, but wealthy island with significant import/export needs, strong tourism, and aspirations to grow its TPAC connector , it seems to me they have unique fleet requirements. I can't think of another nation with similar aviation needs and opportunities; I'm not sure that they have to be held in the same box of rules as others.

A359 can do AKL-EWR with full pax load in a standard configuration and take limited belly freight no problem. EWR-AKL on the other hand is further (head winds) but there is also less need for freight in that direction so again should be fine with full pax load. 789 however is compromised in either direction unless in a very low density layout and with no freight (unless Boeing can make a significant improvement in both fuel burn and MTOW/OEW). This also applies to a lesser degree for ORD which is also ULH.
If this rumour is true then I also think they might be just looking at a top up of perhaps 4 frames to see them through until 2023ish and see what is on offer then to replace the remaining 77E and 77W (A350NEO/789ER/78JER). It’ll be interesting to see what engines they choose with GE reportedly having better fuel burn over longer flights (and RR ongoing nightmares).

MIflyer12 · Mon May 20, 2019 4:19 pm

Bricktop wrote:
musman9853 wrote:
smi0006 wrote:
So nothing actually new here - just a rumour?

It's Reuters. If they're reporting it, it's fact.

Let's calm down on canonizing any media source these days. When Air New Zealand announces it, then I will believe it.

Canonizing? Reuters is pretty reliable. They've been doing this since 1851. If you don't want to discuss anything in advance of a company press release we can omit 80% of the messages in this forum.

Antarius · Mon May 20, 2019 4:30 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
Bricktop wrote:
musman9853 wrote:

It's Reuters. If they're reporting it, it's fact.

Let's calm down on canonizing any media source these days. When Air New Zealand announces it, then I will believe it.

Canonizing? Reuters is pretty reliable. They've been doing this since 1851. If you don't want to discuss anything in advance of a company press release we can omit 80% of the messages in this forum.

I prefer these threads where we have a source (albeit not final) to the litany of "my pilot friend told me" ones. See the one about AS buying B6 :shock:

Reuters is a good enough source to have a discussion about.

Airlines0613 · Mon May 20, 2019 5:31 pm

tealnz wrote:
Choice of 787 as their 77E replacement, if Reuters is correct, really only makes sense as part of a strategy of tight restraint in capital spending over the next few years. The 789 doesn't give them the payload/range they could have got from the 359. (Might we see one or two additional 77Ws in the mix for cheap lift?) Then we stand by for a 77W replacement contest in the mid-2020s in which it will be A350-1000neo against 77X. If demand has grown sufficiently by then to allow a fleet of reasonable size the A350 would be the one to beat.

The A35K will not be ‘neod’ anytime soon, as Rolls Royce has pushed back the Ultra Fan by a couple of years.

Etheereal · Mon May 20, 2019 6:07 pm

smi0006 wrote:
So nothing actually new here - just a rumour?

This is not a rumor thread. For rumors go somewhere else.

ZK-NBT · Mon May 20, 2019 6:36 pm

FlyHappy wrote:
Motorhussy wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:

I’ll wait for firm confirmation but I won’t be surprised at all by this decision.

What do you mean they want the A359?

I mean they want a plane that can fly AKL-EWR/GRU/ORD without having to block off seats and without compromising revenue by leaving the belly mostly empty.

ummmmm.... isn't the name of that aircraft 777-8 ?

at least for AKL-EWR (7655nm):

B789 - empty belly, maybe blocked seat?
A359 - empty belly, maybe blocked seat?
B778 - not an empty belly, well-sardine'd pax

so, what exactly am I missing here?

Oh, right - others in this thread have stated there's no traffic between NYC-AKL . So why does Air NZ want to fly this ULH folly? (I'm serious)

Everyone says "fleet too small for multiple types".... errrrrr... aside from having a split fleet now (does NZ share pilot pool 787/777 ?), being a remote, but wealthy island with significant import/export needs, strong tourism, and aspirations to grow its TPAC connector , it seems to me they have unique fleet requirements. I can't think of another nation with similar aviation needs and opportunities; I'm not sure that they have to be held in the same box of rules as others.

NZ pick up plenty of Australian connections plus making it easier for those in NYC itself and surrounding area to get to NZ.

No NZ doesn’t have a shared pilot pool for 787/777, not sure this is likely in future or not?

778 just seems to heavy and to niche, NZ are talking about 2-3 routes here, while they could go to LAX aswell, they may well wait for a more capable 787 as a 77W replacement in future.

Motorhussy · Mon May 20, 2019 8:08 pm

Antarius wrote:
Motorhussy wrote:
They want the A359 but don't want to diversify the fleet.

If they wanted the 359, they would order it

A conundrum for NZ. Maybe consolidating thee fleet around the 787 and 77W at this stage presents more advantage than introducing a new type, despite it offering more of what you require. NZ is a relatively small airline. And it is very well managed.

TaniTaniwha · Mon May 20, 2019 8:43 pm

mrkerr7474 wrote:
TaniTaniwha wrote:
The oldest 77W is 9 years, the youngest 4 years. Is now the time to make a decision on replacing them? I thought this latest fleet update is to replace the 77E's. which range in age from 17 years to 12 years (still not that old relative to some fleets)... with some expansion.

These new aircraft orders (whatever they will be) are to replace the 77E and NOT the 77W

Exactly my point.

tealnz · Mon May 20, 2019 11:50 pm

Antarius wrote:
Reuters is a good enough source to have a discussion about.

I think we can at least assume this means there will be a further 787 buy, presumably in a lower density/longer range version, but not necessarily in the numbers needed to fully replace the 77Es – could be an interim buy pending a decision in a few years on replacing the rest of the 77Es plus 77Ws plus growth. And we could see some 78Js in the mix for Asian routes, as NZ have signaled.

StudiodeKadent · Tue May 21, 2019 12:19 am

planemanofnz wrote:
StudiodeKadent wrote:
NZ may prefer to start using smaller jets to more cities at higher frequencies. As a longer-term model.

That may not work work longer term, as many of the ports are more and more slot restricted - HKG, PVG, HND - LAX also isn't easy to optimise. They can mitigate some of this by using JV partners, as with CX and HKG, I guess.

Cheers,

C.

Good point. However HKG, HND and PVG are all within the range of a 787-10 with a standard configuration. In addition, in a more premium-ish configuration, the 787-10 could do AKL - LAX/SFO as well.

So even if NZ stick with the 787, they still have a viable choice of a jet that's bigger than the 789.

smartplane · Tue May 21, 2019 3:33 am

Has Air NZ confirmed the Reuters statement?

zeke · Tue May 21, 2019 3:53 am

No, no one has

Pcoder · Tue May 21, 2019 4:18 am

Reuters and a few other news organisations are fairly good at providing reports that are accurate, but I doesn't exclude them from getting things wrong from time to time. There might be some agreement reached, but it might be as set in stone yet.

I'd imagine that a few extra 787s to replace the 772s is probably what has been ordered.

Strato2 · Tue May 21, 2019 4:25 am

My condolences to the Y pax of NZ who have more narrow seats to endure now.

lutfi · Tue May 21, 2019 4:32 am

StudiodeKadent wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
StudiodeKadent wrote:
NZ may prefer to start using smaller jets to more cities at higher frequencies. As a longer-term model.

That may not work work longer term, as many of the ports are more and more slot restricted - HKG, PVG, HND - LAX also isn't easy to optimise. They can mitigate some of this by using JV partners, as with CX and HKG, I guess.

Cheers,

C.

Good point. However HKG, HND and PVG are all within the range of a 787-10 with a standard configuration. In addition, in a more premium-ish configuration, the 787-10 could do AKL - LAX/SFO as well.

So even if NZ stick with the 787, they still have a viable choice of a jet that's bigger than the 789.

This, plus they still have the 777-300ER for a long time that can do any of those routes.

For extra frequencies at HND - NRT is an option. HKG will have 3rd runway by 2023/4. PVG - yep, an issue. But as traffic increases, they can look at other points in China (CAN/ PEK/ ChongQing etc)

vhtje · Tue May 21, 2019 7:40 am

Any news on a new business class seat for NZ? Even VS has abandoned the coffins now.

TaniTaniwha · Tue May 21, 2019 7:46 am

I've flown the NZ "Herringbone" three times in the last six months SYD-AKL in both the 77E and the 789 and while it was nice, I can see why pax would prefer other offerings. It's not good to fly with a partner or colleague and even the cabin crew admit, it's not the best. Yikes! I'd like to see what they have up their sleeve with the next J update. Knowing NZ, it's going to be innovative. (I hope)

aotearoa · Tue May 21, 2019 10:15 am

C.[/quote]

Good point. However HKG, HND and PVG are all within the range of a 787-10 with a standard configuration. In addition, in a more premium-ish configuration, the 787-10 could do AKL - LAX/SFO as well.

So even if NZ stick with the 787, they still have a viable choice of a jet that's bigger than the 789.[/quote]

You can all stop wringing your hands with worry on USA West Coast to NZ 787-10 capacity. A decent MTOW increase, combined with additional engine thrust, will make this a/c a pretty universal Pacific rim winner.

smartplane · Tue May 21, 2019 10:59 am

zeke wrote:
No, no one has

Must be a very small order if Air NZ hasn't fallen foul of listing requirements to notify material transactions today.

Polot · Tue May 21, 2019 11:10 am

smartplane wrote:
zeke wrote:
No, no one has

Must be a very small order if Air NZ hasn't fallen foul of listing requirements to notify material transactions today.

Or they haven’t placed the order yet. Or the disclosure requirements are not as strict (ie must inform ASAP the instant you place the order) as many people here’s like to think.

MoKa777 · Tue May 21, 2019 11:16 am

aotearoa wrote:
You can all stop wringing your hands with worry on USA West Coast to NZ 787-10 capacity. A decent MTOW increase, combined with additional engine thrust, will make this a/c a pretty universal Pacific rim winner.

According to more knowledgeable members here on a.net, a 787 MTOW increase will be quite difficult to achieve. A 787-10 with more range would be awesome but I don't know how (financially) realistic it is.

Zkpilot · Tue May 21, 2019 12:28 pm

MoKa777 wrote:
aotearoa wrote:
You can all stop wringing your hands with worry on USA West Coast to NZ 787-10 capacity. A decent MTOW increase, combined with additional engine thrust, will make this a/c a pretty universal Pacific rim winner.

According to more knowledgeable members here on a.net, a 787 MTOW increase will be quite difficult to achieve. A 787-10 with more range would be awesome but I don't know how (financially) realistic it is.

There is talk that Boeing has shaved over a ton off the empty weight while allowing MTOW to increase by 1-2t. That means you can carry an extra 3t of fuel potentially (about 500km range boost), couple that with improved fuel burn in engines of 1% and all up you’ve suddenly gained about 700km range which is nothing to sniff at. Couple that with a lower density cabin and you could certainly fly the 787 in any form further.

aemoreira1981 · Tue May 21, 2019 2:28 pm

behramjee wrote:
AKL-GRU is 15 hours flying time so it’s do able using their B789 or B77W.

Commercially speaking its way better replacing their 8 B772ERs with 8-10 B789s of which they already operate 13 examples.

NYC-AKL isnt a big market to begin with ie 17,000 annual pax in 2018. There is no point ordering a B778X just to serve this route.

Unless they’re trying to get connecting traffic to all over Australia to beat Project Sunrise without having to bring passengers to Chicago.

MoKa777 · Tue May 21, 2019 8:59 pm

Zkpilot wrote:
MoKa777 wrote:
aotearoa wrote:
You can all stop wringing your hands with worry on USA West Coast to NZ 787-10 capacity. A decent MTOW increase, combined with additional engine thrust, will make this a/c a pretty universal Pacific rim winner.

According to more knowledgeable members here on a.net, a 787 MTOW increase will be quite difficult to achieve. A 787-10 with more range would be awesome but I don't know how (financially) realistic it is.

There is talk that Boeing has shaved over a ton off the empty weight while allowing MTOW to increase by 1-2t. That means you can carry an extra 3t of fuel potentially (about 500km range boost), couple that with improved fuel burn in engines of 1% and all up you’ve suddenly gained about 700km range which is nothing to sniff at. Couple that with a lower density cabin and you could certainly fly the 787 in any form further.

Wow! I hope this becomes a reality!

behramjee · Tue May 21, 2019 9:46 pm

New article on ATW is also predicting the B789 or a mix of B789s and B781s (to be used for high demand AKL-Asian routes) as the likely choice https://atwonline.com/airframes/boeing- ... land-order

FYI, the B781 with a maximum "realistic flying range" of 12 hours (as UA will be using it for TLV-EWR and KL for AMS-SFO) means the below routes can be flown by NZ nonstop from AKL:

HKG - 11:45
NRT - 11:00
SIN - 10:45
MNL - 10:55
TPE - 11:15

Unfortunately PEK, ICN, PVG cannot be operated with a B781 fully loaded with pax + cargo.

smartplane · Tue May 21, 2019 10:28 pm

Polot wrote:
smartplane wrote:
zeke wrote:
No, no one has

Must be a very small order if Air NZ hasn't fallen foul of listing requirements to notify material transactions today.

Or they haven’t placed the order yet. Or the disclosure requirements are not as strict (ie must inform ASAP the instant you place the order) as many people here’s like to think.

A multi-WB order would certainly meet disclosure requirements in NZ. Presumably the delay is because the 'order' hasn't met the threshold yet, so neither conditional or unconditional, more of an option.

The fact neither OEM or customer has commented suggests the Reuters claim is a few days premature. Or a spoiler by the loser?Perhaps the delay is to track the source, as the parties involved will wonder what detailed disclosures have also been made, like performance, penalties and financial.

Polot · Tue May 21, 2019 11:04 pm

smartplane wrote:
Polot wrote:
smartplane wrote:
Must be a very small order if Air NZ hasn't fallen foul of listing requirements to notify material transactions today.

Or they haven’t placed the order yet. Or the disclosure requirements are not as strict (ie must inform ASAP the instant you place the order) as many people here’s like to think.

A multi-WB order would certainly meet disclosure requirements in NZ. Presumably the delay is because the 'order' hasn't met the threshold yet, so neither conditional or unconditional, more of an option.

The fact neither OEM or customer has commented suggests the Reuters claim is a few days premature. Or a spoiler by the loser?Perhaps the delay is to track the source, as the parties involved will wonder what detailed disclosures have also been made, like performance, penalties and financial.

All Reuters has claimed is that Boeing has won the order. That does not mean that the order is yet firm and Reuters never states it is. “Winning the order” can easily mean NZ has broken off talks with Airbus and is exclusively talking with Boeing now to finalize details for the order.

This is shades of HA and the A330neo/787, in which some people here were adamant that the rumors were false because HA did not disclose it like “they had to,” and we come to find out later that HA had cancelled the A330neos/signed intent for 787s some two or so weeks before they actually announced it (and the order was canceled all the time while we were having the discussion here about whether than have to disclose it or not).

Airbus, Boeing, and Airlines or frankly any business will never comment on the record on an article/rumor before they are ready to announce. Surely you know that? “We do not comment on rumor or speculation” is probably a PR spokesperson’s most used phrase.

WorldFlier · Tue May 21, 2019 11:11 pm

FlyHappy wrote:
behramjee wrote:

NYC-AKL isnt a big market to begin with ie 17,000 annual pax in 2018. There is no point ordering a B778X just to serve this route.

really, seriously? that's a tiny number, kinda hard to believe. I woulda thought "Flight of the Conchords" would have enticed greater numbers

How much is East Coast- ANZ?

Great connection to significantly reduce travel time.

For example,

XXX-EWR-AKL-BNE versus XXX-EWR-LAX-AKL-BNE

I am sure there are plenty of business travellers willing to pay the premium to fly very far. The same way that PER-LHR works by getting people connecting on both sides of that flight instead of the added distance.

janders · Fri May 24, 2019 5:13 am

Air NZ says announcement due Monday. Also reported Boeing team arrived in AKL.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12234014

LifelinerOne · Fri May 24, 2019 7:05 am

According to the NZ Herald article:

"In an interview with the Herald earlier this month the airline's chief financial officer, Jeff McDowall, said a larger Boeing plane, the 777X, was no longer in the running for replacing Air New Zealand fleet this time around."

B787 add-on order it is.

Cheers! :wave:

TaniTaniwha · Fri May 24, 2019 7:08 am

Maybe 77X down the track when the 77W is up for replacement - however a long way down the track. Agreed, looks like the Dreamliner. All 9's or some 10's as well?

ZK-NBT · Fri May 24, 2019 7:23 am

TaniTaniwha wrote:
Maybe 77X down the track when the 77W is up for replacement - however a long way down the track. Agreed, looks like the Dreamliner. All 9's or some 10's as well?

Maybe? I’m not so sure myself.

There will definitely be 787-10s in the fleet, how many depends on how capable the aircraft becomes.

zkncj · Fri May 24, 2019 7:31 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
There will definitely be 787-10s in the fleet, how many depends on how capable the aircraft becomes.

The 787-10s could be good on some of the busier flights between AKL-BNE,SYD,MEL,NAN free'ing up the 77W fleet to have an schedule shack up and find some more room for long-haul flying.

ZK-NBT · Fri May 24, 2019 7:40 am

zkncj wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
There will definitely be 787-10s in the fleet, how many depends on how capable the aircraft becomes.

The 787-10s could be good on some of the busier flights between AKL-BNE,SYD,MEL,NAN free'ing up the 77W fleet to have an schedule shack up and find some more room for long-haul flying.

I’m sure they will find their way into the short haul network however like anything IMO it would be the long haul numbers they would be looking at most closely. I’m predicting HKG/SIN/NRT/PER/HNL which most bar HNL run during the day. However there could be changes.

Motorhussy · Fri May 24, 2019 9:35 am

zkncj wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
There will definitely be 787-10s in the fleet, how many depends on how capable the aircraft becomes.

The 787-10s could be good on some of the busier flights between AKL-BNE,SYD,MEL,NAN free'ing up the 77W fleet to have an schedule shack up and find some more room for long-haul flying.

The 77W’s are used on those routes between long haul flights. It’s better than rubber on tarmac earning no revenue.

UPlog · Sun May 26, 2019 10:44 pm

Official

8 x 787-10

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-air- ... SKCN1SW0Y0

LAXintl · Sun May 26, 2019 10:47 pm

Congrats Boeing

In addition to 8 firm they have options for 12 more.

janders · Sun May 26, 2019 10:51 pm

Interesting engine switch to GE.
All the drama over existing RR engines must have really turned them off regardless of what economic offer RR made.

mercure1 · Sun May 26, 2019 11:03 pm

Pretty embarrassing loss for Rolls Royce.

727823 · Sun May 26, 2019 11:05 pm

Seems like the best fit for their fleet! Glad to see a change to GE as well!

x1234 · Sun May 26, 2019 11:10 pm

The 787-10 can fly AKL-SFO/LAX/YVR full payload and can nearly fly AKL-IAH. It can also do all their Asian routes and possibly EZE and definitely SCL.

zkncj · Sun May 26, 2019 11:27 pm

janders wrote:
Interesting engine switch to GE.
All the drama over existing RR engines must have really turned them off regardless of what economic offer RR made.

NZ has operated an mix of GE/RR before e.g. half the 744s were GE and the other half RR.

Also the 77W are GE, with the 77E are RR.

OA940 · Sun May 26, 2019 11:31 pm

I never expected to see the words ''long range'' and ''787-10'' in the same sentence

Jokes aside, it'll be interesting to see how much they extend its range by. It should also help compete with the A350-900 more and could potentially attract more customers. But the question is what will they use for the hypothetical NYC flight.

MIflyer12 · Sun May 26, 2019 11:53 pm

WorldFlier wrote:
FlyHappy wrote:
behramjee wrote:

NYC-AKL isnt a big market to begin with ie 17,000 annual pax in 2018. There is no point ordering a B778X just to serve this route.

really, seriously? that's a tiny number, kinda hard to believe. I woulda thought "Flight of the Conchords" would have enticed greater numbers

How much is East Coast- ANZ?

Great connection to significantly reduce travel time.

For example,

XXX-EWR-AKL-BNE versus XXX-EWR-LAX-AKL-BNE

I am sure there are plenty of business travellers willing to pay the premium to fly very far. The same way that PER-LHR works by getting people connecting on both sides of that flight instead of the added distance.

Everything that matters in the U.S. Northeast can already be flown XXX-LAX-BNE.

Airlines0613 · Mon May 27, 2019 12:00 am

OA940 wrote:
I never expected to see the words ''long range'' and ''787-10'' in the same sentence

Jokes aside, it'll be interesting to see how much they extend its range by. It should also help compete with the A350-900 more and could potentially attract more customers. But the question is what will they use for the hypothetical NYC flight.

In the article, they stated they would like to fly their newly ordered aircraft on the hypothetical AKL-NYC flight. Meaning, they want to place the Boeing 78J on the route, but it needs quite a bit of a range boost.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net