Is Air NZ worth it? [Archive]

waren9

1st Apr 2011, 09:30

What Mr Hat said.

Gotta weigh up whats important to you

1. Time to command
2. Lifestyle and time off afforded by the conditions compared to others
3. Money compared to others nationally, regionally and globally
4. Job security (a relative term), mind you it is govt owned for now.

If 1 is important then dont wait. If 2 and living in NZ are what matters to you then its probably the best there is.

Each to their own. Out of 10 pilots you'll prolly get 12 different answers.

remoak

1st Apr 2011, 09:34

It's a great job if you have never been out of New Zealand. If you have travelled a bit and seen the world... well let's just say that there are thousands of better gigs out there, and you don't have to put up with all the "we are the only ones who know anything about aviation" crap.

Uniforms aren't bad, though...

Mr. Hat

1st Apr 2011, 09:36

"we are the only ones who know anything about aviation"

Yeah but you get that in a lot of companies.

Cactusjack

1st Apr 2011, 09:38

"we are the only ones who know anything about aviation" crap.

Yeah right. Forgotten about Erebus have they ??

Mr. Hat

1st Apr 2011, 09:41

I bet they learned some lessons Cactus. At least they would be aware of what can happen unlike some in our country that think they really are invincible.

Cactusjack

1st Apr 2011, 09:49

I agree with you Mr Hat. Indeed they did learn a lesson, a sad one at that. But isn't interesting how some of the very attitudes that existed within ANZ heirachy decades ago exist in mass numbers within Australian aviation today ? My deepest desire is for Australia not to have to learn the hard way by experiencing an Erebus but some Australian CEO's treat their people (including Pilots) with the same contempt that ANZ's CEO did.

remoak

1st Apr 2011, 23:39

Oh sure, they learned from Erebus and in any case it isn't the same company that it was all those years ago... not even close. However there is still an awful lot of arrogance there in the pilot management side of the company.

I have worked for much bigger airlines than Air NZ, and have not found the same levels of nonsense there at all. It's part of the Kiwi mindset I think (and I am a Kiwi so feel qualified to comment!)

It's a pity, because the product and the commercial innovation is world class - I wouldn't travel with anyone else internationally. Domestically, well I reckon the stage is set for a new player with better equipment.

27/09

3rd Apr 2011, 07:40

Domestically, well I reckon the stage is set for a new player with better equipment. Interesting comment. What in your opinion would be better equipment for the NZ domestic market? Bearing in mind the relatively small population spread out over an area similar in size to the UK?

remoak

3rd Apr 2011, 08:54

Q400's... much as I hate them, they are the way forward for a next-gen domestic carrier. More to the point, an innovative approach to service and a bit more "fun" would be nice... Air NZ's domestic service is pretty tired.

Beech 1900's are too small and yesterday's technology.

Air NZ needs to work out how to grow the domestic market so that the Q400 is a one-size-fits-all solution. Running three types is just stupid.

In other words, go have a chat to Easyjet or Ryanair...

Lplates_Flyer

3rd Apr 2011, 09:13

Will be interesting to see if Q400s are introduced into the NZ Dom market over the next few years. Mt Cook would be the most likely candidates you think to replace the ATRs?? With Air Nelson operating 23 Q300s things would get very interesting.

Hanz Blix

3rd Apr 2011, 21:42

Q400 will never arrive in this country. It will certainly not replace the ATR which the bean counters love. You will see more ATRs (500 and 600) arrive until the time a bigger more suitable aircraft is developed.

Water Wings

3rd Apr 2011, 22:37

Air NZ needs to work out how to grow the domestic market so that the Q400 is a one-size-fits-all solution. Running three types is just stupid.

A one size fits all solution would never work in the NZ market but of course would be a very sensible idea. Just think about the size of many of the towns served. Replacing frequencies with a bigger aircraft once a day will certainly not grow the market, it will go the other way! Time and time again the New Zealand market has proved frequency is the key.

Dropping services to far flung regions of the country may then make economic sense but with the government still the major shareholder, I just can't see it happening. They might say they are only a passive shareholder but I think we all know that from time to time they make their feelings known. If you can find a solution that appeases the accountants, the communities, the government, the opposition and everyone else this side of Timbuktu I would be impressed. In the meantime we carry on with the Link group maybe not making huge profits but at least it operates in the black.

remoak

4th Apr 2011, 02:54

Q400 will never arrive in this country. It will certainly not replace the ATR which the bean counters love.

Can't think why, the Q400 is cheaper to acquire and cheaper to operate than the ATR. Equally crappy quality though.

A one size fits all solution would never work in the NZ market but of course would be a very sensible idea. Just think about the size of many of the towns served.

Well there was a time when all the regions were served by a 50-seater... the good old F27.

The bigger aircraft can work on thin routes, as they introduce other economies (common type rating, one set of training staff instead of three, one set of spares, etc etc etc). Those economies can easily add up to several million dollars a year. It is no surprise that the rest of the world has already figured this out, while we lag behind, as usual... :rolleyes:

Hanz Blix

4th Apr 2011, 05:19

an't think why, the Q400 is cheaper to acquire and cheaper to operate than the ATR. Equally crappy quality though.

Think you should check your sources, Q400 is not cheaper than the ATR to operate. Yes it's cheaper to buy but the ATR72 comes in around the same price as the Q300 to operate.

Like I said the ATR's are here until a bigger (90 seat) bird is available. Q400 was written off a couple years back when Mt Cook was looking at a fleet replacement.

remoak

4th Apr 2011, 06:30

The dynamics of the aircraft acquisition market are constantly changing, so what was true a couple of years ago may well not be now. Several high-profile operators have gone with the Q400 over the ATR, what does that tell you? Particularly Flybe in the UK, amongst others. The Q also has a much nicer flight deck IMHO.

Having said that, they are both horrible, very lightly built and quite fragile. I doubt many will be around in 20 years.

The Q400 has been around since 2000 (so 11 years more or less) and has 406 orders, the ATR has been around since 1988 (23 years) and has 436 orders... so the question of which is more popular is pretty easy to answer.

The Q400 is also a lot faster (360kts max cruise for the Q, 276 kts max cruise for the ATR), goes higher (FL270 as opposed to FL250) and has a greater range (715nm for the ATR and 1567nm for the Q). If you believe Wikipedia, anyway...

Artificial Horizon

4th Apr 2011, 06:42

having flown all the dash8 variants overseas, I am just not sure the Q400 could stand-up to the rigors of flying in New Zealand. I am thinking mainly of Wellington, that machine can be a handful and as we have seen over the years does not have the undercarriage to cope with high frequency 'firm' arrivals. Flybe's Q400's spent alot of time in the hangers, when I asked a engineer why he thought this was he said, 'because it is designed as a commuter aircraft to fly business people around the regions 2 sectors in the morning and the same again in the afternoon, not to do 10 sectors a day'. It is not a 'sturdy aircraft' like the Q300's.

Hanz Blix

4th Apr 2011, 07:35

The Q400 is also a lot faster (360kts max cruise for the Q, 276 kts max cruise for the ATR), goes higher (FL270 as opposed to FL250) and has a greater range (715nm for the ATR and 1567nm for the Q). If you believe Wikipedia, anyway...
4th Apr 2011 17:19

I suggest you do not rely on Wiki!!!! While the Q would be fine on AKL-CHC ect CHC-DUD or WLG (160-220nm) which is the most common distance flown your speed would make for bugger all of a gain, but you would have burnt twice as much gas.

Think you will find an ATR goes alot further than 715nm to sun shine:ugh:

Sorry to hijack the thread, as you were people:)

aileron_69

4th Apr 2011, 08:03

Think you will find an ATR goes alot further than 715nm to sun shine

Even if that was the maximum range, its not going to be a problem in NZ. Its only about 650nm from Auckland to Invercargill, and they dont even do legs that long :E

haughtney1

4th Apr 2011, 12:38

Lets be honest..the ATR is just Fugly..with a capital "F" :8..plus its french...

Back to the subject in hand....given the opportunity, I'd have jumped at Air NZ, but when I started flying, opportunities were a little thin on the ground, particularly when you consider that I needed to make a living out of flying in NZ and not just live off the bank of mum and dad.
Putting that into some sort of perspective, my personal view is that if you are in the right place at the right time, and are young enough, then its worth it.
I have no actual first hand experience of the company, but I know some very senior and junior guys on all the jet fleets and to a man they have no real gripes, other than the usual...pay..rostering..upgrade times..etc etc.
I've also spoken to a couple of Ex Air NZ guys here (EK) who have either taken LWOP, or have left outright, and again they have positive feedback about their previous employer..but for various reasons they no longer felt any loyalty or reason to stick around for another 20 years to get into the left seat.
I guess its horses for courses, had I not lived outside and experienced the rest of the world away from NZ for the past 13 years, I would probably be more enthusiastic...but to be honest I'm quite happy earning a tax free salary and putting enough aside so I can retire at 55 and live comfortably in a place of my (wifes) choosing :ok:

27/09

5th Apr 2011, 03:25

One thing that hasn't been mentioned regarding suitable aircraft types, is the ability of the "One type suits all" aircraft to fit into some of the airports that are serviced by Air NZ. I have heard that the likes of NZWR would be a challenge for some types and also the CAA requirements for Part 121 as opposed to Part 125 also comes into play when choosing aircraft to service the regional centres, i.e. ATC and other requirements.

While a one size fits all makes sense in some ways there are other fatcors that come into play that complicate matters some what.

Remoak, will the Q400 actually work in all the regional centres? I think not. So what are the alternatives to what is already being used? Will one size actually fit all on the New Zealand regional network? I'll think you'll agree, it's not easy to answer.

remoak

5th Apr 2011, 09:39

Yes well the problem here is that none of you seem to know jack sh*t about the Q400.

I spent several years at flybe, saw the aircraft introduced, witnessed it's growing pains, saw the problems, saw the solutions, sat on numerous committees trying to sort it out.

It will easily operate out any significant NZ regional airport. We operated it out of Guernsey all the time (1450m). Flybe operate it on short, multiple sectors and have found out how to make it reliable. The undercarriage thing is a bit of an urban myth, having more to do with poor engineering than an actual design defect. It has pretty good performance figures, especially with light fuel loads. The book figure for required takeoff runway length is 1134m, with enough fuel for a 500nm sector. Drop the range down to say, 300nm and NZWR is easily do-able. That's pretty good for a 70 seat aircraft (the 146 would be better of course ;) )

As far as Part 121 vs Part 125 is concerned, ATC in this country is woefully lacking and really needs looking at. I did two years in the Republic of Ireland (a country with roughly the same population as NZ), and all the little regional airports like Wateford, Galway, Cork etc all have full-time ATC and at least one ILS, sometimes one on each of the runways. New Zealand is well behind the rest of the world when it comes to ATC and approach aids, another dubious result of Swedavia in the '80s.

Anyway, the point is that the Q400 could easily work as a single solution, but I'd be the first to agree that it never will.

BTW don't take my defence of the Q400 as being an endorsement, I still think it's a lightly-built, fragile POS. Much like the slower, lower and yes - French - ATR.

aileron_69

5th Apr 2011, 12:32

I dont know much about airliners, but I have seen them try various types in my area. A 1 size fits all plane to all regional centres in NZ seems to me like you will end up with a lot of empty seats. For example, about 10 years ago, when Air Nelson stopped operating the Metro into Timaru, they replaced it with the Saab 340. It was proclaimed to be the future of air travel to the area, going to increase passenger numbers phenomenonly. It didnt last long. The passenger numbers remained the same, and all they ended up doing was just running half empty planes instead of full ones. There just isnt the population base for a bigger plane. The Metro got put back on the Timaru run until Eagle took over the run with the 1900. So to put a 70 odd seat Q400 on the same run (not to mention Timaru is only about 1000 metres runway) would be not just overkill, it would be ridiculous. To say, "oh no thats ok, we just run 1 flight a day" just doesnt cut it. Link got the pax numbers up by reducing the price of regional flights and putting more numerous flights on in smaller aircraft. To run the bigger machines into Invercargill, Queenstown, Nelson, Rotorua, where there is the population base to support is, sure, but Timaru, Wanaka, Greymouth etc, forget it.

henry crun

5th Apr 2011, 22:00

remoak: You mention "all the little regional airports like Wateford, Galway, Cork etc all have full-time ATC and at least one ILS, sometimes one on each of the runways".

Who pays for these services and aids ? is it a government subsidy, or is the cost covered by the airways/airport charges to the airlines involved ?

remoak

6th Apr 2011, 01:19

It's a mixture of both really. The Irish are past masters at extracting money from the EU for "development", trying to drag themselves out of the stone age and become a modern Euro state. So some money, in the past, came from EU Development Grants - Carrickfinn/Donegal being a good example of a country strip that became a nice shiny modern airport on the back of EU money.

However these days, it's strictly user-pays, just like here. And guess what, low-cost carriers still prosper over there, even Aer Arann looks set to survive and they have been pretty much kings of the EUR29.00 ticket.

Most of the airports operate as independent companies, and set their own charges accordingly. It's highly competitive in some areas, for example Galway and Knock are pretty close together and compete for business. Knock was built to serve the catholic shrine there, has a 747-sized runway. Galway is much smaller at around 1400m and 30m wide.

When I came back, I couldn't believe there were still NDB approaches in NZ. Hadn't done one in Europe in over 20 years... no, we are way behind the rest of the (developed) world.

aileron69

To run the bigger machines into Invercargill, Queenstown, Nelson, Rotorua, where there is the population base to support is, sure, but Timaru, Wanaka, Greymouth etc, forget it.

You are missing the point (and you aren't alone). The lesson of the European low-cost operators, and to an extent the American ones, is that you have to generate new business and then get them to keep flying. The way to do this is no longer a secret, just think yields and pax-per-seat-mile. In Europe, the thin routes are balanced by the fat ones until the thinner routes pick up. Not all of them work, naturally, but most do. We saw some routes start out with 2 flights a day and 10% load factors, and with innovative marketing grew to 6 flights a day and 90% load factors - in less than a year.

It requires an acceptance of an element of risk, and an ability to think outside the box and be innovative. That last one is where NZ operators normally fall down, I can't think of any innovative pax operations here and the country is crying out for someone to step up. Have a look at the smaller, niche Euro operators if you want some inspiration.

27/09

6th Apr 2011, 02:01

In Europe, the thin routes are balanced by the fat ones until the thinner routes pick up. Not all of them work, naturally, but most do. We saw some routes start out with 2 flights a day and 10% load factors, and with innovative marketing grew to 6 flights a day and 90% load factors - in less than a year.

What sort of population base are we talking about here and what were the sector times? Do they really compare to New Zealand? Is it a valid comparison? There are too many thin routes in New Zealand.

If we assume a Q400 with 70 seats and use the figures you quote we are talking about 370 pax a day out of a regional airport by using "innovative marketing" to increase load factors. How many regoinal centres can produce that sort of traffic?

aileron_69

6th Apr 2011, 02:55

I dont think I am missing the Point Remoak. You cant compare places like Wanaka (population 4500), Westport (population 4000) and Timaru, (Population 27000), with Europe. Where are you going to find all these people from that you are going to put on your Q400, regardless of how cheap your plane tickets are. Noone will have time to go to work, they'll all be flying everywhere all the time!! What is wrong with operating a smaller aircraft like the 1900 on these routes? Smaller planes more regularly has been the forte of not just the Trans Tasman routes but Europe and America for many years now. Bigger planes less regularly isnt going to attract people to fly your small regional routes, its a backwards step, and bigger planes more regularly is just going burn more fuel with empty planes.

remoak

6th Apr 2011, 04:22

27/09

What sort of population base are we talking about here and what were the sector times? Do they really compare to New Zealand? Is it a valid comparison? There are too many thin routes in New Zealand.

Population of Ireland 4 million (depending on how many Polish immigrants are there at any one time). Sector times 20 mins to 2 hours.

Interestingly the local domestic carrier, Aer Arann, was trying to get rid of it's ATR42s and go all 72.

aileron 69

You cant compare places like Wanaka (population 4500), Westport (population 4000) and Timaru, (Population 27000), with Europe.

Really? The population of Knock in Ireland (which has an international airport which accepts everything up to 747s) is 745 (2006 census). No, I didn't miss any zeros off that - look it up. Go and check out the airport for yourself - Ireland West Airport Knock (http://www.irelandwestairport.com/)

Of course they have an attraction - just like Wanaka does. They only difference is that they have worked out how to capitalise on it. And their airport website puts us to shame as well.

But no, stick to 1900s if you want, looking backwards tends to be a kiwi forte at times...

empacher48

6th Apr 2011, 06:09

Really? The population of Knock in Ireland (which has an international airport which accepts everything up to 747s) is 745 (2006 census). No, I didn't miss any zeros off that - look it up. Go and check out the airport for yourself

The other question, what is the population of the area within 3 hours flying from this airport? As I'm sure that number will be exponentially greater than what you find within 3 hours flying time of Wanaka!

aileron_69

6th Apr 2011, 06:10

Really? The population of Knock in Ireland (which has an international airport which accepts everything up to 747s) is 745 (2006 census). No, I didn't miss any zeros off that - look it up. Go and check out the airport for yourself - Ireland West Airport Knock (http://www.irelandwestairport.com/)

Of course they have an attraction - just like Wanaka does. They only difference is that they have worked out how to capitalise on it. And their airport website puts us to shame as well.

But no, stick to 1900s if you want, looking backwards tends to be a kiwi forte at times...

Ok, no worries. How many visitors were there to Ireland in say, 2008? Over 8 million. How may visitors were there to New Zealand in the same year? 2.4 million. Without a doubt they could market Wanaka more and fly more people in there. Wanaka has become quite a little tourist mecca in itself of late. But because NZ is so isolated from the rest of the world, they dont have the huge market for international tourists nearby that Ireland does. As I was saying before, they tried bigger planes into the likes of Timaru and they werent getting the numbers. Nothing too exciting for the tourist to see there. So I ask you again, what is the problem with operating a smaller aircraft on the smaller routes? Why do you want to only operate 1 type of plane? Do they only operate the 1 type of plane into every regional airport in Ireland?

27/09

6th Apr 2011, 06:26

The other question, what is the population of the area within 3 hours flying from this airport? As I'm sure that number will be exponentially greater than what you find within 3 hours flying time of Wanaka!

Or anywhere else in New Zealand for that matter.

remoak

6th Apr 2011, 06:58

As I was saying before, they tried bigger planes into the likes of Timaru and they werent getting the numbers. Just putting on a bigger plane doesn't do it. You have to do the background work too. Air NZ have never done that in the regions, I'm pretty sure they don't know how.

Why do you want to only operate 1 type of plane?ONE type of aircraft
ONE set of spares, not three
ONE training department, not three
ONE set of licensed engineers, not three
ONE set of performance data and simplified flight planning
ONE set of ground equipment, not three
ONE set of manuals

etc etc etc

Do they only operate the 1 type of plane into every regional airport in Ireland? The main local Irish regional airline does, yes. Aer Arann. Check it out.

It's well-proven formula, well everywhere except here, anyway.