Originally Posted by
Anti Skid On
The latter bit is a really interesting statement. I have often thought that the bods in route planning have made some 'interesting' decisions. For example, who thought Buenos Aires was a good idea, especially when there was a competition to the same region via Latam? NZ has had an influx of people from India; would it not have been better to tap that market with a direct route. Were all the US routes making money (thinking Chicago, Houston, etc)?
Anti Skid On They talked about this last year on a Pilot Expo Day. They looked at India closely, particularly with the demand. But the issue is around the aircraft that would have to be operated on the route, as those from India are notoriously price conscious (read: do not fly in premium).
For example (let's call premium = Premium Economy, Business or First Class).
Air India B773 has just
39 premium seats. Economy seating of 303 pax.
Air NZ B773
98 premium seats (over 2.5 times the number). Leaving space for only two economy cabins seating 244 pax.
Jet Airways (Indian-based carrier that has folded) had similar; 38 premium to 308 economy.
Boeing 747-400 comparison
Air India B744 has just 38 premium seats, with 385 economy
Air NZ B744 (retired) had 85 premium seats, to 294 economy.
The comparisons get even more start when you compare an Air India 788 vs Air NZ 789 (apples and oranges I know). But:
Air India has just
18 premium seats. Fitting in 238 economy.
Air NZ has
60 premium seats (almost 4 times the number). Only leaving space for 215 economy seats, despite the -9 being over 6m longer (approx. seven rows of seats).
So I've been told it's the balance. Finding a route that (particularly on ULR) is a very business traveller heavy market, but will also appeal to economy pax. Considering that Business Class is where the money is made... It's crucial that this is full. And Buenos Aires obviously ticked the business traveller market box. And India does not.
We do not operate the right config for Indian flights and probably never will.