PPRuNe Forums


Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 22nd Apr 2017, 18:32   #21 (permalink)

Victim of a bored god

Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 1996
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,769
Quote:
It goes beyond the immediate travel needs of the local population - there's a significant tourist market to serve as well.
I am well aware of the Norfolk Island tourist traffic, but how attractive will a once-per-week air service be to the tourist market? How well will it be promoted internationally? Will it have through fares and on carriage agreements? Will it only survive with Government subsidies, which has been the case with many previous operators?

Quote:
Subject to approvals being obtained for the Auckland sector, Norfolk Island Airlines would be able to commence its weekly Sunday Brisbane Norfolk Island Auckland Norfolk Island Brisbane service in May to provide continuity for the Islands New Zealand visitors.
There will be some happy campers if the sole aircraft goes US!

How much more tourist traffic could be generated if the service had more attractive and reasonable service frequency with a smaller DHC-8-400 or as someone mentioned above, a Fokker 70?

Been a few operators found they can't make a quid on that air service!
tail wheel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd Apr 2017, 21:54   #22 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 1,989
I saw a DC-4 for sale in the UK. Let's get that service going again...
TBM-Legend is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd Apr 2017, 04:47   #23 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: what should be capital of Oz
Age: 61
Posts: 122
Quote:
I am well aware of the Norfolk Island tourist traffic, but how attractive will a once-per-week air service be to the tourist market?
Time will tell and I imagine the operator will react to market needs. Pretty basic business principle, really.


Quote:
There will be some happy campers if the sole aircraft goes US!
You're out of touch, Nauru Airlines has 3, possibly 4, passenger aircraft and the ability to mount a quick rescue should it be required.

IIRC Our Airline (as Nauru Airlines was known at the time) some time back (early 2012?) ceased the service that Norfolk Air had leased it for. The Our Airline service was not subsidised as such but funded by the Norfolk Island Administration (NIA) until the NIA decided to withdraw from any airline involvement. The Australian government, in its wisdom, offered a subsidy to operate SYD-NLK and they have been paying that subsidy to Air New Zealand since. Had they paid that subsidy to the NIA then the Norfolk Air service may well have continued without the loss of dozens of local jobs that it provided.

Last edited by zanzibar; 23rd Apr 2017 at 04:50. Reason: typos
zanzibar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd Apr 2017, 14:49   #24 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by zanzibar View Post
Time will tell and I imagine the operator will react to market needs. Pretty basic business principle, really.


You're out of touch, Nauru Airlines has 3, possibly 4, passenger aircraft and the ability to mount a quick rescue should it be required.

IIRC Our Airline (as Nauru Airlines was known at the time) some time back (early 2012?) ceased the service that Norfolk Air had leased it for. The Our Airline service was not subsidised as such but funded by the Norfolk Island Administration (NIA) until the NIA decided to withdraw from any airline involvement. The Australian government, in its wisdom, offered a subsidy to operate SYD-NLK and they have been paying that subsidy to Air New Zealand since. Had they paid that subsidy to the NIA then the Norfolk Air service may well have continued without the loss of dozens of local jobs that it provided.
Ah no, I worked for a company that attended the briefing. The Commonwealth I believe was sick of 'deals' being done for air services so along with agreeing to subsidize it, it put it out to tender and Air NZ came back with the best cost/benefit. I assume NZ operate it on the back of a AKL-SYD flight but not sure.
However, it was done properly with a tendering process.
When OzJet did it they made a mistake compared with their other contracts, they agreed to fund the ground handling and charge a fee which had a notional amount for ground handling and catering but then with weather nearly always delaying services, ground handlers charge 50 or 100 percent extra depending on the amount of notice and with weather it's normally less than that required in standard contracts (and fair enough, you can't expect a ground handler to pay people to sit around all day just in case).
O7's other contracts like Airlines PNG were much better structured in that APNG 'owned' the ground handling and catering contracts and paid them directly and just leased the aircraft and crew on and ACMI basis for an hourly rate. Had O7 done this with NLK, they likely would have increased the sustainability of the operation but the NLK Administration would have gone bust earlier. To be fair, the NLK contract was quickly put together after the O7 all J Class domestic service to keep the airline operating and it was a foothold in the ACMI/Charter market which kept the airline operating. The lesson was learned with later contracts. I am not sure but I assume one of the reasons O7 lost it was because they wanted to do it similar to the CG arrangement when the contract renewal came up and that was rejected.
It was probably marginal until they let someone go in there and start touting business class and all these extras which blew the costs out as well (not talking O7, but Norfolk).

Last edited by AerialPerspective; 23rd Apr 2017 at 14:54. Reason: add text
AerialPerspective is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th Apr 2017, 06:15   #25 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by AerialPerspective View Post
Ah no, I worked for a company that attended the briefing. The Commonwealth I believe was sick of 'deals' being done for air services so along with agreeing to subsidize it, it put it out to tender and Air NZ came back with the best cost/benefit. I assume NZ operate it on the back of a AKL-SYD flight but not sure.
However, it was done properly with a tendering process.
When OzJet did it they made a mistake compared with their other contracts, they agreed to fund the ground handling and charge a fee which had a notional amount for ground handling and catering but then with weather nearly always delaying services, ground handlers charge 50 or 100 percent extra depending on the amount of notice and with weather it's normally less than that required in standard contracts (and fair enough, you can't expect a ground handler to pay people to sit around all day just in case).
O7's other contracts like Airlines PNG were much better structured in that APNG 'owned' the ground handling and catering contracts and paid them directly and just leased the aircraft and crew on and ACMI basis for an hourly rate. Had O7 done this with NLK, they likely would have increased the sustainability of the operation but the NLK Administration would have gone bust earlier. To be fair, the NLK contract was quickly put together after the O7 all J Class domestic service to keep the airline operating and it was a foothold in the ACMI/Charter market which kept the airline operating. The lesson was learned with later contracts. I am not sure but I assume one of the reasons O7 lost it was because they wanted to do it similar to the CG arrangement when the contract renewal came up and that was rejected.
It was probably marginal until they let someone go in there and start touting business class and all these extras which blew the costs out as well (not talking O7, but Norfolk).
I give Norfolk Airlines a year.
TurboProp2120 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th Apr 2017, 06:29   #26 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: what should be capital of Oz
Age: 61
Posts: 122
Quote:
IATA-Code:YE
Airline:Yanair
Country:Ukraine
That would explain it :-)
zanzibar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th Apr 2017, 07:40   #27 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: QLD - where drivers are yet to realise that the left lane goes to their destination too.
Posts: 1,216
Quote:
Nauru Airlines has 3, possibly 4, passenger aircraft and the ability to mount a quick rescue should it be required
They struggle to have enough operational at once to operate their own services, let alone take on any more.
Traffic_Is_Er_Was is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Jun 2017, 16:06   #28 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by queenofthetasman View Post
If it were my train set: (and if I had any sway at air north...)

0730-0900 - EMB170 - NLK - BNE
1000-1200 - EMB170 -BNE - NLK
1300 - 1500 - EMB170 - NLK - SYD
1700 - 1930- EMB170 - SYD NLK
2030 - 2300 - EMB170 - NLK - BNE
Only problem with that is the weather out on the Island is often crap and precludes ops so could result in the whole thing falling over after the first flight. It's why O7 couldn't make money on it because they had agreed to pay the ground handling in Australia... ground handlers charge 50% more or double if there is insufficient notice given for schedule changes/delays which there often is with NLK WX.
AerialPerspective is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Jun 2017, 23:51   #29 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 1,989
Quote:
0730-0900 - EMB170 - NLK - BNE
1000-1200 - EMB170 -BNE - NLK
1300 - 1500 - EMB170 - NLK - SYD
1700 - 1930- EMB170 - SYD NLK
2030 - 2300 - EMB170 - NLK - BNE

You must work in the accounts office..

How does your E170 get to NLK to start the day when its in BNE according to your schedule???
TBM-Legend is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 8th Jun 2017, 00:02   #30 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Paradise
Age: 58
Posts: 1,226
Quote:
I just dont see any profitable market that employs a clapped out chinese govt gifted 737-300 (the highest cycle example on earth!!!) or even a clapped out fokker.
Not sure that this is correct. My understanding is that ON fleet includes the last classic 737's built (ex Air NZ).

Not aware of the E170 being ETOPS approved (but could be wrong on that), and for my money I'd prefer to be on a Boeing operated by a carrier with plenty of experience in remote island operations.
chimbu warrior is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 8th Jun 2017, 01:15   #31 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 20
I don't think the E170 is ETOPS but the E190 is.

Weather is a big factor for Norfolk Island. You either need a big enough fleet to be able to absorb the changes or small enough that a cancellation doesn't effect other services. Not sure if it would work for Air North in that case.

I find it very interesting the neither Qantas, Virgin or Jetstar have expressed interest in the route and now AirNZ is finding it hard to justify it.
TurboProp2120 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th Jun 2017, 03:11   #32 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: QLD
Posts: 708
I believe the pavement concessions out there are an issue. The 737-800 doesn't have a low pressure tyre option, which is why the A320 is a better option(and why VA uses the A320 to Cocos Island). Not sure about the 170 but 190 can be EDTO rated, tho like all things mega $$ and not an easy option for operators(route proving etc). VA and nearly all major operators are getting rid of them for a reason, nearly 737 costs with far less seats.

WX can be terrible out there but the huge amount of diversions has mostly been fixed by the RNP approach out there which gets you down to 360 feet in 2km vis one end and 314 feet and 1.7km at the other end. Issue is as far as I know that JQ/QF/NZ/VA are the only RNP-AR approved operators in this region, anyone else is doing RNAVs with 630 feet and 3.5km vis minimas, which when it's crap in NLK doesn't even get you close.

All of the Islands (Christmas/Cocos/Lord Howe/Norfolk) are not viable commercial ports without the government subsidies. NZ has never paid a subsidy for the AKL-NLK and AU isn't going to.

Next interesting point is what happens to Lord Howe when QFlink doesn't apply to renew Lord Howe, the Q200s are getting long in the tooth and costly to keep them just for there, what aircraft and operator has the capabilities to offer the service the island has had for years with the Link?
puff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th Jun 2017, 10:50   #33 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 308
Quote:
My understanding is that ON fleet includes the last classic 737's built (ex Air NZ).
Entirely correct, last ones (-300's) off the production line.

Quote:
chinese govt gifted 737-300
Entirely incorrect, China has never gifted any aircraft to Nauru Airlines.

Quote:
clapped out
You'd best have a word with CASA if that's your opinion. The recent audit there, however, saw no such issues.
witwiw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th Jun 2017, 10:37   #34 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Saudi Arabia
Posts: 15
Fiji Air could do a tag flight through NLK to AKL and back and make a go of it. Fiji connects to LAX, SFO, SIN, HKG, and OZ up north, so could be good for tourism. Until about 3 years ago FJ used NLK as an enroute alternate. They are set up for that kind of ops.
Aloha_KSA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Jun 2017, 04:26   #35 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_KSA View Post
Fiji Air could do a tag flight through NLK to AKL and back and make a go of it. Fiji connects to LAX, SFO, SIN, HKG, and OZ up north, so could be good for tourism. Until about 3 years ago FJ used NLK as an enroute alternate. They are set up for that kind of ops.
They won't. Because the only people that think NLK is of any importance to anyone are those that live there. It is an incredibly insular and in many ways, ignorant place, ignorant of the realities of the world... the reason the Commonwealth assumed control of it is because the assembly had wasted money hand over fist for years on trying to have an airline and it spectacularly failed every time (along with other follies).

I had some involvement with 'the Island' for a time and have to say the behaviour of some of those so-called representatives toward airport staff warranted calling the police... not physical but vile, foul mouthed abuse on at least one occasion, that resulted in a demand for an apology I believe.

Unfortunately, I feel for the residents because they are trapped on an Island miles from anywhere with very little contact but that has also made them insular and not aware of the wider world and not able to see the inconsistency in demanding autonomy and not 'calling themselves Australian' but not being backward in putting their hand out for Commonwealth money when the latest high cost airline folly goes belly up.

It really is something that people should let go of... let the Australian and NZ Govt. subsidize something but aside from that, these people cannot have it both ways... they can't expect to run their affairs, waste money and put their hands out for more from MINE and others taxes then demand they are independent.

For support, I tender into evidence their wholly disconnected assertion that Commonwealth take-over of their administration is a form of genocide... please, there are real people dying of genocidal acts around the world, how dare they call a change of administration that... this is evident of the NLK bubble in which some of them reside.

Last edited by AerialPerspective; 10th Jun 2017 at 04:27. Reason: add
AerialPerspective is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Jun 2017, 09:30   #36 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: world capital of the world
Posts: 65
And, AP, you feel the same way about the people on Cocos Island and Christmas Island that enjoy ample Oz government support alike the type the Norfolkese are asking for?

Quote:
on an Island miles from anywhere with very little contact
There are many that would see this as a distinct attraction ..............

Quote:
let the Australian and NZ Govt. subsidize something
You've lost me here, what is it you're suggesting should be subsidiSed?
dodo whirlygig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Jun 2017, 10:49   #37 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 197
Why should NZ subsidise am Australian territory?

We have enough trouble subsidising our own...
Chris2303 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Jun 2017, 11:31   #38 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 1,989
It was profitable with NIA Super King Airs eons ago. Connected BNE/SYD/LHI/NLK
TBM-Legend is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Jun 2017, 09:55   #39 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: passing a cloud
Posts: 308
Under current rules the E170 & F70 are unable to do the job, I want to say CAO82. While QQ has F100s that are capable (by dispensation) I do not know if the dispensation for stretching EDTO to the F70 ever happened.
TWOTBAGS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Sep 2017, 14:30   #40 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboProp2120 View Post
I give Norfolk Airlines a year.
Didn't even last that long:

A Norfolk Island company that started an airlink to the island from Auckland just three months ago has stopped the service.

Norfolk airline ends Auckland flight after three months | Radio New Zealand News
Chris2303 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 12:23.


1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1